Assessing Logistics Maturation, Article Review Example

The article presents a very broad argument about logistics that encompasses far too many variables. These variables range from a history of the discipline to its academic evolution, as well as a empirical look at its changing dichotomy in the academic world through literary reviews and journals. This range goes even further off topic by incorporating not only the new avenues of logistics in its academic field but how this field is growing through international circles as leaders from different disciplines are writing articles for these journals thus expanding readership from primarily North American avenues to a more antithetical approach in international audiences. Although the article seeks to manipulate the reader into believing the authors are narrowing in on a subject, they are really giving small and parceled out details of a variety of subjects under an umbrella theme of logistics. Thus, the article gives too many sub-genres and not enough focus.

The authors give valid points in each sub-genre, but immediately negate their argument within each paragraph. The authors state that logistics is expanding on an international level beyond the scope of its former North American region but then immediately following this statement they say that any such argument is lacking in empirical evidence. The article would have done better had it focused its arguments primarily on the maturation of logistics instead of the fragmentation present in the paper.

The second half of the argument is better organized as the authors break down their argument in their methodologies section with data, empirical evidence, and results. The strongest part of the paper is the researcher’s insight’s section. There is, however, too much time discussing the history of logistics, both in the introduction, throughout the essay and especially at the end. This overabundance takes up too much space and detracts from the purpose and message of the research (i.e. logistics maturation).

The purpose of the research, the extolling and explanation of logistics maturation is done very well through the researchers’ scope of focusing on academic publication. In this section, and in this section only, does the inclusion of logistics history make contextual-sense. All previous and other reference to logistics history is ill focused as mentioned above. The researchers stick to a very well organized chronology when speaking about logistics history starting with its inception over 30 years ago, and bringing the reader up to present day.

Researchers try and keep within the bounds of empirical data but continually negate this in the purpose of logistics maturation; “The above research provides indication of a general maturation and expansion of the logistics field. However, such indicators tend to be validated somewhat anecdotally and are not well empirically established. As such, research opportunities exist to better assess and validate expansion of the logistics field, leading to this study’s research questions” (p. 2).

Researchers also interject platitudes into their work, as exemplified with researchers stating that authorship expansion for logistics research will positively affect pracittioners. This statement (and the paragraph and section following this statement) is a poorly constructed section as it dileneates away from the main point of the paper and the research. Authorship is a side note in the expansion of logistic maturation and does not benefit the paper’s arguments to any significant degree. It could benefit the paper’s arguments had the researchers applied a sub-section of logistic maturation by country then made a comparable table between North America and the rest of the world. Such evidence would have empiracally supported their arguments.

References

Maloni, M. J., Carter, C. R., & Carr, A. A. (2009). Assessing logistics maturation through author concentration. Emerald Group Publishing.