Collective action in SCM: a call for activist research

Pages3-20
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-08-2019-0222
Date04 May 2020
Published date04 May 2020
AuthorAnne Touboulic,Lucy McCarthy
Subject MatterLogistics,Management science & operations
Collective action in SCM: a call
for activist research
Anne Touboulic
Business School, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK, and
Lucy McCarthy
Department of Management,
Queens University Belfast, Belfast, UK
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the current focus of supply chain management (SCM)
research; it considers field level and societal constraints and consequently the potential for change. It details
the underlying assumptions in the field, considering the dominant paradigms and stakeholders, and how this
has shaped the research we have engaged in as a community of scholars.
Design/methodology/approach This is a reflective inquiry that seeks to deconstruct the dominant
discourses and paradigms in SCM. It offers alternative avenues of inquiry to traditionalresearch,
considering how different questions, perspectives and approaches might yield different learning for the field.
offering alternative avenues to traditional research.
Findings This is a call for collective action, for solidarity, for a re-imagining of what research in SCM could
look like. Research activism is challenging and potentially risky but necessary for the research community to
engage in, particularly in light of the global societal grand challenges. Change can take place in the SCM field
through collective action and solidarity. Three levels of activism are explored here acting to solve the grand
challenges, acting to change the field and acting as individuals.
Originality/value This is a speak-outpiece, which embraces and encourages reflexivity, new methods of
doing and writing research as well as different perspectives, and especially a consideration for context and
multiple players in the supply chain. The authors contend that it is urgent to re-appropriate our own agency
as SCM researchers.
Keywords Sustainability, Europe, Management research, Supplier management, Narrative inquiry,
Performance measurements
Paper type Viewpoint
As part of reading this paper we encourage you to listen to the song Respireby Mickey 3D (2016)
as we feel it captures the essence of our argument.
1. Introduction
This essay explores the current focus of supply chain management (SCM) research, it
considers field level and societal constraints and consequently the potential for change. We
detail the underlying assumptions in our field, consider the dominant paradigms and
stakeholders, and how this has shaped the research we engage in. We invite reflection upon
the following questions: Have we become a product of our field? Are we producing and
reproducing the dominant discourses, paradigms, research topics? Can we interrogate the
performative nature of research? What are the main definitions, themes and discursive
practices thathave shaped our field? Have we embraced oursilos? Could we do more? We call
for reflectionon our own role as researchers,our philosophy, our politics,our purpose. What is
Received 19 August 2019
Revised 20 August 2019
Accepted 20 August 2019
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-4093.htm
Erratum: It has come to the attention of the publisher that the article, Touboulic, A. and McCarthy, L.
(2019), Collective action in SCM: a call for activist researchpublished in The International Journal of
Logistics Management, contained an error in the author affiliation for Anne Touboulic. The correct
affiliationis: Business School, University of Nottingham, Nottingham,UK. These errors were introduced
in the production process and have now been corrected in the online version. The publisher sincerely
apologises for these errors and for any inconvenience caused.
Collective
action in SCM
TheInternationalJournalof
LogisticsManagement
Vol.31 No. 1, 2020
pp.3-20
©EmeraldPublishingLimited
0957-4093
DOI10.1108/IJLM-08-2019-0222
3
the value of ourwork? Do we justify our work basedon its impact in the academiccommunity
alone? In its ability to attract fundingor corporate interest or is it broader than that? Can we
seek to change the world? If supply chains can play a central role in transitioning to more
socially equitable societies (Mohrman and Worley, 2010), how can the research community
encourage this transition?
Research activism does not entail disregarding or devaluing the research we have
already engaged with, are currently exploring, or creating, but rather that we consider the
purpose of our research. In line with Elie Wiesel, we consider that we must always take sides
and not remain silent as claims of neutrality, and hence silence, helps oppressors. There are
urgent societal challenges shaping the environment in which we are currently doing
research that cannot be ignored. This is a call for collective action, for solidarity, for a
re-imagining of what research in SCM could look like. We believe there is a range of
researcher activist dimensions that can be engaged with from the individual to the
organisation and the collective levels of resistance. Whether large or small, we encourage
ourselves to reflect on our positions of agency in each role we take: researcher, writer,
educator, organiser, community member and colleague.
2. Deconstructing the dominant discourse of SCM
In this section we take stock of the dominant discourse that has shaped the field of
logistics and SCM to outline the way in which this has constructed what is legitimate and
possible to investigate (Phillips and Hardy, 2002). We specifically recognise the
performative nature of discourse and its inter-relation with material practices. In this
sense discourse is constitutive of the research field, creating ways of organising and
conducting research (Christensen et al., 2013). Hence, the discourse, for instance in journal
articles, in our field not only serves to conceptualise and theorise our field, it also
contributes to the (re)production of the reality of logistics and SCM as an area of practice.
In other words, the adoption of certain dominant perspectives, theories and units of
analysis in logistics and SCM means research may tend to reproduce patterns of power
observed in practice, and hence plays a role in maintaining dominant exploitative
practices. To borrow from New (1997, p. 18), we consider that the ideas of SCM do not
merely reflectthe empirical reality but play a role in constituting it.
As a starting point to unpack the underlying assumptions that have shaped the field of
SCM, we take a look at some of the most accepted definitions of SCM thathave emerged over
four decades of research and what they tell us aboutthe concept but also the practice of SCM.
The definitionsare presented in Table I, showing the issues and themes that areemphasised.
We note from our search for definitions over this period that there has been a movement
in the late 2000s and early 2010s towards debating the nature of the discipline and the very
concept of SCM. There is not so much a focus on defining SCM per se but on highlighting
how the lack of consensual definition serves to assert the value of the field academically.
From the above table, it is clear that SCM is conceived as a utilitarian notion, and a clinical
and mechanistic view of SCM through the definitions transpires (i.e. it can be managed,
controlled, it is made of different functional parts []). The salient themes emerging from
the few well-accepted definitions, and therefore reproduced in the majority of the SCM
academic literature, centre around the non-human material aspects and a narrow focus on
process and performance to serve the customers (and the firm). There is limited
acknowledgement of context in that no reference is made to the relational embeddedness of
SC in broader societal, political and environmental dynamics. Much attention is dedicated to
emphasising the complexity of the SC (i.e. multi-layered) and its management. This
prevailing complexity discourse seems to allow for an acceptance of our lack of knowledge
about SC processes and their implications, but also of our failure to actually re-organise
them to address grand societal challenges.
IJLM
4
31,1

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT