Journal of Supply Chain Management

2018, 54(1), 35–41

© 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

SETTING STANDARDS FOR SINGLE RESPONDENT

SURVEY DESIGN
FRANK MONTABON , PATRICIA J. DAUGHERTY, AND HAOZHE CHEN
Iowa State University

We propose that single respondent surveys continue to be a viable supply

chain management research tool. However, necessary care must be taken
in research design and implementation. Articles published in leading sup-
ply chain management journals in the past 10 years were reviewed to
identify patterns and trends in the use of single respondent surveys. Based
on that analysis, several recommendations such as using multimethod
research design, careful informant selection, and better documentation are
presented for survey researchers to ensure and enhance the validity of sin-
gle respondent survey research.

Keywords: single respondent surveys; common method bias; key informants

INTRODUCTION To understand SCM survey research trends and prac-

Critiques of contemporary research issues have seem-
ingly led some to conclude that single respondent sur-
veys are dead, that is, no longer of value as a research
tool. We do not agree; instead, we propose that they are
often the best approach. Single respondent surveys
remain a vital tool for supply chain researchers.
We argue that single respondent surveys are an
important research tool, while acknowledging that
researchers must take care in designing and using
them. However, such caution is necessary with any
research method. We develop a variety of arguments
for our position. At the core, though, our primary
concern is that eliminating a tool from the toolbox
will not be useful to the development of the field.
USE OF SURVEYS IN SCM LITERATURE
Supply chain management (SCM) researchers have
examined the extent and pattern of survey use. For
example, Mentzer and Kahn (1995) reviewed all arti-
cles published in the Journal of Business Logistics from
1978 to 1993. They reported that survey research
accounted for 54.3% of all articles published during
that period. More recently, Melnyk, Page, Wu and
Burns (2012) indicated survey use declined signifi-
cantly in five top supply chain management journals.
In the period 2000–2003, there were more than 40
surveys per year, while in the period 2005–2008, there
were less than 20 per year. However, the issue of
using single respondent surveys has not been specifi-
cally addressed in SCM literature, except for brief dis-
cussions in several editorials.
tices in recent years, we focused our efforts on the
four leading empirically focused journals used in the
Supply Chain Management Journal ListTM—Decision
Sciences Journal (DSJ), Journal of Business Logistics
(JBL), Journal of Operations Management (JOM), and
Journal of Supply Chain Management (JSCM). These
four journals are appropriate target journals for our
assessment because they publish empirical-based
research across a broad spectrum of supply chain
topics and are considered top tier based on overall
reputation and impact. We examined 1,194 original
research articles published in these journals from
2007 to 2016, excluding nonresearch articles such as
editorials or book reviews. Among these articles, 391
were identified as survey based. Articles that used sur-
vey instruments as a part of experimental research
design were excluded from our review.
The 391 articles account for about 32.7% of the
total number of articles published. To make a longitu-
dinal comparison of survey-based research’s promi-
nence in these journals, we split the 10 years into two
5-year periods: 2007–2011 and 2012–2016. The per-
centages of survey-based research in DSJ and JSCM
remained relatively constant across the two periods at
about 23% and 32%, respectively, but those of JBL
and JOM dropped from 35.0% to 31.7% and from
41.7% to 37.4%, respectively. Overall survey usage
decreased from 34.8% to 30.7%. Although a slight
decline is noted, survey-based research is still a pri-
mary research method in the SCM field accounting
for nearly a third of the total published research.
Breakdowns of total research articles and survey-based

January 2018 35
 Journal of Supply Chain Management
TABLE 1
Research Articles Published in SCM Journals (2007–2016)
DSJ
2007–2016
Total research articles (#) 315
2007–2016
Survey-based articles (#) 72
Survey-based articles (%) 22.9
2007–2011
Survey-based articles (#) 31
Survey-based articles (%) 23.7
2012–2016
Survey-based articles (#) 41
Survey-based articles (%) 22.3
article statistics of these four journals are detailed in
Table 1.
