This article demonstrates how the combined approaches of informed pluralism and disciplined integration can help rebridge the distance between the seemingly disparate academic worlds of family science and family business. The authors establish the need for such a resynthesis by documenting trends within family enterprise research from 1985 to 2010. The analysis vividly illustrates not only the increased dominance of publication outlets and theoretical perspectives associated with business but also the near disappearance of those associated with family. In light of these trends, the authors suggest that renewed attention to integrating ideas from the two disciplines is likely to enrich both. To illustrate this claim, this study combines concepts from long-standing theories within the family science literature (structural functionalism and symbolic interactionism) with those from predominant perspectives within the family business literature (agency theory and the resource-based view). The outcome is a series of provocative yet relevant potential new directions for each field.
AgarwalR.HoetkerG. (2007). A faustian bargain? The growth of management and its relationship with related disciplines. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1304-1322.
2.
AlbaneseP. (2010). Introduction to Canada’s families: Historical and recent variations, definitions, and theories. In ChealD. (Ed.), Canadian families today: New perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 2-26). Don Mills, Ontario, Canada: Oxford University Press.
3.
AldrichH. E.CliffJ. E. (2003). The pervasive effcts of family on entrepreneurship: Towards a family embeddedness perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 573-596.
4.
AldrichH. E.FiolC. (1994). Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. Academy of Management Review, 19, 645-670.
5.
AllenK. (2000). A conscious and inclusive family studies. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 4-17.
6.
AronoffC. (March17, 2011). An interview with a pioneering family business scholar.
7.
AstrachanJ. H. (2003). Commentary on the special issue: The emergence of a field. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 567-572.
8.
BambergerP.PrattM. (2010). From the editors-Moving forward by looking back: Reclaiming unconventional research contexts and samples in organizational Scholarship. Academy of Managment Journal, 53, 665-671.
9.
BarneyJ. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99-120.
10.
BengtsonV. (2001). Beyond the nuclear family: The increasing importance of multigenerational bonds. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 1-16.
11.
BerroneP.CruzC.Gómez-MejiaL.Larraza-KintanaM. (2010). Socioemotional wealth and corporate responses to institutional pressures: Do family-controlled firms pollute less?Administrative Science Quarterly, 55, 82-113.
12.
BertrandM.SchoarA. (2006). The role of family in family firms. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20, 73-96.
13.
BiblarzT.StaceyJ. (2010). Ideal families and social science ideals. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 41-44.
14.
BirleyS. (2001). Owner-manager attitudes to family and business issues: A 16 country study. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26, 63-76.
15.
BjornbergA.NicholsonN. (2007). The family climate scales-development of a new measure for use in family business research. Family Business Review, 20, 229-246.
16.
BurgessE. (1926). The family as a unity of interacting personalities. Family, 7, 3-9.
17.
CasillasJ. C.MorenoA. M.BarberoJ. L. (2010). A configurational approach of the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and growth of family firms. Family Business Review, 23, 27-44.
18.
ChrismanJ.ChuaJ.SharmaP. (2005). Trends and directions in the development of a strategic management theory of the family firm. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29, 555-575.
19.
ChrismanJ.ChuaJ.KellermannsF.MatherneC. I.DebickiB. (2008). Management journals as venues for publication of family business research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32, 927-934.
20.
ChrismanJ.KellermannsF.ChanK.LianoK. (2010). Intellectual foundations of current research in family business: An identification and review of 25 influential articles. Family Business Review, 23, 9-26.
21.
ChrismanJ.SharmaP.TaggarS. (2007). Family influences on firms: An introduction. Journal of Business Research, 60, 1005-1011.
22.
ColliA.Fernandez PerezP.RoseM. (2003). National determinants of family firm development? Family firms in Britian, Spain, and Italy in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Enterprise & Society, 4, 28-64.
23.
ColquittJ.Zapata-PhelanC. (2007). Trends in theory building and theory testing: A five-decade study of the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1281-1303.
24.
ConstantineL. (1993). The structure of family paradigms: An analytical model of family variation. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, 19, 39-70.
25.
