The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1463-5771.htm

Harnessing interestingness in Interesting

supply chain
supply chain management management
research
research: an empirical
investigation and research agenda
Jamal El Baz Received 6 February 2023
Revised 3 September 2023
ENCG, MADILOG, Ibn Zohr University, Agadir, Morocco Accepted 3 September 2023
Fedwa Jebli
Rabat Business School, International University of Rabat, Rabat, Morocco
Andreas Gissel
Ludwigshafen University of Applied Sciences, Ludwigshafen, Germany, and
Kent Gourdin
College of Charleston School of Business, Charleston, South Carolina, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The concept of interestingness has been investigated in several management disciplines but
studies mobilizing such concept in supply chain management (SCM) to develop strategies for the field’s
advancement are relatively scarce. This research paper aims to investigate how SCM scholars rank attributes
of interestingness and the strategies to harness interestingness in the field of SCM.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors adopt a mixed methods research design in which a survey
on SCM researchers’ ranking of interestingness’ attributes and qualitative interviews with selected academics
are conducted.
Findings – The findings highlight the importance given by SCM scholars to attributes such as rigor,
relevance, novelty and communication and how they are interrelated. Also, other interestingness attributes are
underlined by scholars during the qualitative interviews including inquisitiveness, engaging the reader,
imaginativeness and entertainment. Furthermore, a research agenda to synthesize the propositions to develop
interesting research is also proposed.
Research limitations/implications – Interestingness attributes such as rigor, relevance and novelty are
discussed. Recommendations for interesting research are suggested which can be useful to scholars and
journal editors. The findings of this research are also relevant for practitioners for a better understanding of
academic/practice relationships to develop high impact collaboration.
Originality/value – This paper is among the few studies that focus on interestingness in SCM research from
the perspective of scholars. In doing so, the authors seek to contribute to the classic debate in SCM field about
“relevance-rigour” duality by providing a broader outlook based on interestingness and proposing a research
agenda for prospective studies in the field.
Keywords Supply chain management research, Interestingness, Rigor, Relevance, Novelty, Mixed methods
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Supply chain management (SCM) field has become one of the major business disciplines
(Christopher, 2016) after gaining prominence in providing efficient approaches of managing
intra and inter organizational processes (Mentzer, 2008; McKinnon, 2013). During last
40 years, SCM research has evolved in terms of research output, quality and academic
legitimacy (Ellram and Cooper, 2014). Along the evolution of SCM field, a long-standing
debate about reconciling rigor and relevance has emerged in the field of SCM during the last Benchmarking: An International
Journal
decade (e.g. Stentoft and Rajkumar, 2018; Narasimhan, 2018; Lambert and Enz, 2017; © Emerald Publishing Limited
1463-5771
B€ackstrand and Halldorsson, 2019). DOI 10.1108/BIJ-07-2023-0498
BIJ SCM research is burgeoning with frameworks, methodologies and applications (Soni and
Kodali, 2013; Garver, 2019; Carter et al., 2015) and the field is expanding rapidly toward other
new areas (See for instance the review of Zekhnini et al., 2021 on SCM 4.0 and Raza et al. (2023)
on machine learning in SCM). With the recent effects of COVID-19 pandemic which has drawn
the attention of the world to the importance of managing operations and supply chains (El
Baz and Ruel, 2021; Ruel and El Baz, 2023), the legitimacy and relevance of SCM as a research
field has significantly improved. Notwithstanding, several aspects regarding guidelines to
make SCM research more interesting remain equivocal and warrant more elucidation.
According to several scholars, what makes a research interesting is a set of attributes that
characterize high quality research (Das and Long, 2010; Bartunek et al., 2006).
“Interestingness” is the term given to a research with rigor, novelty, relevance, impact and
innovative design (Das and Long, 2010; Frank and Landstr€o m, 2016). SCM research like other
management fields is in need of specific strategies to enhance its level of interestingness
beyond the focus on rigor vs. relevance debate that was prevalent in numerous studies
(Stentoft and Rajkumar, 2018; Lambert, 2019; Flynn, 2008; Svanberg, 2020). In this research,
we draw on the concept of interestingness to advance the debate about SCM evolution as
a research field.
Previous studies have emphasized on the need of SCM research to address real business
problems rather than purely theoretical concepts in order to remain relevant (Ellinger and
Chapman, 2016; Narasimhan, 2018; Martin, 2012). For numerous scholars, providing an
interesting SCM research is contingent on closing the gap between research and practice
(Narasimhan, 2018; Lambert, 2019; B€ackstrand and Halldorsson, 2019) and diversifying the
audience of top tier journals instead of mainly targeting academics (B€ackstrand and
Halldorsson, 2019).
Despite the contributions of extant literature, a specific agenda addressing the issue of
what is regarded as interesting in SCM field and how to create an interesting research in the
future has not been sufficiently addressed in prior studies. Accordingly, this research
attempts to contribute to the debate on the SCM discipline’s development by highlighting the
concept of “interestingness” and by focusing on researchers’ perspective on the topic
Interestingness of research characterizes studies that transcend predictability, present
counter intuitive perspectives, challenge current assumptions and generate novel insights
(Bartunek et al., 2006; Das and Long, 2010). Numerous studies on interesting research exist in
management and other neighboring disciplines that highlight the importance of attributes
such as relevance, rigor, novelty, communication and coherence (e.g. Frank and Landstr€om,
2016; Alvesson and Sandberg, 2013; Bartunek et al., 2006; Das and Long, 2010).
Notwithstanding, similar investigations that try to understand scholars’ perceptions of
interestingness within SCM discipline, attributes and challenges of interesting research in
SCM remain overlooked.
Based on previous premises, the following research question is formulated as following:
RQ1. How do SCM scholars view and rank the concept of interestingness and its
attributes?
In this study we consider SCM research field search for legitimacy and adaptation with
change from the perspective of institutional theory (Scott, 1995). SCM field is evolving in a
process similar to institutionalization process in which it seeks to improve its legitimacy. For
Zucker (1991), an organization or an entity that has become institutionalized is one that
has become taken for granted by members of a social group as efficacious and necessary.
Organizational legitimacy is defined as “a generalized perception or assumption that the
actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed
system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions” (Suchman, 1995, p. 574). In this context, we
argue that one of the ways to foster SCM research legitimacy is through enhancing the
quality of research, i.e. “interestingness”, which ultimately would help conceptualize specific Interesting
SCM “theories” (Stentoft and Rajkumar, 2018) and lead to wider recognition of the field’s supply chain
validity (Garver, 2019). In this respect, questions regarding strategies to improve
interestingness become relevant for SCM research.
management
Therefore, the following research question is formulated: research
RQ2. What strategies can be suggested to make SCM research more interesting?
In order to answer the first research question, will investigate SCM researchers’ ranking of
interestingness features and potential strategies to develop interesting research through
mixed methods design. Thus, a quantitative survey was conducted on a sample of 136
scholars to collect data about their rankings of interestingness attributes. To answer the
second research question, qualitative interviews were carried out with selected scholars to
identify potential strategies to harness interestingness in SCM field.
The contributions of this research are manifold. This paper is among the few studies that
focus on interestingness in SCM research from the perspective of scholars, whereas prior
studies have mainly investigated issues of relevance and rigor from the point of view of
professionals or senior editors (e.g. Stentoft and Rajkumar, 2018; Toffel, 2016; Lambert, 2019;
Liu and Mckinnon, 2018; Carter et al., 2008). Furthermore, this research advocates the need for
reconciling applicative research with the requirements of theoretical rigor and novelty
(Narasimhan, 2018; Stentoft and Rajkumar, 2018; Liu and Mckinnon, 2018; Bendoly et al.,
2010). This study calls for an active participation of practitioners and decision makers with
academics in SCM research, which can create opportunities to identify unique issues that
could not otherwise be investigated using extant theories. In addition, a research agenda is
suggested with several propositions for more applicative knowledge-based research with
pragmatic stance, critical realism, cross-disciplinary studies and theoretical broadness.
The suggestions stemming from this research provide a prospective research agenda that
can be relevant for SCM scholars, practitioners, journal editors and academic institutions.
Finally, we argue that harnessing interestingness is pivotal for academics as well as SCM as
a research field in a permanent search to improve its legitimacy and institutionalization.
The structure of the paper is as follows. Section 2 is a literature review of the rigor,
relevance and interestingness in SCM research. Section 3 describes the mixed methods
research design whereas section 4 and 5 present the findings of quantitative survey and
qualitative interviews. Section 6 discusses the results of the empirical studies. Finally, section
7 is dedicated to the implications, limits and potential research avenues.