We further examined the 391 survey-based articles
along dimensions including unit of analysis: 197 arti-
cles were at the firm level (50.4%), 103 focused on
relationships (26.3%), 24 were individual-level analy-
sis (6.1%), and the remaining 67 used other units of
analysis (17.1%) such as contract, business unit, facil-
ity, process, or project.
One of our primary objectives was to investigate the
use of single or multiple respondents. A total of 133
articles (34.0%) relied on single key informants in
individual organizations to obtain data; 93 articles
(23.8%) used multiple informants within each report-
ing organization. It should be noted that while some
studies intentionally and with stated purpose obtained
needed information from multiple informants, others
did not discuss why or how multiple informants were
used. Additionally, 154 articles (39.4%) did not report
whether single or multiple informants were involved.
The respondents in the remaining 2.8% of articles typ-
ically were representing their own views and not being
asked to respond as a key informant. Given the con-
cerns regarding the use of single respondents, we
found this lack of reporting surprising. Although SCM
researchers rely on key informants for empirical sur-
vey research data, sufficient emphasis has not been
placed on how the key informant method is executed.
Our review suggests that SCM researchers are utiliz-
ing diverse respondent pools for survey research. Dif-
ferent types of directories or databases are the most
common source for survey data contacts with 139 arti-
cles (35.5%) using them. The second most common
data source is professional societies or organizations
with 88 or 22.5% of the articles indicating this source.
Not surprisingly, members of APICS, CSCMP, and
ISM were the most targeted survey respondents for
36 Volume 54, Number 1
JBL JOM JSCM Total
227 220 432 1194
76 172 71 391
33.5 39.8 32.3 32.7
43 101 36 211
35.0 41.7 32.4 34.8
33 71 35 180
31.7 37.4 32.1 30.7
SCM researchers. Direct company contacts were cited
in 41 articles (10.5%) as the approach for identifying
respondents, while 30 articles (7.7%) employed pro-
fessional research or survey companies. Authors of 10
articles distributed their surveys through trade publica-
tions or Web sites, and 35 articles (9.0%) used a wide
variety of other sources for survey data.
As the SCM field has matured, researchers have
focused greater attention to research validity and rigor.
The majority (265, or 67.8%) of the 391 survey-based
articles explicitly stated that the large-scale quantitative
survey studies were supported by qualitative inter-
views, pretests, or both, while the remaining 126 arti-
cles (32.2%) did not report such efforts. Of the 391
survey-based articles published during the 10-year per-
iod, 323 (82.6%) articles used a survey as the only
source of data, that is, they did not supplement the
survey with either a dyadic survey or secondary data.
SINGLE RESPONDENT SURVEYS ARE STILL
RELEVANT
Although single respondent surveys have been com-
monly used in many disciplines, the approach has
received a fair amount of criticism. Phillips (1981) noted
that within the marketing discipline, the primary discus-
sion has centered on the unit of analysis. Single respon-
dents can, in effect, speak for themselves. But can they
move beyond the individual level to adequately address
more complex units of analysis? Our analysis includes
both individual- and firm-level studies.
While we acknowledge potential weaknesses associ-
ated with using a single respondent or key informant
for surveys, we believe sufficient care in research
design and planning can help to avoid or minimize
such issues. Further we believe that, in many
instances, the single respondent approach is the best
 Single Respondent Survey Design
option. In the following discussion, we suggest that
the approach is relevant when properly executed. We
identify the value associated with using single respon-
dents as well as potential difficulties. We also offer
suggestions on ways to minimize negative issues.
When to Use Single Respondents
Campbell (1955) suggested the potential value of
using key informants rests in their inside knowledge
and ability to “speak the language” of the targeted
group (p. 339). Key informants also either need to
have a broad range of knowledge on the subjects
under consideration or have access to that informa-
tion. For example, upper-level executives are often tar-
geted to respond to surveys or participate in
interviews. Upper-level executives are assumed to
either have relevant knowledge or have the leverage to
secure inputs from appropriate individuals within
their organization. Huber and Power (1985) suggested
that carefully selected upper-level key informants
“have important information about organizational
events. Their retrospective reports are accounts of
facts, beliefs, activities and motives related to prior
events” (p. 171).