CooleyC. H. (1956). Social organization. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
26.
CooperD.MorganW. (2008). Case study research in accounting. Accounting Horizons, 22, 159-179.
27.
DaltonD.HittM.CertoS.DaltonC. (2007). The fundamental agency problem and its mitigation. Academy of Managment Annals, 1, 1-64.
28.
DavisJ. (March5, 2011). Personal communication.
29.
DebickiB.MatherneC.KellermannsF.ChrismanJ. (2009). Family business research in the new millenium: An overview of the who, the where, the what, and the why. Family Business Research, 22, 151-166.
30.
DiMaggioP. (1995). Comments on “What theory is not.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 391-397.
31.
DiMaggioP.PowellW. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147-160.
32.
DistelbergB.BlowA. (2011). Variations in family systems boundaries. Family Business Review, 24, 229-246.
33.
DohertyW.BossP.LaRossaR.SchummW.SteinmetzS. (2004). Family theories and methods: A contextual approach. In BossP.DohertyW.LaRossaR.SchummW.SteinmetzS. (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 3-30). New York, NY: Springer.
34.
DyerG. J. (2006). Examining the “family effect” on firm performance. Family Business Review, 19, 253-273.
35.
DyerG. J.SanchezW. (1998). Current state of family business theory and practice as reflected in Family Business Review1988-1997. Family Business Review, 11, 287-296.
36.
EddlestonK.KellermannsF. (2002). Destructive and productive family relationships: A stewardship theory perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 22, 545-564.
37.
EddlestonK.KellermannsF.ZellwegerT. (2010). Corporate entrepreneurship in family firms: A stewardship perspective, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520. 2010.00402.x10.1111/j.1540-6520. 2010.00402.x
38.
EisenhardtK. E. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 532-550.
39.
FamaE.JensenM. (1983). Agency problems and residual claims. Journal of Law & Economics, 26, 327-349.
40.
GersickK.DavisJ.McCollom HamptonM.LansbergI. (1997). Generation to generation: Life cycles in family business. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
41.
Gómez-MejíaL.Takács HayesK.Núñez-NichelM.JacobsonK.Moyano-FuentesJ. (2007). Socioemotional wealth and business risks in family-controlled firms: Evidence from Spanish olive oil mills. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52, 106-137.
42.
HabbershonT.WilliamsM. (1999). A resource-based framework for assessing the strategic advantages of famly firms. Family Business Review, 12, 1-25.
43.
HandelG. (1985). The psychosocial interior of the family (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
44.
HollanderB. S.ElmanN. S. (1988). Family owned business: An emerging field of enquiry, Family Business Review, 1, 145-164.
45.
JenningsJ. E.BreitkreuzR. S.JamesA. E. (IN PRESS). Theories from family science: A review and roadmap for family business research. In MelinL.NordqvistM.SharmaP. (Eds.), Handbook of family business. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
46.
JensenM.MecklingW. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305-360.
47.
KendingS.BianchiS. (2008). Single, cohabitating, and married mothers’ time with children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 1228-1240.
48.
KilduffM. (2006). Editor’s comments: Publishing theory. Academy of Management Review, 31, 252-255.
49.
KingsburyN.ScanzoniJ. (2004). Structural-functionalism. In BossP.DohertyW.LaRossaR.SchummW.SteinmetzS. (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A conceptual approach (pp. 195-217). New York, NY: Springer.
50.
KleinS.AstrachanJ.SmyrniosK. (2005). The F-PEC scale of family influence: Construction, validation, and further implication for theory. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29, 321-339.
51.
LansbergI. (1983). Managing human resources in family firms: The problem of institutional overlap. Organizational Dynamics, 12, 39-46.
52.
LaRossaR.ReitzesD. (2004). Symbolic interactionalism and family studies. In BossP.DohertyW.LaRossaR.SchummW.SteinmetzS. (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A conceptual approach (pp. 135-162). New York, NY: Springer.
53.
LempertL.DeVaultM. (2000). Guest editor’s introduction: Special issue on emergent and reconfigured forms of family life. Gender & Society, 14, 6-10.
54.
