593869

research-article2015
FBRXXX10.1177/0894486515593869Family Business ReviewEvert et al.

Review
Family Business Review

Empirics in Family Business Research:

1­–27
© The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
Progress, Challenges, and the Path sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0894486515593869

Ahead fbr.sagepub.com

Robert E. Evert1, John A. Martin2, Michael S. McLeod1, and G. Tyge Payne1

Abstract
Competent research methods and data analysis are essential components for the progression of family business
research. To identify and evaluate empirical trends, and make suggestions for future research, we examine 319
empirical articles published in Family Business Review since 1988. These studies are compared with 146 family business
research articles published in top-tier journals not dedicated to family business research over the same timeframe.
While we substantiate growth in rigor and sophistication, we address specific family business research challenges
regarding construct validity, generalizability, causality, temporality, and multilevel issues. Suggestions are provided
for future empirical research across six major topical areas.

Keywords
empirics, family business, research methods, statistics

Introduction necessary structures, relationships, and resources for col-

Family business has undergone significant changes over
the past several decades that now point to its legitimacy
as an independent academic field of study. Specifically,
increases in terms of total number of studies published,
the impact of these studies on the broader academic
community, and the number of conferences and journals
dedicated to family business demonstrate its growing
prestige and acceptance as an established field (Sharma,
Chrisman, & Gersick, 2012; Stewart & Miner, 2011; S.
R. Wilson et al., 2014). Also, Family Business Review
(FBR), the premier outlet for family business research,
has repeatedly ranked in the top 20 journals in the field
of business—as measured by impact factor—and ranked
fourth of 110 business journals in 2014 (Sharma, 2015).
Such indicators suggest that family business has been
generally successful in addressing the three ingredients
that Hambrick and Chen (2008) argue enhance an aspir-
ing academic community’s chances of ascension—dif-
ferentiation, mobilization, and legitimacy building.
While differentiation (i.e., the distinctiveness of the
research domain) and mobilization (i.e., procurement of
lective action) are important considerations in our efforts
to further specify the boundaries and direction of research
in the field, the focus of this review article is on legiti-
macy building, particularly the legitimacy gained through
“conforming to the methodological or paradigmatic con-
ventions of more well-established fields” (Hambrick &
Chen, 2008, p. 38). More specifically, given the exten-
sive growth of family business research in general
(Sharma et al., 2012), this study’s purpose is to assess the
state of empirical research to account for the past as well
as guide future research efforts. Empirics—the practice
of basing ideas, conclusions, or theories on testing,
observation, or experience—provide a common lan-
guage and legitimizing indicator for scholars across
1
Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA
2
Wright State University, Dayton, OH, USA
Corresponding Author:
G. Tyge Payne, Rawls College of Business, Texas Tech University,
703 Flint Avenue, Box 42101, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA.
Email: tyge.payne@ttu.edu

Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV TEXARKANA on August 26, 2015
2 Family Business Review 
fields and, therefore, play an influential role in the devel-
opment of knowledge and establishing relevance for a
field (Cole, 1983; Pfeffer, 1993). As such, empirics,
including methodological (i.e., the process of collecting
data and information) and analytical (i.e., systematic
examination of data or statistical approach) practices,
play a key role in the forging of a field’s distinct position
among established academic areas of interest (Harrison
& Leitch, 1996; Sharma et al., 2012).
Family business scholars have previously asserted an
improvement in methods and analytic techniques (e.g.,
Bird, Welsch, Astrachan, & Pistrui, 2002; Debicki,
Matherne, Kellermanns, & Chrisman, 2009; Litz, Pearson,
& Litchfield, 2012). However, the overall current state
and historical trends of empirics in family business
research lacks detail and clarity, particularly in terms of
how research has advanced relative to more legitimated
domains. In other words, uncertainty remains regarding
how empirical improvements have been realized within
the broader evolution of the literature, leaving a gap in
what we currently know and ought to know about the state
of empirical family business research. Hence, rooted in the
argument that an explicit understanding of previous work
is required for a field to progress (Dyer & Sanchez, 1998),
this article thoroughly examines 465 published articles
(319 published in FBR and 146 from prominent nonfamily
business-specific journals), focusing on the research meth-
ods and analytical techniques used.
This review makes three key contributions. First, we
provide a comprehensive review of the methodologies
and analytics used in family business research by analyz-
ing all empirical studies in FBR since its inception (i.e.,
1988); this timeframe allows us to gain a comprehensive
view of the field’s progression over an extended length
of time. For while new family business–specific journals
have recently emerged (e.g., Journal of Family Business
Management, Journal of Family Business Strategy), they
derive short-term benefit from the long-term legitimizing
efforts of FBR. Second, we help clarify and legitimize
progress by juxtaposing articles published in FBR to
those family business studies published in other high-
quality journals that are not dedicated to family business.
With intent, we build on similar reviews of empirics in
family business research (e.g., Bird et al., 2002; S. R.
Wilson et al., 2014) to examine trends over multiple
decades, but do so across a more comprehensive set of
methods and analytical techniques and in a comparative
fashion. Third, we identify distinct empirical challenges
in family business research and provide suggestions to
Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV TEXARKANA on August 26, 2015
scholars regarding where future research can be focused
in order to better advance the field. Specifically, we con-
sider how family business research can be improved by
directing more attention to four general problematic
areas identified in our review: construct validity and reli-
ability, generalizability, causality, temporality, and multi-
level issues. Then, drawing on Dyer and Sanchez (1998),
we extensively discuss empirical applications and
employment relative to the six most prominent topical
areas of research that appeared in our review. Since each
of these areas of research (e.g., succession, governance)
tends to focus on unique research questions and theoreti-
cal perspectives, we give specific attention to the empirics
contained therein.
Overall, we argue that because the availability and
applicability of empirical approaches can both stimulate
and allow for the testing of new inquiries (Zahra &
Sharma, 2004), it is imperative that scholars diligently
consider empirics from the outset and throughout the
course of any study. Furthermore, with the increasing
complexity and proliferation of data and advanced statis-
tical software, researchers can (and should) ask and test
more sophisticated, empirically robust questions.
However, while we focus explicitly on empirics in this
review, we note the interconnectedness of theory and
empirics, and the role of this relationship in increasing
consensus on the boundaries and relevance of the field
(e.g., Pfeffer, 1993). As the exclusive focus of this review,
empirics serve to test and validate critical questions that
provide a finer grained perspective of various family
business phenomena; yet scholars must always consider
the appropriateness of their empirical approaches from a
theoretical and logical perspective. As there are many
potentially valid approaches to empirically test family
business research questions, scholars should be cogni-
zant to account for both theory and context of the study,
exercising good judgment to ensure the proper use of
methods and analytical techniques (Bettis, Gambardella,
Helfat, & Mitchell, 2014).
Methods and Analyses
Sample
Our study tracks trends in family business empirical
research over time from 1988 through 2014. We begin
our review in 1988 because it was the first year FBR was
published. To identify our sample of empirical articles,
we first screened each of the 855 articles published by
Evert et al. 3
Figure 1.  Growth of empirical articles in Family Business Review (FBR), 1988-2014 (N = 855).
FBR during this timeframe. Following Colquitt and
Zapata-Phelan (2007) and Yu, Lumpkin, Sorenson, and
Brigham (2012), we identified empirical studies as
quantitative, qualitative, or mixed method data-based
research designed to test research questions, models,
hypotheses, or to develop propositions. All other articles
were considered inappropriate and excluded from the
sample, even if they contained some data. For instance,
some studies consisted of simple interview transcripts
(e.g., Bowman-Upton, 1993; Lank, 1991) and others
described personal anecdotes from the perspective of
various family business members (e.g., Correll, 1989);
these types of articles were not included in our sample.
In total, 319 FBR empirical studies were deemed rel-
evant for our review. Of these, 126 (39%) were pub-
lished in the past 9 years of our sampling time frame
(2006-2014), compared with 79 (25%) published in the
first 9 years (1988-1996); this comes despite an overall
trend downward in terms of total articles published. This
change serves as a basic, yet telling, indicator of the
growing prevalence of empirical research in family
business. Figure 1 contains a breakdown of the fre-
quency of FBR empirical articles over the sampling
timeframe; more recently, the split between empirical
and conceptual articles is relatively even.
Given the increase of family business research appear-
ing in both specialized (e.g., Bird et al., 2002; Chrisman,
Chua, & Steier, 2003; Heck & Mishra, 2008; Rogoff &
Heck, 2003) and mainstream journals (e.g., Chrisman,
Chua, Kellermanns, Matherne, & Debicki, 2008; Debicki
et al., 2009), as well as an emerging prominence and
domain overlap among management scholars (Sharma,
Hoy, Astrachan, & Koiranen, 2007), we next sought to
Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV TEXARKANA on August 26, 2015
benchmark FBR’s progress by examining an additional
sample of empirical articles. Specifically, based on similar
reviews of this kind (e.g., McLeod, Evert, & Payne, 2014;
Short, Payne, & Ketchen, 2008), we gathered relevant
articles from nine prestigious management-based journals
that have published family business research between
1988 and 2014: Academy of Management Journal,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, Journal of Business Venturing,
Journal of International Business Studies, Journal of
Management, Journal of Management Studies,
Organization Science, and Strategic Management Journal.
Through comparisons with family business research
appearing in these other prominent journals (also referred
to as non-FBR articles throughout this review), we can
assess if FBR differs in any significant way, in terms of
empirics, from these more general outlets. Specifically,
our findings can help address oft-repeated criticisms of
family business studies directed at shortcomings in meth-
odological rigor (Chrisman, Sharma, & Taggar, 2007) and
statistical analysis (Debicki et al., 2009).
Our initial screen of the comparison sample journals
returned 13,101 total articles. Next, we filtered these
results by searching for articles with “family” in the
abstract. Of these, we eliminated articles that did not
address family businesses specifically. For example,
articles that broadly studied the effects of the Family and
Medical Leave Act on employee absenteeism were
excluded (e.g., Johnson, Holley, Morgeson, LaBonar, &
Stetzer, 2014); this vetting process left 407 potential
articles. Additional screening and removal of nonem-
pirical articles resulted in 146 articles for our final com-
parison sample. In total, we coded 465 articles, 319 from
4 Family Business Review 
Figure 2.  Growth of family business empirical articles in other journals, 1988-2014 (N = 13,101).
FBR and 146 from other high-quality journals that com-
posed our comparative sample.1 Relative to the articles
sampled from FBR, this collection of studies showed a
similar upward trend in terms of the number of empiri-
cal family business articles published, although the
absolute numbers and resulting percentages are much
lower (as would be expected). These results are dis-
played in Figure 2.
Coding Procedure
As an organizing structure for our review, we generally
followed the coding process used by Hiller, DeChurch,
Murase, and Doty (2011). Each of the 465 articles in our
overall sample was read and rated by at least two authors;
a third rater was commonly used to ensure reliability
and to settle differences. Following the establishment of
our common coding scheme, the raters individually
coded a random sample of 35 articles and met to discuss
discrepancies. These deliberations led to further refine-
ment and specification of coding criteria. Throughout
the coding process, raters regularly discussed coding
protocol and results to maintain process consistency
while resolving discrepancies. In sum, two authors
jointly resolved 100 articles, which was more than 20%
of the overall sample. With ample experience at this
point of the coding and resolution process, the remain-
ing sample was divided for completion. Any additional
coding conflicts were adjudicated using the previously
described process.
For the quantitative techniques, we initially used cat-
egories suggested by Shook, Ketchen, Cycyota, and
Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV TEXARKANA on August 26, 2015
Crockett (2003) and Dean, Shook, and Payne (2007).
Over the course of our review, several techniques that
are commonly used in multilevel studies (e.g., McKenny,
Payne, Zachary, & Short, 2014) emerged and were
added to the coding process. Coding schemes for quali-
tative techniques were developed concurrently with our
initial review of several qualitative articles within our
sample. After generating counts of prominent qualitative
collection and analysis techniques (e.g., structured, sem-
istructured interviews; observation, participant observa-
tion; inductive, deductive theory development), further
specification and additions to our coding classifications
were iteratively finalized following Pratt (2009) and
Gephart (2004).
Consistent with protocol found in similar reviews
(e.g., Shook et al., 2003; Stone-Romero, Weaver, &
Glenar, 1995), we coded data analytic procedures spe-
cifically used to test hypotheses or the research
question(s) in each article. Furthermore, the nature of
our coding was exhaustive, screening each occurrence
of a technique used in the process of hypothesis testing.
For example, Barnett, Eddleston, and Kellermanns
(2009) used factor analysis to assess concerns about
common method bias, coefficient alpha to examine the
internal consistency of the scale items administered, and
hierarchical regression to test the study’s hypotheses. In
this case, hierarchical regression was coded because it
was the only technique used to directly test the hypoth-
eses. Likewise, if a study tested multiple hypotheses, we
coded each technique that was used to test at least one
hypothesis. In other words, we did not restrict the num-
ber of methods or techniques to one for each article.
Evert et al. 5
Rather, we included the method/technique if it was used
to test one or more hypotheses/questions, or explicitly
used to develop propositions.
Finally, to classify articles according to topic, which
we later use in the “Discussion” section, we used Dyer
and Sanchez’s (1998) categorization scheme. However,
during the course of our assessment we iteratively added
the topic characteristics and attributes to the coding
scheme. This additional categorization follows previous
work by Bird et al. (2002), De Massis, Chua, and
Chrisman (2008), and Sharma (2004) to account for
characteristics and attributes at multiple levels (i.e.,
individual, family, firm) and subsumes the gender and
ethnicity categorization that was part of Dyer and
Sanchez’s (1998) original scheme. Specifically, studies
classified in this way are those that focus on the distin-
guishing features or qualities of a person, group, or orga-
nization (Koiranen, 2002). One study, for example, that
fell into this category was Fahed-Sreih and Djoundourian
(2006), which examines firm age and number of employ-
ees in a sample of Lebanese family businesses.
The most prominent topics that appeared throughout
our overall sample included management of the firm
(40%), business performance and growth (39%), char-
acteristics and attributes (32%), interpersonal family
dynamics (29%), governance (28%), and succession
(24%). As accomplished by Dyer and Sanchez (1998, p.
291), the categories were “not exclusive because articles
often contain more than one topic”; this resulted in per-
centages totaling greater than 100%. Other categories
included topics such as interpersonal business dynam-
ics, wealth management, philanthropy, and estate issues.
Analyses
For each method or technique, we calculated percentage
use indices (PUIs; Dean et al., 2007; Shook et al., 2003;
Stone-Romero et al., 1995). PUIs were calculated by
dividing the frequency of a method or technique’s use
by the total number of sampled articles that appeared in
a given period. For example, a PUI of .23 would indicate
that 23% of the sampled studies during a specified time
period relied on a particular method to test at least one
hypothesis. Our coding protocol also included a range of
research design dimensions such as level of analysis
(e.g., individual, group, subunit, organization, interorga-
nizational, industry, environment, or country/national),
industry sample (e.g., single, multi, or nonindustry),
geographic characteristics of samples (e.g., single or
Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV TEXARKANA on August 26, 2015
multiple country), and temporal scope (e.g., cross-sec-
tional, longitudinal, or both). To best assess trends over
time, we followed similar studies by computing correla-
tions between annual PUIs and publication years for
each coded empirical dimension (e.g., Dean et al., 2007;
Shook et al., 2003; Stone-Romero et al., 1995). By cor-
relating PUIs (vs. absolute counts) with year of publica-
tion, we account for changes in overall journal output
over time as an alternative explanation of trends related
to a given empirical method or technique. In search of a
more segmented perspective of these year-over-year
data, we also partitioned select study characteristics into
three 9-year intervals (1988-1996, 1997-2005, and
2006-2014). These aggregations, integrated into the
results and discussion, help further clarify and compare
certain trends over time.
Results
Over the 27-year time span of our review, there has been
a notable increase in the number of published empirical
articles. For articles published in FBR, PUIs for the over-
all presence of empirical studies has increased signifi-
cantly since the journal’s inception (r = .73; p < .001).
This change suggests the increasing importance of
empirical research to FBR, not simply in terms of relative
numbers of articles published but the overall analytical
sophistication in a given article. Furthermore, because
paper submissions have increased substantially over time
(Sharma et al., 2012), along with the number of outlets
publishing family business research, the field is becom-
ing increasingly competitive, which should indicate and
give way to improvements in overall quality. Considering
these general trends, we now report more specific results
along two key areas: (1) research design and methods
and (2) statistical techniques. Tables 1 and 2 summarize
these results as well as provide basic comparative infor-
mation between FBR and non-FBR journals.
Research Design and Method
With respect to design and methods, we paid particular
attention to article type, sampling, level of analysis, and
sources of data. Of the 465 articles, there were 339
quantitative, 90 qualitative, and 36 mixed methods
(incorporating a combination of quantitative and quali-
tative approaches) articles. As demonstrated in Table 1,
FBR efforts indicate a substantial amount of growth tak-
ing place in the area of archival sources of data (r = .74;
6 Family Business Review 

