# Etp Topic Selection > Use when deciding whether a question is entrepreneurship-central enough for an Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (ETP) manuscript, and whether ETP (vs. - Skill: `thedixitjain/etp-topic-selection` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds add thedixitjain/etp-topic-selection` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/thedixitjain/etp-topic-selection/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: thedixitjain (https://skillmd.com/u/thedixitjain) - Updated: 2026-09-08 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/thedixitjain/etp-topic-selection --- # 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: / FAILS (reroute) 【Named conversation】 【Practice implication】what a founder/investor/policymaker does differently 【Outlet check】ETP > JBV/SEJ/AMJ because ... 【Verdict】proceed / sharpen / reroute to 【Next skill】etp-theory-development ``` --- **Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `Entrepreneurship-Theory-and-Practice-Skills/skills/etp-topic-selection/SKILL.md`