Regardless of the approach used, conceptual, empirical, statistical, or qualitative, the theoretical approaches have been almost exclusively based on the norms of what are acceptable publication standards in business and management publications, and more specifically, in entrepreneurship. My approach in this brief paper is to consider four concepts from aesthetic theory as the basis for ‘‘relevant research for practice,’’ which was the broad domain for my contribution to this volume.

A popular theory of art is that it is a vehicle for artists to express their feelings or emotions and to elicit the same feelings or emotions in the viewers or listeners. It is this notion of art that is behind the often heard comment at a gallery, ‘‘I just don’t understand what he is trying to say.’’ In other words, the viewer is assuming that the artist is trying to convey something specific and that he or she, as the viewer, is responsible for trying to figure out what and – possibly – to have the same reaction.

While this theory has had numerous critics over the years, it is still a useful model for research on family enterprise and one that could generate articles more closely tied to professional practice in the field. Here’s how: currently research in the field is dominated by topics that are likely to result in publications leading toward tenure or professional advancement in the academic world. As such, they can be quite remote from the everyday world of the practitioner. Even if there are applications to practice in current research, very few authors seem willing to take the next step and turn their research into accessible information for family enterprise consultants and advisors who have, in the last 25 years, created a new profession.

My suggestion is that if researchers thought of themselves as artists trying to express profound emotions about important topics, a good deal of more research relevant to practice might be generated. I realize that talking about the author’s feelings is heretical in academic research, but at least in generating topics, art as expression could be a useful concept. What if family business researchers only wrote on topics about which they themselves had a sense of passion or urgency? One cannot necessarily conclude that the research would be less rigorous. One can, however, reasonably hypothesize that topics which passed the litmus test of the author’s personal passion would be far more likely to engage the interest of, and be read by professionals in the field.

Another popular understanding of art is that it is primarily about providing opportunities for multiple interpretations of the artwork. In this case, the creator’s point of view, feelings, emotions, etc. are not the organizing features. Instead, opportunities for multiple meanings and interpretations are created, and it is the viewer’s or listener’s responsibility to extract these meanings. Shakespeare’s writing is perhaps the best example of this model, e.g., how many interpretations have been made of the various soliloquies of his heroes or heroines? And no one ever claims to have it ‘‘right’’ or to assume that even if Shakespeare had a particular point of view in these plays or characters, that he is sharing it with us! Instead, we are left to interpret, endlessly. (For a modern twist, read Yale Professor Jed Rubenfeld’s take on Freud’s take on Hamlet, in the novel, Interpretation of a Murder.)

I suspect that most researchers in the field hope that their research will provide multiple avenues for exploration and further commentary. However, that hope is usually directed toward other researchers. What if topics were chosen and articles written with practitioners in mind as the ‘‘interpreters? What might the next generation of research look like if the topics were chosen with the idea that the ‘‘viewer/listeners’’ were professionals in the field? My theory is that topics would be identified and researched that are not even on the radar screen and that a new set of core concepts, so badly needed in the field, could evolve. These concepts would be rooted in the experience of a large cadre of professional advisors who have served the field of family enterprise for more than 25 years.

Yet a third theory of art is that it serves as historical record, either of a historical period in general or an aesthetic period in particular. Good examples of this might be Dostoevsky’s War and Peace as it tells the story of Russian society in the Napoleonic Era. Or the late works of Bach, which pushed the limits of the Baroque style to such an extreme that a new musical era, the Classical period, emerged.

This is an interesting model for family business research as it enters its second generation. If those researchers already accomplished in the styles, methodologies, and topics of the field took it upon themselves to push these elements to end the era, or so completely capture it that younger scholars had to go in new directions, we might see research orientations more closely tied to practice. For example, in a new era, the word ‘‘empirical’’ would not only mean research on the family enterprise itself but also study and research on the work and behaviors of professional advisors and the interventions they have developed.

Art for art’s sake is a late 19th century term which became popular in the early 20th century in reaction to romantic notions of art as expression or as serving exclusively utilitarian and/or moral functions in a society. Here, the focus is on the artwork itself, not the creator, viewer, historical interpretations, or moral functions. It is often connected in the visual arts with ‘‘modern’’ or ‘‘abstract’’ art and in music with ‘‘twelve tone’’ styles. It is essentially a theory about excellence and the ability of the artwork to ‘‘stand alone.’’

In some ways, this theory is a call to ‘‘irrelevant’’ research – or pure research – to increase understanding of fundamental principles. It underscores the importance of the research itself and its ability to provide conceptual platforms. One might go so far as to say that currently there are no ‘‘fundamental principles’’ in the field of family enterprise professional practice and that these still need to be developed – hence the need for the ‘‘art for art’s sake’’ model. At the least, applying this model would require a review of existing research, stripped of all its attributes except fundamental principles, to see what kind of a ‘‘show’’ we could have. Would it be several galleries at the Metropolitan Museum of Art with international audiences or a boutique show in Milan with only ‘‘invited guests?’’

A brief review of the theories and how they might forge better relationships between academics and practitioners, theory and practice, in the field of family enterprise.

• Art as expression: focusing on topics about which the researchers are passionate could lead to more engagement by practitioners who are trained to tune in and respond to the emotional side of issues and, by extension, to the passions of the authors.
• Art as interpretation: selecting topics for research that provide opportunities for expansion and further exploration by practitioners in addition to academics might create a cadre of practitioners who could use their experiences with enterprising families to open up the academic research horizons.
• Art as historical record: seizing this moment in time when a new generation of researchers is emerging to produce articles that sum up the best of the last 20 years and take current research methods to the highest level will create ‘‘classics’’ that practitioners, and business-owning families, will have to read.
• Art for art’s sake: What are the stand-alone concepts in family business theory? Are there any fundamental principles in family business advising?Is there an art for art’s sake in the field? A disciplined exploration of research to date using this theory could be revealing.

This article originally appeared in Entrepreneurship and Family Business, published by Emerald Publishers It is reprinted with permission.