Table 1.  Methodological Design Percentage Use Indices (PUIs) and Correlations With Year.

Family Business Review (n = 319) Other journals (n = 146)

  Overall PUI Correlation with year Overall PUI Correlation with year
General information
  Total no. of empirical articles N/A .73*** N/A .82***
 Quantitative .66 .29 .88 .47**
 Qualitative .24 −.17 .10 −.22
  Mixed methods .10 −.26 .02 .12
Data source
 Archival .40 .74*** .62 .25
 Interview .31 −.28 .10 −.21
  Case study .21 −.13 .10 −.26
 Survey .59 −.39* .52 .09
  Content analysis .07 .32* .03 −.13
 Simulation .00 .00 .00 .00
  Expert panel .03 .27 .01 .27
  Published journals .02 .40* .03 .05
 Narratives .02 .27 .01 .31
  Multiple sources .31 .31† .50 .10
Temporal design
 Cross-sectional .74 −.45* .55 .15
 Longitudinal .26 .55** .44 .19
 Both .01 −.44* .01 .27
Level of analysis
 Single-level .85 .15 .80 −.18
  Individual .16 −.37* .07 −.15
  Group .07 −.23 .05 .07
  Subunit .00 −.33† .00 .00
  Organizational .77 .45** .84 .45*
  Interorganizational .00 .00 .01 .02
  Industry .00 .00 .00 .00
  Country/national .00 .00 .01 .00
  Environment .00 .00 .01 .33†
 Cross-level .13 −.29 .15 .11
 Multilevel .01 .38* .06 .58**
†
p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

p < .001) and to a lesser extent, multiple sources of data
(r = .31; p < .10). Of interest, while qualitative studies
did not show a significant increase over time, they
account for nearly a quarter (24%) of the empirical work
published in FBR during our sample timeframe.
The large majority of FBR empirical studies (85%)
examined just one level of analysis, as opposed to mul-
tiple levels simultaneously. However, we note that
scholars have apparently heeded the call from Sharma
(2004) to direct more attention to the organizational
level of analysis; organizational-level studies have
shown a dramatic increase relative to other levels of
analysis in both FBR (r = .45; p < .01) and the compara-
tive sample (r = .45; p < .05). Multilevel studies show a
rise in utilization in the non-FBR sample (r = .58; p <
.01), and to a lesser degree in the FBR sample (r = .38;
p < .05). Furthermore, we found that cross-sectional
designs dominate both samples (FBR: 74%; non-FBR:
55%), although the presence of longitudinal designs is
on the rise for FBR (r = .55; p < .01). Indeed, our results
show an increase in percentage use of longitudinal
designs from 14% (1988-1996) to 34% (2006-2014) for

Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV TEXARKANA on August 26, 2015
Evert et al. 7

Table 2.  Sample and Scope Percentage Use Indices (PUIs) and Correlations With Year.

Family Business Review (n = 319) Other journals (n = 146)

  Overall PUI Correlation with year Overall PUI Correlation with year
U.S. centric sample
  U.S. sample only .35 −.69*** .35 −.22
  Non-U.S. sample only .46 .67*** .50 .71***
 Both .06 .41* .04 .15
Public versus private
 Public .12 .64*** .21 .10
 Private .10 .49** .14 .44*
  Both .04 .35† .09 .30
Geographic scope of sample
  Single country .76 .11 .76 .26
  Multiple country .07 −.03 .10 .55**
Geographic focus
  North America .44 −.56** .44 −.11
 Europe .31 .60*** .32 .47*
 Asia .09 .45* .21 .51**
 Africa .02 .35† .05 .53**
  South America .03 .54** .04 .27
 Australia .05 .42* .04 .32†
Industry
  Single industry .14 −.41* .11 .08
  Multiple industry .58 .50** .73 .48**
 Nonindustry .09 −.19 .06 .28
†
p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

FBR, whereas the non-FBR sample showed no signifi-
cant change.
Table 2 shows that notable trends exist with regard to
sampling as well. For FBR, we specifically see significant
advancements in the use of international (i.e., non-U.S.; r
= .67; p < .001) and multiple industry (r = .50; p < .01)
samples. In terms of international studies, since 2006,
FBR has published studies covering Europe (46), Asia
(18), and Australia (9), with just seven studies sampling
more than one nation (out of 98 empirical articles report-
ing geographic sample specifics during this time).
Moreover, two of these seven multination studies used
European samples. Across both samples, the overall
growth of international samples has been specifically
driven by increases in studies using European (FBR, r =
.60; p < .001; non-FBR, r = .47; p < .05), Asian (FBR, r =
.45; p < .05; non-FBR, r = .51; p < .01), African (FBR,
r = .35; p < .10; non-FBR, r = .53; p < .01), and Australian
(FBR, r = .42; p < .05; non-FBR, r = .32; p < .10) samples.
By time period, in FBR we see the use of European sam-
ples especially popular, growing from 16% (1988-1996),
to 35% (1997-2005), and 37% (2006-2014); this is com-
parable to the non-FBR sample showing growth from
13%, to 30%, to 34% in the same time periods.
Analytical Techniques
Given the importance and distinct presence of both qual-
itative and quantitative approaches in the study of fam-
ily businesses, we discuss these separately. Table 3
provides a summary of findings for the quantitative
techniques, while Table 4 provides information regard-
ing qualitative techniques.
With respect to quantitative empirical studies in
FBR, there was a distinct decrease in the use of simple
descriptive statistics (e.g., means and standard devia-
tions) to test hypotheses and research questions over
time (r = −.65; p < .001). As expected, increases were
observed in more advanced techniques over time, with
hierarchical regression (r = .66; p < .001), panel data
analysis (r = .51; p < .01), multinomial logistic regres-
sion (r = .48; p < .01), and structural equation modeling

Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV TEXARKANA on August 26, 2015
8 Family Business Review 

Table 3.  Quantitative Data Analytic Technique Percentage Use Indices (PUIs) and Correlations With Year.

FBR (n = 319) Non-FBR (n = 146)

  Overall PUI Correlation with year Overall PUI Correlation with year
Basic techniques
  Descriptive statistics .20 −.65*** .02 .00
 Correlations .09 −.41* .07 −.10
  Nonparametric tests .12 −.26 .04 −.11
  Tests of mean differences .19 −.08 .06 .21
General linear models
  Simple regression .01 −.11 .01 .25
  Multiple regression .13 .22 .40 .05
  Hierarchical regression .09 .66*** .19 .09
  Stepwise regression .01 .09 .02 −.02
  Canonical correlation .00 .10 .00 .00
 ANOVA .09 .04 .02 −.21
 ANCOVA .01 .06 .01 −.17
 MANOVA .03 −.28 .00 .00
 MANCOVA .01 .24 .02 −.13
Discrete events methods
  Logistic regression .08 .39* .06 .29
  Multinomial logistic regression .01 .48** .03 .39*
Methods for analysis of interdependence
  Network analysis .00 .20 .00 .00
  Multidimensional scaling .02 .32† .01 .23
Methods accounting for heterogeneity
  Cluster analysis .05 .27 .01 .02
  Random coefficient modeling .00 .33† .00 .00
  Hierarchical linear modeling .00 .25 .01 .31
Longitudinal data methods
  Panel data analysis .06 .51** .26 .80***
Causal structure methods
  Path analysis .00 .25 .01 .18
  Structural equation modeling .04 .55** .05 .00
Methods for imperfect measurements
  Exploratory factor analysis .08 .38* .01 .14
  Confirmatory factor analysis .04 .46* .02 .23
  Reliability analysis .01 .08 .00 .00

Note. FBR = Family Business Review; ANOVA = analysis of variance; ANCOVA = analysis of covariance; MANOVA = multivariate analysis of
variance; MANCOVA = multivariate analysis of covariance.
†
p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

(SEM; r = .55; p < .01) showing the strongest upward
trends in FBR. However, multiple regression analyses
appear to be commonly used in the FBR and non-FBR
samples, with overall PUIs at 13% and 40%, respec-
tively. Panel data analysis had the largest increase for
non-FBR articles (r = .80; p < .001), with multinomial
logistic regression the only other technique showing a
statistically significant increase (r = .39; p < .05). By
and large, the trends noted in our sample of FBR articles
mirror those of the non-FBR articles. However, explor-
atory and confirmatory factor analysis trends are both
significant and positive (r = .38; p < .05; r = .46;
p < .05) in FBR, which may reflect efforts to develop
and validate new constructs.

Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV TEXARKANA on August 26, 2015
Evert et al. 9

Table 4.  Qualitative Data Analytic Technique Percentage Use Indices (PUIs) and Correlations With Year.

FBR (n = 319) Non-FBR (n = 146)

  Overall PUI Correlation with year Overall PUI Correlation with year
Case
  Cross case .11 .02 .04 .16
  Within case .04 .17 .03 .31
  General case .04 −.16 .03 .23
Theory
 Deductive .01 .38* .00 .00
 Inductive .08 .20 .06 .03
Interview type
 Open-ended .09 −.05 .03 −.21
 Semistructured .10 .10 .04 −.18
 Standardized .03 −.48** .00 .00
Other
 Ethnography .01 −.07 .01 .03
  Participant observation .02 .13 .01 .08
 Observation .03 −.22 .02 −.29
  Interpretive approach .03 .10 .01 −.23
  Thematic/emergent themes .17 .03 .06 −.27

Note. FBR = Family Business Review.

