Advertisement

Generational Diversity as a Moderator for the Relationship Between Absorptive Capacity and Innovation Performance at Family Firms

  • Gloria Charão Ferreira
  • João M. Ferreira
Chapter
Part of the Studies on Entrepreneurship, Structural Change and Industrial Dynamics book series (ESID)

Abstract

The objective of this research study involves analyzing the capacities of family firms to absorb relevant information about the external environment and to incorporate this into their innovation-focused activities before then consequently analyzing the repercussions for innovation performance. This furthermore seeks to grasp whether, and to what extent, the generational diversity in the firm’s management represents a valuable resource. In order to obtain these objectives, we opted for a quantitative study with the data collected by a questionnaire sent out by email to the managers of Brazilian firms, specifically those with their headquarters in the state of Rio Grande do Sul and registered with the Rio Grande do Sul Industrial Federation. The results of this study provide recognition of ACAP as an important predictor of FF innovation performance. In particular, the findings suggest that the potential absorptive capacity (PACAP) generates a positive and significant effect on the realized absorptive capacity (RACAP). We may also report the positive and significant effect of PACAP on the incremental innovation performance and, similarly, for the RACAP influence on the radical innovation performance. Contrary to that expected, however, the results point to generational diversity in the management of the FF which is not a significant moderator between ACAP and innovation performance.

Keywords

Absorptive capacity Innovation performance Generational diversity Family firm 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior-Brasil (CAPES) Finance Code 001, and NECE—Research Unit in Business Sciences funded by the Multiannual Funding Programme of R&D Centres of Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT), under the project “UID/GES/04630/2013.”

