This presentation will reflect upon the methodological structure and decision-making during a two-year externally-funded research project. As Creswell (2003) acknowledges, researchers do not necessarily need to choose either a quantitative or qualitative methodology. Research can call for a methodology that is more complicated and complex, one that can utilize both quantitative and qualitative methods.We will describe our decision to approach this inquiry through mixed methods, exploring the value of both broad survey data and in-depth interview data. Our aim in this presentation is to emphasize the value of faculty interviews as providing a new perspective on faculty labor against the metanarratives that dominate via disciplinary lore. For all of the scholarship in our field that focuses on student identity, graduate student professionalization, and labor politics of contingent faculty, there is a very large gap regarding the experiences of new faculty members as they transition from graduate study (PhD programs in writing-related fields) to full-time employment as assistant professors, instructors, or writing program administrators. This presentation will discuss the use of qualitative interviews to capture data on the intersubjective phenomena that new faculty experience—the institutional, pedagogical, ideological, and political factors that influence their professional identity construction—and will identify how new faculty negotiate these factors through teaching, research, and service.