Jasper BrinkerinkFree University of Bozen-Bolzano | Unibolzano · Centre for Family Business Management
I study entrepreneurship and innovation issues in small firms. Side interest in scientific biases, norms, and practices.
How we measure 'reads'
A 'read' is counted each time someone views a publication summary (such as the title, abstract, and list of authors), clicks on a figure, or views or downloads the full-text. Learn more
I study strategic entrepreneurship and innovation issues in small firms, with a particular focus on technological innovation and sustainability investments. Besides my topical research, I also enjoy doing meta-science work - i.e. 'research about research'.
Prior research has revealed a negative association between family influence and R&D spending. The dominant explanation for this association centers on the role of socioemotional considerations in decision-making. These socioemotional decision considerations are argued to play a more prominent role among family firms and to lower their R&D spending...
This study investigates how family and nonfamily firms learn. Specifically, it asks whether family influence fosters or hinders the transformation of the potential absorptive capacity augmented by research and development (R&D) into the realized absorptive capacity embodied by innovation outcomes. The conceptual model posits that family influence w...
Firms are more prone to allocate their resources to research and development (R&D) when they are confident about their ability to appropriate the value created through these activities. In this regard, policymakers create formal intellectual property rights (IPR) institutions to create an innovation-friendly environment. Less formalized shared valu...
Organizational identity represents a characterizing aspect of family firms with the potential to drive their heterogeneity and decision making. While the intertwined relationship between organizational identity and strategy is increasingly receiving attention from scholars in general management, research in the family firm field has yet to tackle i...
Field-wide editorial expectations for each entrepreneurship study to offer new and interesting theoretical insights or explanations discourage entrepreneurship scholars to conduct the type of research needed to secure a replicable, generalizable, and thereby useful knowledge base. I address the paradoxical-yet predictable-long-term consequences of...
As a side-effect of increasing publication pressures, academics may be tempted to engage in p-hacking: a questionable research practice involving the iterative and incompletely-disclosed adjustment of data collection, analysis, and/or reporting, until nonsignificant results turn significant. Prior studies in entrepreneurship-related disciplines car...
The family business field is growing rapidly. However, similar to most management disciplines we observe a general lack of efforts to replicate prior influential findings. In addition, the vast majority of propositions developed in qualitative theory-building studies or conceptual work are never empirically validated. We hope this dedicated special...
We study firm-level expansionary investment activities in both equipment and buildings—the so-called investment spikes. Our identification strategy decomposes firm investment spikes into three streams: a spike in equipment only, buildings only, or a simultaneous spike. Empirically, we find that the timing and size of investment in equipment and bui...
Little is known about how firms change energy consumption over time. Yet to meet global climate change targets understanding how changes in firm investment impact environmental performance is important for policy makers and firms alike. To investigate the environmental performance of firms we measure the energy consumption and efficiency of firms i...
Beside resource-based differences and industry-based differences, organizational behavior is influenced by the institutional context wherein firms are embedded. Although formal institutions have been addressed as a main driver of firms’ innovation activities, research has led to controversial findings. Beside the codified set of rules and standards...
The research bundled in this doctoral thesis assesses how aspects of family involvement in privately owned small and medium-sized enterprises (hereafter SMEs) affect different innovation-related activities and their outcomes.
We use a mixed-method approach to elicit the multi-criteria decision models underlying the selection of new product development (NPD) partners by family and nonfamily SMEs. Specifically, a review of prior relevant literature combined with two focus group discussions with executives of local manufacturing SMEs led to the identification of a set of r...
We review the literature on open innovation in the context of SMEs and specifically focus on the relevance of this innovation paradigm for the family firms among these businesses. We explore the potential benefits of opening up the innovation process, as well as inhibiting factors identified in the literature. Moreover, we delineate potential areas...
I have been reviewing a hypothesis-testing study recently, in which the authors predict a negative effect of X on Y (let's call this H1), and a moderation hypothesis (H2) in which Z is argued to increase the magnitude of the negative effect (i.e. more negative).
The authors present a figure with the conceptual model of their study. H1 is represented by an arrow connecting X to Y, and a minus symbol (i.e., "-"). H2 is depicted by another arrow pointing at the middle of the effect of X on Y, and also carries a "-" symbol. The attached ppt slide visualizes the model.
I have been going back and forth with the reviewers in multiple rounds of review, as I believe this visualization to be misleading/confusing.
I always learned that, as an interaction effectively is a multiplicative effect of X and Y, a 'strengthening' moderating effect should be depicted with a "+" instead, irrespective of whether the effect of X on Y should be positive or negative (i.e., as in "-" x "+", or "+" x "+"). According to the authors however, a stronger negative effect should be depicted by using a "-" and interpreted in an additive way (i.e. as in "-" + "-").
A colleague suggested there are actually two 'schools of thought' on this matter. I could accept that as a futility, if it were not that the reader of a study may not go beyond having a look at the conceptual model, and then - depending on which of these two 'schools' s/he follows - would get two exactly opposing beliefs about what the authors predict/test/find.
Does anyone have an idea on which of these two is conventionally right? There must be an original study that first started using such box-and-arrow interaction models...
Best, and thanks,
For a research project I'm currently working on I am looking for literature that documents how a firm/organization's past experiences (positive or negative) in collaboration influences current or future attitudes and choices in collaborative relationships (e.g., alliances, JVs, R&D collaboration, buyer-supplier relationships).
By analogy, I know that there is quite some work in psychology that documents the influence of an individual's early-life experiences on their general propensity to trust others in e.g. work or personal relationships as an adult. I'm thus looking for work that studies the same kind of dynamics in an (inter)organizational context.
Studies on research norms and practices in my own and related fields. Ultimately aim to contribute to a more reliable and thereby useful knowledge base.