Guest Editorial
Gender and Family Business: New Theoretical Directions
Abstract
Purpose: This editorial aims to investigate the interface between gendered processes and
family business by exploring the extent to which gendered processes are reinforced (or not) in
family business operations and dynamics. This approach will complement the agency and
RBV theoretical bases that dominate family business research (Chrisman et al., 2009), and
further contribute to extending gender theories.
Design/methodology/approach: Acknowledging that gender is socially constructed, this
editorial discusses the interface between gendered processes and family business within
entrepreneurship research.
Findings: Despite a growing interest in gender and family business, there is a limited
literature that explores gender theory within family business research. A gender theory
approach embracing family business research contributes to a needed theoretical
deconstruction of existing perspectives on the operations, sustainability and succession of
family businesses in the 21st century.
Originality/value: This article makes a contribution to extant scholarship by extending
gender theories through an exploration of the gendered processes in family business research.
Keywords: Gender, family business, entrepreneurship, gendered processes.
1
Article type: Guest editorial.
2
Introduction
The contribution of family businesses accounts for a substantial proportion of the economy
(Cabrera-Suarez et al., 2001; Cromie & O’Sullivan, 1999; Davis & Harveston, 1998; Ibrahim
et al., 2001; Matthews et al., 1999; Shepherd & Zacharakis, 2000; Stavrou & Swiercz, 1998).
As entities owned, controlled and operated by different members of a family (Brockhaus,
2004; Cole, 1997; Cromie & O’Sullivan, 1999; Rowe & Hong, 2000), in the United States
and Latin America, family businesses constitute between 80-95% of all businesses, and in
Europe and Asia, at least 80% of firms are family owned and family controlled (Poza &
Daugherty, 2013). Overall, family businesses account for over 50% of the developed
economies’ GDP, and 50% of total employment (Shepherd & Zacharakis, 2000). In the UK
over 75% of all businesses are family-owned employing approximately 50% of the national
workforce (Harvey, 2004). Thus, the contribution of family-owned firms to the economy
cannot be ignored. Despite this dominance of family businesses, a lack of consensus on the
exact definition of family business persists and is an indicator of their nascent status (Litz,
1995; Miller et al., 2007). Research on performance of family businesses, succession
processes, knowledge management, strategic thinking, decision making processes (Collins et
al., 2010), family dynamics and operations (Carlsen & Getz, 2000) continue to dominate this
established discipline, especially as less than a quarter of family businesses survive to the
second generation, and only about a seventh survive to the third generation (Leach & Bogod,
1999). Indeed, the succession theme dominates the family business literature (Carlsen &
Getz, 2000; Chua et al., 2003; Bird et al., 2002), with the role of women and daughters in this
succession, and more widely within the family business domain, gaining increasing
recognition that extends beyond a focus on their traditional gendered roles (Danes et al.,
3
2005; Sharma, 2004; Barrett & Moores, 2009; Jimenez, 2009; Wang, 2010; Bjursell &
Bäckvall, 2011; Heinonen & Stenholm, 2011).
Given the international evidence of the significant transformations in men’s and women’s
roles, positioning and leadership within family businesses (Baines & Wheelock, 2000;
Cappuyns, 2007; Danes et al., 2005), these evolving dynamics influence theoretical
developments as well as the practices of socio-cultural and economic structures and policy
initiatives. To this extent, a gender theory approach embracing family business research
contributes to a much-needed theoretical re-construction of family businesses in the 21st
century. However, gender and gender theory remain largely ignored in family business
research. Indeed, in charting the future of family business research, many including Litz,
Pearson and Litchfield (2012), disregard gender completely from their agendas. Thus, this
special issue confronts and addresses this gap in the extant literature. In doing so, we aim to
contribute to the widely articulated call for further research that will enhance our
understanding of the family business (Malinen, 2004; Mulholland, 2003; Wang, 2010;
Jimenez, 2009). In this new research context, gender emerges as a key consideration.
Gender - a theoretical approach to family business research
Under the spell of the agency and RBV theoretical bases, ‘family’ is mostly presented in the
existing family business literature as an undifferentiated concept, and as a result, it is rarely
understood as a negotiated phenomenon but rather “automatically attributed by virtue of
blood or marriage” (Karra, Tracey & Phillips, 2006: 862). More specifically, agency theory is
a broad perspective that focuses on the economic costs that arise whenever ownership and
control (managers) are separated and its proponents view family firms as contexts in which
4
their alleged non-separation brings about considerable cost advantages (Schulze, Lubatkin &
Dino, 2003). Using the agency theory lens, “kinship thus tempers self-interest” and familybased altruism “compels parents to be generous to their children” (Schulze, Lubatkin and
Dino, 2003:180), albeit without stressing its potentially exploitative nature, subordination of
women and role for the reproduction of capitalism (see, for example, the decades-old feminist
critique Gavron, 1966; Benston, 1972; Oakley, 1974). On the other hand, free-riding, shirking
or the consumption of perks by family members that often made their appearance in the
relevant literature as agency problems (Karra, Tracey & Phillips, 2006) are generally treated
as a common characteristic of intergenerational relationships rather than gendered processes
within family businesses. To this extent, the effect of gender on “the politics of value
determination that influences a family firm’s vision” and strategy (Chrisman, Chua &
Sharma, 2005: 569) is largely ignored.
