Interpretive research

Abstract

Purpose Scholars have called for diversity in methods and multi-method research to enhance relevance to practice. However, many of the calls have only gone so far as to suggest the use of multiple methods within the positivism paradigm, which dominates the discipline and may constrain the ability to develop middle-range theory and propose workable solutions to today’s supply chain challenges. The purpose of this paper is to present a rationale for expanding the methodological toolbox of the field to include interpretive research methods. Design/methodology/approach This research conceptually illustrates how positivist and interpretive philosophies translate into different research approaches by reviewing an extant positivist qualitative study that uses grounded theory and then detailing how an interpretive researcher would approach the same phenomenon using the hermeneutic method. Findings This research expands the boundaries and impact of the field by broadening the set of questions research can address. It contributes a detailed illustration of the interpretive research process, as well as applications for the interpretive approach in future research, particularly theory elaboration, middle-range theorizing, and emerging domains such as the farm-to-fork supply chain and the consumer-based supply chain. Research limitations/implications The development of alternative ways of seeking knowledge enhances the potential for creativity, expansion, and progress in the field. Practical implications Practical implications of this research include enabling researchers to elaborate theory and develop middle-range theories through an alternative philosophical paradigm. This paradigm facilitates practical insights that are directly relevant to particular domains and move beyond general theories seeking generalizability. Social implications Social implications of this research are much more indirect in nature. This research encourages supply chain management (SCM) scholars to look at phenomena (including those with social implications) from a different philosophical perspective, which can reveal new insights. Originality/value This research contributes a rationale for expanding the methodological toolbox of the field to include interpretive research methods and also contributes a methodological operationalization of the interpretive approach. By reflecting on the nature of science and method in SCM, the study opens the door for creativity and progress to expand the boundaries and impact of the field.

Prefiguring sustainable living: an ecovillage story

“…Interviews lasted between one and two hours, and were digitally recorded and fully transcribed, generating 468 double-spaced pages of text. Data were interrogated in line with critical and sociological thought, moving iteratively from text to cultural context with reference to theory (Darby et al, 2019). Cloughjordan Ecovillage's website describes the community as 'a diverse group of people' from 'all walks of life, from all over the country and abroad, young and old, families and single people', (Cloughjordan Ecovillage, 2020).…”

Let us get contextual: critical realist case studies in supply chain management

“…We argue that the positivist and interpretivist research approaches are on two outer poles ontology wise. To avoid unnecessary complexities and to stay in line with the approach of Darby et al (2019), we will not enter a thorough discussion on the two dimensions (empiricism and falsification) of positivism. We contend that SCM scholars will benefit from a more comprehensive disentangling of the underlying assumptions of different forms of positivism, but that this endeavor is beyond the scope of this article.…”

“…Although they do not directly identify as interpretivists, Bravo et al (2022) move close toward this ontological standpoint as they explore logics in sustainable SCM. While more can be said of the different ontological positions within the interpretivist camp (Towers et al , 2020, p. 445), the core difference vis-à-vis critical realism is the dependency between any objective reality and our social reconstitution of what that reality means (Darby et al , 2019). For the remainder of the article, we take departure in interpretivism as argued by Darby and her colleagues (2019), but we contend that the breadth of the constructivist position warrants its own article (Craighead et al , 2020; Darby et al , 2021; Ketokivi and Choi, 2014; Towers et al , 2020).…”

“…This means that interpretivists will seek to generate meaning and expand the boundaries of our knowledge by developing a better understanding of social actors’ perceptions of reality (Craighead et al , 2020). Research is understood as a process and not as a control measure (Darby et al , 2019). Here, we see how Bravo et al (2022) employ a ground-up approach, in that they investigate competing logics – that is, some sort of perception of reality – thus moving toward an interpretive approach.…”

“…Similarly, Brookbanks and Parry (2022) conducted a case study on blockchain and trust, and Walker and Jones (2012) developed a sustainability typology for SCM through a case study. At the same time, an emerging group of scholars have started to embrace idiographic, context-bound explanations rooted in constructivist philosophy (Darby et al , 2019; Flynn et al , 2020; Touboulic et al , 2020).…”