Omega, Int. J. Mgmt Sci. Vol. 25, No. 5, pp.

489-509, 1997
~ Pergamon © 1997ElsevierScienceLtd. All rights reserved
Printed in Great Britain
PII: S0305-0483(97)00018-2 0305-0483/97 $17.00+ 0.00

Multimethodology: Towards a Framework

for Mixing Methodologies
JOHN MINGERS
University of Warwick, Coventry, U K

JOHN BROCKLESBY
Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand

(Received Jllly 1996; accepted after revision April 1997)

In recent years the predilection for Systems/OR practice to be underpinned by a single methodology
has been called into question, and reports on multimethodologyprojects are now filtering through into
the literature. This paper takes a closer look at mnltimethodology. It outlines a number of different
possibilities for combining methodologies, and considers why such a development might be desirable
for more effective practice, in particular by focusing upon how it can deal more effectively with the
richness of the real world and better assist through the various intervention stages. The paper outlines
some of the philosophical, cultural and cognitive feasibility issues that multimethodologyraises. It then
describes a framework that can attend to the relative strengths of different methodologies and provide
a basis for constructing multimethodologydesigns. Finally it presents a systematic way of decomposing
methodologies to identify detachable elements, and the paper concludes by outlining aspects of an
agenda for further research that emerges out of the discussion. © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd

Key words--critical OR/systems, hard OR/systems, methodology, multimethodology, paradigm

incommensurability, pluralism, realism, soft OR/systems

1. INTRODUCTION t h r o u g h the vehicle o f the system o f systems

m e t h o d o l o g y ( S O S M ) and, subsequently, F l o o d
In recent years, the n u m b e r o f m e t h o d s , a n d J a c k s o n [5, 6] t h r o u g h t o t a l systems inter-
techniques a n d m e t h o d o l o g i e s within the b r o a d vention (TSI). The m a i n e m p h a s i s (but see notes
field o f M a n a g e m e n t Science (to include b o t h 2, 3) o f the latter two has been t h a t different
O R a n d Systems) has b u r g e o n e d . There is m e t h o d o l o g i e s are c o m p l e m e n t a r y , m a k i n g
n o w an e n o r m o u s variety o f a p p r o a c h e s all different a s s u m p t i o n s a b o u t the p r o b l e m situ-
having very diverse characteristics a n d stem- ation, a n d that it is therefore necessary to m a k e
m i n g f r o m v a r i o u s p a r a d i g m s b a s e d on differing a choice as to which m e t h o d o l o g y ( i e s ) is(are)
p h i l o s o p h i c a l a s s u m p t i o n s . W h i l s t this pleni- a p p r o p r i a t e for a p a r t i c u l a r intervention.
tude can e n h a n c e practice [1], it also poses It is the c o n t e n t i o n o f this p a p e r t h a t in o r d e r
p r o b l e m s for p r a c t i t i o n e r s w h o often tend to to m a k e the m o s t effective c o n t r i b u t i o n in
restrict themselves to one p a r a d i g m o r even one dealing with the richness o f the real world, it
methodology. is desirable to go b e y o n d using a single (or, on
B o t h Bennett [2] a n d E d e n [3] have a d d r e s s e d occasions, m o r e t h a n one) m e t h o d o l o g y to
this p r o b l e m , b u t the m a i n a t t e m p t at i m p o s i n g generally c o m b i n i n g several m e t h o d o l o g i e s , in
some o r d e r is that o f J a c k s o n a n d K e y s [4] whole or in part, a n d p o s s i b l y f r o m different

489
490 Mingers and Brocklesby--Multimethodology
paradigms. We argue for this use of multi- distinguishes a number of possible way of
methodology both on theoretical/philosophical interpreting the idea of multimethodology.
grounds, and on the practical grounds that
practioners are increasingly doing this already. 2.1. Paradigm, methodology, technique, tool
However, mixing methodologies, particularly The first set of distinctions is between
from different paradigms, does present serious paradigm, methodology, technique and tool.
problems--philosophically in terms of para- Similar categorizations have been made by
digm incommensurability, theoretically in terms Eden [3] and Rosenhead [1].
of effectively fitting methodologies together, and A paradigm is a very general set of
practically in terms of the wide range of philosophical assumptions that define the
knowledge, skills and flexibility required of nature of possible research and intervention.
practitioners. There can only be a relatively small number of
It is encouraging to note that similar attempts paradigms extant at one time although the
to move away from paradigmatic isolation and actual number, and their characterization in
conflict are occurring in other disciplines. In terms of underlying dimensions, differs. See, for
organizational studies there are strong attacks exmnple, [13, 7,17-19]. We shall distinguish
on the paradigm incommensurability advocated between paradigms in terms of three philoso-
by Burrell and Morgan [7-10]; in sociology a phical dimensions: ontology, that is, the types of
mixture of research methods--triangulation-- entities assumed to exist and the nature of that
is advocated [11-13]; and in philosophy there existence; epistemology, that is, the possibilities
is debate about theoretical and methodological of, and limitations on, our knowledge of the
pluralism [14-16]. world; and praxiology, that is, how we should
This paper is organized into four main act in an informed and reflective manner. This
sections. The next, Section 2, discusses defini- latter category is of particular importance for
tions of terms such as 'paradigm', 'method- management science which is primarily con-
ology' and 'technique', and the different cerned with intervention and action. It can be
possible interpretations of 'multimethodology' further sub-divided, drawing on Habermas [20],
are given. In Section 3 the main arguments for into three aspects: effectiveness, questions about
the desirability of multimethodology are put the extent to which desired ends are achieved;
forward, followed by Section 4 which considers ethics, questions about the value and desir-
the problems and feasibility of (particularly) ability of courses of action for individuals
multi-paradigm work. Finally, in Section 5, and communities; and morals, questions about
a more substantive contribution to multi- the effects of an individual's actions on other
methodology research is presented with two people.
frameworks that may be helpful in combining Clearly paradigms differ on some or all of
methodologies and parts of these together. these dimensions and an important question
that must be addressed in multimethodology
2. TERMINOLOGY research is the extent to which paradigms are
incommensurable, that is, mutually exclusive,
Many terms, such as 'paradigm', 'method- unable to be combined or linked. We shall
ology', 'method' and 'technique', are open to distinguish three main paradigms each of
various interpretations, as is the concept of which has been referred to by a variety of
multimethodology itself. This section will names: empirical-analytic (positivist, objec-
specify a set of terms that will be used con- tivist, functionalist, hard), interpretive (subjec-
sistently, although it must be recognized that tivist, constructivist, soft), and critical (critical
these are not claimed to be 'correct' in some systems).
sense, and that inevitably some latitude A methodology is a structured set of guidelines
will be required in applying them across a or activities to assist people in undertaking
variety of domains. Section 2.1 defines terms research or intervention. Generally, a method-
such as 'methodology', while the Section 2.2 ology will develop, either implicitly or explicitly,
within a particular paradigm and will embody
JThe question about the extent to which methodologiesare the philosophical assumptions and principles
tied to paradigms is addressed in Section 5. of the paradigm. ~ Usually there is more than
 Omega, Vol. 25, No. 5 491

one methodology within a paradigm. Method- providing the grounds for the types of activity
ologies may be developed self-consciously that the methodology generates.
as methodologies (for example, Soft Systems Finally, a tool is an artefact, often computer
Methodology), or they may emerge as broad software, that can be used in performing a
prescriptions for good practice in using particu- particular technique (e.g. an LP optimizer,
lar techniques within a paradigm (as is the case a systems dynamics package, or COPE for
with the traditional OR methodology of model cognitive mapping [22]) or a whole method-
building). ology (e.g. STRAD for strategic choice [23]).
A technique is a specific activity that has We should also note that interventions are
a clear and well-defined purpose within the always undertaken by particular people at
context of a methodology. Examples of particular points in time. There are various
techniques are: developing a discrete-event possible terms--analyst, actor, agent, practi-
simulation model; undertaking statistical analy- tioner, problem-solver, intervenor, facilitator--
sis; producing root definitions and conceptual although each has its own particular overtones.
models in SSM; drawing a cognitive map; We shall generally use the term agent as the
identifying systems 1-5 in Beer's[21] VSM. most general to apply to someone actively
Techniques may be complementary, that is engaged in dealing with a particular problem
they combine together within a methodology, situation. We recognize that often groups of
for example statistical analysis, building a people will work on an intervention but we do
simulation, and sensitivity analysis; or they may not explore this possibility. Also, we do not use
be substitutes, for example, using queuing the term 'method' as this is most confusing,
theory instead of a simulation. Techniques can sometimes being used to mean a particular
themselves be decomposed to different levels of technique and sometimes to refer to whole
detail. methodologies.
We can see the relation between methodology
and technique as that between a what and a 2.2. Varieties of multimethodology
how. The methodology specifies what type The essence of multimethodology is to utilize
of activities should be undertaken, and the more than one methodology, or part thereof,
techniques are particular ways of performing possibly from different paradigms, within a
these activities. Generally each what has a single intervention. There are several ways in
number of possible hows. We can also see the which such combinations can occur, each
philosophical dimensions of a paradigm as having different problems and possibilities.
providing the why for the methodology, i.e. Table 1 provides some examples that can be

