Conducting engaged logistics and supply chain research: From real-world problems to journal publication

At the heart of the criticism is questioning the importance of the problem being studied and the usefulness of the insights and solutions offered. Research that will be published next month in the Journal of Business Logistics (JBL) by Ted Stank and his colleagues has gone as far as to suggest that “The positivist research tradition has served the field well in offering empirically supportable findings. However, it has proven limited in its ability to address the evolving complexities of modern supply chains” (Stank et al., 2024). This is an important statement for journals like JBL that work to provide valuable managerial implications to the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals and the LCSM field as a whole (Davis-Sramek & Richey, 2021).

More engaged research within the LSCM discipline will help move the needle in the right direction. Engaged research is grounded in problematization (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2011) as a critical step toward identifying exciting research problems and articulating compelling solutions. As such, we have two objectives: to clarify what engaged research is and to present a design approach (Mathiassen, 2017) that researchers can use to navigate the complex process of conducting engaged research that addresses current real-world LSCM problems. Accordingly, we explain what engaged research is in the broader context of business research based on the pioneering work by Van de Ven and Johnson (2006), followed by a brief overview of engaged research in LSCM. Next, we elaborate on Mathiassen's design approach to engaged research with examples from LSCM. We conclude by discussing how LSCM scholars can best use the suggested approach. Staying true to the idea of reflexive and innovative research endeavors, we avoid offering “cookie-cutter” prescriptions on how to do research and instead aim to inspire and encourage LSCM scholars to do more engaged research.

Engaged research offers a wide range of rigorous research approaches and methodologies that share a common interest in collaborative engagement with the community. It aims to improve, understand, or investigate an issue of industrial or societal interest or concern, including environmental and societal challenges. Please note that while engaged research specifically focuses on conducting research collaboratively with external stakeholders to address real-world issues, engaged scholarship (a term frequently used) encompasses a broader scope of activities beyond the specific research context and a more immersive approach to the world surrounding us. While this broader, more holistic scope is highly desirable, it is beyond the focus of this editorial.

Van de Ven is typically regarded as the pioneer of engaged research. In his seminal book “Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research,” Van de Ven and Johnson (2006) outline the basics of the approach with a focus on training doctoral students to become engaged scholars. His companion article offers a more compressed guide (Van de Ven & Johnson, 2006). Figure 1 outlines the levels of engagement and the approaches we typically associate with engaged research. Van de Ven encouraged research beyond description and explanation (beyond collaborative basic research) to focus on design and control. Such engaged research seeks to answer the question, “Does it work?” and has long been encouraged in LSCM (Holmström et al., 2009; Näslund, 2002).

Design science involves systematically creating and evaluating artifacts to address specific problems or fulfill identified needs within a given context. It integrates scientific principles with practical applications to develop innovative solutions, often in fields like engineering, information systems, or healthcare. Intervention research, on the other hand, focuses on investigating the effects and outcomes of planned interventions, such as programs, policies, or treatments, aimed at bringing about desired changes in individuals, groups, or systems, contributing to evidence-based practice and policymaking.

Action research is a dynamic and participatory approach that empowers practitioners to investigate and address real-world problems within their own contexts collaboratively. It involves planning, acting, observing, and reflecting cycles, allowing for continuous improvement and adaptation of strategies. Through this iterative process, action research fosters practical insights and meaningful change while promoting the engagement and ownership of stakeholders, that is, going beyond design science and intervention research.

Van de Ven's suggestions for more immersive research inevitably led to criticism of the approach (McKelvey, 2006). We acknowledge the criticism that the purpose of scientific papers is not primarily to inform practitioners, as we have plenty of other channels to disseminate research results. However, more engaged research will increase relevance, benefit the LSCM discipline, and work toward solving societal problems.

There are many previous papers in JBL that, while not mentioning engaged research and labeling their work as a case study, carry out an intervention in their study (see, Sternberg et al., 2012).

Touboulic et al. (2020) suggest a different take on engaged research (though their work looks at the broader scope of engaged scholarship). They suggest that engagement takes a more transformative approach as researchers actively shape the world “into more socially equitable societies” (p. 47). While we acknowledge that this approach falls under the umbrella of engaged research, an important distinction must be made. At its core, engaged research presumes ignorance at the start of the investigation. In contrast, engaged research starts by admitting that we do not know everything about the topic at hand. However, it also begins with a specific perspective or opinion, guiding the detailed examination of the subject. As presented here, engaged research does not assume anything other than the existence of a problem worth exploring rather than one that requires a critical or activist stance. While the discovery techniques are similar, the starting point is often different, providing a particular backdrop for each approach's findings.

