Inquiry and the Practice of Theoretical Conversation:Engaging in Dialogue to Elaborate Hidden ConnectionsStanley E. Fawcett1 and Matthew A. Waller2

1Weber State University2University of Arkansas

O ur goal at JBL is not just to provide a forum for theoretical conversation but also to proactively invite more insightful and interactiveconversation. As active inquiry and open dialogue are critical to achieving this goal, we discuss the nature of inquiry and argue for devel-

oping the skills and conditions required to promote dialogue over discussion. Only through more profound dialogue can we address the chal-lenges of a tumultuous decision-making environment, advance theoretical understanding, and improve managerial practice. We then introduce“Dialogue,” a new feature at JBL, which will consist of concise statements of alternative perspectives and diverse views. Through Dialogue, weinvite members of the supply chain community to join colleagues in a grand adventure of knowledge discovery. We hope you will agree thatthe quest for understanding is more fun when we travel the path of discovery together.

Keywords: theory development; trust; supply chain relationships

The most important aspect of freedom of speech is freedomto learn. All education is a continuous dialogue—questionsand answers that pursue every problem on the horizon.

—William Orville Douglas

A conversation is a dialogue, not a monologue. That’swhy there are so few good conversations: due to scarcity,two intelligent talkers seldom meet.

—Truman Capote

Over the past two years, we have used JBL editorials to identifyresearch opportunities to move the logistics and supply chain dis-ciplines forward (e.g., Fawcett et al. 2011; Waller and Fawcett2012). Moreover, in our first editorial, we called for research thatmakes more “meaningful and valid theoretical contributions”(Fawcett and Waller 2011a, 2). Well-grounded theory is neededto drive toward better understanding of vital, intricate decision-making phenomena. In today’s complex, dynamic managerialenvironment, the research JBL publishes needs to provide more,and more powerful, explanatory insight. That is, our researchmust answer the question, “If we pull lever ‘X’ under ‘Y’ and‘Z’ conditions, what will happen?”

We have also argued that the easy questions have beenanswered, making it difficult to justify future publication of someof the research that JBL published in the past. We noted that acommon refrain we see in reviewer comments is, “Although welldone, this article really does not add anything new to the litera-ture. There just isn’t enough here that is interesting to justifypublication” (Fawcett and Waller 2011b, 291). We then calledfor more nuanced research into the knotty, multifaceted dilem-mas managers persistently face. We invited future JBL authors toemploy robust multimethod, metaparadigmatic, and longitudinalresearch designs to deliver consequential insight that helps deci-

sion makers more effectively configure supply chain resources toachieve differential performance.

More recently, we identified two issues that might constrainJBL’s ability to fulfill its goal to publish high-impact strategicsupply chain research. Specifically, we posited that unbalancedrigor (Waller et al. 2012) and excessive advocacy (Fawcett andWaller 2012) diminish our ability to act well as stewards ofknowledge discovery and dissemination. We called for greateracademic/practitioner collaboration and more objective inquiry.Practical relevance and openness to diverse perspectives areindeed vital to CSCMP’s stakeholders and JBL’s mission.

Only deep inquiry into real-world challenges can help decisionmakers appreciate the context and trade-offs inherent in thedesign of unique value-added systems and relationships. Relevant,open inquiry sets the stage for the dialogue JBL seeks to promoteto help the supply chain community influence theory and improvepractice in our ever-evolving discipline. A disposition towardinquiry and an ability to dialogue can accelerate our pace oflearning and enhance our ability to meet stakeholder needs.

THE NATURE OF INQUIRY

Breakthrough research, by nature, depends on open and deepinquiry. Whereas advocacy defends and promotes a specific pointof view based on existing findings, inquiry is an intimate, unend-ing quest for truth—regardless of where the journey may lead.Henry Eyring, a renowned chemist, exemplified the nature ofinquiry during a presentation at the Chemical Society in NewYork City. As he made his presentation, a fellow chemist aroseand interrupted him. In a cutting and stinging voice, the col-league critically challenged, “Professor Eyring, I have heard youon the other side of this question.” Dr. Eyring chuckled and said:“Oh, you are right. I have been on the other side of this ques-tion. Not only that, but I have been on several sides of thisquestion. In fact, I will get on every side of this question I canfind until I can understand it.” Dr. Eyring’s son, a business pro-fessor at Stanford University, described his father’s response asfollows:

