Dos & Don’ts of developing theoretical contributions in family business research
Making a theoretical contribution is one of the most challenging yet essential parts of academic research—often a source of frustration for many scholars, especially in the early stages of their careers. While it is easy to recognize its importance, defining what constitutes a meaningful theoretical contribution and how to achieve it remains a complex task.
This challenge was at the heart of the session How to Make a Theoretical Contribution in Family Business, led by Donald O. Neubaum, editor of Family Business Review, during the IFERA 2024 Doctoral Consortium in Lisbon. Whereas the focus of attention usually relies on what to do, Don hooked the audience’s attention by remarking on what not to do when submitting a paper to a top-tier academic journal. Considering this, this session aimed to inspire PhD students in their research framing so that the research idea is oriented towards the theoretical contribution that journals seek.
What should be avoided when researching family business?
Selecting the area of interest and research question is not an easy task. Thus, by enhancing the most common pitfalls in academic journals, Don intended to guide students towards research ideas that could contribute substantially to academic research. In this line, he suggested moving forward to the mere comparison between family and non-family firms and the use of the family business variable as a moderator. Indeed, moderators usually tend to be less important in the story and the development of the paper. Although papers that distinguish FBs from non-FBs were significant in the early stages of family business research, the field is already moving forward to studies that address the inner intricacies of families that own, govern, or manage a firm. In this realm, Don assures that families are diverse, and in many cases, our research doesn’t account for those differences. But Don did not leave the students hanging and gave helpful advice on how to address these differences (see below).
Another main limitation in papers submitted to FBR is related to poorly presented methods. For example, there is an increasing tendency to move forward to a qualitative and inductive approach in family business research. Althoughthese studies strengthen the advancement of knowledge in family-based factors, it is paramount that the gathering and processing of data are consistent and rigorous. To reinforce this consistency, Don recommends modelling the manuscript based on exemplary qualitative studies that have already been published.
Lastly, studies using family business as a context are also controversial. Applying theory is not the same as adding to theory, especially when authors and readers expect phenomena to occur similarly in a family business context. Moreover, although exploring family business studies in international contexts and going beyond the classical hegemony of occidental family businesses is interesting, authors should focus on arguing why this context matters and how their relationships differ. Otherwise, the contribution can be only marginal.
All these limitations in studies have a common ground. That is, answering an unanswered question is not necessarily interesting or essential; thus, the most critical enigma while doing research is: Who cares? Does it change our minds or see things differently? Does it add to our understanding of family businesses?
If the answer is yes, then we will be in front of a theoretical contribution, by affirming that the old theory needs some improvement (which ultimately leads to new understandings). Whatever the process, the outcome is that what we know before and now is different due to this paper. In other words, this paper changed what and how we think.
Not everything is lost! Endless research opportunities ahead
Although the tone of this first part could be discouraging, there is a good source of hope to compensate. Don presented plenty of opportunities out there that can make your research interesting to academia. First, Organizational Behaviour and Psychology literature has a long history of tried-and-true constructs and measures. Use them! This goes in line with using the family as the central unit of analysis and considering family involvement beyond the “per cent of ownership,” “which generation,” or “number of family executives”. By assuming family heterogeneity, we could formulate research models that unveil profound family dynamics and help understand the origins of decision-making in the business. In particular, the relationship between psychological foundations and family business outcomes (e.g., succession) remains a hot topic yet to be explored. Considering this, some business areas could significantly benefit from analysing psychological foundations—for example, related to marketing, how emotions related to family issues influence branding strategies. From the supply chain perspective, how supply chain partners perceive family business is still to be investigated.
Lastly, although research constantly highlights that “non-financial goals meet the family’s affective needs,” measuring financial outcomes is still predominant. To shift the focus, it is advisable to use other dependent variables that can capture non-financial performance, as they are relevant for family-owned businesses, such as employee satisfaction, customer loyalty, or corporate social responsibility (CSR).
And now… in which direction to build?
One of the key takeaways from Donald’s speech was a shift in perspective—moving beyond what to write toward who and why it matters. That is, instead of feeling overwhelmed by the complexity of theory-building, Don came up with a clearer sense of direction—focusing less on the pressure to “tick all the boxes” and more on identifying meaningful research questions that resonate with the field. By keeping in mind who cares and why, developing theoretical contributions can become a more rewarding and less daunting task.
