Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 25 (2019) 100557

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pursup

Engaged Scholar(ship) in purchasing and supply management (PSM): T

Creative tension or squeezed in the middle?
Jenny Bäckstranda,*, Árni Halldórssonb
a
Department of Supply Chain and Operations Management, Jönköping University, PO Box 1026, SE-551 11, Sweden
b
Division of Service Management and Logistics, Department of Technology Management and Economics, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Purchasing and supply management research influences practice through the advancement of knowledge and
Engaged scholarship theoretical principles and is positioned as an academic discipline. For the individual researcher, it calls for skills
Purchasing and supply management and experience that can be associated with engaged scholarship. This paper explores tensions inherent in en-
Concept mapping gaged scholarship, that arise during the quest to interact closely with professionals to ensure relevance and
Tension
impact while living up to research quality criteria. The paper concludes that the individual researcher in a field
Research design
such as PSM is easily left with guidelines that point in multiple directions regarding personal achievement and
institutional merits.

1. Background about a complex problem or phenomenon that exists under conditions

Scholarship in purchasing and supply management (PSM) intend to
advance both theory and/or practice. As a profession, the field has
achieved a distinct status in the industry by shaping and influencing
how purchasing professionals operate through inter-organizational re-
lationships in the broader context of supply networks (e.g. Kraljic,
1983). Although the field has developed as an academic discipline
(Harland et al., 2006; Johnsen, 2018; van Weele and van Raaij, 2014),
it is still maturing (Wynstra, 2016) and gaining greater scholarship
recognition (Zsidisin and Ancarani, 2016).
An important feature in the development of PSM is the interaction
between PSM scholars and professionals. PSM has gained increased
relevance (Wynstra, 2016) and organizational position (Bals et al.,
2018; Ellram and Tate, 2015) for companies and is developing from a
functional to strategic function (Johnsen, 2018; van Weele and van
Raaij, 2014). In parallel to this development, PSM scholars have be-
come more involved in interdisciplinary projects focused on research’s
relevance to practice (Knight et al., 2016). Researchers are thus en-
couraged to become more engaged scholars (Knight et al., 2016) who
balance rigor and relevance (van Weele and van Raaij, 2014) and use
novel methods that are likely to improve understanding of a known
concept or new phenomena (Knight et al., 2016). van de Ven and
Johnson (2006, p. 803) define engaged scholarship as “a collaborative
form of inquiry in which academics and practitioners leverage their
different perspectives and competencies to co-produce knowledge
of uncertainty found in the world.” However, being the academic part
of this collaborative form of inquiry comes with a price; not only does
the researcher have to conduct rigorous research to co-produce
knowledge about complex problems found in the world but also be able
to communicate and contribute to both academia and practice.
This paper builds on the notion that the individual researcher ex-
periences pressure from several directions that result in mixed messages
about what tasks should be prioritized, what is being appreciated as
output with relevant merits, and who benefits from the outcome. On the
one hand, funders put requirements on business impact, utilization and
“technology readiness levels” as part of the research rather than part of
post-research dissemination (Wise et al., 2016). Such focus on the
quality and efficiency of research results implementation is particularly
the case for research environments in European countries that have
adopted a performance-based system for assessing research and allo-
cating funds (Sivertsen, 2017). On the other hand, widespread use of
international university-ranking systems where journal publications
and research output has significant weight. (Taylor and Braddock,
2007). In line with this, Adler and Harzing (2009, p. 72) raise the no-
tion of whether “…our academic assessment systems reward scholar-
ship that addresses the questions that matter most to society.” American
research has also been criticized for focusing on performance in terms
of rigor of scientific research rather than on real-life experience (Bennis
and O'Toole, 2005). One response to this has been that increased use of
inductive and abductive reasoning, as well as further participatory