†
p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Qualitative studies continue to represent a strong and
important part of family business research, contributing
to “rich, intriguing stories about family dynamics and the
intersection of these dynamics with the operation of a
business” (Reay, 2014, p. 100). Overall, the popularity of
qualitative designs declined in FBR from 1988-1996
(25%) and 2006-2014 (19%); a more dramatic decrease
was observed in the 1988-1996 (38%) to 2006-2014 (6%)
periods for non-FBR journals. With the overall decline in
the relative number of qualitative studies, we note a sig-
nificant decline in the use of standardized interviews (r =
−.48; p < .01), but an increase in the use of deductive
application of qualitative methods (r = .38; p < .05) for
studies in FBR. No statistically significant relationships
were noted for non-FBR articles over time, a finding that
may reflect more efforts among these journals to test
existing theory, as opposed to develop new theory.
However, the utilization of qualitative techniques appears
relatively stable over time when accounting for newer or
less well-established journals (Reay & Zhang, 2014).
Discussion
FBR—along with family business research in general—
has made great progress over time in terms of notoriety
and influence (Litz et al., 2012). What began as a con-
duit for the documentation and dissemination of ideas
related to family businesses is now widely recognized as
the “journal of choice” for family business scholars
(e.g., Sharma, 2009, p. 8). As evidenced by our results,
the mounting sophistication and complexity of the
empirics used in family business research is an impor-
tant element that contributes to the overall growth and
legitimacy of the field (Sharma et al., 2012). Indeed,
since empirics influence knowledge accumulation over
time (e.g., Sackett & Larson, 1990; Schriesheim,
Powers, Scandura, Gardiner, & Lankau, 1993), we
expect that family business research will become
increasingly more sophisticated and complex in the
future, drawing ever closer to older and more estab-
lished domains. So, in light of past efforts, we now dis-
cuss our results with an eye to the future. We do so in
two ways. First, we discuss some key challenges, along
with some solutions and exemplary articles, which seem
to generally beleaguer the field; these are summarized in
Table 5. Then, we more specifically discuss empirical
efforts within key topical areas, while also making note
of some opportunities for future research; Table 6 con-
tains a summary of the more refined suggestions
arranged according to the six most commonly researched

Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV TEXARKANA on August 26, 2015
10 Family Business Review 
Table 5.  Key Challenges and Suggestions for Family Business Empirical Research.
Challenges Suggestions
Increase reliability and 1. Continue to use qualitative and
validity of variables and mixed method designs
constructs 2. Clearly define and justify
  constructs
3. Conduct replication or split-
sample studies
4. Develop, use, and compare
alternative, nonbinomial measures
of the family business
 
Improve generalizability of 1.  Use multicountry samples
relationships  2.  Use multi-industry samples
3.  Conduct meta-analytic studies
  4. Conduct replication or split-
sample studies
Better account for the 1. Examine alternative levels of
multilevel nature of analysis, particularly group (i.e.,
family business research  family level) studies
2. Use multilevel research designs
and analytical techniques
 
 
Improve understanding 1.  Use longitudinal designs
of causality among key
constructs 2. Use qualitative designs to better
  understand causal relationships
  3. Address endogeneity concerns
(if necessary) using appropriate
analysis (e.g., two-stage least
squares)
 
 
Incorporate time more 1. Use more panel/repeated-
explicitly into research measures designs
designs 2. Use multilevel techniques with
  time as an explicit level
  3.  Use growth modeling techniques
 
topics in our review. Overall, we wish to advocate for
more criticality and skillful judgment of existing litera-
ture, such that we might depart from some of the more
normative perspectives that dictate family business
research, and consider new research questions, espe-
cially given the availability of more advanced method-
ologies and analytical techniques.
Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV TEXARKANA on August 26, 2015
Exemplary articles
• Brigham, Lumpkin, Payne, and Zachary
(2014)
• Dekker, Lybaert, Steijvers, Depaire,
and Mercken (2013)
•  Distelberg and Blow (2011)
• Chang, Memili, Chrisman,
Kellermanns, and Chua (2009)
•  Björnberg and Nicholson (2007)
•  Klein, Astrachan, and Smyrnios (2005)
•  Dou, Zhang, and Su (2014)
•  Barbera and Hasso (2013)
•  Björnberg and Nicholson (2012)
• O’Boyle, Pollack, and Rutherford
(2012)
•  Kotlar and De Massis (2013)
• Laspita, Breugst, Heblich, and Patzelt
(2012)
•  Dawson (2011)
•  Smyrnios et al. (2003)
• Michael-Tsabari, Labaki, and Zachary
(2014)
• Eddleston, Kellermanns, Floyd,
Crittenden, and Crittenden (2013)
•  Molly, Laveren, and Deloof (2010)
•  Steijvers and Voordeckers (2009)
•  Anderson and Reeb (2004)
•  Allison, McKenny, and Short (2014)
•  Miller, Minichilli, and Corbetta (2013)
•  Wilson, Wright, and Scholes (2013)
•  Muske and Fitzgerald (2006)
Research Design and Methods
As noted in the “Results” section, the presence of more
empirical studies has significantly increased over time.
We find this to be encouraging because it suggests that
the field of family business has advanced toward more
construct development and theory testing. While theory
building is necessary and desirable (e.g., Chua, Chrisman,
Evert et al. 11

Table 6.  Selected Empirical Research Opportunities Involving Family Business.

Possible methods for exploring
Topic Empirical research opportunities each opportunity

Management of the firm Determine the causal mechanisms between cognitive patterns, decision Conjoint analysis and causal
making, and strategic choices in family business mapping
  Understanding the motives, preferences, and values involved in making Laboratory experiments;
strategic decisions that affect either the family or the business ethnography
  Examine differences in how individuals, families, and organizations, affect Multilevel multivariate techniques
strategic decision-making processes and choices
Business performance Understand how nonfinancial measures (e.g., socioemotional wealth) Random coefficient modeling
and growth accruing (over time) among individual family members relate to family firm
performance efforts and outcomes
  Develop and validate nonfinancial construct scales, such as sustainability, Confirmatory factor analysis
social responsibility, organizational virtue, or familiness
  Explore how changes in management or ownership influences financial and/ Longitudinal techniques; event
or nonfinancial performance over time history analysis
  Examine the growth and/or decay in performance following a Growth modeling techniques
transformational event such as an organizational crisis (e.g., economic
downturn, death of CEO, scandal)
Characteristics and Statistical tests to analyze if special or unique attributes of family firms Hierarchical linear modeling
attributes moderate the relationship between individual nonfamily variables and
team performance
  Explore how distinct characteristics that link families and their firms Cluster analysis; fuzzy set/
generalize to other organizational forms and contexts qualitative comparative analysis
  Create new typologies to identify antecedents of family firm characteristics Qualitative methods
that address why certain attributes and characteristics are imprinted on
family businesses
  Examine how characteristics and attributes of founding family members Within-and-between-entity
relate to the espousal of certain strategic orientations by the family analysis
business
Interpersonal family Test if certain combinations of family systems might explain inconclusive Structural equations modeling
dynamics findings regarding the nature, causes, and implications of different types of
conflict
  Identify and examine ways family businesses cultivate “familiness” and family Perceptual maps using
capital toward the attainment of business goals multidimensional scaling;
network analysis
  Explore the link between relationships within groups of family business Cluster analysis of homogeneous
owners or managers, and if these dynamics inside the family vary across subgroups within families
generations
Governance Assess how levels effects are attributed to variance in governance Random coefficient modeling
structures between families
  Examine the “unseen” nature of relational systems of governance unique Mixed method approaches
to family firms by incorporating qualitative conceptual frameworks into
governance-related phenomena (e.g., board characteristics, CEO duality,
and executive perspectives)
  Examine governance groups (e.g., top management teams, boards of Moderated regression
directors) from a team’s perspective to determine the relationship
between team effectiveness and family firm outcomes
Succession Explore concepts of intention, goals, and influence of family members and Qualitative methods
their effect on succession
  Examine family firm strategy and structures in tests of succession processes Structural equations modeling
  Track the effects of nonfamily members on family firm succession events Longitudinal techniques
and nonfinancial performance
  Link temporal perceptions, orientation, and style of family members at the Multivariate analysis of archival
individual, firm, and industry levels to succession outcomes data

Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV TEXARKANA on August 26, 2015
12 Family Business Review 
& Steier, 2003), the field does appear to be building con-
sensus around some key theories (e.g., agency theory,
socioemotional wealth, stakeholder theory) and topics
(e.g., succession, governance) that serve as a foundation
for the field (Litz et al., 2012). While we did not find any
significant change in qualitative studies over time in
FBR, we do wish to note that qualitative studies represent
a key method for researchers to not only answer impor-
tant research questions but also to develop new questions
(Reay & Zhang, 2014). Hence, we wish to encourage
family business researchers to continue to conduct quali-
tative research studies, particularly those, such as eth-
nographies, that help us better understand the nuances of
the family (e.g., kinship) and associated relationships
within the business (Stewart, 2014).
In her editorial, Reay (2014) notes that qualitative
articles can vary widely, and offers several suggestions
for publishing high-quality qualitative research. Her
suggestions include (1) ensuring access to sufficient,
high-quality data, (2) setting up an appropriate research
question to guide the article, (3) grounding the study in
the relevant literature, (4) explaining the methods and
showing your work, (5) telling an intriguing empirical
story, (6) telling a convincing theoretical story, and (7)
showing a clear contribution to the family business lit-
erature. We support these suggestions, and also note that
these same considerations should be applied to quantita-
tive research as well. Furthermore, we also encourage
more mixed methods approaches as they help “provide
the triangulation basis for convergence” (McGrath &
Brindberg, 1984, p. 116). For example, Björnberg and
Nicholson (2012) use strong qualitative methods, along
with a subsequent quantitative analysis, to establish an
intriguing story regarding the role of emotional owner-
ship in the relationship between the next generation and
the family firm.
Archival data, which include information obtained
from documents such as 10K reports, analyst reports,
directories, and memos, have increasingly been used in
family business research. While archival sources are
often inexpensive, provide oft-needed power, offer more
generalizability, and allow for temporal application,
these sources present key challenges as well. The most
notable problems are associated with reliability, because
of missing or inaccurate data, and internal validity,
where available information does not exactly match up
to the desired construct. For instance, family business
scholars often lament the common and ongoing
Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV TEXARKANA on August 26, 2015
difficulty associated with identifying and measuring
family businesses (Chua, Chrisman, & Sharma, 1999;
Westhead & Cowling, 1998). Even with a clear defini-
tion to guide efforts, such as
a business governed and/or managed with the intention to
shape and pursue the vision of the business held by a
dominant coalition controlled by members of the same
family or a small number of families in a manner that is
potentially sustainable across generations of the family or
families (Chua et al., 1999, p. 25)
there are numerous ways to operationalize the defini-
tion. Indeed, the real difficulty lies in measuring the
various intangible attributes that are associated with a
given definition—including intention, dominant coali-
tion, and vision—and serve as important distinguishing
factors that separate family businesses from nonfamily
businesses.
There is a growing recognition that family businesses
are heterogeneous (Naldi, Nordqvist, Sjöberg, &
Wiklund, 2007) and that variance within family firms
merits more refined examination (Astrachan & Shanker,
2003). Indeed, Chua, Chrisman, Steier, and Rau (2012)
note that a greater focus on within-group differences of
family businesses and away from simply comparing
family businesses and nonfamily businesses is a logical
and necessary step for the advancement for the field.
The use of continuous variables instead of binomial
variables will aid studies that focus on within-group dif-
ferences of family businesses. For example, develop-
ment of the Family Influence on Power, Experience and
Culture Scale takes a strong step in the right direction
(S. B. Klein, Astrachan, & Smyrnios, 2005). Furthermore,
Holt, Rutherford, and Kuratko’s (2010) efforts to
develop the Family Influence on Power, Experience and
Culture Scale through replication and extension, includ-
ing tests of convergent validity, exemplifies the type of
scale development that is much needed in family busi-
ness research. Therefore, following Pearson, Holt, and
Carr’s (2014) arguments, we encourage more efforts to
attend to issues of construct validity and reliability in
family business research, but particularly in terms of
how the family and its influences are accounted for
across a highly heterogeneous group of firms.
The positive trend of archival data use is partially
driven by the difficulties associated with gathering pri-
mary data about family businesses, which are often
Evert et al. 13
privately held and resistant to providing confidential
information about the business (Neubauer & Lank,
1998). As a field, since we want to avoid overreliance on
any one type of sample (e.g., large, publicly traded com-
panies), it seems that more creative approaches to data
gathering and methods are needed. As an example of
innovative ways to assess information, we acknowledge
McKenny, Short, Zachary, and Payne’s (2011) utiliza-
tion of content analysis of organizational narratives to
examine privately held family firms; specifically, they
gathered and analyzed 77 “about us” website texts and
163 press releases from 93 companies to assess com-
pany goals. As another creative example, Herrero (2011,
p. 893) combined individual-/family-, firm- (i.e., fishing
vessel), and census-level data to examine the effects of
agency costs on efficiency in a sample of “fishing firms”
over a 9-year period. Overall, in an effort to reduce the
possibility of inappropriate or inaccurate implications
becoming generally accepted by the field, a variety of
data sources and methodologies are ideal.
FBR studies using longitudinal designs have increased,
which is encouraging since longitudinal approaches aid in
the testing of causal relationships between constructs and
variables (Litz et al., 2012). For instance, Craig and Moores
(2006) used surveys, delivered at 10-year intervals, to
investigate the relationship between shifting leadership and
innovation in family firms; they noted that more protracted
time periods between initial and follow-up surveys are
required to examine changes in innovation. Despite
increases in longitudinal approaches, cross-sectional
designs remain an important and useful aspect in family
business research. Brockhaus (2004) asserted that cross-
sectional studies continue to dominate the field because of
three key reasons. First, it is already difficult to get family
businesses to participate in any study, let alone studies that
require responses over multiple time periods. Second, fam-
ily businesses often fail, making it difficult to obtain met-
rics that are not subject to severe survival bias. Third, the
“publish or perish” environment encourages researchers to
conduct studies that can be published quickly (i.e., cross-
sectional) in lieu of studies that are more complex and take
a longer period to conduct (i.e., longitudinal). Given these
understandable concerns, we remain adamant that efforts
converging on more longitudinal studies are necessary for
the field to continue to progress toward a more thorough
understanding of family business. Furthermore, as dis-
cussed in more detail below, we advocate for inquiries that
account for time explicitly (Sharma, Salvato, & Reay,
2014).
Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV TEXARKANA on August 26, 2015
One noteworthy finding involves the lack of FBR stud-
ies examining multiple levels of analysis in ways that parti-
tion the effects of each level. In FBR, while we observe a
significant increase in these studies over time (r = .38;
p < .05), we also observe this same trend in the comparative
sample (r = .58; p < .01). Given the inherent nested nature
of organizations—individuals within groups (i.e., the fam-
ily), groups within organizations, and so forth (Aguinis,
Dalton, Bosco, Pierce, & Dalton, 2011; Hitt, Beamish,
Jackson, & Mathieu, 2007) —multilevel theory develop-
ment and testing is a particularly fruitful area to explore
(McKenny et al., 2014). Furthermore, scholars have called
for more multilevel testing for some time (e.g., Chrisman
et al., 2007; K. J. Klein, Tosi, & Cannella, 1999). We did
note, however, some cross-level research (which may be
considered a type of multilevel approach), where variables
or constructs at one level are examined in relation to vari-
ables or constructs at a different level (Kozlowski & Klein,
2000). For instance, Huybrechts, Voordeckers, and Lybaert
(2012) studied the influence of CEO tenure (individual
level) on the family versus nonfamily levels of entrepre-
neurial risk taking (organizational level). While such
research may contribute greatly to our understanding of
family businesses, such studies must be approached
carefully, both theoretically and methodologically. In par-
ticular, misspecification—misalignment between concep-
tualization and measurement—is a key problematic issue
in mixed-level studies where measurement at one level is
used to represent a construct conceptualized at a different
level (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000).
In both FBR and non-FBR articles reviewed here, a
positive sampling trend is the significant increase in
studies using non-U.S.-only (i.e., international) sam-
ples; increased sampling diversity is essential to devel-
oping generalizability and establishing global
applicability. For example, we advocate more studies
like Micelotta and Raynard (2011), which examined
corporate brand identity strategies using websites of 92
of the world’s oldest family firms covering 16 nations.
However, the sampling trends described in our results
suggest that scholars tend to sample from single coun-
tries, as opposed to multiple countries. In fact, we
noted just 22 FBR studies (only 7% of the sampled
articles) used samples from more than one nation.
Additionally, research efforts need to extend to less
developed economies. Currently, the large majority of
research is based on highly developed and modernized
economies (e.g., Australia, Germany, Italy, Spain, the
United States). For an exception, see Fahed-Sreih and
14 Family Business Review 
Djoundourian’s (2006) exploratory study of the deter-
minants of longevity and success in Lebanese family
businesses.
Whereas advancements are being made in terms of
international samples, more attention to cross-border
and internationally comparative issues would be pre-
ferred. Specifically, we argue that more critical con-
sideration must be given to how studies contribute to
our overall understanding of family business in
general—apart from basic contextual differences. We
are encouraged, though, by large-scale research efforts
such as the STEP (Successful Transgenerational
Entrepreneurship Practices) project, which is a col-
laboration of affiliated researchers to explore the
entrepreneurial process in family businesses on a
global basis. Likewise, Gupta and Levenburg (2010),
through employment of nine cross-cultural dimen-
sions of family business from the CASE (Culturally
Sensitive Assessment Systems and Education) project,
provided an exemplary study in their exploration of
cross-cultural variations in family businesses. Through
such efforts, we can not only better understand family
businesses in general but also more fully address the
contingencies associated with the various family busi-
ness phenomena in question.
Analytical Techniques
Language ambiguity was a problematic issue with the
reporting of statistical techniques; it was often difficult
to determine the exact nature of the analysis procedure.
As a basic example, several studies made explicit claims
that regression was used to test hypotheses but on closer
examination of the results, more specific types of regres-
sion were actually used (e.g., hierarchical, stepwise).
Though this example is a seemingly minor concern, it
exemplifies the overall lack of precision for many of the
studies, particularly with regard to statistical procedures.
Accordingly, as a simple suggestion for future research,
more effort in terms of clarity and completeness is
needed in the presentation of information. Indeed, as
statistical sophistication and complexity increases, the
fundamental need for clarity is all the more important
because the ability to fully understand, and even repli-
cate, empirics is necessary for the field to progress.
While FBR has made substantial strides in its applica-
tion of more advanced statistical techniques, such as hier-
archical regression, SEM, and panel analysis, there were
important techniques that, while underrepresented, are
Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV TEXARKANA on August 26, 2015
important for discussion due to their potential utility.
First, generalized method-of-moments (GMM) was used
in several studies, primarily as a robustness check. GMM
is a statistical modeling procedure that allows researchers
to address endogeneity emerging from multiple sources,
such as reverse causality and unobservable heterogeneity
(Wintoki, Linck, & Netter, 2012). Specifically, GMM
“uses internal instruments . . . that are based on lagged
values of the explanatory variables that may present prob-
lems of endogeneity” (Sacristan-Navarro, Gomez-Anson,
& Cabeza-Garcia, 2011, p. 82). A similar technique typi-
cally used to address endogeneity concerns, two-stage
least squares, was used sparingly in FBR (e.g., Steijvers &
Voordeckers, 2009), whereas two-stage least squares
appeared in eight non-FBR studies (out of 146 articles).
For example, Eddleston, Kellermanns, Floyd, Crittenden,
and Crittenden (2013) used two-stage least squares
because of the possibility of reverse causality between
two types of planning (strategic and succession) and firm
growth. Finally, Bayesian analysis offers the ability to
account for family firm heterogeneity while using small
and skewed samples (Block, Miller, & Wagner, 2014).
Another underrepresented, yet potentially useful,
technique was meta-analysis. In our sample of 465 fam-
ily business empirical articles, we only identified one
meta-analytic study. Meta-analysis is useful in that it
integrates conflicting statistical findings across studies
“to reveal the simpler patterns of relationships that
underlie research literatures, thus providing a basis for
theory development” (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004, p. 17).
Additionally, the prevalence of meta-analytic studies
can be a signal that a field has achieved a greater degree
of maturity and growing consensus with respect to key
definitions, the operationalization of key constructs, and
its nomological network (Cogliser & Brigham, 2004;
Reichers & Schneider, 1990). The meta-analytic study,
O’Boyle, Pollack, and Rutherford (2012), serves as a
strong example of how meta-analysis might be used in
family business research.2 Given that family business
research has seen a large number of studies on a com-
mon phenomenon, we believe that there are several
opportunities to use meta-analysis techniques to sort out
conflicting or ambiguous findings. Furthermore, we
would expect the number of meta-analytic studies to
increase as the family business field matures.
Earlier, we noted that studies conducted under mul-
tiple levels of analysis are lacking. From a statistical
standpoint, software packages (e.g., SAS, STATA, R)
with the ability to analyze multiple levels of analysis are
Evert et al. 15
more readily available and more easily used than ever
before. Hence, we encourage scholars to consider what
research questions might now be asked that up until
recently could not be answered because appropriate
techniques were not available. Indeed, random coeffi-
cient modeling, also referred to as mixed-effects model-
ing or hierarchical linear modeling, is a particularly
useful technique because it allows researchers to under-
stand how relationships might differ across groupings,
but does not rely on the same assumptions as traditional
linear approaches (Bliese, 2002). One exemplar of mul-
tilevel modeling applied to the family firm context is
