Keywords

Have you received a journal review criticizing your paper for lack of depth in investigating the subtleties of the focal entrepreneurial phenomena or perhaps one criticizing your paper for not being adequately generalizable beyond the focal entrepreneurial context? We have—and for the same paper, nonetheless!

These criticisms bring up important points and put authors in the challenging position of having to address requests for both depth and breadth of their theoretical arguments within the confined page limits set by journals. Indeed, attempts to extend the depth of an argument may inherently detract from the theoretical breadth and vice versa. Thus, how can authors address these apparently conflicting criticisms of entrepreneurial theorizing and also communicate these trade-offs to reviewers, editors, and readers? On the other hand, how can reviewers and editors weigh their preferences against a paper’s contributions to the field? While we do not resolve all of these issues in this chapter, we do offer a framework that provides some guidance (1) for entrepreneurship scholars on balancing breadth and depth to maximize their contributions and (2) for reviewers and editors on managing the revise-and-resubmit (R&R) process to further the entrepreneurship field.

As we have discussed throughout this book so far, we acknowledge that building theory is challenging and complex (Cornelissen, 2017), especially theory about entrepreneurial phenomena (for helpful advice on positioning and articulating the contributions of entrepreneurship theory papers, see Chrisman et al. [2021]). Scholars must generate and explain constructs, determine the scope and boundaries of their theorizing, and communicate clear contributions (Fulmer, 2012; Rindova, 2008; Suddaby, 2014; Whetten, 1989). Although numerous editors and scholars have provided important insights into the art of writing theory papers (e.g., Byron & Thatcher, 2016; Cornelissen, 2017; Locke & Golden-Biddle, 1997), a critical part of publishing such papers remains less clear—namely, how expert reviewers and authors engage through the review process—which has a substantial impact on theory. This lack of clarity mainly derives from the challenge of accessing this process as reviewer–author interactions are private, decentralized, and (necessarily) double-blind. Nevertheless, this lack of clarity is especially harmful to entrepreneurial theorizing because, like the phenomena we scholars investigate, the entrepreneurship field is dynamic and emergent (Chandra, 2018; Landström & Harirchi, 2018; McMullen et al., 2021; Shepherd, 2015; van Gelderen et al., 2021).

The field of entrepreneurship is still relatively new (McMullen et al., 2021; Shepherd, 2015). As such, entrepreneurship scholarship needs to continue developing new theories and elaborating upon current theories to best explain entrepreneurial phenomena (not to mention the changing nature of entrepreneurial phenomena). While the scholars providing theory-based contributions are primarily responsible for this field development, some responsibility also falls on the gatekeepers—namely, reviewers and editors—in terms of selecting high-potential papers, developing these papers through the R&R process, and publishing papers that make considerable contributions to our understanding of entrepreneurial phenomena. Indeed, the double-blind review process holds great promise for making significant improvements to theory, thereby contributing to the focal paper and the entrepreneurship field more generally. Nevertheless, unrealistic expectations (e.g., requiring both considerable depth and considerable breadth in a single manuscript) in the review process have the potential to undermine emergent theory, which could in turn delay or inhibit much-needed entrepreneurial theorizing.

Data on the interactions that unfold in the double-blind review process is extremely limited; however, one promising way to gain insights into this process is to assess critiques of entrepreneurship theory and the associated responses. These critiques come in the form of dialogues and editorials that analyze theorizing efforts and provide guidance for better scholarship. Assessing critiques of entrepreneurship theory has four main benefits. First, this approach reveals the quality of entrepreneurial theorizing, which in turn helps validate current entrepreneurship models. Second, it highlights possible routes to uncover future theoretical insights into entrepreneurial phenomena. Third, it shows how scholars (and the review process more generally) can take a more scientific approach to entrepreneurial theorizing, including making critiques, responses, and amendments to models to advance knowledge of entrepreneurship. Fourth, this approach offers a unique opportunity to obtain deeper insights into how scholars can build more effective entrepreneurial theorizing to generate impactful papers (conceptual and empirical). In particular, critiques of entrepreneurship papers are likely to help scholars prevent theorizing pitfalls, better understand entrepreneurial theorizing approaches to comprehend the validity of reviewers’ comments and communicate with them, and enhance their entrepreneurial theorizing so they can make more impactful contributions to the field.

Therefore, in this chapter, we aim to answer the following questions: what trade-offs do scholars face when engaging in entrepreneurial theorizing, and how can these trade-offs be managed to generate more robust and impactful entrepreneurship papers and further the field of entrepreneurship? In answering these questions, we outline three main challenges associated with entrepreneurship papers that provide a foundation for improving contributions to knowledge: (1) the scope of the entrepreneurial theorizing (either too narrow or too shallow); (2) the common features of a paper’s contextualization, boundary conditions, and time considerations; and (3) the point of view of an entrepreneurship paper’s perspective—theoretical, philosophical, level, and purpose (Shepherd & Williams, 2022). In formulating our arguments on the major trade-offs of papers’ entrepreneurial theorizing, we apply a mapping metaphor to demonstrate how each of the above themes affects the overarching “domain” of an entrepreneurship paper’s contribution. Similar to written language, maps represent an external expression of thinking (Wood, 1994) and help illustrate portrayals of boundaries that shape the human condition. As French cartographer J. L. Lagrange explained (in 1770), a “map is a plane figure representing the surface of the earth, or part of it” (Bagrow, 2017: 22).

We contend that applying a mapping metaphor to explain entrepreneurial theorizing sheds light on important boundaries, areas yet to be explored, and places where greater clarity is needed. In particular, in this chapter, we assess entrepreneurship papers in terms of their explanatory terrain of entrepreneurial phenomena (i.e., metaphorical “surface of the earth”). Indeed, entrepreneurial theorizing that covers too little or too much terrain contributes less to the literature than theorizing that takes the middle route between these extremes, which we call the optimal explanatory terrain. We admit that this idea of the “entrepreneurial-phenomenon terrain covered” by a paper is rather abstract and subjective. However, in what follows, we do our best to make this notion more concrete and argue that this conceptualization can improve scholars’ understanding of paper criticisms to ultimately improve their entrepreneurial theorizing and advance the entrepreneurship field.

