A Trail Guide to Publishing Success Tips

8/19/2019 A Trail Guide to Publishing Success Tips

1/16

Editorial

A Trail Guide to Publishing Success: Tips on Writing Inuential

Conceptual, Qualitative, and Survey ResearchStanley E. Fawcett 1, Matthew A. Waller 2, with Jason W. Miller 3, Matthew A. Schwieterman3,Benjamin T. Hazen4, and Robert E. Overstreet 5

1Weber State University2University of Arkansas3The Ohio State University4 Auburn University5 Air Force Institute of Technology

P ublishing in top journals is dif cult. Common challenges undermine authors’ attempts to explain and inuence their discipline's understanding and practice. We identify and describe these roadblocks to publishing success. We also benchmark best practice in management,marketing, and supply chain journals to provide a trail guide for writing—and publishing—inuential conceptual, qualitative, and survey

research. Given equinality in research, our trail guide should not be viewed as the only way to craft excellent, inuential research. However, i

we agree on the basics, we can (1) increase consistency in the review process, (2) reduce publication cycles, and (3) begin to roll back the

length of articles.

Keywords: theory development; storytelling; conceptual; qualitative; methodology

INTRODUCTION

Publishing in top journals is dif cult. It is also highly rewarding.

Successful authors know that the publishing process is often a

long, uphill, and potentially perilous journey. The rst — and most

important — step in the journey is ideation; that is, coming up with

an interesting research question that, if well answered, will inu-

ence how we think and act (see Davis 1971 or Fawcett and Wal-ler 2011a). Research questions guide the early phase of the

knowledge-discovery journey, including choice of informing the-

ory, research method, and data sources. A successful journey,

however, requires the endurance of meticulous execution, rened

thinking, and great storytelling. These markers — question, theory,

methods, data, and story — signal whether you are on the path to

making a valid and valuable contribution. Because the publication

success rate is low (often under 10%) and the process is arduous

and time consuming, we seek to provide authors some tips to

make the journey a little easier — and less career threatening.

Before sharing the tips, let us share how we derived them. As

editors at the Journal of Business Logistics, we have delimited

reviewer comments and concerns to help us proactively screenpapers for t and readiness. One result: A 50% desk-reject rate.

Our goal here is twofold.

1. By desk rejecting articles that have no chance to survive the

journey to print, we save authors 60 – 90 days of review cycle

— time they can use to reposition and improve their research.

2. We reduce the burden on JBL ’s review team.

In all but egregious cases of poor t, we have tried to provide

authors with a reasonable review so they can move their work

forward. This proactive screening has given us a real apprecia

tion for the roadblocks that impede authors’ progress to publica-

tion. Table 1 summarizes the common signs that authors are on

a perilous path to rejection and acts as a publishing trail guide

Of note, reviewers who identify three or more major-level dange

signs typically recommend rejection. Beyond fatal methodsaws, the most common and perilous combination of issue

identied by reviewers is a lack of justication, poor theoretica

grounding, and scarce contribution.

Of course, the objective of the peer-review process — at every

stage — goes beyond “gatekeeping.” At JBL , our immediate goal

is to collaborate with authors to help them make a meaningfu

contribution to theory and practice. Our end hope is to provide

society a real return on its research investment by promoting and

publishing research that improves value creation in industry and

informs teaching at all levels. To do this, we must do more than

merely help authors avoid the so-called rejection roadblocks. We

must provide tips to help authors conceptualize and tell a con-

vincing story from start to nish. With this in mind, we bench-marked best practice in top-tier management, marketing, and

supply chain journals to draft trail guides in three areas: concep-

tual theory building, qualitative investigation, and survey

research. Why develop trail guides for these three domains? Two

issues motivate our efforts:

1. We want to encourage more high-quality conceptual and

inductive research. Trail guides help dene the “standardized

language” and “acceptable methods” for authors and reviewers

alike to determine and communicate quality (see Pratt 2009).

2. We receive high volumes of survey research. The methods

sections often fail to describe in a clear and easy-to-review

Corresponding author :

Stanley E. Fawcett, Business Administration, Weber State Univer-

sity, WB 267, Ogden, UT 84408, USA; E-mail: stan.e.fawcett@

gmail.com

Journal of Business Logistics, 2014, 35(1): 1–16© Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/16

format “what ” was done to assure robust results. Reviewers

often ask for clarications that should have been included in

the initial submission — a fact that lengthens submission-to-

decision lead times.

TIPS FOR CONDUCTING AND WRITING UP

CONCEPTUAL RESEARCH

Conceptual research is scientic inquiry that relies on abstract

thinking — as opposed to empirical, data-driven research — to con-

ceptualize, delimit, and solve real-world problems (Corley and

Gioia 2011; MacInnis 2011). Conceptual research is often associ-

ated with the discovery phase of scientic progress (i.e., intro-

ducing a new theory), but it also serves an important role in the

justi cation phase of scientic progress (i.e., revising how a con-

struct is conceptualized and operationalized) (Yadav 2010). Con-

ceptual research can address a wide range of entities including

constructs, domains, processes, and theories (MacInnis 2011).

Why do conceptual research?

As evidenced by citations and best-paper awards, conceptual arti-

cles can make a real, disproportionate impact on knowledge dis-

covery — and a discipline’s maturity and contribution (Yadav

2010; MacInnis 2011). Conceptual research helps us see the world

— and decision-making phenomena — through new lenses, enabling

us to nd new trailheads for existing and emerging problem-solv-

ing quests. Once these research opportunities are identied,

subsequent empirical research moves us further down the knowl-

edge-discovery path. Conceptual research is thus synergistically

intertwined with empirical research, with Yadav (2010) stating,

Table 1: Warning signs that authors are wandering down a perilous path

Signs of publishing peril Tips

First impression

Abstract

Does not identify research question Take the time to write a clear abstract. It is the rst thing areviewer reads and sets a rst impression that either sells or

undermines your research

Does not explain why the research question is important

Fails to describe the methods used

Does not communicate ndings and contributions

Writing Style

The paper is formatted for another journal Don’t create cognitive dissonance. Look at recent articles.