While the findings of such studies advance scientific knowledge in specific domains, the problematization approach requires thoroughly scrutinizing current assumptions and argumentation in a field. Then, it challenges “the assumptions that underlie not only others' but also one's theoretical position, and based on that, to construct novel research questions” (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2011, p. 252). Hence, gap spotting emerges and manifests differently than in traditional positivist research, providing a unique context for contribution to theory and practice.

Figure 2 provides an engaged research study's underlying composition and logic (Mathiassen, 2017, p. 19). At its center, the inquiry poses a research question (RQ) that stems from a real-life problem (P) in an existing area of knowledge (A). Answering the RQ involves gathering and analyzing real-world data using a specific method (M) and potentially relying on a theoretical framework (F). Ultimately, this process results in contributions to solving the problem (Contribution to Problem, CP) and to the literature (Contribution to area, CA), potentially leading to the evolution of new or refined theoretical frameworks (Contribution to frame, CF) or improved methods (Contribution to method, CM). An example of contributions is given in Table 1.

The starting point of engaged research is always a real-world problematic situation (P). The extant literature provides valuable guidance, and the P as a starting point corresponds to what Mentzer and Kahn (1995) labeled empirical observation as a means of substantive justification of the study. Starting with a problem affords problematization that “supports a more reflective scholarly attitude” (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2011, p. 253), generally leading to more nuanced and articulated findings.

The engaged research approach then explicitly puts theory in two places: the area of concern (A) and the theoretical framing (F). The A represents the body of knowledge related to the P. As outlined by Mathiassen, “designing a suitable A requires a review of the literature with a focus on whether you can construct an opportunity to contribute to that literature, based on your engagement with P” (Mathiassen, 2017, p. 19). A might represent one or more streams of literature. While A often represents theoretical knowledge, it can also include various sources of empirical knowledge about the problem. In the design phase of the study, it is essential to find out where A falls short of offering knowledge to address P. Research that challenges parts of A will usually be considered more interesting (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2011). Hence, the RQ is derived from managing the P in A. As noted above, we have taken inspiration from Alvesson and Sandberg (2011). Still, we would direct the readers to this reference for further guidance on generating research questions based on problematization.

The F (theoretical framing) helps to structure the data collection and analysis. The theoretical framing can be part of A or be completely independent (as often in LSCM when we borrow from other fields). While we advise caution, using more than one theory for the framing is also possible, as the intersection of two theories can pose an interesting theoretical tension. This is often the most challenging part of identifying F. There is also likely no suitable F for the RQ, pointing toward grounded theory approaches. As in all scientific methods, the M selected needs to be appropriate for investigating the RQ through the lens of the F (Frankel et al., 2005).

As explained above, Mathiassen (2017) outlines four types of contributions. For an LSCM paper to contribute, at least one of these contributions must be present and significant. Typically, an article will have one contribution to the problem (CP) and one or two contributions to the literature (CA). Contributions to framing (CF) or methods (CM) are welcome and vital but rare.

While not a “cookie-cutter” approach on how to do research (as that would be contrary to reflexive and innovative research studies), this research offers practical guidance on how scholars can conduct research that answers real-world problems and more likely leads to journal publication. We suggest using an iterative design document to aid the research and publication process.

Given the continuous dialogue on relevance and rigor, we suggest an approach to engaged LSCM research that represents a step toward more theorizing of current real-world problems. The approach will only increase the relevance of LSCM if it focuses on the issues of importance to the broader society. Alvesson et al. (2017) give helpful directions for addressing meaningful problems. Finding and defining the “P” requires effort and takes time. Scholars must keep their ears to the ground to determine a relevant and exciting P.

We advise against using engaged research loosely as a label or as an inappropriate excuse for lacking methodological rigor. At the same time, we welcome more engaged research addressing critical real-world problems; not all research needs or should be engaged. Likewise, while we agree with previous calls for more design science and action research (the middle and bottom of Figure 1), these methods require proper training and execution. As JBL is open to all methodologies, engaged research is very much welcome.

Higher education is constantly scrutinized. Doctoral programs should encourage more engaged scholarship to enable a higher impact and dissemination of LSCM research in the future.