*
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Jenny.Backstrand@ju.se (J. Bäckstrand), Arni.Halldorsson@chalmers.se (Á. Halldórsson).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2019.100557
Received 19 August 2018; Received in revised form 12 June 2019; Accepted 25 July 2019
Available online 26 July 2019
1478-4092/ © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
J. Bäckstrand and Á. Halldórsson
research methods that support research relevance, has become more
acknowledged by, e.g., academic journals (Knight et al., 2016). While
engaged scholarship may provide rich or novel insight for both aca-
demia and practice, it requires time, experiences and skills that are not
always at hand for the individual researcher or may be in contrast with,
for example, high pressure to focus on a single dimension of research
output, namely publishing in highly ranked journals to attain promo-
tion and tenure.
With this background, this study explores prerequisites of engaged
scholarship (ES) in PSM as guided by the following research question:
What are the tensions entailed in engaged scholarship as seen from the
perspective of the individual scholar in PSM? This paper presents a
perspective on scholarship in which relevance and the practice or-
ientation of research (Gulati, 2007) are accounted for as deliberate
decisions at the stage of research design and informed by research
questions rather than regarding relevance as either the sole purpose of
research or a mere by-product of research. The contribution of this
paper is that we identify and describe various factors influencing the
individual researcher. Then we identify and describe tensions that arise
when these influencers conflict and explain how they are interrelated.
Furthermore, we identify what the individual researcher needs to sur-
vive and prosper as an engaged researcher, and we discuss what PSM as
a research community can do to support this research.
2. Conceptual background
2.1. A call for more engaged scholarship – a general perspective
Given the nature of PSM as a field, we take a broad view on scho-
larship by following Boyer’s (1990) general view of scholarship that
involves discovery, integration, application, and teaching, with our
focus on the more engaged parts: integration and application. Interest
in research approaches that can be associated with engaged scholarship
seems to be increasing, both in the literature on qualitative methods
and general management (Flickinger et al., 2014), and in PSM (Meehan
et al., 2016).
First, there has been much debate regarding how to balance aca-
demic rigor with practical relevance. The view is not bound to PSM but
is much discussed in management in general (e.g. Adler and Harzing,
2009; Bennis and O'Toole, 2005; Gulati, 2007). Within SCM, there
seems to be a general view that scholars must address both in their
research (van Weele and van Raaij, 2014). This is not just a matter of
writing about it in a journal article; it relates to the research design and
the conduct of research, specifically, whether, or to what extent, rigor
and relevance are addressed throughout the research process. We try to
avoid rigor and relevance as dichotomy by understanding scholarship
in a wider perspective. Accordingly, our work is based on Boyer’s
(1990) scholarship typology, which emphasizes integration and appli-
cation of knowledge. We also build upon different types of science based
on the level of practical relevance and level of methodological rigor as
defined by Anderson et al. (2001), e.g., not science, pedantic science,
popular science, and pragmatic science.
Advancement through integration of perspectives across disciplines
has had important impact on the development of PSM and its ability to
deliver relevant results. This has resulted in the use of a broader range
of research methods (see e.g. Knight et al., 2016) as well as borrowing
grand theories from fields such as management and economics (Carter
et al., 2017; Halldórsson et al., 2015). One part of this development is
PSM’s interaction with related areas such as supply chain management
(Larson and Halldórsson, 2002) and industrial marketing (Johnsen,
2018) and the adoption of theories from disciplines such as transaction
cost economics (TCE) and the resource-based view (RBV) (van Weele
and van Raaij, 2014; Wynstra, 2016). Recent evidence shows that this
cross-fertilization is bidirectional; PSM does, to an increasing extent,
contribute to journals in general management and economics (Wynstra,
2016).
2
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 25 (2019) 100557
Application of knowledge reflects in how scholars interact with in-
dustry and professionals in research. In this paper, the knowledge-
creating relationship between the scholar and professional is viewed
from a bidirectional perspective; knowledge is created at the intersection
between scholars and professionals, i.e., research with rather than on
practitioners. This is in line with the definition of engaged scholarship
(van de Ven and Johnson, 2006), which has also been acknowledged in
PSM (Walker et al., 2008).
Second, another call for engaged scholarship comes from the em-
phasis on theorizing. A focus on theorizing pushes the boundaries of the
current state of PSM research, which “has progressively evolved from a
dominant exploratory focus to theory building and theory testing”
(Wynstra, 2016, p. 218). However, advancement in knowledge is not
only stated in terms of “theory” or “testing theory” but also “theorizing”
(Swedberg, 2012): what the researcher does to produce a theory. This
view brings particular attention to the people dimension of the researcher
(or scholar): the researcher’s role as an individual in the act of theo-
rizing because it is “deeply personal in the sense that you can only
theorize well by doing it yourself and drawing on your own experiences
and resources” (Swedberg, 2012, p. 2). A recent view on theorizing in
SCM builds on this but also emphasizes proximity to the empirical as a
key attribute (Halldórsson et al., 2015).
Third, new opportunities and challenges such as digitalization may
have disruptive consequences for the way in which managers operate,
have led to greater complexity, which requires more use of qualitative
research methods to advance and disseminate knowledge (Guercini,
2014). Bringing PSM research closer to the particular context through a
balanced approach to rigor and relevance is not so much about di-
chotomy that is impossible to join, but rather about broadening a
perspective of scholarship that bridges theory and practice through
theorizing, acknowledgement of the researcher as individual, and the
ability to solve complex problems through engaged research. Albeit en-
gaged scholarship has strong association with qualitative approaches,
the range of methods used in PSM implies that such proximity can also
be achieved by quantitative research design (e.g. Dou et al., 2018;
Hoffmann et al., 2013).
2.2. A call for more engaged scholarship – a PSM perspective
PSM scholars have reacted to the call for a broader perspective on
research and scholarship. Considering the account of PSM by van Weele
and van Raaij (2014), Wynstra (2016) and Johnsen (2018), the field has
put more emphasis on scholarship of integration than on scholarship of
application, by borrowing theories and concepts from other disciplines.
PSM has acknowledged the importance of engaged research approaches
(e.g. Walker et al., 2008) and interaction with industry and profes-
sionals (Knight et al., 2016). Research designs that dominate PSM are
still surveys, case studies and conceptual approaches (Bäckstrand and
Säfsten, 2017; Knight et al., 2016; Spina et al., 2013; Wynstra, 2016),
and the use of participatory and collaborative research approaches is
“marginal in comparison” to these three predominant methods
(Wynstra, 2016). However, this says nothing about the entire collection
of conducted research, only the sample that has been published. An
earlier stream of research in PSM has assigned case studies, and in
particular “casing,” an essential role in advancing development of the
discipline in terms of theory development and generating operational
closure between theory and data (Dubois and Araujo, 2007). The quest
for closure is still high on the PSM agenda, where points of reference cut
across the research process, ranging from problematizing the particular
study through the use of methods and towards journal publications.
First, Dubois and Salmi (2016) follow Alvesson and Sandberg
(2011) by calling for problematization rather than gap-spotting to mo-
tivate research problems. To support this, they call for a more “diverse
approach” to case studies than previously used in PSM. Second, Zsidisin
and Ancarani (2016) observe that the core goal of JPSM is to publish
research to advance both practice and theory. They also identify co-
J. Bäckstrand and Á. Halldórsson
authorship between researchers and practitioners as a further indicator
of the combination of rigor and relevance. Third, Knight et al. (2016)
call for more use of novel methods in PSM research to promote learning
and innovation. They state two drivers of change: concern in terms of
engaged PSM researchers and curiosity in terms of carrying out inter-
esting research. Meehan et al. (2016) also suggest that PSM needs
“engaged research.” They pave the way for using action research to
persuade organizations to engage in responsible PSM practice by
challenging the “more dominant versions of PSM impacts.” Common to
these views is the quest for more proximity to, and engagement with,
the profession of PSM in research, ranging from design and data col-
lection to data interpretation and dissemination. This requires the in-
dividual researcher to spend more time in the field in an era where
research quality of their institutions and individual merits during, for
example, promotions are primarily assessed through non-engaged
measures such as publications in highly ranked journals.
The call for advancing research methods entails both strengthening
current approaches and diversifying by seeking new approaches. PSM
seeks to diversify towards increased use of more engaged research
methods, e.g., a more diverse approach of case studies (e.g., Dubois and
Salmi, 2016), use of novel methods (Knight et al., 2016), and action
research (Meehan et al., 2016); there are other pathways as well. On the
one hand, van Weele and van Raaij (2014) emphasize enhancement of
current methods and suggest that more replication studies and meta-
analysis will both enhance rigor and benefit the field. Ellram and Tate
(2016), on the other hand, suggest that secondary evidence may be
useful in strengthening the use of multiple sources of evidence. It is,
however, diversification that paves the way for engaged scholarship.
2.3. Analytical framework
This paper focuses on engaged scholarship and PSM. Based on the
notion that PSM is an applied field that needs to further develop its
academic position, the tension that comes with engaged scholarship
will be conceptualized and explored. To facilitate both rigor and re-
levance of our approach, we build upon the design science method
(Hevner et al., 2004); see Fig. 1. The design science research metho-
dology is a multi-method framework that facilitates obtaining a
common ground through which more effective and robust contributions
to binding theory and practice can be made (Pournader and Harrison,
2017). To answer “What are the tensions entailed in engaged scholar-
ship as seen from the perspective of the individual scholar in PSM?”
with design science research methodology, the “environment” [1,
Fig. 1. Research design based on Hevner et al. (2004).
3
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 25 (2019) 100557
referring to the numbering in Fig. 1] of our study is an academic setting
within the PSM research community. Starting from left in Fig. 1, the
“business needs” [2] thus represent the needs of an individual re-
searcher in this academic setting. The “knowledge base” [3a] is founded
in PSM literature, complemented with local, national, and international
requirements for funding, and merits as well as reports and literature on
the prerequisites for researchers. The “methodology” [3b] applied is an
exploratory multi-method approach. “Applicable knowledge” [4] from
the knowledge base is used in “design research” [5]. The “design cycle”
is initiated with a literature and document review to conceptually
“develop theories of artefacts” [6] ‒ a list of influencing factors. The
resultant list of identified influencers is then “assessed” or “evaluated
using empirical data” [7] gathered using concept mapping (McLinden,
2017; Vaughn and McLinden, 2016), and finally “refined.” This re-
search should thus be applicable for the PSM environment (relevance
cycle) and add insights to the knowledge base (rigor cycle).
3. Method
As mentioned, we have chosen an exploratory multi-method ap-
proach. Our “design cycle” is initiated with conceptual data collection
consisting of literature and document review to conceptually “develop
theories of artefacts” [6]. The resulting conceptual list is then “as-
sessed” or “evaluated using empirical data” [7]. Empirical data has
been collected by the methodology of concept mapping.
3.1. Conceptual data collection
A conceptual data collection plan was designed to identify and re-
view articles within PSM deemed relevant to the purpose of the study,
in particular research methodology and theorizing in the field. Here, we
draw upon literature on scholarship and collaborative research meth-
odology. This is supplemented by reviews of secondary evidence and
archival data such as webpages, reports, and guidelines for assessing
merit for academic promotion and research quality of academic in-
stitutions. Use of research methods within PSM has been studied and
analyzed regarding dimensions of engaged scholarship by reviewing the
applied research method in articles published in JPSM 2015–2019
(building on Wynstra (2010), Spina et al. (2013), and Wynstra (2016)).
Tensions may arise among factors that shape the use of a particular
research design. Individual scholars not only have to adhere to meth-
odological principles but also operate in the context of institutional
arrangements, such as academic merits and reward systems as
J. Bäckstrand and Á. Halldórsson Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 25 (2019) 100557