Using a more specific theoretical angle, the construct of ‘familiness’ as a means of explaining
the distinctive bundle of business resources and capabilities related to systemic family
interaction has become the backbone of the influential resource-based framework for
assessing the strategic advantages of family firms (Habbershon & Williams, 1999). Their
members are even considered to “have a ‘family’ language that allows them to communicate
more efficiently” (Habbershon & Williams, 1999: 4). However, such a “definition of
familiness does not include a temporal dimension” (Pearson, Carr & Shaw, 2008: 951),
focuses on a firm’s internal idiosyncrasies, is habitually ethnocentric and therefore, leaves
unexplored the changing ‘legitimacy’ of family business relations over time and across space;
furthermore, it does not challenge or extend existing knowledge about the gender/family
business interface. Interestingly, variety in family structures has been seen by the RBV
scholars as closely connected to networking ability, rates of new business venturing,
5
difficulty in shedding resources and patient resource accumulation within the family business
(Chrisman, Chua & Sharma, 2005), albeit without paying enough attention to the
contingencies of disadvantaged membership. To this extent, a new understanding of family
business interactions informed by a gendered perspective is quintessential, while at the same
time a call for more research on addressing how the ‘other’ is constructed in family business
studies is timely.
Bradley (2007) argued that the spheres of production (the business) and re-production (the
family) are intimately connected and co-dependent, and thus (self-) employment and family
relationships are extremely important locations of the social ordering of gender. The majority
of firms are copreneurial or family ventures where the contribution of all household members
is essential for business survival and success (Steier & Greenwood, 2000; Aldrich & Cliff,
2003; Ruef et al., 2003; Brannon et al., 2013). In addition, as stated earlier, if one takes into
account the international evidence of the dramatic changes in men’s and women’s roles,
positioning and leadership within family businesses (Baines & Wheelock, 2000; Cappuyns,
2007; Danes et al., 2005; Jimenez, 2009), it is reasonable to infer that the theoretical and
policy implications of such changes must also be significant.
In recent years, the theoretical developments have been actively pursued in the
entrepreneurship domain with scholars introducing gendered analyses and critiques which
expose the theoretical constraints and limitations of much of the entrepreneurial research to
date (see the recent works of Ahl, 2004, 2006; Marlow & Ahl, 2012; Marlow & McAdam,
2013; Hamilton, 2013; Rouse et al., 2013). These critiques highlight the prevailing
entrepreneurial discourse which is essentially masculine, and limits the possibilities of who
can claim to be an entrepreneur and what constitutes entrepreneurial behaviour (Ogbor, 2000;
6
Ahl, 2006). Although women’s enterprise is much “more than growing in size” as Rosa,
Carter and Hamilton (1996: 463) have exceptionally pointed out almost two decades ago, the
contemporary ideal type of entrepreneur is popularly represented as a white male in his prime
years [35 – 55] who establishes a venture with an economic imperative (Calás et al., 2009;
Redien Collet, 2009; Rindova et al., 2011). Consequently, women are portrayed as outsiders
or intruders to this field, and are detrimentally positioned in deficit (Taylor & Marlow, 2009),
which undermines the existing and potential contribution that women as both entrepreneurs
and family business actors make to economies and societies at large. Ultimately, the
performance of the women-owned business is perceived as under-par, condemned for being
smaller, risk-averse, lacking growth orientation and dismissed as illegitimate because they are
often home-based, part-time, or life-style (Brush, 1992). Indeed, as Marlow (2013: 95) aptly
surmises, ‘almost every detrimental business term possible has visited upon the hapless
female entrepreneur.’ This is further exacerbated by the assumption within the mainstream
research agenda that entrepreneurship is a neutral activity open and accessible to all with an
idea, ambition and energy. This discourse of agentic individualism naively overlooks the
social, cultural and institutional environments that influence the field (Ahl, 2006; Baughn,
Chua & Neupert, 2006).
