Editorial
Family Business Review
25 Years of Family Business Review:
Reflections on the Past and
Perspectives for the Future
Pramodita Sharma1,2, James J. Chrisman3,4, and Kelin E. Gersick5,6
Since its launch in 1988, the Family Business Review
(FBR) has played an integral role in the establishment and
development of the field of family business studies. This
field is distinguished from its sister disciplines by its sin-
gular focus on the paradoxes caused by the involvement
of family in business. Today, scholars worldwide recog-
nize both the ubiquity of family enterprises and the com-
plexity of issues faced by these enterprises. However, this
has not always been the case. While the field has made
impressive progress in terms of the 3Rs of research
Relevance, Reach, and Rigormuch exciting work
remains to be done. This introduction to the special issue
celebrating the 25th anniversary of FBR discusses the
progress the field and the journal have made in the past
quarter century and some of the challenges that are wait-
ing for resolution in the future.
Family firms represent the predominant form of busi-
ness organization in the world (LaPorta, Lopez-de-Silanes,
& Shleifer, 1999). These heterogeneous and complex
enterprises offer a challenging array of issues to study
and are beginning to receive substantial scholarly atten-
tion. For the past 25 years, FBR has been a catalyst in
establishing family business studies as a legitimate field
of investigationa mission defined by its founding edi-
tor Ivan Lansberg in its first issue (Lansberg & Gersick,
1993). FBR is currently supported by approximately 200
scholars who are serving as its editors, advisory and
review board members, and ad hoc reviewers. With an
impact factor of 2.426, it ranks among the top 20 jour-
nals in the business category of the Social Science
Citation Index. More than 200 submissions from around
the world compete for approximately 20 article slots in
FBR annually. No wonder there is a collective sense
that significant progress has been made (Litz, Pearson,
& Litchfield, 2012) and that scholars are united in
25(1) 515
The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0894486512437626
http://fbr.sagepub.com
their appreciation of what has been achieved to date
(Craig & Salvato, 2012).
While family enterprise research is moving forward
and gaining momentum today, such was not always the
case. In this introduction to the special issue celebrating
the 25th anniversary of FBR, we pay tribute to the vision-
aries who laid the foundation for the field of family busi-
ness studies and contributed substantially to the consulting
profession devoted to these enterprises. To accomplish
this purpose we provide a brief history of FBR and the
owner of the journal, the Family Firm Institute (FFI), fol-
lowed by observations on the fields domain and notable
developments regarding the progression of family busi-
ness studies in terms of three 3Rs of research: relevance,
reach, and rigor (cf. Sharma, 2010a). Our aim is to pro-
vide an overview of the major developments in the past
two and half decades, while offering some suggestions on
how the future aspirations of the journal and its stake-
holders might be achieved.
This introductory article draws heavily from three
sources: (a) our own experiences as consumers and pro-
ducers of knowledge related to family enterprises, (b) pre-
vious editorials and review articles published in FBR and
other venues (e.g., Bird, Welsch, Astrachan, & Pistrui,
1
2
University of Vermont, Burlington,VT, USA
Babson College, Babson Park, MA, USA
3
Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA
4
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
5
Lansberg, Gersick and Associates LLC, New Haven, CT, USA
6
Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA
Corresponding Author:
Pramodita Sharma, School of Business Administration, University of
Vermont, 320 Kalkin Hall, Colchester Avenue, Burlington,VT 05405,
USA
Email: psharma@bsad.uvm.edu
6 Family Business Review 25(1)
2002; Casillas & Acedo, 2007; Chrisman, Chua, &
Sharma, 2005; Chrisman, Kellermanns, Chan, & Liano,
2010; Dyer, & Sanchez, 1998; Handler, 1989; Moores,
2009; Sharma, 2004; Sharma, Chrisman, & Chua, 1997;
Sharma, Hoy, Astrachan, & Koiranen, 2007; Wortman,
1994a; Zahra & Sharma, 2004), and (c) the contents of
this issue.
This 25th anniversary special issue includes four
articles, an interview of six distinguished contributors to
the field, and a review of three seminal books. Together,
they provide an efficient synopsis of some of the major
developments and future needs in the field of family
business studies. The article by Litz et al. (2012) pres-
ents the results of a survey of 80 family business schol-
ars on the current status and future research, and career
opportunities available in the field of family business
studies. Yu, Lumpkin, Sorenson, and Brigham (2012)
identify and classify the dependent variables used in
prior research based on a review of 257 family business
studies published between 1998 and 2009. Stewart and
Hitt (2012) contribute how professionalization is mani-
fested in family firms. Finally, James, Jennings, and
Breitkreuz (2012) document the separation that has
occurred between research in fields of family sciences
and family business studies over the past 25 years and
discuss how the gaps can be closed in the future.
Augmenting these articles, Craig and Salvato (2012)
report the results of interviews with six prominent schol-
ars (Howard Aldrich, Luis Gomez-Mejia, Michael Hitt,
Duane Ireland, Manfred Kets de Vries, and Michael
Wright) on the distinctiveness, design, and direction of
family business research, and Hoy (2012). Provides
reviews and retrospectives of three of the most influen-
tial books published during this 25-year span: in the
1980s (Ward, 1987), 1990s (Gersick, Davis, McCollom-
Hampton, & Lansberg, 1997), and the initial decade of
the 21st century (Miller & Le Breton-Miller, 2005).