References

  1. Andersen, J. (2015). The absorptive capacity of family firms. Journal of Family Business Management, 5(1), 73–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Astrachan, J. H., & Kolenko, T. A. (1994). A neglected factor explaining family business success: Human resource practices. Family Business Review, 7, 251–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barkema, H. G., & Shvyrkov, O. (2007). Does top management team diversity promote or hamper foreign expansion? Strategic Management Journal, 28, 663–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker, J., Klein, K., & Wetzels, M. (2012). Hierarchical latent variable models in PLS-SEM: Guidelines for using reflective-formative type models. Long Range Planning, 45, 359–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Block, J. H. (2012). R&D investments in family and founder firms: An agency perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(2), 248–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burcharth, A. L. L. d. A., Lettl, C., & Ulhøi, J. P. (2015). Extending organizational antecedents of absorptive capacity: Organizational characteristics that encourage experimentation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 90, 269–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Camisón, C., & Forés, B. (2010). Knowledge absorptive capacity: New insights for its conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Business Research, 63(7), 707–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carnes, C. M., & Ireland, R. D. (2013). Familiness and innovation: Resource bundling as the missing link. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 37(6), 1399–1419.Google Scholar
  9. Carney, M. (2005). Corporate governance and competitive advantage in family-controlled firms. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 29(3), 249–265.Google Scholar
  10. Cennamo, C., Berrone, P., Cruz, C., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2012). Socioemotional wealth and proactive stakeholder engagement: Why family-controlled firms care more about their stakeholders. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 36(6), 1153–1173.Google Scholar
  11. Chen, C., & Huang, J. (2009). Strategic human resource practices and innovation performance – The mediating role of knowledge management capacity. Journal of Business Research, 62, 104–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chesbrough, H. (2010). Business model innovation: Opportunities and barriers. Long Range Planning, 43, 354–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chirico, F., & Salvato, C. (2016). Knowledge internalization and product development in family firms: When relational and affective factors matter. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 40, 201–229.Google Scholar
  14. Chirico, F., Sirmon, D. G., Sciascia, S., & Mazzola, P. (2011). Resource orchestration in family firms: Investigating how entrepreneurial orientation, generational involvement, and participative strategy affect performance. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 5(4), 307–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Choi, Y. R., Zahra, S. A., Yoshikawa, T., & Han, B. H. (2015). Family ownership and R&D investment: The role of growth opportunities and business group membership. Journal of Business Research, 68, 1053–1061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., & Steier, L. P. (2005). Sources and consequences of distinctive familiness: An introduction. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 29(3), 237–247.Google Scholar
  17. Chrisman, J., & Patel, P. (2011). Variations in R&D investments of family and non-family firms: Behavioral agency and myopic loss aversion perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 976–997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chrisman, J. J., Steier, L. P., & Chua, J. H. (2008). Toward a theoretical basis for understanding the dynamics of strategic performance in family firms. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 32(6), 935–947.Google Scholar
  19. Classen, N., Van Gils, A., Bammens, Y., & Carree, M. (2012). Accessing resources from innovation partners: The search breadth of family SMEs. Journal of Small Business Management, 50(2), 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Clercq, D., & Belausteguigoitia, I. (2015). Intergenerational strategy involvement and family firms’ innovation pursuits: The critical roles of conflict management and social capital. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 6(3), 178–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (Revised Ed.). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  22. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1989). Innovation and learning: The two faces of R&D. Economic Journal, 99, 569–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive-capacity – A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cruz, C., & Nordqvist, M. (2012). Entrepreneurial orientation in family firms: A generational perspective. Small Business Economics, 38(1), 33–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. DeVellis, R. F. (2012). Scale development: Theory and applications (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Dolz, C., Iborra, M., & Safón, V. (2015). Empresa familiar, equipos directivos, diversidad y ambidiestría en las PYMES. RAE-Revista de Administração de Empresas, 55(6), 673–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Duran, P., Kammerlander, N., Van Essen, M., & Zellweger, T. (2016). Doing more with less: Innovation input and output in family firms. Academy of Management Journal, 59(4), 1224–1264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ebers, M., & Maurer, I. (2014). Connections count: How relational embeddedness and relational empowerment foster absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 43, 318–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. European Family Businesses. (2014). Families in business for the long term. Retrieved from http://europeanfamilybusinesses.eu
  30. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Federação das Indústrias do estado do Rio Grande do Sul – FIERGS. (2015). Cadastro das Indústrias, Fornecedores and Serviços do Rio Grande do Sul [CD]. Porto Alegre: Unidade de Estudos Técnicos, Sistema FIERGS.Google Scholar
  32. Ferreira, J., Fernandes, C., Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2015). Drivers of innovation strategies: Testing the Tidd and Bessant (2009) model. Journal of Business Research, 68(7), 1395–1403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ferreira, J., Raposo, M., & Fernandes, C. (2013). Does innovativeness of knowledge-intensive business services differ from other industries? The Service Industries Journal, 33(7–8), 734–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Filser, M., Brem, A., Gast, J., Kraus, S., & Calabrò, A. (2016). Innovation in family firms: Examining the inventory and mapping the path. International Journal of Innovation Management, 20(6), 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Flatten, T. C., Engelen, A., Zahra, S. A., & Brettel, M. (2011). A measure of absorptive capacity: Scale development and validation. European Management Journal, 29(2), 98–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Forés, B., & Camisón, C. (2015). Does incremental and radical innovation performance depend on different types of knowledge accumulation capabilities and organizational size? Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 831–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Fosfuri, A., & Tribó, J. (2008). Exploring the antecedents of potential absorptive capacity and its impact on innovation performance. Omega, 36(2), 173–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Freeman, C. (1988). Japan: A new national system of innovation? In G. Dosi, C. Freeman, R. Nelson, G. Silverberg, & L. Soete (Eds.), Technical change and economic theory. London: Pinter Publishers.Google Scholar