One institutional environment which is explored in this special issue is that of the family,
arguably the single most important social institution founded in all societies. Traditional
functionalist approaches to the study of gender roles, such as that of Parsons and Bales (1956)
suggested that within the family in a capitalist society there was a need for role specialisation,
with men carrying out instrumental roles which involved functioning in the cut-throat world
of business. In contrast, the family largely required women to carry out expressive roles of
caring and nurturing. The presumed mutual exclusivity of these roles provided justification
7
for the type of family that became dominant: the ‘traditional’ or breadwinner/housewife
family (Bradley, 2007). However, in recent decades there has been considerable change in
patterns of employment and related changes in patterns of family composition and family
demography explained by numerous factors. Interestingly, Aldrich and Cliff (2003) argue
that changes in the composition of families that have occurred over time are also altering the
opportunities and resources available for venturing.
Despite this, Arber and Ginn (1991) argued that work and family are still autonomous
spheres, with apparent advances in women's labour market position failing to translate into
commensurate advances in their relative position within the family. Indeed, Ahl (2004: 167)
when presenting her analyses of how entrepreneurship articles construct work and family
explained, “the existence of a line dividing a public sphere of work from a private sphere of
home, family and children is also taken for granted in the entrepreneurship literature”.
Interestingly, approaches that combine these two spheres are now present in the institutional
entrepreneurship literature (for example, see Bika, 2012), whilst an earlier social capital
perspective of the ‘familiness construct’ and its components (Pearson, Carr & Shaw, 2008)
made a good start in rectifying this deficiency, and thus saw the family and the business as
enmeshed with one another rather as distinct entities. Whilst this is promising for the field of
family business entrepreneurship, there is still a tendency for much of the existing literature
to conceptualize women in family business as marginalized through the forces of patriarchy
or paternalism (Hamilton, 2006).
Thus, the purpose of this special issue is to investigate the interface between gendered
processes and family business which, whilst continuously evolving remains under researched
within the entrepreneurship domain (Sonfield & Lussier, 2009). In exploring the extent to
8
which gendered processes are reinforced or not in family business operations and dynamics,
we aim to shed light on how gendered processes contribute to our understanding of family
business. In doing so, our approach will complement the agency and Resource-Based View
(RBV) theoretical bases which continue to dominate family business research (Chrisman et
al., 2009; Litz et al., 2012), and further contribute to extending gender theories.
Special Issue Rationale
The theme for this special issue was inspired by the Women in Family Business event held at
the Norwich Business School (NBS) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in 2011. This
one-day conference, sponsored by the Norwich Business School at UEA and the Economic
and Social Research Council (RES-000-22-2378), was a collaboration between UEA’s
Women, Research and Enterprise Forum (WREF), the Gender and Enterprise Network
(GEN) - a special interest group of the Institute for Small Business and Entrepreneurship
(ISBE) - and the Women in Family Business Network. A series of research-focused
presentations delivered by Professor Susan Marlow, Dr Zografia Bika, Dr Louise Humphries
and Dr Julia Rouse were complemented by a ‘women in family business’ panel facilitated by
Dr Haya Al-Dajani. The ‘big questions’ with panellists Michelle Jarrold, Managing Director
at Jarrold and Sons Ltd, Emily Norton of Norton Dairies, Patrizia Spada of Italian Delights
and Stephanie and Nolly Challis of AmeyCespa previously Donarbon Limited, focused on
the importance, uniqueness, recognition and contributions of female family members within
their family enterprises. Following the academic presentations and panel discussion, the
arising dialogue from the forty five local, regional and national academics, policy makers and
practitioners attending the event repeatedly addressed the legitimacy, accountability, gender
9
inequality, and succession issues challenging family businesses as the involvement of female
members becomes more prevalent. This event led to the launch of this special issue.
We invited articles that analysed and interpreted gendered processes in family businesses
through i) gender theories, ii) agency theory, iii) RBV theory and iv) any other theoretical
lens that enhances our understanding of the interface between gendered processes and family
businesses. We expected articles to either challenge or extend existing knowledge and
theories about the gender/family business interface. Indeed, articles considering and
proposing definitions of family business informed by a gendered perspective, and how this is
shaped by the social, cultural and business environments, were greatly appreciated. The call
for papers attracted a total of eighteen articles. Given the high quality of the articles
submitted, the selection process was challenging. The rationale for the five selected articles
centred on a representation of the diversity in theoretical approaches and contexts in
researching gender and family business. For example, Mary Barrett’s article presents a
combination of family business and radical subjectivist economics to enhance theory on
women’s entrepreneurship. Robert Smith’s article discusses the theory of matriarchy in
entrepreneurship and family business, while Sylvia Chant’s article proposes a theory of the
‘feminization of responsibility and obligation’ that highlights the impact of gender on undercapitalised firms in developing countries. The article by Jonathan Deacon, Jackie Harris and
Louise Worth focuses on copreneurship amongst married couples and discusses the gendered
tensions embedded in this form of family business. Finally, Jane Glover’s article centres on
the farm context and the gender and power dynamics at play in succession. Thus, the five
selected articles in this special issue make a unique contribution to the research agendas
within the family business research as well as that within the gender and entrepreneurship
research.