Invest in a good copy editor The paper is poorly written and very hard to read/understand

The length-to-contribution ratio is poor Tell a clear, concise, and compelling story

Justication

Authors fail to state the research question up front Finding a gap is not suf cient. Some gaps don’t need to be

closed. Provide a real “So, what?” to motivate your

research

Authors don’t articulate why the question needs to be addressed

Authors neglect to clearly show that extant research is inadequate

Theoretical Grounding

The paper reviews the literature, but is not grounded in theory Identify theories that truly inform research, citing key articles.Explain connections without reiterating the obvious, identify

potential limits, and derive succinct hypotheses/propositions/

extensions

Authors don’t synthesize theoretical perspectives

Authors don’t articulate theoretical conversation they are joining

Authors use dangling or disjointed theory

Hypotheses/propositions do not emerge logically from theory

Methods

Authors don’t justify research method Make sure your method is appropriate for addressing your

research question. Explain your methods clearly and in

suf cient detail. Follow established procedures and make it

easy for reviewers to see what you’ve done

The paper inappropriately employs acceptable method

The paper fails to provide adequate description of methods

The paper goes into too much description of methods

Authors rely on an inappropriate data source

Findings and Discussion

Findings and discussion are detached from the data Concisely discuss ndings, always drawing conclusions from

your analysis. Seek feedback via friendly reviewersFindings and discussion are clearly incomplete

Findings and discussion are not very interestingContributions

Authors don’t articulate clear theoretical implications Demonstrate how your research contributes to theory and

practice. Be explicit and thoughtfulAuthors neglect managerial implications

Contributions are poorly dened or simply insuf cient

Limitations and Future Research

When shared, limitations and future research lack substance Be substantive or leave off entirely

2 S. E. Fawcett et al.


3/16

“When one key element in the mix of contributions is removed or

altered signicantly, knowledge development processes are likely

to be affected — often in unanticipated ways” (p. 5). A discipline

that struggles to produce high-quality conceptual research may be

opting for the slow lane to knowledge discovery and dissemina-

tion.

When is conceptual research appropriate?

Conceptual research can bridge many knowledge gaps, but it is

particularly tting in the following three scenarios.

1. Problem is not Conducive to Empiricism. Many routes to

inquiry, such as challenging the assumptions that underlie the-

ories we use to explain supply chain management (SCM) phe-

nomena, are not well suited to empirical investigation. For

example, if we sought to advocate real options theory (Bow-

man and Hurry 1993) rather than transaction cost economics

(TCE; Williamson 1985, 1991) to explain insourcing versus

outsourcing, rhetorical techniques such as reviewing the logi-

cal consistency of each perspective, evaluating the epistemo-logical assumptions driving each perspective’s predictions,

and reviewing empirical evidence might offer the best route

forward (Whetten 1989). Similarly, syntheses of existing

research streams to refocus inquiry are not conducive to

empirical investigation (Yadav 2010). For example, emerging

research notes that: (1) empirical efforts to operationalize trust

constructs is highly inconsistent and (2) calls for new con-

struct development (Seppanen et al. 2007; Jones et al. 2010;

Whipple et al. 2013).

2. Emerging Phenomena. Conceptual research is an excellent

vehicle for addressing emerging issues for which empirical

data may not be available due to the nascent nature of our

insight into the phenomena (Sutton and Staw 1995). For

example, given sparse data availability, Ellram et al. (2013)

conceptually examined the phenomenon of factor market riv-

alry (Capron and Chatain 2008; Markman et al. 2009). By

allowing us to explore emerging phenomena, conceptual

research enables us to: (1) improve the timeliness and mana-

gerial applicability of our work and (2) move beyond report-

ing new phenomena to play an active role in shaping the

conversation via “sensegiving” — the process of shaping other

academics’ and practitioners’ understanding of the phenomena

(Maitlis and Lawrence 2007).

3. New Paradigms. Conceptualization is a means for introduc-

ing new, perhaps radically different, concepts that can provide

the impetus for altering a discipline’s established paradigms

(Kuhn 1996). In the context of new theory, Kilduff (2006)states “Theory papers succeed if they offer important and ori-

ginal ideas…Theory — in the form of big ideas that can lead

to new research questions” (p. 252). Through “disciplined

imagination” (Weick 1989), conceptual research allows schol-

ars to examine phenomena using a series of thought experi-

ments to identify innovative relationships and connections. By

exploring uncharted terrain, we can devise solutions to prob-

lems yet to be fully articulated by practitioners (Weick 1989).

Such theoretical prescience helps us discern what we need to

know and inuence resources to problems that will impact

organizations in the future (Corley and Gioia 2011).

How should conceptual research be crafted?

Given the breadth of forms and the exploratory nature of concep-

tual research, let us acknowledge up front that it is impossible to

provide a precise trail guide for crafting conceptual research (Kil-

duff 2006). Even so, several best practices demarcate a general-

ized path (see Table 2). In the following discussion, we focus onfour issues that affect construction of the story and the ultimate

credibility and contribution of a conceptual article.

1. Classify and Highlight Contribution. Reviewers often view

conceptual articles skeptically, wondering, “What is the rea

contribution?” To preempt this comment, explicitly classify

and state your contributions. Do this briey up front and in

greater detail in your conclusions. MacInnis (2011) suggests

an eight-category typology of conceptual contributions

Table 3 summarizes this typology using examples from the

broader management literature and highlights how you might

make each type of contribution explicit.

Part of telling a compelling story is articulating the degree of

originality of your work. Of course, it is impossible for eachconceptual article to revolutionize “the discipline”; however

you need to carefully articulate how your research diverges from

or extends extant thinking (Kilduff 2006). You might also nd

value in describing the utility of your research using Corley and

Gioia’s (2011) categories of scientic and practical utility. Spe-

cically, scientic utility “is perceived as an advance tha

improves conceptual rigor or the specicity of an idea and/or

enhances its potential to be operationalized and tested,” whereas

practical utility “is seen as arising when theory can be directly

applied to the problems practicing managers and other organiza-

tional practitioners face” (Corley and Gioia 2011, 17 – 18). Con-

ceptual research that can shape the academic and practitioner

discourse on emerging problems can make a greater impact by

helping to bridge the theory-practice gap (Waller et al. 2012).

2. Push Theoretical Boundaries. To really make a contribution

you need to push the boundaries of existing thought by: (1)

challenging how we currently view the world and/or (2) shin-

ing a spotlight on what we need to know. To do this, pursue

novel strategies when crafting your arguments. It also helps to

view conceptual research as the process of sensemaking (We-

ick 1979) and sensegiving (Corley and Gioia 2011). This

entails going beyond explaining why the phenomena happened

to developing sound arguments for how we should think abou

the phenomena and their interrelationships moving forward

Impactful conceptual research responds to Corley and Gioia ’s

(2011) lament that, “theoretical contributions in managemen

and organization studies have not done an adequate job oanticipating [emphasis added] the important conceptual, as

well as practical, needs of society’s now most prominent mem-

bers — business and social organizations” (p. 20).