FBR and FFI: A Brief History
In October 1984, Dick Beckhard and his then wife Elaine
Kepner invited Barbara Hollander, George Raymond,
Robin Raymond, Ivan Lansberg, and Aron Levinson to
their New York apartment to discuss the possibility of
creating a new field that would stimulate academic
research in family business, foster the dissemination of
ideas, and serve the common interests of professionals
helping these organizations (Lansberg, 2001). It was felt
that these interests would be best achieved by forming an
interdisciplinary organization to coordinate the develop-
ment of this new field (Lansberg, Perrow, & Rogolsky,
1988, p. 5). Their vision was to create both an organization
that would serve as a gathering place for the exchange of
ideas and a publication that would allow for the documen-
tation and dissemination of these ideas. Thus were born the
Family Firm Institute in 1986 and the Family Business
Review in 1988. The journal enjoyed an unusually close
partnership with its publisher, Jossey-Bass, who sup-
ported the long process of planning and delivery of the
first issue and helped lay the standards of quality that are
so important to the stature of the journal (Lansberg &
Gersick, 1993, p. 350). It is noteworthy that both FFI and
FBR were founded on the ideals of multidisciplinary col-
laboration and aimed at addressing the knowledge sharing
needs of both advisors and educators (Astrachan, 2008).
Ivan Lansberg, a young assistant professor at Yale
University, agreed to serve as the journals founding edi-
tor. Two years later, Kelin Gersick joined Lansberg as
the coeditor of FBR and the duo led the journal until
1993. In the early years of FBR, its editors attempted to
stake out the farthest boundaries of the field so it could
be sustained in the long run (Lansberg & Gersick,
1993, p. 349). The pioneering articles included in these
initial volumes of FBR have proven to have lasting
influence, as pointed out by Max Wortman (1994b),
their successor as FBRs editor. For example, in 2012,
seven of the 20 most cited FBR articles are from the
Lansberg and Gersick era.
While the foundation for a new field was laid in the
first six years of FBR, the question of its boundary and
distinctiveness carried over into Wortmans term as edi-
tor. Based on a comprehensive review of the literature,
he observed that no one really knows what the entire
field is like or what its boundaries are or should be
(Wortman, 1994a, p. 4). Through the selection of arti-
cles he continued to refine the fields boundaries and
solidify the inclusionary vision of a journal devoted to
the advancement of both theory and practice. Toward
this end, the editorial review board was expanded to
include a wider array of scholars and practitioners, and
a new featureinnovations in practicewas introduced
to encourage concept-transfer among practitioners in
the field (Wortman, 1994b, p. 2).
Although originally founded as a national association,
as the awareness increased that family firms were even
more prevalent and important to the economies of other
Sharma et al. 7
nations besides the United States, FFI expanded its mission
in 1994 to become an international professional associa-
tion dedicated to increasing the skills and knowledge of
those who help family firms function more effectively.
Joe Astrachan, the next editor of FBR, encouraged it to
become more research-based as a means to broaden the
interest in and appeal of the field (Astrachan, 2008, p. 1).
Under his leadership, important academic milestones were
achieved by FBR, such as being listed in the Social Sciences
Citation Index. For 13 years, Astrachan worked tirelessly
to expand both the academic rigor and the international
reach of the journal, observed Sharma (2009), his succes-
sor and the current editor of FBR.
The strong position enjoyed by FBR today can be
attributed to the vision of the founders and dedication of
those who followed them. Building on these founda-
tions, the current editorial team has vowed that FBR
should continue to be a journal of choice for family
business scholars from diverse disciplinary backgrounds
who are interested in conducting rigorous research and
disseminating it not only to other interested scholars
around the world but also into the practitioner communi-
ties (Sharma, 2009, p. 8). This desire aligns closely with
the current mission statement of its parent organization:
Family Firm Institute provides multidisciplinary educa-
tion programs and enables collaboration between family
enterprise practitioners and academics, creating a global
network of professionals. Our mission is to be the trusted
resource, advancing the field of family enterprise.
Domain of the Field
The first editorial of FBR asked the question What is a
family business? to emphasize the fundamental impor-
tance of defining the core entity of interest in this new
field of study (Lansberg et al., 1988, p. 1). Observing a
variety of definitions of family business in use at that
time, these authors cautioned that the definition that is
ultimately selected is likely to have profound implica-
tions for society.
Until researchers agree on what a family business
is, they will find it difficult to build on each others
work and to develop a usable knowledge base . . .
knowing what type of organization was studied in
a given project helps managers and consultants to
decide whether the findings from the research are
applicable to their situations. (Lansberg et al.,
1988, p. 2)
Similar observations have been reiterated in review
articles over the years as scholars continue to worry
about the fields ability to build stocks of usable knowl-
edge (e.g., Handler, 1989; Wortman, 1994a; Zahra &
Sharma, 2004).
Recognizing the heterogeneity of firms that fall under
the rubric of family businesses, serious efforts to capture
and reconcile definitional variations have been made in
the intervening years (e.g., Astrachan & Shanker, 2003;
Chua, Chrisman, & Sharma, 1999; Handler, 1989; Heck
& Trent, 1999; Klein, Astrachan, & Smyrnios, 2005;
Sharma & Nordqvist, 2008; Westhead & Cowling, 1998).
Indeed, the prevalence and impact of family firms has
been found to vary significantly depending on the defini-
tion used (e.g., Astrachan & Shanker, 2003; International
Family Enterprise Research Academy, 2003; Lansberg
et al., 1988). Nevertheless, as noted at the outset of this
article, regardless of the definition used or the geographic
scope of investigation, family firms are now acknowl-
edged as the predominant form of business enterprise in
the world. This is particularly important when one con-
siders the near complete neglect of family firms in man-
agement research before the launch of FFI and FBR (e.g.,
Dyer, 2009; Litz, 1997; also see Sharma et al., 2007, for
notable exceptions).