10
Special Issue Contributions
As guest editors, we are pleased to present in this special issue five articles that enhance our
knowledge of the gendered processes in family business structures, operations, sustainability
and succession. Collectively, through empirical analyses and theoretical debates, our selected
articles challenge existing norms inherent in the field of family business and
entrepreneurship. It has been highlighted that these norms are inherently masculine whereby
'entrepreneurial theories are created by men, for men, and are applied to men' (Holmquist &
Sundin, 1988: 1). The heroic, normative figure of the entrepreneur is not only presented as a
man, but also the conceptual construction of the ‘family business’ places more emphasis on
the business than on the family; thus ignoring the cultural, historical and emotional dynamics
intertwined in business and family-life (Katila, 2002).
Responding to specific calls on the necessity of contextualizing entrepreneurship research
(Welter, 2011), and enhanced theory driven women’s entrepreneurship research (Rouse et al.,
2013), Mary Barrett’s article considers women’s entrepreneurship within the family business
context through a radical subjectivist view of economics. She focuses on the various
contextual factors around women’s entrepreneurship and takes a first step towards creating
the “gender-aware framework of entrepreneurship sought by Brush, de Bruin and Welter
(2009) and away from the limitations of a specific feminist ideology. In doing so, this article
presents a new theoretical direction for researching gender and family business. The findings
relating to the entrepreneurial imagination, empathy, modularity and self-organization
challenge the existing view on women’s entrepreneurship and illustrate how the family
business context prepares rather than hinders women for leadership and entrepreneurship
within, and beyond this specific context. These results were obtained from data collected
11
through a case study approach with 16 women in leadership positions in family businesses in
the U.S., the Middle East, the U.K., Southeast Asia, Canada, and Australia. This article
presents a thorough agenda of future research recommendations addressing gender and the
family business.
Moving from a radical subjectivist approach, Robert Smith’s article on the theory of
matriarchy confronts the universality of traditional reflections of family businesses as
entrepreneurship stories, and challenges researchers to critically consider how we portray
women in family businesses, and how we narrate their stories. He considers patriarchy,
matriarchy and the entrepreneurial family, suggesting that family businesses can act as
matriarchies of “social and economic reciprocity” as well as “egalitarian societies of
consensus”. This reframing of family business in terms of the matriarchal role presents an
interesting departure from the traditional typography of family firms. In focusing on the role
of the matriarch in family business, Robert Smith discusses the roles and power positions that
women can attain within family businesses, and examines the contextual processes through
which these are either enabled or constrained. He argues that when the business is an
extension of the family, matriarchy presents an epitome platform from where women can
exert influence on the daily matters of the family business. In considering matriarchy as a
symbolic space, and recognizing that gender and entrepreneurship are ‘situated practices’
acted and performed within this space (Bruni et al., 2004), Robert Smith similarly to Mary
Barrett acknowledges the importance of context in entrepreneurship (Welter, 2011).
In her article; ‘Gender, Power and Succession in Family Farm Business’, Jane Glover’s
discussions are very relevant to improving our understanding of how power operates within
the succession process in small firms, and in doing so, corresponds to Robert Smith’s theory
12
of matriarchy. Glover’s article takes an ethnographic approach to study a small family farm
in the Midlands of England (UK), and demonstrates how power struggles and gender issues
face one daughter as she becomes a partner and future successor in the family business.
Daughter succession is a particularly under-researched area, and so this case study provides
useful insights into what is an increasingly common scenario. To this extent, Glover’s article
turns the focus of scholarly enquiry away from the role of traditional farmers’ wives and
shows how contemporary women enter the farm business through succession rather than
marriage in the twenty-first century. In this family business context, gender bias emerges as a
determinant of routine farm management but not of strategy.
In her article, Sylvia Chant presents a different thesis resulting from a context focusing on the
gender dimension of ‘undercapitalised’ family businesses in developing countries. Here,
Chant uses a revisionist concept of ‘the feminisation of poverty’ and proposes a thesis on the
‘feminisation of responsibility and obligation’. We learn that poor women are mostly ‘selfemployed’ and ‘home-based’ rather than ‘managers’ within formal family firms. Drawing
from the experience of the Global South (with a special emphasis on urban slums) and its
prevailing feminisation of anti-poverty initiatives (e.g. micro-finance, food hand-outs,
machinery, vocational or infrastructural support), Chant argues that the economic
empowerment of women and their engagement in remunerative activity is not a sufficient
solution to their gendered privations. In any case, the large number of female-headed
households does not represent a good indicator of disadvantage per se (as assumed by ‘the
feminisation of poverty’ perspective), but rather covers up the intricacies of poverty
management at the grassroots. In developing countries, poor women are currently taking
greater economic, labour and time-consuming responsibilities for dealing with household
poverty (e.g. debt, care work and low-paid or informal employment), but are not
13
commensurately improving their negotiating capacity with spouses and other personal
rewards and rights such as business ownership, employer’s status, occupational prestige, asset
control or simply, leisure. To this extent, gender disadvantage in the Global South manifests
itself less in entrepreneurship (poor women’s own account business ventures) and more in
family business management issues.
