Despite the rhetoric acclaiming it as a new paradigm, educational researchers have tended to treat naturalistic inquiry as a new or alternative method employed within the dominant, rationalistic paradigm. Spokespersons for naturalistic inquiry tend to concentrate on what one does differently rather than how one perceives what one is doing differently. If naturalistic inquiry is to become an accepted paradigm of inquiry in education, it must be clearly distinguished from rationalistic methods. A case comparison approach is presented to highlight the differing beliefs and attitudes about research held by researchers in two case examples. Beliefs about the nature of scientific knowledge, ways of knowing, and the role of the inquirer in inquiry exemplified in the published reports are examined. Despite similarities in method, the examples display different attitudes toward inquiry. These are used as a basis for drawing conclusions about the diffusion of naturalistic inquiry into the mainstream of educational research: (1) it is important to distinguish naturalistic paradigms from naturalistic methods; (2) naturalistic inquiry may be as useful to educational research as a paradigmatic set, and (3) educational research needs naturalistic inquiry both as a paradigm and a method, but to be effectively utilized the two must be distinguished. (CM)