3. Theorize and Write with Precision. Clarity in theorizing and

writing is essential for all research, but especially when craft-

ing conceptual articles (Whetten 1989). Specically, you

should: (1) express clear denitions for constructs and mecha-

nisms theorized to bring about the expected relationships

between constructs, (2) delimit the boundary conditions under

which the constructs and mechanisms operate, and (3) provide

an explanation for expected relationships by explaining why

A Trail Guide to Publishing Success 3


4/16

the posited mechanisms bringing about these relationships

should be present (Hedstr €om and Ylikoski 2010; Suddaby

2010). Furthermore, you should make explicit the aspects and

assumptions of the different theoretical lenses you draw from

to form your arguments (Meehl 1990). Finally, you can go a

long way toward improving reviewers’ reaction to your

research by developing precise predictions and propositions,especially regarding moderated (Goldsby et al. 2013) and cur-

vilinear (Pierce and Aguinis 2013) effects. Such precision

invites us to think about boundary conditions and paves the

way for more stringent and insightful tests of our theories.

Good conceptual papers are written to clearly, concisely, and

compellingly explain important, but underexplored decision-

making phenomena.

4. Borrow Theory Appropriately. Borrowing constructs and the-

ories from other disciplines — both horizontally and vertically

— is common in organization science (Whetten et al. 2009).

SCM is no exception (e.g., supply chain capital (Autry and

Grif s 2008) and supply chain identity salience (Min et al.

2008)). Such borrowing offers several benets, including

improved explanation, enhanced legitimacy of borrower ’s dis-

cipline, and increased interdisciplinary connectivity. However,

before borrowing constructs or theories, you must verify that the construct or theory has a similar function (Morgeson and

Hofmann 1999) in the new setting.

To summarize, conceptual research occupies a vital place in

today’s knowledge ecosystem, and can motivate needed empiri-

cal research. Our lack of conceptual research hampers SCM’s

ability to advance knowledge. Yet, well-executed conceptual

research could give us an opportunity to get out in front of —

instead of lagging behind — real-world challenges!

Table 2: Best practices for crafting conceptual articles

Trail marker Discussion

Story Markers

Emphasize

contribution

Tell a compelling story by explicitly highlighting contributions. Don’t bury the lead by abusing conceptual

“freedom in format.” Avoid tangents that obfuscate your contribution. Continually ask, “How does this paper

contribute?”

Push theory

boundaries

Conceptual research should “challenge and extend existing theory, not simply to rewrite it …authors should

push back the boundaries of our knowledge” (Whetten 1989, 491)

Pursue novel strategies when crafting arguments, exemplied by Weick’s (1979) summary: “In the

organizational theorizing that follows, we will not be timid about speculating…striving for interest (Davis

1971), utilizing incongruity as perspective, anthropomorphizing, reifying, inserting hyperbole, waxing

discursive, glossing, improvising, examining alternatives to positivism, reframing, intuiting, and any other

tricks that help counteract sluggish imaginations” (p. 26)

Theorize with

precision

Articulate clear denitions for constructs and mechanisms theorized to bring about the expected relationships

between constructs; delimit the boundary conditions under which the constructs and mechanisms operate and

provide an explanation for expected relationships (Hedstr €om and Ylikoski 2010; Suddaby 2010)

Make explicit the aspects and assumptions of the theoretical lens utilized to structure arguments. Meehl’s

(1990, 112) distinction between core and periphery elements of a theory works well to accomplish this task

Develop more precise predictions such as curvilinear and moderated relationships to lay the groundwork for

more stringent tests of theory. Remember, we have more condence in theories that survive challenging tests

vis-a-vis theories that are subjected to comparably “weak” tests (Meehl 1990)

Borrow theory

appropriately

Vertical borrowing is the use of concepts “that were formulated at a different level of analysis, ” and

horizontal borrowing, is “borrowing [that] involves the use of concepts that were formulated in a different

social context, can offer several benets including 1) improved explanation of a discipline’s phenomena, 2)

increased legitimacy of the borrower ’s discipline, and 3) increased interdisciplinary connectivity” (Whetten

et al. 2009, 540)

Borrowed constructs and/or theories must be functionally equivalent. That is, borrowed constructs must produce theoretically equivalent outputs (Morgeson and Hofmann 1999). Similarly, borrowed theories must

have similar underlying mechanisms theorized to bring about the relationships between constructs (Chen

et al., 2005)

Articulate why borrowed constructs and/or theories exhibit functional equivalence. If functional equivalence

cannot be established, scholars should explain how the theory is modied to t into the SCM context

Structural Markers

Make use of tables Tables provide a concise way to convey a large amount of information

Tables are especially effective when juxtaposing competing arguments

Employ gures well Figures can provide a holistic representation of scholars’ models and visualize key relationships inherent in

theory. However, the “boxes” (constructs) still require denition and the logic underlying the “arrows”

(theoretical mechanisms) should be fully articulated in the text (Sutton and Staw 1995; Thomas et al., 2011)



5/16


6/16

TIPS FOR CONDUCTING AND WRITING UP

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Qualitative research as scientic inquiry relies on storytelling to

make sense of real-world dilemmas. Qualitative research allows

informants to tell their stories and derives meaning from patterns

that emerge within and across stories. Gephart (2004) noted,“Qualitative research starts from and returns to words, talk, and

texts as meaningful representations of concepts” (p. 455).

Although associated with the inductive process of building/

extending theory, qualitative research can be used deductively to

test theory. Qualitative research can be conducted from many

perspectives, including case study, ethnography, grounded the-

ory, and hermeneutics (Glaser and Strauss 1967; Spradley 1979;

Eisenhardt 1989; Yin 1994; Thompson 1997).

Why do qualitative research?

Qualitative research provides profound insight into complex,

multifaceted phenomena. By enabling: (1) a deep dive into real-

life experience as well as (2) expanded, exible exploration,

qualitative research yields uniquely interesting — and impactful —

contributions to knowledge discovery (Strauss and Corbin 1990;

Yin 1994; Pratt 2009). Consider, for example, Bartunek et al. ’s

(2006) nding that qualitative research is “overrepresented in

AMJ’s survey regarding the most interesting management-related

articles published in the past 100 yr ” (Pratt 2009, 856).