2. Literature review
2.1 Supply chain management research’s rigor-relevance debate and the permanent search
for legitimacy
Since its emergence, SCM research had a strong practice orientation and a focus on addressing
organizational problems. Initially, most SCM research had an external legitimacy (Liu and
Mckinnon, 2018). Afterward, SCM research has started to explore theoretical approaches in
search for more academic legitimacy among other management disciplines (Narasimhan, 2018;
Swanson et al., 2018; Mir et al., 2018). As a result, a surge in the number of theory based research
articles has been witnessed during the last decade (Swanson et al., 2018; Mir et al., 2018). SCM
field can be considered as being in a transitional phase and faces an ambiguous identity crisis
(Zinn and Goldsby, 2014; Mir et al., 2018). Consequently, the discussion regarding the relevance
of research to practice has intensified (Narasimhan, 2014; Toffel, 2016; Svanberg, 2020). In a
field that was founded on practical relevance like SCM (Swanson et al., 2018; Mir et al., 2018;
Ellinger and Chapman, 2016), several scholars have highlighted the importance of practical
relevance in studies (Toffel, 2016; Lambert, 2019; Thomas et al., 2011). Drawing on institutional
BIJ theory and legitimacy, we argue that SCM research field would improve its legitimacy through
gaining social consensus in addition to its pragmatic value (Suchman, 1995). According to
Tolbert and Zucker (1996: p. 184) assert “. . . once fully institutionalized, ideas can survive
across generations, uncritically accepted as the definitive way of behaving. To achieve
institutionalization, some scholars stress on theorization, i.e. presenting organizational failing,
pitfalls and shortcomings and how it is possible to solve them and diffusion, i.e. increasing
objectification when ideas become institutional imperative gaining wider social recognition
(Strang and Meyer, 1993; Greenwood et al., 2002). In this respect, SCM research field is
constantly searching for objectified legitimacy (Suchman, 1995) that it has not succeeded in
achieving during the previous decades.
Despite the increasing interest in SCM as a research field (particularly after the COVID-19
outbreak), several questions remain regarding the guidelines and strategies to improve
research quality (Gligor et al., 2023; Garver, 2019). Consequently, defining what makes SCM
research interesting becomes timely and relevant.
In numerous SCM studies, the concept of interestingness has not been specifically
addressed. Instead, the debate has been centered on rigor/relevance issues (Gligor et al., 2023)
and how to develop research for practical purposes (Min et al., 2019).
Thus, several SCM scholars highlight the need for relevant research with the focus on
“knowledge production problem” rather than aspects related to “dissemination” (Goldsby
and Zinn, 2016; Svanberg, 2020). In management research, numerous scholars call for a
research developing practical solutions and bridging the gap between academic studies and
practice (Van de Ven, 2007; Pettigrew, 2001). Therefore, to ensure that scientific rigor is
respected, aspects related to data gathering, statistical analysis, sampling and
generalizability issues have to be taken into consideration (Flickinger et al., 2014).
Rigorous research is based on consistency in methodology and justification of constructs
in theory (Mentzer, 2008). Rigor ensures that the operationalization of constructs is valid and
the right methodology is being used to answer the research question(s) (Goffin et al., 2012;
Mentzer, 2008).
The relevance of research is related to its usefulness for theory and practice (Markides,
2007). Relevant research at the practical level is solution oriented, accessible, has impact on
organization’s decision making and influences management practices (Vermeulen, 2007;
Kieser et al., 2015; Markides, 2007).
Nevertheless, focusing the debate in SCM research merely on rigor and relevance seems to
overlook several facts, namely:
(1) Numerous studies have been funded by companies and professional organizations,
and the individual researcher in many cases is compelled to follow specific lines of
research to satisfy the funders’ requirements for tangible results (Sivertsen, 2017).
Therefore, several studies can qualify as “relevant” to a certain degree at least at their
initial stages. Yet, several scholars have noted that only a minority of papers in the
field has a substantial impact on practice (Narasimhan, 2018; Lambert, 2019);
(2) It should be noted that the readership of the majority of journals is composed mainly
of academics not practitioners (Martin, 2012; B€ackstrand and Halldorsson, 2019).
Therefore, it is not sufficient to make a research rigorous and relevant, scholars need
to focus on how to make their findings accessible to professionals and decision
makers;
(3) Actionable research that yields novel insights or produces theoretical insights is
difficult due to what Pearce and Huang (2012) call the “ability problem” of scholars
who are not always well equipped to address complex practical problems of
organizations (Lambert, 2019).
Consequently, the debate about relevance and rigor in current SCM has overlooked other Interesting
aspects, namely designing strategies to make research interesting. If the ultimate goal of any supply chain
research is to discover generalizable knowledge of practical importance/value (Narasimhan,
2018), then SCM research needs to address these challenges in meaningful ways that generate
management
interesting research that challenges existing assumptions because a rigorously conducted research
research does not guarantee an interesting and influential research (Alvesson and
Sandberg, 2013).

2.2 Interestingness and supply chain management research

Interestingness is a concept that has been developed in management research to describe
high-quality research (Bartunek et al., 2006; Das and Long, 2010; Astley, 1985; Craig, 2010),
a research that challenges general assumptions and become then influential because it gets
large attention and diffusion (Corley and Gioia, 2011; Alvesson and Sandberg, 2013).
Depending on the audience of the paper, interestingness can vary (Frank and Landstr€om,
2016) but there are collectively held assessments regarding its main features (Alvesson and
Sandberg, 2013). Based on prior researches, the following attributes make a research
interesting:
(1) Rigor through objective research methods focused on well-crafted research designs,
data gathering and analysis (Gligor et al., 2023; Garver, 2019; Shah and Corley, 2006;
Das and Long, 2010); Rigor is also related to the good fit of data and theory (Bartunek
et al., 2006);
(2) Novelty, i.e. providing new directions/perspectives, creating counter-intuitive ideas
that challenge established knowledge, go against conventional wisdom and propose
new avenues for prospective research (Barley, 2006; Bartunek et al., 2006; Van de Ven
and Johnson, 2006);
(3) Relevance/Impact of research when practical knowledge and useable implications of
the research make sense in the real world (Das and Long, 2010; Bartunek et al., 2006;
Flickinger et al., 2014; Nicolai and Seidl, 2010);
(4) Innovative method design by exemplary application of methodology or by deploying
a new research methodology (Voss, 2003);
(5) Developing new theories/findings either by synthesizing prior theories, integrating
different perspectives or a new lens in an unprecedented way (Das and Long, 2010;
Bartunek et al., 2006; Van de Ven and Johnson, 2006);
(6) Coherent research consistent with antecedent set of premises/beliefs considered to be
true (Grayling, 2003; Das and Long, 2010);
(7) Communication that relates to well written description of a topic or a “good story” and
good writing style (Bartunek et al., 2006; Daft, 1983; Das and Long, 2010).
Consequently, those attributes constitute a good foundation to examine how SCM scholars
might perceive and evaluate interestingness attributes. Current SCM research has mainly
focused on addressing partially some features of interestingness by emphasizing the
importance of relevance-rigor (Gligor et al., 2023; Stentoft and Rajkumar, 2018; Toffel, 2016),
theorization process (Halldorsson et al., 2015) including multilevel theorization (Carter et al.,
2015), and the influence of SCM journals rankings on scholars output (McKinnon, 2013, 2017).
Also, prior research has mainly adopted the point of view of practitioners regarding issues
related to SCM research and its challenges (e.g. Stentoft and Rajkumar, 2018; Toffel, 2016;
Lambert and Enz, 2017; B€ackstrand and Halldorsson, 2019; Min et al., 2019). Contrastingly,
BIJ the perspective of scholars who make a great part of SCM readership/authorship was
overlooked. Thus, the examination of interestingness concept provides an opportunity to
enrich the current debate about rigor-relevance duality and to suggest new research avenues
for more legitimacy of SCM research field.

3. Methodology
This study utilizes a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods in what is called
a mixed-methods approach (Creswell, 2009; H€ uttinger et al., 2014). In SCM, multiple methods
research have gained importance and have become increasingly popular as a legitimate
research design (e.g. Cadden et al., 2013; Tazelaar, 2007; Dubey et al., 2015).
Multiple methods research can be defined as the type of research in which researchers
draw on data from more than one source and employ more than one type of analysis (Creswell
and Clark, 2010). Thus, multiple methods studies may employ several methods, or combine
qualitative and quantitative methods in what is called a mixed methods approach.
In this study, a concurrent complementarity research design is adopted. Complementarity
design is the concurrent examination of various facets of a phenomenon through two or more
studies (H€uttinger et al., 2014). The purpose of the complementarity approach is to examine
different, but complementary, aspects of the same phenomenon (Creswell, 2009).
The researcher deploys equally weighted methods in a one-phase design. Thus, the
researcher analyses and interprets the data from multiple studies concurrently, and the
findings are merged in a single report of results (Davis et al., 2011).
In this research, a quantitative survey was conducted to gather data about SCM scholars’
views of interestingness’ attributes in order to examine if such attributes are empirically
grounded in the scholars’ research. Furthermore, qualitative interviews are conducted to
investigate which interestingness attributes constitute priorities for SCM academics and
what strategies/measures can be suggested to enhance interestingness in their research.