In certain situations, input from single key infor-
mants becomes especially critical and may be the only
option to obtain research data. For example, Rind-
fleisch, Malter, Ganesan and Moorman (2008)
pointed out that multiple respondents may simply be
untenable for studies of confidential interfirm rela-
tionships. They went on to argue that in small organi-
zations or even some large firms in which a single
executive is in charge of many important decisions
(such as interorganizational alliances or key account
management), locating multiple informants may be
difficult or even impossible. Another practical situa-
tion involves the need for proprietary information.
Key informants must not only know the required
information but also have the authority to provide
the information. The same rationale holds for using
key informants when information of a sensitive nature
is needed.
A final reason to use single respondents is the objec-
tive of reducing the researcher’s time and effort. Iden-
tifying, contacting, and persuading one person is
much easier than securing responses from three or
four individuals at a company. Historically, it has
been common for researchers to identify the one
point of contact and to include a plea in the cover let-
ter or survey instructions asking that the primary
informant secure inputs as needed from other
individuals.
Value of Using a Single Respondent
The value of using a single respondent research
design when executed properly is the access to
January 2018
pragmatic, experienced-based insights, in other
words, securing inputs from the people who really
know what’s going on within their firms! This can
dramatically increase the relevancy of the research
findings. However, it is critical (and admittedly dif-
ficult) to identify the appropriate key informant.
This may take some amount of digging—will the
senior director of purchasing/sourcing have the
broad knowledge necessary or do we need C-level
involvement? Expending the effort to make that
determination is critical to success. Finding the one
best level and using a single respondent will yield
greater insights than talking to two respondents
without sufficient knowledge. Further, when using a
single respondent approach, it is necessary to
obtain responses from a substantial number of
firms. While that requires more effort, it yields an
important benefit. With more respondents (organi-
zations) represented, the generalizability of the
results increases.
Ideally, the single respondent survey approach
should be supplemented with additional inputs. In
our suggestions for improving the quality and
results of single respondent surveys, we propose the
use of mixed methods or triangulation. For example,
many researchers begin a project with in-depth
interviews with key informants to ground the
research and provide appropriate focus for survey
development.
Mixed methods research has been characterized as
the “natural complement” to traditional qualitative
and quantitative research (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie,
2004). With such an approach, a combination of two
or even three different types of data collection is uti-
lized. A mix and match approach can involve, but is
not limited to, such components as personal inter-
views, case studies, secondary or archival data, and
surveys. The different methods complement one
another and inform overall design decisions. A mixed
methods approach is a critical complement to single
respondent surveys.
We believe a very real benefit related to survey
research is that it provides a conduit to industry.
Surveys provide the means to obtain information
from a broad range of industries or types of busi-
ness, which not only increases research contact with
the “real world,” but also increases the generalizabil-
ity of the researcher’s findings. When a study is
based on empirical data collected from a large num-
ber of firms, it can be relevant and meaningful to
practice. The single key informants providing inputs
are the managers who would be most interested in
the research results and most likely to implement
research suggestions in practice. Thus, use of single
key informants can significantly increase SCM
research’s practical impact.
37
 Journal of Supply Chain Management
The Issue of Common Method Bias
No research is perfect; researchers must be prepared
to address questions and concerns. Empirical SCM
research that employs the single key informant
approach in particular faces the criticism of common
method bias. Using a single respondent to collect
measure information for multiple variables is consid-
ered to potentially be a significant source for system-
atic measurement error (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee &
Podsakoff, 2003). Ketokivi and Schroeder (2004)
voiced concern that method bias and method variance
are potentially the most harmful in single respondent
survey studies, and they even argued that common
method bias cannot be adequately addressed in survey
research unless multiple informants are used per
observational unit. Yet even this remedy has signifi-
cant concerns, as pointed out by Craighead, Ketchen,
Dunn and Hult (2011). We certainly understand such
concerns; systematic measurement errors such as com-
mon method bias can have a serious confounding
influence on empirical results, yielding potentially
misleading conclusions (Campbell & Fiske, 1959).