Two approaches to defining family enterprises and
distinguishing them from other organizational forms
have been used in the literature. Chua et al. (1999) refer
to them as the components of involvement approach and
the essence approach. While the components approach
captures the nature and extent of family involvement in
business (e.g., Miller, Le Breton-Miller, Lester, &
Cannella, 2007; Sciascia & Mazzola, 2008), the essence
approach focuses on family aspirations as well as family
involvement, since it is the confluence of the two factors
that lead to behavioral and performance consequences
for the firm (e.g., Holt, Rutherford, & Kuratko, 2010;
Klein et al., 2005). Yu et al.s (2012) review in this issue
of the dependent variables that have been used in the
257 empirical studies published between 1998 and 2009
provides compelling evidence that family business
scholarship is converging around a few independent
variables related to family involvement in management,
ownership, and governance of the business, whereas a
8 Family Business Review 25(1)
staggering 327 dependent variables have been used in
the literature. They conclude that
unlike many established business disciplines that
tend to investigate how an array of independent
variables are related to a few dependent variables,
the family business discipline seems to be focused
on how a few (components related) independent
variables are related to many dependent variables
(family and business related behavioral conse-
quences).
These findings reinforce the emerging consensus in the
field that it is the reciprocal role of family and business
that distinguishes family business studies from other
disciplines that focus solely on issues of importance to
one system or the other (e.g., Astrachan, 2003; Rogoff
& Heck, 2003; Zahra & Sharma, 2004). At the same
time they indicate the gaps that remain in our knowl-
edge owing to the difficulty of measuring, if not
explaining, the why, when, and how of the family
business relationship.
Relevance of
Family Business Studies
FBR was founded with a vision that family business
advisors and educators would cocreate and share knowl-
edge to better understand the paradoxes faced by the
owners and managers of family enterprises (Zahra &
Sharma, 2004). The field kept true to this vision in the
first decade of FBR. As noted by James et al. (2012) in
this issue, almost all the pioneering family business
scholars were jointly affiliated with a university and a
consulting practice. In addition to journal articles, they
produced research-based books that have been influen-
tial in advancing knowledge related to family enter-
prises. In this issue, Frank Hoy (2012) reviews three
such books and provides the reflections of these authors
on those works.
With the simultaneous growth in the demand for fam-
ily business consulting and rigor in research, it became
difficult for individuals to keep pace with both ends of
the theorypractice spectrum. Doing well in either
dimension became a full-time endeavour. Consequently,
a fissure began to emerge. For a few years, FBR tried to
concurrently support the development of rigorous theory-
based empirical research and to generate solutions for
immediate problems encountered by advisors. Astrachan
is the editor who most closely experienced the difficulty
of trying to achieve both these goals. He describes the
simultaneous promotion of new ideas for theory devel-
opment and practical application as indeed a difficult
balancing act (Astrachan, 2008, p. 1). The dual demands
of theoretical rigor and the effective practice of consult-
ing became even more irreconcilable once FBR was
listed on the Social Sciences Citation Index. The rigors
of academic research and the language of scientific con-
versations did not readily accommodate the solutions
needed by consultants to address the urgent problems
encountered by family business practitioners.
Ever true to its founding principles and pragmatic in
its approach to meeting new challenges, FFI continued
to support FBRs quest to become a highly respected sci-
entific journal, while finding alternate avenues to pro-
mote dialogue between academics and practitioners and
to address the knowledge sharing needs of the advisory
community. Three pathways have been adopted toward
this end. First, FFIs annual conference strongly encour-
ages sessions jointly developed by academics and prac-
titioners. These sessions have been found to be extremely
enriching experiences for all involved as they combine
scholarly insights with the realism of practice. Second,
the launch of a new electronic publicationFFI
Practitionerin 2005 is an attempt to meet the knowl-
edge sharing needs of advisors and the quest of scholars
to identify interesting and theoretically relevant research
questions. Third, the editors of FBR and FFI Practitioner
have synchronised their efforts to encourage the cocre-
ation and transfer of ideas between practicing consul-
tants and academics. For instance, since 2011, when an
article is accepted in FBR, the action editor develops a
list of core research questions and key implications of
the article and gets them approved by its author(s). This
list is then shared with the editors of the FFI Practitioner,
SAGE (FBRs current publisher), and the media depart-
ment of FFI. Each recipient disseminates the findings to
the appropriate stakeholders in its networks, thereby
enhancing the reach of research published in FBR.
Continuing on its innovative pathway, starting this
year, FBR has appointed an assistant editor whose sole
focus will be on sharing the key findings from research
published in FBR with various practitioner communities
that have an interest in the unique dynamics and issues
of family enterprises. These include, but are not limited
to, family enterprise owners and managers, advisors and
Sharma et al. 9
consultants who serve these enterprises, media, and
those charged with developing public policy. Karen
Vinton has been appointed as FBRs Assistant Editor.
She possesses a keen understanding of the academic
conversations in family enterprise research and has
enjoyed a productive career in consulting to family
enterprises. Well versed with the ways of both academia
and practitioners, her involvement should strengthen the
pathway between knowledge creation and dissemina-
tion. It is hoped that her appointment will further
improve the relevance of FBR by providing linkages
between theory-based research and the problems faced
by advisors, practitioners, and policy makers.