4. Quantitative survey
Based on the identified attributes of interestingness in the previous subsections, the authors
developed a questionnaire for the purpose of investigating SCM scholars’ views on the topic.
The first part of the questionnaire is composed of questions related to interestingness
attributes drawn on prior studies (e.g. Das and Long, 2010; Bartunek et al., 2006). Thus, the
respondents were asked to rate seven attributes of interestingness on a seven-point Likert
scale (“1 5 extremely unimportant; ‘7’ 5 extremely important)”. Also, the respondents were
asked to indicate to which extent interestingness concept is taken into consideration in their
research on a Likert scale (“1 5 extremely unimportant; ‘7’ 5 extremely important)”.
The second part is composed of questions about the participants’ experience, area of specialty
as well as their background in order to contextualize their responses (See Appendix 1).
SPSS 22.0 software is used to evaluate the correlation and linear regression among the
attributes of interestingness. Such analysis helps identify the relationship among the various
aspects of interestingness and has been recommended by several scholars as an adequate
approach for data analysis in the case of samples with small sizes (De Beuckelaer and
Wagner, 2012; Stentoft and Rajkumar, 2018; Tabachnik and Fidell, 2007).

4.1 Measures, sampling and data collection

The measures were adapted from scales established and validated in numerous studies
which enhance their validity and reliability. Table 1 presents the constructs and
measurement items.
Constructs/attributes of
Interesting
interestingness Label References supply chain
management
Challenging Challenging taken for granted Barley (2006), Bartunek et al., 2006,
assumptions (2006) research
Novelty Novelty of research and the hypotheses Frank and Landstr€om (2016), Das and
tested Long, 2010, Barley (2006), Bartunek
et al., 2006, (2006)
Relevance Ability to generate real world Frank and Landstr€om (2016), Das and
knowledge Long (2010), Bartunek et al., 2006,
Flickinger et al., 2014
Develop theory Ability to develop existing theories in a Das and Long (2010), Bartunek et al.,
cumulative fashion 2006, Frank and Landstr€om (2016)
Rigor Exemplary application of research Shah and Corley (2006), Das and Long
methodology (2010)
Communication Writing style that combines Bartunek et al., 2006, Daft (1983), Das
storytelling and theory development and Long, 2010, Frank and Landstr€om
(2016)
Coherence Ability to make intuitive sense of Grayling (2003), Das and Long (2010) Table 1.
findings and connect to common sense The measurement
notions of reality items of
Source(s): Authors’ own work interestingness

To validate the content of the questionnaire, it was shown to three senior researchers who
served as associate editors in high ranked SCM journals. Subsequently, the questionnaire
was sent to members of the academic section of the Council of Supply Chain Management
Professionals (CSCMP), the Production and Operations Management Society (POMS) and the
European Operations Management Association (EUROMA) to collect responses from
scholars in different countries and continents.
Data collection was conducted through a web surveyor/online questionnaire between June
2019 and March 2020. A mailing list of 600 SCM scholars was compiled and thereupon used to
contact respondents by e-mail or through social media outlets (LinkedIn). We were able to
collect valid responses from 136 academics (A response rate of 22.66%) which constitute a
sufficient sample for statistical tests (De Beuckelaer and Wagner, 2012). See Table 2.
Most of the respondents are senior researchers (80%), have reviewed papers (87.5%) and
have published articles in peer-reviewed journals (94.07%). However, only 39.7% of SCM
scholars have served on editorial boards of journals. The authors’ affiliations indicate a
prevalence of North American universities (34%) followed by Western European universities
(26%), Asian universities (22%) and institutions from other regions in the world (18%).

Characteristics of respondents (sample 5 136) Numbers Percentage

Senior researchers (>3 years of work) 109 80.1%

Junior researchers (<3 years of work) 27 19.9%
Editorial members 54 39.7%
Non-editorial members 81 59.6%
Reviewers 119 87.5% Table 2.
Non reviewers 16 11.8% Descriptive data of
Source(s): Authors’ own work respondents
BIJ The areas of specialty of the respondents are related to SCM integration, coordination (31%),
SSCM, GSCM (23.7%), logistics (12.6%), operations management (11.1%), procurement/
purchasing (9.6%), marketing (7.4%) and other areas such as simulation, innovation,
healthcare and supply chain risk management.
4.1.1 Non-response bias and test of normality. An independent sample t-test is performed to
check for non-response bias. Following Werner et al. (2007), we determined the differences
between early respondents (n 5 35) and late respondents (n 5 40) and found that no
difference was significant. Thus, non-response bias was not problematic in the
quantitative study.
Since the linear regression is adopted to analyze the interaction between various attributes
of interestingness, the test of normality was checked (Meyers et al., 2006). Both of
Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk tests were not significant (with respective p values
of 0.085 and 0.915). In addition, skewness and kurtosis values of the variables (Table 3) are
relatively low (between 2 and 2) which confirm that the items are normally distributed
(Meyers et al., 2006; Tabachnik and Fidell, 2007).

4.2 The results of the survey

Descriptive statistics of the interestingness attributes are presented in Table 3.
The findings show that all the interestingness attributes have a mean ranking exceeding 3
(somewhat important). The results also highlight the attributes that were ranked highly by
the respondents, i.e. communication (Mean 5 4.05), Challenging (Mean 5 3.88) and Coherence
(Mean 5 3.81). On the whole, the rankings of the attributes by the respondents were found to
be significantly different (p < 0.001). Pearson correlation is tested to measure the strength and
relationships between interestingness’ attributes (Table 4).

Attributes Mean Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis

Interestingness 3.73 1.434 0.252 1.026

Challenging 3.88 1.797 0.146 1.004
Novelty 3.37 2.061 0.349 1.297
Relevance 3.32 2.285 0.513 1.301
Develop theory 3.80 1.635 0.125 0.871
Rigor 3.75 1.729 0.306 0.980
Communication 4.05 1.785 0.088 1.137
Table 3. Coherence 3.81 1.951 0.193 1.173
Descriptive results Source(s): Authors’ own work

Develop
Challenging Novelty Relevance theory Rigor Communication Coherence

Challenging 1
Novelty 0.690** 1
Relevance 0.573** 0.716** 1
Develop theory 0.410** 0.412** 0.463** 1
Rigor 0.28099 0.371** 0.500** 0.575** 1
Communication 0.367** 0.380** 0.461** 0.554** 0.586** 1
Coherence 0.380** 0.370** 0.489** 0.461** 0.600** 0.642** 1
Table 4. Note(s):**Pearson correlations significant at 0.01 level
Correlation matrix Source(s): Authors’ own work
As can be noted from the findings, all the relationships between the attributes of Interesting
interestingness are positive and significant. Therefore, such results provide insights about supply chain
how interestingness features can be combined. Thus, Novelty is correlated positively with
challenging assumptions (0.716**) and relevance or generating real knowledge (0.690**).
management
Also, rigor in methodology is correlated with coherence or intuitive sense of findings research
(0.600**), communication or writing style (0.586**) and developing existing
theories (0.575**).
Consequently, to further enhance novelty, scholars might work on topics that challenge
prevalent assumptions and that generate applicable knowledge. In addition, SCM scholars
seem to value best rigor in research that develops existing theories, has an adequate writing
style and makes intuitive sense of findings.
Further exploration of data highlight differences in scholars rankings according to their
status. Thus, the ratings of most interestingness’ attributes by reviewers indicate that the
expectations of the latter are higher and statistically significant than those of non-reviewers
except for the attributes of challenging and coherence. Also, SCM scholars who are editorial
board members ranked all of interestingness attributes higher than non-members. However
difference in rankings was only significant for coherence (Tables 5 and 6).
Linear regression analysis was performed to delineate the influence of the attributes in
making research interesting. Consequently, the independent variables are the interestingness
attributes (challenging, novelty, relevance, developing theory, rigor, communication and
coherence) and the dependent variable is the research level of interestingness (Table 7).