LitzR. A. (1997). The family firm’s exclusion from business school research: Explaining the void, addressing the opportunity. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 21, 55-71.
55.
LounsburyM.GlynnM. (2001). Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 545-564.
56.
LumpkinG. T.MartinW.VaughnM. (2008). Family orientation: Individual-level influences on family firm outcomes. Family Business Review, 21, 127-138.
57.
MacDermidS.RoyK.ZvonkovicA. (2005). Don’t stop at the borders: Theorizing beyond dichotomies of work and family. In BengstonV.AcockA.AllenK.Dilworth-AndersonP.KleinD. (Eds). Sourcebook of family theory and research (pp. 493-616). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
58.
MannS.GrimesM.KempA.JenkinsP. (1997). Paradigm shifts in family sociology? Evidence from three decades of family textbooks. Journal of Family Issues, 18, 315-349.
59.
MarchJ.OlsenJ. P. (1976). Ambiguity and choice in organisations. Bergen, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.
60.
McCollom HamptonM. E. (1988). Integration in the family firm: When the family system replaces controls and culture. Family Business Review, 1, 399-417.
61.
McConaughyD. (2000). Family CEOs vs. nonfamily CEOs in the family-controlled firm: An examination of the level and sensitivity of pay to performance. Family Business Review, 13, 121-131.
62.
MeadG. H. (1967). Mind, self and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1934)
63.
MillerD.LeBreton-MillerI. (2006). Family governance and firm performance: Agency, stewardship, and capabilities. Famiy Business Review, 19, 73-87.
64.
MillerD.LeBreton-MillerI.LesterR.CannellaR. J. (2007). Are family firms really superior performers?Journal of Corporate Finance, 13, 829-858.
65.
MillerD.LeBreton-MillerI.ScholnickB. (2008). Stewardship vs. stagnation: An empirical comparison of small family and non-family business. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 51-78.
OkhuysenG.BonardiJ. (2011). Editor’s comments: The challenges of building theory by combining lenses. Academy of Management Review, 36, 6-11.
68.
OlsonP.ZuikerV.DanesS.StaffordK.HeckR.DuncanK. (2003). The impact of the family and the business on family business sustainability. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 639-666.
69.
ParsonsT. (1951). The social system. New York, NY: Free Press.
70.
PfefferJ. (1993). Barriers to the advance of organizational science: Paradigm development as a dependent variable. Academy of Management Review, 18, 599-620.
71.
PittmanJ. (2004). Functionalism may be down, but it surely is not out. In BossP.DohertyW.LaRossaR.SchummW.SteinmetzS. (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 218-221). New York, NY: Springer.
72.
PotterD. (2010). Psychosocial well-being and the relationship between divorce and children’s academic achievement. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 933-946.
73.
PuxtyT.TinkerT. (1995). Policing accounting: The sociology of knowledge as praxis. In PuxtyT.TinkerT. (Eds.), Policing accounting knowledge: The market for excuses affair (pp. 244-270). Princeton, NJ: Markus Wiener.
74.
RaoH. (1994). The social construction of reputation: Certification contests, legitimsation, and survival of organisations in the American automobile industry: 1895-1912. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 29-44.
75.
ReayT.WhettenD. A. (2011). What constitutes a theoretical contribution in family business?Family Business Review, 24, 105-110.
76.
RogoffE. G.HeckR. K. Z. (2003). Evolving research in entrepreneurship and family business: Recognizing family as the oxygen that feeds the fire of entrepreneurship. [Introductory editorial note]. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 559-566.
77.
RoyerS.RolandB. B.RaffertyA. (2008). Promoting family: A contingency model of family business succession. Family Business Review, 22, 15-30.
78.
SchulzeW.LubatkinM.DinoR. (2003). Toward a theory of agency and altruism in family firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 473-490.
79.
SchulzeW.LubatkinM.DinoR.BuchholtzA. (2001). Agency relationships in private family firms. Organisation Science, 12, 99-116.
80.
ScottW. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
81.
SharmaP. (2004). An overview of the field of family business studies: Current status and directions for the future. Family Business Review, 27, 1-36.