Table 1 basis to facilitate discussions (5c) and plan future actions to enhance
Number of respondents for different stages of concept mapping. the reality of the engaged researcher (i.e., step 6). In the following
SOURCE SAMPLE SIZE RESPONDENTS HELPERS SORTERS paragraph, we refer to the steps of concept mapping by showing the
corresponding step number within brackets.
IPSERA WORKSHOP 20 20 10 4 For this research, we defined the community (1a) as the PSM re-
PILOT SURVEY 14 9 6 1
search community and initiated data collection by an open invitation to
SURVEY 56 26 27 8
COMMUNITY 7
a “Professional Development Workshop” in the program for the 27th
SUM 90 55 43 20 International Purchasing & Supply Education & Research Association
(IPSERA) conference in Athens, Greece 2018. IPSERA has a strong
European base, and the sample hence might have such bias, but from a
identified. Accordingly, a behavioral approach (Bendoly et al., 2006) is sampling perspective, we chose a “high experience level,” in line with
taken to explore how the researcher as an individual relates to priorities Pettigrew (1990, p. 276) and van de Ven (2007, p. 212).
set out by engaged scholarship and the institutional environment. We Concept mapping is initiated by collecting answers to a prompt (1b).
suggest that the way in which engaged scholarship is operationalized is In this study, the prompt was defined as: “One thing that I need in order to
not only through the attributes of a research method but also the survive and prosper as an engaged scholar within PSM is …”
conditions under which the individual researcher works, such as in- The prompt was generated based on a literature review of prompts
centive systems, journal rankings, and promotion criteria. used in earlier concept mapping publications (see e.g.,McLinden, 2017,
The findings of this part of the study were coded, resulting in the Table 1; Trochim, 1989a) (based on step [6] in Fig. 1), and it was pilot-
identification of factors affecting the individual as an engaged re- tested on fellow academics before using it in step 2a. The prompt takes
searcher. The codes were not derived from the theoretical approach but the perspective of the individual and seeks to identify conditions in
were established in vivo by triangulating the material to be analyzed which engaged scholarship in PSM can build. The reason for having
with knowledge of the environment. We thus used “tacit knowledge” “survive” and “prosper” in the prompt follows the logic that “to become”
gained through immersion in the field to guide our document study an engaged researcher can be seen as “just do it,” whereas the challenge
approach (Lacoste and Johnsen, 2015; Piekkari et al., 2010). In this is to sustain and further develop that position to survive in the aca-
context, it is worth noting that the analysis might have a bias towards demic community and to prosper as an individual within the realm of
the Scandinavian environment. engaged scholarship.
Responses from idea generation (2a) were collected in two ways.
3.2. Empirical data collection ‒ concept mapping First was through the workshop dedicated to this investigation with
PSM scholars at the 2018 IPSERA conference (transcribed digitally by
This study builds upon concept mapping (Vaughn and McLinden, the authors). Second was through a structured questionnaire (see
2016), a collaborative mixed method. Concept mapping was considered Appendix 1) distributed digitally to the PSM research community (list
appropriate in this study as it brings out and includes the diverse per- of conference participants and authors’ extended network). The change
spectives and experiences of a particular community, in this case, from face-to-face to digital distribution was first pilot tested with par-
scholars in PSM. Not only is data collected through an iterative process, ticipants both from the workshop and new respondents, and some
rather, participants take an active part in all steps of the research clarifications were made to the cover letter. The initial prompt was
process. The study builds upon the following steps of concept mapping discussed at the workshop and has remained the same since then. In
(Vaughn and McLinden, 2016): Table 1, sample size, number of respondents and number of helpers
from the three studies are shown. “Sorters” refers to step 3a.
1. Preparation All respondents were asked about their demographics in terms of
a. Define community country and institution where they work, with position and number of
b. Develop a focus prompt years since graduation. This was never connected to their answers but
2. Idea generation used to ensure that we sampled a variety of institutions, countries,
a. Brainstorm responses to focus prompt positions, experiences (ranging from PhD students to very experienced
3. Structuring the ideas professors), and both genders. Getting input from such a diverse group
a. Sort the ideas and engaging them in analysis through sorting is in line with McLinden
b. Rate the ideas (2017), who refers to the “wisdom of the crowd” as one of the strengths
4. Representation of concept mapping. All respondents were also asked if they would take
a. Apply multidimensional scaling to map the ideas part in the following phases of concept mapping. Those who answered
b. Apply cluster analysis to group the ideas yes are referred to “Helpers.” Some who received the survey did not
c. Compute means for rating data and create pattern matches have time to respond before the deadline but offered to help anyway,
5. Interpretation thus the higher number of helpers than the number of survey re-
a. Review the process spondents. This is in line with the guidelines in Trochim (1989b, p. 3)
b. Orient group to the maps and ladder graphs and Rosas and Kane (2012).
c. Facilitate discussion A total of 55 respondents generated 232 statements. To prepare this
6. Utilization data for sorting by the Sorters, the authors reduced the original list to
a. Plan future actions avoid statements that expressed the same idea. To avoid elimination of
unique ideas, we made use of open coding (Strauss and Corbin, 1990),
Steps 1, 2, 3a, 4a, 4b and 5a have been carried out, and publication since concept mapping does not provide clear guidelines for reducing
of this paper can be seen as fulfilling step 5b by orienting the group to items generated at this stage (Vaughn et al., 2017). During coding, the
the resulting maps. Compared to the full concept mapping method, no statements were preliminarily and intuitively sorted into 17 categories
rating has been carried out (step 3b). Consequently, neither pattern by the authors based on the core message of the statement. The authors
matching (4c) nor ladder graphs (second part of 5b) has been created. then analyzed each category to find and eliminate duplications. For
This is in line with Jackson and Trochim (2002) and is due to the nature example, if several respondents answered “time,” “more time,” “time to
of the research question – we set out to identify the tensions entailed in collaborate,” and similar, the answers were preliminarily sorted into
engaged scholarship from the perspective of the individual scholar, not the category “time.” To further reduce the number of statements before
to rate these tensions. Using concept mapping in this paper supplies a sorting, related statements were set to be represented by one statement.