Finally, set in South East Wales (UK), the article by Jonathan Deacon, Jackie Harris and
Louise Worth does not specifically explore ‘family business’ but acknowledges heterosexual
copreneurship within a sub group of the wider small business domain (Marshack, 2004).
Here, the authors highlight that not all husband and wife teams are copreneurial, and that
within copreneurial teams, not all members are entrepreneurial. Their exploratory study
challenges the perception of the gendered division of labour within the copreneurial
heterosexual business, and thus the assumption/stereotype of the male entrepreneur as the
lead. Their study seeks to discover granularity within the entrepreneurship domain especially the social construct, and thus the contextualised conceptualisation of small firms exploring the socialised detail of the descriptor of ‘copreneurship.’
Jonathan Deacon, Jackie Harris and Louise Worth suggest that copreneurship is a gendered
process and not a process of gender whereby the former suggests a fluidity of psychological
application and the latter a fixed physiological typology. Their argument supports the
established notion that as a socially constructed process, copreneurship can exist in any
structure, process or context where two or more people are gathered. The article questions
whether or not gendered identities are ‘hybrid’, and as such, also questions the
appropriateness of ascribing the husband and wife (son/father, mother/daughter) labels, which
14
in themselves have gendered connotations and carry defined societal expectations of roles
(McAdam & Marlow, 2010).
Conclusion
This special issue contributes to addressing the gap between family business, gender and
entrepreneurship by presenting five articles that offer alternative theoretical approaches to
researching gender in family businesses. A common thread among our selected articles
supports the exploration of further gendered critique in two future research directions. First,
how leadership is understood through a gender lens in family businesses. This can be
approached through a radical subjectivism perspective considering shared and individual
leadership in the context of business families’ propensity to innovate (Farrington, Venter &
Bischoff, 2012; Litz & Kleyson, 2001). Second, moving beyond conventional assumptions of
‘the family unit’ to include studies that recognise single parent families, same sex couples,
step families and extended families will provide much scope to employ gender as an
analytical tool to advance more robust theoretical debates. Both directions offer ample
research opportunities to explore gendered processes in the family business, which remain
imperative (Al-Dajani & Marlow, 2010), especially given the potential threats to women’s
roles within the family business.
Furthermore, in terms of future research in family business, applying radical subjectivism
with its individualistic leanings toward family business issues could complement efforts
towards developing research agendas into areas of family business strategy such as shared
leadership in family firms, although we acknowledge the potential methodological challenges
of doing so. Future research may also explore further the effects of temporal dimensions on
15
gender and business management, including daily operations and strategic direction. This
would be a potentially useful and relevant theme for the wider family business research area.
We also encourage longitudinal research approaches as these allow for the exploration of
change in gender dynamics, gender stereotypes, business management and family and
business life-cycles. In addition, their outcomes will be useful in informing policy, practice
and family business consultancy whereby the implications and potential effects of gender on
the family and the family business can play a significant role in determining management,
succession, and other plans, strategies and decisions.
Finally, in drawing on the articles in this special issue, we concur that entrepreneurship
research, policy and practice should be released from the domination by the masculine ‘hero
narrative’ through a reconsideration of those images, narratives and discourses that we
ourselves have constructed to research, describe and define entrepreneurs, entrepreneurship
and entrepreneurial practices.
Acknowledgments: We would like to acknowledge and express our sincere thanks to all the
contributors, reviewers, the IJGE editorial team, funding bodies (ESRC RES-000-22-2378)
and the networks that brought us together, the sponsors, speakers and participants of the
Women in Family Business event where this special issue was born, and the readers of this
special issue. In addition, we would also like to acknowledge all the submissions that we
were unable to include in this special issue. We hope that those articles have found suitable
journal outlets and we look forward to seeing them published in the near future.
16
References:
Ahl, H. (2004), The making of the female entrepreneur, Jonkoping International Business
School Dissertation Series, No. 015, Jonkoping University, Sweden.
Ahl, H. (2006), ‘Why research on women entrepreneurs needs new directions’,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30 (5): 595-621.
Ahl, H. and Marlow, S. (2012), ‘Gender and entrepreneurship research: Employing feminist
theory to escape the dead end’, Organization, 19 (5): 543 – 562.