Reviewers (n 5 118) Non reviewers (n 5 16)

Attributes Mean Std. Deviation Mean Std. Deviation p value

Challenging 3.95 1.806 3.56 1.632 0.365 n.s*

Novelty 3.61 2.108 2.06 1.181 0.000
Relevance 3.52 2.346 2.05 1.237 0.000
Develop theory 3.97 1.664 2.81 1.047 0.035
Rigor 3.94 1.746 2.50 0.730 0.000
Communication 4.26 1.768 2.73 1.223 0.016 Table 5.
Coherence 3.97 1.939 2.94 1.769 0.166 n.s Rankings difference
Note(s): *non significant between reviewers and
Source(s): Authors’ own work non reviewers

Editorial board members

(n 5 80) Non members (n 5 54)
Attributes Mean Std. Deviation Mean Std. Deviation p value

Challenging 3.93 1.892 3.89 1.721 0.450 n.s*

Novelty 3.50 2.178 3.37 2.021 0.242 n.s
Relevance 3.31 2.247 3.36 2.332 0.391 n.s
Develop theory 4.09 1.569 3.67 1.681 0.461 n.s
Rigor 4.17 1.702 3.50 1.691 0.870 n.s
Communication 4.22 1.723 4.00 1.821 0.340 n.s Table 6.
Coherence 3.96 1.704 3.77 2.093 0.008 Rankings difference
Note(s): *non significant between reviewers and
Source(s): Authors’ own work non reviewers
BIJ Unstandardized
coefficients Standardized coefficients
β Std. Error β t Sig

(Constant) 0.009 0.029 0.296 0.768

Challenging 0.137 0.007 0.172 18.472 0.000
Novelty 0.153 0.007 0.220 20.903 0.000
Relevance 0.145 0.006 0.231 22.798 0.000
Develop theory 0.153 0.008 0.175 20.374 0.000
Rigor 0.129 0.008 0.156 16.716 0.000
Table 7. Communication 0.153 0.007 0.191 20.608 0.000
Linear regression Coherence 0.136 0.007 0.185 20.077 0.000
results Source(s): Authors’ own work

Overall, all the interestingness attributes influence positively the research’s level of interest.
The findings in Table 7 highlight the most influential attributes in interestingness according
to respondents, i.e. Relevance (t 5 22.78), novelty (t 5 20.90), communication or writing style
(t 5 20.60) and theory building (t 5 20.374).

5. Qualitative interviews
In qualitative research, scholars try to understand the observed phenomenon by identifying the why
and the how of its different configurations and dimensions (Dworkin, 2012). In several qualitative
studies, the emphasis is placed on the meanings generated from data rather than the sample size
(Guest et al., 2006; Emmel, 2015). The sample size might depend on the topic of research, the field
research in which data were gathered, the profile of participants and the meaningfulness of their
insights are meaningful (Emmel, 2015; Dworkin, 2012). In qualitative approach the most important
criterion is to reach saturation which means that no more new insights can be gathered by other
new interviews. The saturation refers to the point in data collection when all relevant meanings
were explored and no new insights could be identified (Hennink et al., 2017; Kerr et al., 2010).
There is no consensus among scholars on when the saturation could be reached and
therefore how many interviews should be conducted to assess saturation (Hennink et al.,
2017). For instance, Guest et al. (2006) assessed reaching saturation in their study with 12
interviews and Hennink et al. (2017) have achieved saturation with nine interviews whereby
one interview offers 53% of new codes and 75% of high prevalence code. In this research, and
based on a thematic analysis, saturation was assessed with 8 interviews conducted among
high profile SCM scholars representing different geographical and institutional contexts.
The initial sample for the qualitative study was composed of 30 scholars belonging to four
Continents (Europe, America, Africa and Asia). The objective was to gather geographically and
institutionally diversified opinions. Ultimately, authors were able to interview eight scholars
from European, American, Asian and African universities with a large variety in terms of
experience, background and career. Regarding the final sample size, the homogenous profile of
interviewees and their experience in SCM research helped reaching saturation with small
sample (Hennink et al., 2017). Thus, scholars shared meaningful content on how they perceive
and define interestingness attributes, and how to implement interestingness strategies within
the field. The scholars are labeled with letters from A to H in Table 8.
The semi-directed interviews were conducted directly or in the phone during the period
from December 2019 to February 2020 based on an interview guide (See appendix 2)
containing questions about the participants’ perception of interestingness and what can be
done to make SCM research more interesting. On average, each interview lasted for about
60 min and was recorded, transcribed and stored in a database as suggested by Yin (2007).
Scholar Profile Main areas of specialty Location
Interesting
supply chain
A A senior scholar who is member of editorial team of GSCM, OM, Lean North management
a high ranked OM/SCM journal manufacturing America
B A senior scholar having a career spanning 20 years, SCM, OM Europe research
this scholar’s papers were published in high ranked
journals in OM and SCM
C A junior scholar who has published several papers GSCM, OM, CSR Africa
in numerous SCM/OM journals
D A senior scholar and co-editor of a OM/SCM journal SCM, Lean management Asia
E A junior scholar with a long record of published GSCM, Industry 4.0 Europe
papers in several OM/SCM journal applications
F A junior scholar who has authored several SCM innovation, SCRM Europe
publications and has won several academic awards
G A senior scholar who has published several papers SCM, OM North
in numerous SCM/OM journals as well as several America
books and has been member of prestigious
associations and journals boards
H A junior scholar with a track record of several SCM, Industry 4.0, Europe
publications in SCM/OM journals blockchain, digital supply Table 8.
chain The interviewees’
Source(s): Authors’ own work characteristics

5.1 Analysis
A content analysis approach was adopted as recommended by Easterby-Smith et al. (2012) in
analyzing data generated by qualitative research. Issues of validity and reliability constitute
a major concern in qualitative studies (Yin, 2007; Ellram, 1996). Thus, interviewing scholars
with different background/characteristics such as experience and academic affiliation is
likely to enhance the validity of results. Furthermore, the interviews’ transcripts were
returned to the interviewed scholars for verification as a way to enhance validity (Yin, 2007;
Bryman and Bell, 2007).
Also, by describing the process of data collection and analysis, reliability is ensured (Yin,
2007). In addition, a database of the transcripts containing complete record of the interview
guide and the transcripts was kept to further uphold the reliability (Yin, 2007; Easterby-Smith
et al., 2012). The authors individually then jointly reviewed the interviews’ transcripts and
analyzed the data using an interpretative coding framework (Bryman and Bell, 2007).
The authors produced a short summary of each interviewee’s assertions to help assess and
interpret the qualitative data. Several meetings were held to discuss any discrepancies and to
resolve disagreements. An emergent coding scheme was adopted, which meant grouping the
participants’ similar views under collective phrases as the iterative passes of analysis and
coding progressed (Bryman and Bell, 2007). The subsequent reading, sorting and coding the
responses has generated the main themes as discussed further.