4
J. Bäckstrand and Á. Halldórsson
Statements that did not answer the prompt were eliminated. In addi-
tion, each statement was checked for ambiguity; for example, “time and
resources are needed” was split into “time is needed” and “resources are
needed.” This resulted in a final list of 69 statements for sorting, which
can be found in Appendix 2. The 69 statements were spell-checked and
grammar-modified before being uploaded to the “optimal sort” tool
(OptimalSort, 2018) and sent to 25 of the Helpers, here called Sorters
(3a), of which 20 completed the sorting. The number of Sorters used is
based on the requirements stated in Rosas and Kane (2012). Seven
Sorters did not participate in the statement-generation phase. The
Sorters categorized the 69 statements into between 3 and 13 clusters.
The combined data were analyzed using the software “R” (R, 2018)
to identify clusters (4a and 4b). R automatically identified 11 solutions
with 5–15 clusters. Fewer (and bigger) clusters were created by joining
items with similar content in the same cluster. A higher number of
clusters allows for a higher level of details, while a lower number of
clusters implies a higher level of generalizability. The authors selected
the final cluster solution after examining all the cluster solutions to
determine if merging or splitting statement groups was appropriate.
Note that the authors only affected the number of clusters used for
further analysis; the underlying cluster tree structure is determined by
statistical analysis and not the subject of the authors’ discretion or
judgment (Jackson and Trochim, 2002). The clusters were then pre-
sented in graphical form using cluster analysis and multidimensional
scaling. The output from concept mapping [7] will then be used to
refine the list of influencers [6], referring to the research design. In
regard to research quality, in line with Ellram and Tate (2015), we used
multiple respondents and verified the prompt with uninvolved aca-
demics to achieve transferability. We facilitated repeatability by
showing the focus prompt and responses in addition to the conceptual
data. Validity is supported using multiple sources of evidence and
credibility by proposing five categories of prerequisites based on a
chain of evidence (influencers and tensions).
4. The scholar as a part of research practice – influencers
This section outlines a set of “influencers” suggested to affect the
academic work of scholars in PSM. We refer here to influencers as
factors that shape the priority and work of the individual scholar and
act as a point of reference for achievements across various dimensions.
Based upon a literature review and scrutiny of secondary evidence, two
categories of influencers are suggested. First, institutional influencers
refer to the external environment of scholars and their academic dis-
ciplines that range from funding bodies and national schemes for as-
sessment of research quality to guidelines for assessing individuals’
achievements during recruitment and promotions at the university and
department level. Together, these can be associated with the account-
ability of research output in various forms and levels. The second ca-
tegory refers to PSM as an academic discipline and can be viewed as more
bottom-up, compared with the top-down nature of institutional influ-
encers. Here, academic journals, the nature of the subject area in terms
of methods, and concepts and collegiality are considered. Research
methods are given emphasis here as they define the space between
research and practice. The discussion of rigor and relevance often takes
place with reference to methods; we talk about advancement and de-
velopment of our fields in terms of methods (e.g., JPSM special issue in
2016). In this regard, the researcher as individual – with skills, tools,
and personal characteristics – can become engaged and theorize (cf.
Swedberg’s 2012 account of theorizing as being quite a personal effort).
Understanding influencers’ implications leads to several tensions de-
rived from them.
4.1. Funding criteria
Funding criteria are diverse in scope. On one end are large gov-
ernment funding agencies (e.g., EUREKA or COST in Europe or VR and
5
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 25 (2019) 100557
SSF in Sweden) in which subjects such as PSM may find it difficult to
compete with more established disciplines from natural science and
basic research. Here, a strong focus is on the applicant’s scientific
status, including publications and international experience. Other
funding bodies focus more directly on innovation and industry com-
petitiveness and are concerned with relevance and application of results
through e.g. “Technology readiness level” and “Industrial leadership”
(e.g., Horizon 2020 in Europe and KKS and Vinnova in Sweden). Here,
scholars are expected to involve companies as project members to co-
fund projects and co-create knowledge to ensure a commitment to both
availability of empirical evidence and opportunity for intervention.
They promote a high practical relevance, e.g., popular or pragmatic
research, according to Anderson et al. (2001) A strong industry con-
sortium adds to the legitimacy of research applications, and being an
engaged scholar is essentially a requirement.
4.2. National research assessment schemes
National assessment schemes are common in, e.g., the UK (REF,
2018), the Netherlands (NVAO, 2018) and Australia (Taylor and
Braddock, 2007) and are emerging elsewhere in agendas, e.g., in
Scandinavia (NOKUT, 2018). The focus is on research output, often
addressed in terms of quality and number of journal publications as
well as citations and international collaboration. Many of these in-
dicators can be conveniently depicted through bibliometrics, which has
become an increasingly important part of these assessments. Also in-
cluded here is research environment (e.g., doctoral students, research
funding) and research impact on practice, albeit practice for assessing
this type of achievement is less developed compared to the interest
institutions and governments have in bibliometric data. To the engaged
scholar, this might leave the impression that a considerable part of
academic work is not subject to formal assessment.
4.3. University promotion criteria and reward systems
Promotion criteria cut across all scholarly activity and regard both
internal and external working environment of scholars. Although these
are broad in scope, and some variance occurs among institutions na-
tionally and internationally, one criteria dominates decisions for pro-
motions and rewards: achievement in research in terms of number of
papers, number of citations, level of journals (Grant et al., 2018; van
Raaij, 2018), and co-authorship internationally (see e.g. Evaluation
criteria, 2014a, b). Scholars are also expected to show excellence in
teaching and the ability to develop new techniques, courses, and pro-
grams (at all levels), have experience working with industry in different
modes, and attract external funding. Furthermore, successful scholars
should contribute to services to the academic community as demon-
strated by active involvement in academic associations, research
councils, funding bodies, and evaluation committees, both national and
international, editorship or member of editorial review boards of sci-
entific journals, review activities, and experience as opponent at doc-
toral defenses/vivas (e.g. Ministry of Education and Research, 2014).
4.4. PSM – methods
Sensitivity to the empirical context is part of theorization in PSM
(see, e.g., Halldórsson et al., 2015). Such proximity can be created
through particular types of research methods but is also determined by
the nature of concepts and theories under scrutiny. The type of
knowledge and the way in which scholars interact with industry/pro-
fessionals in their research can be understood in relation to the pre-
dominant methods in the field, in PSM being surveys, conceptual work,
and case studies (Knight et al., 2016; Spina et al., 2013; Wynstra, 2016).
As an influencer, research methods can point scholars in directions
using common research methods, building upon established practice
and enabling more replication studies (van Weele and van Raaij, 2014).
J. Bäckstrand and Á. Halldórsson
Table 2
Methods used in papers published in JPSM during 2015, issue 1–2019 issue, 2.
Applied method
Year Case Survey Content analysis Statistical analysis Modeling
2015 8 3 2 2
2016 6 8 2 2 4 2
2017 8 3 1 2 4 0
2018 6 9 0 1 3 4
2019 4 2 1 1 4 1
Sum 32 25 6 8 15
% 26,2 20.5 4.9 6.6 12.3
Scholars may also use current status of method usage to seek new
boundaries through new or emerging methods and collaborative ap-
proaches that enable greater proximity to the empirical field, which has
been called for, but are not yet common in published material, see
Table 2.
Whilst the table depicts methods used in one particular journal, the
methodological profile of the field of PSM must ultimately be under-
stood in a wider context. For example, a review of European Journal of
Operational Research would reveal much more quantitative view of
method use in PSM than it is the case for JPSM.
4.5. PSM – domain
The subject area’s concepts and theories may also set conditions for
scholars’ work; when operationalized, a certain method may be called
for that considers the particularities of these when investigated.
Johnsen’s (2018) recent account of PSM in industrial marketing and
management identifies four themes; Purchasing-marketing integration,
Purchasing/supplier involvement in NPD and innovation, Purchasing
services, and Network, all of which leave an impression of PSM as an
”intersectionist” field (Larson and Halldórsson, 2002). Further, net-
works as a theme in PSM indicate that the perspective of a set of actors
is also adhered to. LaPlaca et al. (2018) point out that when units such
as dyads are studied, it is natural to collect evidence from both parties
of that unit, i.e., the method must match the concept. Johnsen (2018)
suggests that future research must pay attention to both theory and
management of networks, calling for even more sensitivity to the con-
text and attributes of engaged scholarship such as the concept of ar-
bitrage for “surpassing the dual hurdles of relevance and rigor in the
conduct of fundamental research on complex problems in the world”
(van de Ven and Johnson, 2006).
4.6. Journal editorial policies and practice
Editorial policies outline a brief scope of a journal and often refer to
the improvement of industrial practice, practical relevance, managers,
practitioners, and professionals in their target audience statements.
Such statements were found in eight of nine well-established journals
relevant to PSM scholars reviewed for this research (JPSM; JSCM;
IJOPM; IJPDLM; IJPE; JOM; OMEGA; POM; SCM:IJ), see Table 3.
However, non-practitioner-oriented research still constitutes the
majority of papers published in the area (Bäckstrand and Säfsten,
2017), regardless of the publication’s stated audience or mission. As
regards editorial practice, LaPlaca et al. (2018) mention potential for
citation as a factor that may increase the chances of a manuscript’s
acceptance. Further, based on our personal experience, considering the
researcher’s h-index and likelihood of citation may be factors that cross
an editor’s mind, whether to attach a paper to a special issue, for ex-
ample, or judge the validity of the manuscript’s findings.
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 25 (2019) 100557
Experiment Literature review Interview study Mixed-method Action research Engaged #
2 1 4 1 1 24
4 1 0 4 0 33
2 0 2 0 1 23
1 2 0 1 0 27
1 1 0 0 0 15
7 10 5 6 6 2 122
5.7 8.2 4.1 4.9 4.9 1.6 100
4.7. Academic citizenship
For academics, tasks other than those under “university promotion
criteria” might be needed. In a report from (2017), Gosling gives 12
examples of such engagement activities: Contributing to media cov-
erage, Industry engagement, Leading research centers, Leading execu-
tive education programs, Knowledge transfer partnerships, Working
with associations, institutions and bodies, Writing guides, articles and
books to support practitioners, Popular science speeches and articles,
Linking research, teaching and practice, winning awards, Hosting
events, and Informing policy, public sector and government. As a 13th
activity, we add “Writing department reports.” These types of engage-
ment usually take place outside regular working hours, affecting the
scholar’s work-life balance (Burg and Macfarlane, 2017).
4.8. Summary of influencers
In summary, the list of seven of influencers is diverse and leaves an
impression of ambidexterity or even multi-dexterity regarding scholars
in PSM. These can relate to a multitude of opportunities and the sense
of being squeezed in the middle of conflicting and contrary influences.
See Fig. 2.
The following section builds upon these influencers and investigates
what an individual researcher needs to survive and prosper as an en-
gaged researcher within PSM. In summary, in section 4, our proposi-
tions from the literature were presented as influencers. In section 5, the
empirical data is clustered and presented as categories, and in section 6,
we will synthesize and generalize these together.
5. Descriptive results of concept mapping
The 69 statements in response to the focus prompt were sorted into
6–13 groups by 20 sorters. This constitutes step 4a in the concept
mapping method. The sorting data was analyzed in R using multi-
dimensional scaling (Trochim, 1989b). The x- and y-coordinates in
Fig. 2 generated by the MDS algorithm indicate individual statements.
The clusters reflect statements that are often sorted together, and
these are closer together on the map. Conversely, statements that were
seldom or never sorted together are further apart. From Fig. 3, it can be
concluded that items in cluster 8 and cluster 11 were seldom sorted
together, while items in cluster 8 and cluster 9 often were sorted to-
gether.
A stress value was calculated to measure the goodness-of-fit of the
map. Next, hierarchical cluster analysis was conducted to group these
coordinates of all ideas into a smaller number of clusters of related
ideas. This analysis was carried out using the R package “concept map
r” and provided the authors with a range of five to 15 clusters to work
with. In line with Smith et al. (2018), the number of clusters used was
determined by the need to capture the diversity of ideas in regard to
preserving a manageable level of detail.
The final cluster solution contains five clusters, representing the
areas 1) Community, 2) Funding and support, 3) Publication, 4)
6
J. Bäckstrand and Á. Halldórsson Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 25 (2019) 100557

Table 3
Summary of editorial policies.
IJOPM (2017) “IJOPM’s mission is to publish leading-edge, innovative research that has the potential to significantly advance the field of Operations Management,
theoretically and/or practically.”
IJPDLM (2017) “The journal aims to be the principal home the world comes to for leading edge research bridging strategic areas of business-to-business management, physical
distribution, business logistics, marketing channels, and supply chain management. For academics teaching and researching in logistics and supply chain
management strategy, Logistics and supply chain management professionals, Business-to-business marketing and distribution academics and professionals.”
IJPE (2017) “The ultimate objective of the journal is to disseminate knowledge for improving industrial practice and to strengthen the theoretical base necessary for
supporting sound decision making.”
JOM (2017) “The mission of JOM is to publish original, empirical operations management research that demonstrates both academic and practical relevance.”
JPSM (2017) “Articles should have a significant impact on PSM theory and practice. The Journal ensures that high quality research is collected and disseminated widely to
both academics and practitioners and provides a forum for debate.”
OMEGA (2017) “Omega reports on developments in management, including the latest research results and applications. Preference will be given to papers with implications to
the practice of management. Submissions of purely theoretical papers are discouraged.”
POM (2017) “The journal publishes scientific research into the problems, interest, and concerns of managers who manage product and process design, operations, and
supply chains.”
SCM:IJ (2017) “SCM: IJ is targeted at academics and practitioners in both public and private sector organizations working on all aspects of vertical coordination and process
integration. The journal promotes the exchange of knowledge, experience and new ideas between researchers and practitioners and encourages a multi-
disciplinary and cross-functional approach to the resolution of problems and the exploitation of opportunities within supply chains that extend beyond the
buyer-supply interface.”
JSCM (2017) “The mission of JSCM is to be THE journal of choice among supply chain management scholars across disciplines, by attracting high-quality, high-impact
behavioural research focusing on theory building and empirical methodologies. An article published in the journal must make a strong contribution to supply
chain management theory. However, manuscripts that are primarily practitioner-focused and that have managers as their primary audience should be
submitted to a practitioner-oriented journal” (our emphasis in bold).

Academic citizenship, and 5) Company relations, as depicted in Fig. 4.