However, other researchers have challenged such criti-
cism. After analyzing 42,934 correlations in 581 pub-
lished articles, Crampton and Wagner (1994)
concluded that the concerns associated with selfreport
methods should be considered, but are not nearly as
severe as envisioned by critics. Meade, Watson and
Kroustalis (2007) reached a similar conclusion. Over
the years, techniques for mitigating common method
bias, for example, marker variables (Williams, Hart-
man & Cavazotte, 2010), in the survey design or for
assessing it after receiving the data, for example, Har-
man’s one-factor test (Craighead et al., 2011), have
been developed. Although such approaches are not
perfect, they provide value as tools to limit or diag-
nose common method bias. However, we agree with
Guide and Ketokivi (2015) that a conclusion of no
common method bias should be made with caution.
We argue, as have others, that the most effective
approach to addressing common method bias lies in
the research design phase instead of statistical remedies
or post hoc patching up (e.g., Guide & Ketokivi, 2015;
Podsakoff & Organ, 1986; Rindfleisch et al., 2008). In
particular, Rindfleisch et al. (2008) provided a useful
guideline to address common method bias in a single
respondent survey context. The first recommendation is
to obtain secondary data (preferably on outcome vari-
ables) to complement cross-sectional survey data on
independent variables. Such an approach can limit the
risk of common method bias and enhance causal infer-
ence at the same time by reducing the likelihood of
rival method-based explanations. The second suggested
action is to employ a longitudinal approach. However,
collecting longitudinal data can be a daunting task
38 Volume 54, Number 1
considering most researchers’ budget and time con-
straints and the respondent attrition issue (Podsakoff,
MacKenzie & Podsakoff, 2012; Rindfleisch & Antia,
2012). Furthermore, in many situations, the value of
longitudinal data in minimizing common method bias
is relatively low (Becker & Albers, 2016; Rindfleisch
et al., 2008). Finally, Siemsen, Roth and Oliveira
(2010) suggested that common method bias can be
effectively controlled by including other independent
variables that are not highly correlated. Of course, add-
ing additional independent variables to the conceptual
model must be theoretically justifiable and meaningful.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING
SINGLE RESPONDENT SURVEY RESEARCH
Based on our own experiences as supply chain man-
agement researchers, our review of four premier
journals, and a focused literature review, we offer
the following guidelines for designing and conduct-
ing high-quality survey research utilizing single
respondents.
Triangulation Instead of a Mono-Method
Approach
We strongly suggest that researchers incorporate
the use of multiple, complementary methods in
their research design. One common approach is to
talk to people—the people who are most knowl-
edgeable about the research topics. Input from expe-
rienced, informed individuals helps to ground the
research.
Thus, a good starting point is doing interviews, case
studies, or both. This can help to define the research
scope. Another valuable enhancement to a survey
approach is the use of archival or secondary data.
Properly carried out, the mixed methods approach
increases the relevance of the findings.
Greater Attention to Informant Selection Criteria
Make sure that your informant pool provides the
appropriate sample. Are these the people who have
the requisite knowledge? To paraphrase the comments
of JBL Co-Editors Walter Zinn and Tom Goldsby in a
recent editorial, we should be “tapping into the minds
of seasoned professionals” (2017, p. 2). Of course,
selection depends entirely on the survey topics and
unit of analysis.
