Can opposite leading scholars mix?

During the first read of Gee, I thought, “Ugh! This is not at all what I expected—especially when I read the entire grammar section.”  However, I did like the idea of the “tools”, because those can be applicable.  Overall, I see this book as a resource, but now I have a question when it comes to analysis.  I know that in advanced qual we discussed who we may align ourselves with when it comes to research and analysis.  At this point, to be plain, I just like Hutchby and Wooffitt better.  Jeffersonian transcription is something that I picked up easily, and it makes total sense to me.  The analysis of the conversations in Hutchby and Wooffitt were also clear, as I would ‘test’ myself while reading the conversations.  I would skip the written text and analyze the examples, then read to see if my analysis was correct.  More often than not, it was, and I was on the same page with them.  Gee, however, threw me off, especially with his linguistic approach in the first half of the book.  I can’t say whether or not that small section then biased me towards the rest, because I did find things useful.  Tool #21, the Sign Systems and Knowledge Building Tool, fits perfectly with the data I’m looking at for this course. Thank you, for finding that for me before I did J.  So, to get back to my question.  When I am analyzing data, does it make sense to rely on completely different leading scholars in the field?  I plan on using many of Hutchby and Wooffitt’s theories and arguments to assist in my analysis, however, some of the tools Gee lists are useful, and I would also like to use them, but does it diminish my analysis if I use both?  I suppose since I am new to working with data and analysis, especially DA or CA, that the more practice the better.  I tried to look at Gee’s references, but, alas, the unicorn has none.  He does, however, give readings at the end of each section, and I see he cited Fairclough, but he also does not refrain from offering his previous publications.