From the interviewee side, it occurs to me that you run the risk of looking like you have a preferred style (or *only* style) that’s a poor match for the company’s current environment and needs. It could prevent the reviewer from considering you a suitable fit for the position.

(Mike, you advocate tailoring information to the prospective company, which is always key. But it’s not always easy to parse a job description, especially written by an HR person instead of the test manager, to know what approach the company already uses or needs for the posted position.)

Seeing a surface mismatch in a approach might not be a problem for resume reviewers in the Jacobson or Kelly mold, who would tend to see this kind of information as additive to the big picture, not subtractive. But one might not be so lucky with a less enlightened test manager/resume reviewer.

I’d think that adding context is very important. In the comments section of the Eric Jacobson blog entry you linked, Geordie Keitt linked his resume, the body of which does a great job showcasing how his style adapts to various missions. Describing approach along with context is much more powerful than approach alone.

On the other hand, if you’ve decided you’d really prefer to work in environments that need the approach you are best able to deliver/best like, then describing your test approach without context could be a good filter to discourage callbacks from places that would result in a poor fit for both sides.