  40. Garver, M. S., & Mentzer, J. T. (1999). Logistics research methods: Employing structural equation modeling to test for construct validity. Journal of Business Logistics, 20, 33–57.Google Scholar
  41. Gersick, K., Davis, J. A., Hampton, M. M., & Lansberg, I. (2006). De geração para geração: ciclos de vida das empresas familiares. Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  42. Gómez-Mejía, L. R., Campbell, J. T., Martin, G., Hoskisson, R. E., Makri, M., & Sirmon, D. G. (2014). Socioemotional wealth as a mixed gamble: Revisiting family firm R&D investments with the behavioral agency model. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 38(6), 1351–1374.Google Scholar
  43. Gómez-Mejía, L. R., Takács Haynes, K., Núñez-Nickel, M., Jacobson, K. J. L., & Moyano-Fuentes, J. (2007). Socioemotional wealth and business risks in family-controlled firms: Evidence from Spanish olive oil mills. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52, 106–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Habbershon, T. G., & Williams, M. L. (1999). A resource-based framework for assessing the strategic advantages of family firms. Family Business Review, 12, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Habbershon, T. G., Williams, M. L., & Macmillan, I. C. (2003). A unified systems theory of family firm performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(4), 451–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  47. Hair, J. F., Tatham, R. L., Anderson, R. E., & Black, W. (2005). Análise multivariada de dados (5a ed.). Porto Alegre: Bookman.Google Scholar
  48. Hernández-Perlines, F., Moreno-Garcia, J., & Yáñez-Araque, B. (2016). Using fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis to develop an absorptive capacity-based view of training. Journal of Business Research, 69, 1510–1515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Huber, G. P., & Power, D. J. (1985). Retrospective reports of strategic managers: Guidelines for increasing their accuracy. Strategic Management Journal, 6, 171–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2005). Managing potential and realized absorptive capacity: How do organizational antecedents matter. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 999–1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Jones, O. (2006). Developing absorptive capacity in mature organizations: The change agent’s role. Management Learning, 37(3), 355–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kaufmann, A., & Tödtling, F. (2001). Science-industry interaction in the process of innovation: The importance of boundary-crossing between systems. Research Policy, 30, 791–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kellermanns, F. W., & Eddleston, K. A. (2004). Feuding families: When conflict does a family firm good. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(3), 209–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kellermanns, F. W., & Eddleston, K. A. (2006). Corporate entrepreneurship in family firms: A family perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(6), 809–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kellermanns, F. W., Eddleston, K. A., Barnett, T., & Pearson, A. (2008). An exploratory study of family member characteristics and involvement: Effects on entrepreneurial behavior in the family firm. Family Business Review, 21(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kellermanns, F. W., Eddleston, K. A., Sarathy, R., & Murphy, F. (2012). Innovativeness in family firms: A family influence perspective. Small Business Economics, 38(1), 85–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kellermanns, F. W., Eddleston, K. A., & Zellweger, T. (2012). Extending the socioemotional wealth perspective: A look at the dark side. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 36(6), 1175–1182.Google Scholar
  58. Kim, Y., & Gao, F. Y. (2013). Does family involvement increase business performance? Family-longevity goals’ moderating role in Chinese family firms. Journal of Business Research, 66(2), 265–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. König, A., Kammerlander, N., & Enders, A. (2013). The family innovator’s dilemma: How family influence affects the adoption of discontinuous technologies by incumbent firms. Academy of Management Review, 38(3), 418–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Kostopoulos, K., Papalexandris, A., Papachroni, M., & Ioannou, G. (2011). Absorptive capacity, innovation, and financial performance. Journal of Business Research, 64, 1335–1343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Kraiczy, N., Hack, A., & Kellermanns, F. (2014). New product portfolio performance in family firms. Journal of Business Research, 67(6), 1065–1073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Lane, P. J., Koka, B., & Pathak, S. (2006). The reification of absorptive capacity: A critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 833–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Le Breton-Miller, I., & Miller, D. (2011). Commentary: Family firms and the advantage of multi-temporality. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 35(6), 1171–1177.Google Scholar
  64. Leal-Rodríguez, A. L., Roldán, J. L., Ariza-Montes, J. A., & Leal-Millán, A. (2014). From potential absorptive capacity to innovation outcomes in project teams: The conditional mediating role of the realized absorptive capacity in a relational learning context. International Journal of Project Management, 32, 894–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Leone, N. (2005). Sucessão na empresa familiar: preparando as mudanças para garantir sobrevivência no mercado globalizado. São Paulo: Atlas.Google Scholar
  66. Ling, Y., & Kellermanns, F. (2010). The effects of family firm-specific sources of TMT diversity: The moderating role of information exchange frequency. Journal of Management Studies, 47(2), 322–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Litz, R. A., & Kleysen, R. 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, 335–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Machado, R., Grzybovski, D., Teixeira, E., & Silva, M. (2013). Governança de pequenas empresas familiares brasileiras: Aspectos a considerar no modelo adotado. Revista de Ciências da Administração, 1(1), 198–210.Google Scholar
  69. Mahmoud-Jouini, S. B., & Mignon, S. (2009). Entrepreneuriat familial et stratégies de pérennité: Contribution au concept d’innovation prudentielle. Management international/International Management/Gestión Internacional, 14(1), 25–41.Google Scholar
  70. Marôco, J. (2014). Análise Estatística com o SPSS Statistics. Lisbon: ReportNumber.Google Scholar
