research on logistics and supply chain management

At the MIT Center for Transportation & Logistics

• Center for Latin-American Logistics Innovation
• Luxembourg Center for Logistics and Supply Chain Management
• Malaysia Institute for Supply Chain Innovation
• MIT Center for Transportation & Logistics
• Ningbo China Institute for Supply Chain Innovation
• Zaragoza Logistics Center
• Master's Degree Programs
• GCLOG Certificate
• Master's Program Admissions
• Researchers
• Alumni Benefits & SCALE Credentials

Supply Chain and Logistics Research and Reports

The MIT Global Supply Chain and Logistics Excellence (SCALE) Network strives to develop and disseminate supply chain expertise around the world. Our  researchers work on projects/problems across the full spectrum of supply chain, including:

• How artificial intelligence and machine learning are impacting supply chain management
• How transportation and freight are changing in a global marketplace
• The promises and pitfalls of Blockchain for supply chain and beyond
• Understanding how companies and organizations manage supply chain risk and build resiliency
• Developments in logistics and strategy for the worlds vulnerable populations
• How digitalization is reshaping supply chains and how these changes impact organizations
• How supply chain consumer models are changing in an increasingly complex retail landscape
• How companies and organizations manage supply chain risk and build resiliency
• Managing sustainability in a competitive global landscape

Learn about our Centers' research and projects on their web sites:

• Browse All Articles
• Newsletter Sign-Up

SupplyChain →

No results found in working knowledge.

• Were any results found in one of the other content buckets on the left?
• Try removing some search filters.
• Use different search filters.

Qualitative research in logistics and supply chain management: beyond the justification for using qualitative methods

International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management

ISSN : 0960-0035

Article publication date: 31 August 2012

Gammelgaard, B. and Flint, D. (2012), "Qualitative research in logistics and supply chain management: beyond the justification for using qualitative methods", International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management , Vol. 42 No. 8/9. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijpdlm.2012.00542haa.001

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2012, Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Article Type: Guest editorial From: International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Volume 42, Issue 8/9

This special issue on qualitative research in supply chain management (SCM) and logistics is of course about qualitative methods. But it is more than that; it is also about doing research that is qualitative in its essence. Qualitative research is not just about using for example interview data in a study, it is also about how one perceives qualitative data, the theoretical lens through which one conducts analyses, and the data analysis processes. Further it is about asking questions such as do the findings have truth value or do they provide insight based on interpretation in a subjective ontology? Such issues are seldom addressed in SCM and logistics journal papers even when qualitative research is presented. It is as if there is still a tacit agreement that there is one way to approach the discipline and that this way is assumed to still be a positivistic one as was stated about the logistics field 17 years ago by Mentzer and Kahn (1995). There are, however, more ways of conducting research and thereby extending and enriching the knowledge base of SCM. Qualitative research methods should be chosen when questions asked about a phenomenon require them. Thus, having the qualitative approaches in one’s toolbox enables far more research questions to be asked and helps to reveal more about the complexity of supply chain networks today. Sharing how some outstanding scholars approach qualitative research in SCM so that other researchers can leverage this knowledge is what this special issue is about.

All eight papers in this special issue touch upon deeper issues than “just” discussing the legitimacy of using qualitative data and introducing new qualitative methods to the field without further reflection. With this special issue we are building on a tradition that in our perspective started with Ellram’s (1996) article, “The use of the case study method in logistics research.” Qualitative methods are still relatively sparse in the discipline even though an increasing number of papers adopting a qualitative approach can be observed throughout scientific journals across numerous fields (Sachan and Datta, 2005; update by Goffin et al. (2012) this special issue). Although still lagging behind quantitative approaches in our field, surveys in particular, qualitative methods are gaining ground and therefore deserve attention and greater discussion. From our perspective, this development is interesting not because we dislike surveys or math modeling, but because more approaches to conducting rigorous research enrich the discipline (Gammelgaard, 2004).

Contributors to this special issue were asked to reflect on their own experiences in conducting qualitative research and share their insights rather than simply describe methodologies, something that can be done in other forums. Thereby, we wanted to enhance the collective field’s understanding of the use of qualitative approaches as well as qualitative aspects of SCM and logistics research. Such reflections are to be found especially in these articles: “A reviewer’s guide to the grounded theory methodology in logistics and supply chain management research” by Manuj and Pohlen (2012); “Rigor in qualitative supply chain management research: lessons from applying repertory grid technique” by Goffin, Raja, Claes, Szwejczewski and Martinez; “Using the ‘documentary method’ to analyse qualitative data in logistics research” by Trautrims, Grant, Cunliffe and Wong; and “Towards a methodology for studying supply chain practice” by Borgström (2012).

