PROCEDIMIENTO CONSTRUCTIVO 81

Research efforts for developing evidence-informed management knowledge highlight that literature review is fundamental of any research development (Coenen et al., 2012; Fatters, 2016; Garcia & Gluesing, 2013; Maxwell, 2016; Milkov, 2012; Terman, 2011; Tranfield et al., 2003). The outcomes of Cooper (2006), Frels and Onwuegbuzie (2013), and Inuigushi and Mizoshita (2012) in developing relevant knowledge point out that undertaking a review of previous research work is central to every doctoral journey, and thus, it could be served as a starting point. Similarly, Maggetti et al. (2013), Maxwell (2016), and Saunders et al. (2009) germane outlines in expanding research methodological choices support that literature review is at the

29

forefront of any academic discipline, where researchers identify, evaluate and interpret previous work in a way to expand current knowledge.

In relation to the aim and objectives of this research as set forth in chapter one, the researcher has systematically engaged with a great body of secondary sources of information (Dochartaigh, 2007; Garcia & Gluesing, 2013; Fatters, 2016; Maxwell, 2016) on the topic of effective family business succession. Consequently, undertaking a systematic review of this literature, it provides the best available information on the various succession models, frameworks and fundamental ideas from theoretical and empirical perspectives. This process mainly entails a critical insight on essential factors and variables that are believed to foster family business succession in order to produce reliable theoretical knowledge on the subject.

Consecutively, to achieve the dual task of generating evidence-based knowledge and assist professional practitioners effectively (Diefenbach, 2009; Fatters, 2016; Maxwell, 2016; Suri, 2011; Tranfield et al., 2003), grey literature is also included for review. For similar reasons and higher contextual specificity, particular attention is given in studying family winery succession which is a particular form of family business due to its highly idiosyncratic and socio-political nature (Amadieu, 2013; Garcia-Ramos, 2017; Johnson & Bruwer, 2007; Maco et al., 2016; Miller & Le- Breton-Miller, 2014; Pavel, 2013).

This systematic review allows the researcher to merge accessible knowledge, establish relevant connections, and identify gaps and inconsistancies in the previous research (Fatters, 2016; Garcia-Ramos, 2017; Hart, 2003; Marshall & Rossman, 2010; Maxwell, 2016). On this basis, the process of systematic review has a clear theoretical merit for the development of a preliminary conceptual framework (version one) towards succession effectiveness in family businesses. It moreover establishes the groundwork from which the primary and secondary testable research hypotheses are formulated. All the elements outlined are supportive conditions of commencement the primary research phase in the Cypriot family wineries. Taking the latter into deep consideration, systematic literature review is assumed asan integral and ongoing part of this research experience, since it has been continued over time depending on the stage of research activity that accordingly expands the theoretical background (Coenen et al., 2012; Creswell, 2009; Fatters, 2016; Terman, 2011).

30

Thus, in business and management research, literature review is a fundamental process to enable the researcher to plan, identify and appraise the existing knowledge on a specific area under examination (Coenen et al., 2012; Cook et al, 1997; Creswell, 2009; Maggetti & Radaelli, 2013; Maxwell, 2016). It is aknowledged that literature reviews in these academic disciplines are usually narratives which are extensively criticized of being much descriptive and full of researchers’ bias (Coenen et al., 2012; Diefenbach, 2009; Evans & Pearson, 2001; Fatters, 2016). Likewise, Tranfield et al. (2003, p.207) characteristically asserted that “…traditional narrative reviews frequently lack thoroughness, and in many cases are not undertaken as genuine pieces of investigatory science”. Conversely, systematic reviews effectively diverged from conventional narrative reviews “…by adopting a replicable, scientific and transparent process…that aims to minimize bias through exhaustive literature searches of published and unpublished studies and by providing an audit trail of the reviewer’s decisions, procedures and conclusions” (Tranfield et al., 2003, p. 209).

Medical research has showed over the last fifteen years, the appropriate way towards radical quality improvement of the reviews through systematic methodology and best evidence provision while overcoming implicit prejudice of the reviewers (Coenen et al., 2012; Wolf et al., 2001). Ofcourse, the shift to the systematic review together with the practical idea of best available evidence has been moved from medicine to other academic disciplines (Coenen et al., 2012; Evans & Pearson, 2001). Given the points above, a systematic literature review methodology is adopted to create a thorough evaluation of existing literature on the topic of family business succession. The rationale behind this is based on Crossan and Apaydin (2010) and Maggetti et al. (2013) arguments on organizational innovation, as well as on Maxwell (2016) and Newbert (2007) outcomes in expanding the range on the resource-based view of the business by assessing, synthesizing, and presenting research best available evidence. Consequently, systematic literature review is acknowledged as beneficial for academic research since it increases scientific rigour, minimizes bias, promotes transparent theoretical developments and facilitates professional practice through exploration of authentic business dilemmas (Coenen et al., 2012; Crossan & Apaydin, 2010; Maggetti et al. 2013; Maxwell 2016; Newbert, 2007). Taking into consideration the above rationale and positionality regarding systematic versus narrative literature review approaches (Fatters, 2016; Garcia & Gluesing, 2013; Mulrow, 1994; Suri,

31

2011; Terman, 2011), systematic course of action is preferred and adopted by the researcher in order to generate consistent knowledge in the field of family business succession through reflective synthesis and critique of various secondary findings (Coenen et al., 2012; Garcia & Gluesing, 2013; Inuigushi & Mizoshita, 2012; Popay et al., 1998).

Likewise, the decision of the researcher for adopting a systematic review instead of a narrative review methodology, is that it stays away from potential criticism of being descriptive, incomplete, and less scientifically rigour as a large part of research in the field of business management is based on narrative literature reviews (Frels & Onwuegbuzie, 2013; Garcia & Gluesing, 2013; Newbert, 2007; Tranfield et al., 2003). To this extent, a detailed review strategy that is essential for developing evidence- informed knowledge by means of systematic review of a given load of literature (Coenen et al., 2012; Creswell, 2009; Fatters, 2016; Marshall et al., 2013; Inuigushi & Mizoshita, 2012) is presented in the texts that follow.