{"title":"Advancing Rigor in Operations Management Qualitative Research: From Proceduralism to Reflexive Reasoning","authors":"Miriam Wilhelm, Katja Wölfl, Eugenia Rosca, Kirstin Scholten","doi":"10.1002/joom.70051","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Qualitative research has evolved into a valued scientific approach to generate novel theoretical contributions in operations management (OM). However, a limited understanding of what constitutes methodological rigor in qualitative research has resulted in a proceduralized application of research practices and templates, hindering further progress. After tracing the origins of discipline-specific rigor in OM—closely linked to the inductive (positivistic) case study method—we present an alternative perspective: rigor as researchers' demonstration of reflexivity in deliberate reasoning processes that infer theoretical insights from data. Based on a review of 87 qualitative research articles in three leading empirical OM journals (<i>Journal of Operations Management</i>, <i>Production and Operations Management</i>, and <i>Journal of Supply Chain Management</i>), published between 2015 and 2024, we trace the (limited) evolution of rigor in qualitative OM research across three time brackets. We then compare the current state of rigor in qualitative OM research with that of three leading management journals (<i>Academy of Management Journal, Organization Science</i>, and <i>Strategic Management Journal</i>) by examining the most recent time bracket (2023–2024). Through the analysis of discipline-specific rigor developments and the cross-field comparison, we identify areas of progress alongside persistent rigor gaps. Based on these gaps, we develop a series of probing questions to enhance researchers' reflexive reasoning, illustrated with examples from both fields. Our contribution provides a reflexivity-based framework that enables researchers to move beyond procedural compliance toward rigorous qualitative research, ultimately yielding OM theories with greater explanatory power.</p>","PeriodicalId":51097,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Operations Management","volume":"72 5","pages":"753-769"},"PeriodicalIF":10.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/joom.70051","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Operations Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joom.70051","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/6/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Qualitative research has evolved into a valued scientific approach to generate novel theoretical contributions in operations management (OM). However, a limited understanding of what constitutes methodological rigor in qualitative research has resulted in a proceduralized application of research practices and templates, hindering further progress. After tracing the origins of discipline-specific rigor in OM—closely linked to the inductive (positivistic) case study method—we present an alternative perspective: rigor as researchers' demonstration of reflexivity in deliberate reasoning processes that infer theoretical insights from data. Based on a review of 87 qualitative research articles in three leading empirical OM journals (Journal of Operations Management, Production and Operations Management, and Journal of Supply Chain Management), published between 2015 and 2024, we trace the (limited) evolution of rigor in qualitative OM research across three time brackets. We then compare the current state of rigor in qualitative OM research with that of three leading management journals (Academy of Management Journal, Organization Science, and Strategic Management Journal) by examining the most recent time bracket (2023–2024). Through the analysis of discipline-specific rigor developments and the cross-field comparison, we identify areas of progress alongside persistent rigor gaps. Based on these gaps, we develop a series of probing questions to enhance researchers' reflexive reasoning, illustrated with examples from both fields. Our contribution provides a reflexivity-based framework that enables researchers to move beyond procedural compliance toward rigorous qualitative research, ultimately yielding OM theories with greater explanatory power.
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Operations Management (JOM) is a leading academic publication dedicated to advancing the field of operations management (OM) through rigorous and original research. The journal's primary audience is the academic community, although it also values contributions that attract the interest of practitioners. However, it does not publish articles that are primarily aimed at practitioners, as academic relevance is a fundamental requirement.
JOM focuses on the management aspects of various types of operations, including manufacturing, service, and supply chain operations. The journal's scope is broad, covering both profit-oriented and non-profit organizations. The core criterion for publication is that the research question must be centered around operations management, rather than merely using operations as a context. For instance, a study on charismatic leadership in a manufacturing setting would only be within JOM's scope if it directly relates to the management of operations; the mere setting of the study is not enough.
Published papers in JOM are expected to address real-world operational questions and challenges. While not all research must be driven by practical concerns, there must be a credible link to practice that is considered from the outset of the research, not as an afterthought. Authors are cautioned against assuming that academic knowledge can be easily translated into practical applications without proper justification.
JOM's articles are abstracted and indexed by several prestigious databases and services, including Engineering Information, Inc.; Executive Sciences Institute; INSPEC; International Abstracts in Operations Research; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; SciSearch/Science Citation Index; CompuMath Citation Index; Current Contents/Engineering, Computing & Technology; Information Access Company; and Social Sciences Citation Index. This ensures that the journal's research is widely accessible and recognized within the academic and professional communities.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
