Debatable advice and inconsistent evidence: Methodology in information systems research

Abstract

The range of legitimate methods in IS research has expanded considerably over the past 20 years, a process to which IFIP Working Group 8.2 is seen to have made an important contribution. This has probably made it even harder, however, for IS researchers to know what constitutes good methodological practice. This paper addresses this issue from two angles: first through a critical analysis of claims made in the IS literature regarding the characteristics of good research; and second through an examination of the use of methodology, as reported in a number of IS research papers. The characteristics of good research considered are that it should follow the scientific method; that it should fulfil certain criteria; that it should be relevant; and that it should employ multiple methods Each of these is shown to have limitations. With respect to methodology in practice, the analysis indicates a remarkable lack of consistency in the reporting of IS research. The implications of these findings are discussed. © 2004 Springer Science + Business Media, Inc.