Trade-Offs, Explanatory Terrain, and Contribution

Overview and Mapping Framework

We begin by offering our mapping framework of a paper’s contribution to the entrepreneurship field. Our framework utilizes a mapping metaphor and emphasizes the importance of considering breadth and depth to cover an optimal amount of the entrepreneurial-phenomenon terrain to contribute to the field of entrepreneurship. Reviewers of entrepreneurial theorizing and theory buildingFootnote 1 generally concentrate on issues surrounding a paper’s boundary conditions (contextual, temporal, and theoretical) and theoretical scope (breadth and depth of theorizing), and they tend to implicitly or explicitly recommend changing the entrepreneurial-phenomenon terrain covered in a single paper. Accordingly, these reviewers’ comments (and their respective recommendations) provide important clarifying guidance for scholars on how to improve their entrepreneurial theorizing to enhance their papers’ contributions. In the following sections, we outline the common reviewer comments on entrepreneurship theory papers and offer direction on how to integrate these insights when writing or reviewing entrepreneurship papers.

Theoretical Scope—Trading off an Entrepreneurship Paper’s Depth and Breadth

Among the most frequent reviewer comments about entrepreneurship papers are those referring to deficiencies in the breadth and/or depth of theorizing. Regarding breadth, we mean the diversity of entrepreneurship domains a paper covers. The more domains a model covers, the more generalized that model is across those domains. The resource-based view (Peteraf, 1993; Wernerfelt, 1984), which theorizes that firms obtain competitive advantage through their possession of valuable, rare, inimitable, and substitutable resources (Barney, 1991), is an example of a broad model that scholars have applied extensively across theoretical domains. One way to conceptualize the breadth of papers is through classification systems that capture the scope of a topic, field, or phenomenon—a broader paper includes more classes from a given classification system. For example, Sharma and Chrisman’s (1999) classification system for corporate entrepreneurship could be used to establish the breadth of a corporate entrepreneurship paper’s theorizing—a broader paper covers more corporate entrepreneurship classes (e.g., it covers internal corporate venturing, external corporate venturing, innovation, and strategic renewal compared to a narrower paper focusing only on internal corporate venturing). Regarding depth, we mean the number of links between elements (e.g., constructs, events, activities, etc.) in a model. Deeper models have more links between their various elements.

Despite the apparent polarity between a paper’s breadth and depth, we argue that these two aspects are not mutually exclusive. Due to publication constraints (e.g., page limits for a theory paper), however, there is a clear trade-off between the breadth and depth of a paper’s entrepreneurial theorizing. Here, we build on our mapping metaphor to suggest that a paper’s breadth and depth determine its “area” of exploration, providing either a wider view of the referents on a map and their interrelation (breadth) or a narrower, more detailed exposition of a specific section of a map (depth).

Thus, we detail how a paper’s breadth and depth establish the explanatory terrain it covers. First, since publication constraints limit the length of a single paper, we consider the optimal amount of entrepreneurial-phenomenon terrain a paper covers. Similar to optimal distinctiveness (Brewer, 2003), this concept involves making adequate reference to broad map features while also acknowledging the relevance of depth irrespective of the main orientation of the focal theoretical manuscript (deep or broad entrepreneurial theorizing). Entrepreneurship papers that fail to cover this optimally distinct amount of terrain have underutilized potential in contributing to the entrepreneurship literature. Second, to cover more explanatory terrain, scholars can broaden a paper’s scope, deepen (complexify [see Tsoukas, 2017]) its model, or both until they reach the optimal entrepreneurial-phenomenon terrain. Finally, any paper can be criticized for not being broad or deep enough. Here, we take a relatively extreme stance, proposing that such criticisms are apt in two scenarios: (1) the entrepreneurship paper does not cover the optimal amount of explanatory terrain of an entrepreneurial phenomenon, or (2) there is the realization that increasing one aspect (e.g., breadth) will require the author to decrease the other aspect (depth), and there is a strong reason to prefer one ratio of depth to breadth over another such ratio. Thus, entrepreneurship scholars need to be more explicitly aware of the potential scope of their papers—namely, the depth-to-breadth ratio—and avoid providing content outside their papers’ optimal terrain.

In line with the above reasoning, some reviewers criticize papers for being too narrow and then conjecture how the authors could have broadened such papers. This common reviewer critique supports our claim that despite the criteria for breadth/depth typically remaining unclear to authors, some critics highlight overly narrow arguments. For example, Harvey (2014) developed a model to explain how some teams depend on processes that facilitate creativity to generate new ideas. In a critique of this work, Chen and Adamson (2015) argued in two different sections that Harvey’s (2014) model is overly narrow:

Theoretically, creative synthesis emphasizes the dynamics of dialectical reasoning through affirmation rather than negation. Although Harvey’s model is compelling, we propose that its contribution can be increased by integrating it with negation in dialectical reasoning and the same random variation that it was intended to replace. To this end, we first articulate the assumptions and limitations of creative synthesis, then develop a hybrid model called evolutionary synthesis, and end with further research implications. (Chen & Adamson, 2015: 461, emphasis added)

By recognizing the compatibility of different models of the creative process and their limitations, our evolutionary synthesis model may open up exciting avenues for new research, beyond explaining the creative process, such as the generation, evolution, and renewal of knowledge, theory, innovation, organization, and entrepreneurial opportunity. (Chen & Adamson, 2015: 463, emphasis added)

As summarized in this critique, the main concern with Harvey’s (2014) theorizing is that it fails to broaden the theory to neighboring fields, which in turn limits its potential breadth in covering the terrain of creative and innovation processes.

On the other hand, reviewers sometimes criticize papers for being too shallow and then speculate on how the focal authors could have deepened their entrepreneurial theorizing. For instance, in criticizing Afuah and Tucci’s article (2013) on crowdsourcing as a solution to distant search, Bloodgood (2013: 455) argued that their model is limited because it does not elaborate on the underlying theoretical mechanisms:

It is also important how the problem gets solved. Afuah and Tucci do not adequately address the advantages of each of the three approaches they discuss. A primary benefit to internal problem solving is that the answer is more concealed than it would be using contracted problem solving, and significantly more concealed than if crowdsourcing were used. Concealment of the solution—and even the problem in many cases—provides the focal firm with a stronger potential advantage over its rival.

As such, Bloodgood (2013) contended that failing to provide sufficient depth will adversely affect future research attempting to explain decision-making better. Afuah and Tucci’s original paper could have made a more significant contribution had it incorporated theories of competitive advantage to explain value capture. As this example shows, a contribution is less about linking to a dispersed and broad set of concepts and more about deeply expounding upon the “building blocks” of the theorizing and erring “in favor of including too many factors, recognizing that over time, their [authors’] ideas will be refined [as] it is generally easier to delete unnecessary or invalid elements than it is to justify additions” (Whetten, 1989: 490). Indeed, a typical way to increase depth is to define and elaborate the mechanisms linking key features of a model (i.e., explaining the how, what, and why) (Anderson et al., 2006; Shepherd & Suddaby, 2017; Westphal & Zajac, 2013).

