This study explores which fields might potentially collaborate in family business research. It compares 14 research fields for their structure of topical attention. The most convenient collaborations, such as those between entrepreneurship, family business, and strategy researchers, prove to be the most appropriate for some research purposes. However, less common collaborations, particularly with scholars from law, history, and anthropology, appear to be the most appropriate for other projects. Family and marital therapy prove to be a less promising collaborator than one might expect because of their strong skewing to familial rather than commercial topics. Correspondingly, entrepreneurship also proves to be an outlier field, skewed to the commercial rather than the familial, with surprisingly little in common with the topical interests of family business researchers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
2.
Adams, H. (1988). The academic tribes (2nd ed.). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
3.
Aldrich, H.E., & Cliff, J.E. (2003). The pervasive effects of family on entrepreneurship: Toward a family embeddedness perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(5), 573-596.
4.
Anderson, A.R., Jack, S.L., & Dodd, S.D. (2005). The role of family members in entrepreneurial networks: Beyond the boundaries of the family firm. Family Business Review, 18(2), 135-154.
5.
Baker, T., & Pollock, T.G. (2007). Making the marriage work: The benefits of strategy's takeover of entrepreneurship for strategic organization. Strategic Organization, 5(3), 297-312.
6.
Barth, F. (1967). Economic spheres in Darfur. In R. Firth (Ed.), Themes in economic anthropology (pp. 149- 174). London: Tavistock .
7.
Bedeian, A.G. (2005). Crossing disciplinary boundaries: A epilogomenon for Lockett and McWilliams. Journal of Management Inquiry , 14(2), 151-155.
8.
Bird, B., Welsch, H., Astrachan, J.H., & Pistrui, D. (2002). Family business research: The evolution of an academic field. Family Business Review, 15(4), 337-350.
9.
Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G., & Freeman, L.C. (2002). UCINET 6 for Windows version 6.166. Natick, MA: Analytic Technologies.
10.
Brockhaus, R.H. (1994). Entrepreneurship and family business research: Comparison, critique, and lessons. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 19(1), 25-38.
11.
Burt, R.S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
12.
Callon, M., Courtial, J.-P., Turner, W.A., & Bauin, S. (1983). From translations to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis. Social Science Information , 22(2), 191-235.
13.
Campbell, D.T. (1969). Ethnocentrism of disciplines and the fish-scale model of omniscience. In M. Sherif & C. W. Sherif (Eds.), Interdisciplinary relationships in the social sciences (pp. 328-348). Chicago, IL: Aldine.
14.
Carsten, J. (2000). Introduction. In J. Carsten (Ed.), Cultures of relatedness: New approaches to the study of kinship (pp. 1-36). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
15.
Casillas, J., & Acedo, F. (2007). Evolution of the intellectual structure of family business literature: A bibliometric study of FBR. Family Business Review, 20(2), 141-162.
16.
Comaroff, J.L. (1987). Sui genderis: Feminism, kinship theory and structural "domains." In J. F. Collier & S. J. Yanagisako (Eds.), Gender and kinship: Essays toward a unified analysis (pp. 53-85). Stanford, CA : Stanford University Press.
17.
Cornelius, B., Landström, H., & Persson, O. (2006). Entrepreneurial studies: The dynamic research front of a developing social science. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(3), 375-398.
18.
Davis, M.S. (1971). That's interesting! Towards a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1, 309-344.
19.
Devons, E., & Gluckman, M. (1964). Conclusion: Modes and consequences of limiting a field of study. In M. Gluckman (Ed.), Closed systems and open minds (pp. 158-261). Chicago, IL: Aldine.
20.
Dogan, M. (1997). The new social sciences: Cracks in the disciplinary walls. International Social Science Journal, 49(3), 429-443.
21.
Dyer, W.G., Jr. (2003). The family: The missing variable in organizational research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(4), 401-416.
22.
Dyer, W.G., Jr., & Handler, W. (1994). Entrepreneurship and family business: Exploring the connections. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 19(1), 71-83.
23.
Ellis, D., Allen, D., & Wilson, T. (1999). Information science and information systems: Conjunct subjects disjunct disciplines. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(12), 1095-1107.
24.
Epstein, S.L. (2005). Making interdisciplinary collaboration work. In S. J. Derry.C. D. Schunn, & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Inter disciplinary collaboration: An emerging cognitive Science (pp. 245-263). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
25.
Fortes, M. (1969). Kinship and the social order: The legacy of Lewis Henry Morgan. Chicago, IL: Aldine .
26.
Gartner, W.B., Davidsson, P., & Zahra, S.A. (2006). Are you talking to me? The nature of community in entrepreneurship scholarship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(3), 321-331.
27.
Grégoire, D.A., Noël, M.X., Déry, R., & Béchard, J.-P. (2006). Is there conceptual convergence in entrepreneurship research? A co-citation analysis of Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 1981-2004. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 30(3), 333-373.
28.
Griffiths, T.L., & Steyvers, M. (2004). Finding scientific topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(Suppl. 1), 5228-5235.
29.
Hambrick, D.C., & Chen, M.J. (2008). New academic fields as admittance-seeking social movements: The case of strategic management. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 32-54.
30.
Hargens, L.L. (2000). Using the literature: Reference networks, reference contexts, and the social structure of scholarship. American Sociological Review, 65(6), 846-865.
31.
Harrell, S. (1997). Human families. Boulder, CO : Westview.
Henkel, M. (2004). Current science policies and their implications for the formation and maintenance of academic identity. Higher Education Policy, 17(2), 167-182.
34.
Holy, L. (1996). Anthropological perspectives on kinship theory . London: Pluto Press.
35.
