Ralph LaRossa's (2012) thoughtful piece suggested that qualitative researchers' self-awareness (and clear articulation) of their conceptual and empirical goals can help their manuscripts in many ways, including during the review process. If authors self-consciously embrace particular orientations, then it will be easier for reviewers to evaluate the degree to which the manuscript reaches its goals. LaRossa sought to have qualitative family scholars think more systematically about framing qualitative family work. In her comment on LaRossa's article, the author makes two points. First, she is troubled by LaRossa's emphasis on developing a "hypothesis" and using "variables" in qualitative work. This approach seems excessively imitative of quantitative work and, more important, counters what she sees as the core dimensions of qualitative work. Most of the author's discussion focuses on this aspect of LaRossa's article. In addition, she yearned for LaRossa to provide more discussion of the different types of qualitative data collection (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). Although LaRossa encouraged awareness of the multidimensionality of qualitative work, he could also urge family qualitative scholars to be more self-conscious about their methodological choices. The author briefly discusses here differences between qualitative work based on participant observation and qualitative work based exclusively on interviews. Although reasonable people disagree, she is partial to qualitative work using participant observation or relatively small interview-based studies situated in a specific social context. As she explains, the author worries that large-scale interview studies often focus on the frequency of responses rather than the meaning of responses, which undermines the utility of qualitative work. In short, the author suggests in this article that there can be rigor in qualitative work "without" embracing the trappings of the ideas of "hypothesis," "variable," and other terms suited for quantitative work, which, she thinks, can end up ensnaring the researcher in approaches ill suited to the qualitative research process.