Transnational Capitalism After Postcolonialism
Bridget Kustin, Juliane Reinecke, and Jimmy Donaghey recently published a powerful article entitled Transnational Capitalism After Postcolonialism: Researching the Interfaces in Global Supply Chains. The authors critically examine the ethical and analytical challenges of researching global supply chains, particularly in contexts shaped by power asymmetries between the Global North and South. Through a case study of the Bangladesh Accord, established after the Rana Plaza disaster, they argue for a better understanding of transnational interfaces where actors from different regions negotiate capitalist relations. Challenging the dominance of postcolonial theory’s discursive focus, the article draws on Vivek Chibber’s Marxian critique to reintroduce class and material power relations into the analysis. It emphasizes that a sole focus on cultural representation can obscure deeper structural inequalities embedded in global capitalism. I believe that integrating postcolonial ethics with Marxism is an innovative way to study SCM phenomena. This article could inspire future research to investigate how global capitalist dynamics shape labor, justice, and representation across complex transnational interfaces.
Kustin, B., Reinecke, J. & Donaghey, J. (2025). Transnational Capitalism After Postcolonialism: Researching the Interfaces in Global Supply Chains. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-025-05985-z
Making a Theoretical Contribution with Qualitative Research
Authors struggling with how to make a strong theoretical contribution is the challenge I see most often in journal submissions. In their recent editorial, Making a Theoretical Contribution with Qualitative Research, Rouse and her coauthors (2025) provide practical guidance for qualitative scholars seeking to meet high standards for theoretical contribution. The authors argue that the “inherent openness and contextual grounding [of qualitative research] can make it challenging to articulate a crisp, generalizable theoretical contribution”. To address this, they outline six key pathways: (1) leveraging the unusual beyond fascinating settings; (2) leveraging inference beyond patterns and regularities; (3) leveraging tensions beyond opening the black box; (4) leveraging visualizations beyond boxes and arrows; (5) leveraging language beyond hyperbole; and (6) leveraging the moment beyond emulating past work. A central theme is that theory must “move from description (patterns) to explanation (mechanisms) to transferrable theoretical account”. The editorial also acknowledges the new role of AI as a “co-theorist” – assisting in pattern recognition and theorization, but not replacing human interpretive depth.
Rouse, E., Reinecke, J., Ravasi, D., Langley, A., Grimes, M., & Gruber, M. (2025). Making a Theoretical Contribution with Qualitative Research. Academy of Management Journal, 68(2), 257–266. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2025.4002
Academic Freedom Is Not a Given
Academia serves society by cultivating critical thinking and advancing knowledge, but research and teaching freedom face increasing pressures. For example, some early-career colleagues I have spoken to at conferences in the U.S. confess that the need for high student evaluations to advance their careers forces them to avoid teaching topics such as climate-related aspects in their SCM classes because it would lead to poor evaluations from conservative students. Although it is not new that academic inquiry is constrained by authoritarian regimes, signs of similar challenges are now appearing in the United States. This week, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) retracted manuscripts authored by its researchers from scientific journals for review in order to comply with President Trump’s executive order. The order mandates the removal of discussions of topics such as gender diversity. A colleague from a public university in the U.S. told me that her school is now imposing travel restrictions on countries like China. All of this sounds very alarming! Let us not forget that academic freedom cannot be taken for granted.
“Navigating the Landscape” of Overused ChatGPT Buzzwords
Everyone seems to be “thrilled” these days. Many people write that “X plays a pivotal role in enhancing Y, promoting Z” or that we should “navigate the landscape of” something; that something “will not only do A, but also B”; or that research findings “underscore” or “highlight” something. I now read “foster”, “navigate,” and “leverage” in many documents. And a lot of things seem to be a “testament” to something. People ask us to “join them as they explore” something when they want to “share a milestone” with us or highlight their “New Paper Alert!” with lots of emoticons. They demonstrate that “by embracing A, they are doing B” and they share a lot of “significant insights” after they “dive deep” into something. All of these words, phrases, and sentence structures make sense, but I don’t think it makes sense that we all use the same writing style. Many of us have IKEA furniture in our homes – and try to make sure that other people do not immediately know that it is IKEA. Maybe the same should apply to ChatGPT. Shortly after this tool was released, I fell into some of these traps myself. However, ChatGPT has been around for more than two years now. We should have learned how to use it by now, shouldn’t we?
Taking Academic Ownership of the Supply Chain Emissions Discourse
I am very happy to announce that I have co-authored a new article, Taking Academic Ownership of the Supply Chain Emissions Discourse, with Felix Creutzig. In this editorial, published in the Journal of Supply Chain Management, we emphasize the need for SCM researchers to actively engage with the issue of supply chain emissions, which we define as “the total greenhouse gas emissions generated by the entire network of interconnected and interdependent actors involved in all value-related activities—from upstream to downstream” (p. 3). Our article presents a framework of corporate interventions – categorized as collaborative or authoritative and targeting either behavioral or operational changes – to reduce supply chain emissions and outlines research opportunities using propositional, processual, perspectival, and provocative theorizing. We hope that this work will inspire both academic and practical advancements, particularly by enabling SCM researchers to make meaningful theoretical contributions and assisting SCM practitioners in advancing global efforts to address the climate crisis.