Hoy, F., & Verser, T.G. (1994). Emerging business, emerging field: Entrepreneurship and the family firm. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 19(1), 9-23.
36.
Jacobs, N. (2002). Co-term network analysis as a means of describing the information landscapes of knowledge communities across sectors. Journal of Documentation, 58(5), 548-562.
37.
Jones, A.M. (2005). The elementary structures of the family firm: An anthropological perspective. Human Organization, 64(3), 276-285.
38.
Kirzner, I.M. ([1997] 2000). Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: An Austrian approach. In I. M. Kirzner (Ed.), The driving force of the market (pp. 3-40). London: Routledge .
39.
Klein, J.T. (2005). Interdisciplinary teamwork: The dynamics of collaboration and integration. In S. J. Derry, C. D. Schunn, & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Interdisciplinary collaboration: An emerging cognitive science (pp. 23-50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
40.
Krackhardt, D., Blythe, J., & McGrath, C. (1994). Krack-Plot 3.0: An improved network drawing program . Connections, 17(2), 53-55.
41.
Lockett, A., & McWilliams, A. (2005). The balance of trade between disciplines: Do we effectively manage knowledge? Journal of Management Inquiry, 14(2), 139-150.
42.
Marcus, G.E., & Hall, P.D. (1992). Lives in trust: The fortunes of dynastic families in late twentieth-century America. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
43.
McCarthy, A.M., & Nicholls-Nixon, C.L. (2001). Fresh starts: Arnold Cooper on entrepreneurship and wealth creation. Academy of Management Executive, 15(1), 26-36.
44.
McKinnon, S. (2000). Domestic exceptions: Evans-Pritchard and the creation of Nuer patrilineality and equality. Cultural Anthropology , 15(1), 35-83.
45.
Meyer, A.D. (1991). What is strategy's distinctive competence? Journal of Management, 17(4), 821-833.
46.
Miller, D., & Le Breton-Miller, I. (2005). Managingfor the long run. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
47.
Morillo, F., Bordons, M., & Gómez, I. (2003). Interdisciplinarity in science: A tentative typology of disciplines and research areas. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(13), 1237-1249.
48.
National Science Foundation (NSF). (2006). Investing in America's future: Strategic plan, FY 2006-2111. Available at http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2006/nsf0648/NSF-06-48.pdf .
49.
Nicholson, N. (2008). Evolutionary psychology and family business; A new synthesis for theory, research, and practice. Family Business Review, 21(1), 103-124.
50.
O'Donnell, A.M., & Derry, S.J. (2005). Cognitive processes in interdisciplinary groups: Problems and possibilities. In S. J. Derry , C. D. Schunn, & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Interdisciplinary collaboration: An emerging cognitive science (pp. 51-82). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
51.
Pierce, S.J. (1999). Boundary crossing in research literatures as a means of interdisciplinary information transfer. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(3), 271-279.
52.
Porac, J.F., Thomas, H., Wilson, F., Paton, D., & Kanfer, A. (1995). Rivalry and the industry model of Scottish knitwear producers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 203-227.
53.
Ramos-Rodríguez, A.-R., & Ruíz-Navarro, J. (2004). Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic management research: A bibliometric study of the Strategic Management Journal, 1980-2000. Strategic Management Journal , 25(10), 981-1004.
54.
Reader, D., & Watkins, D. (2006). The social and collaborative nature of entrepreneurship scholarship: A co-citation and perceptual analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(3), 417-441.
55.
Schildt, H.A., Zahra, S.A., & Sillanpää, A. (2006). Scholarly communities in entrepreneurship research: A co-citation analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 30(3), 399-415.
56.
Sharma, P. (2004). An overview of the field of family business studies: Current status and directions for the future. Family Business Review, 17(1), 1-36.
57.
Shugan, S.M. (2003). Editorial: Compartmentalized reviews and other initiatives: Should marketing scientists review manuscripts in consumer behavior?Marketing Science, 22(2), 151-160.
58.
Slingerland, E. (2003). Effortless action: Wu-wei as conceptual metaphor and spiritual ideal in early China. New York: Oxford University Press.
59.
Small, H. (1999). A passage through science: Crossing disciplinary boundaries. Library Trends, 48(1), 72- 108.
60.
Stewart, A. (1995). Journal ranking in Nacirema ritual: The case of I. C. MacMillan's publishing "forums" Advances in Strategic Management, 11(A), 3-37.
61.
Stewart, A. (2003). Help one another, use one another: Toward an anthropology of family business. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(4), 383-396.
62.
Thagard, P. (2005). Being interdisciplinary: Trading zones in cognitive science. In S. J. Derry, C. D. Schunn, & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.),Interdisciplinary collaboration: An emerging cognitive science (pp. 317-339). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
63.
Teil, G., & Latour, B. (1995). The Hume machine: Can association networks do more than formal rules? Stanford Humanities Review, 4(2), 47-65.
64.
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications . New York: Cambridge University Press.
65.
Yanagisako, S.J. (1987). Mixed metaphors: Native and anthropological models of gender and kinship domains. In J. F. Collier & S. J. Yanagisako (Eds.), Gender and kinship: Essays toward a unified analysis (pp. 86-118). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
66.
Zahra, S.A., & Sharma, P. (2004). Family business research: A strategic reflection . Family Business Review, 17(4), 331-346.
67.
Zald, M.N. (2002). Spinning disciplines: Critical management studies in the context of the transformation of management education. Organization, 9(3), 365- 385.
68.
Zerubavel, E. (1995). The rigid, the fuzzy, and the flexible: Notes on the mental sculpting of academic identity. Social Research , 62(4), 1093-1101.
