Interactive research framework in logistics and supply chain management: Bridging the academic research and practitioner gap

Erik Sandberg, Pejvak Oghazi*, Koteshwar Chirumalla, Pankaj C. Patel

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Logistics and supply chain management (SCM) practice has grown in scope and complexity in recent years. A challenge for research in logistics and SCM is to create value for both academics and practitioners. The purpose of this paper is to introduce interactive research (IR) into the domain of logistics and SCM research and to describe the lessons learned from the implementation of this research approach. Compared to traditional empirical research methods, IR takes place in a context where inferences are co-produced in collaboration with practitioners. Taking an academic–practitioner lens, we draw on the IR framework to develop a deeper understanding of academic and practitioner exchanges in the increasingly complex and multidimensional domain of logistics and supply chain research. In addition to introducing the IR approach, based on four collaborative research projects, we outline and provide potential solutions to challenges arising from IR. Introducing IR to logistics and SCM research could enrich the understanding of collaborative research approaches and could act as a catalyst to its wider adoption in future research.

Original languageEnglish
Article number121563
Peer-reviewed scientific journalTechnological Forecasting and Social Change
Volume178
ISSN0040-1625
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 14.02.2022
MoE publication typeA1 Journal article - refereed

Keywords

  • 512 Business and Management
  • interactive research
  • action research
  • collaborative research
  • methodology
  • logistics
  • supply chain management

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Interactive research framework in logistics and supply chain management: Bridging the academic research and practitioner gap'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this