Al-Dajani, H. and Marlow, S. (2010), ‘The Impact of Women’s Home-Based Enterprise on
Marriage Dynamics: Evidence from Jordan’, International Small Business Journal 28 (5):
470-487.
Aldrich, H. and Cliff, J. (2003), The pervasive effects of family on entrepreneurship: Toward
a family embeddedness perspective. New York: Elsevier.
Arber, S. and Ginn, J. (1991), Gender and Later Life. London: Sage
Baines, S. and Wheelock, J. (2000), ‘Work and employment in small businesses: perpetuating
and challenging gender traditions’, Gender, Work & Organization, 7 (1) 45-56.
Barrett, M., and Moores, K., (2009), Women in Family Business Leadership Roles:
Daughters on the Stage, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.
17
Baughn, C., Chua, B.L. and Neupert, K.E. (2006), ‘The normative context for women’s
participation in entrepreneurship: a multicountry study’, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice 30 (5): 687-708.
Brannon, D. L., Wiklund, J. and Haynie, J. M. (2013) ‘The Varying Effects of Family
Relationships in Entrepreneurial Teams’. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37: 107–
132.
Benston, M. (1972), ‘The Political Economy of Women’s Liberation In: N. Glazer-Malbin
and H. Waehrer (Eds.) Women in Man-made World. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Bika, Z. (2012), ‘Entrepreneurial sons, patriarchy and the Colonels’ experiment in Thessaly,
rural Greece’, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 24 (3-4): 235-257.
Bjursell, C. and Bäckvall L. (2011), ‘Family business women in media discourse: The
business role and the mother role’, Journal of Family Business Management, 1 (2): 154-173.
Bradley, H. (2007), Gender Matters, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Brockhaus, R.H. (2004), ‘Family business succession: suggestions for future research’,
Family Business Review, 17 (2): 165-177.
18
Bruni, A. Gherardi, S., Poggio, B., (2004), ‘Doing Gender, Doing Entrepreneurship: An
Ethnographic Account of Intertwined Practices’, Gender, Work & Organization, 11 (4): 406–
429.
Brush, C.G. (1992), ‘Research on women business owners: past trends, a new perspective and
future directions’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16 (2): 5-30.
Brush C.G., de Bruin, A. & Welter, F. (2009), ‘A gender-aware framework for women’s
entrepreneurship’, International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 1 (1) 8–24.
Cabrera-Suarez, K., Saa-Perez, P. D., & Almeida, D. G. (2001), ‘The succession process
from a resource- band knowledge-based view of the family firm’, Family Business Review,
14 (1): 37-47.
Calás, M. B., Smircich, L., & Bourne, K. A. (2009), ‘Extending the Boundaries: Reframing
"Entrepreneurship as Social Change” Through Feminist Perspectives’, The Academy of
Management Review 34 (3): 552 - 569.
Cameron. D (2001), Working with spoken discourse. Sage publication. London.
Cappuyns, K. (2007), ‘Women behind the scenes in family businesses’, Journal of Family
Business Studies, 1 (1): 38-61.
19
Chrisman, J., Kellermanns, F.W., Chan, K., and Liano, K., (2009), ‘Intellectual Foundations
of Current Research in Family Business: An Identification and Review of 25 Influential
Articles’, Family Business Review, XX (X): 1–18.
Chrisman, J.J., Chua, J.H. and Sharma, P. (2005), ‘Trends and directions in the development
of a strategic management theory of the family firm’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice
29 (5): 555-576.
Cole, P.M. (1997), ‘Women in Family Business’, Family Business Review, 10 (4): 353-371.
Collins, L., O’Regan, N., Hughes, T. and Tucker, J. (2010), ‘Strategic thinking in family
businesses’, Strategic Change, 19 (1-2): 57-76
Cromie, S., O'Sullivan, S. (1999), ‘Women As Managers In Family Firms’, Women in
Management Review, 14 (3): 76.
Danes, S., Haberman, H. and McTavish, D. (2005), ‘Gendered discourse about family
business’, Family Relations, 54 (1): 116-30.
Davis, P.S., & Harveston, P.D. (1998), ‘The influence of the family in the family business
succession process: a multi-generational perspective’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
22 (3): 31-53.
Farrington, S. Venter, E., Boshoff, C. (2012), ‘The role of selected team design elements in
successful sibling teams’, Family Business Review, 25(2):191-205.
20
Gavron, H. (1966), The Captive Wife: Conflicts of Housebound Mothers. London: Routledge
and Kegan Paul.
Habbershon, T.G. and Williams, M.L. (1999), ‘A resource-based framework for assessing the
strategic advantages of family firms’, Family Business Review 12 (1): 1-25.