Reach of Family Business Studies
Geographically, one might argue that wherever there is
free enterprise, there are family firms. And, where there
are family firms, there are issues of interest to FBRs
researchers and readers. In the past few years, FBR has
received submissions from 30 countries (Sharma,
2010b, 2011). In 2011, 18 of the 22 articles and editori-
als published in FBR were from first authors with non-
U.S. addresses. In 2010, this ratio was 19 out of 24
published articles. Furthermore, over the past 3 years,
five of the eight articles that won FBR Best Paper
Awards were non-U.S. based with coauthors from
Australia, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and Taiwan. In
2011, SAGE reports that FBR was distributed to 5,800
subscribers in 151 countries. These are impressive
strides for a journal that was founded primarily to serve
the U.S. market. Language is seen as key to further
deepen the geographic reach of FBR. While it is cur-
rently an English language publication, in 2006 in col-
laboration with Fundacin Nexia, selected articles from
the second edition of the Best of FBR were published in
Spanish under the title Familia Empresaria: Desarrollo
de la Continuidad. Moreover, FBRs sister publication,
the FFI Practitioner carries articles in both English and
Spanish. Might the next 25 years necessitate the transla-
tion of FBR into other languages such as is done with
the abstracts of articles that appear in the International
Small Business Journal? Or will the use of English
become even more widespread in business and aca-
demia, thereby further facilitating the dissemination of
research findings? Only time will tell but we can be sure
that FBR will continue to assess the needs of its readers
and respond accordingly.
In terms of the organizational form under study,
small to medium-size family firms that operate at the
cusp of the three circles of ownership, management, and
family systems were the primary interest of the field in
its early years (Davis, 1982). While research in the late
1980s and early 1990s continued to focus on small and
medium-sized privately held enterprises (Sharma et al.,
2007), by the late 1990s scholars had started to become
aware that these systems influence the behaviour and
performance of many of the largest private and publicly
held firms in the world (e.g., LaPorta et al., 1999). This
research gained acceptance in some of the premier jour-
nals in finance (e.g., Anderson & Reeb, 2003) and man-
agement (e.g., Lee, Lim, & Lim, 2003) and drew the
attention of the larger scholarly community toward fam-
ily firms, as pointed by several of the luminaries inter-
viewed by Craig and Salvato (2012).
In the first decade of the 20th century, scholarly atten-
tion has been devoted both to publicly held and privately
controlled family firms (e.g., Sharma, 2010b, 2011). In
other words, the unit of analysis has largely been at the
firm level with some attention devoted to the household
and individual levels (e.g., Salvato, Minichilli, &
Piccarreta, 2012; Sciascia & Mazzola, 2008; Stafford,
Duncan, Danes, & Winter, 1999). Furthermore, research
on portfolio entrepreneurship, transgenerational entrepre-
neurship, and entrepreneurial exits presents compelling
evidence that aside from the study of family businesses,
there is a need to consider business families who fre-
quently operate multiple ventures and engage in trans-
forming, shedding, and acquiring ventures over time (e.g.,
Salvato, Chirico, & Sharma, 2010; Sieger, Zellweger,
Nason, & Clinton, 2011; Zellweger, Nason, & Nordqvist,
2012). Thus, not only must research continue to focus on
the individual, household, and organizational levels of
analysis as it has done in the past, research needs to be
designed to understand the interplay of different business
units controlled by families as well as to better understand
this special breed of enterprising families (James et al.,
2012; Litz et al., 2012; Moores, 2009; Stewart & Hitt,
2012). Challenging issues and exciting research possibili-
ties are raised when one considers how performance and
success might be measured at the levels of business groups
and career aspirations of cross-generational entrepreneurial
families, especially against the backdrop of the financial
and nonfinancial metrics that they often use to measure
success (e.g., Gomez-Mejia, Cruz, Berrone, & DeCastro,
2011).
10 Family Business Review 25(1)
The topical scope of family business studies has also
evolved over time. At the inception of the field, it was
recognized that with changing demographic patterns,
the number of business owners confronting the realities
of succession and retirement will accelerate (Lansberg
et al., 1988, p. 4). With this realization, issues related to
leadership transitions from one generation to the next
received attention in the early years. However, as noted
by Handler (1989) and Wortman (1994a), these writings
were often piggybacked on individual consulting
projects and lacked scientific rigor. Nevertheless, they
provided important first steps that set the stage for more
systematic studies of succession in the 1990s.
Succession is a bellwether topic of the family busi-
ness literature (Chrisman et al., 2005; Sharma et al.,
1997). However, in their recent review, Yu et al. (2012)
find that while succession remains a defining feature of
the field, it no longer holds the research prominence it
once had. Nevertheless, research is beginning to
emerge that suggests intentions for transgenerational
control, as opposed to simply the process of succession,
can have a profound effect on the behaviors (Chrisman,
Chua, Pearson, & Barnett, 2012) and performance of
family firms (Bennedsen, Nielsen, Perez-Gonzales, &
Wolfenzon, 2007), large and small.
Although the topic of succession dominated for much
of the 1980s and 1990s, the editors of FBR commissioned
topical special issues to help extend the boundaries of the
field so as to sustain it in the long run (Astrachan, 2008;
Lansberg & Gersick, 1993; Sharma, 2009; Wortman
1994b). From the very beginning articles have explored
myriad topics such as interpersonal family and business
dynamics, conflict, firm performance, governance, pro-
fessionalization, internationalization, innovation, con-
sulting to family firms, gender, and ethnicity (Dyer &
Sanchez, 1998; Sharma et al., 1997). However, as Casillas
and Acedos (2007) co-citation analysis illustrates, with
few exceptions the depth of understanding on each topic
has remained shallow, lacking comprehensive theoreti-
cally based frameworks (Zahra & Sharma, 2004,
pp. 334-335).
Two dependent variables that have gained significant
momentum in the last few years are the governance and
financial performance of family firms (Yu et al., 2012).
In terms of the governance, while the volume of avail-
able writings is large, only the tip of the iceberg has been
revealed as to the finer nuances related to governance
structures and institutions (Gersick & Feliu, in press).