Dawson (2011), which analyzed private equity invest-
ment decisions, controlling for the nested nature of data
decisions within private equity professionals, who in
turn are nested in private equity firms.
Finally, while time-related variables such as long-
term orientation (Brigham, Lumpkin, Payne, & Zachary,
2014) have been introduced to the literature, we identi-
fied few studies that explicitly accounted for time. As
stated by Sharma et al. (2014, p. 10), such studies “are
exceptions rather than the norm.” Hence, time, as a level
of analysis, is a key component in numerous family busi-
ness phenomena and should be included in more empiri-
cal analysis (e.g., Sharma et al., 2014). Indeed, the
complex nature of time and its effects on organizations
has led to the development of a variety of empirical
approaches including hazard modeling (Bronnenberg &
Mela, 2004), growth modeling (Bliese & Ployhart,
2002), and discontinuous change modeling (Singer &
Willett, 2003). Taken together, time represents part of a
new empirical frontier, which has great potential to
inform the field of family business, enabling researchers
to address novel and more complex research questions.
Empirical Issues and Opportunities by Topic
While we have discussed more general empirical trends
and challenges associated with family business research,
we recognize the variety of topics in family business
research and how each area may differ in their employ-
ment and needs with regard to empirics (Sharma et al.,
2012). As previously mentioned and summarized in
Table 6, the six most prominent topics in order, were
management of the firm, business performance and
growth, characteristics and attributes, interpersonal fam-
ily dynamics, governance, and succession. While many
other topics exist, we limit our discussion to this group
for parsimony purposes and because there was
Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV TEXARKANA on August 26, 2015
a substantial decrease in popularity to the next topic
(family firms in international contexts). However, it is
remarkable that these groupings closely resemble the
clusters and numerical taxonomy developed by Yu et al.
(2012), which was based on categorized outcome vari-
ables. Overall, our goal in this section is not to fully
review the hundreds of studies associated with these
topics, but to briefly point toward some future directions
with regard to empirics. For a comprehensive examina-
tion of many of the most prominent topics in family
business research, see Melin, Nordqvist, and Sharma’s
(2014) edited book.
Management of the Firm. Articles classified under this
topic categorization—following Kelly, Athanassiou, and
Crittenden (2000) —include studies on strategic processes
(i.e., the steps that firms use to assess or reassess organiza-
tional missions, goals, external environment, available
resources, and commitment to their strategic vision), con-
tent (i.e., an organization’s strategic orientation and deci-
sions made about explicit actions across organizational,
competitive, and functional contexts), and implementation
(i.e., how decisions are executed and evaluated). Accord-
ingly, the management of the firm topic appeared 185
times (40%) in our sample—the most common of any
topic. Management of the firm drew mostly from agency
(22%) and family (12%) theories, followed by the
resource-based view (7%), socioemotional wealth (SEW),
and stewardship theories (6% each). Given SEW’s recent
emergence, along with its ability to depict “the uniqueness
of the family firms’ identity through the consideration of
noneconomic factors” (Berrone, Cruz, & Gomez-Mejia,
2012, p. 269) we expect its overall use to increase signifi-
cantly in the coming years. General linear models (e.g.,
analysis of variance [ANOVA], regression analysis)
appeared commonly (44%) in these particular articles, fol-
lowed by utilization of basic statistics (i.e., descriptive sta-
tistics and correlations; 24%) and test of mean differences
(21%). Notably, the use of general linear models has
increased from 23% in the 1988-1996 period, to 63% over
the 2006-2014 period.
The large majority of the articles within this topical
area examine management differences, in terms of
content, process, and implementation, in a compara-
tive way (i.e., testing for differences between family
and nonfamily firms). For example, Daily and
Dollinger (1992) found several structural, process,
and strategic differences—assessed using Miles and
Snow’s (1978) typology—between firms managed by
16 Family Business Review 
family and nonfamily members. Likewise, in their
study on strategic site location decisions, Kahn and
Henderson (1992) found that the imprint of family
systems led family firms to be more concerned with
proximity to residence, whereas nonfamily firms seek
locations that minimize facilities and employment
cost.
While comparative studies regarding the management
of family versus nonfamily businesses have remained
consistently popular, they have also seen increased empir-
ical rigor and complexity. For instance, though no differ-
ence was supported, Gudmundson, Hartman, and Tower
(1999) used multifactor ANOVAs to test the relationship
between organizational variables (i.e., family business
status, market type, and product type) and strategic orien-
tations of family and nonfamily firms. Additionally, after
using cluster analysis to group features of the respondents
and their businesses, Littunen (2003) used one-way
ANOVA and logistic regression to compare strategic fac-
tors and style of management between 134 Finnish family
and nonfamily firms. A more recent exemplar is found in
Chrisman and Patel’s (2012) comparative study of R&D
investment strategies, which examined panel data on 964
manufacturing family and nonfamily firms using fixed-
effects Tobit regression.
Given the breadth and scope of this topic, we are gen-
erally encouraged by the extent of rigor being used in
more recent studies. However, some empirical gaps
remain. In particular, more work is needed to reveal the
mechanisms through which the family influences the
business such that valuable resources and capabilities
are developed (e.g., Habbershon & Williams, 1999;
Habbershon, Williams, & MacMillan, 2003). Indeed,
because the traditional delineation between strategic
content and process tends to blur in family firms (Salvato
& Corbetta, 2013), this topic is necessarily intertwined
and broad. Within this purview, however, strategic deci-
sion-making has received significant attention and
serves as a good point of discussion with regard to
empirical issues.
While various methodologies have been used to
examine decision making, the most common in family
business research are surveys (e.g., Romano, Tanewski,
& Smyrnios, 2001). Although surveys have significantly
advanced family business research, they (along with
case studies) involve post hoc data collection, which
often results in recall bias and revisionism (Golden,
1992). However, archival data are generally limited in
their ability to capture decision-making processes and
Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV TEXARKANA on August 26, 2015
tie them to specific outcomes, and experiments often
lack context specificity, which is important to family
businesses in particular. Overall, it seems particularly
difficult to partial out the decision processes from the
content and the context of the decision for use in under-
standing family business decision making. As an exem-
plar of a study that overcomes many challenges, we note
Koropp, Kellermanns, Grichnik, and Stanley’s (2014)
study that uses a two-part, time-lagged survey design
and SEM to analyze the impact of motivational elements
(i.e., perception of family norms, attitudes, and percep-
tions of behavioral control) on the financial decision-
making process in family firms.
The challenges associated with studying decision
making in family businesses suggest multiple opportu-
nities for future research. For instance, we identified no
studies in our sample using causal mapping and just two
articles using conjoint analysis. The exceptions include
Dawson (2011) and Shepherd and Zacharakis’s (2000)
investigation of decision making by potential family
business leaders under different succession structures.
Overall, conjoint studies, following more extensive use
in the entrepreneurship literature (e.g., Drover, Wood, &
Payne, 2014), should be given more consideration
because of their ability to avoid the recall bias and post
hoc rationalization commonly associated with surveys
(Lohrke, Holloway, & Woolley, 2010; Shepherd &
Zacharakis, 1999). Likewise, we suggest future research
might leverage recent interest in conceptual frameworks
developed within family psychology (von Schlippe &
Schneewind, 2014) to capitalize on cognitive mapping’s
ability to generate representations of various cognitive
structures used by family and nonfamily members in
strategizing activities (e.g., Salvato & Corbetta, 2013).
We also noted a lack of decision-making studies con-
ducted in laboratory settings. While experiments in labo-
ratory settings often receive criticism for not replicating
the true thought processes of executives (Maule &
Hodgkinson, 2002), there are many opportunities to tease
out how family considerations influence business deci-
sions. For example, researchers could use experiments to
investigate the concept of SEW (e.g., Berrone et al.,
2012; Zellweger, Kellermanns, Chrisman, & Chua,
2012) to frame decisions as a choice between alternatives
that would either (1) diminish economic risk but lead to
a loss of SEW or (2) protect the family’s SEW.
Finally, Sharma (2004) alluded that a true under-
standing of strategic processes in family firms must con-
sider different levels of analysis. Indeed, “familiness”
Evert et al. 17
can manifest as a “source of strategic competence (dis-
tinctive) or encumbrance (constrictive)” in the manage-
ment of family firms (Sharma, 2004, p. 21). Given this,
and the innate multilevel nature of individual perspec-
tives and group social processes through which family
influence is imposed on organizational strategy deci-
sions (e.g., McKenny et al., 2014), we think studies
related to family business management could benefit
from more robust use of appropriate techniques to test
multilevel models. Throughout this review and despite
research designs advanced by scholars that commonly
measured variables of interest across multiple levels,
multilevel effects were seldom addressed conceptually
or empirically. Indeed, this trend has emerged in the face
of increased numbers of techniques that allow for the
application of multilevel principles and data (Bliese,
Chan, & Ployhart, 2007; Payne, Moore, Griffis, & Autry,
2011). One notable exception that has used these more
rigorous analysis tools is Dawson’s (2011) use of hierar-
chical linear modeling to analyze the nested nature of
private equity decisions in family firms.
Business Performance and Growth.  Generally viewed as
how organizations perform from financial and nonfinan-
cial perspectives, business performance and growth was
the second most prevalent topic in our sample, appear-
ing 180 times. Within this category, studies relied pri-
marily on agency (27%), family (e.g., lifecycle and
systems theories; 13%), and resource-based perspec-
tives (11%). General linear modeling techniques domi-
nated our sample as the most common method of data
analysis (53%). Somewhat expected, our review indi-
cates that early performance literature was characterized
by a desire to establish if family firms do, in fact, per-
form differently than their nonfamily counterparts (e.g.,
Donckels & Frohlich, 1991; McCollom, 1988). More
nuanced investigations of family firm performance and
growth appeared as our review progressed. Generally,
research on family firm performance has been mixed
with some studies finding that family firms outperform
(e.g., Anderson & Reeb, 2003; Villalonga & Amit,
2006), underperform (e.g., Claessens, Djankov, Fan, &
Lang, 2002; Morck & Yeung, 2004), or do not differ
from the performance of their nonfamily equivalents
(Miller, Le Breton-Miller, Lester, & Cannella, 2007).
Indeed, O’Boyle et al. (2012) advanced the field toward
a potential resolution of the debate focused on family
versus nonfamily financial performance. Their meta-
analysis of 78 articles found that family involvement did
Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV TEXARKANA on August 26, 2015
not significantly affect firms’ financial performance;
nonsignificance was also illustrated with potential mod-
erating influences of multiple conceptual and method-
ologically based variables.
Given this general equivocality of the findings regard-
ing financial performance, there are two key areas for
future research with respect to empirics. First, there is the
need for additional nonfinancial outcome measures that
can help in better understanding how family firms differ
from nonfamily firms and each other (O’Boyle et al.,
2012). For instance, Dyer and Whetten (2006) demon-
strate that family businesses, because of their image and
reputation concerns, act more socially responsible than
nonfamily businesses. However, as detailed in Table 6,
along with the development of new measures comes the
need to consider construct validity and reliability (e.g.,
Brigham et al., 2014). Future opportunities for the devel-
opment of scales can be pursued in research in the areas
of business sustainability (e.g., Olson et al., 2003), social
responsibility (e.g., Marques, Presas, & Simon, 2014),
organizational virtue (e.g., Payne, Brigham, Broberg,
Moss, & Short, 2011), or familiness (e.g., Rutherford,
Kuratko, & Holt, 2008).
As a second area for future research within the busi-
ness performance and growth topic, there is a need to
more explicitly consider the role of time (Sharma et al.,
2014). Although this topic has seen a greater presence of
longitudinal data (e.g., Barbera & Hasso, 2013) and the
use of panel data (e.g., Moss, Payne, & Moore, 2014),
there was a noted absence of more advanced longitudi-
nal techniques related to repeated measures and growth
modeling. Furthermore, we noted a lack of attention to
potential causality issues. In some cases, it was unclear
whether or not performance and growth was a cause or
an effect of family firm structures and processes, bring-
ing endogeneity concerns into play. Kowalewski,
Talavera, and Stetsyuk’s (2010) work serves as an exem-
plary article by using GMM to address the ownership-
performance endogeneity issue. In sum, because of
issues related to causality and the inherently longitudi-
nal nature of family business growth and performance,
we see abundant future empirical opportunities involv-
ing time and temporality.
Characteristics and Attributes.  We classified 150 articles
under the topic of characteristics and attributes, which
refers to the distinguishing features or qualities of a per-
son, group, or organization (Koiranen, 2002). Nearly
35% of these studies relied on general linear models,
18 Family Business Review 
with an additional 27% using mean difference tests and
23% drawing on basic statistical techniques. Although
family theories (19%) and agency theory (10%) were
prominent in this part of our sample, we did note that
41% of these particular studies contained no apparent
theoretical foundation or dominant perspective. This
coincides with the descriptive nature of many of the
early attribute studies that often hypothesized about who
might be considered the most desirable successor in a
family business. In fact, within this topic, we note a
steep decline of studies with no theoretical foundation,
declining from 61% in the 1988-1996 timeframe to just
11% in the 2006-2014 period.
Heeding original calls for confirmatory attribute
research made by Wortman (1994) and Handler (1992),
Chrisman, Chua, and Sharma (1998) used exploratory
testing, including t tests and ANOVAs, among 485 family
business managers to rate the relative perceived impor-
tance of successor attributes. In a similar vein, Smyrnios,
Tanewski, and Romano (1998) identified a set of broad
traits using factor analysis and the development of a reli-
able and valid measure of family business. More recent
characteristic and attribute work is still seeking to resolve
imperfect measurements of various family business con-
structs. For example, using a transaction-cost perspective,
Royer, Simons, Boyd, and Rafferty (2008) developed and
tested a theoretical model—using exploratory factor anal-
ysis and confirmatory factor analysis —to investigate
whether the merits of an internal or external successor