  71. Miller, D., Le Breton-Miller, I., & Lester, R. H. (2012). Family firm governance, strategic conformity, and performance: Institutional vs strategic perspectives. Organization Science, 24(1), 189–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Miller, D., Wright, M., Le Breton-Miller, I., & Scholes, L. (2015). Resources and innovation in family businesses. California Management Review, 58(1), 20–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Murovec, N., & Prodan, I. (2009). Absorptive capacity, its determinants, and influence on innovation output: Cross-cultural validation of the structural model. Technovation, 29, 859–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Nieto, M. J., Santamaria, L., & Fernandez, Z. (2015). Understanding the innovation behavior of family firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(2), 382–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Pérez-González, F. (2006). Inherited control and firm performance. The American Economic Review, 96(5), 1559–1588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Pittino, D., Visintin, F., Bau, M., & Mazzurna, P. (2013). Collaborative technology strategies and innovation in family firms. International Journal for Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 17(1–3), 8–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Ringle, C. M., Silva, D., & Bido, D. (2014). Modelagem de Equações Estruturais com utilização do SMARTPLS. Revista Brasileira de Marketing – ReMark, 13(2), 56–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2005). SmartPLS 2.0.M3. Hamburg: SmartPLS. Retrieved from http://www.smartpls.de
  79. Ritala, P., & Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P. (2013). Incremental and radical innovation in coopetition—The role of absorptive capacity and appropriability. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30, 154–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Salvato, C. (2004). Predictors of entrepreneurship in family firms. Journal of Private Equity, 7(3), 68–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Sciascia, S., Mazzola, P., & Chirico, F. (2013). Generational involvement in the top management team of family firms: Exploring nonlinear effects on entrepreneurial orientation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(1), 69–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Sharma, P., & Salvato, C. (2011). Commentary: Exploiting and exploring new opportunities over life cycle stages of family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35, 1199–1205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Sørensen, J. B., & Stuart, T. E. (2000). Aging, obsolescence and organizational innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(1), 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Tidd, J., & Bessant, J. (2015). Gestão da Inovação [F. Nonnenmacher, Trad.] (5a ed.). Porto Alegre: Bookman.Google Scholar
  85. Todorova, G., & Durisin, B. (2007). Absorptive capacity: Valuing a reconceptualization. Academy Management Review, 32(3), 774–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Tödtling, F., Lehner, P., & Kaufmann, A. (2009). Do different types of innovation rely on specific kinds of knowledge interactions? Technovation, 29, 59–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfers in intra-organizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 996–1004.Google Scholar
  88. Ussman, A. M. (2004). Empresas familiares. Lisbon: Edições Sílabo, Lda.Google Scholar
  89. Van Den Bosch, F. A., Volberda, H. W., & Boer, M. D. (1999). Coevolution of firm absorptive capacity and knowledge environment: Organizational forms and combinative capabilities. Organization Science, 10(5), 551–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Vega-Jurado, J., Gutiérrez-Gracia, A., & Fernándes-De-Lucio, I. (2008). Analyzing the determinants of firm’s absorptive capacity: Beyond R&D. R&D Management, 38(4), 392–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Vega-Jurado, J., Gutiérrez-Gracia, A., Fernández-De-Lucio, I., & Manjarrés-Henríquez, L. (2008). The effect of external and internal factors on firms’ product innovation. Research Policy, 37(4), 616–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Vicentin, F. O. P. (2015). Alianças and a sua contribuição no desenvolvimento da capacidade de absorção and no desempenho inovador das empesas dedicadas à biotecnologia. Doctoral degree thesis, Faculdade de Economia, Administração and Contabilidade de Ribeirão Preto da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brasil. Retrieved from http://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/96/96132/tde-20072015-144106/pt-br.php
  93. Vinding, A. L. (2006). Absorptive capacity and innovative performance: A human capital approach. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 15, 507–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Vries, M., Carlock, R. S., & Florent-Treacy, E. (2009). A Empresa Familiar no divã: uma perspectiva psicológica. Porto Alegre, Brazil: Bookman.Google Scholar
  95. Wang, C. L., Senaratne, C., & Rafiq, M. (2015). Success traps, dynamic capabilities and firm performance. British Journal of Management, 26, 26–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schröder, G., & Oppen, C. V. (2009). Using PLS path modeling for assessing hierarchical construct models: Guidelines and empirical illustration. MIS Quarterly, 33(1), 177–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Winter, S. G. (2000). The satisfying principle in capability learning. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 981–996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Zahra, S. A. (2003). International expansion of U.S. manufacturing family businesses: The effect of ownership and involvement. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(4), 495–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Zahra, S. A. (2005). Entrepreneurial risk-taking in family firms. Family Business Review, 18, 23–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Zahra, S. A. (2016). Developing theory-grounded family business research: Some suggestions. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 7, 3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Zahra, S. A., Hayton, J. C., Neubaum, D. O., Dibrell, C., & Craig, J. (2008). Culture of family commitment and strategic flexibility: The moderating effect of stewardship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32, 1035–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Zahra, S. A., Hayton, J. C., & Salvato, C. (2004). Entrepreneurship in family vs. nonfamily firms: A resource-based analysis of the effect of organizational culture. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28, 363–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Zahra, S. A., Neubaum, D. O., & Larrañeta, B. (2007). Knowledge sharing and technological capabilities: The moderating role of family involvement. Journal of Business Research, 60, 1070–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Zahra, S. A., Sapienza, H. J., & Davidsson, P. (2006). Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: A review, model and research agenda. Journal of Management Studies, 43(4), 917–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Zellweger, T. M., & Sieger, P. (2012). Entrepreneurial orientation in long-lived family firms. Small Business Economics, 38(1), 67–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gloria Charão Ferreira
    • 1
  • João M. Ferreira
    • 2
  1. 1.Regional University of Northwestern Rio Grande do Sul (UNIJUÍ)IjuíBrazil
  2. 2.University of Beira Interior (UBI)CovilhãPortugal

Personalised recommendations