The very same number of the Journal of Supply Chain Management publishing Oliver E. Williamson‘s SCM-related article was dedicated to the debate of bridging the gap between research and practice. Funnily, it had articles on both rigor vs. relevance (or, a rather serious debate on headlinitis in SCM research), as well as Tom (John T) Mentzer questioning whether researchers would indeed need to choose between the two. True, why wouldn’t we strive for BOTH rigor and relevance? Finally a fruitful debate in the discipline!
Funny is also the application of SCM thinking to the discipline itself. So the very same article presents a process model of SC scholarship. A bit in the vein of the old IJPDLM article on the supply chain of publishing (or rather, the “supply circle” of publishing) that reflects on the suppliers (authors), customers (=audience = authors and potential authors) and operational entities (=reviewers & editors = authors and former authors) of academic publishing. Rigor might be attested in this process, but what about relevance (vs. headlinitis)?
Gyöngyi
