Action research in LSCM since 2010 – the emergence of design science

Purpose The purpose of this study is the review of current status of action research (AR) and design science (DS) in logistics and supply chain management (SCM) and to compare AR and DS. Design/methodology/approach The paper’s approach comprises the literature review of AR and DS articles. Findings First, not much has changed in terms of number of published AR articles, despite frequent calls for more relevant research. One explanation is the academic system. Second, there is an increased focus on theory, which from a positive perspective is a sign of our field maturing, yet the academic system and current editorial philosophies may also contribute to this development. Third, DS is emerging as a potential replacement of AR. Research limitations/implications The study provides suggestion for both authors and editors when it comes to the increased focus on theory. Comparing AR and DS, the two approaches are similar. However, while the increased focus on theory is reflected in DS, it also seems to be an inferior approach for ill-defined change-focused problems, requiring in-depth, collaborative, data-rich, longitudinal studies. Originality/value This paper is the first article that reviews and compares AR and DS in LSCM.