Writing Better-Scoped Entrepreneurship Papers

Considering the conflicting criticisms of a paper being either too narrow or too shallow in scope (in terms of covering the entrepreneurial phenomenon), one may presume that authors are stuck in a Catch-22: too much depth or breadth may subject an author to the risk of criticism and rejection. We attempt to offer a route out of this predicament in Fig. 4.1, in which we combine a paper’s breadth (x-axis) and depth (y-axis) to highlight the amount of entrepreneurial-phenomenon terrain covered (the diagonal line). We argue that criticisms of entrepreneurial theorizing focusing on the breadth and/or depth are valuable for papers falling below the optimal entrepreneurial-phenomenon terrain covered but are not especially valuable for papers that already cover the optimal amount of entrepreneurial-phenomenon terrain.

Fig. 4.1
A line graph of paper depth versus breadth has a decreasing line with six points. Some of them are multi-country psychometric properties, E O configurations, E O as mediator, and independent dimensions of E O.

Breadth, depth, and optimal coverage of the entrepreneurial-orientation terrain

Full size image

In setting the stage for the relationship between the breadth and depth of an entrepreneurship paper, we aim to develop a more objective view of theoretical contributions to the entrepreneurship field to ultimately help improve entrepreneurial theorizing within and across papers and increase the quality of reviewers’ critiques and recommendations. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that individuals likely have different opinions of what represents a paper’s breadth, depth, and the ratio of the two. While we do not believe we can resolve these differences (nor is it necessary for us to do so), we hope our model offers a useful framework to understand others’ differences and communicate these differences to improve the contributions of entrepreneurship papers.

Thus, we contend that having a shared understanding of the trade-offs between a paper’s breadth and depth can provide more detailed guidelines for assessing the often hazy concept of a “theoretical contribution” to the entrepreneurship literature. Using the guidance illustrated in Fig. 4.1, entrepreneurship scholars can more thoroughly and objectively evaluate whether their papers cover adequate entrepreneurial-phenomenon terrain and whether their depth-to-breadth ratios need to be altered. More generally, entrepreneurship scholars need to acknowledge that papers vary in the breadth and depth of their entrepreneurial theorizing and that they need to thoughtfully combine breadth and depth to optimize the entrepreneurial-phenomenon terrain they cover (not too much or too little explanatory terrain covered). In other words, they need to justify their ratios of depth to breadth in anticipation of readers’ preferences for higher or lower ratios.

Figure 4.1 portrays our understanding of papers with different depth-to-breadth ratios (Shepherd & Williams, 2022). However, it is important to note that each paper covers an optimal amount of explanatory terrain and contributes to the entrepreneurship literature. We recognize that the position of a paper’s breadth and depth and optimal terrain covered is rather a subjective assessment, but we offer it as a conceptualization to enhance entrepreneurial theorizing, the review process, and contributions to the entrepreneurship field. In Fig. 4.1, we offer some examples of such subjective assessments of papers on entrepreneurial orientation (EO). We selected EO because it is a popular topic and, as Fig. 4.1 shows, encompasses a wide range of depth-to-breadth ratios that result in an optimal amount of terrain covered. Starting with the bottom right of Fig. 4.1, we highlight Miller’s (1983) work, which conceptualizes the idea of an entrepreneurial strategy—the genesis of the EO construct—and links it to strategy, organizational, and economics theories. Covin and Slevin’s (1991) study, which is less broad but deeper, centers on EO as a strategic posture and examines its antecedents and consequences. Still less broad but deeper is Lumpkin and Dess’s (1996) study, which divides the EO construct into five dimensions and proposes a range of models connecting EO to the performance that can be tested in future research. Yu et al.’s (2021) work is again less broad but deeper, exploring the mediating role of EO in the relationship between symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and firm performance and thus providing a richer understanding of individual antecedents to firms’ EO than Covin and Slevin’s (1991) broader study detailed above. Wiklund and Shepherd’s (2005) study adds even more depth to the understanding of EO by investigating different configurations of EO, access to capital, and environmental dynamism (i.e., a three-way interaction) to explain small businesses’ performance. Finally, Kreiser et al.’s (2002) research explores the operationalization of EO dimensions and the robustness of this measure across countries.

As Fig. 4.1 shows, the earlier EO papers fall at the broader yet shallower end of the optimal-terrain continuum, but as the topic matures, research becomes narrower and deeper. It could be that entrepreneurship scholars first decide on the breadth of a paper and then, given that level of breadth, establish the depth needed to cover an optimal amount of terrain. However, the reverse is also possible: based on the available data (for a quantitative or qualitative study), how deep can the theorizing be, and given that depth, what is the ideal breadth to cover the optimal amount of terrain?

Next, we discuss specific issues related to breadth and depth as well as suggestions for how authors can address them. These issues relate to studies’ boundary conditions, including their contextualization, temporal considerations, and theorizing logic.

Boundary Conditions: Situating Theorizing and Optimizing the Explanatory Terrain

Boundary conditions are an important aspect of theorizing outcomes that entail the “who, where, and when” of theory (Dubin, 1976; Whetten, 1989), including context, temporality, and theorizing logic. Issues related to boundary conditions often involve the breadth and depth of entrepreneurial-phenomenon terrain covered as they shape the overall scope of a paper. For instance, Coffman and Sunny (2021) recently critiqued how Dencker et al. (2021) conceptualized necessity entrepreneurship. In particular, Coffman and Sunny (2021) argued that by disregarding a previously held boundary (dichotomous—push or pull into entrepreneurship) related to necessity entrepreneurship, Dencker et al. (2021) ended up eliminating “the need to group entrepreneurs into either necessity or opportunity categories” altogether. Coffman and Sunny (2021: 824) went on to argue that “a needs-based view of entrepreneurial motivation can be broadened to include start-up activity traditionally referred to as opportunity entrepreneurship.” Overall, Coffman and Sunny (2021) maintained that Dencker et al.’s (2021) boundary conditions are too narrow and thus need to be expanded.

In contrast to the previous example encouraging expansion, in another example, Varendh-Mansson et al. (2020: 230) criticized Grimes et al.’s (2019) mission-drift theory as being too broad—a “potentially misguided attempt to develop a general theory”—and recommended additional detail:

While the treatment that Grimes et al. (2019) develop is likely relevant to some organizations, their argument is built on a shaky foundation, where “mission” is conceptualized in simplistic terms as an organization’s single, orienting purpose. . . . This dialog details our concerns, and suggests that it is vital to go upstream, and theorize mission as a nuanced and variegated construct if we are going to generate meaningful insight about the nature, causes, and consequences of drift. Grimes et al. (2019) open their paper by noting that “organizational mission” is severely undertheorized in extant studies. Yet rather than grappling with the complexity of this construct, the authors assume that all organizations have a clear, singular mission that is understood and accepted by all key stakeholders.