Corresponding author:Stanley E. Fawcett, 267 Waddis Building, Goddard School of Businessand Economics, Weber State University, Ogden, UT 84408, USA;E-mail: stan.e.fawcett@gmail.com

Journal of Business Logistics, 2013, 34(1): 1–5© Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals

He took delight in struggling with what he didn’t knowbecause he had no feeling of limits on what he mightknow. That made him not only a powerful learner butsomeone who was not in much danger of quitting becausehe was afraid or fearful. He was also not in much dangerof feeling that he knew so much he couldn’t be taught.

(Eyring 1991, 3)

What might we learn from this experience? Borrowing fromVaclav Havel, the Czech poet and president, we might say thatinquiry seeks true education; that is, it seeks “to perceive thehidden connections between phenomena” (Havel 2000). Inquiry isthus willing to step away from advocacy and accept the possibilitythat previous experience and insight may not be sufficient tounderstand complex, intricate phenomena. Inquiry pursues andevaluates all data—not only confirmatory data but also potentiallyconflicting data. Inquiry acknowledges that emerging findings mayrightly provoke a sense that previous assumptions about how theworld works are incorrect. Inquiry explores different perspectivesand considers alternative explanations. Inquiry endures vulnerabil-ity—it is not just unafraid of being wrong but is also resolutelyteachable. As such, inquiry insistently asks questions:

• This is the way I see it. These are my assumptions. Do yousee gaps in my reasoning?

• These are the data I evaluated. Do you have data, or know ofdata, that might yield a contrary outcome?

• This is how I have analyzed things. What are the flaws in myanalysis?

• Are there other methods or approaches that could help meunderstand this phenomenon more accurately or from another,distinct—but relevant—way?

• Based on the findings, these are the conclusions I havereached. How does your experience lead you to interpret thefindings differently?

• Why do you perceive things the way you do? Using anecdote,data, or logic, can you illustrate your reasoning to help meunderstand your point of view?

To summarize, inquiry is genuinely interested in finding a“better way.” It invites others to participate in the quest for moreprofound insight and understanding. By so doing, inquiry opensthe door for theoretical conversation.

THE PRACTICE OF CONVERSATION: DISCUSSIONVERSUS DIALOGUE

Critics of modern higher education—especially those perplexedby the spiraling costs of a university degree—often ask, “Why is‘academic’ research needed?”1 The critic’s question invites us toinquire, “Why, indeed, do we invest so much time, effort, andmoney in theoretical conversations?” Werner Heisenberg (of

Uncertainty Principle fame) provided an intriguing response,arguing, “Science is rooted in conversations. The cooperation ofdifferent people may culminate in scientific results of utmostimportance.” This idea defines the JBL’s mandate: To not justprovide a forum for theoretical conversation but also to proac-tively promote more insightful and interactive conversation. Afterall, collaborative conversation among members of the supply chaincommunity—each possessing distinctive, but complementary expe-rience, perspective, and skills—can advance the discipline morequickly and profoundly toward “results of utmost importance”than can any individual researcher.

Peter Senge, however, warns that two types of conversation—discussion and dialogue—exist, but that they are not equally sui-ted for knowledge discovery.2 Senge underscores the fact that“discussion” shares the same origin as percussion and concus-sion. He then proceeds to use the metaphor of a Ping-Pong gamewhere the players hit the ball back and forth over the net, addingnew direction and spin to the ball each time they hit it. Senge(1990) concludes,

In such a game the subject of common interest may beanalyzed and dissected from many points of view providedby those who take part. Clearly, this can be useful. Yet,the purpose of a game is normally ‘to win’ and in thiscase winning means to have one’s views accepted by thegroup. You might occasionally accept part of another per-son’s view in order to strengthen your own, but you funda-mentally want your view to prevail. A sustained emphasison winning is not compatible, however, with giving firstpriority to coherence and truth. (p. 240)

The warning is clear: When we pursue theoretical conversationas a game to be won, we may sacrifice learning and discovery onthe altar of ego. Yet, for many decision makers, a lifetime ofexperience has persuaded us that discussions are an opportunity toadvocate our points of view and thereby promote our own careers.