Qualitative methods enable us to delve into the hard-to-per-

ceive-and-harder-to-resolve quandaries that hinder SCM’s pri-

mary goal: value creation! (see Fawcett and Waller 2011b). Yet,

only 10 – 20% of recent research published in leading SCM jour-

nals employs qualitative methods. In a sense, we persist in wear-

ing blinders on our quest for enlightened management practice.

This is one reason some practitioners view academic research as“esoteric,” “irrelevant,” or even “counterproductive” (Ghoshal

2005; Flynn 2008). Too often, we misperceive or merely scratch

the surface of decision makers’ most pressing and perplexing

problems (Eisenhardt 1989; Miles and Huberman 1994; Ellram

1996). Well-executed qualitative research could expand our

research horizons, demarcating meaningful paths for deductive

inquiry and putting us on a fast track to evocative knowledge

discovery and dissemination.

When is qualitative research appropriate?

Qualitative research is best suited for building new theory or

elaborating existing theory. Both Eisenhardt (1989) and Yin(1994) note that qualitative research is particularly valuable for

exploring contemporary issues where the focus is on exploratory

“what,” “how,” and “why” questions. Simply stated, qualitative

research ts when existing theory does not t — that is, when

existing theory offers no feasible answer or explanation for the

phenomena or relationships of interest (Eisenhardt 1989).

As a quest for discovery, qualitative research is needed when

we lack “holistic and meaningful” understanding of how complex,

real-life value-creation systems or processes work (Yin 1994). For

example, Miles and Huberman (1994) emphasize qualitative

research’s ability to help us ll in the blanks related to sense and

decision making, noting that qualitative research explicates “the

ways people in particular settings come to understand, account for,

and take action” (p. 9). Pratt (2009) concurs, noting that qualitative

research “provides rich detail about the ‘goings on’ within the

lives of the informant ” (p. 857). Pratt (2009) summarizes that,

“Qualitative research is great for addressing ‘how’ questions —

rather than ‘

how many’; for understanding the world from theperspective of those studied (i.e., informants); and for examining

and articulating processes” (p. 856).

How should qualitative research be crafted?

Qualitative researchers face real challenges as they strive to pub-

lish in top journals. Pratt (2009) observed an underlying challenge,

noting, “there is no accepted ‘ boilerplate’ for writing up qualitative

methods and determining quality” (p. 856). Pratt (2009) explains,

“Unlike quantitative ndings, qualitative ndings lack an agreed-

upon ‘signicance level.’ There is no ‘magic number ’ of inter-

views or observations that should be conducted in a qualitative

research project ” (p. 856). Table 4 shows the breadth of

approaches to qualitative research in management and supplychain journals. Even among qualitative researchers, arguments

arise regarding which path is right for conducting and communi-

cating valid qualitative research. In many instances, equinality in

qualitative research exists. However, as Pratt (2009) warns, “ just

because there are many paths to good qualitative research, this

does not mean that all paths are good ones” (p. 857). In scanning

the paths that have led to success in top journals, we found four

aspects of construction that build a safer bridge to publication.

Each element is critical to building a credible and compelling

story.

1. Justication. As Table 1 shows, poor justication erodes

support for research of all types. Qualitative researchers, how-

ever, need to take extra care to motivate both their research

question and their method. As always, it is vital to introduce

the research question up front and then clearly articulate why

the research is important — and interesting. You must answer

the question, “So, what?” You should also demonstrate that

the question has not been adequately addressed in the extant

literature. A brief, well-constructed table can help. The nas-

cent nature of qualitative research questions should make this

easy; however, you must make it explicit. As you do so,

make your case for a qualitative approach. Explain how the

“rich” data that emerges from qualitative methods will yield

superior insight into the “goings on” of your phenomena.

2. Theoretical Grounding. Because qualitative research typi-

cally focuses on building or extending theory, some research-ers neglect to effectively employ existing theory. Even

authors who are using grounded theory methods should

inform their research via proven theoretical paths. Please

remember that after over 50 years of conducting management

research, few destinations remain untouched by theory. Theo-

retical grounding for qualitative research should, however, be

very concise, addressing the following:

• What conversation are you joining? You might, for example,

be interested in exploring the dynamic processes impeding



7/16

convergence on a supply chain-wide denition of what con-

stitutes a sustainable product.

• What theories inform this conversation? Regarding the de-

nition of a sustainable product, you might note that systems

design, stakeholder, and planned behavior theories inform

system dynamics.

• How do these theories inform the conversation? Continuingon the theme of dening sustainable products, the absence of

a consensus, easy-to-measure denition is likely to confound

diverging stakeholder objectives, reducing the focal rm’s

inuence on partner choices. These issues may limit a rm’s

ability to translate good intentions into action.

• Why are these theories insuf cient? By failing to delineate

the limiting mechanisms and how they work together to

undermine partner commitment, extant theory is unable to

help managers pull the right levers to grow supply chain-

wide sustainability programs.

Delineating the theoretical path will help you articulate how

you contribute to theory and practice. If you truly venture into

uncharted theoretical territory (i.e., no theory informs your

research), make your case in a clear and compelling way.

3. Methodological Clarity. Although a clearly constructed

methods section establishes the veracity of your research,

many authors fail to succinctly communicate the essentials. A

well-crafted methods section builds the bridge to credibility

as follows.

• Describe your context and sample. Context matters. Readers

want answers to certain key questions. For example, what is

your unit of analysis — people, companies, relationships, pro-

jects, or events? Have you adopted a purposeful or theoreti-

cal sampling approach? (Strauss and Corbin 1990). Are your

cases prototypical or extreme? (Pettigrew 1990). Simply sta-

ted, readers want to know how your context and informantsprovide unique insight into your research question. Make it

easy for reviewers to trust your informants.

• Explain your data collection process. To feel comfortable with

your data, readers need to understand the data collection pro-

cess. Did you use semistructured interviews — or another obser-

vation approach? Provide a copy of your protocol or eld

guide. How many cases, interviews, or observations were

included? Does your data possess depth and richness? That is,

how long did each interview last? Over what period of time

were informants observed? How did your interview protocol

evolve over time? How was the data recorded — notes or tran-

scription? Make it easy for reviewers to trust your process.

• Make your data analysis transparent . Qualitative research isonly believable to the extent your ndings are trustworthy

(i.e., truthful, applicable, and unbiased) and derive from the

“reality” of your informants. You can make this reality link

visible by sharing “the chain of evidence” and walking your

audience through the key analysis steps: (1) what did the

informants say (open coding), (2) what does the theory say

(axial coding, enfolding theory), and (3) how does it all t

together (conceptual brainstorming/modeling). Such a process

is iterative, requiring you to “travel back and forth” between

the text and theory (Miles and Huberman 1994; Strauss and

Corbin 1990). An overview of the data structure can persua-

sively depict the process (e.g., see Figure 1). Make it easy

for reviewers to trust your ndings.

