Info Systems J (2003) 13, 233–249 © 2003 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 233 Blackwell Science, LtdOxford, UKISJInformation Systems Journal1365-2575Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 200313 233249Review ArticleThe paucity of multimethod researchJ Mingers The paucity of multimethod research: a review of the information systems literature John Mingers Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK, email: j.mingers@warwick.ac.uk Abstract. It has commonly been argued that the use of different research meth- ods within the information system (IS) discipline and within individual pieces of research will produce richer and more reliable results. This paper reports on a sur- vey of the IS literature to discover the extent of multimethod research. The findings are that such work is relatively scarce, and where it occurs involves only a small set of traditional methods. Possible reasons for this are discussed. Keywords: IS research methods, methodology, multimethodology, paradigm, qual- itative research INTRODUCTION Combining together different research methods has been the subject of much debate during the 1990s. Mingers (2001a) advocated multimethod research on the grounds that both the tar- get of the research and the research process were complex and multidimensional, requiring a range of different approaches. A commentator on the paper suggested that multimethod research was already commonplace. A somewhat ad hoc literature review, reported in the paper, showed that actually multimethod research was quite scarce – averaging only 13% of empirical papers. This paper reports on a more systematic study covering literature up to 2000. There have been numerous reviews of the information system (IS) research literature, each with a different purpose, but none have specifically considered combining methodologies. Of the more recent studies, Orlikowski & Baroudi (1991) looked at the literature between 1983 and 1988 in terms of the underlying research paradigm. They concluded that the vast majority was of a positivist nature but recommended the greater adoption of interpretive and critical approaches. Cheon et al. (1993) were interested in the extent to which IS was a maturing field and surveyed literature from 1980 to 1989, considering both the extent of empirical research and the popularity of research methods. In terms of their criteria (diversity of topics, variety of methodologies used, and a focus on explanation rather than description) IS appeared to have developed little in its maturity. Walsham (1995a) followed up on the issue of interpretivism in IS by examining papers between 1992 and 1993. He concluded that, despite some moves in the direction, there was little actual interpretive research published and he was pessimistic about