Similarly, more work is needed to understand the deter-
minants of family firm performance and how these
might vary from nonfamily firms. Overall, based on a
review of 59 empirical studies of the effect of family
involvement on financial performance of a firm, Stewart
and Hitt (2012) state that family involvement generally
has a positive effect for public firms and an insignificant
or negative effect for private firms. These findings,
reported in this issue, are similar to a recent meta-analytic
study on financial performance that finds a small positive
effect of family involvement on firm performance (van
Essen, Carney, Gedajlovic, & Heugens, 2011). While
these overviews are an important step forward, future
research will need to take a more nuanced view of sub-
jects such succession, professionalization, governance,
and performance owing to the heterogeneity of the
nature of family involvement in a firm and the variations
in the espoused goals of the dominant coalition of these
enterprises (e.g., McKenny, Short, Zachary, & Payne,
2012).
In addition to the need for research to gain a deeper
understanding about topics that are already under con-
sideration in the field, a plethora of new topics have
been identified in this issue that need scholarly attention
(Craig & Salvato, 2012; Hoy, 2012; Litz et al., 2012).
Examples include the role of family enterprises in new
venture creation, the informal economy, innovation, and
different institutional contexts. In addition, the topical
issues published in FBR over the last few years on fam-
ily capital, accounting, and marketing have helped iden-
tify exciting new avenues for future research (e.g.,
Reuber & Fischer, 2011; Salvato & Moores, 2010;
Sorenson & Bierman, 2009).
A disciplinary overview of the field provides an inter-
esting picture of developments over the past 25 years. As
vividly illustrated by James et al. (2012), although the
field was essentially balanced in its focus on business-
and family-related variables in the 1980s, it is now dom-
inated by topics and theoretical perspectives associated
with the business system. Given that family involve-
ment in business is the fundamental independent vari-
able in the field (Litz et al., 2012; Stewart & Hitt, 2012;
Yu et al., 2012), it behooves us to deepen our knowledge
of variables related to the family system so we will better
understand why, when, and how its characteristics attri-
butes are likely to influence the behaviors and perfor-
mance of family firms. For example, as pointed by
Gersick in his retrospective comments to Hoy (2012) on
Sharma et al. 11
the Generation to Generation book, how do families
hang together when their enterprises transform from
operating systems to equity management systems?
Similarly, in his comments to Craig and Salvato (2012),
Mike Wright suggests that whether or not subsequent
generations are likely to reengage in entrepreneurship
after the exit of the founder through a sale to an outside
buyer needs to be understood. Likewise, Stewart and
Hitts (2012) theoretical discussion of modes of profes-
sionalization demands further study. Wrapped around
questions such as these is the case for informed pluralism
in research made by James et al. (2012). Indeed, follow-
ing through on their argument of the importance of gain-
ing an appreciation of the characteristics of family
members and the family system may help in understand-
ing aspects of socioemotional wealth, a key driver of fam-
ily firm behavior, that could remain hidden if research
focuses exclusively on the business system.
Rigor in Family Business Studies
Rigor involves theoretical sophistication and empirical
robustness. Together these are the currency for the scien-
tific legitimacy of any field, including family business
studies. The last 25 years have seen progress on both
dimensions, though much work lies ahead. As is often
the case in the development of a new field, in early
works small paths are pushed out through the unknown,
with simple and primitive instruments, measurements
are made, much is left to assumption and to lucky intu-
ition (Lewin, 1940/1951, p. 3). In the 1980s and early
1990s, family business studies was dominated by a few
authors who largely focused on consulting projects and
shared knowledge gained through these experiences in
their writings (Handler, 1989). Although systematic
analysis and theoretical rigor took a back seat (Wortman,
1994a) researchers who saw opportunities to expand on
the insights of those early works were attracted to the
field. This new crop of scholars helped increase the rigor
in research in late 1990s and this trend has continued
ever since.
In terms of the theories used, agency theory and the
resource-based view of the firm have dominated the dis-
course (Chrisman et al., 2010), though other theoretical
perspectives such as contingency theory, transaction cost
economics, stewardship theory, prospect theory, stake-
holder theory, and institutional theory have received
some attention (e.g., Chrisman et al., 2005; Gomez-
Mejia et al., 2011; Sharma, 2004). While important
insights, especially regarding the underlying assump-
tions and boundary conditions of these theories, were
revealed (Gomez-Mejia, Nuez-Nickel, & Gutierrez,
2001; Schulze, Lubatkin, Dino, & Buchholtz, 2001), all
were borrowed from sister disciplines and are not neces-
sarily a perfect fit for understanding family firms (Zahra
& Sharma, 2004). Calls for building original theory
related to the unique context of family enterprises have
been made for years, with the work of Reay and Whetten
(2011) representing the most recent attempt. Moreover,
the development of the concept of socioemotional wealth
offers hope and exciting avenues for growth in family
business research (Gomez-Mejia et al., 2011). In addi-
tion, the theoretical perspectives from family sciences
have the potential of further enriching future conversa-
tions in the field (James et al., 2012).
On the empirical dimension, descriptive case studies
and small sample sizes dominated the early work in the
field (Handler, 1989; Wortman, 1994a). These were fol-
lowed by empirical studies that employed more rigor,
larger samples, and sophisticated analytical tools (Bird
et al., 2002; Dyer & Sanchez, 1998). This positive trend
has continued over the years. However, until recently the
field has been dominated by studies using questionnaire
data and regression analyses. While this phase was char-
acterized by an increase in scientific rigor, it also gave
published research a mechanical quality that does not
help us understand the forces that drive the empirical
observations (Zahra & Sharma, 2004, p. 336). The field
in now dominated by quantitative studies, though
research using larger databases appear alongside ques-
tionnaire-based studies. Calls for making astute choices
in research designs employing the full range of research
methodsboth qualitative and quantitativewere
made, to shore up the vulnerabilities associated with reli-
ance on one or a small number of methods (e.g., Zahra &
Sharma, 2004). An encouraging diversity of data collec-
tion and analytical methods is now being observed.