Table 1. Different possibilities for combining methodologies

Literature
Name Description Multiparadigm? Example (Theoretical, Case Study)
Methodological Using only one methodology, Single SSM only; hard OR tech- Checkland and Scholes [24]
isolationism or techniques from only one niques only
paradigm
Methodology Enhancing a methodology Single Cognitive Mapping used in Mingers and Taylor [25]
enhancement with techniques from another SSM
Multiple Jackson Systems Development Savage and Mingers [26]
(JSD) used in SSM
Methodology Selecting whole method- Using Simulation in one inter- Jackson and Keys [27-29]
selection ologies as appropriate to vention, SSM in another
particular situation
Methodology Combining whole method- Using Interactive Planning and Floodand Jackson [6],
combination ologies in an intervention VSM Flood [5]
Multimethodology Partitioning methodologies Single Using Cognitive Mapping, Ormerod [30], Holt [31],
and combining parts Root Definitions, Taket [32], Bennett [2],
Commitment Packages Ormerod [33]
Multiple Using Cognitive Mapping and Eden [34], Lehaney and
Systems Dynamics Paul [35], Hocking and
Lee [36], Midgley [37-40],
Mingers [41], Ormerod
[42, 43], Flood [5]
492 Mingers and Brocklesby--Multimethodology

seen either as a set of logical possibilities, or as or partitioned into components and these are
the preferred way of operating of particular combined together to construct an ad hoc
agents. Note that the term 'intervention' covers multimethodology suitable for a particular
a variety of situations from the classic con- problematic situation. The parts may come
sultancy case of external agents entering an from methodologies in different paradigms. An
unknown situation and leaving at the com- example would be combining cognitive mapping
pletion of the project; through multiple projects with developing a systems dynamics model. This
with the same organization over time; to type of multimethodology has been least
someone using methodology in their own explored theoretically, hence it is the main focus
workplace. of discussion in this paper.
The main distinctions between the different
possibilities are (Table 1): whether more than
3. D E S I R A B I L I T Y OF
one methodology is used or not; whether the MULTIMETHODOLOGY
methodologies used come from the same or
from different paradigms; whether or not they Having clarified what is meant by multi-
are used within the same intervention; whether methodology, this section considers why such a
whole methodologies are used or parts are taken development might be desirable for more
out and combined (Midgley[38] calls this effective practice. Four arguments in favour
methodological partitioning); and, in the latter of (multi-paradigm) multimethodology are put
case, whether a single methodology is given forward. First, that real-world problem situ-
overall control or whether the parts are linked ations are inevitably highly complex and
to form a multimethodology particular to that multi-dimensional. Different paradigms each
situation. The last columns give examples and focus attention on different aspects of the
selected literature references to either theory situation and so multimethodology is necessary
or cases. to deal effectively with the full richness of the
There are three combinations of most real world. Second, an intervention is not
interest as examples of multimethodology. First, usually a single, discrete event but a process that
methodology selection is essentially the situ- typically proceeds through a number of phases.
ation assumed by Jackson and Keys' [4] System These phases pose different tasks and problems
of Systems Methodologies (SOSM). This is for the agent. However, methodologies tend to
based on the idea that methodologies from be more useful in relation to some phases than
different paradigms make particular assump- others, so the prospect of combining them has
tions about the contexts within which they immediate appeal. Even where methodologies
will be used, so that a methodology is most do perform similar functions, combining a
appropriate for a context matching its assump- range of approaches may well yield a better
tions. This implies that, generally, only one result. Third, further consideration~ of the
methodology will be used in a particular philosophical and theoretical aspects of multi-
intervention. 2 Second, methodology combi- methodology is timely since m a n y people are
nation is similar to Flood and Jackson's [6] total already combining methodologies in practice.
systems intervention (TSI) in which different Finally, arguments from a postmodern perspec-
whole methodologies may be used within the tive also support pluralism in methodology.
same intervention to deal with different issues, 3
or to provide different viewpoints. 3.1. The multi-dimensional world
Third, the most complex form of multi- Adopting a particular paradigm is like
methodology is where methodologies are split viewing the world through a particular instru-
ment such as a telescope, an X-ray machine
or an electron microscope. Each reveals certain
2Therehas been some debate about the proper interpretation aspects but is completely blind to others.
of the SOSM and certainly the originators themselves
differ on the matter. See [28, 4447, 29, 48-52, 97]. Although they may be pointing at the same
3Again, there is debate about the interpretation of TSI, place, each instrument produces a totally
and it is still changing and developing, but certainly in the different, and seemingly incompatible, represen-
first book on the subject [6] no mention is made of
partitioning methodologiesand combiningparts together. tation. Thus, in adopting only one paradigm
For recent developments on TSI see [5, 53-55]. one is inevitably gaining only a limited view of
 Omega, Vol. 25, No. 5 493

~ ~,~ Repr

Appreciates I Em.otioningExpresses]

Fig. 1. Three dimensions of problem situations.

the problem situation, for example, attending human beings. It existed before us and would
only to that which may be measured or exist whether or not we did. We can shape
quantified, or only to individual subjective it through our actions, but are subject to its
meanings and understandings. This argument is constraints. Our epistemological relationship
a strong one in support of multimethodology, to this world is one of observation (rather
suggesting that it is always wise to utilize a than participation as in a social activity, or
variety of paradigms. experience as of a personal feeling), but such
A framework developed from Habermas [56] observations are always theory- and subject-
and also drawing on Searle [57]4 is shown in dependent. We can characterize this world as
Fig. 1. It suggests that it is useful to distinguish objective in the sense that it is independent of the
three worlds--the material world, the social observer, although clearly our observations and
world and the personal world. The distinc- descriptions o f it are not.
tion is, of course, purely analytic. Real-world From this material world, through processes
situations of human activity will involve all of evolution, linguistically-endowed humans
three. For instance, a simple conversation has have developed, capable of communication
physical dimensions such as body posture/ and self-reflection. This has led to the social
gesture and spacing; personal dimensions such and personal worlds. The personal world is
as emotions and beliefs; and social dimensions the world of our own individual thoughts,
such as linguistic and social practices and power emotions, experiences and beliefs. We do not
relations. observe it, but experience it. This world is
Each domain has different modes of exist- subjective in that it is generated by, and only
ence, and different means of accessibility. The accessible to, the individual subject. We can aim
material world is outside of and independent of to express Our subjectivity to others and, in turn,
appreciate theirs.
4Habermas's three worlds are developedfrom, but different Finally there is the social world that we (as
from, Popper's three worlds. See [[561, pp 75 80]. members of particular social systems) share.
494 Mingers and Brocklesby--Multimethodology

