Advancing Rigor in Operations Management Qualitative Research: From Proceduralism to Reflexive Reasoning
回顾了运营管理领域87篇定性研究论文，指出当前方法严谨性受限于程序化应用，提出以反思性推理为核心的替代视角，并开发了提升研究者反思性推理的框架，帮助学者产出更具解释力的理论。
ABSTRACT Qualitative research has evolved into a valued scientific approach to generate novel theoretical contributions in operations management (OM). However, a limited understanding of what constitutes methodological rigor in qualitative research has resulted in a proceduralized application of research practices and templates, hindering further progress. After tracing the origins of discipline‐specific rigor in OM—closely linked to the inductive (positivistic) case study method—we present an alternative perspective: rigor as researchers' demonstration of reflexivity in deliberate reasoning processes that infer theoretical insights from data. Based on a review of 87 qualitative research articles in three leading empirical OM journals ( Journal of Operations Management , Production and Operations Management , and Journal of Supply Chain Management ), published between 2015 and 2024, we trace the (limited) evolution of rigor in qualitative OM research across three time brackets. We then compare the current state of rigor in qualitative OM research with that of three leading management journals ( Academy of Management Journal, Organization Science , and Strategic Management Journal ) by examining the most recent time bracket (2023–2024). Through the analysis of discipline‐specific rigor developments and the cross‐field comparison, we identify areas of progress alongside persistent rigor gaps. Based on these gaps, we develop a series of probing questions to enhance researchers' reflexive reasoning, illustrated with examples from both fields. Our contribution provides a reflexivity‐based framework that enables researchers to move beyond procedural compliance toward rigorous qualitative research, ultimately yielding OM theories with greater explanatory power.