---
name: etp-theory-development
description: Use when building the theoretical argument for an Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (ETP) manuscript — constructing an explicitly entrepreneurial mechanism (opportunity, effectuation, bricolage, identity, socioemotional wealth) and choosing the theorizing mode.
Builds the argument; it does not pick the question (etp-topic-selection) or run the analysis (etp-data-analysis).
---

# Theory Development (etp-theory-development)

## When to trigger

- Your "hypotheses" are descriptive ("X relates to Y in startups") with no entrepreneurial mechanism
- A reviewer or editor says the theory "could be about any organization, not entrepreneurship"
- You are choosing among the entrepreneurship theory engines (opportunity, effectuation, bricolage, identity) and don't yet have a mechanism
- You are deciding between deductive hypotheses, an inductive grounded model, and a conceptual reconciliation
- The "implications for practice" section is empty or generic

## ETP's theory bar

ETP wants a **genuine contribution to entrepreneurship theory** — a new construct, a new mechanism, a boundary condition that changes what we predict, or a reconciliation of competing accounts — paired with a **defensible implication for practice**.
The dual mandate (theory *and* practice, USASBE heritage) is structural, not cosmetic: an elegant model with no practitioner payoff and a useful tip with no theory both fall short.
The mechanism must be **about the entrepreneurial phenomenon itself** — opportunity, judgment under Knightian uncertainty, resource assembly under constraint, the liability of newness, founder identity — not a generic organizational process relabeled.

## Pick the theory engine (and use it deliberately)

| Engine | Core idea | When it fits | Signature constructs |
|--------|-----------|--------------|----------------------|
| **Opportunity** | Discovery vs. creation of new means-ends | Why/how ventures form; recognition | alertness, prior knowledge, enactment |
| **Effectuation** | Control over prediction under uncertainty | Founder decision logic; pivoting | affordable loss, pre-commitments, bird-in-hand |
| **Bricolage** | Making do with resources at hand | Resource-constrained venturing | resource recombination, parallel bricolage |
| **Entrepreneurial cognition/identity** | How founders think and who they are | Persistence, role identity, passion | self-efficacy, identity centrality, mindset |
| **Socioemotional wealth (SEW)** | Non-financial family utility | Family business behavior | family control, dynastic intent, FIBER |
| **Institutional / ecosystem** | Legitimacy and supportive structures | Context-dependent venturing | legitimacy, embeddedness, ecosystem health |

State the mechanism as a causal/process chain with a **why**, **scope conditions**, and the **entrepreneurial actor or activity at its center**.
If you integrate two engines (e.g., effectuation × identity), justify the integration — do not staple constructs together.

## Choose and execute a theorizing mode

- **Hypothetico-deductive**: derive falsifiable hypotheses from the mechanism; moderators/mediators must reflect entrepreneurial context (uncertainty, novelty, resource scarcity, founder/team attributes), not generic firm covariates.
- **Inductive / grounded process theory**: build an internally coherent process model (Gioia data structure, process diagram); ETP publishes strong qualitative theory, but the output must be a *model*, not a rich description.
- **Conceptual / reconciliation**: introduce a new construct or reconcile competing accounts (e.g., discovery vs. creation); a literature review is not a theory paper.

## Make the practice contribution a real contribution

The "implications for practice" section should follow *from the mechanism*: if effectuation logic drives the result, the implication is about how founders/investors/educators should treat predictive planning — specific, not "managers should pay attention." A throwaway practice paragraph signals to ETP reviewers that the dual mandate was not taken seriously.

## Checklist

- [ ] The mechanism is specific to the entrepreneurial phenomenon (breaks under the established-firm substitution)
- [ ] A named theory engine drives the argument; any integration is justified
- [ ] Theorizing mode chosen (deductive / inductive process / conceptual) and executed consistently
- [ ] Scope and boundary conditions of the theory are stated
- [ ] Moderators/mediators reflect entrepreneurial context, not generic covariates
- [ ] A tension or orthodoxy is challenged, not merely confirmed
- [ ] The practice implication follows from the mechanism and is actionable

## Anti-patterns

- **Generic-org theory in a startup costume** — the mechanism reads identically for an incumbent
- **Hypothesis salad** — many predictions, no unifying entrepreneurial mechanism
- **Construct import without a boundary** — a psychology/sociology construct dropped in with no scope for the venture setting
- **Pretend deduction (HARKing)** — hypotheses reverse-engineered from results
- **Practice as ornament** — a generic "implications for managers" paragraph the mechanism does not generate
- **Description masquerading as process theory** — rich qual data with no model

## Worked vignette (illustrative)

A draft argues that "founder resilience improves venture performance." This is generic and untestable as theory.
Rebuild it through an engine. Choosing **entrepreneurial identity**: resilience matters because, under the chronic setbacks of new-venture creation, a founder whose *identity is centrally entrepreneurial* reframes failure as role-consistent learning rather than personal defeat, sustaining effort — the mechanism is identity-driven persistence, not a trait.
The boundary condition: this advantage is strongest *early*, when the venture's survival depends on the founder's effort, and weakens as the firm professionalizes and effort decentralizes.
The substitution check passes — an established firm's CEO does not face identity-threatening, existential setbacks at the same frequency, so the mechanism is entrepreneurial.
The practice implication follows from the mechanism: accelerators and investors coaching founders should strengthen entrepreneurial identity centrality (not generic "grit training"), and the value of doing so declines as the venture matures.

## Output format

```text
【Journal】Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice
【Engine】opportunity / effectuation / bricolage / cognition-identity / SEW / institutional (+ integration)
【Mechanism (one chain)】the entrepreneurial why ...
【Mode】deductive H1..Hk | inductive process model | conceptual reconciliation
【Boundary conditions】...
【Tension challenged】...
【Practice implication】what follows for founders/investors/educators
【Substitution check】breaks for established firms because ...
【Next skill】etp-literature-positioning
```