In our analysis of the four journals and the papers
published during 2007–2016, we noted what appears
to be a somewhat casual approach or at least that was
the impression based on the information provided in
the articles. Many used global labels—”executives” or
“employed in the electronics industry”—to describe
their desired targeted respondents. Better definition of
 Single Respondent Survey Design
respondents is generally easier when working with
either a commercial research firm as they will typically
work with researchers to create a respondent pool that
matches needed qualification or when working with a
membership list from a professional association. With
the latter, chances of getting informed individuals
with relevant information and backgrounds are greatly
improved. The downside is these membership lists
have been over-used to the extent that many members
are no longer willing to participate in surveys (Boyer
& Swink, 2008; Schoenherr, Ellram & Tate, 2015).
Better Documentation
When writing manuscripts, justify your key infor-
mants in terms that are relevant and consistent with
previous literature and the relevant theory base(s).
Why were they considered appropriate to provide
inputs? This can involve such things as functional
area, job title (appropriate to the level of information
needed), years of work experience, or years in current
job. Make your case; do not just say respondents are
“executives.”
Our documentation recommendation is pretty
broad-based and gives as much information as pos-
sible. Many of the articles that we reviewed left a
lot to the reader’s imagination. For example, in the
391 survey articles we reviewed, an astonishing
39.4% (154) did not report whether a single or
multiple respondent approach was used. Further,
determining the unit of analysis whether they con-
ducted a pretest or in what country or countries the
surveys were administered was difficult. In many
instances, even the number of responses and
response rate were presented in a less than straight-
forward manner.
Readers are likely to be familiar with the recommen-
dations we make for properly executing a single
respondent survey. Yet our analysis of survey articles
in the SCM literature indicates many researchers do
not follow through. We admit it’s difficult to say with
certainty what’s happening. Are many researchers not
following “best” practices? Or are they just not report-
ing in sufficient detail? Reviewers can request addi-
tional information during the review process, but it
should not solely be their responsibility. Thus, we
encourage authors, reviewers, and editors to err on
the side of more reporting.
Many papers refer to the desired target as “senior
managers,” which is okay if a bit nonspecific. We
also recommend providing information on the
actual respondents in terms of job titles or other
relevant descriptions. We note that most survey
papers used more ambiguous language to describe
their intended targets, but many provided a table
that categorized the respondents in terms of job
title.
January 2018
Don’t Get Defensive
Make your case for the appropriateness, relevancy,
and rigor of your research. One way to do this is to
follow the recommendations (as applicable) outlined
above and then to provide the details in your manu-
scripts. Do not leave the audience guessing.
Be professional, not argumentative. Reviewers and
editors will not respond favorably to over-statements,
for example, making strong claims that common
methods bias is not an issue in single respondent sur-
veys (Guide & Ketokivi, 2015). However, all tech-
niques have problems associated with them. Admit
the limitations to your research.
CONCLUSION
All research methods have their own strengths and
weaknesses. Case research is often criticized for lack-
ing rigor and generalizability; however, its value with
respect to exploratory research is generally acknowl-
edged (Stuart, McCutcheon, Handfield, McLachlin &
Samson, 2002). Mathematical modeling and simula-
tion are both widely used in SCM research despite
issues raised regarding their underlying assumptions
(Flynn, Sakakibara, Schroeder, Bates & Flynn, 1990).
Similarly, SCM researchers are using more archival
and secondary data although concerns are noted
about data validity (Calantone & Vickery, 2010).
Action research (Touboulic & Walker, 2016; West-
brook, 1995) has been criticized, too. The primary
weakness cited is its subjectivity. In spite of this, the
method has gained acceptance as a relevant SCM
research method (e.g., Farooq & O’Brien, 2015;
Gutierrez, Scavarda, Fiorencio & Martins, 2015; Per-
ona, Saccani, Bonetti & Bacchetti, 2016; Waring &
Alexander, 2015). We contend that the single respon-
dent survey method should not be abandoned
because of its limitations. However, care should be
taken. The appropriate approach to selecting a
research method should be to find the appropriate
balance between minimizing limitations and maxi-
mizing the value of the results.