As these examples show, critics’ comments about boundary conditions are mainly related to either relaxing or restricting these conditions to improve a paper’s contribution to the literature. Indeed, Parker et al. (2019: 478) captured the idea of a paper’s optimal theorizing terrain (i.e., criticisms that a paper can do more can always be made but are not always valuable or productive) in their response to a critique of their paper on discretion and firm reputation: “No theoretical framework can be so exhaustive as to adequately address all of the nuances and exceptions that might be fruitful for scholars to pursue, but we believe that our framework is a good first step.”

Addressing General Boundary-Condition Issues

Regarding recommendations, scholars need to ensure they establish boundary conditions for their theorizing (Bacharach, 1989; Dubin, 1976; Whetten, 1989). Indeed, as Busse et al. (2017: 575) claimed, “the most widespread scholarly attitude toward boundary conditions has been inattention.” However, boundary conditions are important because they determine the generalizability of theories (Busse et al., 2017; Whetten, 1989). A more dynamic stance on boundary conditions entails utilizing boundary conditions as a tool in the entrepreneurial theorizing process.

To help scholars explore the boundary conditions of their work, Busse et al. (2017) proposed the following three approaches. First, inside-out exploration of boundary conditions requires scholars to reflect on the boundary conditions—specifically, the when—of a newly created theory (Busse et al., 2017; e.g., Green et al., 2008; Townsend et al., 2018). This approach begins with the known territory of a theoretical model and then speculates beyond the existing boundary conditions into unknown territory. Because the resulting speculations are not part of the focal theoretical model, they have little influence on theorizing breadth and depth, but they may still stimulate theorizing.

Second, outside-in exploration of boundary conditions begins with a situation (or who, when, where) wherein an existing theoretical model is expected not to apply. This disconnect (and the associated feedback loops and iterations) then informs theorizing such that existing accounts are modified to accommodate the novel situation or a new (indigenous) theory is generated (Busse et al., 2017; e.g., positioning strategies and complex rules in dynamic markets [Bingham & Eisenhardt, 2011]). Gray and Cooper (2010) called this approach pursuing failure—namely, applying a theoretical approach that is unlikely to be applicable (i.e., one that disfavors a theory)—to create a theory that fits the focal situation better. For example, by applying learning theories to entrepreneurs of failed businesses, Shepherd (2003) highlighted the inapplicability of assumptions that learning from failure is automatic and instantaneous, instead replacing them with a grief model of learning from failure that necessitates a process of regulating negative emotions.

Finally, uncertain or serendipitous exploration of boundary conditions entails scholars investigating phenomena they are interested in. With this approach, scholars may begin with a theoretical perspective but are uncertain whether this perspective will be valid for their research (given the uncertainty) or whether opportunities for theorizing will emerge by chance (Busse et al., 2017). For instance, McMullen and Bergman (2017) set out to explore the positive effects of a social venture’s efforts (providing clean water) on rural villages in Africa but were surprised by the beneficiaries’ lack of appreciation toward the social entrepreneurs, which led them to generate a model of the paradox of prosocial motivation.

These three approaches to exploring boundary conditions have significance for our contribution framework. In particular, some critics argue that entrepreneurship papers can contribute to the field more effectively by relaxing their boundary conditions (Berglund & Korsgaard, 2017; Gupta et al., 2016). To do so, a researcher needs to consider more domains and thus broaden their coverage of the entrepreneurial-phenomenon terrain, thereby extending the boundary conditions of the focal paper (e.g., Alvarez & Busenitz, 2001; Calás et al., 2009; Dencker et al., 2021). In the case of a paper that already covers an optimal amount of the entrepreneurial-phenomenon terrain, broadening its scope will necessitate shallower theorizing (e.g., less theorizing on the complexity of relationships, such as potential three-way interactions or moderated mediated relationships) to preserve this optimality. On the other hand, restricting boundary conditions requires researchers to place greater constraints on which entrepreneurship domains to include. Therefore, when an entrepreneurship paper already covers the optimal amount of entrepreneurial-phenomenon terrain, addressing such recommendations will necessitate deeper theorizing on the nuances of a more limited set of entrepreneurship domains.

After reviewing the general role boundary conditions play in establishing the optimal entrepreneurial-phenomenon terrain covered in a paper, we searched for deeper insights into the common elements of a “boundary condition” that scholars need to consider. Indeed, although reviewers frequently highlight concerns over papers’ boundary conditions (Whetten, 1989), their boundary-condition criticisms often fail to indicate the specific nature of the violation. Clearly outlining the criteria for “appropriate” boundary conditions is crucial for assessing the quality of theoretical contributions (Corley & Gioia, 2011) and is essential for effective theory building overall (Dubin, 1976; Smith & Hitt, 2005; Whetten, 2009). Next, we review the most common failures associated with establishing appropriate boundary conditions in terms of papers’ (1) contextualization, (2) temporality, and (3) theorizing logic and how these failures affect the construction of a contribution to the entrepreneurship literature.

Contextualization

Although contextualization has become increasingly important in entrepreneurial theorizing, critics still argue that authors pay inadequate attention to its implications for theory (Welter, 2011; Zahra, 2007; for reviews, see Shepherd et al., 2019; Welter et al., 2019), particularly about a paper’s depth-breadth terrain coverage and ratio. Contextualization (or context) encompasses the “where” of entrepreneurship, including, for example, the “stage of life-cycles of industries and markets” (business context), “structure of networks” (social context), “characteristics of local communities and regions” (spatial context), and “societal attitudes and norms” (institutional context) (Welter, 2011: 168). Critics’ concerns over insufficient contextualization generally center on the overemphasis on a specific context and its lack of applicability to other areas. For instance, by excessively focusing on entrepreneurship in high-tech businesses, scholars may overlook the heterogeneity of day-to-day entrepreneurship (Welter et al., 2019; Welter & Baker, 2021). Criticisms citing insufficient contextualization of entrepreneurship research stress scholars’ lack of attention to contextual nuances that need to be accounted for in entrepreneurial theorizing. For example, Ahsan (2017: 145–146, emphasis added) noted the following about context in Navis and Ozbek’s (2017) theorizing on entrepreneurial entry and successful opportunity realization:

Navis and Ozbek implicitly connect venture context to novelty of technology and its related components (2017: 114). For instance, they use examples of early internet companies (eBay, Priceline, Yahoo, Webvan) and technology product companies (Solyndra, satellite-based entertainment) to describe the difference between familiar and novel venture contexts. This is problematic since not all new technologies are the same and vary in terms of complexity and gestation period (e.g., apps, biotechnology, medical devices). This means that in some cases a venture context might be novel for a few months, whereas in other situations a venture context might remain novel for more than a decade. . . . Simply put, Navis and Ozbek’s conceptualization of “context” limits our understanding of how the relationships explored by the authors impact entrepreneurial outcomes. More important, it creates issues in the theoretical development of what the authors describe as the “linchpin constructs for demonstrating how and why ‘context matters’ in entrepreneurship research” (2017: 111), which I discuss next.

