Evolution of the intellectual structure of family business literature: A bibliometric study of FBR

Family Business Review

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 141-162

  Casillas, Jose C ^a   Acedo, Francisco J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SEVILLE   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34447128384     PISSN: 08944865     EISSN: 17416248     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-6248.2007.00092.x     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Acedo, F. J., Barroso, C., Casillas, J. C., & Galán, J. L. (2001). Dominant approach in the field of management. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 9 (4), 327-353.
2. Acedo, F. J., Barroso, C., & Galán, J. L. (2006). The resource based theory: Dissemination and main trends. Strategic Management Journal, 27 (7), 621-636.
3. Acedo, F. J., & Casillas, J. C. (2005). Current paradigms in the international management field: An author co-citation analysis. International Business Review, 14 (5), 619-639.
4. Bird, B., Welsch, H., Astrachan, J. H., & Pistrui, D. (2002). Family business research: The evolution of an academic field. Family Business Review, 15 (4), 337-350.
5. Borokhovich, K. A., Bricker, R. J., & Simkins, B. J. (1994). The streams of financial research and their interrelationships: Evidence from the Social Sciences Citation Index. Financial Practice and Education, 4 (2), 110-123.
6. Bricker, R. J. (1987). An empirical investigation of the intellectual structure of the accounting discipline: A citational analysis of selected scholarly journals. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Case Western Reserve University.
7. Callon, M., Courtial, J. P., & Penan, H. (1995). Cienciometría. El estudio cuantitativo de la actividad científica: De la bibliometría a la vigilancia tecnológica. Gijón: Ediciones Trea.
8. Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J., & Sharma, P. (2003). Current trends and future directions in family business management studies: Toward a theory of the family firm. Coleman Foundation White Paper Series. Available at (http://www.usabe.org/knowledge/whitepapers/index.asp)
9. Cole, J., & Zuckerman, H. (1975). The emergence of a scientific specialty: The self-exemplifying case of the sociology of science. In L.A. Coser (Ed.), The idea of social structure: Papers in honor of Robert K. Merton (pp. 139-174). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
10. Cole, S. (1983). The hierarchy of the sciences? American Journal of Sociology, 89 (1), 111-139
11. Corbetta, G., & Salvato, C. (2004). Self-serving of self-actualizing? Models of man and agency costs in different types of family firms: A commentary on "Comparing the agency costs of family and non-family firms: Conceptual issues and exploratory evidence." Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28, 355-362.
12. Culnan, M. J. (1986). The intellectual development of management information systems, 1972-1982, a co-citation analysis. Management Science, 32 (2), 156-172.
13. Culnan, M. J., O'Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. A. (1990). Intellectual structure of research in organizational behavior, 1972-1984: A co-citation analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41, 453-458.
14. Dyer, W. G., & Sánchez, M. (1998). Current state of family business theory and practice as reflected in Family Business Review 1988-1997. Family Business Review, 11 (4), 287-295.
15. Eom, S. B. (1996). Mapping the intellectual structure of research in decision support systems through author cocitation analysis (1971-1993). Decision Support Systems, 16 (4), 315-338.
16. Garfield, E. (1963). Citation indexes in sociological and historical research. American Documentation, 14 (4), 289-291.
17. Gustafson, D. P., & Kuehl, C. R. (1974). Citation age distributions for the three areas of business. Journal of Business, 47 (3), 440-447.
18. Habbershon, T., & Williams, M. (1999). A resource-based framework for assessing the strategic advantages of family firms. Family Business Review, 12, 1-25.
19. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1999). Análisis Multivariante. Madrid: Prentice Hall.
20. Handler, W. C. (1989). Methodological issues and considerations in studying family businesses. Family Business Review, 2 (3), 257-276.
21. Heischmidt, K. A., & Gorden, P. (1993). Rating of marketing publications: Impact of accreditationand publication history. Journal of Education for Business, Jan.-Feb., 152-158.
22. Hicks, D. (1987). Limitations of co-citation analysis as a tool for science policy. Social Studies of Science, 17 (2), 295-316.
23. Hicks, D. (1988). Limitations and more limitations of co-citation analysis/bibliometric modelling: A reply to Franklin. Social Studies of Science, 18 (2), 375-384.
24. Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.
25. Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of research programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91-96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26. Locke, J., & Perera, H. (2001). The intellectual structure of international accounting in the early 1990s. International Journal of Accounting, 36 (2), 223-249.
27. McCain K. W. (1990). Mapping authors in intellectual space: A technical overview. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41, 433-443.
28. Menard, H. W. (1971). Science: Growth and change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
29. Moya, F., Jiménez, E., & Moneda, M. (1998). Research fronts in library and information science in Spain 1985-1994. Scientometrics, 42 (2), 229-246.
30. Neubauer, F., & Lank, A. (1998). The family business: Its governance for sustainability. New York: MacMillan Press Ltd.
31. Price, J. D. (1965). Networks of scientific papers. Science, 149, 510-515.
32. Ramos, A. R., & Ruiz, J. (2004). Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic management research: A bibliometric study of the Strategic Management Journal 1980-2000. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 981-1004.
33. Ratnatunga, J., & Romano, C. (1997). A "citation classics" analysis of articles in contemporary small entreprise research. Journal of Business Venturing, 12, 197-212.
34. Reader, D., & Watkins, D. (2006). The social and collaborative nature of entrepreneurship scholarship: A co-citation and perceptual analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 30 (3), 417-441.
35. Rowlands, I. (1999). Patterns of author co-citation in information policy: Evidence of social, collaborative and cognitive structure. Scientometrics, 44 (3), 533-546.
36. Schildt, H. A., Zahra, S. A., & Sillanpää, A. (2006). Scholarly communities in entrepreneurship research: A co-citation analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 30 (3), 399-415.
37. Schulze, W., Lubatkin, M., Dino, R., & Buchholtz, A. (2001). Agency relationships in family firms: Theory and evidence. Organization Science, 12, 99-116.
38. Sharma, P. (2004). An overview of the field of family business studies: Current status and directions for the future. Family Business Review, 17 (1), 1-36.
39. Sharma, P., Chrisman, J. J., & Chua, J. H. (1996). A review annotated bibliography of family business studies. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
40. 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), 1-35.
41. Small, H. (1974). Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Essays of an Information Scientist, 2, 28-31.
42. Small, H. (2003). Paradigms, citations, and maps of science: A personal history. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54 (5), 394-399.
43. White, H. D. (1990). Author co-citation analysis: Overview and defense. In C. L. Borgman (Ed.), Scholarly communication and bibliometrics (pp. 84-106). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
44. White, H. D., & Griffith, B. C. (1981). Author cocitation: A literature measure of intellectual structure. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 32, 163-171.
45. Wortman, M. S. (1994). Theoretical foundations for family-owned businesses: A conceptual and research based paradigm. Family Business Review, 7 (1), 3-27.
46. Zahra, S., & Sharma, P. (2004). Family business research: A strategic reflection. Family Business Review, 17 (4), 331-346.