Wieland, A. & Creutzig, F. (2025). Taking Academic Ownership of the Supply Chain Emissions Discourse. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 61(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12338
When Qualitative Researchers Meet “Confidently Wrong” Peer Reviewers
Are you aware of the hidden frustrations many qualitative researchers encounter during peer review? A recent article titled “Being Really Confidently Wrong”: Qualitative Researchers’ Experiences of Methodologically Incongruent Peer Review Feedback by Clarke and her coauthors sheds light on how entrenched quantitative mindsets can hamper the publication of robust qualitative studies. Through a survey of 163 qualitative researchers, the authors reveal how reviewers and editors often apply quantitative standards – like sample size “power,” coding reliability statistics, or forced separation of results from discussion – to approaches that require entirely different benchmarks of rigor. Such mismatched expectations generate stress, hinder methodological integrity, and leave early career researchers especially vulnerable. The authors also provide practical strategies for dealing with these issues – ranging from politely rebutting reviewer demands to raising editorial awareness. Ultimately, they urge reviewers and journals to respect the diversity of qualitative approaches and to support, rather than stifle, these important contributions.
Clarke, V., Braun, V., Adams, J., Callaghan, J.E.M., LaMarre, A., & Semlyen, J. (2024). “Being Really Confidently Wrong”: Qualitative Researchers’ Experiences of Methodologically Incongruent Peer Review Feedback. Qualitative Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000322
Theorizing Through Literature Reviews
There are many misconceptions about how to write a good literature review. In their award-winning article Theorizing Through Literature Reviews: The Miner-Prospector Continuum, Breslin and Gatrell (2023) introduce the miner–prospector continuum to guide scholars on how best to craft literature reviews. They argue that scholars can choose from eight review strategies. At the miner end, authors (1) spot conceptual gaps, (2) organize and categorize literatures, (3) problematize the literature, or (4) identify and expose contradictions. These strategies build carefully on established scholarship, ensuring incremental improvements in understanding in a relatively well-defined field. Moving toward the prospector end, reviewers may (5) transfer theories across domains, (6) develop analogies and metaphors across domains, (7) blend and merge literatures across domains, and (8) set out new narratives and conceptualizations. Such prospecting is riskier but can spark imaginative leaps and open fresh directions for the discipline. All strategies on this continuum have value and can lead to better literature reviews in SCM research.
Breslin, D., & Gatrell, C. (2023). Theorizing Through Literature Reviews: The Miner-Prospector Continuum Organizational Research Methods, 26(1), 139–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120943288
What the 2024 Nobel Prize Means for SCM Research
This year’s Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences was awarded to Daron Acemoğlu, Simon Johnson and James A. Robinson for their research on how political institutions affect long-term economic prosperity. Their work shows how colonial-era institutions continue to influence whether countries develop inclusive systems that foster growth or extractive systems that benefit elites and perpetuate inequality. I thought about what our discipline could learn from these findings. Future research in our discipline could benefit from examining how institutional frameworks in different countries affect global supply chains. For example, SCM research could explore the role of outsourcing to regions with extractive institutions in reinforcing exploitative labor practices, the extent to which outsourcing can be interpreted as neocolonialism, or the role of inclusive practices in supply chains (e.g., fair wages, equitable treatment, and respect for local governance) for development. And I am sure there is much more to learn from this work.
What is Preregistration?
One practice that I feel is not discussed enough in SCM research is preregistration, which is the practice of writing a detailed research plan before starting a study and making that plan publicly available. This practice clearly separates when researchers are testing a specific hypothesis (prediction) from when they are examining data to find new patterns (exploration). By deciding on hypotheses, methods, and analysis strategies in advance, researchers minimize the bias that can occur when they adjust their approach after seeing the data. This helps prevent the issue of unintentionally presenting after-the-fact explanations as if they were predicted from the start. Therefore, preregistration increases the credibility and transparency of research results. It also makes it easier for others to understand the work and, if necessary, replicate the study. While there may be practical challenges (e.g., unexpected changes during data collection) preregistration is becoming more common. Many academic institutions and journals now encourage or require it. For more information, visit the Center for Open Science.
The Core Building Blocks of a Theoretical Article
In Sense and Structure—The Core Building Blocks of an AMR Article, Lange and Pfarrer (2017) outline five essential steps for crafting effective Academy of Management Review articles. I believe that these five steps are useful for anyone who writes theoretical articles – not just for AMR. As an author you must (1) establish common ground by “[laying] out the basic assumptions, boundary conditions, and prescriptions of the literature, forming an agreeable starting point with your readers.” (2) You then introduce a complication (a problem, puzzle, or twist) by “pointing out to your readers some kind of complication to the common ground that you’ve already established.” (3) You demonstrate concern by providing “a compelling explanation of the complication’s importance.” (4) You present a course of action, describing “how you will be addressing and resolving your paper’s central complication.” (5) Finally, you highlight your contribution by explaining “how your work will shape or change the conversation—how it makes a distinct contribution.”
Lange, D., & Pfarrer, M.D. (2017). Editors’ Comments: Sense and Structure—The Core Building blocks of an AMR Article. Academy of Management Review, 42(3), 407–416. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2016.0225