Some authors of articles here found additional ways of relating abstract methodological discussions to SCM and logistics research. For example, Denk, Kaufmann and Carter draw on a literature review of published studies using grounded theory (GT) in their article “Increasing the rigor of grounded theory research – a review of the SCM literature” while Golicic and Davis review studies of SCM and logistics using mixed methods (Denk et al. , 2012).

Nilsson and Gammelgaard as well as Borgström show ways of studying logistics and SCM issues from different and new angles. Nilsson and Gammelgaard (2012) point out in their article “Moving beyond the systems approach in SCM and logistics research” the importance of basic assumptions in the movement of the traditional systems approach towards higher and more contemporary levels of systems to depict the complexity of today’s global supply chains. Borgström (2012) proposes a practice approach to researching SCM in her article “Towards a methodology for studying supply chain practice.” By describing a constructivist/interpretivist approach, referred to as mystery methodology, Borgström contributes to a sparsely developed line of thought in SCM that emphasizes social action and organizational aspects of the field (Nilsson and Gammelgaard, 2012).

It is worth noting that this special issue contains no less than three papers on GT following the Mello and Flint (2009) paper in JBL , “A refined view of grounded theory and its application to logistics research.” These three papers are Denk et al. ’s (2012) “Increasing the rigor of grounded theory research – a review of the SCM literature,” Manuj and Pohlen’s (2012) “A reviewer’s guide to the grounded theory methodology in logistics and supply chain management research” and, Randall and Mello’s (2012) “Grounded theory: an inductive method for supply chain research.” With the extensive discussion of the use of GT in these three articles, the discipline has taken one more step in developing the qualitative method toolbox of the field.

The special issue begins with Golicic and Davis (2012), “Implementing mixed methods research in supply chain management”. In this paper, they suggest that using both qualitative and quantitative methods within one study will advance the discipline by providing a richer understanding of phenomena and more robust explanations. The paper sets out by outlining the paradigmatic preconditions for using mixed methods and thereafter they present an overview of the use of mixed methods in the SCM and closely related fields. They show that using mixed methods is rare and further that often when using mixed methods this is not identified as such in the published research, creating problems when reviewing such contributions. By suggesting a balanced approach between qualitative and quantitative methods in a mixed method design, the authors claim that new fields of study, such as supply chain design, are much better understood with a mixed method study than with only a qualitative or qualitative, respectively.

The relevance versus rigor discussion in SCM has gone on for some time (Mentzer, 2008). The question of rigor in GT studies in SCM is taken up by Denk et al. (2012) in the article “Increasing the rigor of grounded theory research – a review of the SCM literature.” After discussing the differences between the Glaserian and Straussian approach to grounded theories, they develop and discuss the quality criteria of each approach and then use them to analyze published studies that have used this method. They conclude that there is still work to be done in making such studies more rigorous.

But it is not only a question of mixing methods and being more rigorous in what is done that is needed to expand qualitative research in SCM according to Nilsson and Gammelgaard’s (2012) article “Moving beyond the systems approach in SCM and logistics research.” By disentangling the differences in basic assumptions about structure, human behavior and time in different systems approaches, they show an alternative way to study phenomena where human behavior in organizations is the focus of study.

Quality and rigor is also the focus of Manuj and Pohlen’s (2012) article “A reviewer’s guide to the grounded theory methodology in logistics and supply chain management research.” In this article they propose recommendations for reviewing GT as this methodology is relatively new for the community of editors and reviewers in the field. By analyzing literature dealing with GT they present a reviewers’ guide to manuscript evaluation.

The article by Goffin and colleagues is also aimed at increasing rigor in qualitative studies. In their article “Rigor in qualitative supply chain management research – lessons from applying repertory grid technique” these authors suggest a qualitative method that enables respondents to articulate views of complex issues where constructs are unclear at the outset. On the basis of coding and validating constructs from in-depth interviews, construct characteristics are counted based on frequency of appearance but at the same time given a weight of importance by a measure of average normalized variability (ANV). By this partially quantitative analysis of qualitative data, the repertory grid technique provides an insight into essential constructs and increased construct validity for subsequent quantitative studies.

The documentary method proposed by Trautrims and colleagues, suggests using in-depth interviews as the background for getting more insight to business practice, with a focus on logistics micro processes, for example, in-store logistics for large retail outlets. In their article “Using the ‘documentary method’ to analyse qualitative data in logistics research” the authors emphasize the importance of rich descriptions of logistics micro processes by analyzing such descriptions through coding and conceptualizing the information towards higher levels of abstraction (Trautrims et al. , 2012). The authors highlight authenticity as a major attribute of the method. By exploring logistics micro processes, the interview taps into tacit knowledge about how logisticians actually work on a particular process in a way where pure observation would not have been sufficient.

