Is the distinction between qualitative and quantitative methodology still significant today? Some scholarly articles explain in detail the epistemological and ontological differences of the two methods, while some argue that the distinction between them is now blurred. I try to reconcile this inconsistency by thinking that quantitative and qualitative traditions form a methodological spectrum, where pure quantitative and qualitative approaches are situated at the opposing extremes, while mixed-methods are at the middle. 

Is the distinction between the research traditions still significant? And if yes, do social scientists promote a "methodological spectrum" or do they still deny the compatibility of the two?
In nearly every scientific field you will find that some investigations are more heavily quantitative while others are quite qualitative in nature.  I find that the difference tends to be that qualitative investigations are more exploratory, observing a phenomenon in its natural conditions to establish that it really exists or to gather case-study sorts of information, while quantitative investigations are more aiming at firmly establishing an explanatory model.  The boundaries, however, are quite incremental and blurry, and I'm not quite sure what the value is of trying to draw a distinction, rather than simply saying: "this is the mixture of methods that can best study these phenomena at present."

Thus, while I don't know what the current vogue in theory of science is, I would be startled if it did not include a spectrum.