These include research using archival methods, matched
pair samples, longitudinal studies, content analysis, and
narrative analysis (Allouche, Amann, Jaussad, &
Kurishina, 2008; Dawson & Hjorth, 2012; McKenny
et al., 2012; Micelotta & Raynard, 2011; Parmentier,
2011; Salvato et al., 2012; Zellweger et al., 2012).
Efforts to develop measures using sound psychometric
12 Family Business Review 25(1)
principles are under way (e.g., Bjrnberg & Nicholson,
2007; Holt et al., 2010; Klein et al., 2005), though still at
an early stage (Pearson & Lumpkin, 2011). As convinc-
ingly argued by Stewart and Hitt (2012), finer grained
approaches need to be adopted for defining fundamental
constructs of interest such as professionalization, per-
formance, and governance. In short, family enterprise
research has come a long way in the past 25 years with
respect to enhancing the scientific rigor of research, but
as Litz et al. (2012) remind us in this issue much remains
to be done. The challenge and question is how the field
can continue to increase rigor without losing sight of the
relevance and reach of its research (cf. Sharma, 2010a).
Role of Institutional Structures
No overview of the field of family business studies could
be complete without acknowledging the integral role
played by the institutions associated with its development
over the years. The FFI played a central role not only by
establishing FBR and its annual conference but also
through its Best Dissertation Award and Best
Unpublished Paper awards, which helped encourage a
number of scholars to devote their energy toward family
enterprise research. More recently in 2009, two FBR-
related awardsBest Paper Award and Best Reviewer
Awardhave been instituted by FFI. In addition, several
other institutional forces have played a significant role in
the fields development (Sharma et al., 2007). These
include the creation of family business centers, endowed
chairs at universities, associations of family business own-
ers, scholarly conferences, and global research projects.
Several family business centers and chairs were estab-
lished in the late 1970s and early 1980s. These provided
the first impetus for the field as each of these units focused
on building awareness about family enterprises. Often
positioned as boundary spanners in universities and col-
leges, these units facilitated the knowledge exchange and
networking needs of family firm practitioners and consul-
tants. Unfortunately, few of these centers encouraged aca-
demic research, a limitation that persists to this day with
relatively few exceptions (Litz et al., 2012).
Parallel to the growth in centers and chairs within uni-
versities, gatherings of family business owners began to
emerge. Examples include the Canadian Association of
Family Enterprises, the Family Business Network and
Group of Owner Managed and Family Enterprises in
Europe, and Family Business Australia. These institutions
often worked synergistically to assist in the development
of the field. Members of these associations also have sup-
ported or participated in the large sample surveys of fam-
ily enterprises, which helped document the importance of
these firms to economies around the world.
The early years of the 21st century saw the emergence
of conferences focused on family enterprise research such
as the International Family Enterprise Research Academy
in Europe and the Theories of Family Enterprise and
Family Enterprise Research Conference in North America.
Often, these conferences were associated with special
issues of notable journals in addition to FBR, such as
Business Ethics Quarterly, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, Journal of Business Research, Journal of Business
Venturing, Journal of Management Studies, Small Business
Economics, and Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, which
further contributed to building the legitimacy of the field
and expanding its reach. As the community and volume of
scholarship increased, more courses and programs focused
on family enterprises were launched. Examples include the
undergraduate family business major at Stetson University,
a cross-disciplinary major in family business studies at the
University of Alberta, and masters programs for family
business at Bond University, Kennesaw State University,
and Jyvskyl University.
With its launch in 2005, the Successful Transgenerational
Entrepreneurship Project (STEP) is an example of a global
applied research project that is focused on knowledge
development related to transgenerational entrepreneurship.
In only 6 years, this project has attracted more than 175
scholars from more than 40 leading institutions around the
world. STEP provides an avenue not only for conducting
longitudinal studies but also for making cross-cultural
comparisons of findings and building networks of research-
ers and enterprising families (e.g., Salvato, Chirico, &
Sharma, 2010; Sieger et al., 2011; Zellweger, 2012).
Conclusion
In conclusion, as Family Business Review begins its 25th
year of publication, the anchoring role it has played in
establishing and growing the field of family business
studies should be apparent. Both Family Business
Review and its parent organization, the Family Firm
Institute, have demonstrated a remarkable ability to
serve and adapt to the growing and changing needs of
scholars and practitioners, while staying focused on the
mission of developing knowledge about the paradoxes
Sharma et al. 13
and problems faced by the owners and managers of
family enterprises. With the rich and diverse avenues of
research that await attention, the future for the field is
very bright indeed!
References
Allouche, J., Amann, B., Jaussad, J., & Kurishina, T. (2008).
The impact of family control on the performance and
financial characteristics of family versus nonfamily busi-
nesses in Japan: A matched-pair investigation. Family
Business Review, 21, 315-329.
Anderson, R. C., & Reeb, D. M. (2003). Founding-family
ownership and firm performance: Evidence from the S &
P 500. Journal of Finance, 58, 1301-1328.
Astrachan, J. H. (2003). The emergence of a field. Journal of
Business Venturing, 18, 567-572.
Astrachan, J. H. (2008). Editors notes. Family Business
Review, 9, 1-3.