4. Storytelling. Business writing is storytelling. It strives to

achieve three goals: (1) capture attention, (2) create under

standing, and (3) persuade the audience to care. You do this

best by presenting the data. As one Fortune 100 executive

pointed out, “

If you don’t have the data, it is just your opin-ion” (Fawcett et al. 2007, 48). In qualitative research, infor

mant quotes are your data. The challenge is to balance

“showing” and “telling” (Golden-Biddle and Locke 2007).

Showing is sharing the “thick description” (Geertz 1973) that

emerges from your informants. This is where you use quotes

Showing via quotes provides context and generates meaning

Pratt (2008) argues that good qualitative research should employ

both “power ” quotes and “proof ” quotes. Power quotes provide

detail, illustrate key points, and are embedded in the text to cre-

ate a convincing narrative. They bring the story to life. Proo

quotes, by contrast, are short, to the point, and typically shared

via tables (e.g., see Table 5). Proof quotes provide demonstrable

evidence for what you are saying. However, readers should

understand your message without resorting to the table. Finally,

the two types of quotes should be distinct.

Telling involves interpreting your ndings; that is, describing

how the various elements of the story t together. Telling distills

holistic meaning from your data, transforming novel ndings into

theoretical and practical contribution. When you effectively com-

bine showing and telling, you create an interesting and compel-

ling story — a key advantage of qualitative methods. By contrast

a lack of balance between showing and telling throughout your

ndings and discussion undermines the credibility of you

research. The bottom line: Make it easy for reviewers to have

condence in your contributions.

To summarize, qualitative methods are well suited to exploresupply chain’s more intransigent, complex, and nuanced questions

Our infrequent use of qualitative research hinders our ability to

perceive the hidden dimensions that exist among value-added play-

ers on the global stage. Well-executed qualitative research could

help us explain the dynamic processes (e.g., driving forces, ena-

blers, impediments, and boundary conditions) that will determine

who wins and loses tomorrow’s competitive battles.

TIPS FOR WRITING UP SURVEY METHODS

Over the past decade, survey research has been the most com-

monly published research in the supply chain discipline. At JBLalmost 50% of published articles in the past ve years have been

based on managerial surveys. You might thus ask, “Do we really

need a guide for such a frequently traveled path?” For a variety

of reasons, the answer is, “Yes!” In our experience as editors

we have found that authors and reviewers are unclear about what

should be reported in a methods section. Inconsistency in meth-

ods reporting leads reviewers to ask for clarication on essentia

points that should have been addressed in an initial submission

The lack of clarity has a negative impact on submission-to

acceptance cycle times. In worse case scenarios, reviewers sim

ply recommend the submission be rejected because the ndings



8/16

T a b l e 4 : T h e n a t u r e o f q u a l i t a t i v e m e t h o d s i n m a n a g e m e n t a n d S C M r e s e a

r c h

M a n a g e m e n t

j o u r n a l s

I n t e r v

i e w e e s

N u m b e r o f

i n t e r v i e w s

I n t e r v i e w l e n g t h

I n t e r v i e w t y p e

T y p e o f t h e o r y

M e t h o d

A M J ( 2 5 )

S e n i o r e x e c u t i v e s , V P s , a n d

D i r e c t o r s ( 5 )

D i r e c t e m p l o y e e s ( 4 )

M i d d l e m a n a g e r s ( 6 )

A c a d e m i c s ( 3 )

C u s t o m e r s ( 2 )

S o c i a l s e r v i c e s

( 2 )

P r i e s t s ( 1 )

D o c t o r s ( 1 )

G o v e r n m e n t o f c i a l s ( 1 )

J o u r n a l i s t s ( 1 )

P r e g n a n t w o m e n ( 1 )

H i g h : 3 9 0

L o w : 1 7

A v e r a g e : 8 1 . 7 2

H

i g h : h o u r s

L o w : 5 m i n

N D ( 2 )

E t h n o g r a p h y 2 –

7 y e a r s . ( 2 )

S e m i s t r u c t u r e d

( 1 6 )

O p e n - e n d e d ( 4 )

E t h n o g r a p h i c

( 3 ) U n s t r u c t u r e d ( 2 )

D i r e c t

o b s e r v a t i o n ( 2 )

S t r u c t u r e d ( 2 )

I n - d e p t h ( 1 )

G r o u p ( 1 )

I d e n t i c a t i o n ( 2 )

I n s t i t u t i o n a l ( 2 )

S t r u c t u r a t i o n ( 1 )

O r g a n i z a t i o n a l j u s t i c e ( 1 )

P r a c t i c e a n d o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

d i s c o u r s e ( 1 )

B o u n d a r y ( 1 )

I n s t i t u t i o n a l m a i n t e n a n c e ( 1 )

I m p l i c i t v o i c e ( 1 )

S t i g m a t i z a t i o n ( 1 )

S t a k e h o l d e r ( 1 )

C o l l e c t i v e i d e n t i t y r e s u r r e c t i o n

( 1 ) A u t h e n t i c i t y a n d r o l e i d e n t i t y

( 1 ) A g e n c y ( 1 )

C

a s e s t u d y ( 1 2 )

G r o u n d e d t h e o r y

( 8 ) I n t e r p r e t i v e ( 6 )

M u l t i p l e c a s e s ( 3 )

S u r v e y ( 1 )

A r c h i v a l ( 1 )

P h e n o m e n o l o g i c a l

( 1 )

S M J ( 7 )


D i r e c t o r s ( 3 )

U n s p e c i e d m a n a g e r s ( 1 )

A c a d e m i c s ( 1 )


I n d u s t r y p r o f e s

s i o n a l s ( 1 )

H i g h : 5 0 +

L o w : 2

A v e r a g e : 2 6 . 6 7

N D ( 1 )

H

i g h : 2 h r

L o w : 3 0 m i n

N D ( 4 )


( 2 ) D i r e c t


O p e n - e n d e d ( 2 )

N D ( 3 )

J u s t i c e ( 1 )

D y n a m i c c a p a b i l i t i e s ( 1 )

S t r a t e g i c n o i s e ( 1 )

D e m a n d - d r i v e n i n n o v a t i o n ( 1 )

E n v i r o n m e n t a l c o m p l e x i t y ( 1 )

C

a s e s t u d y ( 3 )

I n t e r p r e t i v e ( 4 )

