Multimethodology or multimethod research includes the use of more than one method of data collection or research in a research study or set of related studies. Mixed methods research is more specific in that it includes the mixing of qualitative and quantitative data, methods, methodologies, and/or paradigms in a research study or set of related studies. One could argue that mixed methods research is a special case of multimethod research. Another applicable, but less often used label, for multi or mixed research is methodological pluralism. All of these approaches to professional and academic research emphasize that monomethod research can be improved through the use of multiple data sources, methods, research methodologies, perspectives, standpoints, and paradigms.

The term multimethodology was used starting in the 1980s and in the 1989 book Multimethod Research: A Synthesis of Styles by John Brewer and Albert Hunter. During the 1990s and currently, the term mixed methods research has become more popular for this research movement in the behavioral, social, business, and health sciences. This pluralistic research approach has been gaining in popularity since the 1980s.

There are four broad classes of research studies that are currently being labeled "mixed methods research":

The case for multimethodology or mixed methods research as a strategy for intervention and/or research is based on four observations:

In the specific methodological strand of qualitative text and discourse analysis, a multi-method approach offers more practical advantages beyond a more holistic worldview. A framework developed by Alejandro and Zhao identifies key benefits such as complementarity, where one method's strengths compensate for another's weaknesses and confirmation through triangulation of findings. This is illustrated by the work of Hamid and Jahan on identity battles in Bangladeshi print media, where they combine the breadth of content analysis with the depth of critical discourse analysis to examine how social divides are discursively constructed.

Furthermore, multi-method designs can facilitate better contextualization, for instance by using a discourse-based approach as an analytical framework to interpret the results of a thematic analysis, thereby explicitly linking textual findings to their socio-political environment. This allows researchers to ask a wider range of questions and can enable scaling up or zooming in on data in ways that a single method cannot. This is for instance illustrated by Tian and Dumlao on classroom interactions where thematic analysis identifies learners' behaviors and Critical Classroom Discourse Analysis is then used as a framework to analyze their impact on identity construction.

There are also some hazards to multimethodological or mixed methods research approaches. Some of these problems include:

Beyond paradigm clashes, a significant challenge in multi-method research is the risk of dissolution, where the unique strengths of each method are lost in a poorly integrated bad mix. This can occur when a researcher is not sufficiently expert in the methods being combined. It could lead to results that are less rigorous than a well-executed single-method study. Navigating the practical integration of methods—deciding on their timing, their relation to the data, and how their analytical tools will interact—is a core feasibility concern.