Combining IS Research Methods: Towards a Pluralist Methodology
Abstract
This paper puts forward arguments in favor of a pluralist approach to IS research. Rather than advocating a single paradigm, be it interpretive or positivist, or even a plurality of paradigms within the discipline as a whole, it suggests that research results will be richer and more reliable if different research methods, preferably from different (existing) paradigms, are routinely combined together. The paper is organized into three sections after the Introduction. In §2, the main arguments for the desirability of multimethod research are put forward, while §3 discusses its feasibility in theory and practice. §4 outlines two frameworks that are helpful in designing mixed-method research studies. These are illustrated with a critical evaluation of three examples of empirical research.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In practice, it is possible to combine quantitative and qualitative approaches in many ways.
“In practice, it is possible to combine quantitative and qualitative approaches in many ways (Mingers, 2001).”
From Complexity and Organizational Communication: A Quest for Common Ground (2016) · cites this paper as Mingers, 2001
No one paradigm can fully capture reality; rather, each provides a perspective on it (critical pluralism).
“In essence, no one paradigm can fully capture the reality, but rather provides a perspective on ita position called critical pluralism (Mingers, 2001).”
From Complexity and Organizational Communication: A Quest for Common Ground (2016) · cites this paper as Mingers, 2001
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Nature of Theory in Information Systems1
Gregor, S. (2006) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148742 · Cited by 3,306 · see citing works
Pavlou, P. A., & Dimoka, A. (2006) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.1060.0106 · Cited by 930 · see citing works
Debating big data: a literature review on realizing value from big data
Günther, W. A., Rezazade Mehrizi, M. H., Huysman, M., & Feldberg, F. (2017) · The Journal of Strategic Information Systems · doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2017.07.003 · Cited by 880 · see citing works
Information Systems Innovation for Environmental Sustainability1
Melville, N. P. (2010) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/20721412 · Cited by 868 · see citing works
Weerakkody, V., Janssen, M., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2011) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2010.07.010 · Cited by 262 · see citing works
Wang, W., & Benbasat, I. (2008) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.2753/mis0742-1222240410 · Cited by 241 · see citing works
A user-centred design framework for mHealth
Farao, J., Malila, B., Conrad, N., Mutsvangwa, T., Rangaka, M. X., & Douglas, T. S. (2020) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0237910 · Cited by 203 · see citing works
Eight grand challenges in socio-environmental systems modeling
Elsawah, S., Filatova, T., Jakeman, A. J., Kettner, A. J., Zellner, M. L., Athanasiadis, I. N., Hamilton, S. H., Axtell, R. L., Brown, D. G., Gilligan, J. M., et al. (2020) · Socio-Environmental Systems Modelling · doi:10.18174/sesmo.2020a16226 · Cited by 205 · see citing works
O’Leary, M. B., Wilson, J. M., & Metiu, A. (2014) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2014/38.4.13 · Cited by 191 · see citing works
Weerakkody, V., & Dhillon, G. (2008) · International Journal of Electronic Government Research · doi:10.4018/jegr.2008100101 · Cited by 160 · see citing works
Technostress Research: A Nurturing Ground for Measurement Pluralism?
University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria, Fischer, T., Riedl, R., & University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria and University of Linz (2017) · Communications of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1cais.04017 · Cited by 127 · see citing works
Gaskin, J., Berente, N., Lyytinen, K., & Yoo, Y. (2014) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2014/38.3.10 · Cited by 121 · see citing works
Investigating the use of "Grounded Theory" in information systems research
Matavire, R., & Brown, I. (2008) · Proceedings of the 2008 annual research conference of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists on IT research in developing countries: riding the wave of technology · doi:10.1145/1456659.1456676 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
Complexity and Organizational Communication: A Quest for Common Ground
Poutanen, P., Siira, K., & Aula, P. (2016) · Human Resource Development Review · doi:10.1177/1534484316639713 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
- Authors
- Mingers, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Warwick (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Mingers, John
- ORCID
- Mingers, John
- Venue
- Information Systems Research
- Published
- 2001-09
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 240-259
- ISSN
- 1047-7047 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5536
- OpenAlex
- W2154762950
- Cited by
- 1,380
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 23 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 42 · 2018: 60 · 2017: 62 · 2016: 53 · 2015: 78 · 2014: 97 · 2013: 104 · 2012: 84
- FWCI
- 122.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Information Systems Research (publishedVersion)
- Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Business Strategies and Management Research
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Business and Management Studies
- Keywords
- multi-method research, mixed methods, research paradigms, interpretivism, positivism, research design framework
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