Borgström points to connecting with actual practice as a very important line of inquiry in logistics and SCM. Richer insight through interpretation of supply chain and logistics processes provides the opportunity to explore unexpected outcomes in both theory and practice and to go beyond a normative approach common in SCM research. The “mystery methodology” analyzes field practices to explore the social construction of SCM and attempts to explain how participants interpret concepts and establish meaning. By doing this, researchers can understand better the dynamics and complexity of SCM.

Capturing the complexity of supply chains – systems of supply chain systems – is a major argument for applying GT according to Randall and Mello’s (2012) article, “Grounded theory: an inductive method for supply chain research.” This final article in the special issue emphasizes GT as appropriate to relatively unexplored phenomena within SCM, such as mindsets, culture, values and norms in supply chains. With a discussion of the paradigmatic standpoint of GT, the authors address GT research processes and consequently how GT research should be evaluated.

Our conclusion from working with this special issue is that there is still a need for development of the methodological toolbox of the field. This special issue highlights tools related to “mixed methods”, “GT”, “repertory grid technique” and the “documentary method”, all of which should help researchers provide a deeper and richer understanding of logistics and SCM phenomena and at the same time deliver the much sought for rigor in qualitative studies. The articles in this special issue also suggest that logistics and SCM is a field continuously and constantly expanding, becoming more and more complex, and therefore needs a variety of methods to understand and explain it. “GT” is mentioned as one; but the “mystery methodology” is also an option. But departing from the normal approach to logistics and supply chain problems requires “rethinking basic assumptions” of theories and paradigms such as structure, behavior and relation to time.

Finally, we would like to thank both authors and reviewers for embarking on this journey with us. We hope that both they and the readers will enjoy the final result. 18 papers were submitted on the final day of August 2010 and exactly one year later, eight of these papers were accepted for publication. Out of the ten papers that did not make it to the end, one was withdrawn in the process.

B. Gammelgaard, D. Flint Guest Editors

Borgström, B. (2012), “Towards a methodology for studying supply chain practice”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management , Vol. 42 Nos 8/9 pp. 843–62

Denk, N., Kaufmann, L. and Carter, C.R. (2012), “Increasing the rigor of grounded theory research – a review of the SCM literature”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management , Vol. 42 Nos 8/9 pp. 742–63

Ellram, L.M. (1996), “The use of the case study method in logistics research”, Journal of Business Logistics , Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 96–138

Gammelgaard, B. (2004), “Schools in logistics research? A methodology framework for analysis of the discipline”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management , Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 479–91

Goffin, K., Raja, J.Z., Martinez, V., Claes, B. and Szwejczewski, M. (2012), “Rigor in qualitative supply chain management research – lessons from applying repertory grid technique”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management , Vol. 42 Nos 8/9 pp. 804–27

Golicic, S.L. and Davis, D.F. (2012), “Implementing mixed methods research in supply chain management”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management , Vol. 42 Nos 8/9 pp. 726–41

Manuj, I. and Pohlen, T. (2012), “A reviewer’s guide to the grounded theory methodology in logistics and supply chain management research”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management , Vol. 42 Nos 8/9 pp. 784–803

Mello, J. and Flint, D.J. (2009), “A refined view of grounded theory and its application to logistics research”, Journal of Business Logistics , Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 107–25

Mentzer, J.T. (2008), “Rigor versus relevance: why would we choose only one?”, Journal of Supply Chain Management , Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 72–7

Mentzer, J.T. and Kahn, K.B. (1995), “A framework of logistics research”, Journal of Business Logistics , Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 231–50

Nilsson, F. and Gammelgaard, B. (2012), “Moving beyond the systems approach in SCM and logistics research”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management , Vol. 42 Nos 8/9, pp. 764–83

Randall, W.S. and Mello, J. (2012), “Grounded theory: an inductive method for supply chain research”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management , Vol. 42 Nos 8/9, pp. 863–80

Sachan, A. and Datta, S. (2005), “Review of supply chain management and logistics research”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management , Vol. 35 No. 9, pp. 664–705

Trautrims, A., Grant, D.B., Cunliffe, A.L. and Wong, C. (2012), “Using the ‘documentary method’ to analyse qualitative data in logistics research”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management , Vol. 42 Nos 8/9 pp. 822–42

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here