Astrachan, J. H., & Shanker, M. (2003). Family businesses
contributions to the U.S. economy: A closer look. Family
Business Review, 16, 211-219.
Bennedsen, M., Nielsen, K. M., Perez-Gonzales, F., &
Wolfenzon, D. (2007). Inside the family firm: The role of
families in succession decisions and performance. Quar-
terly Journal of Economics, 122, 647-691.
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.
Bjrnberg, ., & Nicholson, N. (2007). The family cli-
mate scales: Development of a new measure for use in
family business research. Family Business Review, 20,
229-246.
Casillas, J., & Acedo, F. (2007). Evolution of the intellectual
structure of family business literature: A bibliometric
study of FBR. Family Business Review, 20, 141-162.
Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., Pearson, A. W., & Barnett, T.
(2012). Family involvement, family influence, and family-
centered non-economic goals in small firms. Entrepreneur-
ship Theory and Practice.
Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., & Sharma, P. (2005). Trends and
directions in the development of strategic management
theory of the family firm. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 29, 555-575.
Chrisman, J. J., Kellermanns, F. W., Chan, K. C., & Liano, K.
(2010). Intellectual foundations of current research in fam-
ily business: An identification and review of 25 influential
articles. Family Business Review, 23, 9-26.
Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., & Sharma, P. (1999). Defining the
family business by behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 23(4), 19-39.
Craig, J., & Salvato, C. (2012). The distinctiveness, design, and
direction of family business research: Insights from man-
agement luminaries. Family Business Review. Advance
online publication. doi:10.1177/0894486511429682
Davis, J. A. (1982). The influence of life-stage on fatherson
work relationships in family companies (Doctoral disserta-
tion). Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Dawson, A., & Hjorth, D. (2012). Advancing family business
research through narrative analysis. Family Business Review.
Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0894486511421487
Dyer, W. G., Jr. (2009). Putting the family into family business
research. Family Business Review, 22, 216-219.
Dyer, W. G., Jr., & 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.
Gersick, K. E., Davis, J. A., McCollom-Hampton, M., &
Lansberg, I. (1997). Generation to generation: Life cycles
of the family business. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Gersick, K. E., & Feliu, N. (in press). Governing the family
enterprise: Practices, performance, and research. In L.
Melin, M. Nordqvist, & P. Sharma (Eds.), SAGE handbook
of family business. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Cruz, C., Berrone, P., & DeCastro, J.
(2011). The bind that ties: Socioemotional wealth preser-
vations in family firms. Academy of Management Annals,
5, 653-707.
Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Nuez-Nickel, M., & Gutierrez, L.
(2001). The role of family ties in agency contracts. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 44, 226-237.
Handler, W. C. (1989). Methodological issues and consider-
ations in studying family businesses. Family Business
Review, 2, 257-276.
Heck, R. K. Z., & Trent, E. (1999). The prevalence of fam-
ily business from a household sample. Family Business
Review, 12, 209-224.
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.
Hoy, F. (2012). Review of three influential books by Ward
(1987), Gersick et al (1997), and Miller & Le-Breton
Miller (2005). Family Business Review, 25(1), 117-120.
14 Family Business Review 25(1)
International Family Enterprise Research Academy. (2003). Fam-
ily firms dominate. Family Business Review, 16, 235-239.
James, A. E., Jennings, J. E., & Breitkreuz, R. S. (2012). Worlds
apart? Re-bridging the distance between family science
and family business research. Family Business Review, 25,
87-108.
Klein, S., Astrachan, J. H., & Smyrnios, K. (2005). The F-PEC
scale of family influence: Construction, validation, and
further implication for theory. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, 29, 321-339.
Lansberg, I. (2001).The reflective practitioner: A tribute to
Dick Beckhard. Family Business Review, 14, 3-10.
Lansberg, I., & Gersick, K. (1993). Editors notes: The first six
volumes. Family Business Review, 6, 349-350.
Lansberg, I., Perrow, E. L., & Rogolsky, S. (1988). Family busi-
ness as an emerging field. Family Business Review, 1, 1-8.
LaPorta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (1999). Cor-
porate ownership around the world. Journal of Finance,
54, 471-517.
Lee, K. S., Lim, G. H., & Lim, W. S. (2003). Family business
succession: Appropriation risk and choice of successor.
Academy of Management Review, 28, 657-666.
Lewin, K. (1951). Formalization and progress in psychology. In
D. Cartwright (Ed.), Field theory in social science: Selected
theoretical parts by Kurt Lewin (pp. 1-29). New York,
NY: Harper. (Original work published 1940)
Litz, R. A. (1997). The family firms exclusion from business
school research: Explaining the void, addressing the oppor-
tunity. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 21(3), 55-71.
Litz, R. A., Pearson, A., & Litchfield, S. (2012). Charting the
future of family business research: Perspectives from the
field. Family Business Review. Advance online publica-
tion. doi:10.1177/0894486511418489
McKenny, A., Short, J. C., Zachary, M. A., & Payne, G. T.
(2012). Assessing espoused goals in private family firms
using content analysis. Family Business Review. Advance
online publication. doi:10.1177/0894486511420422
Micelotta, E. R., & Raynard, M. (2011). Concealing or reveal-
ing the family? Corporate brand identity strategies of fam-
ily firms. Family Business Review, 24, 197-216.
Miller, D., & Le Breton-Miller, I. (2005). Managing for the long
run: Lessons in competitive advantage from great family
businesses. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Miller, D., Le Breton-Miller, I., Lester, R. H., & Cannella, A.
(2007). Are family firms really superior performers? Jour-
nal of Corporate Finance, 13, 829-858.
Moores, K. (2009). Paradigms and theory building in the
domain of business families. Family Business Review, 22,
167-180.
