---
name: etp-topic-selection
description: Use when deciding whether a question is entrepreneurship-central enough for an Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (ETP) manuscript, and whether ETP (vs.
JBV/SEJ/AMJ) is the right home. Locks the question; it does not build the theory (etp-theory-development) or run analysis (etp-data-analysis).
---

# Topic Selection (etp-topic-selection)

## When to trigger

- You have a result or a dataset but the *question* it answers is not obviously about entrepreneurship
- You are unsure whether ETP, JBV, SEJ, or AMJ is the right outlet for this question
- A coauthor asks "is this an ETP paper or a generic management/strategy paper?"
- The phenomenon is interesting but you cannot say which entrepreneurship conversation it joins

## What makes a question an ETP question

ETP is the **theory-and-practice flagship** of entrepreneurship (SAGE for Baylor; official journal of USASBE).
A topic clears the ETP bar when it is **about the distinctively entrepreneurial** — the creation of new economic activity under uncertainty — *and* it promises to **move a theory conversation** while saying something a practitioner (founder, investor, family-firm owner, policymaker, educator) could act on.
ETP's historical roots in small business and its USASBE affiliation mean it takes practice seriously; its current identity is high-theory.
A good ETP topic lives at that intersection.

Entrepreneurship-central phenomena ETP publishes: new-venture creation and the **opportunity** process (recognition/discovery vs. creation), **effectuation** and entrepreneurial decision logic, **bricolage** and resourcefulness under constraint, **entrepreneurial identity** and cognition, **family business** (a core ETP franchise), **social and sustainable entrepreneurship**, entrepreneurial **finance** (VC, angels, crowdfunding), **ecosystems**, and entrepreneurship **education**.
If your question does not touch one of these, it is probably a management/strategy/finance question wearing a startup costume.

## A three-test filter before you commit

1. **The substitution test.** Swap "new venture / founder" for "established firm / manager" in your research question. If the question still makes complete sense, it is not yet entrepreneurship — find the primitive (novelty, Knightian uncertainty, liability of newness, resource constraint, founder centrality) that breaks under substitution.
2. **The conversation test.** Name the *specific* ETP conversation you join (e.g., the discovery-vs-creation debate; the effectuation–causation contrast; socioemotional wealth in family firms). "The entrepreneurship literature" is not a conversation.
3. **The practice test.** Say in one sentence what a founder, investor, or policymaker would do differently if you are right. If the only answer is "scholars should cite a new moderator," ETP is the wrong claim shape.

## Choosing ETP over its siblings

| If the core of the paper is… | Aim at | Why not ETP |
|------------------------------|--------|-------------|
| Entrepreneurship *theory* + practice implication | **ETP** | — |
| A wide-lens / narrative / multidisciplinary venturing study | JBV | JBV tolerates a broader method/narrative range; ETP wants tighter theory + practice |
| The *strategy* of entrepreneurial firms (advantage, scaling) | SEJ | SEJ sits at the strategy–entrepreneurship interface |
| A general management phenomenon with a startup sample | AMJ | If entrepreneurship is the setting, not the theory, AMJ fits better |
| Innovation-systems / R&D / policy with firms incidental | Research Policy | Not founder/venture-centric theory |

## Where ETP-fit questions tend to come from

Strong ETP topics rarely start from a method or a dataset; they start from a puzzle in entrepreneurial reality.
Productive sources to mine before committing:

- **Anomalies in founder behavior** — founders doing what standard theory says they should not (betting on affordable loss, persisting after failure, giving up control to keep a family firm intact). The anomaly is the seed of a mechanism.
- **A practice debate without theory** — something founders, investors, or accelerators argue about (does an early CFO signal quality? do failed founders deserve a second bet?) that the literature has not adjudicated.
- **A construct that traveled poorly** — a management/psychology idea imported into entrepreneurship without a venture boundary, ripe for re-theorizing with a scope condition.
- **An ETP franchise with a live tension** — family business (SEW vs. innovation), social/sustainable entrepreneurship (mission vs. survival), entrepreneurial finance (signaling vs. screening) — where ETP has depth and an unresolved contingency.

A topic sourced this way usually clears the substitution and conversation tests by construction, because it begins from the entrepreneurial primitive rather than retrofitting one.

## Checklist

- [ ] The question survives the substitution test (breaks when "founder/new venture" is removed)
- [ ] A *named* ETP conversation is the target, not "the literature"
- [ ] A one-sentence practice implication exists and is non-trivial
- [ ] The phenomenon is one ETP actually publishes (opportunity, family business, effectuation, social/sustainable, finance, ecosystems, education)
- [ ] ETP beats JBV/SEJ/AMJ for *this* question, and you can say why
- [ ] The contribution is theory-forward, not a dataset-forward "we have new data on startups"

## Anti-patterns

- **Setting-not-theory**: a startup sample standing in for an entrepreneurial mechanism
- **Conversation-less**: positioning against "the entrepreneurship literature" with no specific debate
- **Practice as decoration**: a paper with no actionable implication, hoping the USASBE heritage forgives it
- **Outlet drift**: a strategy or finance paper sent to ETP because a coauthor likes the impact factor
- **Trend-chasing**: a topic chosen because "AI startups / crowdfunding" is hot, with no entrepreneurial mechanism

## Worked vignette (illustrative)

A team has Crunchbase data showing that startups with a CFO hire earlier raise larger Series A rounds.
As stated, this is a corporate-finance result — apply the substitution test: "firms with a CFO raise more capital" is true of established firms too, so the question is not yet entrepreneurial.
The fix is to find the venture primitive: reframe around *legitimacy under the liability of newness* — an early CFO is a costly signal that a young, unproven venture is investment-ready, and the conversation becomes signaling/legitimacy in entrepreneurial finance (not generic capital structure).
Now the substitution breaks (a 30-year-old firm needs no such legitimacy signal), the named conversation is concrete, and the practice implication is sharp: founders facing investor skepticism can use a senior-finance hire as a legitimacy signal, but only before the liability of newness fades.
The same data, re-questioned, becomes an ETP paper.

## Output format

```text
【Journal】Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice
【Question (one sentence)】...
【Substitution test】breaks because: <entrepreneurial primitive> / FAILS (reroute)
【Named conversation】<specific debate, e.g. discovery vs. creation>
【Practice implication】what a founder/investor/policymaker does differently
【Outlet check】ETP > JBV/SEJ/AMJ because ...
【Verdict】proceed / sharpen / reroute to <venue>
【Next skill】etp-theory-development
```