We hope that our commentary will open up conver-
sations about the use of single respondent surveys. As
we have argued above, they are a vital tool for supply
chain researchers. Certainly, they must be imple-
mented properly. The practical benefits of single
respondent surveys simply outweigh the costs of giv-
ing them up.
REFERENCES
Becker, J. U., & Albers, S. (2016). The limits of analyz-
ing service quality data in public transport. Trans-
portation, 43, 823–842. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11116-015-9621-2.
39
 Journal of Supply Chain Management
Boyer, K. K., & Swink, M. L. (2008). Empirical ele-
phants–why multiple methods are essential to
quality research in operations and supply chain
management. Journal of Operations Management,
26, 338–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2008.
03.002.
Calantone, R. J., & Vickery, S. K. (2010). Introduction
to the special topic forum: Using archival and sec-
ondary data sources in supply chain management
research. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 46,
3–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.2010.
03202.x.
Campbell, D. T. (1955). The informant in quantitative
research. American Journal of Sociology, 60, 339–
342. https://doi.org/10.1086/221565.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent
and discriminant validation by the multitrait-mul-
timethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–
105.
Craighead, C. W., Ketchen, D. J., Dunn, K. S., & Hult,
G. T. M. (2011). Addressing common method
variance: Guidelines for survey research on infor-
mation technology, operations, and supply chain
management. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, 58, 578–588. https://doi.org/10.
1109/TEM.2011.2136437.
Crampton, S. M., & Wagner, III, J. A. (1994). Percept-
percept inflation in microorganizational research:
An investigation of prevalence and effect. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 79, 67–76.
Farooq, S., & O’Brien, C. (2015). An action research
methodology for manufacturing technology selec-
tion: A supply chain perspective. Production Plan-
ning & Control, 26, 467–488. https://doi.org/10.
1080/09537287.2014.924599.
Flynn, B. B., Sakakibara, S., Schroeder, R. G., Bates, K.
A., & Flynn, E. J. (1990). Empirical research meth-
ods in operations management. Journal of Opera-
tions Management, 9, 250–284.
Guide, Jr., V. D. R., & Ketokivi, M. (2015). Notes from
the editors: Redefining some methodological crite-
ria for the journal. Journal of Operations Manage-
ment, 37, v–viii. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-
6963(15)00056-X.
Gutierrez, D. M., Scavarda, L. F., Fiorencio, L., & Mar-
tins, R. A. (2015). Evolution of the performance
measurement system in the Logistics Department
of a broadcasting company: An action research.
International Journal of Production Economics, 160
(Supplement C), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijpe.2014.08.012.
Huber, G. P., & Power, D. J. (1985). Retrospective
reports of strategic-level managers: Guidelines for
increasing their accuracy. Strategic Management
Journal, 6, 171–180.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed
methods research: A research paradigm whose
time has come. Educational Researcher, 33, 14–26.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033007014.
Ketokivi, M. A., & Schroeder, R. G. (2004). Perceptual
measures of performance: Fact or fiction? Journal
40 Volume 54, Number 1
of Operations Management, 22, 247–264. https://d
oi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2002.07.001.
Meade, A. W., Watson, A. M., & Kroustalis, C. M.
(2007). Assessing common methods bias in organiza-
tional research. Presented at the 22nd Annual
Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organi-
zational Psychology. New York, NY: Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
Retrieved from http://www4.ncsu.edu/~awmeade/
Links/Papers/Methods_Bias%28SIOP07%29.pdf
Melnyk, S. A., Page, T. J., Wu, S. J., & Burns, L.
(2012). Would you mind completing this survey?:
Assessing the state of survey research in supply
chain management. Journal of Purchasing and Sup-
ply Management, 18, 35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
pursup.2011.12.002.
Mentzer, J. T., & Kahn, K. (1995). A framework of
logistics research. Journal of Business Logistics, 16,
231–250.
Perona, M., Saccani, N., Bonetti, S., & Bacchetti, A.
(2016). Manufacturing lead time shortening and
stabilisation by means of workload control: An
action research and a new method. Production
Planning & Control, 27, 660–670. https://doi.org/
10.1080/09537287.2016.1166283.