5.2 Findings of the qualitative study

Three main themes emerged from the content analysis of interviews: (1) new attributes of
interestingness, (2) the importance of interestingness’ attributes, and (3) suggestions to make
SCM research more interesting.
5.2.1 New attributes of interestingness. In addition to the “classic” attributes of
interestingness such as relevance, novelty, rigor and communication, the interviewees also
cited other attributes of interestingness including:
BIJ (1) “Inquisitiveness”: refers to how the research can stimulate reader’s curiosity and
willingness to read the whole paper. “Looking back to the papers that I consider
interesting in our field, I always find that (what) they have in common is how they
succeed in arousing readers curiosity . . . that is what I call inquisitiveness or the how
the study compels you to spend time reading all of its contents in detail instead of just
browsing quickly” (Scholar G);
(2) “Engaging reader’’: refers to the capacity to interact with the reader based on logic
and ideas. For scholars B, D and E engaging the reader is important in making
a research interesting. Thus, according to the senior scholar B “a good piece of
research is one that engages the reader through the choice of topic, how ideas are
structured, the style or the story and its discussion”;
(3) “Imaginative”: that emphasizes on the fact that researchers have to be imaginative to
develop interesting topics of research. Bing imaginative stands for “the ability to
connect two distant fields of research or connecting different ideas which
combined-generate new perspective or further avenues for research” (Scholar H); and
(4) “Entertaining”: refers to the balance that should exists between a serious but vivid
content “writing for the scientific community is a serious matter, but to me the
interesting papers are the ones that are also entertaining, whether with visuals,
graphs, software apps, bold statements and what have you . . . the presentation has
also to be interesting and entertaining to draw the attention of readers” (scholar H)
5.2.2 Importance of interestingness’ attributes. The interviewed scholars emphasize on four
attributes that they consider the most important or their priority when they seek to develop
an interesting SCM research: relevance, novelty, rigor and communication. Furthermore,
interviews show a difference between senior scholars and juniors regarding attributes
priority and preference.
Data in Table 9 indicate that both of senior and junior scholars underline the importance of
novelty in interestingness. Hence, to be interesting, SCM research should provide new
perspectives and/or unexpected findings through new methodologies and theoretical lenses.
Notwithstanding, senior scholars are more focused on research’s relevance and novelty,
whereas the priority of junior scholars is to focus on rigor in their research reflected through
solid scientific standards and methods. For senior scholars, it is of great importance to
enlarge the audience of research to involve practitioners and policy makers instead of
developing studies that target only a limited circle of scholars. According to senior scholar B
an interesting research is the one that “contributes to the body of knowledge in a significant
way . . . thus it affects focal stakeholders whether academics or decision makers by changing
their behaviour”.
The importance of other attributes was highlighted by the interviewees. Accordingly, the
junior scholars C and F have emphasized the importance of communication, i.e. the way the
findings and the paper are presented to the readers.
5.2.3 Strategies to make SCM research interesting. The analysis of scholars’ interviews
identifies five main axes on how to develop an interesting SCM research: involving external
stakeholders in the research process, developing research community both SCM and
transdisciplinary, change of how academic organizations assess SCM research,
Re-assessment of the knowledge creation process in SCM research and methods
diversification (Table 10).
(1) Involving practitioners, decision makers and other external stakeholders in the
research process: most of the interviewees have mentioned the need for closer
collaboration between researchers and practitioners/decision makers (Scholar A, B, C,
 Prioritized
Interesting
Scholar attributes Excerpts of interviewees’ assertions supply chain
management
A Senior Relevance/ “I try to design research that can provide practical solutions to decision
scholar Applicability makers” research
Novelty “New implications and contributions is the aim of most of my studies”
B Senior Relevance “SCM/OM research matters because it helps addressing real issues”
scholar Novelty “Targeting new topics and themes . . . Has been my priority”
C Junior Rigor “For the sake of coherence and congruity I seek to elaborate rigor in my
scholar research”
Novelty “Scholars have to conduct studies that generate new findings through
methods that were seldom used previously”
Communication “Beyond the jargon and technicalities . . . Well-crafted writing and
presentation”
D Senior Relevance/Impact “SCM research should also contribute to the companies’ knowledge”
scholar Novelty “counterintuitive research that challenges the foundations of any
discipline has to be encouraged ”
E Junior Rigor “Scientific standards require studies to demonstrate that their
scholar methodology, design and data gathering are sound”
Novelty “New topics and under investigated themes are what helps scholars
advance knowledge”
F Junior Rigor “Without the objective approach we cannot generalize the findings”
scholar Communication “A well written study, . . . should tell a good story”
Novelty “ The most influential papers are those that offer new perspective of
how we study specific phenomena or sometimes go against the grain”
G Senior Novelty “for me I also strive to write novel things, do novel studies”
scholar Relevance “the priority for scholars in the field is to develop research that is
relevant for practice not only theoretical studies”
H Junior Rigor “I try to have methodological aspects covered when I write my
Table 9.
scholar research . . .” The interviewees’
Novelty “I think addressing interesting topics comes with seeking new areas of prioritization of
research as well” interestingness
Source(s): Authors’ own work attributes

D and F). Involving other stakeholders will help connect conceptual research with
practice, as well as combining rigor with relevance. For some scholars, numerous
studies might seem irrelevant to professionals and there is a need to transfer the
knowledge from academia to the real world;
(2) Developing research networks of SCM research community and cross-disciplinary
teams in which scholars exchange, work together and develop interesting research.
According to the scholars B and D, setting the agenda of interestingness should be
debated among scholars in order to define ways to develop “original” SCM research;
(3) Adapting the institutional context to promote interestingness in SCM research.
Universities and business schools might adopt a system that rewards interesting multi-
dimensional research rather than favoring merely rigorous studies. In collaboration with
practitioners and decision makers, an incentive system can be instituted to identify the
characteristics of interesting research and how it can help scholars’ career advancement.
Furthermore, the editors of journals also have to be involved in these efforts to promote
interestingness by encouraging bold research and developing specific outlets for such
studies such as special issues, periodicals and regular space in their publications;
(4) Re-assessment of the knowledge creation process in SCM research. The way scholars
identify gaps, issues, research questions, theoretical frameworks and data gathering
BIJ Scholar Suggested strategies to develop interestingness’ (excerpts)

A senior - “Conducting more research involving companies executives and decision makers (e.g.
scholar action research)”
- “Rethinking the research process”
- “Interdisciplinary research”
B senior - “Targeting interesting topics suggested by companies”
scholar - “Supervising theses that target relevant issues and real world problems”
C junior - “Defining research gaps with the collaboration of policy makers and researchers”
scholar - “Exploring new ways of conducting research based on organizational practice rather on
academic state of the art”
D senior - “Applicative research has always been encouraged by numerous institutions and
scholar organizations, it’s just that it’s not that visible nowadays . . . promoting such studies
depends on available funding and ‘open-mindedness’ of the editors”
- “More collaboration between scholars, building research networks of SCM community
and other disciplines is the key to develop interesting research”
E junior - “Special issues or even journals that focus on new research that challenges the status-
scholar quo should be developed”
F junior - “SCM scholars should be more predisposed to promote interdisciplinary approach in
scholar their studies, SCM discipline has matured enough to share and learn from other
disciplines in management and humanities”
G Senior - “The system of incentives and tenure in academia should be more tailored to reward
scholar interesting and applicative research”
- “Re-assessment of the knowledge process, methodologies, epistemological positioning,
etc.”
H Junior - “More funding for unconventional and novel research”
Table 10. scholar - “Enabling exchange of data and free access to SCM scholars so collaboration between
Suggestions to make scholars from different parts of the world would thrive”
SCM research more - “More diversity in research methodologies”
interesting Source(s): Authors’ own work

should be re-evaluated in order to generate more interesting findings.

Interdisciplinary approach to SCM research in which scholars deploy different
methodologies, theoretical frameworks and perspective might help conduct
interesting research;
(5) Diversifying methodologies to enrich SCM research through deploying less
frequently methodological approaches. Instead of focusing on classical
quantitative and qualitative approaches, other alternatives might be explored and
combined for more interesting research.

6. Discussion
6.1 Interestingness of supply chain management research: a multidimensional concept
This study has demonstrated a consistency of interestingness concept as SCM scholars’
rankings corroborate some of prior studies’ findings in other disciplines of management
(Bartunek et al., 2006; Das and Long, 2010; Flickinger et al., 2014; Frank and Landstr€om, 2016).
Overall, traditional attributes such as novelty, coherence, rigor, relevance and communication
remain pivotal for interestingness in SCM research but they should be combined instead of
presenting a simplistic view of what constitutes an interesting research as highlighted in
prior SCM studies (e.g. Liu and McKinnon, 2018; Toffel, 2016; Lambert, 2019). In this respect,
the qualitative interviews highlight the multi-layered nature of interestingness attributes
with the importance given to novelty, rigour and relevance. Also, the interviews show the
evolving perception of interestingness in SCM research for either senior or junior scholars. Interesting
Thus, senior scholars emphasize on relevance and applicability, whereas junior scholars supply chain
perceive rigor and the way to engage readers as important research criteria. Also, both junior
and senior scholars consider novelty as crucial for interesting research.
management
In contrast with prior research that highlighted existing tension between rigor and research
relevance in SCM research circles (e.g. Toffel, 2016; Lambert, 2019; Gligor et al., 2023), the
results indicate that SCM scholars seem to value more the attributes related to coherence,
communication and challenging research. Indeed, when the respondents were asked to rank
the attributes of interestingness, the writing style was highly ranked, followed by
“challenging taken for granted assumptions” and “coherence/connecting findings with
common sense notions of reality”. Furthermore, according to the respondents, novelty,
relevance, theory building and communication are fundamental in building interesting SCM
research. Consequently, the findings shed light on scholars’ priorities which seem to
transcend the one-dimensional focus of some SCM studies on theoretical and methodological
rigor (Narasimhan, 2018; Liu and McKinnon, 2018; Gligor et al., 2023). The findings of our
study underline the evolution of SCM discipline (Swanson et al., 2018). While prior SCM
research was mostly practical and adopted problem-solving approaches (Stentoft and
Rajkumar, 2018), the responses of scholars highlight their interest in challenging
assumptions, novelty and developing theory.
Moreover, the interviews have underlined the presence of other attributes of
interestingness overlooked in prior investigations in management and other disciplines
(Inquisitiveness, engaging readers, imaginativeness and entertainment). Thus, not only do
SCM scholars consider interestingness’ attributes of paramount importance, but they also
suggest other features of interestingness. This can be explained by the maturity of SCM
discipline and the fact that SCM landscape has become vastly more complex (Swanson et al.,
2018; Mir et al., 2018; Gligor et al., 2023) which broadens the scope of scholars.
All the attributes of interestingness are important and are interrelated. Thus, the novelty
of a research cannot be demonstrated without specifying the literature gaps and the need for a
new perspective (Lindgreen and Di Benedetto, 2020) which would require following rigorous
methodological steps. In addition to the novelty of the topic, gap and perspective, the use of
objective research methods and well-crafted data analysis tools to interpret the results is
indispensable to enhance the validity and generalizability of the findings.
Maximizing the attributes of interestingness may not be an easy task. However, the
results in Table 4 (correlation matrix) indicate how the scholars view the possible
combinations of the interestingness attributes. Consequently, novelty of research correlates
with the ability to generate real world knowledge and challenging taken for granted
assumptions. Further, writing style can be combined with the ability to connect common
sense of reality and exemplary application of research methodology.
Those orientations underline how interestingness attributes can be combined in SCM
research and corroborate also the trend in several journals in the field to require more
innovative research combined with rigorous methodologies (e.g. Lambert, 2019; Lindgreen
and Di Benedetto, 2020; Goldsby and Zinn, 2016). In addition, the results shed light on the
orientation to be followed by prospective SCM research in search for legitimacy and validity.

