This paper analyses the conceptual significance of different methods of researching learning. Based upon our own experiences, we briefly compare the use of mini-ethnography, life history, and the analysis of existing Panel Survey data. We argue that there are strong affinities between each of these methods and significantly different ways of understanding the nature of learning: mini-ethnographies with learning as participation, life history with learning as personal construction, and the Panel Survey with learning as acquisition. Any of these approaches can be used with any conceptualisation of learning, but breaching these affinities takes conscious effort, and may expose the limitations of each method. Three things follow. The first is that decisions about how to conceptualise and theorise learning are related to decisions about what research methodology to use. The second is that there is no foolproof empirical way to adjudicate between different conceptualisations of learning, through empirical evidence can and should play a significant part in informing such decisions. The third is that though mixing methods (including mixing more than one different qualitative approach) can bring major methodological advantages, the integration of the findings of mixed methods in relation to learning requires careful and sometimes difficult conceptual work.