depends, in part, on the characteristics of the potential
successor. More recently, De Massis, Chirico, Kotlar, and
Naldi (2014) used hierarchical multiple regression in
finding a cubical relationship between firm age and pro-
activeness in family businesses. Qualitative work has
yielded findings within this topic as well; Lambrecht’s
(2005) analysis of 10 case studies uses entrepreneurial
characteristics and education, in part, to build theoretical
explanations about why generational succession succeeds
in one family while failing in another. Additionally, Vera
and Dean (2005), through structured qualitative inter-
views, provide insights on gender issues from their study
on how daughters experience the succession process.
As a line of inquiry, family business research on char-
acteristics and attributes is in need of a reawakening,
both conceptually and empirically. We optimistically
note that the research questions proposed by scholars
became more advanced over time, typically involving
the influence of individual-level attributes on firm-level
outcomes; the proliferation of testing this basic
Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV TEXARKANA on August 26, 2015
relationship was recently augmented by calls for deeper
studies of family systems variables in order to “better
understand why, when, and how its characteristics (and)
attributes are likely to influence the behaviors and per-
formance of family firms” (Sharma et al., 2012, p. 10).
Indeed, the innately nested nature of characteristics and
attributes (i.e., individual characteristics and attributes
are nested in families, which are nested in organizations)
is deserving of more scholarly attention, particularly
since families can also impose their influence at other
levels of analysis such as interorganizational (e.g., net-
works) or environmental (McKenny et al., 2014).
Echoing similar calls in other domains (e.g., Hitt et al.,
2007; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000), we suggest a need for
family business scholars to advance family-related char-
acteristics and attributes by explicitly accounting for the
nested nature of these characteristics at various levels
and how each level affects family business outcomes
differently.
Interpersonal Family Dynamics. Interpersonal family
dynamics research appeared 133 times (29%) in our
review. Studies classified under this topic examine the
interactions and involvement among family members,
such as conflict and disagreement, that occur in the
course of running a family business (Sonfield & Lussier,
2004), Of these, nearly half were published in the last
9-year period of our sampling timeframe (2006-2014),
which demonstrates a growing scholarly interest in this
already strong topic area. Researchers used family
(22%) and agency (16%) theories most often. While the
SEW perspective seems particularly relevant to interper-
sonal family dynamics (Berrone et al., 2012), it was
used in just six articles that addressed this topic, with
four recently appearing in 2014.
Within interpersonal family dynamics studies, the
most common statistical technique used was general lin-
ear models (35%). We found the use of confirmatory
factor analysis, exploratory factor analysis, and reliabil-
ity analysis techniques in 16 articles in this category,
which seems particularly appropriate because processes
associated with family businesses are “largely unseen
patterns created, sustained, and modified by the family”
(Dyer & Dyer, 2009, p. 218). However, some scholars
still seem content with single respondent surveys and
simply summing or averaging items to derive a single
variable. As a result, studies unnecessarily introduce
measurement error into the equations. An exemplar is
Khanin, Turel, and Mahto (2012), which uses SEM,
Evert et al. 19
based on data from multiple respondents, to study fam-
ily business job satisfaction and turnover intentions. In
this article, the authors viewed embeddedness as interor-
ganizational connectedness, measuring it with three
single-item measures of value congruence. We encour-
age more of these types of research efforts that account
for the latent, difficult to measure variables involved
with the dynamics of family businesses.
Our review also points to a potential direction for
future research by exposing limitations in use of interde-
pendence techniques (e.g., network analysis, diffusion
models, multidimensional scaling [MDS]). Although we
found a practical and compelling example of the use of
network analysis (Debicki et al., 2009), this study was
not geared toward family business, but rather family
business research. Hence, there appears to be the need for
broader application of network techniques within the
family dynamics literature. Also, the use of MDS was
limited. A recent exemplar by Morris, Allen, Kuratko,
and Brannon (2010) introduced family business creation
as a “lived through” experience composed of interdepen-
dent events. Although the overall study partitioned per-
ceptions of experiences across more traditional groupings
(i.e., founders, nonfamily managers, and founders of
nonfamily businesses), the use of MDS offered deep
insights by visually approximating patterns of similar
structures among test subjects’ affective experiences.
On its own, the Morris et al. (2010) study also pro-
vides an ample guide for future research, especially as
scholars seek to investigate the extended influence of
interpersonal family dynamics. Prevailing research has
widely studied the outcomes of relationships between
immediate family members, but these interpersonal
dynamics may play a larger role than originally thought.
Perhaps, as Sharma (2004) suggests, individual family
members and the relationships within one generation
may act to bridge a family business with the next gen-
eration. In the same work, she calls for more systematic
study of family business dynasties and transgenerational
sustainability; the overarching point is that family
dynamics transcend traditionally studied relationships
between father and son, or mother and daughter. As
such, and as outlined in Table 6, we cannot think of a
more important topic in which to use qualitative tech-
niques leading to a deeper analysis of interdependence
in and among family businesses. Since techniques that
account for interdependence will ultimately lead to a
greater understanding of family dynamics, they should
also serve as a springboard to interesting opportunities
Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV TEXARKANA on August 26, 2015
for future quantitative research, perhaps even across lev-
els and time, that hopefully result in more predictive,
functional conclusions within the topic.
Governance. Although Mustakallio, Autio, and Zahra
(2002, p. 219) once cautioned that “empirical research
into the governance systems of family firms is scarce,”
our review indicates substantial progress on the topic. In
fact, governance was a key topic in 132 articles, with 77
of those (58%) appearing in the last 9-year period (2006-
2014). For all governance articles, more than half used
some version of general linear modeling and 27%
reported the use of longitudinal data. And while several
articles use mean differences (e.g., t tests) and descrip-
tive statistics (21% and 14%, respectively), there is a
substantial portion (13%) of studies that applied discrete
event methods (e.g., logistic regression, discriminant
analysis). Finally, methodological techniques that
account for heterogeneity and grouping (e.g., cluster
analysis, hierarchical linear modeling) were found in
5% of the articles that addressed governance issues.
Whereas most articles in our sample seemingly used
appropriate methodologies, the variety of approaches
appears narrow. Although regression can serve as an
effective analysis technique, it seems that family business
scholars should branch out from more basic designs to
capture the complexities of ownership and control exclu-
sively found in family businesses—particularly since
governance structures in these settings must reconcile
shared visions within the family while mitigating harmful
conflicts (e.g., Carney, 2005). Indeed, one of the most
unique aspects of family businesses is the multiple roles
that family members often play within the firm (e.g.,
Tagiuri & Davis, 1996); hence, this distinctiveness could
be leveraged with methods that force scholars to ask and
answer more insightful governance questions. For exam-
ple, while Lungeanu and Ward (2012) considered grant-
making practices of family and nonfamily foundations,
their analysis used several ANOVA statistical tests
between these entities. However, because foundations
and boards are typically made up of a blend of unique
(and often related) individuals across various levels of
analysis, the inherently nested nature of their influence
leaves techniques such as ANOVA unable to adequately
account for this variance (e.g., McKenny et al., 2014). As
such, a random coefficients modeling technique may be a
better option for future research of this kind.
Though overall research efforts in family business
governance have made significant gains in recent years
20 Family Business Review 
(Yu et al., 2012), we further emphasize the call by
Mustakallio et al. (2002, p. 219) that governance
research must remain “grounded on the unique charac-
teristics of family firms.” Our review finds that consis-
tently adhering to this principle is challenging for family
business scholars. Indeed, although family businesses
are a highly heterogeneous organizational form (e.g.,
Sharma et al., 2012), many studies attempt to generate
broad governance findings based on survey responses
from an individual executive (e.g., Corbetta &
Montemerlo, 1999). Recognizing the inherent difficul-
ties associated with gathering data on governance, we
suggest that instead of reporting findings derived from
the responses of a single executive within the firm,
future research could take a mixed method approach.
For example, Hatum and Pettigrew (2004) triangulated
archival data with other sources derived from qualitative
methods. As a result, their findings better account for
heterogeneity among the dominant coalition, leading to
more holistic predictions of how governance and owner-
ship are linked to firm growth and, ultimately, a deeper
understanding of organizational flexibility. In sum, to
better capture the heterogeneity of ownership and con-
trol processes within family businesses (e.g., McKenny
et al., 2014), future governance-related research could
benefit from the implementation of similar triangulation
approaches, whereby multiple perspectives are used to
verify and clarify meaning (Jick, 1979).
Succession. Succession, typically drawing from family
theory perspectives, was the sixth most popular topic in
our sample, appearing 113 times. About 34% of these
studies relied on regression-based methods of data analy-
sis. While many articles used more traditional regres-
sions with appropriate assumptions (i.e., normal
distributions, homoscedastic error terms), some studies
implemented more nuanced regression techniques. For
example, logistic regression techniques were used in
studies with succession-related measures serving both as
the dependent variable (e.g., Blumentritt, 2006; Schröder,
Schmitt-Rodermund, & Arnaud, 2011) and the indepen-
dent variable (e.g., Brun de Pontet, Wrosch, & Gagne,
2007). Following regression, some early studies
approached family business succession using basic tech-
niques (21%) including descriptive statistics (e.g., Chau,
1991) or simple correlations (e.g., Fahed-Sreih & Djoun-
dourian, 2006). Also, structural equations modeling (e.g.,
Marshall et al., 2006) and MDS were commonly used
Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV TEXARKANA on August 26, 2015
(e.g., Garcia-Alvarez, Lopez-Sintas, & Gonzalvo, 2002)
within the succession literature.
Because succession is a process ascribed with
numerous activities taking place over a protracted time
period (Handler & Kram, 1988; Ward, 1987), temporal
factors are an inherently important consideration within
this topic. In short, succession takes time (Le Breton-
Miller, Miller, & Steier, 2004; Sharma, Chrisman, &
Chua, 2003). However, while 19% of the data used
were gathered over time (e.g., Gagne, Wrosch, & Brun
de Pontet, 2011), or combining surveys with multiyear
archival data (Minichilli, Nordqvist, Corbetta, &
Amore, 2014), only two used analytical techniques
designed for examining longitudinal data (e.g., panel
data analysis, repeated measures, growth modeling).
The first (Wiklund, Nordqvist, Hellerstedt, & Bird,
2013) combined multiple databases to generate a 4-year
panel of 12,125 firm-year observations, while the sec-
ond study (Molly, Laveren, & Deloof, 2010) examined
the effect of generational transitions on family business
performance and capital structure decisions using an
unbalanced panel of more than 2,000 firm-year obser-
vations. As Molly et al. (2010, p. 139) suggest, “cross-
sectional analysis does not allow controlling for all
time-invariant characteristics that might have an impact
on the firm’s financial structure or performance.”
Moreover, longitudinal designs can “more accurately
identify the pure succession outcomes in a company”
(Molly et al., 2010, p. 139).
Ultimately, while longitudinal techniques are needed in
all aspects of family business research (see Tables 5 and
6), it remains especially salient to succession research—it
is not, in fact, “simply a single step of handing the baton;
it is a multi-staged process that exists over time” (Handler,
1994, p. 134). Thus, we add our voices to an earlier call by
De Massis et al. (2008) and challenge researchers to seek
out data sets that can be analyzed using longitudinal meth-
ods; this ensures succession research advances in a finer
grained manner, effectively ruling out explanations that
are clouded by the disadvantages inherent in cross-sec-
tional methods. More important, an emphasis on longitu-
dinal designs will strengthen claims of causality within the
literature, a challenging proposition for family business
research without relying on random experiments or violat-
ing key statistical assumptions (e.g., Antonakis, Bendahan,
Jacquart, & Lalive, 2010). Last, we noticed a rise in the
number of qualitative studies focused on succession
throughout our review. This is encouraging whereby it
Evert et al. 21
allows scholars to gain a deeper understanding of the
“temporal influences and triggers” that are inherent to the
succession process (Murray, 2003, p. 31), but should be
further examined on a larger scale.
Conclusion
Litz et al. (2012) recently surveyed family business
researchers, gathering their perceptions about the family
business field of study. Two important issues, relevant to
this review, pervaded the advances, opportunities, and
challenges discussed. First, respondents commonly
mentioned not only the validity and reputation of the
field, noting its increase, but also the necessity of con-
tinuing to improve legitimacy relative to adjacent fields.
The second issue commonly mentioned, which is closely
associated with the first, was methods or empirics;
respondents perceived not only substantial progress in
empirics but also noted the need for further improve-
ment. Building on these concerns regarding the field of
family business, the purpose of our review was to docu-
ment FBR’s empirical progress since the journal’s incep-
tion in 1988, juxtaposed with family business research
published in other prestigious business journals.
Specifically from the discussion above, we note general
challenges, and offer up some suggestions, regarding (1)
reliability and validity, (2) generalizability, (3) causality,
(4) temporality, and (5) multilevel considerations. On
the whole, however, we document great improvements
in empirics over time, which has brought about signifi-
cant advancement of the field and legitimacy.
Acknowledgments
We appreciate the helpful comments and suggestions of Keith
H. Brigham and four anonymous reviewers on earlier versions
of this article. We are also grateful to the special issue editorial
team, Jeremy Short, Tom Lumpkin, Allison Pearson, and
Pramodita Sharma for their guidance throughout the process.
John Martin extends special thanks to the Department of
Management at the U.S. Air Force Academy, most specifically
Steve Green, who availed significant department resources for
completion of this project.
Authors’ Note
Opinions, conclusions and recommendations expressed or implied
within are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily repre-