In another example, Jaskiewicz et al. (2019) claimed that Nason et al. (2019) overly contextualized their model:

The situation will be quite different within enmeshed and chaotic families. Enmeshment fuels an internally oriented focus on harmony and sharing time together, while chaos implies a lack of clear leadership and an impulsive responsiveness to new stimuli (Olson, 2000). Accordingly, reference points might shift frequently as these families harmoniously but impulsively respond to each new piece of knowledge contributed by any family member.

According to Jaskiewicz et al. (2019), Nason et al.’s (2019) failure to include a broad set of family contexts limits their study’s contribution because the relatively narrow theoretical scope (family business) prevented them from fully considering family firms’ diversity (i.e., a lack of breadth).

Recommendations to Address Contextualizing Entrepreneurial Phenomena

With these gaps in contextualization, what does it mean to consider context more fully in entrepreneurship studies? Likewise, how can scholars incorporate context in their work while avoiding theoretical arguments that are overly narrow? Whetten (2009) suggested that scholars can incorporate context in their theorizing in one of two ways: (1) by putting theories in context and (2) developing theories of context. Putting theories in context suggests that theorizing is sensitive to the potential role of context and entails “situational linking” that improves a theoretical model’s accuracy, interpretation, and robustness (Rousseau & Fried, 2001). According to Bamberger (2008), papers explaining theories in context usually include a speculative post hoc discussion of how context can be addressed in subsequent theorizing—for instance, how a meta-analysis could be used to test context as a moderator of a focal relationship across numerous studies (Eden, 2002; although such a meta-analysis of context may be difficult [Johns, 2006]). To put theories in context, scholars must detail the relevant (i.e., to theory) contextual conditions in their papers (Whetten, 2009).

When a paper is highly focused on a particular entrepreneurial context, its breadth is narrowed—namely, the focal scholar limits the domain of the paper. As a result, the paper’s generalizability may also be limited to the respective entrepreneurial context. Based on our notion of the optimal amount of entrepreneurial-phenomenon terrain covered, we expect that a paper with a narrow breadth needs to dig deeper to contribute to the literature.

Theories of context rely on the notion that context serves as a driver of certain outcomes or as a moderator of certain relationships (usually relationships at a lower level of analysis than the contextual factor). Going beyond merely acknowledging a model’s sensitivity to an entrepreneurial context, this type of theorizing instead incorporates contextual factors into a theoretical model that explicitly explains heterogeneity (Bamberger, 2008; Johns, 2006) across entrepreneurial contexts (e.g., Dencker et al., 2021). A theory of context that includes the direct effects of contextual factors on a model’s outcome (Johns, 2018) introduces factors to the model from a higher level of analysis. Accordingly, the focal theorist likely includes a new domain and thus increases theorizing breadth. In contrast, theories of context that add moderators to specific relationships (Johns, 2018) alter the nature of relationships between lower-level variables, for example, by introducing two-way cross-level interactions. Although this approach adds to the domain of theorizing (i.e., via the moderator), it mainly explains the increased complexity (or richness) of these relationships by adding connections between constructs. In turn, this increased complexity represents a paper’s increased depth. As such, developing theories of context can increase papers’ depth but may necessitate restricting the domains investigated (i.e., reducing breadth to avoid doing too much in one paper).

Overall, greater contextualization seems to narrow the breadth and increase the depth of papers but for different reasons for different approaches. When an entrepreneurship paper already covers the optimal amount of entrepreneurial-phenomenon terrain, theorizing in context narrows its breadth, thus requiring an increase in depth, while theorizing on context increases depth, thus requiring a narrowing of breadth.

Temporal Considerations

The second major criticism related to papers’ boundary conditions involves insufficient temporal considerations. Attending to temporal considerations is vital in answering questions related to why and when a theoretical perspective is applicable (Whetten, 1989) since “temporality hugely matters in organizational life” (Langley et al., 2013: 4). In addition, temporal considerations help establish the quality of a theory in terms of its “originality (classified as either incremental or revelatory) and utility (scientific and/or pragmatic usefulness)” (Corley & Gioia, 2011: 26). Indeed, as Bird and West (1998: 5) argued, “temporal dynamics are at the heart of entrepreneurship.” Despite the clear relevance and importance of temporality in entrepreneurship scholarship, however, entrepreneurship research has not adequately explored temporality, as indicated by the numerous calls for more research focusing on time (Lévesque & Stephan, 2020; Wadhwani et al., 2020), processes, and the entrepreneurial journey (McMullen & Dimov, 2013) and the many critiques referencing concerns with temporal considerations. In particular, many critics decry what they believe is deficient consideration of the role of time in entrepreneurship models. For instance, Berglund and Korsgaard (2017: 731) made the following critique of Ramoglou and Tsang’s (2016) model of opportunities as propensities:

The authors paint a very deterministic picture that downplays the many empirical and conceptual accounts of entrepreneurship as an open ended and collective process that unfolds in real time and transforms individuals, ventures, and environments in largely unpredictable ways. . . . In fact, the analogy of a seed actualizing into a flower treats time as something that influences only whether and how fast a seed becomes a flower; regardless of time passed, the seed will never be anything but a flower.

