Current IS research often classifies research “philosophies” into three types: positivist, interpretive and critical. Positivist methods have been well documented for over 30 years. Iinterpretive methods have been presented as an important alternative approach for more than 20 years, especially through process research (Markus and Robey 1988), hermeneutics (Boland 1982), intensive research methods (MISQ 1999), qualitative research in IS (Avison and Myers, 2000), phenomenology (Boland, 1985) and interpretive field studies (Klein and Myers 1997). Critical methods are also becoming more visible. However, a growing number of trends do not fit easily into this classification, for instance the “design sciences”. Additionally, many epistemological questions have received little attention in the IS field. Examples for these are alternative types of knowledge (practical, theoretical, ethical, applicative), the nature of IS theories (explanation, prediction and control versus understanding), their perspective (nomothetical versus ideographical) and alternative modes of inference and generalization (induction, deduction, abduction). The reflective choice of “research method” as opposed to merely adopting a convention also requires the positioning of research in response to the “linguistic turn”, the Kuhnian revolution, and the subsequent “phenomenological- hermeneutic” and “postmodernist turns” in the human sciences. This min-track seeks to explore these issues.