6.2 Developing interesting supply chain management research

The interestingness agenda can be developed through a constructive dialogue between
scholars and practitioners about the expectations and requirements of interesting research.
Expanding on the notion that dialogue between SCM scholars can shed light on hidden
supply chain connections (Fawcett and Waller, 2013), it can be expected that more
collaborative initiatives between SCM scholars/networks can advance the field (Babbar et al.,
BIJ 2019). Furthermore, SCM scholars might consider developing collaborations with other
researchers from other fields to conduct interdisciplinary research which will increase their
audience and develop new insights (Lindgreen et al., 2020).
Instead of approaching research from a purely theoretical stance that seeks to advance
theory for theory’s sake, SCM scholars need to emphasize more on focal problems drawn from
the experience of practitioners in the real world (Corley and Gioia, 2011).
Building on the findings, the researchers should rethink the knowledge creation process in
the field as a way of enhancing SCM research interestingness. For several scholars, the future
advancement of interesting SCM research lies in regaining its applicative roots (Liu and
Mckinnon, 2018; Lambert, 2019; Toffel, 2016). Generating applicative knowledge can be one
of the ways to develop interesting research for the field of SCM. The aim of applicative
knowledge is to solve real world problems and/or produce action-oriented knowledge (Liu
and Mckinnon, 2018; Kieser et al., 2015). Hence, creating applicative knowledge necessitates
an active exchange with the practitioners to identify pressing issues to be investigated
(Nenonen et al., 2017).
It is important to note that in applicative knowledge, theoretical frameworks and concepts
are not to be overlooked. In this perspective, several scholars recommend adopting a critical
realism perspective and call for an abductive approach that assesses data and links theory to
practice (Eriksson, 2015; Frank and Landstr€om, 2016). Such pragmatic stance is preferred
over linear methodologies (e.g. hypothetico-deductive approaches of surveys, pure
conceptualization and reviews) in order to generate applicative knowledge (Eriksson,
2015). Also, one of the peculiarities of applicative knowledge is its tacit nature, i.e. special
know-how that experience, context, learning and experimenting help create (Frank and
Landstr€om, 2016). SCM researchers should be aware that some practitioners are not always
capable of theorizing and explaining how they develop their knowledge using academic
“jargon” which complicates converting applicative knowledge into theoretical concepts
(Willke, 2011; Goldsby and Zinn, 2016).
From the theoretical perspective, to develop interesting research in SCM scholars should
consider their theoretical positioning. Developing interesting research entails overcoming the
barriers caused by dominant theories and methodologies as recommended by Kieser et al.
(2015). In general, the domain of empirical knowledge differs from theoretical knowledge, but
midrange theory is capable of bridging both types of knowledge. Midrange theory is
appropriate in the context of SCM because the field still lacks “home-grown” theories and
theorizing SCM relies on borrowing theories from other fields such as economics, strategy
and organizational behaviour (Halldorsson et al., 2015; Eriksson, 2015). Hence, SCM scholars
might develop interesting research by adopting an eclectic approach focused on midrange
theory. A more detailed discussion of midrange theory’s deployment is presented by Brodie
and Gustafsson (2016) and Brodie and Peters (2020) who provide guidelines for undertaking
research that integrates theoretic perspectives and applicative contextual studies. Finally,
harnessing interesting research in SCM should involve addressing the theoretical
narrowness and broadness. Narrow theoretical positioning is often based on a
paradigmatic focus within a chosen theory which yields merely incremental findings;
whereas broadness entails deploying several conceptual frameworks which yields more
interesting results (Lindgreen et al., 2020; Eriksson, 2015). Theoretical broadness topics might
not be always easy to investigate, but SCM scholars might consider developing cross-
disciplinary studies especially to address the numerous facets of SC issues at the individual
functional and organizational levels. Based on the discussion above, a research agenda that
delineates who should be involved, what kind of research/knowledge to be developed and
how interestingness can be harnessed is synthesized in the following Figure 1.
In the final analysis, the findings of this study present the perspective of SCM scholars of
their discipline as an evolving research field in search for more legitimacy and
 What How Interesting
Who Aim
supply chain
management
SCM scholars, More Applicative *Collaboration among
Interesting SCM
research
*Involving practitioners and research

Theoretical Broadness
knowledge creation process Classic New
attributes attributes

*Rigor *Inquisitiveness

Figure 1.
*Challenging SCM research
interestingness agenda
Source(s): Authors’ own work

institutionalization. Drawing on institutional theory, we argue that further institutionalization

of SCM as a research field might be achieved through (1) more theorization toward developing
as specific SCM theory that explains causalities of operations and processes, define specific
concepts and identify peculiar categories for theories and paradigms and (2) diffusion which
does not involve only dissemination but when knowledge becomes objectified practices and
taken for granted assumption (Strang and Meyer, 1993; Greenwood et al., 2002). In this respect,
interestingness is one of the instruments to enhance SCM research institutionalization and
legitimacy through balancing traditional attributes (rigor, relevance, innovative design and
communication) with more creative and challenging attributes such as inquisitiveness, creative
way of writing.

7. Conclusion
This research has attempted an investigation of how SCM scholars view interestingness and
suggest potential avenues of research. In doing so, the implications of our study are manifold.
This study offers an alternative to the intense rigour-relevance debate in SCM research by
underlining the multiple attributes of interestingness. Interestingness is a multidimensional
concept in which several attributes can be combined. Thus, SCM scholars would have a clear
understanding of how to avoid producing one-dimensional research with limited readership
and might decide which orientation fits better their aspirations.
Several strategies are suggested to develop interesting SCM research that scholars might
follow. The strategies suggested involve the researchers, the practitioners, academic
institutions and scientific community, who can collaborate to make research more interesting
and more rewarding for the stakeholders involved. Diversifying knowledge and specifically
developing research with high degree of applicative knowledge can bridge theory-practice
gap and render SCM research more interesting. For SCM practitioners and experts, the
collaboration with scholars might help solve some practical problems, offer guidance about
the rapid dynamics of change occurring in the field and provide insights about the validity of
theoretical concepts in the real world. On a parallel track, potential research avenues should
be pursued to explore other types of research streams because conceptual studies can be also
envisaged with the collaboration of practitioners and decision makers. SCM scholars should
continue to develop interesting concepts that practitioners might find ambiguous or want to
BIJ deploy in their organizations. Following this interchange with the stakeholders, scholars can
develop ideas about how to design a research agenda that can have the most successful
outcomes. Finally, the strategies and findings of our research are relevant for journal editors
who have started to think of ways to render SCM publications bolder and more diversified or
have begun promoting new outlets for applicative SCM research in their journals.
Although the authors have tried to collect data from different countries and continents,
there might be some scholars from other regions in the world who are not represented.
Furthermore, the authors are also aware of the fact that the sample of the scholars
investigated might not represent all types of SCM scholars. For instance, doctoral candidates
and universities’ administrative directors were not investigated. Nevertheless, the authors
believe that the sample of the survey captures a representative perspective of how SCM
scholars rank interestingness attributes.
In the final analysis, the authors hope that bringing the issues of SCM research
interestingness on the fore-front will contribute to generate a constructive debate involving
practitioners and scholars for the further advancement of the field.