For example, cluster 1, “Community,” in the five-cluster solution in
Fig. 4, has joined clusters 1, 2, and 3 in the 15-cluster solution in Fig. 3,
including prompts such as: “A speaking partner to compare our research
and choice,” “A vibrant and collegial research community,” and “A
team of dedicated people.”
The following observations are made based on the cluster analysis
and relative positions of the individual items. Clusters 3 (publication)
and 2 (funding and support) are positioned close to each other, in-
dicating that they are interrelated. Conversely, the distance between
clusters 3 (publication) and 5 (company relations) – the horizontal di-
mension in Fig. 4 ‒ indicates that two different approaches are needed
to solve tensions associated with both ends of the spectrum, i.e. “pub-
lication” and “Company relations”. Furthermore, the position of
“funding and support” in the middle emphasizes how crucial both are
for ES.
It might be surprising that community and academic citizenship are
positioned far from each other. However, items in the “academic citi-
zenship” cluster have more to do with individual skills, whereas items
in the “community” cluster pertain to a vibrant and collegial research
community, nearby as well as internationally. Fig. 3. Cluster analysis with 15 clusters.
Table 4 summarizes the five clusters that can be considered building
blocks for survival and prosperity of ES in PSM. For each cluster, we
need to invest in a process leading to an outcome that is broader in
indicate the underlying category and illustrative examples of quotes scope than journal publications only and can be compared to institu-
from the respondents’ answers to the prompt question. At the core of
tional influencers. Cluster 3, (publication), includes concerns about
cluster 1 (community), is a need for a sense of belonging; we are not publications available and appropriate for research based upon ES.
alone, but are part of, and need to contribute to, that research com-
These are external prerequisites that must be complemented by internal
munity. Cluster 2 is summarized as “funding and support” and has a management support from the scholar’s institution.
central position relative to the other ES components in PSM. It reflects a
The “academic citizenship” in cluster 4 appears out of concern

Fig. 2. The Engaged scholar ‒ Creative tension or squeezed in the middle?.

7
J. Bäckstrand and Á. Halldórsson Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 25 (2019) 100557

Fig. 4. Cluster analysis with five clusters.

related to having sufficient time to conduct ES, both in terms of allo-
cation from the institution and skills to engage in this effectively. The
time and skills relative to the requirements of engaged scholarship
present a challenge to both the individual in terms of priority and the
line manager at the institution in terms of supplying sufficient pre-
requisites for the individual. Finally, “company relations” in cluster 5
identifies both ends of the research process – access to practice to get
data and provide impact. Further, it entails a strong relational aspect in
that emphasis is put on interaction between individuals rather than
organizations; this builds upon a long-term perspective. It appears here
that ES requires considerable effort that does not necessarily lead to
immediate research output in terms of a journal publication, which is
normally a high priority for scholars and their institutions. An illus-
trative prompt in cluster 5 is answer nr 38: “To get purchasing and
supply chain managers to know me as an expert in the field, so that they
are willing to work with me for both research and education, to share
their needs and to involve me in innovative projects.”
6. Analysis and discussion
This paper set out to explore prerequisites of ES in PSM with a focus
on tensions in engaged scholarship as seen from the perspective of the
individual scholar in PSM. Together, the five clusters and their relative
positions along the horizontal and vertical dimensions in Fig. 5 will
now be analyzed regarding the characteristics of ES (section 2) and
various influencers (section 4).
6.1. Horizontal – bridging publications and company relations
PSM has reached a certain level of maturity when regarded through
traditional indicators such as scientific rigor and academic journal
publications. Also confirming the current body of knowledge is the

Table 4
Clusters, categories, and examples of focus prompt responses.
Cluster Examples of included Categories Examples of included Prompts

1. Community Supporting work environment • AMore

Supportive research team and
community
Engaged research community
2. Funding and support Institutional support
Funding and incentives
speaking partner to compare our research and our choice
• A vibrant
engagement with the PSM community for engaging in projects
• Interdisciplinarity
and collegial research community
• Funding of researchofbased
research
• should be included on academic impact only is not helpful, both societal and academic impact

Merits • Topeer-reviewed
receive recognition for work that is meaningful to industry and practitioners but that does not lead to a
publication
• AProspect
supportive environment ‒ university values “close-to-practice” research
3. Publication Opportunities to publish • Writing intoprofessional
publish engaged research in top journals
Outlets for research • A dean/boss who understands
(and not scholarly) journals
• A personal skillset that enablesthat publication incentives do not help one become an engaged scholar
4. Academic citizenship Time allocation • Time and resources to develop and me to engage with (senior) practitioners
Finding the time • An appropriate workload allocation sustain relationships with practitioners
Research and technical skills • A clarification of what is in it for us at(academics)
department level
5. Company relations Access to practice • Access to individuals within companies who are capableand them (practitioners)
Industry collaboration
Stronger value to practical impact
• beyond the company's immediate problems of understanding and contributing to research

• ToTo see industry as a partner instead of a victim needing help

• bring practically relevant research back into the classroom for education
Note: categories illustrated in Table 4 (2nd column) are selected to show the variety of content clustered together rather than the (statistically) most common
category labels.