Dialogue, by contrast, sets aside the pursuit of rhetoricalvictory. Senge (1990) notes, “The word ‘dialogue’ comes fromthe Greek dialogos. Dia means through. Logos means the word,or more broadly, the meaning” (p. 240). Senge argues that in itsoriginal meaning, dialogue is the process of accessing the com-bined knowledge, insight, and understanding of an entirecommunity. Thinking, communicating, and inquiry becomeongoing processes that enable our quest to understand more fullyone another and the world around us. Senge (1990) explains,

In dialogue, a group explores complex difficult issues frommany points of view. Individuals suspend their assumptionsbut they communicate their assumptions freely. The resultis a free exploration that brings to the surface the fulldepth of people’s experience and thought, and yet canmove beyond their individual views…. In dialogue peoplebecome observers of their own thinking. (pp. 241–242)

1

One of the coeditors had a neighbor who delighted in asking,“How many hours a week are you in the classroom? And youget paid what?” Her conclusion was that research is a waste oftaxpayer money. Of note, the AACSB is currently seeking tomore clearly redefine and better measure research impact.

2

We should note that Senge draws extensively from DavidBohm’s work on team learning and efforts to build a theory andmethod of “dialogue.”

2 S. E. Fawcett and M. A. Waller

The invitation is compelling: Dialogue enables us to gobeyond our own insight, gaining new, expanded understandingas members of a community share their experience and theirown points of view. Essentially, dialogue frees us from the con-straints of assumption, ego, and vulnerability so that we canbuild on each other’s experience. We proactively learn from oneanother and begin “to realize the potentials of human intelli-gence” (Senge 1990, 242).

PURSUING ENHANCED DIALOGUE

To engage more effectively and frequently in knowledge-advancingdialogue—a form of conversation that is often uncomfortable foracademics and business decision makers alike—we need to graspmore fully the prerequisites to true dialogue. Senge elucidatesthree conditions that must exist for productive dialogue toemerge.

• All participants in the conversation must “suspend” theirassumptions.

• Participants must appreciate and approach each other as valuedcolleagues.

• A facilitator must be in place to enable effective exchange ofideas.

Making assumptions visible

Deep dialogue requires that we reflect on how our assumptionsinfluence our mental maps and worldviews. Yet, as conversationsevolve, we tend to hold our assumptions out of view—from othersas well as from ourselves. Anthropologists moreover affirm that wetenaciously hold on to the notion that others perceive, think, andremember with the same modalities that we do (Hall 1973, 1976).The failure to make assumptions visible thus increases the probabil-ity that we will (1) fail to understand each other, (2) “dig inour heels” in defense of our own perspectives, and thus (3) blockthe advance of knowledge discovery. To overcome these behav-ioral tendencies and their counterproductive outcomes, we mustlearn to suspend our assumptions. Importantly, suspending assump-tions does not mean setting them aside (something few can realisticallydo) but rather holding them up for inspection. Senge (1990) elaborates,

To suspend one’s assumptions means to hold them, asit were, hanging in front of you, constantly accessibleto questioning and observation. This does not meanthrowing out our assumptions, suppressing them, oravoiding their expression. Nor, in any way, does it saythat having opinions is ‘bad,’ or that we should elimi-nate subjectivism. Rather, it means being aware of ourassumptions and holding them up for examination. Thiscannot be done if we are defending our opinions. Norcan it be done if we are unaware of our assumptions,or unaware that our views are based on assumptions,rather than incontrovertible fact. (p. 243)

Making assumptions visible opens us to new possibilities. Notonly are we more willing to question the roots of our own belief

but we also have better information—gained from our willing-ness to listen to and understand others—with which to refine andimprove our thinking.