Our epistemological relation to it is one of Assessment of the ways in which the

intersubjectivity since it is, on the one hand, a situation could be other than it is; of the
human construction, and yet, on the other, extent to which the constraints could be
it goes beyond and pre-exists any particular altered.
individual. It consists of a complex multi- Action to bring about desirable changes.
layering of language, meaning, social practices,
rules and resources that both enables and At the beginning of an intervention, especially
constrains our actions and is reproduced for an outside agent, the primary concern is
through them. One of its primary dimensions is to gain as rich an appreciation of the situation
that of power [48]. as possible. Note that this cannot be an
'observer-independent' view of the situation 'as
3.2. Intervention as a process
it really is'. It will be conditioned by the agent's
The second argument is that interventions go previous experience and their access to the
through several phases and have different task situation. The next activity is to begin to analyse
requirements at each stage. A number of why the situation is as it appears, to understand
categorizations already exist in the literature. the history that has generated it, and the
In TSI there are three stages in the selection of particular structure of relations and constraints
a methodology: (i) Creativity--initial explo- that maintain it. Next, consideration must be
ration of the situation; (ii) Choice--the selection given to ways in which the situation could be
of a particular methodology; and (iii) Im- changed. This means focusing attention away
p l e m e n t a t i o n - p u t t i n g the methodology into from how things are, and considering the extent
practice. This approach, however, provides no to which the structures and constraints can be
structure for the ongoing process of the changed within the general limitations of the
intervention--leaving that entirely up to the intervention. Finally, action must be under-
selected methodology. But, taking an interven- taken that will effectively bring about agreed
tion to be concerned with bringing about some changes.
form of desired change, there are logically We should emphasize immediately that these
several types of activity that must occur, from activities are not seen as discrete stages that are
finding out about the situation through to enacted one by one. Rather, they are aspects
taking action. It is not the case that all of the intervention that need to be considered
methodologies address all these activities, or, throughout, although their relative importance
even if they do, that they are equally effective. will differ as the project progresses. Thus, in
Thus, a strong argument for multimethodology the early stages appreciation of the problem
is that by combining methodologies, or parts situation will be the primary concern, but
thereof, we can construct a more effective analysis and assessment will still occur, if only
combination that deals comprehensively with a implicitly, and, even then, attention will be
particular intervention. directed towards action. Equally, towards the
To help do this in practice some categoriz- end implementation and action will be the
ation of the phases of an intervention would be focus, but appreciation and analysis will still be
useful, against which could be mapped various going on. See Fig. 2.
'methodologies' strengths and weaknesses.
There are two schemas in the literature-- 3.3. Practice ahead o f theory
Mapleston and Lane's [58], and Ormerod's [33], The management science literature contains
based on Boothroyd's[59] work. However, sufficient examples of multimethodology prac-
these were both found to be insufficiently tice to suggest that while the latter is not yet
generic to apply to all situations. An SSM in a position to challenge the dominance of
analysis of the general process of intervention the single method orthodoxy, it is, nevertheless,
led to the following activities: becoming increasingly popular. Although some
Appreciation of the problem situation as of the published reports of multimethodology
experienced by the agents involved. do attempt to broaden the perspective and delve
Analysis of the underlying structure/ into the theory behind multimethodology, most
constraints generating the situation as experi- of the work done to date is descriptive, the
enced. primary concern being to show how particular
 Omega, Vol. 25, No. 5 495
Time through project
Postmodernism has infiltrated virtually all
intellectual fields including management science
A p p r e c ~ [66, 67,44, 68], and we should not ignore
Proportion the contribution that it might make to the
ofTime / Analy~ multimethodology debate.
Spenton Outwardly multimethodology sits comfort-
Each
Activity /~ A J c Assess~ t ably with much of what postmodernism stands
for. For example the postmodernist idea that
foundational theories are a form of grand
Fig. 2. Phasesof activityon a project. narrative and should not be given too much
credence, is consistent with the idea that
methods or parts of methods may be removed
methodological combinations can help to meet from their theoretical/philosophical base and
various objectives. pressed into the service of different, even
Ormerod[30], provides an illustration of competing, logics. Multimethodology's anti-
how one methodology can be used as a foundationalist antipathy towards orthodoxy
framework to incorporate others. He uses is evidenced by its predilection to combine
Ackoff's Interactive Planning as a framework to methods from supposedly incommensurable
incorporate other soft OR and soft systems paradigms. Combining hard and soft method-
methods in information systems strategy devel- ologies in a single intervention may be seen
opment. SSM has been used in a similar way as a form of de-differentiation where the
in information systems development [60]. Tra- boundaries of what were formerly clear-cut
ditional IS methodologies are 'embedded' entities become blurred, and 'playfully' con-
within the SSM process as a means of better structing creative combinations of methods may
understanding the information needs of users. be seen as a form of the postmodernist's
Alternatively SSM can 'front-end' information pastiche.
systems design methodologies. We do not have the space here to explore
The idea of 'front-ending' exploits the relative further the postmodern perspective on multi-
strength of SSM in relation to the different methodology. However we do accept that
stages in the intervention process. Bennett [61], further exploration of this line of thought is
and Bennett and Cropper [62] combine conflict worthwhile.
analysis, SODA and strategic choice to demon-
strate further the value of employing different
methodologies at various stages in interven-
4. FEASIBILITY OF
tions. In a similar vein, Lane and Oliva [63] MULTIMETHODOLOGY
illustrate how SODA can help in the problem
formulation stage of systems dynamics mod- Having put forward arguments for the
elling. The objective of combining methods to desirability of multimethodology, it is now time
sustain a particular purpose is pursued by Gains to address the inherent problems and assess
and Rosenhead [64], who combine cognitive its overall feasibility. We should remember that
mapping with SSM in medical quality assur- we are concerned primarily with links across
ance. Likewise Ackermann and Belton[65] different paradigms. We will discuss three
combine SODA and multiple criteria analysis to different levels of problems: (i) philosophical--
acquire, organize and make use of corporate paradigm incommensurability; (ii) cultural--the
knowledge. extent to which organizational and academic
cultures militate against multi-paradigm work;
3.4. The postmodern worm and (iii) cognitive--the problems of an individ-
Another possible reason why multimethodol- ual agent moving easily from one paradigm to
ogy may be thought desirable is that one could another. Each of these is a major research area
see it as an appropriate response to postmodern in its own right and in this paper all we hope to
beliefs and values. Conceivably one could even do is to outline the main debates and provide at
see multimethodology as the definitive form least primafacie evidence that the problems are
of postmodern management science practice. not insurmountable. A fourth problem area,
496 Mingers and Brocklesby--Multimethodology

the theoretical issue concerning the extent to tions. The three major systems paradigms are
which different methodologies can be linked arranged in support of these interests. Accord-
together, will be covered in the Section 5 of the ingly, Jackson maintains that hard systems
paper. methods support the technical interest, soft
methods support the practical interest, and
4.1. Philosophical feasibility-paradigm incom- critical systems methods support the emancipa-
mensurability tory interest. Appealing to a higher level of
The paradigm incommensurability thesis reasoning, or meta-theory, allows methods to
asserts that because paradigms differ in terms of be combined without destroying the integrity of
the fundamental assumptions that they bring to the paradigms from which they originate.
organizational inquiry, agents must choose Like Jackson, Midgley [39] also appeals to
the rules under which they practise from Habermas, in this case to provide the basis for
among the various alternatives on offer. They a new 'critical systems' paradigm sustaining
must then commit themselves to a single what he calls methodological pluralism. Midgley
paradigm, although sequential movement over attends to Habermas' assertion that inherent
time from one paradigm to another is per- in any utterance intended for communication
missable. The main reason why multi-paradigm there are four claims relating to intelligibility,
research is proscribed is because of the supposed truthfulness, justification and sincerity. Intelligi-
irreconcilable objectivist/subjectivist ontological bility, it is argued, is merely a prerequisite
and epistemological dichotomies that exist for effective communication. The other three
between the empirical-analytic and interpretive claims, however, refer to the three 'worlds'
paradigms respectively. But, as Burrell and discussed earlier--the objective external world,
Morgan [7] and Astley and Van der Ven [69] the normative social world and individual's
have shown, there are other related dichotomies subjective internal world. Hard methods,
such as structure versus agency, determinism Midgley claims, pursue truth statements
versus voluntarism, and causation versus mean- through modelling the external world, soft
ing. The opposing positions in each dichotomy systems methods pursue 'rightness statements',
represent alternative competing 'truths' about i.e. manage debate to identify a 'right' way
the world, and, as such, they resist reconcilia- forward, and subjective (soft OR) methods
tion or synthesis. pursue 'sincerity' statements, i.e. produce a
Clearly, the paradigm incommensurability picture of an individual's unique perspective s.
thesis bears heavily upon the debate about Through the process of rational argumentation
multimethodology, and this has been acknowl- these 'worlds' come to be viewed as separate.
edged by a number of authors: Jackson [44], Individuals make and challenge validity claims
Flood and Jackson [6], and Midgley [39, 40], for 'one world at a time'. In practice however, they
example. In these debates, the response to the are not separate from one another. Combining
apparant tension between multimethodology methods therefore becomes possible when
and incommensurability has tended to converge carried out according to this logic.
around the social theory of Habermas. Thus, in Although Jackson and Midgley differ in terms
seeking a possible solution to the problem, of the theoretical rationale that they use to
Jackson [44] appeals to Habermas' theory of advance their case for multimethodology, they
knowledge constitutive interests. All knowledge, both accept the incommensurability thesis itself,
according to Habermas, is geared towards neither questioning its overall veracity. They
serving particular human interests--our techni- view incommensurability as an obstacle to be
cal interest in prediction and control, our overcome. Although this is an understandable
practical interest in developing inter-subjective reaction, recent debates in the social sciences
meaning, and our emancipatory interest in suggest that while the incommensurability
helping people to free themselves from the idea is institutionally entrenched, we do not
constraints imposed through power rela- necessarily have to be beholden to it.
Both Morgan [70, 71] and Hassard [72], for
example, argue that because of the ontological
5We would argue that a more consistent interpretation has
soft approaches aimed essentially at the subjective world, and epistemological uncertainties associated
with critical methods aimed at the social world. with any single paradigm, there is a need
 Omega, Vol. 25, No. 5 497

