Family Business Review

The authors provide insights concerning the current state of family business research through a survey that included input from more than 80 family business scholars. Findings suggest two general conclusions: first, a collective sense that significant progress has been made; second, a widespread conviction there is still much work to be done. The authors conclude with several recommendations for the field’s continued evolution, which include greater use of family sciences research, the development of innovative measures, the adoption of rich longitudinal methodologies, and inclusion of more diverse subjects and samples.

To promote theoretical development in family business research, this research identified 327 dependent/outcome variables used in 257 empirical family business studies in 1998-2009. In four studies, the authors categorized outcome variables, developed a numerical taxonomy with seven clusters (performance, strategy, social and economic impact, governance, succession, family business roles, and family dynamics) plotted along two dimensions (business–family and short-term–long-term), validated their research, and identified missing outcome variables and variables that deserve more attention. Experts agree that family business roles, succession, and family dynamics make the family business domain unique and that noneconomic performance and family-specific topics deserve more attention.

The authors survey arguments that family firms should behave more like nonfamily firms and “professionalize.” Despite the apparent advantages of this transition, many family firms fail to do so or do so only partially. The authors reflect on why this might be so, and the range of possible modes of professionalization. They derive six ideal types: (a) minimally professional family firms; (b) wealth dispensing, private family firms; (c) entrepreneurially operated family firms; (d) entrepreneurial family business groups; (e) pseudoprofessional, public family firms; and (f) hybrid professional family firms. The authors conclude with suggestions for further research that is attentive to such variation.

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.

In this article, the authors contribute to the 25th anniversary edition of Family Business Review by gleaning from a coterie of six established scholars insights related to the distinctive nature of family business research, the research designs that emanate from this distinctiveness, and their thoughts related to the direction of the field. While their insights are confirmatory to many who have contributed to the field’s strong current positioning, they serve to highlight to others the rich research opportunities that remain unexplored in the vast family business arena.