This methods textbook is really like a four star and two star simultaneously.
On the four star level, what I really like about it is the explicit encouragement to think about the different 'genres' of qualitative inquiry. I find this to be a very helpful exercise for students: getting them to consider the same project as executed through different methods. This helps to reveal how research questions would need to adapt to each method, what kinds of knowledge each method would produce, and the strengths and weaknesses of each approach given the context. So, this explicit effort to introduce qualitative research not as a single thing, but rather as several different kinds of inquiry, is really helpful.
However, books that risk being misleading receive two stars in my rating system, and this one falls into that category too. In particular, the authors don't just do a terrible job in - they don't even /attempt/ to - justify why they've selected the five types of qualitative inquiry they have. This is bad for the fact that there's nothing that makes these the most central or distinctive qualitative approaches; it's worse for the fact that they're totally incommensurate. 'Case studies' and 'phenomenology,' for example, aren't even remotely the same 'kinds' of things: a case study approach is a particular orientation to sampling and thinking about how to choose your examples; phenomenology is a research philosophy and theoretical paradigm. Their selection is analogous to a book on "sports" including five chapters: hockey, baseball, refereeing, how to feed athletes, and preparing a press release. Like, those are all worthy chapters with sports implications, but they hardly represent some sort of systematic introduction to the field of "sports."
There are certainly some good methodological nuggets and insights in this book, but unfortunately they can't really redeem a framework that seems haphazard at best.