A r c h i v a l ( 4 )

A S Q ( 1 4 )


D i r e c t o r s ( 4 )

P r o f e s s i o n a l s a

n d o t h e r s ( 3 )

V a r i o u s k e y s t a k e h o l d e r s ( 2 )


C o m m u n i t y m e m b e r s ( 1 )

A c a d e m i c s ( 1 )

I n f o r m a n t s f r o m p a i r e d

o r g a n i z a t i o n s ( 1 )

T e a m l e a d e r s (

1 )

Z o o k e e p e r s ( 1

)

H i g h : 3 3 6

L o w : 1 5

A v e r a g e : 6 4 . 5

H

i g h : 2 h r

L o w : 3 0 m i n

N D ( 4 )


( 5 ) U n s p e c i e d ( 3 )

D i r e c t



( 1 ) I n - d e p t h ( 1 )

O p e n f o r u m ( 1 )

N D ( 3 )

O r g a n i z a t i o n a n d s o c i a l

m o v e m e n t ( 1 )

F i e l d ( 1 )

T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l l e a d e r s h i p

( 1 ) R e s o u r c e d e p e n d e n c e ( 2 )

P r o s p e c t ( 1 )

B e h a v i o r a l t h e o r y o f t h e r m

( 1 ) G o a l s e t t i n g ( 1 )

I n s t i t u t i o n a l ( 2 )

F l o w ( 1 )

C

a s e s t u d y ( 4 )


( 3 ) E t h n o g r a p h i c ( 2 )

S u r v e y ( 2 )

S u p p l e m e n t a l ( 2 )

A n a l y t i c a b d u c t i o n

( 1 ) M u l t i p l e c a s e s ( 1 )

C r o s s - c a s e ( 1 )

N D ( 1 )

O r g S c i ( 1 3 )


D i r e c t o r s ( 5 )



I n d u s t r y p r o f e s

s i o n a l s ( 1 )

D o c t o r s ( 1 )

P r o c e s s p a r t i c i p a n t s ( 1 )

H i g h : 3 0 1

L o w : 1 6

A v e r a g e : 8 0 . 3 8

H

i g h : 3 h r

L o w : 4 0 m i n

N D ( 7 )


( 6 ) O b s e r v a t i o n ( 4 )

U n s p e c i e d ( 4 )

O p e n - e n d e d ( 1 )

I n - d e p t h ( 1 )


( 1 )

N e o - i n s t i t u t i o n a l ( 2 )

S o c i a l m o v e m e n t ( 1 )

S t r u c t u r a t i o n ( 1 )

S y s t e m s j u s t i c a t i o n ( 1 )

R e s o u r c e d e p e n d e n c e ( 1 )


S o c i a l f o c i ( 1 )

E

m p i r i c a l a n a l y s i s

( 1 ) C a s e s t u d y ( 6 )

I n d u c t i v e ( 2 )

M u l t i p l e c a s e s ( 1 )

Q u a l i t a t i v e ( 4 )

E t h n o g r a p h i c ( 1 )

L o n g i t u d i n a l ( 2 )



9/16

S C M / O M

J o u r n a l s

I n t e

r v i e w e e s

N u m b e r o f

i n t e r v i e w s

I n t e r v i e w l e n g t h

I n t e r v i e w t y p e

T y p e o f t h e o r y

M e t h o d

D e c i s i o n S c i e n c e

( 6 )


S p e c i a l i z e d e m p l o y e e s ( 2 )

C h i e f e x e c u t i v e

s ( 1 )

H i g h : 7 4

L o w : 8

A v e r a g e : 4 0 . 7 5

N D ( 2 )

H i g h : 2 h r

L o w : 4 0 m i n

N D ( 1 )

E t h n o g r a p h y

2 y e a r s ( 1 )

S e m i s t r u c t u r e d ( 4 )

O p e n - e n d

e d ( 2 )

U n s t r u c t u

r e d ( 2 )

D i r e c t


E t h n o g r a p h i c ( 1 )

R e l a t i o n a l c o o r d i n a t i o n ( 1 )

S w i f t a n d e v e n o w s ( 1 )

T C E ( 1 )


R e s o u r c e a d v a n t a g e ( 1 )

C o n t i n g e n c y ( 1 )

C a s e s t u d y ( 4 )


( 1 ) F i e l d s t u d y ( 1 )

J B L ( 9 )

S e n i o r e x e c u t i v e

s , V P s , a n d D i r e c t o r s

( 8 ) M i d d l e m a n a g e

r s ( 4 )

S p e c i a l i z e d e m p l o y e e s ( 3 )

S c i e n t i s t s ( 1 )

D o c t o r s ( 1 )

H i g h : 1 2 1

L o w : 8

A v e r a g e : 4 5 . 5 6

H i g h : 6 h r

L o w : 4 5 m i n

N D ( 1 )


O p e n - e n d

e d ( 4 )

I n - d e p t h ( 3 )

G r o u p ( 1 )

N D ( 1 )


F o r c e e l d ( 2 )

M a r k e t o r i e n t a t i o n ( 1 )

S y s t e m s ( 1 )

N e t w o r k ( 1 )

T C E ( 1 )

N o f o r m a l t h e o r y ( 4 )

r e s o u r c e - b a s e d v i e w

( R B V ) ( 2 )

C a s e s t u d y ( 5 )


( 3 )

J O M ( 5 )

G e n e r a l m a n a g e r s ( 1 )

U n s p e c i e d m a

n a g e r s ( 2 )

F u n c t i o n a l m a n

a g e r s ( 2 )

S & O P l e a d e r s ( 1 )

H i g h : 5 4

L o w : 2 5

A v e r a g e : 3 8 . 6

H i g h : 2 d a y s o n - s i t e

v i s i t

L o w : 4 5 m i n

N D ( 1 )


D i r e c t


R B V ( 1 )

I n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g

( 1 )

C a s e s t u d y ( 5 )

M u l t i p l e c a s e s

( 1 )

J S C M ( 1 3 )

S e n i o r e x e c u t i v e

s , V P s , a n d D i r e c t o r s

( 6 ) T o p m a n a g e m e

n t t e a m s ( 3 )

M i d d l e m a n a g e

r s ( 2 )

C P O a p p o i n t m e n t s ( 1 )

P r o c u r e m e n t p r

o f e s s i o n a l s ( 1 )

O f f - s h o r i n g o f c e r s ( 1 )

H i g h : 1 5 7

L o w : 8

A v e r a g e : 3 5 . 7 5

H i g h : 9 h r

L o w : 1 h r

N D ( 1 )