Recommendations for Incorporating Temporal Boundary Conditions in Entrepreneurship Papers

One of the best ways to incorporate temporality into entrepreneurship theory is by applying a process perspective (McMullen & Dimov, 2013; see also Langley, 1999). Proponents of a process perspective claim that considering time is crucial for entrepreneurial theorizing because focusing on the “entrepreneurial journey that explicitly transpires over time” can lead to new insights into “the transformative process by which desires become goals, action, and systematic outcomes,” a process that may be “the distinctive hallmark of entrepreneurship research” (McMullen & Dimov, 2013: 1482). A process perspective draws attention to “how and why things emerge, develop, grow, and terminate over time” (Langley et al., 2013: 1). The resulting explanations often capture interactions between constructs across multiple levels of analysis (Langley et al., 2013), the dynamic nature of the associated activities (Lévesque & Stephan, 2020; Wadhwani et al., 2020), and other types of level-crossing feedback loops (Hofstadter, 2008). As a result, this approach can lead to theorizing on entrepreneurial phenomena that is rich (e.g., Gehman et al., 2013), elegant (e.g., Wright & Zammuto, 2013), integrative (e.g., Pryor et al., 2016), and iterative (Webb et al., 2010).

Although a process perspective does not generally add new domains to entrepreneurial theorizing, it does typically add complexity by elucidating temporally evolving phenomena (Lévesque & Stephans, 2020; McMullen & Dimov, 2013; Wadhwani et al., 2020). This complexity (or richness) involves depth in covering the entrepreneurial-phenomenon terrain. Thus, when critics highlight the need for more temporal considerations or a process perspective, they are asking for deeper theorizing in papers. For entrepreneurship papers that do not cover enough entrepreneurial-phenomenon terrain, considering time is a way to deepen their respective models to cover more terrain. For entrepreneurship papers that already cover an optimal amount of entrepreneurial-phenomenon terrain, however, such deeper theorizing may lead them to “do too much.” In these cases, a “corresponding” reduction in breadth may be needed, or the position of these papers may need to be moved along the diagonal (see Fig. 4.1) with no increase in contribution to the entrepreneurship literature. However, a new paper can contribute to the literature by building on the theory of an existing entrepreneurship model—namely, by expanding upon (and thus complementing) the original theory paper using a process perspective to deepen the model (i.e., narrowing the entrepreneurial theorizing) (for a related discussion on the benefits of theory elaboration, see Fisher & Aguinis, 2017).

Scholars’ efforts to incorporate temporality to contribute to the literature can be further improved by providing greater model specificity and expressing the purpose of models—namely, is the underlying argument based on a variance theory (linear and contingency based) or a process theory (flow, recursive, and outcome driven)? According to Pratt (2009: 860), conventional “boxes and arrows” models are typically interpreted as variance-based theoretical arguments. He, therefore, recommended that authors “be especially careful... if you are using boxes and arrows to tell a process story, make sure that this [the focus on a process] is clear to the reader.” Process studies, also known as “progression studies” (Kouamé & Langley, 2018), shed light on the dynamic concepts of entrepreneurial phenomena and can be employed through several approaches, including flow matrices (e.g., Burgelman, 1983) and outcome-driven narratives (e.g., Vuori & Huy, 2016). Indeed, theoretical models are often used to guide readers through different aspects of a theoretical argument. However, we encourage authors to go one step further by carefully considering how they conceive, frame, and communicate their entrepreneurship models to ensure they align with the overall logic, assumptions, and purpose of their entrepreneurial theorizing. Such careful consideration is vital when temporality is involved (for a review, see Lévesque & Stephans, 2020; McMullen & Dimov, 2013; Wadhwani et al., 2020).

Theorizing-Logic Considerations

Another critical boundary condition that critics often mention relates to scholars being more precise in explaining the logic and philosophical perspectives driving their theorizing. This precision could encompass a theory’s particular theoretical domain, its philosophical foundations, and the level of analysis. For instance, because entrepreneurship reviewers frequently come from different theoretical “homes,” they may recommend different points of view according to the assumptions underlying their varying perspectives. In their critique of a theory of compassion-driven social entrepreneurship, for example, Pan et al. (2019: 214, emphasis added) advocated for a different theoretical perspective, closing with the following:

If social entrepreneurship is about venturing in the service of others (Miller et al., 2012), then it follows that we should use theoretical lenses that allow us to examine the variance in how social entrepreneurs perceive and support others. Social identity theory allows us to do exactly this and, thus, in our view is essential to the study of social entrepreneurship. Moreover, by combining social identity theory and role identity theory, we can investigate interesting role identity-based variation in social entrepreneurship that exists within the three primary social identities. (see Gruber & MacMillan, 2017)

Several other critiques (e.g., Alvarez & Barney, 2013; Hwang & Colyvas, 2020; McBride & Packard, 2020) also highlighted the need for greater precision in specifying theoretical arguments’ ontological and epistemological underpinnings. Such precision provides the basis for a stronger theoretical contribution by (1) setting the boundary conditions of arguments and (2) making authors “take a stand” regarding their view of reality.

Finally, reviewers often take issue when the level of analysis of boundary conditions is too narrow. For instance, in his critique of Afuah and Tucci’s (2013) model of crowdsourcing as a solution to distant search, Bloodgood (2013: 456) argued for a change in perspective that would lead to a different purpose for the theorizing:

When would crowdsourcing be useful compared to internal and contracted problem solving? The relationships posited by Afuah and Tucci would need to be re-examined to answer this question, but for the most part they may hold with the qualification that value capture is not affected. I argue that this qualification is suspect; however, we can still learn about the relationships between these variables of interest by using it.

Recommendations for Theorizing-Logic Considerations

These different perspectives for entrepreneurial theorizing—namely, theoretical, philosophical, and level of analysis—can either increase the number of domains a paper covers (i.e., increase breadth) or increase the links between constructs, activities, and/or events modeled (i.e., increase depth). Undoubtedly, comments to broaden or narrow the scope of a paper based on its central features (theory, philosophy, level of analysis, etc.) subject entrepreneurship papers to a wide range of boundaries. Thus, as we discussed earlier, such comments and the associated implicit/explicit suggestions to increase breadth, depth, or both are relevant only when a paper does not cover the optimal entrepreneurial-phenomenon terrain and therefore needs to cover more terrain to contribute to the entrepreneurship literature. Otherwise, any entrepreneurship paper could receive a nearly unlimited number of recommendations to change or reposition its attempted contribution to the literature.

Thus, even when a reviewer’s alternative perspective could generate a theorizing outcome that covers an optimal entrepreneurial-phenomenon terrain, this perspective does not necessarily warrant a critique of the focal entrepreneurial theorizing. Instead, the alternative perspective needs to be better than the focal paper’s perspective (i.e., cover optimal terrain whereas the focal paper does not), not merely different. Therefore, reviews need to submit to a similar rigorous evaluation of their suggestions, or else it is a rather easy (and, we maintain, pointless) task for reviewers to suggest domains or phenomena that could potentially be included in an entrepreneurship paper. That being said, when a criticism and corresponding recommendation are simply different from (but not superior to) the focal theorizing, they can still advance this theorizing by stimulating future theorizing that builds on the foundation provided by the focal paper to develop a different depth-to-breadth ratio. In such cases, the comment and recommendation do not represent a criticism of the focal paper (or should not be seen as such) as much as an exercise in disciplined imagination that the paper’s author can incorporate into the future research section so others can expound upon the current theorizing to further the entrepreneurship field.

