In the struggle to gain an understanding of ourselves, we have developed a variety of explanatory theories, models, and paradigms with methods of questing answers that have been considered appropriate to the theory, model, or paradigm. Behaviorists have sought to determine the nature of relationships by means of a basic cause-effect design. They assume that laws governing behavior exist and are discernible, that cause is fundamentally external in nature, and that empirical methodologies represent the best approach to the explanation of behavior within societies. Advocates of an alternative world view (antipositivism or interpretivism) adhere to the naturalistic conception of a human being as a rule-following agent. They assume that people are conscious social actors capable of controlling their behavior, and that human behavior originates in the individual's interpretation of reality. Their research methods are aimed at exploring the situations of the actor in order to work out how individuals arrived at the interpretations and created the actions they did. Both schools of researchers seem to be tackling the same issues, but those steeped in the behavioral sciences are questing for empirical generalizations while the interpretivists are analyzing conceptual properties and the meaning of each. Yet, it is not a blind allegiance to one specific world view and its concomitant methodologies that is important but an ability to think creatively and to have a sound conceptual base on which to build a world view. Methods are the tools of scholarship and should be adapted according to the nature of the questions, not unquestioningly applied.