Phillips, L. W. (1981). Assessing measurement error in
key informant reports: A methodological note on
organizational analysis in marketing. Journal of
Marketing Research, 18, 395–415.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Pod-
sakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in
behavioral research: A critical review of the litera-
ture and recommended remedies. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88, 879. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P.
(2012). Sources of method bias in social science
research and recommendations on how to control
it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-
100452.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports
in organizational research: Problems and pro-
spects. Journal of Management, 12, 531–544.
https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638601200408.
Rindfleisch, A., & Antia, K. D. (2012). Survey research
in B2b marketing: Current challenges and emerg-
ing opportunities. In G. L. Lilien & R. Grewal
(Eds.), Handbook of business-to-business marketing
(pp. 699–714). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar
Publishing Inc.
Rindfleisch, A., Malter, A. J., Ganesan, S., & Moorman,
C. (2008). Cross-sectional versus longitudinal sur-
vey research: Concepts, findings, and guidelines.
Journal of Marketing Research, 45, 261–279.
https://doi.org/10.2307/30162530.
Schoenherr, T., Ellram, L. M., & Tate, W. L. (2015). A
note on the use of survey research firms to enable
empirical data collection. Journal of Business Logis-
tics, 36, 288–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.
12092.
 Single Respondent Survey Design
Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common
method bias in regression models with linear,
quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational
Research Methods, 13, 456–476. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1094428109351241.
Stuart, I., McCutcheon, D., Handfield, R. B., McLachlin,
R., & Samson, D. (2002). Effective case research in
operations management: A process perspective.
Journal of Operations Management, 20, 419–433.
Touboulic, A., & Walker, H. (2016). A relational,
transformative and engaged approach to sustain-
able supply chain management: The potential of
action research. Human Relations, 69, 301–343.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726715583364.
Waring, T. S., & Alexander, M. (2015). Innovations in
inpatient flow and bed management: An action
research project in a UK acute care hospital. Inter-
national Journal of Operations & Production Manage-
ment, 35, 751–781. https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJOPM-06-2013-0275.
Westbrook, R. (1995). Action research: A new para-
digm for research in production and operations
management. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 15, 6–20. https://doi.org/
10.1108/01443579510104466.
Williams, L. J., Hartman, N., & Cavazotte, F. (2010).
Method variance and marker variables: A review
and comprehensive CFA marker technique. Orga-
nizational Research Methods, 13, 477–514. https://d
oi.org/10.1177/1094428110366036.
Zinn, W., & Goldsby, T. J. (2017). In search of
research ideas? Call a professional. Journal of Busi-
ness Logistics, 38, 4–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.
12160.
January 2018
Frank L. Montabon (Ph.D., Michigan State Univer-
sity) is associate professor of supply chain manage-
ment at the Debbie and Jerry Ivy College of Business
at Iowa State University. His research focuses on sus-
tainability, including sustainability theory, environ-
mental management approaches, and the diffusion of
sustainability across the supply chain. His current pro-
jects include power in supply chains, supply chain
disruption, and social responsibility programs. His
research has been published in the Journal of Supply
Chain Management, International Journal of Operations
and Productions Management, Transportation Research
Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review and Journal
of Operations Management.
Patricia Daugherty (Ph.D., Michigan State Univer-
sity) is Debbie and Jerry Ivy Chair in Business and
Professor of Supply Chain Management at the Debbie
and Jerry Ivy College of Business at Iowa State Univer-
sity. She is a past editor of the Journal of Business
Logistics and is currently an associate editor for the
Journal of Supply Chain Management. She has published
widely in logistics and supply chain journals.
Haozhe Chen (Ph.D., University of Oklahoma) is
associate professor of supply chain management at
the Debbie and Jerry Ivy College of Business at Iowa
State University. He has published over thirty articles
in logistics and supply chain journals. His industry
background includes eight years’ managerial experi-
ence in international trade business.
41