8
J. Bäckstrand and Á. Halldórsson
Fig. 5. The two dimensions of ES and associated tensions; I to IV.
horizontal dimension in the cluster analysis, depicted in Fig. 5 as an
increased need to focus on company relations or practice or relevance.
Recent calls for methods that allow greater proximity to professionals as
part of the research process (Knight et al., 2016) and interest for ES (see
e.g. Walker et al., 2008) indicate, along the horizontal axis in Fig. 5,
that practice becomes a part of both initiation and application of re-
search. Accordingly, the views of PSM scholars in this study confirm
calls for more relevance in research, a balanced approach to rigor and
relevance. The features of ES can also strengthen research quality in
terms of, for example, practitioners’ verification of results to increase
validity and transferability (see e.g. reliability and validity procedures
by Ellram and Tate, 2015; van de Ven, 2007). Other examples of ES
promoting research quality include the use of multiple informants and
review of findings by informants (e.g. Ellram and Tate, 2015).
6.2. Horizontal – publishable or actionable?
Interestingly, the horizontal dimension of Fig. 5 also reveals two
contrasting issues. Starting from right, usefulness of research is asso-
ciated with actionable knowledge, which allows for effective inter-
vention and prescribes how to solve a problematic situation in practice
(e.g. Van de Ven and Johnson, 2006). Moving towards left in the figure
we meet somewhat a contrasting view. Although the editorial policies
of journals relevant to PSM explicitly identify practice or managers as
an audience (Table 3), our review of managerial or practical implica-
tions in JPSM from 2015 to 2019, together with literature reviews
outside JPSM, suggests that these implications primarily describe what
can be done, but seldom spell out the particular situation or move be-
yond description towards prediction or solution. They stay at the “may
be” rather than “will be” form. This may be due to the journal’s article
format, conventions, or simply because we as scholars write implica-
tions for practice with other scholars, not managers, as intended
readers. According to Mentzer (2008), to fulfill both rigor and re-
levance, any scholarly paper should have practitioners as the intended
audience for the abstract, introduction, literature review and conclu-
sions, not only the “industrial implications” subsection. Interestingly,
only one out of nine journals reviewed in Table 3, namely JSCM, states
clearly that practitioner-oriented papers should be submitted to prac-
titioner journals.
Another issue arising along the horizontal dimension is the inherent
uncertainty about the research problem at the outset, and hence the
expected results using ES. In particular, there may be some sunk cost
since we might put time into preserving the company relationship ra-
ther than focusing only on journal publications. Increased attention to
impact of research can be seen as an attempt to convert these sunk costs
9
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 25 (2019) 100557
to merits such as the impact on industry and not only regard this as
“time lost” in article writing.
6.3. Vertical – the individual and the community
The findings also revealed prerequisites for ES in PSM that are po-
sitioned along the vertical dimension. Starting from above, academic
citizenship reflects a need for an individual or behavioral perspective to
be considered in ES for PSM. ES requires personal skills and relation-
ships between professionals and scholars but goes even deeper, as-
signing the individual scholar’s experience and insight an important
role in modes of theorizing that move beyond theory development and
testing (e.g., Swedberg, 2012). At the other end of the vertical axis is
community, reflecting a need for collective and collegial support in
conducting ES. This presumes that PSM can be regarded as a research
community and that individuals can learn from each other. Having a
speaking partner to compare choices and results can also serve as a
means of increasing research validity. For example, van de Ven (2007)
suggests that ES scholars should put great emphasis on analytical
generalizability, i.e., refer to the current body of knowledge. Ellram and
Tate (2015) also acknowledge the role of review by fellow academics to
increase transferability and validity of results.
6.4. The horizontal/vertical intersection
Finally, the category funding and support is found at the intersection
of the horizontal and vertical axes in Fig. 5. This implies that formal
requirements, funding, and support must come from the managers,
departments, universities and research-funding institutions surrounding
the scholars, and through this a balance is achieved between the other
four clusters that are, however, not inherently consistent.
6.5. Prerequisites for ES – tensions
ES extends the view on scholarship beyond the publication and
practice (or rigor and relevance) dichotomy by not only adding the
vertical dimension of the individual, institution and community but
also acknowledging tensions among the clusters as part of the requisites
for ES in PSM. Here, tension refers to ambiguity and even conflicting
implications for one or more of the five prerequisites for the scholar as
an individual.
Tension in quadrant I ‒ Funders and use of research methods in
PSM: This is a tension between what funders of applied research would
expect (relevance, industrial competitiveness, innovation) and the
predominant methods used in PSM (survey, conceptual approaches, and
case studies). This refers to the middle of Fig. 5 as well as the individual
and publications, quadrant I. One way of advancing the field is to make
more use of same methods through, for example, replication studies or
meta-analysis (van Weele and van Raaij, 2014) or secondary data
(Ellram and Tate, 2016). However, funders seek to create business
impact for increased competitiveness and results at an advanced tech-
nology readiness level, i.e., almost market-ready solutions. Two ques-
tions emerge from this. First, will funders supply resources to replica-
tion studies that may be more relevant for the rigor of PSM than
relevance to practitioners? Second, it is argued above that more re-
levant research needs more collaborative research approaches. The
(rhetoric) question is, will current method portfolios in PSM allow us to
move beyond incremental changes, or will we need more disruptive
challenges that make collaborative and action-oriented methods more
prevalent?
Tension in quadrant II ‒ Lonesome in a big world: Here, we
begin with the individual at the top of Fig. 5 and relate to three other
prerequisites that lie on the horizontal axis: publications, funding and
support, and company relations. First, funders pull towards practical
relevance of research and require relationship management with com-
panies while rigor and journal publication have high status in reward
J. Bäckstrand and Á. Halldórsson
systems and national assessment schemes. Second, creating networks
with industry and studying supply networks can be time-consuming,
and may happen at the cost of spending more time on publishing papers
in journals, which reflects achievement in terms of bibliometrics. Yet,
academic citizenship and its association with collegiality is of immense
importance for both young and senior scholars.
The multiple nature of influencers requires good management and
leadership skills to coach scholars through their career development in
prioritizing relevant activities at particular stages of their careers.
Requirements are immense; leadership is often not geared to deal with
these challenges or to create conditions that allow talents to grow and
get promotion. Some big steps in career development take place at a
time when scholars are establishing families or re-locating to new
universities. This affects parents in general and female academics in
specific since society traditionally places higher expectations on mo-
thers taking the primary responsibility for the family and household
chores (Burg and Macfarlane, 2017).
Tensions in quadrant III – Unexploited potential? Between
company relations, community and funding and support, we have not
identified any major tensions, but rather underused potential. Since
many researchers find ES time consuming, it may be more appropriate
to share the workload in a research team or even within the community.
This potential of the community is in line with Podsakoff et al. (2018)
analysis of high-impact publications. They encourage young scholars
“…to develop relationships with other scholars who possess com-
plementary knowledge and skill sets and are interested in the same
topic areas” and Liu et al. (2017), who state that the “most important
reasons why authors collaborate with each other is that the coauthors
bring unique skills to the project and that having coauthors motivates
researchers to keep the project going.”
The challenge in this quadrant is to avoid becoming gatekeepers for
each other and instead build relations that foster inclusivity. This can
for example regard applying for research funding or ensuring that en-
gaging in various co-creating efforts in ES is awarded in meritorious
ways such as lead-authorship of academic journal articles. Another
impediment is that we need funding to create and support academic
relations within the community as well as company relations – invest-
ments that do not directly correlate to research output but nevertheless
are crucial.
Tension in quadrant IV ‒ Collegial nature of PSM and ES vs. the
“new public management” regime: This tension centers around
“funding and support” at the center of Fig. 5 but in combination with a
predominant focus on publications as means of accountability and as-
sessment of research quality and the nature of PSM community at the
bottom of the figure. Many characteristics of PSM, such as a focus on
the study of different actors in a supply network and linking with other
functions such as marketing, services, and new product development,
are collaborative in nature. The same holds for the researcher-practi-
tioner feature of ES. First, these stand in contrast with the new public
management that is infused into academia through national research
assessment schemes, and which, in their operationalization, put em-
phasis on codified achievements such as bibliometrics rather than deal
with a more intangible outcome such as the business impact of research
(see e.g. Chandler, 2017).
Tension V ‒ Community growing more than funding
opportunities:The tension appearing from the center of Fig. 5 (V) re-
lates to the community of PSM. As a profession and an academic
community, PSM has grown in size and relevance and gained a strategic
position in many organizations. Interestingly, though, open calls for
funding applications seldom refer to PSM as the focus. Rather, the
subject can be a part of a call that, e.g., refers to “value chain” and
“suppliers,” but calls tend to be sector-based, e.g., transportation and
healthcare. This may explain the intersectionist focus of PSM (Larson
and Halldórsson, 2002), i.e., to get funding, we seek theorization of
PSM through topics announced by funders. This means that developing
the field as reviewed by Johnsen (2018) is not only a subject of the
10
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 25 (2019) 100557
individual scholar’s freedom but also influences research funding
bodies.
In summary, the identified tensions are an attempt to move beyond
a traditional rigor vs. relevance approach when discussing prerequisites
for ES in PSM. Common to the tensions presented here is that the
“blame” is given to conditions or situations that at first seem to be out
of our influence, most often related to the middle of Fig. 5 – funding and
support. However, we must also look at our own community as PSM
scholars. One outlook is to seek to get PSM more distinctively into re-
search calls from large funding agencies. Also, for some of these ten-
sions, we, ourselves, amplify rather than mitigate the negative im-
plications raised here. Thus, as a community, we may have an excellent
opportunity to make corrective actions. We need to be more self-re-
flective and continue to take responsibility for how we bring the com-
munity forward. We have every possibility for the coming 25 years.
7. Conclusions and implications
The scientific status of our subject area, ranging from SCM in gen-
eral to logistics, PSM and operations, and the practical relevance of
research of these, is of growing concern for various stakeholders. A
powerful point of reference has been the need for both rigor and re-
levance in research, which often takes place through discussions re-
garding what topics and research methods to pursue and moving to-
wards more “theorizing.” One way of responding to these increased or
new expectations is through engaged scholarship. Even this pathway is
strongly concerned with methodological matters, where knowledge
(transfer, creation, and co-creation) and interaction between re-
searchers and practitioners is in focus. However, less attention is paid to
the individual researcher. What does all of this mean, and what does it
mean to be (or become) an “engaged scholar?” The relevance of such
focus on the individual is only enhanced by an understanding of the-
orizing as a vital part of advancing the field. Theorizing builds upon the
individual scholar’s personal experience and resources.
This research began by building upon a broad view of scholarship
that includes integration and application. It was decided that the status
and characteristics of PSM are well in line with this thinking. Further,
as regards contributions to ES, this research has considered the parti-
cularity of PSM, both as a subject area and as regards the level of
maturity of the field as an academic discipline.
By envisaging a PSM scholar as an “engaged scholar,” we identified
a set of institutional and discipline-based (PSM) influencers. These shape
the conditions in which the various forms of scholarship take place.
This research suggests a set of five categories of prerequisites regarded
as relevant for ES in PSM: academic citizenship, community, publica-
tions, company relations, and funding and support. These prerequisites
should be understood relative to each other rather than in isolation.
Starting with the hope that the tensions that emerge from this inter-
relationship would result in “creative tensions,” we ended up with a
more pessimistic and perhaps realistic view, namely that it is likely we
feel “stuck in the middle.”
Overall, there seems to be a discrepancy between requirements and
opportunities and the way in which these are rewarded. Current re-
search methods in PSM are still biased towards quantitative methods
such as survey studies and mathematical modeling. Participatory and
collaborative methods are increasingly called for, but it is yet to be seen
whether they have gained traction. However, scholars adhering to the
more practitioner-oriented research, that ought to be taken for granted
in an applied area such as PSM, are exposed to inconsistencies and
misalignment between different requirements.
The paper identifies a range of inconsistencies and misalignments
among requirements put on the individual researcher. These range from
academic systems (counting publications and assessment regimes
building on new public management that stand in stark contrast with
e.g. academic citizenship and collegiality) to requirements from the
academic institution (teaching, networking, applying for funding,
J. Bäckstrand and Á. Halldórsson
administration) and academic society (reviewer, editorials, organiza-
tions, conference arranger, grading committees e.g., being an academic
citizen) to society at large (increased competitiveness of national
companies). In addition, the nature of PSM as an applied field, and the
methodological range implied in engaged scholarship, make this si-
tuation even more complicated for the individual researcher.
One implication for PSM scholars moving towards ES is to ac-
knowledge that some parts of the prerequisites are outside our influ-
ence. Perhaps most apparent is the category of funding and support, as
guidelines and norms are often set by governmental initiatives, with
minimal involvement of academic collegiality. However, understanding
the central position this category has in the resulting framework and
how it connects to the other four prerequisites is a step towards un-
derstanding what it takes to survive and prosper as an ES in PSM.
Another implication is the mixed messages of our own field; PSM
methods pull towards publications, while the nature of PSM pulls to-
wards practice. Moreover, PSM journal policies pull towards practical
implications, while journal practice, i.e., how practical implications are
written, pulls towards publications. Finally, we started with a prompt
that distinguished between becoming and surviving as an engaged
scholar. The findings and analysis so far can be summarized as be-
coming a scholar is easy but surviving requires scholarship (a sup-
porting community).
Based on the empirical data that was gathered with concept map-
ping, a logical step for further research is to carry out rating of the
statements, in line with the full concept mapping methodology
(Trochim, 1989b). Going back to the original list of 232 statements we
could also weight similar statements to identify what most respondents
indicated as crucial in order to survive and prosper as an ES. A
Appendix 1. Digital questionnaire
11
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 25 (2019) 100557
comparative study by regions, types of universities, or level of academic
position is also a potential track for future research.
Following the vertical and horizontal axis of Fig. 5 as well as the
four quadrants as a whole, the following outlook for ES in PSM can be
considered. One outlook for development of ES in PSM is a shift in focus
from individual towards community; to give more attention to the
work-professional balance of the scholar as a part of a bigger research
community, and not to focus only on the work-life balance from an
individual perspective; a community-based scholarship. Another outlook
for ES in PSM is responsive scholarship; the ability of scholars to respond
to significant societal challenges, turn these into research problems and
disseminate as publications or actionable knowledge. A third and not
necessarily far-fetched outlook is performative scholarship; viewing all
four quadrants simultaneously and from an interactive perspective
would stimulate co-creation of knowledge but also lead to improve-
ments, not only local to processes or organizations investigated but also
lead to larger social actions or change. Capabilities for exercising these
three features of ES-based scholarship in PSM leave questions of how to
develop these through doctoral education and continuous professional
development of researchers. Further to this is the question of what kind
of research environment is likely to create favorable conditions.
Acknowledgement
We would like to acknowledge respondents and helpers in our
concept mapping study that gave us invaluable input and helped us
identifying the attributes of ES in PSM. We would also like to ac-
knowledge the anonymous reviewers that have provided helpful feed-
back on this work and made us aware of further research outlooks.
J. Bäckstrand and Á. Halldórsson Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 25 (2019) 100557