Hamilton, E. (2006), ‘Who’s Story is it Anyway? Narrative Accounts of the Role of Women
in Founding and Establishing Family Businesses.’ International Small Business Journal
24(3): 253-271
Hamilton, E. (2013), ‘The discourse of entrepreneurial masculinities (and femininities)’,
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 25 (1-2): 90-99.
Harvey, D., (2004), Keeping it in the family, London: ACCA UK.
Heinonen J., Stenholm P. (2011), ‘The contribution of women in family business’,
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 13 (1): 62-71.
Holmquist, C. and Sundin, E. (1988), Women as Entrepreneurs in Sweden – Conclusions
from a Survey. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley, MA: Babson College.
Ibrahim, A.B., Soufani, K., & Lam, J. (2001), ‘A study of succession in a family firm’,
Family Business Review, 14 (3): 245-258.
21
Jimenez, R. M. (2009), ‘Research on women in family firms: Current status and future
directions’, Family Business Review, 22 53-64.
Karra, N., Tracey, P. and Phillips, N. (2006), ‘Altruism and Agency in the family firm:
Exploring the role of family, kinship and ethnicity’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice
30 (6): 861-877.
Katila, S. (2002), ‘Emotions and the moral order of farm business families in Finland’. In
Fletcher, D. (ed.) Understanding the Small Family Business pp. 180–91. London: Routledge.
Leach, P., & Bogod, T. (1999), The BDO—Stoy Hayward guide to the family business.
London: Kogan Page.
Lerner, M. and Malach-Pines, A. (2011), ‘Cross-cultural perspectives of diversity within
family businesses’, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 11: 107-111.
Litz, R.A. (1995), ‘The Family Business: Toward Definitional Clarity’, Family Business
Review, 8 (2): 71-81.
Litz, R. A., & Kleysen, Robert F. (2001), ‘Your old men shall dream dreams, your young
men shall see visions: Toward a theory of family firm innovation with help from the Brubeck
family’, Family Business Review, 14 (4): 335-351.
Litz, R. A., Pearson, A. W., & Litchfield, S. (2012), ‘Charting the Future of Family Business
Research Perspectives From the Field’, Family Business Review, 25 (1): 16-32.
22
Malinen, P. (2004), ‘Problems in transfer of business experienced by Finnish entrepreneurs’,
Journal of Small Business Enterprise Development. 11(1):130–139.
Marlow, S. (2013) ‘Conclusion: Setting Research Agendas’ In McAdam, M. (Ed) Female
Entrepreneurship, pp. 94-107 Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Routledge.
Marlow, S., and McAdam, M. (2013), ‘Gender and entrepreneurship: advancing debate and
challenging myths; exploring the mystery of the under-performing female entrepreneur’,
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 19 (1): 114-124.
Marshack, K. J. (1993), ‘Coentrepreneurial Couples: A Literature Review on Boundaries and
Transitions Among Copreneurs’, Family Business Review, 6 (4): 355–369.
Marshack K. J. (2004), ‘Co-entrepreneurial Couples: A Literature Review on Boundaries and
Transitions Among Copreneurs’, Family Business Review, 6 (4): 355-369.
Matthews, C.H., Moore, T.W., Fialko, A.S. (1999), ‘Succession in the Family Firm: A
Cognitive Categorization Perspective’, Family Business Review, XII: 2, June 1999.
McAdam, M. and Marlow, S. (2010), ‘Gender Practices And Practicing Gender In
Copreneurial Teams’, Institute for Small Business and Entrepreneurship Conference,
London.
23
Miller, D., Steier, L., & Le Breton-Miller, I. (2003), ‘Lost in time: intergenerational
succession, change, and failure in family business’, Journal of Business Venturing, 18 (4):
513-531.
Mulholland, K. (2003), Class, gender and the family business. Palgrave Macmillan.
Oakley, A. (1974), The Sociology of Housework. Oxford: Martin Robertson
Ogbor, J. (2000), ‘Mythicizing and reification in entrepreneurial discourse: Ideology-critique
of entrepreneurial studies’, Journal of Management Studies. 37(5): 605-635.
Parsons, T. and Bales, R. (1956), Family Socialisation and Interaction Process. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul
Pearson, A.W., Carr, J.C. and Shaw, J.C. (2008), ‘Towards a theory of familiness: A social
capital perspective’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 32 (6): 949-969.
Poza, E. J. and Daugherty, M. (2013), Family Business. Cengage Learning.
Renzulli, L.A., Aldrich, H., Moody, J., (2000), ‘Family Matters: Gender, Networks, and
Entrepreneurial Outcomes’, Social Forces, 79 (2): 523-546
Rindova, V. (2011), ‘Moving From Ideas To A Theoretical Contribution: Comments On The
Process Of Developing Theory In Organizational Research’, Journal of Supply Chain
Management, 47: 19–21. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-493X.2011.03221.x
24
Rosa, P., Carter, S. and Hamilton, D. (1996), Gender as a Determinant of Small Business
Performance: Insights from a British Study. Small Business Economics 8: 463-478.