Approaching each other as colleagues

Unless we approach one another as colleagues, dialogue is risky.Holding our assumptions up for open inspection makes usvulnerable. Others may exploit our openness, undermining notjust our position but us as well. Dialogue thus depends on trust.Trust that others will focus on phenomena and not personalities.Trust that others are actually open to our views—just as we sig-nal that we are open to theirs. Trust that all dialogue participantsare involved because they share the same quest for deeper, moreprofound insight. The ability to appreciate and approach oneanother as trusted, valued colleagues provides the safety to trulyexplore differing opinions. Senge (1990) explains,

Colleagueship does not mean that you need to agree orshare the same views. On the contrary, the real power ofseeing each other as colleagues comes into play whenthere are differences of view. It is easy to feel collegialwhen everyone agrees. When there are significantdisagreements, it is more difficult. But the payoff is alsomuch greater. Choosing to view ‘adversaries’ as ‘col-leagues with different’ views has the greatest benefits.(p. 245)

One additional benefit of dialogue emerges when we chooseto view each other as colleagues. Specifically, we view the pur-suit of nuanced, profound understanding as a grand adventure. Inother words, the quest for understanding is more fun when wetravel the path of discovery with colleagues. Senge (1990) clari-fies, “Dialogue is ‘playful’; it requires the willingness to playwith new ideas, to examine them and test them. As soon as webecome overly concerned with ‘who said what,’ or ‘not sayingsomething stupid,’ the playfulness will evaporate” (p. 245).

Facilitating dialogue

Facilitation is temporary, invoked when the participants lack theexperience to engage confidently in dialogue. Habits of advocacyand discussion can easily reassert themselves. As Senge (1990)notes, “We believe in our own views and want them to prevail”(p. 246). The facilitator maintains the conditions necessary fordialogue. For instance, the facilitator prevents any individualfrom diverting the dialogue to a discussion before discussion isactually needed (i.e. when a decision must be made). When com-plex, multifaceted phenomena are being explored, especially inconjunction with other nuanced phenomena, dialogue may be theonly truly appropriate conversation type. Further, the facilitatorsecures an emotional safe harbor, helping participants remainconscious of the need for trust and reminding them that they areindeed colleagues whose experience, insight, and perspectivemay add richly to the discovery process. The facilitator’s finalrole is to exemplify dialogue. Senge (1990) describes this vital role,

In dialogue, the facilitator does something more. Hisunderstanding of dialogue allows him to influence the flow

Inquiry and the Practice of Theoretical Conversation 3

of development simply through participating. For example,after someone has made an observation, the facilitatormay say, ‘But the opposite may also be true.’ Beyond suchreminders of the conditions for dialogue, the facilitator’sparticipation demonstrates dialogue. The artistry of dia-logue lies in experiencing the flow of meaning and seeingthe one thing that needs to be said now…. This deepensother’s appreciation of dialogue more than any abstractexplanation can ever do. (pp. 246–247)

USING DIALOGUE TO ELABORATE HIDDEN SUPPLYCHAIN CONNECTIONS

We might ask, “Therefore, what?” That is, how might ourenhanced understanding of theoretical conversations influenceresearch design? Imagine members of the supply chain commu-nity deeply engaged in a conversation regarding the hidden con-nections among the phenomena of trust, relational capability, andvalue creation. A few points would certainly emerge. First, trusthas been extensively studied—usually from the perspective thatinterorganizational trust is a vital enabler of social capital andcollaboration.3 Second, although trust is often defined as consist-ing of two very understandable dimensions—credibility andbenevolence—few firms translate this understanding into highlevels of trust in their supply chain relationships (Fawcett et al.2004). Third, evidence of a “dark side” of trust is emergingwithin the supply chain literature (Villena et al. 2011; Day et al.forthcoming). As the dialogue unfolds and assumptions regardingthese issues are suspended for everyone to see and examine fromdiverse perspectives, what might result?

• Someone might suggest that supply chain trust is more com-plex than typically portrayed in the literature.

• Someone else might pose that this possibility accounts for theconfounding empirical findings regarding trust, relational capa-bility, and performance.

• Another participant may question whether traditional defini-tions have led decision makers to overlook the dark side fortoo long.

• Someone else may submit that although it is safer to stickwith traditional definitions and validated measures of trust,perhaps a richer conceptualization would better explicate keyphenomenological relationships. Such a comment might leadthe community to pursue a robust, multimethod attempt todevelop a better measure of trust.

• The community might decide that focusing on the “bright”and “dark” sides of trust oversimplifies the discussion intoday’s world of borderless and temporary supply chains.Someone may propose that research should focus on trust

“appropriateness,” seeking to develop a taxonomy of trusttypes, specifying development patterns and applicability.