Appendix 2. List of Prompts

Prompt: "One thing that I need in order to survive and prosper as an engaged scholar within PSM is … "

1. A speaking partner to compare our research and our choice

2. More engagement with the PSM community for engaging in projects
3. To collaborate with other 'engaged scholars' (to share research ideas and empirical observations)
4. To be embedded in the PSM community through association membership (EurOMA/IPSERA/AOM)
5. A vibrant and collegial research community
6. Communities with an openness to discuss new ideas and research
7. A research community close by as well as internationally
8. Funding/approaches for supporting PhDs to become engaged scholars
9. Funding of research based on academic impact only is not helpful, both societal and academic impact should be included
10. Funding that allows me to invest time in establishing and maintaining close relationships with practice
11. To be able to communicate research results and contributions in a way which is value - adding to both academics and practitioners
12. An organisational support: university environment very focused on "star" publications
13. A mentorship program to define priorities and to define career path (older professors)
14. Approaches how to support and integrate PhD/early career academics in the research process
15. Supervisors to give the room to implement your own ideas in your research and are open to the needs of the clients
16. For career progression to look beyond narrow journal rankings
17. A personal skillset that enables me to engage with (senior) practitioners
18. Perseverance (e.g. determination, persistence)
19. Experience
20. Communication skills
21. Prospect to publish "engaged research" in top journals
22. Opportunities to publish - tactics for making my publications acceptable
23. Opportunities to publish - amenable editors and reviewers
24. Writing in professional (and not scholarly) journals
25. An outlet for your research that is positioned between the "pure practical" point of view and the scientific field
26. Reduction of the pressure to publish "now" in order to be able to engage in higher impact projects
27. Journal editors that get involved early to ensure practical projects are executed to their standards instead of fitted/salvaged retrospectively
28. For JPSM to get ranked as a 3* in the ABS rankings!
29. Support to have connection with companies
30. A clarification of "What is in it for us (academics) and them (practitioners)"?
31. Means of communicating the mutual benefits for industry and academia
32. Capacity to respond to practitioner's timescales
33. Resources to develop and sustain relationships with practitioners
34. Time and resources to develop and sustain relationships with practitioners
35. To receive recognition for work that is meaningful to industry and practitioners but that does not lead to a peer reviewed publication
36. An access to companies that are willing to engage i.e. commit time
37. An access to individual people within companies who are capable of understanding and contributing to research beyond the company's own immediate problems
38. To get purchasing and supply chain manager know me as an expert in the field, so that they are willing to work with me for both research and education, to share their needs and
to involve me in innovative projects
39. An engaged and committed firms that understand that research is not management consulting
40. Visibility among practitioners
41. To spend sufficient time in my laboratory, i.e. the practitioner world
42. An insight into skills that are demanded from practitioners today and tomorrow
43. Showcases of "good" engaged scholarship
44. "Accepted" methods (especially to be able to publish in top journals)
45. More methodological skills (in applying methodology, not only analysing or writing)
46. To invest more in academic-industry research methodology, like action research and collaborative research (even though time consuming)
47. Good knowledge of theories in the field
48. Industry that should be involved in the development of research programs
49. To see industry as partner instead of a "victim" that needs help
50. Finding out the right research topic within my field of interest which has a good connection with actual problems in industry
51. Interdisciplinarity of research
52. The basic understanding of real-life problem
53. An administrative support - administrative staff to manage administrative duties
54. The option to switch on/off management services
55. A supportive environment – university values 'close-to-practice' research
56. Willingness to travel and visit each other
57. To bring practically relevant research back into classroom for education
58. A team of PhD students/post docs
59. An ability to collaborate with people with different backgrounds
60. A team of dedicated people
61. That I need focus (time and cognitive attention to engage in research in the early stages)
62. To find time for research
63. 14 days/week
64. My own dedication
65. An appropriate workload allocation at department level
66. To avoid too much emphasis on other responsibilities since it makes it very difficult to engage with industry/public sector in a meaningful way
67. A work-life balance
68. A dean/boss that understands that publication incentives do not help to become an engaged scholar
69. A positive atmosphere (colleagues, work site, students, etc.)

