Understanding the relationship between general and middle-range theorizing

• Date: 02 July 2020
• Pages: 401-421
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-04-2019-0120
• Published date: 02 July 2020
• Author: David Swanson,Lakshmi Goel,Kristoffer Francisco,James Stock
• Subject Matter: Management science & operations,Logistics

Understanding the relationship

between general and middle-

range theorizing

David Swanson

Department of Marketing and Logistics, University of North Florida, Jacksonville,

Florida, USA

Lakshmi Goel and Kristoffer Francisco

University of North Florida, Jacksonville, Florida, USA, and

James Stock

Department of Marketing, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA

Abstract

Purpose –General theories have been criticized for their inability to explore the mechanics of more specific

domain knowledge and understand how, when and where general theory applies to and extends domain

knowledge in supply chain management (SCM). Middle-range theorizing (MRT) is a potential solution to this

limitation. This paper aims to assist researchers in understanding the relationship between MRT and general

theorizing (GT) and connecting MRT research findings to general theory.

Design/methodology/approach–This research provides a structured literature review of 518 articles, from

eight journals in logistics, SCM and operations management. Theoretically based articles are analyzed by

primary domain and SCM context.

Findings –There are frameworks for conducting MRT; however, the literature does not sufficiently assist

researchers in understanding how middle-range (MR) theory should relate to general theory. Findings include a

better understanding of underserved areas in SCM, guideline frameworks for understanding when to apply

MRT, when to apply GT and how MRT knowledge can be connected to SCM domain knowledge.

Originality/value –This study provides a timely and appropriate compilation of theory research in SCM,

including significant implicationsfor both theory and practice, by helping to articulate the evolving philosophy

of science in SCM.

Keywords Domain knowledge, General theorizing, Middle-range theory, Structured literature review,

Deductive-inductive approach, Theory development

Paper type Research paper

Introduction

Increasing the quantity and rigor of theory-driven research has been a focus of scholars in

supply chain management (SCM) for quite some time (Carter, 2011;Fawcett and Waller, 2011;

Kovacs and Spens, 2007;Harland et al., 2006;Chen and Paulraj, 2004;Mentzer and Kahn,

1995). A theory is defined as a general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence

(Bothamly, 2002). Scholars pursue theoretical research to explain empirical phenomenon with

analytical generalizations, a process called general theorizing (GT). Over time, the analytical

generalizations create domain knowledge which is spheres of thought or action related to a

field of study (Oxford English Dictionary, 2018). Despite a sluggish start in the 1990s, the

number of theory-based publications has grown exponentially in the last fifteen years. In fact,

this research reviews over two hundred named academic theories that have been applied and

extended by SCM researchers. Most of this research is based upon general theories, such as

the resourced-based view (RBV) of the firm or transaction cost economics (TCE) that have

wide ranging applicability in a variety of research domains. However, despite this wide

acceptance and use, general theories have been criticized for their inability to explore the

mechanics of more specific domain knowledge and understand how, when and where general

theory applies to specific knowledge in SCM (Stank et al., 2017).

The

relationship

between MRT

and GT

401

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

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0957-4093.htm

Received 23 April 2019

Revised 30 October 2019

30 January 2020

2 April 2020

26 May 2020

Accepted 27 May 2020

The International Journal of

Logistics Management

Vol. 31 No. 3, 2020

pp. 401-421

© Emerald Publishing Limited

0957-4093

DOI 10.1108/IJLM-04-2019-0120

A solution can be found in middle-range theorizing (MRT) that seeks to explain

phenomenon uniqueto SCM. Scholars have explicitly called for moreMRT in SCM because it

bridgesthe gap between academiaand practice in a process calledtheoretical contextualization

(Stank et al.,2017;Craighead et al.,2016).MRT builds upon empirical examinationof particular

problems and offers a tool for scholars to synthesize, extract and create general knowledge

(Merton, 1967). MRT allows scholars to focus on practitioner problems but must begin with

well-established relationships in the domain (Stank et al.,2017). Contextual and experimental

techniqueswill play a larger role in research as scholars examinein more detail the theoretical

interrelationships within logistics domains (Pellathy et al.,2018). MRT provides a basis for

researchers to extend knowledge by testing domain-specific hypotheses deduced from the

accumulatedresults of generaltheory testing or fromempirical evidence.Note that MRT differs

from “groundedresearch”, whichrelies purely on theorizingthrough induction.MRT allows for

a deductive-inductive approach thatconnects new theoretical insights tothe known realm of

science (Pinder andMoore, 1980;Merton, 1967).

Some frameworks for conducting MRT in SCM have been illustrated in the recent

literature (Pellathy et al., 2018;Stank et al., 2017;Craighead et al., 2016). Stank et al. (2017)

provides examples of how MRT has been done in the past, including examples of deductive

theorizing (Mentzer et al., 2001) and inductive theorizing (Flint et al., 2005) in SCM. Pellathy

et al. (2018) builds on that research by offering guidance for creating a MRT framework to

synthesize theoretical relationships from empirical findings for “core”SCM concepts and uses

logistics customer service as the focus. Once concept characteristics, antecedents and

outcomes are identified –based on an established body of evidence –MRT is used to explore

the mechanisms (i.e. “why and how”) and contexts (i.e. “when”) that are rooted in practice.

While these frameworks note the importance of empirical observations (especially for

inductive theorizing) and established relationships (particularly for deductive theorizing), the

role of existing theories in MRT is not emphasized. This is somewhat problematic as the

process of MRT inherently differs from other approaches, such as grounded theory, in its

connection to general theories. Many scholars support that an important starting point of

MRT is a review of existing theory (Bourgeois, 1979;Merton, 1967;Blalock, 1970), and then,

once middle-range (MR) theory is developed, that it be ultimately connected back to general

theory (Pinder and Moore, 1980) this is the most efficient way to build domain knowledge.

Without this step relating new MRT findings to existing academic theory, the impact of MR

theory is limited (Merton, 1967) and may contribute to ambiguity. Therefore, the purpose of

this research is to highlight the role of middle range theorizing and identify how, where and

why it extends established academic theory, including general theory and established middle

range theory.

This research follows the following structure and topics. The background and theoretical

development section focuses on defining MRT, with particular emphasis on its differences

from GT and developing the theoretical relationship between MRT and GT. In this section we

also identify how this work builds upon the previous frameworks of Stank et al. (2017) and

Pellathy et al. (2018). The methodology section presents the process followed for a structured

literature review (SLR). The SLR methodology has been used to map the use of theories in

fields, including SCM (c.f. Touboulic and Walker (2015)). In using SLR, we hope to provide a

clearer big picture of theories in SCM and a richer understanding of the process of theorizing.

The SLR enables us to identify gaps in the literature where MRT could be applied. In this

section we also describe the data and methods used for compiling the comprehensive SLR.

The fourth section, results, provides the research tables and general findings from the SLR.

Next, the discussion section advances three topics: identifying the underserved areas of

theoretical development in SCM; developing guidelines for when to use MRT and GT and

exploring how researchers connect MRT to SCM domain knowledge. The conclusion section

provides a summary and limitations.

IJLM

31,3

402