for conscious pluralism in research practice. objects'--our experiences, theories and descrip-
Hassard believes that moving between para- tions that are used in the production of
digms in a single piece of research--paradigm knowledge. Like structuration, critical realism
mediation--is difficult but eminently possible, acknowledges the conjoint existence of the
that individuals can be trained into new objective and subjective dimensions.
paradigms. Elsewhere, and drawing heavily Aside from identifying possibilities for medi-
upon Wittgenstein, Hassard [73] suggests that ating between the boundaries of paradigms,
the technical language games that are character- or appealing to alternative forms of reasoning
istic of the original Kuhnian idea of paradigm that dispel the objective/subjective duality, it
are merely refinements of the language game of is further possible to question Burrell and
everyday life that everyone assimilates during Morgan's [7] claim that we should develop
his or her first years of life. Paradigmatic methods independently within the separate
knowledge, according to Hassard, cannot stand paradigms. This can be done by appealing to
beyond or outside general knowledge. Moving the postmodernist idea that the divisions
between the opposing dichotomies of competing between theory, method and data are unstable
paradigms is therefore desirable and eminently and eroded. But even within the dominant
possible. modernist tradition there is a body of literature
Gioia and Pitre [74] argue that the character- (see [19], for example) which claims that the
ization of paradigms as separate and mutually bonding between paradigm and research tech-
exclusive domains may have been overstated. niques is not inviolable, the relationship being
Although the central prototypical character- nowhere near as straightforward as is often
istics are incommensurable, paradigms are thought. Paradigms do not determine tech-
permeable at the edges in their so called niques. Techniques can be, and frequently are,
'transition zones'. It is possible, these authors detached from their original paradigms to
argue, to 'construct bridges' across paradigm sustain all sorts of different logics. Thus, "the
boundaries that are ostensibly impenetrable. empirical reality of a natural science's practice
Weaver and Gioia [75] develop an argument and the practice of natural scientists is not
that echoes an earlier discussion about para- one informed by such moral philosophy. It
digms in systems (see [76]). They claim that the admits of very much more contingent, local
whole idea of paradigm incommensurability, and situational considerations, much less
based upon the objective-subjective duality, than the paradigm totalization that we might
is fundamentally flawed. Giddens' [101] think." [79].
structuration theory is used to demonstrate that Although the paradigm incommensurability
it is not possible to separate out objective and issue has to be taken seriously in debates about
subjective dimensions. Reality, according to multimethodology, the previous discussion
structuration theory, emerges out of the gives us grounds for believing that multi-para-
dialectic interplay of forces of structure and digm multimethodology is philosophically sus-
meaning--structural regularities are created out tainable. To date the primarily vehicle for
of subjective meanings, and through socializa- circumventing the incommensurability thesis,
tion processes, structures then 'act back' upon in management science, has been Habermas'
individual's meanings. Individuals, of course, theory of knowledge constitutive interests. This
may choose to emphasize one viewpoint over falls short of the mark, primarily because it does
the other. In structuration this is done by not make any new ontological statement that is
selectively 'bracketing' the alternative view, not capable of subsuming the incommensurable
by ignoring it completely. However, complete ontological assumptions of the original para-
understanding needs to consider both structures digms. The work of Giddens [101] and Bhaskar
and meanings simultaneously since the two are [78], in contrast, is more promising, because
so intimately intertwined. these authors do present an ontological
A similar philosophical stance is adopted by perspective that can subsume the objective-sub-
Bhaskar [77, 78]. Bhaskar's 'critical realism' jective dichotomy. This opens up plenty of
depicts the co-existence of 'intransitive objects philosophical space for the further development
of knowledge'--entities that exist independent of multimethodology. It also holds out the
of our experiences of them, and 'transitive promise that once an agent adopts this new
498 Mingers and Brocklesby--Multimethodology

ontological position, methods and techniques individuals' values, beliefs and basic assump-
from the original competing paradigms may be tions about the world might stand in the way of
combined without the agent having to con- moving from one paradigm to another. This is
stantly adjust their philosophical position a cultural issue for two reasons. First, because
depending upon whichever method is being used these sorts of preferences are not randomly
at any time. Providing the agent understands the distributed. Instead they are often reinforced by
implications of using any method or technique institutional, physical and geographic bound-
in the employ of this new paradigm, then this aries in which communities of like-minded
would seem to be a big advantage. people tend to congregate. Management science
contains a large number of such highly
4.2. Cultural feasibility fragmented subcultural communities, and
The question pursued in this section and many of these converge around methodologies
Section 4.3 is whether agents can learn to or techniques which embody particular sets
operate effectively in two or more paradigms, of values and beliefs [80]. To all intents and
and move easily between these. Some might purposes, such preferences are important
claim that this is a redundant question because, cultural artefacts that are intricately bound up
ostensibly, there are plenty of people who are with individuals' competencies and their self-
already doing it. Nonetheless the question is identities. While it is by no means impossible
worth raising for two reasons. First, recall that to extricate oneself from the constraints
adopting a plurality of methods and techniques imposed by a particular culture, this can present
which originate in different paradigms does not difficulties. Ultimately, it is probably fair to say
mean that an agent will employ them in the that the degree of difficulty depends upon the
service of these paradigms. Methods can be strength of one's attachment to a particular
combined without crossing paradigm bound- institutionalized 'way of doing things', com-
aries and it is possible that this is what often bined with the strength of one's desire to 'do
happens. Second, while there are plenty of things differently'.
people who routinely combine methods, anec- The second reason why this is a cultural issue,
dotal evidence suggests that many manage- is because peoples' basic assumptions about the
ment scientists largely operate within a single world, and their beliefs and values, arise out of
paradigm, often specializing in a single method- lengthy socialization and acculturation pro-
ology or technique. Many of these specialists cesses. These may also present obstacles for
are academics. In general, we believe that someone attempting to move from one para-
practitioners are more eclectic, although some digm to another. As Lincoln [81] puts
practitioners (e.g. Friend and Hickling [23] with it,"fooling around with a new paradigm is an
their Strategic Choice approach) also specialize intensely personal process, evolving from not
in a single methodology. only intellectual but also personal, social,
Broadly, the main issue concerns the extent to and possibly political transformation". This
which adopting a paradigm is a simple matter of difficulty is manifest in shifting from one
choice for the agent. Our position on this matter management science paradigm to another.
is that individuals do indeed have some freedom Take, for example, the case of someone wishing
of choice. However, this may require that to move from hard to soft systems. A key
important obstacles be overcome, especially if operational premise of hard systems is that it is
the agent has been trained and socialized in one geared towards designing new (ontologically)
paradigm, and wishes to operate within another. 'real' systems, or in making existing systems
Even if we accept that agents are able to work work 'better'. Success in this task domain is
across different paradigms, the degree of contingent upon the agent possessing high levels
comfort that they experience is likely to depend of technical expertise which he or she must
upon the compatibility between themselves-- apply according to prevailing standards of
their beliefs/values, their personality, their rigour. Soft systems embody markedly different
preferred cognitive style, etc.--and the oper- operational premises. The stock-in-trade of soft
ational premises of the paradigm. systems is the construction of notional--not
If we turn first to the question of cultural ontologically real--systems and technical rigour
feasibility, the issue is the extent to which is secondary to relevance. The primary goal
 Omega, Vol. 25, No. 5 499

