WANTED—Theoretical Contributions: An Editorial on the Pitfalls and Pathways in Family Business Research

Every management scholar is keenly aware of the need for contemporary research to make a theoretical contribution to the literature. As editors and reviewers, we wear the hat of “gatekeepers of the quality of the journal” (Chrisman et al., 2017, p. 214) and our assessment of the theoretical contributions of the manuscripts we appraise significantly color our editorial recommendations and decisions. As authors, we recognize the magnitude of this threshold and invest (or should invest) considerable effort in developing, expressing, and highlighting the theoretical contribution(s) of our own work. Despite this effort, more than 90% of the manuscripts submitted to journals like Family Business Review (FBR) are rejected, and the majority of those ill-fated submissions suffer from unclear or underdeveloped theoretical contributions. Over our respective careers, we have read, reviewed, and written decision letters for hundreds of family businesses manuscripts. In every case, we have commented on the extent to which the manuscript makes a theoretical contribution, and we have recommended rejection, revision, or acceptance based, significantly, on our assessment of the accomplishment of this threshold. Even for those papers we have evaluated positively, we have often pushed authors to clarify, deepen, or extend their contributions to theory and/or to the literature in general. Clearly, the need to contribute theoretically is imperative, and each paper’s ultimate ability to make a theoretical contribution varies. While the potential contribution of each manuscript varies, we have noticed persistent patterns in the types of family business papers we have reviewed. In our reviews and decision letters, we often find ourselves expressing a common set of criticisms and concerns that plague many of the papers we evaluate. In essence, we find that many authors, and consequently many family business papers, are repeatedly falling into the same few “theoretical pitfalls.” Based on our collective experience, we have identified four categories that capture many of these potential pitfalls. While research from each of these (and other) categories may indeed present a strong theoretical contribution, we observe that the relative ability (and manner) of each category to contribute to the literature can vary significantly. Furthermore, we find that the types of theoretical pitfalls associated with each category are generally consistent. This is troubling as many submissions are being rejected (oftentimes without even being sent out for full review) for largely the same few overarching reasons. In this editorial, we provide some guidance to authors by explaining what it means to make a theoretical contribution. We then identify and discuss four categories of family business papers, each of which presents different avenues or likelihood of making a theoretical contribution. For each type, we highlight common shortcomings found in manuscripts and offer authors ideas to further sharpen their theoretical work. Following that, we provide a practical guide to help family business scholars understand, clarify, and deepen the contributions of their work. Specifically, we encourage researchers to decide to what conversation their paper intends to contribute and discuss various pathways authors can take to maximize their contribution to the family business literature.