Qualitative research often presents itself as flexible, inviting creativity and context sensitivity. But that same flexibility can lull researchers into adopting methods that are misaligned with their philosophical foundations. In this Research Note, I reflect on how I came to understand this dilemma, not just as a conceptual issue but as a practical one. Drawing from personal experiences and ongoing debates in qualitative methodology literature, I argue that many widely accepted indicators of rigor, such as intercoder agreement, can inadvertently mask deeper epistemological contradictions. I introduce the concept of epistemic alignment to describe the coherence (or lack thereof) between a study's analytic practices and its underlying assumptions about knowledge and meaning. I advocate for a more thoughtful calibration between what researchers claim to do and how they do it. Through this reflection, I am inviting others to pause, reexamine, and realign the philosophical heart of their qualitative work.
Sean N. Halpin (Mon,) studied this question.