One point is clear: Such a conversation would lead to newand needed research on a topic that has already been extensivelystudied. Of course, because the research would emerge fromunexplored sides of the trust question, the findings might provedifficult to publish—unless members of the reviewer communityare also prepared to suspend their assumptions. Certainly, manysupply chain topics including collaboration, risk, and sustainabil-ity would benefit from greater dialogue in the research design.

Beyond research design, incorporating the attitudes and skillsof dialogue in the research process could over time yield “resultsof utmost importance.” For instance, viewing other researchers ascolleagues might lead us to reach out to fellow researchers for ear-lier and more insightful “friendly” reviews. Such effort wouldsurely improve the quality of dialogue and the influence of ourbest research. Likewise, the nature of conversation during paperpresentations at our professional conferences would change. Wewould leverage the time to “get on every side of vital questions”to gain deeper understanding. Everyone in attendance would findopportunity to refine perspective and advance their own theoreti-cal thinking. The role of reviewers in the publication processwould also change. More effort would be dedicated to cultivatingand coaching to help colleagues find hidden kernels of truth. Postpublication, we would be more apt to contact colleagues to dis-cuss their findings on a deeper, perhaps more innovative, way.We might also share our views on what they did well and might dobetter, or different, in the future. As the conversation matures, weare more likely to receive similar insight on our own research initia-tives. Although each of these behaviors represents only a small steptoward richer dialogue, taken together they would broaden our fieldof inquiry and increase the tempo of discovery—outcomes weshould all be anxiously engaged in pursuing.

ANNOUNCING DIALOGUE: A NEW FEATURE IN JBL

To promote greater dialogue among members of the supplychain community, JBL will begin publishing short research“extensions/perspectives” related to articles appearing in themost recent issues of the journal. Our goal is to offer a venuefor the sharing of diverse experience and varied viewpointsrelated to the theoretical conversations that are currently underway. Through Dialogue, we hope to enhance our opportunityto proactively learn from one another and begin “to realize thepotentials of human intelligence.” Indeed, our hope is to har-ness the ideation of the supply chain community so thatwe can “get on every side of today’s and tomorrow’s toughestsupply chain questions until we can fully understand them.” Aswe strive to employ inquiry to promote more vibrant dialogue,we invite you to consider carefully the questions raised on page2 of this editorial as you develop your thoughts and posit yourresearch extensions/perspectives. As you consider joining theconversations being shared via JBL, please consider the follow-ing guidelines:

• Dialogue papers will be evaluated based on their (1) potentialto advance the quest for a more complete understanding of the

3

Over 80 articles on interorganizational trust have appeared inleading management, marketing and supply chain journals overthe past 25 years (e.g., Anderson and Narus 1990; Ring and Vande Ven 1992; Doney and Cannon 1997; Zaheer et al. 1998;Ireland et al. 2002; Johnston et al. 2004; Grayson and Chen2008; Nyaga et al. 2010)

4 S. E. Fawcett and M. A. Waller

topic of interest and (2) ability to stay true to the conditionsand conventions for open dialogue (see page 3).

• Dialogue papers cannot exceed 1,000 words. They shouldinclude a title and share research extensions/viewpoints inclear, concise, and compelling prose. No abstracts or refer-ences will be published.

• Dialogue papers may be conceptual or empirical in nature.• Dialogue papers must be timely. Our goal is to have Dialogue

papers appear in print within six months of the time the origi-nal article is published. This means that papers should besubmitted within two months of an article’s debut in print.

• Authors of the original article may be invited to share theirthoughts related to a forthcoming Dialogue piece when suchinterplay would promote a more provocative and robust con-versation.

• Publication space in JBL is limited. We envision dedicatingno more than 3–5 pages to Dialogue pieces in each issue.

Dialogue is an experiment in dialogue. We will learn from ourearly experiences and make adjustments as needed to promotethe best team learning environment possible. We hope thatDialogue will spur intriguing and profound conversation andenable JBL to enhance its contribution to the strategic emergenceand impact of supply chain management. As we move forward,we invite you to remember Thich Nhat Hanh’s invitation, “Intrue dialogue, both sides are willing to change.”