References
Alvesson, M. and Sandberg, J. (2013), “Has management studies lost its way? Ideas for more
imaginative and innovative research”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 50 No. 1,
pp. 128-152.
Astley, W.G. (1985), “Administrative science as socially constructed truth”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 497-513.
B€ackstrand, J. and Halldorsson, A. (2019), “Engaged scholar (ship) in purchasing and supply
management (PSM): creative tension or squeezed in the middle?”, Journal of Purchasing and
Supply Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 100-557.
Babbar, S., Koufteros, X., Behara, R. and Wong, C. (2019), “SCM research leadership: the ranked
agents and their networks”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 24 No. 6,
pp. 821-854.
Barley, S. (2006), “When I write my manuscript: thoughts on what makes a paper interesting”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 16-20.
Bartunek, J.M., Rynes, S.L. and Ireland, R.D. (2006), “What makes management research interesting,
and why does it matter?”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 9-15.
Bendoly, E., Croson, R., Goncalves, P. and Schultz, K. (2010), “Bodies of knowledge for research in
behavioral operations”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 434-452.
Brodie, R.J. and Gustafsson, A. (2016), “Enhancing theory development in service research”, Journal of
Service Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 2-8.
Brodie, R.J. and Peters, L. (2020), “Increasing contribution in service research: fresh thinking about the
process of theorizing”, Journal of Service Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 415-428.
Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2007), Business Research Methods, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Cadden, T., Marshall, D. and Cao, G. (2013), “Opposites attract: organisational culture and supply chain
performance”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 86-103.
Carter, C.R., Sanders, N.R. and Dong, Y. (2008), “Paradigms, revolutions, and tipping points: the need
for using multiple methodologies within the field of supply chain management”, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 693-696.
Carter, C.R., Meschnig, G. and Kaufmann, L. (2015), “Moving to the next level: why our discipline
needs more multilevel theorization”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 51 No. 4,
pp. 94-102.
Christopher, M. (2016), Logistics & Supply Chain Management, Pearson Higher Education, London.
Corley, K.G. and Gioia, D.A. (2011), “Building theory about theory building: what constitutes a Interesting
theoretical contribution?”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 12-32.
supply chain
Craig, J.B. (2010), “Desk rejection: how to avoid being hit by a returning boomerang”, Family Business
Review, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 306-309.
management
Creswell, J.W. (2009), “Mapping the field of mixed methods research”, Journal of Multiple Methods
research
Research, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 95-108.
Creswell, J.W. and Clark, V.L.P. (2010), Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, Sage
Publications, Los Angeles, CA.
Daft, R.L. (1983), “Learning the craft of organizational research”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 539-546.
Das, H. and Long, B.S. (2010), “What makes management research interesting? An exploratory study”,
Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 127-144.
Davis, D.F., Golicic, S.L. and Boerstler, C.N. (2011), “Benefits and challenges of conducting multiple
methods research in marketing”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 39,
pp. 467-479.
De Beuckelaer, A. and Wagner, S.M. (2012), “Small sample surveys: increasing rigor in supply chain
management research”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Management, Vol. 42 No. 7, pp. 615-639.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A. and Ali, S.S. (2015), “Exploring the relationship between leadership,
operational practices, institutional pressures and environmental performance: a framework for
green supply chain”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 160, pp. 120-132.
Dworkin, S.L. (2012), “Sample size policy for qualitative studies using in-depth interviews”, Archives of
Sexual Behaviour, Vol. 41, pp. 1319-1320.
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. and Jackson, P. (2012), Management Research, Sage Publications,
London.
El Baz, J. and Ruel, S. (2021), “Can supply chain risk management practices mitigate the disruption
impacts on supply chains’ resilience and robustness? Evidence from an empirical survey in a
COVID-19 outbreak era”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 223, 107972,
doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107972.
Ellinger, A.E. and Chapman, K. (2016), “IJPDLM’s 45th anniversary: a retrospective bibliometric
analysis and future directions”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Management, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 2-18.
Ellram, L.M. (1996), “The use of case study method in logistics research”, Journal of Business Logistics,
Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 93-138.
Ellram, L.M. and Cooper, M.C. (2014), “Supply chain management: it’s all about the journey, not the
destination”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 8-20.
Emmel, N. (2015), “Themes, variables, and the limits to calculating sample size in qualitative research:
a response to fugard and potts”, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, Vol. 18,
pp. 685-686.
Eriksson, D. (2015), “Lessons on knowledge creation in supply chain management”, European
Business Review, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 346-368.
Fawcett, S.E. and Waller, M.A. (2013), “Inquiry and the practice of theoretical conversation: engaging
in dialogue to elaborate hidden connections”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 1-5.
Flickinger, M., Tuschke, A., Gruber-Muecke, T. and Fiedler, M. (2014), “In search of rigor, relevance,
and legitimacy: what drives the impact of publications?”, Journal of Business Economics, Vol. 84
No. 1, pp. 99-128.
Flynn, B.B. (2008), “Having it all: rigor versus relevance in supply chain management research”,
Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 63-68.
BIJ Frank, H. and Landstr€om, H. (2016), “What makes entrepreneurship research interesting? Reflections
on strategies to overcome the rigour-relevance gap”, Entrepreneurship and Regional
Development, Vol. 28 Nos 1-2, pp. 51-75.
Garver, M.S. (2019), “Threats to the validity of logistics and supply chain management research”,
Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 30-43.
Gligor, D.M., Stank, T.P., Gligor, N., Ogden, J.A., Nowicki, D.R., Farris, T., Idug, Y., Rana, R., Porchia, J.
and Kiran, P. (2023), “Examining the rigor of SCM research: the case of supply chain agility”,
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 522-543.
Goffin, K., Raja, J.Z., Claes, B., Szwejczewski, M. and Martinez, V. (2012), “Rigor in qualitative supply
chain management research: lessons from applying repertory grid technique”, International
Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 42 Nos 8-9, pp. 804-827.
Goldsby, T.J. and Zinn, W. (2016), “Adding relevance to rigor in research: the JBL practitioner panel”,
Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 310-311.
Grayling, A.C. (2003), “Epistemology”, in Bunnin, N. and Tsui-James, E.P. (Eds), The Blackwell
Companion to Philosophy, Blackwell, Malden, MA, pp. 37-60.
Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R. and Hinings, C.R. (2002), “Theorizing change: the role of professional
associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 58-80.
Guest, G., Bunce, A. and Johnson, L. (2006), “How many interviews are enough? An experiment with
data saturation and variability”, Field Methods, Vol. 18, pp. 59-82.
 Hsuan, J. and Kotzab, H. (2015), “Complementary theories to supply chain
Halldorsson, A.,
management revisited-from borrowing theories to theorizing”, Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 574-586.
Hennink, M.M., Kaiser, B.N. and Marconi, V.C. (2017), “Code saturation versus meaning saturation:
how many interviews are enough?”, Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 591-608.
uttinger, L., Schiele, H. and Schr€oer, D. (2014), “Exploring the antecedents of preferential customer
H€
treatment by suppliers: a mixed methods approach”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 19 Nos 5/
6, pp. 697-721.
Kerr, C., Nixon, A. and Wild, D. (2010), “Assessing and demonstrating data saturation in qualitative
inquiry supporting patient-reported outcomes research”, Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics
and Outcomes Research, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 269-281.
Kieser, A., Nicolai, A. and Seidl, D. (2015), “The practical relevance of management research: turning
the debate on relevance into a rigorous scientific research program”, The Academy of
Management Annals, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 143-233.
Lambert, D.M. (2019), “Rediscovering relevance”, The International Journal of Logistics Management,
Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 382-394.
Lambert, D.M. and Enz, M.G. (2017), “Issues in supply chain management: progress and potential”,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 62, pp. 1-16.
Lindgreen, A. and Di Benedetto, C. (2020), “How reviewers really judge manuscripts”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 91, pp. A1-A10.
Lindgreen, A., Di Benedetto, C., Brodie, R. and van der Borgha, M. (2020), “How to undertake great
cross-disciplinary research”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 90, pp. A1-A5.
Liu, X. and McKinnon, A. (2018), “Practical relevance of theory-driven supply chain management
research: evidence from China”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 30
No. 1, pp. 76-95.
Markides, C. (2007), “Search of ambidextrous professors”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50
No. 4, pp. 762-768.
Martin, R. (2012), “The price of actionability”, Academy of Management Learning and Education,
Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 293-299.
McKinnon, A.C. (2013), “Starry-eyed: journal rankings and the future of logistics research”, Interesting
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 6-17.
supply chain
McKinnon, A.C. (2017), “Starry-eyed II: the logistics journal ranking debate revisited”, International
Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 431-446.
management
Mentzer, J.T. (2008), “Rigor versus relevance: why would we choose only one?”, Journal of Supply
research
Chain Management, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 72-77.
Meyers, L.S., Gamst, G. and Guarino, A.J. (2006), Applied Multivariate Research: Design and
Interpretation, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Min, S., Zacharia, Z.G. and Smith, C.D. (2019), “Defining supply chain management: in the past,
present, and future”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 44-55.
Mir, S., Lu, S.H., Cantor, D. and Hofer, C. (2018), “Content analysis in SCM research: past uses and future
research opportunities”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 152-190.
Narasimhan, R. (2014), “Theory development in operations management: extending the frontiers of a
mature discipline via qualitative research”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 209-227.
Narasimhan, R. (2018), “The fallacy of impact without relevance-reclaiming relevance and rigor”,
European Business Review, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 157-168.
Nenonen, S., Brodie, R.J., Storbacka, K. and Peters, L. (2017), “Theorizing with managers: how to
achieve both academic rigor and practical relevance?”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51
Nos 7/8, pp. 1-14.
Nicolai, A. and Seidl, D. (2010), “That’s relevant! Different forms of practical relevance in management
science”, Organization Studies, Vol. 31 Nos 9/10, pp. 1257-1285.
Pearce, J.L. and Huang, L. (2012), “The decreasing value of our research to management education”,
Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 247-262.
Pettigrew, A.M. (2001), “Management research after modernism”, British Journal of Management,
Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 61-70.
Raza, S.A., Govindaluri, S.M. and Bhutta, M.K. (2023), “Research themes in machine learning
applications in supply chain management using bibliometric analysis tools”, Benchmarking: An
International Journal, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 834-867.
Ruel, S. and El Baz, J. (2023), “Disaster readiness influence in the impact of supply chain resilience and
robustness on firm’s financial performance”, International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 16 No. 8, pp. 2594-2612.
Scott, W.R. (1995), Institutions and Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, GA.
Shah, S.K. and Corley, K.G. (2006), “Building better theory by bridging the quantitative-qualitative
divide”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43 No. 8, pp. 1821-1835.
Sivertsen, G. (2017), “Unique, but still best practice? The research excellence framework (REF) from an
international perspective”, Palgrave Communications, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-6.
Soni, G. and Kodali, R. (2013), “A critical review of supply chain management frameworks: proposed
framework”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 263-298.
Stentoft, J. and Rajkumar, C. (2018), “Balancing theoretical and practical relevance in supply chain
management research”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Management, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 504-523.
Strang, D. and Meyer, J.W. (1993), “Institutional conditions for diffusion”, Theory and Society, Vol. 2,
pp. 487-511.
Suchman, M.C. (1995), “Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 571-610.
Svanberg, M. (2020), “Guidelines for establishing practical relevance in logistics and supply chain
management research”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Management, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 215-232.
BIJ Swanson, D., Goel, L., Francisco, K. and Stock, J. (2018), “An analysis of supply chain management
research by topic”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 100-116.
Tabachnik, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2007), Using Multivariate Statistics, 5th ed., Pearson, Boston, MA.
Tazelaar, F. (2007), “With a little help from your friends (and neighbors): a potentially faster way to
accumulate knowledge in the field of purchasing and supply”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply
Management, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 196-198.
Thomas, R.W., Defee, C.C., Randall, W.S. and Williams, B. (2011), “Assessing the managerial relevance
of contemporary supply chain management research”, International Journal of Physical
Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 41 No. 7, pp. 655-667.
Toffel, M.W. (2016), “Enhancing the practical relevance of research”, Production and Operations
Management, Vol. 25 No. 9, pp. 1493-1505.
Tolbert, P.S. and Zucker, L.G. (1996), “Institutionalization of institutional theory”, in Glegg, S., Hardy,
G. and Nord, W. (Eds), The Handbook of Organization Studies, Sage, Thousand Oaks, GA,
pp. 175-190.
Van de Ven, A.H. (2007), Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Van de Ven, A.H. and Johnson, P.E. (2006), “Knowledge for theory and practice”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 802-821.
Vermeulen, F. (2007), “‘I shall not remain insignificant’: adding a second loop to matter more”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 754-761.
Voss, C.A. (2003), “Rethinking paradigms of service”, International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 88-104.
Werner, S., Praxedes, M. and Kim, H.G. (2007), “The reporting of nonresponse analyses in survey
research”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 287-295.
Willke, H. (2011), Introduction to Systemic Knowledge Management, 3rd ed., Carl Auer, Heidelberg.
Yin, R. (2007), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Zekhnini, K., Cherrafi, A., Bouhaddou, I., Benghabrit, Y. and Garza-Reyes, J.A. (2021), “Supply chain
management 4.0: a literature review and research framework”, Benchmarking: An International
Journal, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 465-501.
Zinn, W. and Goldsby, T.J. (2014), “Logistics professional identity: strengthening the discipline as
galaxies collide”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 23-28.
Zucker, L.G. (1991), “Postscript: microfoundations of institutional thought”, in Powell, W.W. and
DiMaggio, P.J. (Eds), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, University of Chicago
Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 103-107.

