Scaffolded Literature Review (Global Supply Chains during COVID-19 Disruption)

Purpose

Students produce a scaffolded literature review on how global supply chains operated and changed during a major disruption (COVID-19). The task builds search skills, critical appraisal, synthesis, and academic writing.

What students submit

1. Synthesis Matrix (≈3,000 words)

• ~30 academic sources (peer-reviewed journals and scholarly books/chapters).
• For each source (~100 words), students record:
• Full citation
• How it was found (which university-provided database/search tool)
• Theme(s) it informs (e.g., resilience, risk management, inventory strategy, logistics bottlenecks, reshoring)
• 1–2 sentences on how the source supports their argument
• Matrix is tabular; an example is on Blackboard.

1. Critical Literature Review (≈1,000 words)

• Integrates and critically evaluates the same 30 sources.
• Shows converging/diverging perspectives, identifies gaps, and advances a clear argument about COVID-19’s impacts on global supply chains.
• Harvard referencing in text and in a complete Reference List.

1. Consistency rule: The same 30 sources must appear in the matrix, the review, and the reference list.

Research expectations

• Use the University catalogue, reading list, and licensed databases (not general Google/Google Scholar alone).
• Reading list = starting point; students should expand via university search tools.
• Emphasize peer-reviewed, global-supply-chain/operations sources (SCM, OM, logistics, international business, trade).

Support & formative assessment

• A dedicated assignment support class (date/time in Module Info Pack).
• International Support Sessions plus online support during the semester.
• Formative option: submit one short extract of the literature review (not full drafts).
• Tutors can meet students for a verbal outline discussion of the planned summative submission.
• Submission logistics (how/where/when) are on the module site/Assessment Pack.

What a “critical literature review” means (for students)

• A focused, argument-led overview of significant literature (cf. Saunders et al., 2018).
• Demonstrates breadth (major strands of the debate) and depth (evaluation, not description).
• Explains how sources were gathered, why selected, and what gaps remain (e.g., developing-country suppliers, SME resilience, multi-tier transparency).

Suggested sub-themes students can organize around

• Disruption & risk: exposure, propagation (bullwhip), single-sourcing vs multi-sourcing, tier-2/3 visibility
• Resilience strategies: redundancy vs flexibility; nearshoring/reshoring; dual sourcing; safety stock vs agility
• Network design & governance: global vs regional hubs, supplier diversification, contracts, collaboration
• Operations adjustments: inventory policies (“just-in-time” → “just-in-case”), capacity reallocation, demand sensing/forecasting
• Logistics & infrastructure: port congestion, air/sea modal shifts, cold-chain for vaccines, last-mile constraints
• Digitization & data: supply-chain visibility tools, traceability, platform coordination
• Policy & institutions: export controls, trade frictions, essential-goods prioritization, standards/compliance
• Social & sustainability: labor conditions, supplier viability, ESG trade-offs during crisis

Assessment criteria (marking focus)

1. Search & Selection – Quality/relevance of academic sources; appropriate use of university databases.
2. Synthesis Matrix – Clarity, justification of choices, accurate mapping of sources to themes.
3. Critical Review Writing – Coherent argument using all matrix sources; balanced critique and synthesis; identification of gaps.
4. Referencing – Accurate, comprehensive Harvard throughout.

Learning outcomes addressed

• Critically evaluate current issues in business and management (COVID-19 disruption of global supply chains).
• Critically assess academic literature in business/management research.

Suggested teaching scaffold

1. Frame the question (Week 1)

• Define scope (global supply chains; COVID-19 period); co-create thematic map from the list above.

1. Finding evidence (Week 2)

• Live demo of university databases; build search strings (e.g., “supply chain resilience AND COVID-19”; “nearshoring pandemic”; “bullwhip effect pandemic”); set inclusion/exclusion criteria.

1. Build the matrix (Week 3)

• Agree matrix columns (Citation | How Found | Theme(s) | 100-word contribution); show Blackboard example.

1. From matrix to argument (Week 4)

• Teach synthesis: compare/contrast findings, methodological quality, contexts (industries/regions), and limitations.

1. Formative check-in (Weeks 5–6)

• Collect short extract; give brief feed-forward; optional verbal-outline meetings.

1. Writing clinic (Week 7)

• Critical paragraphing (claim–evidence–explain–counterpoint); use of sub-headings; signposting.

1. Referencing workshop (Week 8)

• Harvard style; common errors; ensure cross-document consistency.

1. Final polish (Week 9)

• Verify source consistency across matrix/review/references; proof and submit.

Quick tutor checklist

• Students are using licensed university resources (not relying on Google/GS).
• 30 peer-reviewed/academic sources with clear COVID-19/global-supply-chain relevance.
• Each matrix entry states how the source was located and why it matters.
• Review is argument-driven, not a list; shows tensions (e.g., resilience vs cost) and gaps.
• Harvard referencing consistent in text and reference list.
• The same 30 sources appear in matrix, review, and references.

Typical pitfalls to flag early

• Descriptive summaries with no critique/synthesis.
• Missing search provenance (how sources were found).
• Overuse of non-academic or news pieces instead of scholarly work.
• Inconsistency between matrix, review, and references.
• Too narrow (single industry/region) or too broad (no clear focus) without justification.