IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ids/ijsoma/v1y2005i3p239-256.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Methodological pluralism in case study research: an analysis of contemporary operations management and logistics research

Author

Listed:
  • Lotta Hakkinen
  • Olli-Pekka Hilmola

Abstract

Case studies have become a widely used research strategy in both operations management and logistics. Often these two well-connected streams are seen as belonging to the same field. However, results from a literature analysis covering over 100 journal articles presented in this paper point out several methodological differences in the use of case studies between these two disciplines. Findings suggest that case study research in operations management frequently produces normative results while logistics mainly concentrates on descriptive research objectives. The latter most often applies a systems approach to examine the research object. Operations management, on the other hand, is interested in both analytical and systems aspects. Case studies in both operations management and logistics research contain a small number of cases, most often only one. Analysis results argue that significant differences exist in the use of quantitative and qualitative methods as well as inductive and deductive reasoning between the two streams.

Suggested Citation

  • Lotta Hakkinen & Olli-Pekka Hilmola, 2005. "Methodological pluralism in case study research: an analysis of contemporary operations management and logistics research," International Journal of Services and Operations Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 1(3), pages 239-256.
  • Handle: RePEc:ids:ijsoma:v:1:y:2005:i:3:p:239-256
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=6576
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ids:ijsoma:v:1:y:2005:i:3:p:239-256. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sarah Parker (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=150 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.