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank the following for their helpful commentsand insight in the development of this editorial and feature: ChadAutry, Hugo DeCampos, Amydee Fawcett, Brian Giblin, MikeKnemeyer, Lynette Ryals, and Remko Van Hoek.

REFERENCES

Anderson, J.C., and Narus, J.A. 1990. “A Model of DistributorFirm and Manufacturer Firm Working Partnerships.” Journalof Marketing 54(1):42–48.

Day, M., Fawcett, S.E., Fawcett, A.M., and Magnan, G.M.Forthcoming. “Trust and Relational Embeddedness: Exploringa Paradox of Trust Pattern Development in Key SupplierRelationships.” Industrial Marketing Management.

Doney, P., and Cannon, J. 1997. “An Examination of the Natureof Trust in Buyer-Seller Relationships.” Journal of Marketing61(2):35–51.

Eyring, H.J. 1991. “Teaching is a Moral Act.” Presentation atthe BYU Annual Conference, Provo, UT, August 27.

Fawcett, S.E., Magnan, G.M., and Williams, A.J. 2004. “SupplyChain Trust is Within Your Grasp.” Supply ChainManagement Review 8(2):20–26.

Fawcett, S.E., and Waller, M.A. 2011a. “Making Sense Out ofChaos: Why Theory is Relevant to Supply Chain Research.”Journal of Business Logistics 32(1):1–5.

Fawcett, S.E., and Waller, M.A. 2011b. “Moving the Needle:Making a Contribution When the Easy Questions Have BeenAnswered.” Journal of Business Logistics 32(4):291–95.

Fawcett, S.E., and Waller, M.A. 2012. “Mitigating the Myopiaof Dominant Logics: On Differential Performance andStrategic Supply Chain Research.” Journal of BusinessLogistics 33(3):173–80.

Fawcett, S.E., Waller, M.A., and Bowersox, D.J. 2011.“Cinderella in the C-Suite: Conducting Influential Research toAdvance the Logistics and Supply Chain Disciplines.”Journal of Business Logistics 32(2):115–21.

Grayson, K., and Chen, D.R. 2008. “Is Firm Trust Essential in a TrustedEnvironment? How Trust in the Business Context InfluencesCustomers.” Journal of Marketing Research 45(2):241–56.

Hall, E.T. 1973. The Silent Language. New York: AnchorBooks.

Hall, E.T. 1976. Beyond Culture. New York: Anchor Books.Havel, V. 2000. “Opening Address.” Forum 2000 Conference,

Prague.Ireland, R.D., Hitt, M.A., and Vaidyanath, D. 2002. “Alliance

Management as a Source of Competitive Advantage.” Journalof Management 28(3):413–46.

Johnston, D.A., McCutcheon, D.M., Stuart, F.I., and Kerwood,H. 2004. “Effects of Supplier Trust on Performance ofCooperative Supplier Relationships.” Journal of OperationsManagement 22:23–38.

Nyaga, G.N., Whipple, J.M., and Lynch, D.F. 2010. “ExaminingSupply Chain Relationships: Do Buyer and SupplierPerspectives on Collaborative Relationships Differ?” Journalof Operations Management 28:101–14.

Ring, P.S., and Van de Ven, A.H. 1992. “StructuringCooperative Relationship Between Organizations.” StrategicManagement Journal 13(7):483–98.

Senge, P.M. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice ofthe Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday.

Villena, V.H., Revilla, E., and Choi, T.Y. 2011. “The Dark Side ofCollaborative Buyer-Supplier Relationships: A Social CapitalPerspective.” Journal of Operations Management 29(6):561–76.

Waller, M.A., and Fawcett, S.E. 2012. “The Total Cost Concept ofLogistics: One of Many Fundamental Logistics ConceptsBegging for Answers.” Journal of Business Logistics 33(1):1–3.

Waller, M.A., Fawcett, S.E., and Van Hoek, R. 2012. “ThoughtLeaders and Thoughtful Leaders: Advancing Logistics and SupplyChain Management.” Journal of Business Logistics 33(2):75–77.

Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., and Perrone, V. 1998. “Does Trust Matter?Exploring the Effects of Interorganizational and InterpersonalTrust on Performance.” Organization Science 9(2):141–59.

Inquiry and the Practice of Theoretical Conversation 5