Nurturing Pluralism and Rigor while developing Bridging Practices: How can today’s family business scholar respond to the challenges of being relevant?

Abstract

The evolution of family business research and education has been largely practice-driven (Sharma, Hoy, Astrachan, & Koiranen, 2007). This may have caused some shortcomings in theoretical robustness and conceptual accuracy, but in turn, the close connection between research, education and practice has helped in achieving pragmatic validity and relevance for students and practitioners. Recently, however, authors have started to call for theorizing that is academically more rigorous and more “disciplined” in a deductive sense. According to Moores (2009), the family business field is entering the normal science paradigm. Are we, as family business scholars on a similar path as the broader management field of becoming practice-distant and irrelevant in our research and education? As the family business field is entering the realm of normal science (Moores, 2009), as did the management field (Beer & Nohria, 2000; Clegg & Ross-Smith, 2003), the authors are concerned with the consequences of this evolution for the family business field. How will this impact the connection between family business research, practice and education? What can a family business scholar do to maintain, strengthen or regain connection? To explore these questions and develop a deeper understanding, we have conducted in-depth interviews with four leading family business professors who have a formative influence on our field. The analysis process resulted in 10 themes that highlight patterns we heard across the interviews. First, we explore the major themes that emerged from the interviews. Each of these themes is illustrated with interview fragments and quotes. Second, we draw out implications for the field and the actions of the individual family business scholar.