As described above, various factors in the context of family business research are influencing research designs. Below, implications are discussed.
Quantitative family business research has a fundamental problem. The scientific community has not been successful in agreeing on a definitional framework. Consequently, conclusions can be reliable but not necessarily valid. Without an accepted definition, hypothesis testing is limited in validity. This missing commonality is the basic problem that leads to the general lack of secondary data. However, quantitative research has a couple of pitfalls that researchers have to keep in mind: Danger of self-serving-bias, danger of observing one-time-events, and social desirability.
The problem of the missing framework guiding the research process comes forward when it comes to measuring constructs that are not quantifiable. For example, “we cannot observe or 51 Created by author, 2012 Disinterest in academic studies Multidisciplinarity of academic fields Heterogeneity of the object of investigation Lack of secondary data – problem of external validity Missing framework
guiding the research process Tendency to privacy …non-financial goals making it difficult to measure performance Definitional - operationalization problem Research Strategy Succession as no “one-time-event” Lack of rigor in research quality Family-firm-system-related Evolutionary stage-related
directly measure family intentions for the firm, or altruism, or agency-related issues”
(Pearson & Lumpkin, 2011). Family firm research faces similar challenges as every research on organizational theory, including challenges with construct validity (how well measurement device measure what it intends to measure) and reliability (how constituent responses are). The problem of operationalizing the objects and constructs of investigation has led to poorly validated measures with contradictory results. This has left “scholars with the uncomfortable
and somewhat embarrassing realization that results are inconclusive and that very little may actually be known about a particular topic” (Hinking 1995, p. 967 as cited in: Pearson &
Lumpkin, 2011).
Due to relatively immature research in this field, a majority of the research is based on qualitative studies (see discussion on evolutionary stage of the academic discipline described above). An essential problem of qualitative approaches in family firm research is the limited possibility to generalize the results. Zwack (2010) mentioned the difficulty in generalization of conclusions due to the uniqueness of a described case52. The problem of external validity – especially when published in international magazines – has also been outlined by Chenail (2009) who offered some thoughts for improving external validity in such cases.
Being a very popular research method, case studies has provided the family business field with a vast amount of information. Chenail identified the increased usage of case studies in family business research and discussed five basic aspects concerned with qualitative research methods, communicating their results within a global context. These are (cf. Chenail, 2009): making the local findings globally significant, marking differences between methodology and methods, managing errors of deficiency and exuberance, maintaining coherence across reports, making transparency goal one. Case study, as Chenail asserted, is “a prominent
approach that family business qualitative researchers take in their studies driven by the local importance of the business to the investigator”. However, in principal, this method lacks
external validity and replicability:
52
Zwack cited the study of Jones (2006) that “delivers a detailed description of the interwovenness of values of the founder and the regional culture within the family business culture and their implication on the ‘organizational energy’ of a coffee- and tee importer in one of the southern states of the USA”.
With an attempt to strengthen the research area concerned with family businesses, Handler (1989) suggested considering five methodological issues when studying family businesses53. Each point outlined is linked to related parts of this work.
Defining the family firm. There has been – and there still is – the lack of understanding of what defines a family business. Within this work, the guiding research definition is formulated within point 2.2.5
Using process reporting. Studies associated with family business have often omitted the discussion of the research methodology itself. The value and utility of a research is based, in part, on the way it is conducted. The use and implication of the research method as well as the research process within this work are summarized in chapter 3.
Using self-scrutiny. The researcher has to be explicit about his/her professional and educational background, his/her roles, and his/her assumptions that shape the research nature. The author’s educational and professional background, his role, and his personal assumptions are described in appendix X.
Alternatives to research based on individual consulting efforts. Research on family business has its roots in the consulting industry. Handler argued that there has been “some reliance on “piggy backing” research” and promoted the utilization of action research54 and team research.
Broadening the range of research methods. Studies of family firms have typically been case oriented, relying on questionnaire or interviews for data collection. Handler called for expanding the methods by including interviews, participant observation, surveys, and quasi-experiments. Within this work, the author tries to combine qualitative and quantitative approaches in order to improve the consistency of the conclusions.
53
Cf. Comprehensively W. Handler (1989)
54
Action research is a form of enquiry that enables practitioners everywhere to investigate and evaluate their work. They ask, ‘What am I doing? What do I need to improve? How do I improve it?’ (McNiff & Whitehead, 2006)
Conclusions for research designs
Summing up the factors influencing research design, researchers in the family business field have three major methodological approaches. Firstly, they can utilize a quantitative approach with an intention to make their results globally replicable through quantification of their concepts; consequently, they may face the criticism of being feel-good-scientists (valid but not reliable). Secondly, they could apply qualitative research methods to provide a valid and deeper insight and understanding; the limitation with this method poses difficulties in making generalizations. Finally, the triangulationists applying mixed methodologies - are confronted with the argument that their approach is methodologically impure.
The contextual factors underlying the family firm that could influence the research strategy are twofold; these factors are rooted in family-firm-related specialties and that they are due to the evolutionary stage of the academic discipline. BAUR outlines these factors in detail and points out their implications for qualitative and quantitative research designs (BAUR 2012, p. 155 ff).
The multidisciplinary of academic fields involved in family business research increases complexity for researchers. Researchers have to intellectually encompass for example business management (e.g., performance management) aspects with family therapy (e.g., constructivist approaches of family systems therapy). Consequently, this threatens the content validity of measures due to inappropriate definition of the measure in quantitative designs. Concerning qualitative research designs, the same holds true, but additionally, there is a need for self-scrutiny and transparency regarding the researcher’s educational and professional background. Special attention needs to be paid to the interpretative aspect of data analysis in constructivist approaches. 55