Further reading
Baldridge, D.C., Floyd, S.W. and Markoczy, L. (2004), “Are managers from mars and academicians
from venus? Toward an understanding of the relationship between academic quality and
practical relevance”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 25 No. 11, pp. 1063-1074.
Daft, R.L. and Lewin, A.Y. (2008), “Perspective-rigor and relevance in organization studies: idea
migration and academic journal evolution”, Organization Science, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 177-183.
Davis, M.S. (1971), “That’s interesting! Towards a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of
phenomenology”, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, Vol. 1, pp. 309-344.
Fawcett, S.E., Waller, M.A. and Bowersox, D.J. (2011), “Cinderella in the C-suite: conducting influential
research to advance the logistics and supply chain disciplines”, Journal of Business Logistics,
Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 115-121.
Gulati, R. (2007), “Tent Poles, tribalism, and boundary spanning: the rigor-relevance debate in
management research”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 775-782.
Kieser, A. and Leiner, L. (2009), “Why the rigour-relevance gap in management research is Interesting
unbridgeable”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 516-533.
supply chain
Kieser, A. and Leiner, L. (2011), “On the social construction of relevance: a rejoinder”, Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 891-898.
management
Lehmann, A., Russi, D., Bala, A., Finkbeiner, M. and Fullana-i-Palmer, P. (2011), “Integration of social
research
aspects in decision support, based on life cycle thinking”, Sustainability, Vol. 3 No. 4,
pp. 562-577.
Perry, C. (1998), “Processes of a case study methodology for postgraduate research in marketing”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32 Nos 9/10, pp. 785-802.
Vicari, S. (2013), “Is the problem only ours? A question of relevance in management research”,
European Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 173-181.

(The Appendix follows overleaf)

BIJ Appendix 1
Questionnaire

Questionnaire
Attributes of an interesting research
1. To what extent those attributes make a research interesting (“1” = not important at all; “7”=
Extremely important)?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Importance of challenging taken for granted assumptions
Novelty of research and the hypotheses tested
Ability to generate real world knowledge
Ability to develop existing theories in a cumulative fashion
Exemplary application of research methodology
Writing style that combines storytelling and theory development
Ability to make intuitive sense of findings and connect to common sense
notions of reality

2. To what extent do you think incorporating those attributes has enabled you to make your
research interesting (“1” = low extent; “7”= to the greatest extent)?
3. The importance of interestingness concept in your research (“1” = not important at all; “7”=
Extremely important)?
Researcher's profile
Please tick the appropriate response

1. Experience *
Senior researcher (>3 years of work)
Junior researcher (<=3 years of teaching and doing research)

2. Total number of papers that you have published in peer reviewed journals*
- ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

3. What are your three areas of specialty or topics of research interests? *

- ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
4. Have you reviewed papers related to SCM, logistics and operations management? *

Yes
No
5. How many papers have you reviewed previously in academic journals?
- ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

6. Are you a member of a SCM/logistics journal's editorial board? *

Yes
No
7. Current employer (university, research center) *
- ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

8. e-mail
-
Thank you for participating!
Appendix 2 Interesting
Interview guidelines
supply chain
management
Introductory question: research
SCM research has evolved through different stages since the 1980’s. From an external legitimacy based
on its ability to provide applicative research, SCM field has now matured up and it seems that there are
more and more theoretical and conceptual papers. To further advance, SCM research can target
important topics, be valid AND interesting. What do you think about this?

Transition question:
To what degree do you consider the aspect of “interesting research” in your own research?

Key questions:
What do you consider really interesting in recent SCM research and why?
From your point of view, which strategies can be adopted to make SCM research interesting from
your point of view?

Accessory questions:
Nominate up to three SCM research articles in the last decade(s) that you consider particularly
“interesting”. Why do you consider each of these articles particularly interesting?
What can we do to make SCM research more interesting in terms of topics, theories, and methods?

Corresponding author
Jamal El Baz can be contacted at: j.elbaz@uiz.ac.ma

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com