sent the views of the U.S. Air Force Academy, U.S. Air Force, the
Department of Defense, or any other government agency.
Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV TEXARKANA on August 26, 2015
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Notes
1. A complete listing of the reviewed articles is available as
an online appendix (available at http://fbr.sagepub.com/
content/by/supplemental-data).
2. Although not included in our sample of published studies,
we wish to acknowledge the meta-analysis by Carney,
Van Essen, Gedajlovic, and Heugens (2015) that was ini-
tially published online in 2013.
References
Aguinis, H., Dalton, D. R., Bosco, F. A., Pierce, C. A., &
Dalton, C. M. (2011). Meta-analytic choices and judg-
ment calls: Implications for theory building and testing,
obtained effect sizes, and scholarly impact. Journal of
Management, 37, 5-38.
Allison, T. H., McKenny, A. F., & Short, J. C. (2014).
Integrating time into family business research: Using ran-
dom coefficient modeling to examine temporal influences
on family firm ambidexterity. Family Business Review,
27, 20-34.
Anderson, R. C., & Reeb, D. M. (2003). Founding-family
ownership and firm performance: Evidence from the S&P
500. Journal of Finance, 58, 1301-1327.
Anderson, R. C., & Reeb, D. M. (2004). Board composi-
tion: Balancing family influence in S&P 500 firms.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, 209-237.
Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. (2010).
On making causal claims: A review and recommenda-
tions. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 1086-1120.
Astrachan, J. H., & Shanker, M. C. (2003). Family businesses’
contribution to the US economy: A closer look. Family
Business Review, 16, 211-219.
Barbera, F., & Hasso, T. (2013). Do we need to use an accoun-
tant? The sales growth and survival benefits to family
SMEs. Family Business Review, 26, 271-292.
Barnett, T., Eddleston, K., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2009). The
effects of family versus career role salience on the perfor-
mance of family and nonfamily firms. Family Business
Review, 22, 39-52.
Berrone, P., Cruz, C., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2012).
Socioemotional wealth in family firms: Theoretical
22 Family Business Review 
dimensions, assessment approaches, and agenda for future
research. Family Business Review, 25, 258-279.
Bettis, R., Gambardella, A., Helfat, C., & Mitchell, W. (2014).
Quantitative empirical analysis in strategic management.
Strategic Management Journal, 35, 949-953.
Bird, B., Welsch, H., Astrachan, J. H., & Pistrui, D. (2002).
Family business research: The evolution of an academic
field. Family Business Review, 15, 337-350.
Björnberg, Å., & Nicholson, N. (2007). The Family Climate
Scales: Development of a new measure for use in fam-
ily business research. Family Business Review, 20,
229-246.
Björnberg, Å., & Nicholson, N. (2012). Emotional ownership:
The next generation’s relationship with the family firm.
Family Business Review, 25, 374-390.
Bliese, P. D. (2002). Multilevel random coefficient model-
ing in organizational research: Examples using SAS and
S-PLUS. In F. Drasgow, & N. Schmitt (Eds.), Measuring
and analyzing behavior in organizations: Advances in
measurement and data analysis (Vol. 5, pp. 362-387). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bliese, P. D., Chan, D., & Ployhart, R. E. (2007). Multilevel
methods: Future directions in measurement, longitudi-
nal analyses, and nonnormal outcomes. Organizational
Research Methods, 10, 551-563.
Bliese, P. D., & Ployhart, R. E. (2002). Growth modeling
using random coefficient models: Model building, test-
ing, and illustrations. Organizational Research Methods,
5, 362-387.
Block, J. H., Miller, D., & Wagner, D. (2014). Bayesian
methods in family business research. Journal of Family
Business Strategy, 5, 97-104.
Blumentritt, T. (2006). The relationship between boards and
planning in family businesses. Family Business Review,
19, 65-72.
Bowman-Upton, N. (1993). Family-owned home-based
businesses: An interview with Joanne H. Pratt. Family
Business Review, 6, 427-435.
Brigham, K. H., Lumpkin, G. T., Payne, G. T., & Zachary,
M. A. (2014). Researching long-term orientation: A vali-
dation study and recommendations for future research.
Family Business Review, 27, 72-88.
Brockhaus, R. H. (2004). Family business succession:
Suggestions for future research. Family Business Review,
17, 165-177.
Bronnenberg, B. J., & Mela, C. (2004). Market roll-out and
retail adoption for new brands of non-durable goods.
Marketing Science, 23, 500-518.
Brun de Pontet, S., Wrosch, C., & Gagne, M. (2007). An
exploration of the generational differences in levels of
control held among family businesses approaching suc-
cession. Family Business Review, 20, 337-354.
Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV TEXARKANA on August 26, 2015
Carney, M. (2005). Corporate governance and competitive
advantage in family-controlled firms. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 29, 249-265.
Carney, M., Van Essen, M., Gedajlovic, E. R., & Heugens, P.
P. (2015). What do we know about private family firms?
A meta-analytical review. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 39, 513-544.
Chang, E. P., Memili, E., Chrisman, J. J., Kellermanns, F.
W., & Chua, J. H. (2009). Family social capital, venture
preparedness, and start-up decisions: A study of Hispanic
entrepreneurs in New England. Family Business Review,
22, 279-292.
Chau, T. T. (1991). Approaches to succession in East Asian
business organizations. Family Business Review, 4, 161-
179.
Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., Kellermanns, F. W., Matherne,
C. F., & Debicki, B. J. (2008). Management journals
as venues for publication of family business research.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32, 927-934.
Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., & Sharma, P. (1998). Trends and
directions in the development of a strategic management
theory of the family firm. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 29, 555-576.
Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., & Steier, L. (2003). An introduc-
tion to theories of family business. Journal of Business
Venturing, 18, 441-448.
Chrisman, J. J., & Patel, P. C. (2012). Variations in R&D
investments of family and nonfamily firms: Behavioral
agency and myopic loss aversion perspectives. Academy
of Management Journal, 55, 976-997.
Chrisman, J. J., Sharma, P., & Taggar, S. (2007). Family influ-
ences on firms: An introduction. Journal of Business
Research, 60, 1005-1011.
Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., & Sharma, P. (1999). Defining the
family business by behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, 23(4), 19-39.
Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., & Steier, L. P. (2003). Extending
the theoretical horizons of family business research.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27, 331-338.
Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., Steier, L. P., & Rau, S. B. (2012).
Sources of heterogeneity in family firms: An introduction.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36, 1103-1113.
Claessens, S., Djankov, S., Fan, J. P., & Lang, L. H. (2002).
Disentangling the incentive and entrenchment effects of
large shareholdings. Journal of Finance, 57, 2741-2771.
Cogliser, C. C., & Brigham, K. H. (2004). The intersection
of leadership and entrepreneurship: Mutual lessons to be
learned. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 771-799.
Cole, S. (1983). The hierarchy of the sciences? American
Journal of Sociology, 89, 111-139.
Colquitt, J. A., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2007). Trends in
theory building and theory testing: A five-decade study
Evert et al. 23
of the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of
Management Journal, 50, 1281-1303.
Corbetta, G., & Montemerlo, D. (1999). Ownership, gover-
nance, and management issues in small and medium-size
businesses: A comparison of Italy and the United States.
Family Business Review, 12, 361-374.
Correll, R. W. (1989). Facing up to moving forward: A third-
generation successor’s reflections. Family Business
Review, 2, 17-29.
Craig, J. B. L., & Moores, K. (2006). A 10-year longitudinal
investigation of strategy, systems, and environment on
innovation in family firms. Family Business Review, 19,
1-10.
Daily, C. M., & Dollinger, M. J. (1992). An empirical exami-
nation of ownership structure in family and professionally
managed firms. Family Business Review, 5, 117-136.
Dawson, A. (2011). Private equity investment decisions in
family firms: The role of human resources and agency
costs. Journal of Business Venturing, 26, 189-199.
Dean, M. A., Shook, C. L., & Payne, G. T. (2007). The past,
present, and future of entrepreneurship research: Data
analytic trends and training. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 31, 601-618.
Debicki, B., Matherne, C., Kellermanns, F., & Chrisman, J.
(2009). Family business research in the new millennium.
Family Business Review, 22, 151-166.
Dekker, J. C., Lybaert, N., Steijvers, T., Depaire, B., &
Mercken, R. (2013). Family firm types based on the pro-
fessionalization construct: Exploratory research. Family
Business Review, 26, 81-99.
De Massis, A., Chirico, F., Kotlar, J., & Naldi, L. (2014). The
temporal evolution of proactiveness in family firms: The
horizontal s-curve hypothesis. Family Business Review,
27, 35-50.
De Massis, A., Chua, J. H., & Chrisman, J. J. (2008). Factors
preventing intra-family succession. Family Business
Review, 21, 183-199.
Distelberg, B. J., & Blow, A. (2011). Variations in family sys-
tem boundaries. Family Business Review, 24, 28-46.
Donckels, R., & Fröhlich, E. (1991). Are family businesses
really different? European experiences from STRATOS.
Family Business Review, 4, 149-160.
Dou, J., Zhang, Z., & Su, E. (2014). Does family involvement
make firms donate more? Empirical evidence from Chinese
private firms. Family Business Review, 27, 259-274.
Drover, W., Wood, M. S., & Payne, G. T. (2014). The effects
of perceived control on venture capitalist investment deci-
sions: A configurational perspective. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 38, 833-861.
Dyer, W. G., & Dyer, W. J. (2009). Putting the family into
family business research. Family Business Review, 22,
216-219.
Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV TEXARKANA on August 26, 2015
Dyer, W. G., & Sanchez, M. (1998). Current state of fam-
ily business theory and practice as reflected in Family
Business Review 1988-1997. Family Business Review, 11,
287-295.
Dyer, W. G., & Whetten, D. A. (2006). Family firms and
social responsibility: Preliminary evidence from the S&P
500. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30, 785-802.
Eddleston, K. A., Kellermanns, F. W., Floyd, S. W., Crittenden,
V. L., & Crittenden, W. F. (2013). Planning for growth:
Life stage differences in family firms. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 37, 1177-1202.
Fahed-Sreih, J., & Djoundourian, S. (2006). Determinants
of longevity and success in Lebanese family businesses:
An exploratory study. Family Business Review, 19,
225-234.
Gagne, M., Wrosch, C., Brun de, & Pontet, S. (2011). Retiring
from the family business: The role of goal adjustment
capacities. Family Business Review, 24, 292-304.
Garcia-Alvarez, E., Lopez-Sintas, J., & Gonzalvo, P. S.
(2002). Socialization patterns of successors in first- to
second-generation family businesses. Family Business
Review, 15, 189-203.
Gephart, R. P. (2004). Qualitative research and the Academy of
Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal,
47, 454-462.
Golden, B. (1992). The past is the past—Or is it? The use
of retrospective accounts as indicators of past strategy.
Academy of Management Journal, 35, 848-860.
Gudmundson, D., Hartman, E. A., & Tower, C. B. (1999).
Strategic orientation: Differences between family and
nonfamily firms. Family Business Review, 12, 27-39.
Gupta, V., & Levenburg, N. (2010). A thematic analysis of
cultural variations in family businesses: The CASE proj-
ect. Family Business Review, 23, 155-169.
Habbershon, T. G., & Williams, M. L. (1999). A resource-
based framework for assessing the strategic advantages of
family firms. Family Business Review, 12, 1-25.
Habbershon, T. G., Williams, M., & MacMillan, I. C. (2003).
A unified systems perspective of family firm performance.
Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 451-465.
Hambrick, D. C., & Chen, M.-J. (2008). New academic fields
as admittance-seeking movements: The case of strate-
gic management. Academy of Management Review, 33,
32-54.
Handler, W. C. (1992). The succession experience of the next
generation. Family Business Review, 5, 283-307.
Handler, W. C. (1994). Succession in family business: A
review of the research. Family Business Review, 7,
133-157.
Handler, W. C., & Kram, K. E. (1988). Succession in fam-
ily firms: The problem of resistance. Family Business
Review, 1, 361-381.
24 Family Business Review 
Harrison, R., & Leitch, C. (1996). Discipline emergence in
entrepreneurship: Accumulative fragmentalism or para-
digmatic science. Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and
Change, 5(2), 65-83.
Hatum, A., & Pettigrew, A. (2004). Adaptation under envi-
ronmental turmoil: Organizational flexibility in family-
owned firms. Family Business Review, 17, 237-258.
Heck, R. K. Z., & Mishra, C. S. (2008). Family entrepreneur-
ship. Journal of Small Business Management, 46, 313-
316.
Herrero, I. (2011). Agency costs, family ties, and firm effi-
ciency. Journal of Management, 37, 887-904.
Hiller, N., DeChurch, L., Murase, T., & Doty, D. (2011).
Searching for outcomes of leadership: A 25-year review.
Journal of Management, 37, 1137-1177.
Hitt, M. A., Beamish, P. W., Jackson, S. E., & Mathieu, J. E.
(2007). Building theoretical and empirical bridges across
levels: Multilevel research in management. Academy of
Management Journal, 50, 1385-1399.
Holt, D. T., Rutherford, M. W., & Kuratko, D. F. (2010).
Advancing the field of family business research: Further
testing the measurement properties of the F-PEC. Family
Business Review, 23, 76-88.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-
analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Huybrechts, J., Voordeckers, W., & Lybaert, N. (2012).
Entrepreneurial risk taking of private family firms: The
influence of a nonfamily CEO and the moderating effect
of CEO tenure. Family Business Review, 26, 161-179.
Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative meth-
ods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 24, 602-611.
Johnson, M. D., Holley, E. C., Morgeson, F. P., LaBonar, D., &
Stetzer, A. (2014). Outcomes of absence control initiatives:
A quasi-experimental investigation into the effects of policy
and perceptions. Journal of Management, 40, 1075-1097.
Kahn, J. A., & Henderson, D. A. (1992). Location preferences
of family firms: Strategic decision making or “home sweet
home”? Family Business Review, 5, 271-282.
Kelly, L. M., Athanassiou, N., & Crittenden, W. F. (2000).
Founder centrality and strategic behavior in the family-
owned firm. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
25(2), 27-42.
Khanin, D., Turel, O., & Mahto, R. V. (2012). How to increase
job satisfaction and reduce turnover intentions in the fam-
ily firm: The family-business embeddedness perspective.
Family Business Review, 25, 391-408.
Klein, K. J., Tosi, H., & Cannella, A. A. (1999). Multilevel
theory building: Benefits, barriers, and new develop-
ments. Academy of Management Review, 24, 243-
248.
Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV TEXARKANA on August 26, 2015
Klein, S. B., Astrachan, J. H., & Smyrnios, K. X. (2005). The
F-PEC scale of family influence: Construction, valida-
tion, and further implication for theory. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 29, 321-339.
Koiranen, M. (2002). Over 100 years of age but still entre-
preneurially active in business: Exploring the values and
family characteristics of old Finnish family firms. Family
Business Review, 15, 175-187.
Koropp, C., Kellermanns, F. W., Grichnik, D., & Stanley, L.
(2014). Financial decision making in family firms: An
adaptation of the theory of planned behavior. Family
Business Review, 27, 307-327.
Kotlar, J., & De Massis, A. (2013). Goal setting in family
firms: Goal diversity, social interactions, and collective
commitment to family-centered goals. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 37, 1263-1288.
Kowalewski, O., Talavera, O., & Stetsyuk, I. (2010). Influence