( 1 2 )

G r o u p ( 1 )

I n - d e p t h ( 3 )

O p e n - e n d

e d ( 3 )

U n s t r u c t u

r e d ( 1 )



T C E ( 2 )

I n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g

( 1 ) R B V ( 1 )

S t a k e h o l d e r ( 1 )

G a m e ( 1 )

R e l a t i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t

( 1 ) F o r c e e l d ( 1 )

S o c i a l n e t w o r k ( 1 )

S e r v i c e s c i e n c e ( 1 )

C a s e s t u d y ( 1 1 )

M u l t i p l e c a s e s

( 3 ) G r o u n d e d t h e o r y

( 1 )

P O M S ( 4 )

P l a n t m a n a g e r s ( 2 )

E n g i n e e r s ( 2 )

P r e s i d e n t s ( 1 )

P e r s o n s i n v o l v e d i n e x p e r i e n t i a l

s t r a t e g y ( 1 )

H i g h : 1 0 5

L o w : 1 2

A v e r a g e : 4 5

1 . 5 h r

N D ( 3 )


O p e n - e n d

e d ( 2 )

S t r u c t u r e d ( 1 )

Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ( 1 )

S t r u c t u r a l i n e r t i a ( 1 )

S y s t e m s ( 1 )

C a s e s t u d y ( 3 )

R e g r e s s i o n ( 1 )


( 1 )



10/16

are “unbelievable.” Further, methods sections have grown dra-

matically longer in recent years. We have received submissions

with methods sections over 3,000 words — without tables! By

contrast, 3,000 words is the maximum article length accepted by

the Journal of the American Medical Association.

As you craft your methods section, you should ask, “What do

readers (including reviewers) really need to know in order to nd

your results reliable?” In a sense, your methods are on trial.

From this perspective, be sure to elucidate the following:

1. Sample Frame and Characteristics. Why did you choose

your sampling frame? What was your unit of analysis? What

was the source of your contact information? Most impor-

tantly, what qualies your informants as expert witnesses?

Given low response rates, many authors have begun to look

to “crowdsourcing” panels (e.g., Mechanical Turk, Qualtrics,

Zoomerang). Reviewers are rightfully skeptical of these “com-

pensated” informants. If you are condent your panel is good,

you need to state and defend your rationale. Authors are also

tapping international settings where managers have yet to be

surveyed to death. “Global” informants may be excellent;

however, reviewers may lack condence in their testimony.

Share enough detail to allay reviewer concerns. A concise

table that describes appropriate informant characteristics may

be helpful. Readers need to be comfortable that your wit-

nesses are credible.

2. Data Collection/Questionnaire Administration. How was

your data collected — by post or electronically? Did you pro-

actively employ techniques to improve response rates? If so,what did you do — pre-announcement, precommitment, multi-

ple waves? Dillman and colleagues’ (Dillman 1978; Dillman

et al. 2009) total and tailored design methods are often con-

sidered the standard for improving response rate. Be sure to

indicate how many informants you targeted; how many

responded with complete, usable information; and what your

response rate is? You may also want to comment on why

your response rate is suf cient.

Given the relatively low response rates often reported today

(below 10%), reviewers have become increasingly concerned

Figure 1: An example of an overview of data structure.



11/16

with two types of survey-related bias: nonresponse bias and com-

mon methods bias. Be sure to report how you addressed each of

these concerns.

• Nonresponse Bias. For years, the standard approach was to

compare responses across waves (see Armstrong and Overton

1977). However, comparing early to late respondents is not a

particularly strong test of nonresponse bias. You create more

condence in your data if you track your respondents and

then compare them to nonrespondents. One approach is to

compare demographics of respondents to nonrespondents via

a source like Dun & Bradstreet. Alternatively, you increase

reviewer condence in your data if you go back to your non-

respondents (typically via phone) and collect comparative

demographic and response data. Wagner and Kemmerling

(2010), however, note that direct comparisons between

respondents and nonrespondents possesses it own limitations,

including dif culty and potential loss of anonymity.

• Common Method Bias. Given the costs of data collection,

most survey research relies on a single respondent to provide

responses for both dependent and independent variables. This

reality creates common method concerns. Many approaches

have been suggested for mitigating as well as for assessing com-

mon method bias (see Podsakoff et al. 2003). Recently, con-

cerns have been expressed about the use of post-hoc statistical

tests to evaluate the presence of common methods variance

(Richardson et al. 2009). Rindeisch et al. (2008) strongly rec-

ommend a priori approaches to diminish common methods con-

cerns (e.g., multiple respondents, avoiding biased language

survey design, and using concrete constructs). A mix of a priori

and post hoc approaches enables you to make the strongest case

for your data. A third approach involves using hard data from

nancial reports for dependent variables, mitigating one level of

common methods bias. Be sure to explicitly and specically telthe reader how you assured that common method bias does not

undermine your research. Readers need to have condence in

your data.

3. Scale Development . The measures you use dene and deter-

mine the value of your potential theoretical and manageria

contributions. That is, as Churchill (1979) notes, scales have

a “GIGO — Garbage-In-Garbage-Out ” affect on research out

comes. For established constructs, you should adopt — and

perhaps adapt — existing scales that have proven to be reliable

and valid. For new constructs, you should develop new mea-

Table 5: Representative proof quotes related to behaviors that promote interorganizational trust

Dimensions of trustworthiness

Specic behaviors and practices Representative proof quotes

Skill enhancement Collaborates on valued initiatives “Expectation that we participate in comanaged inventory allows up to collaborate and

build trust;” “work together on department design and promotional planning;” “creates

a challenge and that ’s a good thing. I like a challenge;” “They’ve helped us become a

better company. Share insight, experience, scanning;” “share feedback about trends in

the marketplace;” “we participate on the supplier collaboration board;” “seeking to

move toward more collaboration”

Helps us improve capabilities via shared

insight

Information sharing; that is, shares critical

information

“Provides great detailed data;” “information systems are far better than anybody else’s

system;” “information system is hugely benecial to us;” “so much of it is open sharing

of data;” “the level of information they share;” “provides us the best information to

manage our business”

Empathy “Is exible with their programs to help us manage inventories;” “generous with their

time;” “When a glitch occurs, gives us time to improve;” “They are understanding

when we face a major challenge;” “

Flexible with ideas and willing to adjust whennecessary;” “They treat us with respect. It is refreshing to work with them;” “They treat

people the way they want to be treated”

We know where we stand. Decisions are

fact based, fair Listens to us and is receptive to our ideas

and suggestions

Perform to promise “We have access to senior managers to nd out where they are going;” “senior managers

are widely accessible;” “trust seems to be good — we have open access to executives;”

“we can get to executive pretty easily;” “when they make a commitment, they follow

through;” “It is nice to be paid on time”

Access to senior management to discuss

relationship

Honors its order and relationship

commitments

Interpersonal relationship; that is, buyers

develop good relationships

“Collaboration is the key. Some buyers just get this. The collaborative spirit makes it

easier to do business;” “rely on us;” “ask for our input;” “give us autonomy;” “we view

them as the retail arm of our company;” “we have a great deal of trust for our buyer;”

“Wonderful people to work with — perhaps too nice at times;” “Respond to questions in

a timely manner;” “very appreciative — they say thank you a lot;” “they are willing to

spend the time to build the relationship”

Source: Adapted from Day et al. (2013).



