Erschienen in:Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Sprache:
Englisch
DOI:
10.1108/13598541211246611
ISSN:
1359-8546
Entstehung:
Anmerkungen:
Beschreibung:
<jats:sec><jats:title content-type="abstract-heading">Purpose</jats:title><jats:p>This paper attempts to seek answers to four questions. Two of these questions have been borrowed (but adapted) from the work of Defee <jats:italic>et al.</jats:italic>: <jats:italic>RQ1</jats:italic>. To what extent is theory used in purchasing and supply chain management (P&SCM) research? <jats:italic>RQ2</jats:italic>. What are the prevalent theories to be found in P&SCM research? Following on from these questions an additional question is posed: <jats:italic>RQ3</jats:italic>. Are theory‐based papers more highly cited than papers with no theoretical foundation? Finally, drawing on the work of Harland <jats:italic>et al.</jats:italic>, the authors have added a fourth question: <jats:italic>RQ4</jats:italic>. To what extent does P&SCM meet the tests of coherence, breadth and depth, and quality necessary to make it a scientific discipline?</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title content-type="abstract-heading">Design/methodology/approach</jats:title><jats:p>A systematic literature review was conducted in accordance with the model outlined by Tranfield <jats:italic>et al.</jats:italic> for three journals within the field of “purchasing and supply chain management”. In total 1,113 articles were reviewed. In addition a citation analysis was completed covering 806 articles in total.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title content-type="abstract-heading">Findings</jats:title><jats:p>The headline features from the results suggest that nearly a decade‐and‐a‐half on from its development, the field still lacks coherence. There is the absence of theory in much of the work and although theory‐based articles achieved on average a higher number of citations than non‐theoretical papers, there is no obvious contender as an emergent paradigm for the discipline. Furthermore, it is evident that P&SCM does not meet Fabian's test necessary to make it a scientific discipline and is still some way from being a normal science.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title content-type="abstract-heading">Research limitations/implications</jats:title><jats:p>This study would have benefited from the analysis of further journals, however the analysis of 1,113 articles from three leading journals in the field of P&SCM was deemed sufficient in scope. In addition, a further significant line of enquiry to follow is the rigour vs relevance debate.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title content-type="abstract-heading">Practical implications</jats:title><jats:p>This article is of interest to both an academic and practitioner audience as it highlights the use theories in P&SCM. Furthermore, this article raises a number of important questions. Should research in this area draw more heavily on theory and if so which theories are appropriate?</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title content-type="abstract-heading">Social implications</jats:title><jats:p>The broader social implications relate to the discussion of how a scientific discipline develops and builds on the work of Fabian and Amundson.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title content-type="abstract-heading">Originality/value</jats:title><jats:p>The data set for this study is significant and builds on a number of previous literature reviews. This review is both greater in scope than previous reviews and is broader in its subject focus. In addition, the citation analysis (not previously conducted in any of the reviews) and statistical test highlights that theory‐based articles are more highly cited than non‐theoretically based papers. This could indicate that researchers are attempting to build on one another's work.</jats:p></jats:sec>