This essay examines calls for methodological eclecticism based on the "compatibility thesis," arguing that they fail to take seriously the assumptions of method and, in so doing, fail to provide a methodological perspective that adequately incorporates the centrally important task of critically examining the theoretical background of methods and conceptual frameworks for research. The authors offer an alternative view of method use and a set of guidelines that emphasize the importance of contextual sensitivity, creativity, conceptual awareness, coherence, and critical reflection in research and evaluation practices. (Contains 5 notes.)