The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A content analysis of research approaches in logistics research
Abstract
Purpose: Based on a framework developed by Kovács and Spens, this paper seeks to assess the use of the three different research approaches in logistics research; discuss the use of different research methods within the three research approaches; find and discuss applications of the abductive research approach to logistics problems. Design/methodology/approach: Content analysis is used in order to categorize the different research approaches. While content analysis commonly uses smaller units such as paragraphs, sentences, words or characters, this study used entire articles as the unit of analysis. The scope of the review encompassed five years (1998‐2002) of articles in IJLM, IJPDLM and JBL. A total of 378 articles was reviewed and categorized. Findings: The findings of the study corroborate earlier studies regarding the main research approach used in logistics. Published logistics research is hypothetico‐deductive, with a strong emphasis on using survey methods. Nevertheless, inductive as well as abductive research is gaining importance. However, most logistics articles do not explicitly discuss the research process, nor the approach used. Therefore, a call for more explicit statements of the research approach is suggested. Research limitations/implications: The review of the articles is limited to three main journals in the field. A more comprehensive view of research approaches could be obtained by broadening the review to include also other types of research. Practical implications: The paper provides a framework and guidelines to researchers for explicitly discussing the research approach used in logistics articles. Originality/value: The paper provides an overview of the research approaches used in logistics research.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Hartley, J. (2004) · Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research · doi:10.4135/9781446280119.n26 · Cited by 15,461
Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building
Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. (1990) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1990.4310758 · Cited by 1,426
Exploring the reliability of social and environmental disclosures content analysis
Milne, M. J., & Adler, R. W. (1999) · Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal · doi:10.1108/09513579910270138 · Cited by 1,425
Metadata
- Authors
- Spens, K. M., & Kovács, G.
- Venue
- International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2006-06-01
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 374-390
- ISSN
- 0960-0035 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2048721145
- Cited by
- 299
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 10.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A content analysis of research approaches in logistics research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/09600030610676259
- The paper
- Spens, K. M., & Kovács, G. (2006). A content analysis of research approaches in logistics research. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600030610676259
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.