of agents working within this paradigm is to Karl Jung [83]. This type, it is claimed, prefers
'connect' with people--to facilitate intersubjec- quantitative, aggregate data, and has a distaste
tive understanding--and to help them reach for qualitative data [84-87]. He or she values
accommodation and a commitment to action. precision, accuracy and reliability. Consider
So in moving from hard to soft systems, the next, also from the Jungian schema, the
agent has to make a not-insignificant adjust- so-called 'particular humanist'. This personality
ment. Moving from either hard or soft systems type prefers to conduct research via personal
to the critical paradigm requires a further involvement with other humans. He or she
transformation. This has political overtones. prefers qualitative data and to report through
The critical paradigm almost obliges the agent personalized descriptive accounts. Such individ-
to have some degree of empathy for the uals tend to suggest consultative, group-process
underdog, a n d - - a t least in the traditional guise approaches to issues and zealously promote
of critical t h e o r y - - t o harbour noble dreams consensus and acceptance. They may be more
about creating a more equitable society. interested in promoting discussions about
If we accept that each paradigm does, indeed, premises than in exploring the premises in
have its own set of explicit and implicit detail [87, 88, 98].
operational premises of the sort just described, In comparing these two notional personality
we are forced to admit that journeying between types, the analytical scientist and the particular
paradigms is by no means a simple matter. humanist, it almost seems that we are, by
While we would not go so far as some who have default, attending to some of the key preferences
likened it to an odyssey involving severe, even that one could claim are required to operate
traumatic, philosophical and value dislo- effectively within the hard and soft management
cations [82], we do believe that moving between science paradigms. Obviously it is not as simple
paradigms can present serious difficulties, as that, and we should not read too much into
especially to agents whose normal modus these findings. The Jungian schema is only
operandi is to employ a single methodology. one of many in psychology, and real human
beings rarely fit neatly into the categories that
4.3. Cognitive feasibility psychologists invent to make sense of their
Whereas the cultural feasibility issue draws worlds. One suspects that most management
attention to obstacles that are socially con- scientists straddle two or more categories.
structed and which are often shared among a Notwithstanding these caveats, there will be
community of people, there are other difficulties some agents whose data handling and data
that may be more unique to a particular processing preferences do approximate these
individual. Cognitive processes are a case in types. For such people, it may be surmised that
point. they will experience some difficulties in moving
Because cognition is a vast area of study in from one paradigm to another, and/or experi-
its own right we cannot do justice to it here. All ence a certain internal tension or discomfort if
we can do is foreshadow some likely difficulties. they are compelled to work in a paradigm that
Cognitivism--the dominant perspective--views calls for actions and behaviours that do not 'fit'
cognition as a mentalistic data handling process, their cognitive processing preferences.
and, within this broad framework, there has While the data-processing perspective on
emerged a body of literature which examines the cognition has generally held sway, there are
relationship between personality type, data other cognitive perspectives that can also offer
processing preferences, and research prefer- insights into the issue of the feasibility of
ences. While the results of this research are by multimethodology. One such perspective,
no means conclusive, there is prima facie emerging out of the work of Maturana and
evidence that there is a correspondence between Varela [89]--and inspired by philosophers such
certain 'personality types' and the sort of work as Husserl, Merleau-Ponty and Heidegger--
that characterizes some of the key management challenges the idea that cognition is an
science paradigms. exclusively mentalistic data-processing activity,
By way of illustration, consider the 'analytical claiming that this says little about what it means
scientist' personality type, which is one of four to be human and operate effectively in everyday
major groupings in the well-known schema of lived situations. Cognition, it is argued, is not
500 Mingers and Brocklesby--Multimethodology

detached cogitation, but situated practical this is manifestly important, it represents

action. Under this view, moving from one only the very first tentative step in becoming
paradigm to another requires an agent to proficient in a new paradigm. Really 'knowing'
assimilate two basic types of knowledge. First, the paradigm--acting effectively in it--makes
rule-based 'propositional' knowledge that ap- more substantial demands, and these can only
plies to pre-defined bounded situations, and be satisfied through active bodily involvement,
which can be acquired through instruction. experience and practice. So the opportunities
Second, it requires 'commonsense' knowledge-- for these must be available. And let us not
or know-how--for situations that are more underestimate the difficulty of taking even the
ambiguous. This latter capability is pre- first step, which can itself pose a formidable
conscious, or instinctive, and it arises out of the barrier. Not many management scientists, for
accumulated lived experience of certain kinds example, who enter the discipline through the
of activity. soft or critical paradigms and, lacking a
Given that few, if any, of our 'lived worlds' background in mathematics or statistics, take
in MS have completely pre-defined bounded up the challenge task of learning sophisticated
environments, we may surmise that the posses- quantitative techniques. Virtually all those who
sion of know-how is a critical success factor for are known to be competent across the hard/soft
performing effectively in any of the paradigms. divide graduated from the hard to the soft
Becoming 'expert' is even more demanding, it paradigm.
being almost exclusively instinctive [90].
Varela et al. [91], add another relevant piece 5. TOWARDS MULTIMETHODOLOGY
to this jigsaw with their concept of enaction
or embodied cognition [99]. This connotes the So far we have argued that multi-paradigm
idea that as an individual confronts new multimethodology is both desirable and feas-
situations various experiences are gained ible, although there are a number of difficulties
through thinking, sensing and moving. The and problems to be overcome. In this section we
emphasis on moving demonstrates how the way will offer some guidance on the theoretical
we experience the world is very much an active difficulties of linking together different method-
construction involving the whole body, rather ologies or parts of methodologies in a
than, as the cognitivists would have it, it being systematic way. That it is possible to do it, at
the passive receipt of sense data. Effective action least in an ad hoc way, has been demonstrated
in a task domain depends upon having a body in Section 3.3 where several empirical examples
with various sensorimotor and orienting ca- of such links were presented. As for structures
pacities that allow an agent to act, perceive, and or frameworks to improve this process, it is
sense in distinctive ways. If the agent's body has again a matter for further research, but two
not learned how to orient itself in such a way possible ways forward will be presented.
that the relevant cues are picked up, then he or
she runs the risk of 'missing' that which others 5.1..4 framework for mapping methodologies
might pick up. Again, like commonsense In Section 3, on the desirability of multi-
knowledge, the problem is that these sorts of methodology, two important features of
orienting credentials grow out of accumulated interventions were described--their multi-
lived experience of certain kinds of activity. dimensionality and the different types of activity
They are entrenched in the day-to-day experi- that need to be undertaken. 1~ By combining
ence of acting in the world, and they become these two factors, a grid is produced (see
entangled in various ways in expert practice. Fig. 3a) that can be used to map the
The main implication of this is that learning characteristics of different methodologies to
how to operate effectively in a new paradigm help in linking them together.
requires an agent to do more than merely The logic of this framework is that a fully
assimilate new propositional knowledge. While comprehensive intervention needs to be con-
cerned with the three different worlds--
material, personal and social--and the four
°There are other important characteristics, especially the
agent(s) undertaking the intervention, but these are not different phases. Thus each box generates
dealt with in this paper. questions about particular aspects of the
 Omega, Vol. 25, No. 5 501

(a)
Appreciation Analysis Assessment Action
of or of to
social generate
distortions, ways of altering
practices,
Social power conflicts, existing empowerment and
interests structures enlightenment
:mlations

individual differing alternative generate

beliefs, perceptions and conceptualizations accommodation and
Personal meanings. and constructions
personal consensus
emotions
rationality

physical underlying alternative physical select and

circumsta- causal and s~mcmrul implement best
nces structure arrangements alternatives
Material

(b) i S Nc~°xa~J"~ ~

Social
Fig. 3a. A framework for mapping methodologies, b. Toblerone representation of the framework.

situation/intervention that need to be ad- box, but to look across all the boxes and note
dressed. 22It is then possible to look at particular all those that a particular methodology may
methodologies and see to what extent they help with. As shown in Fig. 3a, it appears the
address these questions and appraise their social and material dimensions are quite
relative strength in each box. The point is not to separate. This is not the intention but simply a
pigeon-hole a methodology into a particular result of displaying the framework in two-
dimensions. It should really be thought of as a
Toblerone bar as shown in Fig. 3b.
22These questions should not be interpreted objectivistically, Figure 4 shows a tentative mapping for a
that is capable of answers independent of the agents number of well-known methodologies. For
involved. Rather they will involve ongoing debate, example, SSM mainly contributes to exploring
construction and reflection amongst the agents and actors
involved. The philosophical position underlying this the personal dimension and is particularly
framework is Bhaskar's critical realism. See [77, 78]. strong (darker shading) for Analysis and
502 Mingers and Brocklesby--Multimethodology

<

.=. .<
<

.<

•iii•ii!ii!iiiiiiiiiiiii!iii•ii•iii•ii•i!•i!i•i•iii•i•iii
0
0 <
I° o

,< o

tzl~
.=.

<

< <

..= .~
0

0
< Z~
o

<
~°.
 Omega, Vol. 25, No. 5 503
Appreciation Analysis Assessment Action
of of of to

CSH +
Social SSM

SSM + SSM Strategic Choice

Personal Cognitive
SSM Mapping

Statistics Viable Systems

+ SSM Method
Material

Fig. 5. A possible multimethodologydesign.

Assessment, although it does have some from VSM. Finally, a Strategic Choice type
techniques for appreciating the social dimension commitment package is used to facilitate
(analysis 1, 2 and 3). Strategic Choice also agreement and implementation. Note that we
covers the full range of intervention activities, are not advocating standardized multimethod-
and is strongest for Assessment and Action (its ologies (although some may emerge in practice),
designing and choosing modes). But, we argue, but designs specific to each intervention.
it is not aimed so much at generating and We should note two c a v e a t s . First, the
exploring a diversity of individual viewpoints mappings above are clearly debatable. Propo-
(i.e. the personal world), more at generating nents of particular methodologies or techniques
commitment to a particular viewpoint, hence its may disagree with our positioning, or it may be
location across the personal/material line. VSM argued that the framework is deficient in some
is seen as relating essentially to the material and way. We would be quite happy for such debate
social worlds, providing a model of viable to take place as we believe that it would lead to
organizational structure based on an analysis of greater clarity about what different method-
biological organisms, and thus having the power ologies can and cannot do. Second, the
to analyse weaknesses and suggest effective mappings above reflect the standard, intended,
alternatives. There is nothing within the model use of particular methodologies. We have
for surfacing an individual's beliefs and already introduced the idea of linking parts of
perceptions. Cognitive mapping and SODA methodologies, indeed this is a prime function
has strengths in Appreciating and Analysing of the framework, and this opens the possibility
individuals' patterns of belief, and in gaining that techniques may be used in ways other than
commitment to Action (through merging maps), that intended. For example, instead of using the
but is weak in Assessing possible alternatives. VSM prescriptively, it may be employed simply
We can use such mappings to design effective as part of an exploratory conversation to
multimethodologies, one example of which is explore different peoples' understandings [92].
shown in Fig. 5. Here a range of complementary When this happens the methodology or
techniques is used in the appreciation phase-- technique clearly belongs in a different section
statistical analysis, SSM rich pictures and of the framework.
analyses 1, 2 and 3, and Critical Systems
Heuristics. In the Analysis and Assessment 5.2. Linking parts of methodologies
phases cognitive mapping, and root definitions The essence of multimethodology is linking
and conceptual models are used, with some help together parts of methodologies, possibly from
504 Mingers and Brocklesby--Multimethodology

different paradigms. This requires detailed study particular purpose or output, this needs to be
of the different methodologies to see where interpreted within the context of the particular
fruitful links can be created, but is in any case methodological stage that it realizes. Thus in
dependent on the idea that techniques can be moving a technique from one methodology (and
detached from one methodology and used in possibly paradigm) to another, its context and
another. Generally, such a transfer will conserve interpretation may be changed. To take one of
the original function, for example, using the examples above, if a systems dynamics
cognitive mapping within SSM to explore model is built as part of a hard methodology its
actors' viewpoints. However, it is possible to context will lead to the results being interpreted
transfer a methodology or technique into a as a model of reality. If it is detached and used
setting that makes different paradigm assump- within a soft setting it will be interpreted as a
tions. For example, mathematical pro- model of a notional system. The model-building
gramming 33 models are usually seen as process will be essentially the same, although
empirical-analytic, being putative models of the previous stage of generating inputs to the
external reality. However, they could be used as model will be different.
models of concepts, i.e. as models of how things Figure 6 shows a decomposition of SSM and
might be from a particular viewpoint [93], as concentrates on the stages concerned with
part of an interpretivist debate within SSM. expressing the real-world situation and mod-
Equally, a systems dynamics model could be elling relevant conceptual systems. Each of these
seen as a model of reality, or as a detailed and stages has particular techniques that help
dynamic cognitive map [34]. Moving in the accomplish them, for example, rich pictures and
opposite direction, a root definition and analyses 1, 2 and 3 for expressing the situation.
conceptual model that are usually assumed to Some techniques may have tools such as
refer to notional systems, could be used as the C A T W O E or a computerized CASE tool. It is
basis for the design of an actual, real-world, these techniques (and their lower level tools)
activity system. This approach is similar to that can be disconnected from the methodology,
Flood and Romm's[55] 'oblique' use of as shown by the thick lines, and used in other
methodology to help tackle coercive situations contexts within other methodologies. The figure
although it is more general. also shows how techniques can be imported
This linking process requires that method- into the methodology, for example, cognitive
ologies be decomposed in some systematic maps (and the associated computer tool
way to identify detachable elements and their COPE) instead of, or as well as, rich pictures;
functions or purposes. It is proposed this Ulrich's [94] critical systems heuristics (CSH) as
can be done in terms of the distinctions, a complement to analysis 3; or a viable systems
outlined above in Section 2.1, between philoso- model (VSM)[21] to aid development of a
phical principles (why), methodological stages conceptual model.
(what), and techniques (how). The primary The main emphasis in Fig. 6 is on the
focus of a methodology is its stages-- disconnection of techniques. The second possi-
a conceptual account of what needs to be bility mentioned above, of detaching stages,
done. These are justified by the principles, is possible and occurs in both methodolog-
and actualized by a set of activities or ical enhancement (adding a stage to another
techniques. The techniques may be comple- methodology that is deficient) and multi-
mentary to each other in that several must methodology (combining various stages to
occur, or they may be substitutes, any one being construct a new, ad hoc, methodology). It is,
potentially satisfactory. Potentially, it seems however, more problematic, particularly in
possible to detach either at the level of the multi-paradigm case since the stages are
techniques or at the level of methodological strongly related to their philosophical para-
stages. The former is more straightforward digm. More consideration needs to be given to
and is particularly useful in methodological this situation.
enhancement. Whilst a technique does have a To make the framework outlined above
practically useful, decomposition diagrams
33Forexample, linear programming, goal programming and such as Fig. 6 would need to be constructed for
data envelopmentanalysis (DEA). all possible methodologies, and the various
 Omega, Vol. 25, No. 5 505

~A

( o

0 o

1
506 Mingers and Brocklesby--Multimethodology

techniques and stages tabulated and cross- typically proceed. Combining these two dimen-
referenced. sions into a framework has allowed us to assess
the relative strengths of various methods and to
5.3. The pivotal role o f the agent foreshadow likely combinations that may be
The discussion above of cultural and cogni- assembled to deal with the exigencies of any
tive feasibility brings to the fore consideration particular intervention. We have also examined
of the particular agent(s) who will use multi- some of the philosophical, cultural, theoretical
methodology which is generally ignored in the and cognitive feasibility issues that multi-
methodology literature. This is somewhat ironic methodology raises. We can now outline aspects
given the importance that soft methodologies of an agenda for further research that we believe
place on the views o f actors in problem emerges out of this discussion [100].
situations. The point is that the choice of The first issue that requires further consider-
methodologies to combine must depend in part ation is whether the particular framework for
on the skills, knowledge, personal style and multimethodology presented here is under-
experience of the agent at a particular point in pinned by assumptions that are constitutive of
time. We cannot expect people to bring into a new paradigm, or whether it is, in fact,
play methodologies that they are unfamiliar meta-paradigmatic. Our position is that in
with, or that their cognitive style makes them seeking to reject the idea that multimethodology
uncomfortable with. Furthermore, if we con- must accede to the paradigm incommensur-
sider the critical use of multimethodology then, ability thesis we have turned to Giddens and
as Mingers[95] argues, we cannot expect Bhasker, both of whom dispute the claim that
abstract methodologies or frameworks to force we must choose between the competing realities
users to adopt a critical stance toward the status offered by realist or nominalist thinking. These
quo. Rather, it is the values, commitments and authors suggest that structure and meaning
emotions of the agent that predispose them to coexist in a dialectical relationship. Such a
adopt particular methodologies. position contends the very basis upon which
In practical terms, this aspect of multi- paradigms have traditionally been described,
methodology can be developed through a and obviates the need to reconcile hard and soft
framework that considers three relationships methods by appealing to higher levels of
within an intervention--that of the agent(s) reasoning. However, this does not mean that
to the theories and methodologies that are such a position is in some sense free of all
available; the agent to the problem situation; philosophical assumptions and thus extra- or
and the methodologies to the problem situ- meta- paradigmatic. Rather, our current view is
ation [95]. This is of particular relevance in that multimethodology research belongs to a
the early stages of an intervention when the new pluralist paradigm [96, 95] that accepts a
particular combination of methodologies or plurality of theories and approaches currently
parts is being designed, but continues through- but aims in the long run to integrate them
out as new aspects and events unfold. A series together. Consideration now needs to be given
of questions covering each of the three to exploring the wider practical implications of
relationships has been developed by Mingers multimethodology management science practice
[95] to assist in multimethodology design. operating according to the logic of this
paradigm.
6. CONCLUSIONS Second, the nature of the relationship
between multimethodology and critical systems
This paper began by identifying a number of thinking needs to be worked out. Multimethod-
alternative ways in which methodologies may ology has much in common with other critical
be combined. We then argued the case for systems frameworks such as TSI which delivers
multimethodology on the grounds that it has the its own set of commitments. Some of these we
potential to provide a more complete way of would wish to retain. Understanding the relative
dealing with the richness of the real world, strengths and weaknesses of different methods,
and because individual methodologies differ in for example, is very important, as is the need to
the degree to which they assist throughout the reflect upon the interests that are being pursued
various stages through which interventions in interventions. However, in moving away
 Omega, Vol. 25, No. 5 507

