The central failure of conventional, or positivistic inquiry has been the inability to handle deception in research and the violation of societal ethics, moral and legal caused by such deception. Moral dimensions include tests for whether the research would be approved by reasonable persons, whether it might pass the test of publicity, and whether or not it affords discretion in restraining from intrusiveness. Legal tests investigate whether the research protects individuals from harm, from lapses in informed consent, from deception, and from violations of privacy and confidentiality. Conventional inquiry has given rise to deception as a way to prevent ambiguity of research results. Ambiguity, however, has not been avoided, and costs have been added to the research. Deception can be avoided by utilizing emergent-paradigm, or naturalistic inquiry instead of conventional inquiry. Naturalistic inquiry focuses upon realities as multiple, divergent social constructions. The emphasis on utilizing the interaction of researcher and respondent allows participants to retain their locus of control, to make informed decisions regarding their participation, and to have a say in shaping the processes and results of the research. Naturalistic inquiry does bring about a new set of problems, but the ethical concerns raised concerning deception in the positivist inquiry are removed. (BAE)