82.
SharmaP. (2008). Commentary: Familiness: Capital stocks and flows between family and business. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32, 971-977.
83.
SharmaP. (2011). Editor’s notes: 2010—A year in review. Family Business Review, 24, 5-8.
84.
SharmaP.IrvingG. P. (2005). Four bases of family business successor commitment: Antecedents and consequences, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29, 13-33.
85.
SharmaP.ManikuttyS. (2005). Strategic divestments in family firms: Role of family structure and community culture. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29, 293-311.
86.
SharmaP.NordqvistM. (2008). A classification scheme for family firms: From family values to effective governance to firm performance. In TapiesJ.WardJ. (Eds.), Family values and value creation: The fostering of enduring values within family-owned business (pp. 71-101). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
87.
SharmaP.HoyF.AstrachanJ.KoiranenM. (2007). The practice-driven evolution of family business education. Journal of Business Research, 60, 1012-1021.
88.
ShepherdD. (2003). Learning from business failure: Propositions of grief recovery for the self-employed. Academy of Management Review, 28, 319-328.
89.
SirmonD.HittM. (2003). Managing resources: Linking unique resources, management, and wealth creation in family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27, 339-358.
90.
SmithD. (1993). The standard North American family. Journal of Family Issues, 14, 40-65.
91.
SmithS.HamonR.IngoldsbyB.MillerJ. (2009). Exploring family theories (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
92.
StaceyJ. (2000). Family values forever. Nation, 273, 26-29.
93.
StaffordK.DuncanK.DanesS.WinterM. (1999). A research model of sustainable family businesses. Family Business Review, 12, 197-208.
94.
SteierL. (2009). Familial capitalism in global institutional contexts: Implications for corporate governance and entrepreneurship in East Asia. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 26, 513-535.
95.
SuchmanM. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20, 571-610.
96.
SuttonR.StawB. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 371-384.
97.
TagiuriR.DavisJ. A. (1996). Bivalent attributes of the family firm. Family Business Review, 9, 199-208. (Original work published 1982)
98.
TaylorA.BagdiA. (2005). The lack of explicit theory in family research: A case analysis of the Journal of Marriage and the Family 1990-1999. In BengtsonV.CookA.AllenK.Dilworth-AndersonP.KleinD. (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and research (pp. 22-29). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
99.
ThorntonP.OcasioW. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organisations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958-1990. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 801-843.
100.
VilasecaA. (2002). The shareholder role in the family business: Conflict of interests and objectives between nonemployed shareholders and top manangement team. Family Business Review, 15, 299-320.
101.
WardJ. (1987). Keeping the family business healthy. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
102.
WardJ. (1991). Creating effective boards for private enterprises. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
103.
WeickK. (1995). What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 385-390.
104.
WestheadP.CowlingM. (1998). Family firm research: The need for a methodological rethink. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23, 31-56.
105.
WhettenD. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution. Academy of Management Review, 14, 490-495.
106.
WhitesideM. F.BrownF. H. (1991). Drawbacks of a dual systems approach to family firms: Can we expand our thinking?Family Business Review, 4, 383-385.
107.
WillmottH. (2008). For informed pluralism, broad relevance and critical reflexivity. In BarryD.NansenH. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of new approaches to management and organization (pp. 82-83). London, England: SAGE.
108.
WinterM.FitzgeraldM.HeckR.HaynesG.DanesS. (1998). Revisiting the study of family business: Methodological challenges, dilemmas, and alternative approaches. Family Business Review, 11, 239-252.
109.
WuttuneeW. (2004). Living rhythms: Lessons in aboriginal economic resilience. Montreal, Quebec, Canada: McGill-Queens University Press.
110.
ZahraS. A.SharmaP. (2004). Family business research: A strategic reflection. Family Business Review, 17, 331-346.
111.
ZellwegerT.AstrachanJ. (2008). On the emotional value of owning a firm. Family Business Review, 22, 347-363.
112.
ZimmermanM.ZeitzG. (2002). Beyond survival: New venture growth by building legitimacy. Academy of Management Review, 27, 414-431.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