f r o m a p r i m a r y basis in H a b e r m a s ' theory o f o f more theoretically-driven concerns such as

knowledge-constitutive interests, it appears as those expressed here.
t h o u g h m u l t i m e t h o d o l o g y no longer has an
inherent c o m m i t m e n t to critique and emancipa-
tion. A l t h o u g h m u l t i m e t h o d o l o g y does ask the REFERENCES
user to consider the social and political context
1. Rosenhead, J., Diverse unity: the principles and
o f any intervention it does not presuppose a prospects for problem structuring methods. In
particular stance on it. Perhaps this debate Rational Analysis for a Problematic WorM, ed. J.
a b o u t m u l t i m e t h o d o l o g y should 'connect' with Rosenhead. Wiley, Chichester, 1989, pp. 341-358.
2. Bennett, P., On linking approaches to decision-aiding:
wider d e b a t e s - - m o d e r n i s t and p o s t m o d e r n i s t - - issues and prospects. Journal of the Operational
that are occurring within systems/OR regarding Research Society, 1985, 36, 659-670.
what constitutes an appropriate f o r m o f 3. Eden, C., Mixing methods: introduction. In Tackling
Strategic Problems, ed. C. Eden and T. Radford. Sage,
critique. As a minimum, because multimethod- London, 1990, p. 91.
ology ultimately seeks to provide the basis for 4. Jackson, M. and Keys, P., Towards a system of system
intervening and interfering in the lives o f others, methodologies. Journal of the Operational Research
Society, 1984, 35, 473-486.
consideration needs to be paid to the ethical 5. Flood, R., Solving Problem Solving. Wiley, Chichester,
aspects o f such action. 1995.
Third, m o r e research needs to be done on the 6. Flood, R. and Jackson, M., Creative Problem Solving.
Wiley, London, 1991.
cognitive and cultural obstacles that stand in 7. Burrell, G. and Morgan, G., Sociological Paradigms
the way o f multimethodology. Are there other and Organisational Analysis. Heinemann, London,
personality-related factors that impinge u p o n 1979.
8. Jackson, N. and Carter, P., "Paradigm wars": a
research preferences in addition to those response to Hugh Willmott. Organizational Studies,
identified here; can individuals operate effec- 1993, 14, 721-725.
tively in non-preferred research modes; what 9. Willmott, H., Breaking the paradigm mentality.
Organizational Studies, 1993, 14, 681-7t9.
are the preferences and 'habits o f m i n d ' o f 10. WiUmott, H., Paradigm gridlock: A reply. Organiz-
m a n a g e m e n t science people; what scope is there, ational Studies, 1993, 15, 727-730.
if any, for ' p a r a d i g m shifting'; to what extent 11. Denzin, N., The Research Act in Sociology: A
Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods.
does the prevailing cultural constitution o f the Butterworths, London, 1970.
systems/OR c o m m u n i t y mitigate against multi- 12. Bulmer, M., Sociological Research Methods.
m e t h o d o l o g y research; should there be changes Macmillan, London, 1984.
13. Blaikie, N., A critique of the use of triangulation
in the curriculum in tertiary education and in social research. Quality and Quantity, 1991, 25,
training to better develop m u l t i m e t h o d o l o g y 115-136.
competences? All o f these questions provide 14. Roth, P., Meaning and Method in the Social Sciences:
A Case for Methodological Pluralism. Cornell Univer-
fertile avenues for further reseach. sity Press, Cornell, 1987.
Fourth, alternative theoretical frameworks 15. Rouse, J., Indeterminacy, empirical evidence, and
to provide practical guidance for multi- methodological pluralism. Synthese, 1991, 86, 443-
465.
m e t h o d o l o g y design need to be investigated. 16. Watson, W., Types of pluralism. Monist, 1990,
The two-dimensional f r a m e w o r k presented here 350-366.
only illustrates one possibility. Inevitably there 17. Keat, R. and Urry, J., Social Theory as Science, 2nd
ed. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1981.
will be others that provide a potentially valuable 18. Pepper, S., Worm Hypotheses: a Study in Evidence.
source o f insight. Once frameworks are in place University of California Press, Berkeley, 1942.
we can then set a b o u t the task o f investigating 19. Smaling, A., The pragmatic dimension: paradigmatic
and pragmatic aspects of choosing a qualitative or
logical possibilities for combining methods, quantitative method. Quality and Quantity, 1994, 28,
putting them to w o r k and then reflecting u p o n 233-249.
the results. 20. Habermas, J., Justification and Application. Polity
Press, Cambridge, 1993.
Last, it is already apparent that a g o o d deal 21. Beer, S., Diagnosing the System for Organizations.
o f m u l t i m e t h o d o l o g y research is already being Wiley, Chichester, 1985.
undertaken that has not yet filtered t h r o u g h 22. Eden, C., Jones, S. and Sims, D., Messing About h~
Problems. Pergamom, Oxford, 1983.
into the literature. It would be useful to k n o w 23. Friend, J. and Hickling, A., Planning Under Pressure:
more a b o u t this work. The answers to questions The Strategic Choice Approach. Pergamon, Oxford,
like who is doing it, for what reasons, and 1987.
24. Checkland, P. and Scholes, J., Soft Systems Method-
h o w they are combining methods would ology in Action. Wiley, Chichester, 1990.
c o m p l e m e n t the insights that emerge out 25. Mingers, J. and Taylor, S., The use of Soft Systems
508 Mingers and Brocklesby Multimethodology

