Models are an important component of research design that serve as intermediaries between theories and data, often directing decisions about methods and statistics. This article discusses the basic differences and assumptions associated with process and variance models as a way of introducing the four articles contained within this special issue of Family Business Review on “Process and Variance Methods.” Specifically, we highlight three key issues regarding modeling—time and causality, measurement and operationalization, and model specification—making specific ties to the challenges often associated with family business research.
AnglinA. H.ReidS. W.ShortJ. C.ZacharyM. A.RutherfordM. W. (2017). An archival approach to measuring family influence: An organizational identity perspective. Family Business Review, 30(1), 19-36.
2.
BlieseP. D.PloyhartR. E. (2002). Growth modeling using random coefficient models: Model building, testing, and illustrations. Organizational Research Methods, 5, 362-387.
3.
BonoJ. E.McNamaraG. (2011). From the editors: Publishing in AMJ-Part 2: Research design. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 657-660.
4.
BrighamK. H.LumpkinG. T.PayneG. T.ZacharyM. A. (2014). Researching long-term orientation: Construct validation and recommendations for future research. Family Business Review, 27, 72-88.
5.
CaterJ. J.KidwellR. E.CampK. M. (2016). Successor team dynamics in family firms. Family Business Review, 29, 301-326.
6.
ChanD. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234-246.
7.
ChrismanJ. J.SharmaP.TaggarS. (2007). Family influences on firms: An introduction. Journal of Business Research, 60, 1005-1011.
8.
ColliA. (2012). Contextualizing performances of family firms: The perspective of business history. Family Business Review, 25, 243-257.
9.
DaspitJ. J.HoltD. T.ChrismanJ. J.LongR. G. (2016). Examining family firm succession from a social exchange perspective. Family Business Review, 29, 44-64.
10.
DavisJ. H.SchoormanF. D.DonaldsonL. (1997). Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 22, 20-47.
11.
De MassisA.SiegerP.ChuaJ. H.VismaraS. (2016). Incumbents’ attitude toward intrafamily succession. Family Business Review, 29, 278-300.
12.
EddlestonK. A.KellermannsF. W.ZellwegerT. M. (2012). Exploring the entrepreneurial behavior of family firms: Does the stewardship perspective explain differences?Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36, 347-367.
13.
EvertR. E.MartinJ. A.McLeodM.PayneG. T. (2016). Empirics in family business research: Progress, challenges, and the path ahead. Family Business Review, 29, 17-43.
14.
HoltD. T.MadisonK.KellermannsF. W. (2017). Variance in family members’ assessments: The importance of dispersion modeling in family firm research. Family Business Review, 30(1), 61-83.
15.
KotlarJ.De MassisA. (2013). Goal setting in family firms: Goal diversity, social interactions, and collective commitment to family-centered goals. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37, 1263-1288.
16.
Le Breton-MillerI.MillerD.SteierL. P. (2004). Toward an integrative model of effective FOB succession. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28, 305-328.
17.
MadisonK.HoltD. T.KellermannsF. W.RanftA. (2015). Viewing family firm behavior and governance through the lens of agency and stewardship theories. Family Business Review, 28, 312-331.
18.
MoormanR. H.PodsakoffP. M. (1992). A meta-analytic review and empirical test of the potential confounding effects of social desirability response sets in organizational behavior research. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65, 131-149.
19.
MorrisonM.MorganM. S. (1999). Models as mediating instruments. In MorganM. S.MorrisonM. (Eds.), Models as mediators: Perspectives on natural and social science (pp. 10-37). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
20.
NeubaumD.ThomasC.DibrellC.CraigJ. (2017). Stewardship climate scale: An assessment of reliability and validity. Family Business Review, 30(1), 37-60.
21.
SchneiderB. (1975). Organizational climates: An essay. Personnel Psychology, 28, 447-479.
22.
SharmaP.ChrismanJ. J.PabloA. L.ChuaJ. H. (2001). Determinants of initial satisfaction with the succession process in family firms: A conceptual model. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25, 17-36.
23.
SharmaP.SalvatoC.ReayT. (2014). Temporal dimensions of family enterprise research. Family Business Review, 27, 10-19.
24.
ShortJ. C.SharmaP.LumpkinG. T.PearsonA. W. (2016). Oh, the places we’ll go! Reviewing past, present, and future possibilities in family business research. Family Business Review, 29(1), 11-16.
25.
StanleyL. J.KellermannsF. W.ZellwegerT. (2017). Latent profile analysis: Understanding family firm profiles. Family Business Review, 30(1), 84-102.
26.
Van de VenA. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
27.
ZahraS. A.SharmaP. (2004). Family business research: A strategic reflection. Family Business Review, 17, 331-346.
28.
ZellwegerT. M.NasonR. S.NordqvistM.BrushC. G. (2013). Why do family firms strive for nonfinancial goals? An organizational identity perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37, 229-248.