Parmentier, M. (2011). When David met Victoria: Forging a
strong family brand. Family Business Review, 24, 217-232.
Pearson, A. W., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2011). Measurement in
family business research: How do we measure up? Family
Business Review, 24, 287-291.
Reay, T., & Whetten, D. (2011). What constitutes a theoretical
contribution in family business? Family Business Review,
24, 105-110.
Reuber, R., & Fischer, E. (2011). Marketing (in) the family
firm. Family Business Review, 24, 193-196.
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, 559-566.
Salvato, C., Chirico, F., & Sharma, P. (2010). A farewell to
the business: Championing exit and continuity in entrepre-
neurial family firms. Entrepreneurial & Regional Devel-
opment, 22, 321-348.
Salvato, C., Minichilli, A., & Piccarreta, R. (2012). Faster
route to the CEO suite: Nepotism or managerial profi-
ciency? Family Business Review. Advance online publica-
tion. doi:10.1177/0894486511427559
Salvato, C., & Moores, K. (2010). Research on accounting in
family firms: Past accomplishments and future challenges.
Family Business Review, 23, 193-215.
Schulze, W. S., Lubatkin, M. H., Dino, R. N., & Buchholtz, A. K.
(2001). Agency relationships in family firms: Theory and evi-
dence. Organization Science, 12, 99-116.
Sciascia, S., & Mazzola, P. (2008). Family involvement in
ownership and management: Exploring nonlinear effects
on performance. Family Business Review, 21, 331-345.
Sharma, P. (2004). An overview of the field of family business
studies: Current status and directions for the future. Fam-
ily Business Review, 17, 1-36.
Sharma, P. (2009). Embracing change while preserving the
core. Family Business Review, 22, 6-8.
Sharma, P. (2010a). Advancing the 3Rs of family business
scholarship: Rigor, relevance, reach. In A. Stewart, G. T.
Lumpkin, & J. Katz (Eds.), Advances in entrepreneurship,
firm emergence and growth (Vol. 12, pp. 383-400). Bingley,
England: Emerald Group.
Sharma, P. (2010b). 2009: A year in review. Family Business
Review, 23, 1-4.
Sharma et al. 15
Sharma, P. (2011). 2010: A year in review. Family Business
Review, 24, 1-4.
Sharma, P., Chrisman, J. J., & Chua, J. H. (1997). Strategic
management of the family business: Past research and
future challenges. Family Business Review, 10, 1-35.
Sharma, P., Hoy, F., Astrachan, J. H., & Koiranen, M.
(2007). The practice-driven evolution of family busi-
ness education. Journal of Business Research, 60,
1012-1021.
Sharma, P., & Nordqvist, M. (2008). A classification scheme
for family firms: From family values to effective gover-
nance to firm performance. In J. Tpies & J. L Ward (Eds.),
Family values and value creation: The fostering of endur-
ing values within family-owned businesses (pp. 71-101).
New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sieger, P., Zellweger, T., Nason, R., & Clinton, E. (2011). Port-
folio entrepreneurship in family firms: A resource based per-
spective. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 5, 327-351.
Sorenson, R., & Bierman, L. (2009). Family capital, family
business, and free enterprise. Family Business Review, 22,
193-195.
Stafford, K., Duncan, K. A., Danes, S., & Winter, M. (1999).
A research model of sustainable family businesses. Family
Business Review, 12, 197-208.
Stewart, A., & Hitt, M. A. (2012). Why cant a family busi-
ness be more like a non-family business? Modes of pro-
fessionalization in family firms. Family Business Review,
25, 58-86.
van Essen, M. V., Carney, M., Gedajlovic, E., &
Heugens, P. P. M. A. R. (2011). Do U.S. publicly-listed
family firms differ? Does it matter? A meta-analysis.
Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1837517
Ward, J. L. (1987). Keeping the family business healthy: How
to plan for continuing growth, profitability, and family
leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Westhead, P., & Cowling, M. (1998). Family firm research:
The need for a methodology rethink. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 23(1), 31-56.
Wortman, M. S., Jr. (1994a). Theoretical foundations for fami-
lyowned businesses: A conceptual and research based par-
adigm. Family Business Review, 7, 3-27.
Wortman, M. S., Jr. (1994b). Envisioning the future. Family
Business Review, 7, 1-2.
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 variables.
Family Business Review, 25, 33-57.
Zahra, S., & Sharma, P. (2004). Family business research: A
strategic reflection. Family Business Review, 17, 331-346.
Zellweger, T., Nason, R., & Nordqvist, M. (2012). From lon-
gevity of firms to transgenerational entrepreneurship of
families. Family Business Review. Advance online publi-
cation. doi:10.1177/0894486511423531
Bios
Pramodita Sharma is the Sanders Professor of Entrepre
neurship and Family Enterprise studies at the University of
Vermont. She serves as the academic director of the Global
STEP project at Babson College and is the Editor in Chief of
Family Business Review.
James J. Chrisman is a professor of management and direc-
tor of the Center of Family Enterprise Research at Mississippi
State University. He holds a joint appointment as a research
fellow with the Centre for Entrepreneurship and Family
Enterprise at University of Alberta.
Kelin E. Gersick is cofounder and a senior partner of Lansberg,
Gersick & Associates, a research and consulting firm in New
Haven, Connecticut, that serves family businesses, family offices,
and family foundations. He is also a management fellow at the
Yale School of Organization and Management and professor
emeritus of organizational psychology at the California School of
Professional Psychology. He has served as Co-Editor in Chief of
Family Business Review and is currently Chair of the Research
Board for the International Institute for Family Enterprise.