Methodology in practice. Journal of the Operational a guide to researchers. Journal of the Operational
Research Society, 1992, 43, 321-332. Research Society, 1993, 44, 208-209.
26. Savage, A. and Mingers, J., A framework for linking 47. Jones, G., On practice, systems methodologies, and the
Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) and Jackson need to do better. Journal of the Operational Research
Systems Society, 1993, 44, 845-848.
Development (JSD). Information Systems Journal, 48. Mingers, J., Recent developments in Critical Manage-
1996, 6, 109 130. ment Science. Journal of the Operational Research
27. Jackson, M., Which systems methodology when? Society, 1992, 43, 1-10.
Initial results from a research program. In Systems 49. Mingers, J., What are real friends for? A reply to Mike
Prospects: the Next Ten Years of Systems Research, ed. Jackson. Journal of the Operational Research Society,
R. Flood, M. Jackson and P. Keys. Plenum, New 1992, 43, 732-735.
York, 1989. 50. Mingers, J., Systems methodologies and critical
28. Jackson, M., Beyond a system of systems method- management science--some comments. Journal of the
ologies. Journal of the Operational Research Society, Operational Research Society, 1993, 44, 849-850.
1990, 41, 657-668. 51. Mingers, J., The system of systems methodologies--a
29. Keys, P., A methodology for methodology choice. reply to Schecter. Journal of the Operational Research
Systems Research, 1988, 5, 65-76. Society, 1993, 44, 206-208.
30. Ormerod, R., Putting soft OR methods to work: 52. Schecter, D., In defence of the system of system
information systems strategy development at Sains- methodologies: some comments on the Mingers/
bury's. Journal of the Operational Research Society, Jackson debate. Journal of the Operational Research
1995, 46, 277-293. Society, 1993, 44, 205-206.
31. Holt, J., Disarming defences: a mix and match 53. Flood, R. and Romm, N., Diversity management:
approach to problem solving. OR Insight, 1994, 7, theory in action. Systems Practice, 1995, 8, 469-482.
19-26. 54. Flood, R. and Romm, N., Enhancing the process of
32. Taket, A., Mixing and matching: developing and methodology choice in total systems intervention (TSI)
evaluating innovatory health promotion projects. OR and improving chances of tackling coercion. Systems
Insight, 1993, 6, 18-23. Practice, 1995, 8, 377-408.
33. Ormerod, R., On the nature of OR--entering the fray. 55. Flood, R. and Romm, N., Diversity Management:
Journal of the Operational Research Society, 1996, 47, Triple Loop Learning. Wiley, Chichester, 1996.
1-17. 56. Habermas, J., The Theory of Communicative Action
34. Eden, C., Cognitive mapping and problem structuring Vols. I and H, Polity Press, Oxford, 1984.
for systems dynamics model building. Working Paper 57. Searle, J., The Construction of Social Reality. The
94/6, Department of Management Science, Strathclyde Penguin Press, London, 1996.
University, Glasgow, 1994. 58. Holt, J., No waffle in Darlington. OR Newsletter,
35. Lehaney, B. and Paul, R., Developing sufficient January, 8-9, 1993.
conditions for an activity cycle diagram from the 59. Boothroyd, H., Articulate Intervention: the Interface
necessary conditions in a conceptual model. Systemist, of Science, Mathematics and Administration, Taylor
1994, 16, 261 268. and Francis, London, 1978.
36. Hocking, A. and Lee, P., Systems thinking and 60. Stowell, F. (ed.) Information Systems Provision: The
business process re-design: a case for combining Contribution of Soft Systems Methodology', McGraw-
techniques. International Systems Dynamics Confer- Hill, London, 1995.
ence, Stirling, 1994. 61. Bennett P., Mixing methods: Combining conflict
37. Midgley, G., Critical systems and the problem of analysis, SODA, and strategic choice. In Tackling
pluralism. Cybernetics and Systems, 1989, 20, 219-231. Strategic Problems: The Role of Group Decision
38. Midgley, G., Creative methodology design. Systemist, Support, ed. C. Eden and J. Radford. Sage, London,
1990, 12, 108-113. 1990.
39. Midgley, G., Critical systems thinking and methodo- 62. Bennett, P. and Cropper, S., Uncertainty and conflict:
logical pluralism. In Towards a Just Society for Future combining conflict analysis and strategic choice.
Generations. Volume I: Systems Design, ed. B. Banathy Journal of Behavioural Decision Making, 1990, 3,
and B. Banathy. Proceedings of the 34th Annual 29-45.
Meeting of the International Society for the Systems 63. Lane, D. and Oliva, R., The Greater Whole: Towards
Sciences, 1990, pp. 86-107. a Synthesis of SD and SSM. In Proceedings of the
40. Midgley, G., Pluralism and the legitimation of systems International Systems Dynamics Conference, Stirling,
science. Systems Practice, 1992, 5, 147-172. 11-15 July, 1994.
41. Mingers, J., Using Soft Systems Methodology in the 64. Gains, A. and Rosenhead, J., Problem structuring for
design of information systems. In Information Systems medical quality assurance. London School of Econ-
Provision: The Contribution of Soft Systems Method- omics Working Paper No. 93.8, LSE, London, 1993.
ology, ed. F. Stowell. McGraw-Hill, London, 1995, 65. Ackerman, F. and Belton, V., Managing corporate
pp. 18 50. knowledge experiences with SODA and VISA. British
42. Ormerod, R., Combining management consultancy Journal of Management, 1994, 5, 163-176.
and research. Omega, 1996, 24, 1-12. 66. Taket, A. and White, L., After OR: An agenda
43. Ormerod, R., The design of organizational interven- for postmodernism and poststructuralism in OR.
tion, Omega, 1997, 25, 415-435. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 1993, 44,
44. Jackson, M., Systems Methodology for the Manage- 867-881.
ment Sciences. Plenum Press, New York and London, 67. Taker, A. and White, L., Postmodernism--why
1991. bother? Systemist, 1994, 16, 175-186.
45. Jackson, M., How to cause anguish without really 68. Mingers, J., Separating the wheat from the chaff: a
trying: a reply to Graham Jones. Journal of the modernist appropriation of the postmodern. Sys-
Operational Research Society, 1993, 44, 848-849. temist, 1994, 16, 255-260.
46. Jackson, M., The system of systems methodologies: 69. Astley, W. and van der Ven, A., Central perspectives
 Omega, Vol. 25, No. 5 509

and debates in organisation theory. Administrative 88. McKenney, J. and Keen, P., How managers' minds
Science Quarterly, 1983, 28, 245-273. work. Harvard Business Review, 1974, 52, 79-90.
70. Morgan, G., Beyond Method: Strategies for Social 89. Maturana, H. and Varela, F., Autopoiesis and
Research. Sage, Beverly Hills CA, 1983. Cognition: The Realisation of the Living. Reidel,
71. Morgan, G., Images of Organisation. Sage, Newbury Dordrecht, 1980.
Park CA, 1986. 90. Dreyfus, L. H., The Current Relevance of Merleau-
72. Hassard, J., Multiple paradigms and organizational Ponty's Phenomenology of Embodiment. In Perspec-
analysis: A case study. Organization Studies, 1991, 12, tives on Embodiment, ed. H. Haber and G. Weiss.
275-299. Routledge, New York and London, 1996.
73. Hassard, J., Overcoming hermeticism in organization 91. Varela, F., Thompson, E. and Rosch, E., The
theory: An alternative to paradigm incommensurabil- Embodied Mind--Cognitive Science and Human Ex-
ity. Human Relations, 1988, 41, 247-259. perience. MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 1991.
74. Gioia, A. and Pitre, E., Multiparadigm perspectives on 92. Harnden, R., Outside and then: an interpretive
theory building. Academy of Management Review, approach to the VSM. In The Viable Systems Model:
1990, 15, 584-602. Interpretations and Applications of Stafford Beer's
75. Weaver, G. and Gioia, D., Paradigms lost: incommen- VSM, ed. R. Espejo and R. Harnden. Wiley,
surability vs structurationist inquiry. Organizational Chichester, 1989, pp. 383-404.
Studies, 1994, 15, 565-590. 93. Bryant, J., Frameworks of inquiry: OR practice across
76. Mingers, J., Subjectivism and soft systems method- the hard-soft divide. Journal of the Operational
ology--a critique. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, Research Society, 1988, 39, 423-435.
1984, 11, 85-103. 94. Ulrich, W., Critical Heuristics of Social Planning.
77. Bhaskar, R., Reclaiming Reality. Verso, London, 1989. Wiley, Chichester, 1994.
78. Bhaskar, R., Plato Etc. Verso, London, 1994. 95. Mingers, J., Towards critical pluralism. In Multi-
79. Jermier, J. and Clegg, S., Critical issues in organis- methodology: Theory and Practice of Combining
ational science: A dialogue. Organisation Science, Management Science Methodologies, ed. J. Mingers
1994, 5, 1-13. and A. Gill. Wiley, Chichester, 1997, 407-440.
80. Brocklesby, J., Intervening in the cultural constitution 96. Jackson, M., Pluralism in systems thinking and
of systems--methodological complementarism and practice. In Multimethodology: Theory and Practice of
other visions for systems research. Journal of the Combining Management Science Methodologies, ed. J.
Operational Research Society, 1995, 46, 1285-1298. Mingers and A. Gill. Wiley, Chichester, 1997, 347-378.
81. Lincoln, Y., The Making of a Constructivist: 97. Jackson, M., With friends like this..a comment on
A Remembrance of Transformations Past. In The Mingers' "Recent Developments in Critical Manage-
Paradigm Dialog, ed. E. G. Guba. Sage, Newbury ment Science". Journal of the Operational Research
Park CA, 1990. Society, 1992, 43, 729-735.
82. Guba, G., Carrying on the Dialog. In The Paradigm 98. Steinbruner, J., The Cybernetic Theory of Decision.
Dialog, ed. E. G. Guba. Sage, Newbury Park CA, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1974.
1990. 99. Mingers, J., Embodying information systems. In
83. Jung, G., Psychological Types. Princeton University Information Technology and Changes in Organizational
Press, Princeton N J, 1971. Work, ed. W. Orlikowski, G. Walsham, M. Jones and
84. Stumpf, S. and Dunbar, R., The effects of personality J. DeGross. Chapman and Hall, London, 1996,
type on choices made in strategic decision situations. pp. 272 294.
Decision Sciences, 1991, 22, 1047-1069. 100. Mingers, J. and Gill, T., ed., Multimethodology: Theory
85. Blaycock, B. and Rees, P., Cognitive style and the and Practice of Combining Management Science
usefulness of information. Decision Sciences, 1984, 15, Methodologies. Wiley, Chichester, 1997.
74-91. I01. Giddens, A., The Constitution of Society, Polity Press,
86. Nutt, P., Influence of decision styles on use of decision Cambridge, 1984.
models. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
1979, 14, 77-93. Dr John Mingers, Warwick
A D D R E S S FOR C O R R E S P O N D E N C E :
87. Nutt, P., Decision style and its impact on managers Business School, The University of Warwick, Coventry
and management. Technological Forecasting and Social CV4 7AL. Tel." 01203 523523 Extn 2475, Fax: 01203
Change, 1986, 29, 341-366. 523719. E-maiL" [email protected]