Asking for a change of reviewer is unlikely to succeed. If the editor asked you to revise on the strength of Reviewer Two's comments, it's pretty likely that they found those criticisms credible, and they will probably have severe doubts about publishing without addressing those criticisms one way or another.
I think most people who've gone through the publication process have received some "wrong" comments from reviewers. I've certainly had my share, and it's frustrating, especially when Reviewer One got what I was saying but Reviewer Two misunderstood.
The first instinct on receiving that kind of response is to challenge the review: Reviewer 2 is ignorant and they've misunderstood my work, can we just ignore them? But the editor probably doesn't believe that Reviewer 2 is ignorant, or they wouldn't have chosen them. And if Reviewer 2 misunderstood my paper... it's quite likely that other readers will too.
Usually it's better to take misguided feedback as a warning that I haven't communicated things as clearly as I wanted to, and address this by improving the explanation. Often this can be achieved by taking the points that I want to make to Reviewer Two, and just working them into the paper instead.
For example, in a comment on another answer, you wrote:
he lacks the understanding of the approach/methodology which i have adopted for the study. he is asking me to include results in quantitative form which is impossible as my research was policy based and i can provide references of many other studies that have used the same approach and performed qualitative research
My response to this might be to add some text to the introduction of the paper, e.g.:
Although it would be highly desirable to examine quantitative results, this is generally impossible because [discuss reasons]. Hence, prior research on this topic has instead taken a qualitative approach[spam citations here], which we follow in this paper.
Then note this change in your response to the review. Hopefully this will appease Reviewer Two. If not, then at least the editor can see that you have addressed these criticisms, and it's quite likely that you have made your paper more useful for readers who may not be familiar with the field.