مقاله سال ۲۰۱۶

 مجله مدیریت خرید و تامین – Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management

As academic agendas move towards delivering impactful research there is a need to challenge the foundations of our knowledge. Conflicting pressures co-exist in the ‘publish or perish’ academic culture that can wed scholars to methods considered less risky (Wensley, 2007), conflate dominant theories (Cova et al., 2009), and discourage longitudinal research approaches. As a result, a criticism of management research, including those in the ‘top’ journals, is that despite high rigour, papers have become formulaic, predictable, lacking in imagination (Alvesson et al., 2016) and the findings have low social impact (Bartunek et al., 2006; Clark and Wright, 2009). Replication of normative methods runs the risks of practical irrelevance, failure to provide new insights, and a disengagement from organisations and society, where scholars are left reporting the agendas rather than leading and influencing them.

For our contribution to be sustainable and impactful our research should shape managerial thinking and engage with those affected by it. This demands co-production of research (c.f. Martin, 2010) not just a superficial communication at the latter dissemination stages of a research project. Different methods are required to ask new questions of the underpinning assumptions in our dominant theories. In response to the academic impact agenda, there have been calls for more action-orientated methods in purchasing and supply chain research (Crespin-Mazet and Dontenwill, 2012; Pagell and Shevchenko, 2014; Touboulic and Walker, 2015, 2016; Walker et al., 2008a) not just to demonstrate methodological variety, but also to explore real practical issues (Coughlan and Coghlan, 2002; Gummesson, 2000, Näslund et al., 2010). Action research (AR) is problem centred (Sanford, 1970), yet, should purchasing research aim to go further than exploring practical institutional and managerial problems?