During the last decade or so, an increasing concern for methodological questions has surfaced in MIS. Contributors to these different forums can roughly be caricatured as falling into three different groups: the mainstream navigators and the unity advocates who favor methodological monism, and the knights of change who advocate pluralism. This methodological controversy is the main concern of this paper, which structures the debate in such a way that stakes become more visible and that propositions can be put into perspective. It is based on the premise that if we want our methods to be rigorous, we should talk rigorously about the choice and design of research methods. The paper first highlights some important factors behind the emergence of methodological pluralism in MIS. The second part is an epistemological examination of the two main lines of arguments generally advanced in support of methodological monism. We make the point that these lines of arguments are weakly supported. We then examine reasons for the low level of acceptance of methodological pluralism in MIS. We suggest that the proponents of methodological pluralism in MIS, the knights of change, have to be more articulate in the presentation of their case. As proponents of a disciplined pluralism, we propose, in the last part of the paper, an approach derived from Laudan's reticulated model of scientific rationality and from Toulmin's model of arguments. The central thesis of this paper is that methodological monism is untenable, and that a disciplined methodological pluralism for our field is a reasonable position that does not lead to anarchism.