Rouse, J., Treanor, L., and Fleck, E. (2013), ‘The Gendering of Entrepreneurship: Theoretical
and Empirical Insights’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 19
(5): 452-459.
Rowe, B. R., and Hong, G.-S. (2000), ‘The Role of Wives in Family Businesses: The Paid
and Unpaid Work of Women’, Family Business Review, 13 (1): 1-13.
Ruef, M., Aldrich, H.E. and Carter, N.M. (2003), ‘The structure of founding teams:
Homophily, strong ties, and isolation among US entrepreneurs.’ American Sociological
Review, 68 (2): 195–222.
Sharma P. (2004), ‘An overview of the field of family business studies: current status and
directions for future’, Family Business Review, 17 (1): 1–36.
Schulze, W.S., Lubatkin, M.H. and Dion, R.N. (2003) ‘Exploring the agency consequences of
ownership dispersion among the directors of private family firms’, Academy of Management
Journal 46 (2): 179-194.
Shepherd, D.A., & Zacharakis, A. (2000), ‘Structuring family business succession: an
analysis of the future leader’s decision making’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24
(2): 25-39.
25
Sonfield, M. and Lussier, R., (2009), ‘Gender in family business ownership and
Management: a six-country analysis’, International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship,
1(2): 96-117.
Stavrou, E.T., & Swiercz, P.A. (1998) ‘Securing the future of the family enterprise: a model
of offspring intentions to join the business’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23 (2):
19-39.
Steier, L. and Greenwood, R. (2000), ‘Entrepreneurship and the Evolution of Angel Financial
Networks’ Organization Studies 21 (1): 163-192
Taylor, S. and Marlow, S. (2009), Engendering Entrepreneurship: Why Can’t a Woman be
More Like a Man?’ Paper Presented at the 26th EURAM Conference, Liverpool, UK.
Wang, C. (2010), ‘Daughter exclusion in family business succession: A review of the
literature’, Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 31 (4): 475-484.
Welter, F. (2011), ‘Contextualizing Entrepreneurship - Conceptual Challenges and Ways
Forward’, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 35 (1): 165-184.
26
About the Authors:
Dr Haya Al-Dajani: Lecturer in Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management, at the
Norwich Business School, University of East Anglia (UEA), UK. Her research focuses on
gender, entrepreneurship and empowerment. Her overall research aim is the understanding of
the intersectionality of these three dimensions, and their collective impact on economic and
social development. Her research has been published in journals including the ‘International
Small Business Journal’, ‘Gender, Work and Organization’ and the ‘International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research’. E-mail: h.dajani@uea.ac.uk
Dr Zografia Bika: Senior Lecturer in Entrepreneurship, at the Norwich Business School,
University of East Anglia (UEA), UK. Prior to this post, she held the prestigious George
David Research Fellowship in family business and social change at the University of
Edinburgh Business School. Her research interests focus on rural, family and institutional
entrepreneurship issues. She has published in various journals including ‘Entrepreneurship
and Regional Development’, ‘Environment and Planning A’, ‘The Sociological Review’ and
‘Sociologia Ruralis’. Her family business research has been supported by a UK Economic
and Social Research Grant (RES-000-22-2378) in which she was the lead researcher. E-mail:
z.bika@uea.ac.uk
Dr Lorna Collins: Director of Learning Futures, Falmouth University. Her research interests
are family business succession and social innovation. Lorna co-founded Knowing and
Growing Ltd., a social enterprise that seeks to improve the intellectual property knowledge
within social enterprises, in 2010 when she also co-founded the Institute for Conscious
Business, whose purpose is to promote awareness of positive actions and practices within
27
business so that businesses can benefit society as a whole. Lorna co-founded and is co-editor
of the Journal of Family Business Management, a fully refereed academic journal published
by Emerald Ltd., first published in April 2011, which is dedicated to advancing management
research in family business and aimed at practitioners, family business owners and
academics. E-mail: lorna.collins@falmouth.ac.uk
Dr Janine Swail: Lecturer in Innovation and Entrepreneurship at Nottingham University
Business School within the University of Nottingham Institute for Enterprise and Innovation
(UNIEI). Janine’s research interests are in nascent entrepreneurship, and in particular how
women navigate the entrepreneurial process. She is also interested in the role of media and
culture in influencing entrepreneurial intentions, particularly among young people. She is
currently on the Board of Trustees for Institute of Small Business and Entrepreneurship
(ISBE) and is a former Associate Editor of the International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behaviour and Research. E-mail: janine.swail@nottingham.ac.uk
28