12/16

Table 6: A Consolidated approach for communicating measurement validation

Construct/item Mean (SD)

Standardized

loadings

Average

variance

extracted

Composite reliability

(rho, omega)

Mean shared

variance

Willingness 0.62 0.89 0.30Frequent, open information sharing among

supply chain members

4.60 (1.57) 0.80

Use of cross-functional and supply chain

teams

3.83 (1.46) 0.80

Senior level managerial interaction among


4.21 (1.64) 0.76

Sharing of technical expertise with

customers and suppliers

4.24 (1.41) 0.75

A willingness to share information among


4.56 (1.56) 0.84

Connectivity 0.60 0.82 0.29

Current information systems satisfy SC

communication requirements

3.30 (1.56) 0.78

IS applications are highly integrated w/inthe rm and the supply chain

3.44 (1.4) 0.83

Adequate IS linkages exist with supplier

and customers

3.64 (1.41) 0.71

Collaboration 0.50 0.83 0.41

My rm shares resources to help suppliers

improve capabilities

3.67 (1.47) 0.62

Strategic objectives are jointly developed by

supply chain partners

4.00 (1.43) 0.77

Supplier performance is monitored and is

the basis for future business

4.62 (1.39) 0.57

The principle of shared rewards and risks

governs SC relationships

3.74 (1.34) 0.80

Value-added resources are shared among


3.96 (1.44) 0.76

Customer satisfaction 0.71 0.88 0.34

Responsiveness to customer requests or

unexpected challenges

4.68 (1.37) 0.82

On-time delivery/due-date performance 4.66 (1.45) 0.84

Overall customer satisfaction 4.64 (1.36) 0.87

Productivity 0.53 0.90 0.37

Cost of purchased items 4.56 (1.47) 0.68

Inventory performance (e.g., cost, levels,

turns)

4.47 (1.51) 0.69

Overall product and supply chain costs

(productivity)

4.33 (1.21) 0.88

Overall product quality 4.15 (1.47) 0.74

New product development capability (e.g.,

cost, time, uniqueness)

3.61 (1.36) 0.72

Transportation costs 3.86 (1.56) 0.63

Growth 0.70 0.87 0.03

Sales growth in the last three years 4.97 (1.31) 0.94

Market share growth in the last three years 4.85 (1.31) 0.93

Growth in return on assets (ROA) in the

last three years

4.76 (1.29) 0.60

Protability (single measure construct)

4.50 (1.37)

Source: Adapted from Fawcett et al. (2011).

Notes: v2 (d.f.) = 1400.028 (570); CFI = .91; IFI = .91; RSMEA (90% CI) = .046 (.043 – .049); NCP (90% CI) = 830.028 (723.978 – 943.747). All load-

ings signicant at p < .001.



13/16

sures using standard psychometric scale development proce-

dures (Bagozzi and Philips 1982; Anderson and Gerbing

1988; Dunn et al. 1994). This process involves assessing pre-

vious measures, scanning relevant literature, and seeking man-

agerial input (e.g., interviews, case studies). A Q-sort

procedure can help improve the quality of your scales (Moore

and Benbasat 1991; Li et al. 2009). Be sure to: (1) identifythe original source of existing scales and (2) specify your

scale-development procedures for newly developed scales.

Readers need to trust you started your research with good

scales.

4. Measurement Validation. Before readers can truly buy-in to

your measures, you need to persuade them that your measures

are reliable and valid. The following metrics for testing con-

struct reliability and validity are rather well accepted.

• Reliability. For over 30 years, Cronbach’s alpha has been

routinely used to provide evidence of reliability. Cronbach’s

alpha is a measure of internal consistency (i.e., how related

each item is to the group) and is generally considered accept-

able if the item loading is .70 or greater (.60 for exploratory

constructs) (Nunnally 1978; Chin and Newsted 1999). More

recently, because alpha assumes that measures are tau equiv-

alent, the reliability of Cronbach’s alpha has been questioned

(Bentler 2009; Sijtsma 2009). Revelle and Zinbarg (2009)

argue that alpha is a “a poor estimate of internal consistency

and in some cases a gross overestimate” (p. 153). Some

methodologists now recommend using composite reliability

(aka, rho or coef cient omega) to measure internal consis-

tency. Further, composite reliability is considered to be more

consistent with the partial least squares algorithm than alpha

(Henseler et al. 2009). Acceptable bounds for composite reli-

ability are consistent with those for alpha.

• Validity. Two types of validity should be assessed: conver-gent and discriminant. Both can be measured in different

ways. We recommend you use commonly accepted methods.

For instance, satisfactory evidence of convergent validity

exists when items load on the intended construct (with stan-

dardized loadings greater than .50) and the average variance

extracted (AVE) for the items in the construct exceeds .50

(Fornell and Larcker 1981). A signicant critical ratio pro-

vides additional substantiation (Gefen and Straub 2005).

For discriminant validity, all items should have higher load-

ings on their assigned construct than on any other construct.

Further, the mean shared variance should be below .50 (For-

nell and Larcker 1981). Alternatively, the square root of the

AVE for each construct should be greater than any correlationestimate (Fornell and Larcker 1981; Gefen and Straub 2005).

So-called “rules of thumb” for acceptable cutoffs (e.g.,

AVE > .50) should be viewed as guidelines rather than as

dogmatic requirements.

A common question is, “How can we best communicate our

measures are reliable and valid?” Remember, your goal is to

make the readers’ life as easy as possible. We thus suggest you

array your key statistics in a single table. Include the following:

measurement

A Trail Guide to Publishing Success Tips

Documents

Transcript of A Trail Guide to Publishing Success Tips