of family involvement in management ownership on firm
performance: Evidence from Poland. Family Business
Review, 23, 45-59.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel
approach to theory and research in organizations:
Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J.
Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory,
research and methods in organizations: Foundations,
extensions, and new directions (pp. 3-90). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lambrecht, J. (2005). Multigenerational transition in family
businesses: A new explanatory model. Family Business
Review, 18, 267-282.
Lank, A. G. (1991). Challenging times for European family
enterprises. Family Business Review, 4, 121-125.
Laspita, S., Breugst, N., Heblich, S., & Patzelt, H. (2012).
Intergenerational transmission of entrepreneurial inten-
tions. Journal of Business Venturing, 27, 414-435.
Le Breton-Miller, I., Miller, D., & Steier, I. (2004). Toward
an integrative model of effective FOB succession.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28, 305-328.
Littunen, H. (2003). Management capabilities and environ-
mental characteristics in the critical operational phase
of entrepreneurship: A comparison of Finnish fam-
ily and nonfamily firms. Family Business Review, 16,
183-197.
Litz, R. A., Pearson, A., & Litchfield, S. (2012). Charting the
future of family business research: Perspectives from the
field. Family Business Review, 25, 16-32.
Lohrke, F. T., Holloway, B. B., & Woolley, T. W. (2010).
Conjoint analysis in entrepreneurship research: A review
and research agenda. Organizational Research Methods,
13, 16-30.
Lungeanu, R., & Ward, J. L. (2012). A governance-based
typology of family foundations: The effect of generation
Evert et al. 25
stage and governance structure on family philanthropic
activities. Family Business Review, 25, 409-424.
Marques, P., Presas, P., & Simon, A. (2014). The heterogene-
ity of family firms in CSR engagement: The role of val-
ues. Family Business Review, 27, 206-227.
Marshall, J. P., Sorenson, R., Brigham, K., Wieling, E.,
Reifman, A., & Wampler, R. S. (2006). The paradox for
the family firm CEO: Owner age relationship to succes-
sion-related processes and plans. Journal of Business
Venturing, 21, 348-368.
Maule, A. J., & Hodgkinson, G. P. (2002). Heuristics, biases
and strategic decision making. Psychologist, 15, 68-71.
McCollom, M. (1988). Integration in the family firm: When
the family system replaces controls and culture. Family
Business Review, 1, 399-417.
McGrath, J. E., & Brindberg, D. (1984). Alternative paths
for research: Another view of the basic vs. applied dis-
tinction. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Applied social psychol-
ogy annual (Vol. 5, pp. 109-129). Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
McKenny, A. F., Short, J. C., Zachary, M. A., & Payne, G.
T. (2011). Assessing espoused goals in private family
firms using content analysis. Family Business Review, 25,
298-317.
McKenny, A. F., Payne, G. T., Zachary, M. A., & Short, J. C.
(2014). Multilevel analysis in family business studies. In
L. Melin, M. Nordqvist & P. Sharma (Eds.), SAGE hand-
book of family business (pp. 594-608). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
McLeod, M. S., Payne, G. T., & Evert, R. E. (2014).
Organizational ethics research: A systematic review of
methods and analytical techniques. Journal of Business
Ethics. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s10551-
014-2436-9
Melin, L., Nordqvist, M., & Sharma, P. (Eds.). (2014). SAGE
handbook of family business. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Micelotta, E. R., & Raynard, M. (2011). Concealing or reveal-
ing the family? Corporate brand identity strategies in fam-
ily firms. Family Business Review, 24, 197-216.
Michael-Tsabari, N., Labaki, R., & Zachary, R. K. (2014).
Toward the cluster model: The family firm’s entrepre-
neurial behavior over generations. Family Business
Review, 27, 161-185.
Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational strategy,
structure, and process. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Miller, D., Le Breton-Miller, I., Lester, R. H., & Cannella, A.
A. (2007). Are family firms really superior performers?
Journal of Corporate Finance, 13, 829-858.
Miller, D., Minichilli, A., & Corbetta, G. (2013). Is fam-
ily leadership always beneficial? Strategic Management
Journal, 34, 553-571.
Minichilli, A., Nordqvist, M., Corbetta, G., & Amore, M.
D. (2014). CEO succession mechanisms, organizational
Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV TEXARKANA on August 26, 2015
context, and performance: A socio-emotional wealth
perspective on family-controlled firms. Journal of
Management Studies, 51, 1153-1179.
Molly, V., Laveren, E., & Deloof, M. (2010). Family business
succession and its impact on financial structure and per-
formance. Family Business Review, 23, 131-147.
Morck, R., & Yeung, B. (2004). Family control and the rent
seeking society. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
28, 391-409.
Morris, M. H., Allen, J. A., Kuratko, D. F., & Brannon,
D. (2010). Experiencing family business creation:
Differences between founders, nonfamily managers, and
founders of family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 34, 1057-1084.
Moss, T. W., Payne, G. T., & Moore, C. B. (2014). Strategic
consistency of exploration and exploitation in family
businesses. Family Business Review, 27, 51-71.
Murray, B. (2003). The succession transition process: A lon-
gitudinal perspective. Family Business Review, 16, 17-33.
Muske, G., & Fitzgerald, M. A. (2006). A panel study of
copreneurs in business: Who enters, continues, and exits?
Family Business Review, 19, 193-205.
Mustakallio, M., Autio, E., & Zahra, S. A. (2002). Relational
and contractual governance in family firms: Effects on
strategic decision making. Family Business Review, 15,
205-222.
Naldi, L., Nordqvist, M., Sjöberg, K., & Wiklund, J. (2007).
Entrepreneurial orientation, risk taking, and performance
in family firms. Family Business Review, 20, 33-47.
Neubauer, F., & Lank, A. G. (1998). The family business.
London, England: MacMillan Business.
O’Boyle, E. H., Pollack, J. M., & Rutherford, M. W. (2012).
Exploring the relation between family involvement and
firms’ financial performance: A meta-analysis of main
and moderator effects. Journal of Business Venturing, 27,
1-18.
Olson, P. D., Zuiker, V. S., Danes, S. M., Stafford, K., Heck,
R. K., & Duncan, K. A. (2003). The impact of the fam-
ily and the business on family business sustainability.
Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 639-666.
Payne, G. T., Brigham, K. H., Broberg, J. C., Moss, T. W., &
Short, J. C. (2011). Organizational virtue orientation and
family firms. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21, 257-285.
Payne, G. T., Moore, C. B., Griffis, S. E., & Autry, C. W.
(2011). Multilevel challenges and opportunities in social
capital research. Journal of Management, 37, 491-520.
Pearson, A. W., Holt, D. T., & Carr, J. C. (2014). Scales in
family business studies. In L. Melin, M. Nordqvist, & P.
Sharma (Eds.), SAGE handbook of family business (pp.
551-572). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pfeffer, J. (1993). Barriers to advance of organizational sci-
ence: Paradigm development as a dependent variable.
Academy of Management Review, 18, 599-620.
26 Family Business Review 
Pratt, M. G. (2009). From the editors: For the lack of a
boilerplate: Tips on writing up (and reviewing) quali-
tative research. Academy of Management Journal, 52,
856-862.
Reay, T. (2014). Publishing qualitative research. Family
Business Review, 27, 95-102.
Reay, T., & Zhang, Z. (2014). Qualitative methods in fam-
ily business research. In L. Melin, M. Nordqvist, & P.
Sharma (Eds.), SAGE handbook of family business (pp.
573-593). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Reichers, A. E., & Schneider, B. (1990). Climate and cul-
ture: An evolution of constructs. In B. Schneider (Ed.),
Organizational climate and culture (pp. 5-27). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Rogoff, E. G., & Heck, R. K. Z. (2003). Evolving research in
entrepreneurship and family business: Recognizing fam-
ily as the oxygen that feeds the fire of entrepreneurship.
Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 559-688.
Romano, C. A., Tanewski, G. A., & Smyrnios, K. X. (2001).
Capital structure decision making: A model for family
business. Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 285-310.
Royer, S., Simons, R., Boyd, B., & Rafferty, A. (2008).
Promoting family: A contingency model of family busi-
ness succession. Family Business Review, 21, 15-30.
Rutherford, M. W., Kuratko, D. F., & Holt, D. T. (2008).
Examining the link between “familiness” and perfor-
mance. Can the F-PEC untangle the family business the-
ory of the jungle? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
32, 1089-1109.
Sackett, P. R., & Larson, J. R. (1990). Research strategies and
tactics in industrial and organizational psychology. In M.
D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of indus-
trial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 419-489).
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Sacristan-Navarro, M., Gomez-Anson, S., & Cabeza-Garcia,
L. (2011). Large shareholders’ combinations in family
firms: Prevalence and performance effects. Journal of
Family Business Strategy, 2, 101-112.
Salvato, C., & Corbetta, G. (2013). Transitional leadership
of advisors as a facilitator of successors’ leadership con-
struction. Family Business Review, 26, 235-255.
Schriesheim, C. A., Powers, K. J., Scandura, T. A., Gardiner,
C. C., & Lankau, M. J. (1993). Improving construct mea-
surement in management research: Comments and a quan-
titative approach for assessing the theoretical adequacy of
paper-and-pencil and survey-type instruments. Journal of
Management, 19, 385-417.
Schröder, E., Schmitt-Rodermund, E., & Arnaud, N. (2011).
Career intentions of adolescents with a family business
background. Family Business Review, 24, 305-321.
Sharma, P. (2004). An overview of the field of family busi-
ness studies: Current status and directions for the future.
Family Business Review, 17, 1-36.
Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV TEXARKANA on August 26, 2015
Sharma, P. (2009). Embracing change while preserving the
core. Family Business Review, 22, 6-8.
Sharma, P. (2015). Editor’s notes: 2014—A year in review.
Family Business Review, 28, 4-9.
Sharma, P., Chrisman, J. J., & Chua, J. H. (2003). Succession
planning as planned behavior: Some empirical results.
Family Business Review, 16, 1-15.
Sharma, P., Chrisman, J. J., & Gersick, K. E. (2012). 25 years
of Family Business Review: Reflections on the past and
perspectives for the future. Family Business Review, 25,
5-15.
Sharma, P., Hoy, F., Astrachan, J. H., & Koiranen, M. (2007).
The practice driven evolution of family business educa-
tion. Journal of Business Research, 60, 1012-1021.
Sharma, P., Salvato, C., & Reay, T. (2014). Temporal dimen-
sions of family enterprise research. Family Business
Review, 27, 10-19.
Shepherd, D. A., & Zacharakis, A. (1999). Conjoint analy-
sis: A new methodological approach for researching the
decision policies of venture capitalists. Venture Capital:
An International Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance, 1,
197-217.
Shepherd, D. A., & Zacharakis, A. (2000). Structuring fam-
ily business succession: An analysis of the future leader’s
decision making. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
24(4), 25-40.
Shook, C. L., Ketchen, D. J., Cycyota, C. S., & Crockett, D.
(2003). Data analytic trends and training in strategic man-
agement. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 1231-1237.
Short, J. C., Payne, G. T., & Ketchen, D. J. (2008). Research
on organizational configurations: Past accomplishments
and future challenges. Journal of Management, 34, 1053-
1079.
Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data
analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Smyrnios, K., Tanewski, G., & Romano, C. (1998).
Development of a measure of the characteristics of family
business. Family Business Review, 11, 49-60.
Smyrnios, K. X., Romano, C. A., Tanewski, G. A., Karofsky,
P. I., Millen, R., & Yilmaz, M. R. (2003). Work-family
conflict: A study of American and Australian family busi-
nesses. Family Business Review, 16, 35-51.
Sonfield, M. C., & Lussier, R. N. (2004). First-, second-, and
third-generation family firms: A comparison. Family
Business Review, 17, 189-202.
Steijvers, T., & Voordeckers, W. (2009). Private family own-
ership and the agency costs of debt. Family Business
Review, 22, 333-346.
Stewart, A. (2014). The anthropology of family business: An
imagined ideal. In L. Melin, M. Nordqvist, & P. Sharma
(Eds.), SAGE handbook of family business (pp. 66-82).
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Evert et al. 27
Stewart, A., & Miner, A. S. (2011). The prospects for fam-
ily business in research universities. Journal of Family
Business Strategy, 2, 3-14.
Stone-Romero, E. F., Weaver, A. E., & Glenar, J. L. (1995).
Trends in research design and data analytic strategies in
organizational research. Journal of Management, 21, 141-
157.
Tagiuri, R., & Davis, J. (1996). Bivalent attributes of the fam-
ily firm. Family Business Review, 9, 199-208.
Vera, C. F., & Dean, M. A. (2005). An examination of the
challenges daughters face in family business succession.
Family Business Review, 18, 321-345.
Villalonga, B., & Amit, R. (2006). How do family ownership,
control and management affect firm value? Journal of
Financial Economics, 80, 385-417.
von Schlippe, A., & Schneewind, K. A. (2014). Theories from
family psychology and family therapy. In P. Sharma, L.
Melin, & M. Nordqvist (Eds.), SAGE handbook of family
business (pp. 47-65). London, England: Sage.
Ward, J. L. (1987). Keeping the family business healthy. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Westhead, P., & Cowling, M. (1998). Family firm research:
The need for a methodological rethink. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 23(1), 31-56.
Wiklund, J., Nordqvist, M., Hellerstedt, K., & Bird, M. (2013).
Internal versus external ownership transition in family
firms: An embeddedness perspective. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 37, 1319-1340.
Wilson, N., Wright, M., & Scholes, L. (2013). Family business
survival and the role of boards. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, 37, 1369-1389.
Wilson, S. R., Whitmoyer, J. G., Pieper, T. M., Astrachan, J.
H., Hair, J. F., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). Method trends and
method needs: Examining methods needed for accelerat-
ing the field. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5, 4-14.
Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at TEXAS A&M UNIV TEXARKANA on August 26, 2015
Wintoki, M. B., Linck, J. S., & Netter, J. M. (2012).
Endogeneity and the dynamics of internal corporate gov-
ernance. Journal of Financial Economics, 105, 581-606.
Wortman, M. S. (1994). Theoretical foundations for family-
owned business: A conceptual and research-based para-
digm. Family Business Review, 7, 3-27.
Yu, A., Lumpkin, G. T., Sorenson, R. L., & Brigham, K. H.
(2012). The landscape of family business outcomes: A
summary and numerical taxonomy of dependent vari-
ables. Family Business Review, 25, 33-57.
Zahra, S. A., & Sharma, P. (2004). Family business research:
A strategic reflection. Family Business Review, 17, 331-
346.
Zellweger, T. M., Kellermanns, F. W., Chrisman, J. J., & Chua,
J. H. (2012). Family control and family firm valuation by
family CEOs: The importance of intentions for transgen-
erational control. Organization Science, 23, 851-868.
Author Biographies
Robert E. Evert is a PhD candidate at Texas Tech University
in the Area of Management, Rawls College of Business, Texas
Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, USA.
John A. Martin, PhD, is an assistant professor of strategic
management in the Department of Management and
International Business, Raj Soin College of Business, Wright
State University, Dayton, Ohio, USA.
Michael S. McLeod is a PhD candidate at Texas Tech
University in the Area of Management, Rawls College of
Business, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, USA.
G. Tyge Payne, PhD, is a professor of strategic management and
Jerry S. Rawls Professor of Management in the Area of
Management, Rawls College of Business, Texas Tech University,
Lubbock, Texas, USA.