12
J. Bäckstrand and Á. Halldórsson
References
Adler, N.J., Harzing, A.-W., 2009. When knowledge wins: transcending the sense and
nonsense of academic rankings. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 8 (1), 72–95.
Alvesson, M., Sandberg, J., 2011. Generating research questions through problematiza-
tion. Acad. Manag. Rev. 36 (2), 247–271.
Anderson, N., Herriot, P., Hodgkinson, G.P., 2001. The practitioner‐researcher divide in
Industrial, Work and Organizational (IWO) psychology: where are we now, and
where do we go from here? J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 74 (4), 391–411.
Bäckstrand, J., Säfsten, K., 2017. Rigor, relevance, funding and qualifications: the catch
22 of University-Industry interaction research. In: Proceedings of the 5th Annual UIIN
Annual University-Industry Interaction Conference, 7-9 June, 2017, Dublin, Ireland.
Bals, L., Laine, J., Mugurusi, G., 2018. Evolving Purchasing and Supply Organizations: a
contingency model for structural alternatives. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 24 (1), 41–58.
Bendoly, E., Donohue, K., Schultz, K.L., 2006. Behavior in operations management: as-
sessing recent findings and revisiting old assumptions. J. Oper. Manag. 24 (6),
737–752.
Bennis, W.G., O'Toole, J., 2005. How business schools lost their way. Harv. Bus. Rev. 83
(5), 96–104 154.
Boyer, E.L., 1990. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton
University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Burg, D., Macfarlane, B., 2017. Recognising and rewarding academic citizenship. In: The
Society for Research into Higher Education’s Annual Research Conference, Newport,
Wales.
Carter, C.R., Kosmol, T., Kaufmann, L., 2017. Toward a supply chain practice view. J.
Supply Chain Manag. 53 (1), 114–122.
Chandler, J., 2017. Questioning the New Public Management. Routledge.
Dou, Y., Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., 2018. Green multi-tier supply chain management: an enabler
investigation. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 24 (2), 95–107.
Dubois, A., Araujo, L., 2007. Case research in purchasing and supply management: op-
portunities and challenges. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 13 (3), 170–181.
Dubois, A., Salmi, A., 2016. A call for broadening the range of approaches to case studies
in purchasing and supply management. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 22 (4), 247–249.
Ellram, L., Tate, W.L., 2015. Redefining supply management‫׳‬s contribution in services
sourcing. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 21 (1), 64–78.
Ellram, L.M., Tate, W.L., 2016. The use of secondary data in purchasing and supply
management (P/SM) research. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 22 (4), 250–254.
Evaluation criteria, 2014a. Evaluation Criteria for a Docent (Associate Professor) at
School of Engineering (JTH), Jönköping University. Instruction, School of
Engineering (JTH), Jönköping University.
Evaluation criteria, 2014b. Evaluation Criteria for a Professor at School of Engineering
(JTH), Jönköping University. Instruction, School of Engineering (JTH), Jönköping
University.
Flickinger, M., Tuschke, A., Gruber-Muecke, T., Fiedler, M., 2014. In search of rigor,
relevance, and legitimacy: what drives the impact of publications? J. Bus. Econ. 84
(1), 99–128.
Gosling, J., 2017. LOM Section Engagement 2014-2017. Cardiff Business School,
University of Cardiff.
Grant, D.B., Kovács, G., Spens, K., 2018. Questionable research practices in academia:
antecedents and consequences. Eur. Bus. Rev. 30 (2), 101–127.
Guercini, S., 2014. New qualitative research methodologies in management. Manag.
Decis. 52 (4), 662–674.
Gulati, R., 2007. Tent poles, tribalism, and boundary spanning: the rigor-relevance debate
in management research. Acad. Manag. J. 50 (4), 775–782.
Halldórsson, Á., Hsuan, J., Kotzab, H., 2015. Complementary theories to supply chain
management revisited–from borrowing theories to theorizing. Supply Chain Manag.:
Int. J. 20 (6), 574–586.
Harland, C., Lamming, R., Walker, H., Phillips, W., Caldwell, N., Johnsen, T., Knight, L.,
Zheng, J., 2006. Supply management: is it a discipline? Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 26
(7), 730–753.
Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S., 2004. Design science in information systems
research. MIS Q. 28 (1), 75–105.
Hoffmann, P., Schiele, H., Krabbendam, K., 2013. Uncertainty, supply risk management
and their impact on performance. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 19 (3), 199–211.
IJOPM, 2017. International Journal of Operations & Production Management: Mission
and Scope. retreived November 24th 2017 from. http://www.
emeraldgrouppublishing.com/ijopm.htm.
IJPDLM, 2017. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management.
retreived November 24th 2017 from. http://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/
ijpdlm.htm.
IJPE, 2017. International Journal of Production Economics. retreived November 24th
2017 from. https://www.journals.elsevier.com/international-journal-of-production-
economics.
Jackson, K.M., Trochim, W.M., 2002. Concept mapping as an alternative approach for the
analysis of open-ended survey responses. Organ. Res. Methods 5 (4), 307–336.
Johnsen, T.E., 2018. Purchasing and supply management in an industrial marketing
perspective. Ind. Mark. Manag. 69, 91–97.
JOM, 2017. Journal of Operations Management: Mission. retreived November 24th 2017
from https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-operations-management/.
JPSM, 2017. Journal mission. retreived 2017-10-13. https://www.journals.elsevier.com/
journal-of-purchasing-and-supply-management.
JSCM, 2017. Journal of supply chain management: criteria for publication. retreived
November 24th 2017 from. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)
1745-493X/homepage/ProductInformation.html.
13
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 25 (2019) 100557
Knight, L., Tate, W.L., Matopoulos, A., Meehan, J., Salmi, A., 2016. Breaking the mold:
research process innovations in purchasing and supply management. J. Purch. Supply
Manag. 22 (4), 239–243.
Kraljic, P., 1983. Purchasing must become supply management. Harv. Bus. Rev. 61 (5),
109–117.
Lacoste, S., Johnsen, R.E., 2015. Supplier–customer relationships: a case study of power
dynamics. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 21 (4), 229–240.
LaPlaca, P., Lindgreen, A., Vanhamme, J., 2018. How to write really good articles for
premier academic journals. Ind. Mark. Manag. 68, 202–209.
Larson, P.D., Halldórsson, Á., 2002. What is SCM? And, Where is It? J. Supply Chain
Manag. 38 (3), 36–44.
Liu, C., Olivola, C.Y., Kovács, B., 2017. Coauthorship trends in the field of management:
facts and perceptions. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 16 (4), 509–530.
McLinden, D., 2017. And then the internet happened: thoughts on the future of concept
mapping. Eval. Program Plann. 60, 293–300.
Meehan, J., Touboulic, A., Walker, H., 2016. Time to get real: the case for critical action
research in purchasing and supply management. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 22 (4),
255–257.
Mentzer, J.T., 2008. Rigor versus relevance: why would we choose only one? J. Supply
Chain Manag. 44 (2), 72–77.
Ministry of Education and Research, 2014. Chapter 4 - teachers. retreived 2017-04-13.
https://www.uhr.se/en/start/laws-and-regulations/Laws-and-regulations/The-
Higher-Education-Ordinance/#chapter4.
NOKUT, 2018. The Norwegian Agency for Quality Assurance in Education. retreived
2018-05-31. www.nokut.no/.
NVAO, 2018. Nederlands-Vlaamse Accreditatieorganisatie. retreived 2018-05-31.
https://www.nvao.com/.
OMEGA, 2017. Omega the International Journal of Management Science. retreived
November 24th 2017 from. https://www.journals.elsevier.com/omega.
OptimalSort, 2018. Card Sorting Platform that Supports Remote Sorting, Retreived 2018-
05-31. https://www.optimalworkshop.com.
Pettigrew, A.M., 1990. Longitudinal field research on change: theory and practice. Organ.
Sci. 1 (3), 267–292.
Piekkari, R., Plakoyiannaki, E., Welch, C., 2010. Good' case research in industrial mar-
keting: insights from research practice. Ind. Mark. Manag. 39 (1), 109–117.
Podsakoff, P., Podsakoff, N.P., Mishra, P., Escue, C., 2018. Can early-career scholars
conduct impactful research while trying to get tenure?: playing “small ball” vs
“swinging for the fences”. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 17 (4), 496–531.
POM, 2017. Production and Operations Management: Aims and Scope. retreived
November 24th 2017 from. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)
1937-5956/homepage/ProductInformation.html.
Pournader, M., Harrison, N., 2017. Toward a comprehencive OSCM research metho-
dology: the role of design science. In: Proceedings of the 77th Academy of
Management Annual Meeting, August 5-8th, Atlanta, GA.
R, 2018. R Is a Free Software Environment for Statistical Computing and Graphics. re-
treived 2018-05-31. https://cran.r-project.org/.
REF, 2018. Research Excellence Framework (REF). retreived 2018-05-31. http://www.
ref.ac.uk/.
Rosas, S.R., Kane, M., 2012. Quality and rigor of the concept mapping methodology: a
pooled study analysis. Eval. Program Plann. 35 (2), 236–245.
SCM:IJ, 2017. Supply Chain Management: an International Journal. retreived November
24th 2017 from. http://emeraldgrouppublishing.com/products/journals/journals.
htm?id=scm.
Sivertsen, G., 2017. Unique, but still best practice? The Research Excellence Framework
(REF) from an international perspective. Palgrave Communications 3, 17078.
Smith, F., Gunnarsdóttir, K.Á., Genell, A., McLinden, D., Vaughn, L., Garelius, H., Nilsson-
Ehle, H., Lönqvist, U., Björk-Eriksson, T., 2018. Evaluating the implementation and
use of the regional cancer plan in Western Sweden through concept mapping. Int. J.
Qual. Health Care.
Spina, G., Caniato, F., Luzzini, D., Ronchi, S., 2013. Past, present and future trends of
purchasing and supply management: an extensive literature review. Ind. Mark.
Manag. 42 (8), 1202–1212.
Strauss, A., Corbin, J., 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research. Sage publications.
Swedberg, R., 2012. Theorizing in sociology and social science: turning to the context of
discovery. Theory Soc. 41 (1), 1–40.
Taylor, P., Braddock, R., 2007. International university ranking systems and the idea of
university excellence. J. High. Educ. Policy Manag. 29 (3), 245–260.
Trochim, W.M., 1989a. Concept mapping: soft science or hard art? Eval. Program Plann.
12 (1), 87–110.
Trochim, W.M., 1989b. An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation.
Eval. Program Plann. 12, 1–16.
van de Ven, A.H., 2007. Engaged Scholarship A Guide for Organizational and Social
Research. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
van de Ven, A.H., Johnson, P.E., 2006. Knowledge for theory and practice. Acad. Manag.
Rev. 31 (4), 802–821.
van Raaij, E.M., 2018. Déjà lu: on the limits of data reuse across multiple publications. J.
Purch. Supply Manag. 24 (3), 183–191.
van Weele, A.J., van Raaij, E.M., 2014. The future of purchasing and supply management
research: about relevance and rigor. J. Supply Chain Manag. 50 (1), 56–72.
Vaughn, L.M., McLinden, D., 2016. Concept mapping. In: Jason, L., Glenwick, D. (Eds.),
Handbook of Methodological Approaches to Community-Based Research:
Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods, (Oxford, New York, NY).
Vaughn, L.M., Jones, J.R., Booth, E., Burke, J.G., 2017. Concept mapping methodology
and community-engaged research: a perfect pairing. Eval. Program Plann. 60,
229–237.
J. Bäckstrand and Á. Halldórsson
Walker, H., Harland, C., Knight, L., Uden, C., Forrest, S., 2008. Reflections on longitudinal
action research with the English national health service. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 14
(2), 136–145.
Wise, E., Berg, M., Landgren, M., Serger, S.S., Benner, M., Vico, E.P., 2016. Evaluating the
role of HEIs' interaction with surrounding society. In: Vinnova (Ed.), Vinnova Report,
(Stockholm, Sweden).
Wynstra, F., 2010. What did we do, who did it and did it matter? A review of fifteen
volumes of the (European) Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management. J. Purch.
14
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 25 (2019) 100557
Supply Manag. 16 (4), 279–292.
Wynstra, F., 2016. Past, present and future trends of purchasing and supply management:
an extensive literature review. A review and outlook. In: Bartezzaghi, E., Cagliano, R.,
Caniato, F., Ronchi, S. (Eds.), A Journey through Manufacturing and Supply Chain
Strategy Research. Springer, pp. 199–228.
Zsidisin, G.A., Ancarani, A., 2016. Positioning the journal of purchasing and supply
management in supply chain research: perspectives from the outgoing editors. J.
Purch. Supply Manag. 22 (1), 1–6.