Implications

Above, we aimed to identify and explain the challenges and opportunities associated with contributing to the entrepreneurship literature. Having outlined the major issues raised by critics (as proxies for reviewers) and then providing recommendations to overcome these challenges, we now turn to summarizing the implications for entrepreneurship scholars—namely, for authors, reviewers, and editors.

Author Implication 1: Focus on Covering the Optimal Entrepreneurial-Phenomenon Terrain for a Single Paper

On the one hand, entrepreneurship scholars (possible through friendly reviews) need to recognize whether and when their current entrepreneurial theorizing does not cover an optimal amount of entrepreneurial-phenomenon terrain. They can then cover more terrain by increasing their papers’ breadth, depth, or both. On the other hand, entrepreneurship papers sometimes try to accomplish too much—that is, they try to cover too much terrain for a single paper. For example, a revised entrepreneurship paper may cover too much terrain when the author tries to appease reviewers’ differing requests. The resulting terrain coverage is likely to be excessive and thus ineffective, leading the reviewers to ultimately reject the paper. In such cases, authors need to make stronger claims about the nature of their contributions (see next implication), perhaps guided by editors’ recommendations.

Author Implication 2: Stake a Claim for the Nature of the Contribution to the Entrepreneurship Literature

Authors can shield themselves from reviewers’ critiques (in advance, to some degree) by clearly stating the combination of breadth and depth in their papers. In other words, they can argue that their papers cover an optimal amount of entrepreneurial-phenomenon terrain. In making such a claim, an author can acknowledge that different combinations of breadth and depth would contribute to the literature but so does their paper’s particular depth-to-breadth ratio. This difference between a paper’s depth-to-breadth ratio versus that of a published paper can itself be the source of a contribution. For instance, Simsek and Heavey (2011: 81–82) described the contribution of their study as follows:

An effort to enrich theoretical explanations of the association between CE [corporate entrepreneurship] and firm performance, we propose a deeper explanation, based on the premise that pursuing CE is a dynamic capability that involves stretching and extending the firm’s knowledge-based resources. . . . Even as the elements of a firm’s knowledge-based capital might take many forms and emphases (Borch et al., 1999; Floyd & Wooldridge, 1999; Hitt et al., 2000), they are fundamentally distinct in how they accumulate and distribute knowledge—namely, through individuals (human capital), relational ties (social capital), and organizational systems (organizational capital).

In addition, an author can outline other valuable combinations of depth and breadth (perhaps even those proposed by reviewers) in the future research section of their papers. Such an acknowledgment represents more than “throwing reviewers a bone,” instead offering potentially productive paths for other scholars to build off the focal paper to make further contributions to the entrepreneurship literature (see next implication).

Author Implication 3: Generate New Ideas for Future Research by Changing the Ratio of Breadth to Depth of an Existing Entrepreneurship Model

Either in the future research section of a paper or as the foundation for a new paper, scholars can adjust the depth-to-breadth ratio (while preserving the optimal terrain covered) to expand the current theorizing and make a contribution to the entrepreneurship field. Thus, scholars looking for research opportunities to contribute to the literature can use a published paper they find interesting as a starting point and then design a new study that moves up or down the diagonal line of optimal terrain (see Fig. 4.1). This approach not only generates an idea for a new paper but also serves as the basis for positioning its contribution vis-à-vis the initially published paper. What can be learned from the resulting entrepreneurial theorizing (compared to the published paper) by going deeper (with less scope) or broader (with less depth)? As an example, Kier et al. (2021: 20) referenced another study’s call for future research when discussing their study’s contribution and then proposed (in the second quote) that future research extend the scope further:

Our findings answer the call by Sleesman et al. (2018) for “future research that could offer insight into the escalation literature by examining the degree to which leader attributes influence the commitment to failing endeavors” (p. 190) by explaining heterogeneity among individuals’ decisions to persist in new product development. To operationalize this heterogeneity, we introduced theories of self-regulation, specifically locomotion and assessment (Kruglanski et al., 2000), to explain variance in entrepreneurs’ responsiveness to interpersonal influence from their team to persist.

While our study focuses on dispositional approach and avoidance orientations, each may also be evoked situationally (Higgins, 1997), which might be especially relevant during the COVID-19 pandemic that could make even the most eager entrepreneur hyper vigilant. We therefore encourage future research to examine how situational and dispositional approach and avoidance orientations interact to influence undue persistence.

Author Implication 4: Make Explicit the Boundary Conditions to Defend an Entrepreneurship Paper from Some Potential Criticisms

Direct statements detailing an entrepreneurship paper’s boundary conditions specify the paper’s position on the “optimal-terrain” frontier. In turn, such statements help establish expectations and evaluation criteria for readers and reviewers based on the focal paper’s depth-to-breadth ratio. These direct statements on boundary conditions (as well as key assumptions) are usually placed early in the theory development section of deductive and conceptual papers. In their deductive study, for example, Grégoire and Shepherd (2012) outlined four key assumptions as the boundary conditions of their theorizing on opportunity ideas and opportunity-belief formation. In inductive studies, boundary conditions are typically located in the discussion section near where the transferability of findings is discussed. For instance, Powell and Baker (2014) included a subheading in their discussion section titled “Boundary Conditions and Future Research.”

Author Implication 5: Use Context to Problematize a Current Entrepreneurship Model to Motivate Further Theorizing

Future entrepreneurial theorizing can problematize prior research by incorporating context using disciplined imagination. In particular, entrepreneurship scholars can generate contributions by putting previous theories in context and thus broadening models (perhaps with less depth). Boso et al. (2013: 710), for instance, broadened models of entrepreneurial orientation by challenging previous boundary conditions in a new, yet important, context:

The boundary conditions of the effects of firms’ strategic orientations on performance are under-researched. In particular, the paucity of research into strategic orientations in emerging market contexts is telling, since the literature indicates that the beneficial effects of firms’ strategic orientations may be context specific as opposed to being universally applicable (e.g., Li & Zhou, 2010; Luo et al., 2008; Stam & Elfring, 2008). Accordingly, drawing on the contextual idiosyncrasies of developing economies, we present a modified theory of the likely performance consequences of EO [entrepreneurial orientation] and MO [market orientation] in an emerging market environment.

