Breaking Up the Mono-Method Monopolies in Organizational Research

Recent discussions of methodology have been dominated by two arguments: that one methodology is generally better than another or that one methodology is better than another for the purpose of addressing a particular theoretical issue. Qualitative and quantitative versions of both these arguments are analyzed and refuted. Both arguments are shown to create blind spots in organizational theory. The difficulties of using multi-method alternatives, such as triangulation and the creation of hybrid methodologies, are acknowledged, and some solutions are proposed including a methodological existentialism.