Scholars can also contribute to the entrepreneurship literature by developing theories of context such that their papers investigate the role of macro effects on more micro relationships as a foundation for creating deeper and richer entrepreneurship models (while also potentially narrowing the scope of papers). For example, Hmieleski and Baron (2009) developed a theory of context to explain how the negative relationship between dispositional optimism and new venture performance is strengthened (i.e., is more negative) in more dynamic industries than in less dynamic industries, thus providing a richer understanding of the role optimism plays in new venture performance.

Author Implication 6: Use Time to Problematize a Current Entrepreneurship Model to Motivate Further Entrepreneurial Theorizing

Researchers can also contribute to the entrepreneurship field by exploring existing theories of static relationships and variance-based explanations as a basis for theorizing about dynamic relationships and process-based models. Both Lévesque and Stephan (2020) and McMullen and Dimov (2013) stressed the importance of such a time-based approach for generating research with high potential to contribute to the knowledge of entrepreneurial phenomena. Indeed, numerous studies have incorporated time (e.g., Bakker & Shepherd, 2017; Mittermaier et al., 2021), explored processes (e.g., Burton et al., 2016; Powell & Baker, 2017), and delineated trajectories (e.g., Henfridsson & Yoo, 2014; Preller et al., 2020; Williams & Shepherd, 2021) to contribute to the entrepreneurship literature. As one example, Burton et al. (2016: 237) problematized entrepreneurial careers by incorporating time and establishing their paper’s contribution:

To date, a primary focus of entrepreneurship scholars has been on the founding of a new venture as an end in and of itself, or more generally on transitions to entrepreneurship. There can be no doubt that this is an important and fruitful area of research, one that we each have contributed to ourselves. However, as life course scholars have long recognized, “transitions are always embedded in trajectories that give them distinctive form and meaning” (Elder, 1985 p. 31). Work transitions, in other words, should be understood in the context of a career—“career” both in the sense of a sequence of past states, and in the sense of an imagined future trajectory. For example, many researchers approach the question of who becomes an entrepreneur by examining the characteristics of the people who become entrepreneurs rather than the characteristics of the pathways that lead to entrepreneurship. To the extent that researchers have considered the role of career experiences, these experiences have been conceptualized as accumulated human capital rather than a series of steps that may or may not build on one another (Spilerman, 1977).

Author Implication 7: Use a Different Perspective to Problematize a Current Entrepreneurship Model to Motivate Further Theorizing

For new research, scholars can problematize earlier work by shifting the perspective (i.e., theoretical, philosophical, or level of analysis) to provide a different depth-to-breadth ratio to cover an optimal entrepreneurial-phenomenon terrain. For instance, by taking a different theoretical perspective—namely, compassion and prosocial motivation—Miller et al. (2012) were able to uncover new insights into social entrepreneurship. In a similar vein, Ramoglou and Tsang (2016) applied a realist perspective to provide new insights into opportunities (i.e., opportunities as propensities). Further, Shepherd et al. (2021: 1) took a micro perspective of bribery to contribute to the entrepreneurship literature, whereas Peredo and Chrisman (2006: 309) took a macro perspective of entrepreneurship to provide new insights into “sustainable local development in poor populations” by considering the community as both an “entrepreneur and enterprise.”

Author Implication 8: Avoid Sticking to One Combination of Breadth and Depth Vis-À-Vis Other Combinations

The entrepreneurship field benefits from having papers along the entire optimal-terrain frontier—that is, theorizing that is narrow and deep, broad and shallow, and all the points in between. Likewise, the field would suffer if all papers are located at the same point of the optimal-terrain frontier. In other words, entrepreneurship research (across papers) that is diverse in terms of depth-to-breadth ratios (while still maintaining the optimal terrain) is likely to result in a “better understanding” of entrepreneurial phenomena. Thus, if a group of entrepreneurship papers is clustered on an optimal-terrain point (i.e., a specific depth-to-breadth ratio), research opportunities arise for related studies occupying different positions in the optimal terrain (i.e., the diagonal line of Fig. 4.1)—deeper or broader. Literature review papers generally explore and summarize research activity to highlight future research opportunities where less or no work has been conducted. For instance, in their review of the literature examining the initiation of entrepreneurial endeavors as the dependent variable, Shepherd et al. (2019: 166) summarized their recommendations for future research to either go deeper or broader in the following way:

Although research has substantially increased our knowledge of the initial steps of the entrepreneurial journey, there are many opportunities for future research to contribute to the entrepreneurship literature, including research on (1) a richer and deeper investigation of opportunity, (2) a more micro perspective of self-employment entry, and (3) an expanded range of initiation contexts.

In addition to the implications for authors, our contribution framework also has implications for reviewers (and editors), which we briefly touch upon next.

Reviewer Implication 1: Start with the Authors’ Claims of Breadth and Depth

A good review begins with authors’ claims about the trade-off between breadth and depth in positioning their papers. Accordingly, reviewers need to ask, “Does this combination of breadth and depth provide adequate coverage of the entrepreneurial-phenomenon terrain?” If the answer to this question is yes, reviewers should then focus on providing comments that help authors strengthen and deliver on these claimed contributions to the entrepreneurship literature and should avoid suggesting how authors can broaden or deepen their models. If the answer is no, the paper does not cover adequate terrain, reviewers can then offer authors recommendations for how to increase the breadth and/or depth. Similarly, if they answer no because the paper does too much, reviewers can suggest ways to narrow the scope and/or reduce the depth (by raising the level of abstraction).

Reviewer Implication 2: Don’t Be Egocentric

Authors often make decisions that are different from what reviewers would have decided had they written the papers they review, and that is okay. Indeed, unproductive reviews often criticize papers for not being broad enough (without considering the papers’ depth), for not incorporating numerous domains, or for not capturing all possible nuances (without considering the papers’ scope). Such reviews set authors up for failure by pushing them to do too much in their papers, thereby weakening their contributions to the entrepreneurship literature and increasing their likelihood of journal rejection. Unproductive reviews can also drive authors to change their depth-to-breadth ratios without increasing the terrain they cover, leading to different, but not necessarily better, contributions. Similarly, unproductive reviews also sometimes criticize a paper from a different theoretical or philosophical perspective or from a different level of analysis than that established in the paper. Even in cases when an author takes a different perspective from the one a reviewer would have taken had he or she written the paper, the author’s perspective can still be valid, and pushing the author to use a different perspective may result in a different depth-to-breadth ratio (and no stronger contribution to the literature) or doing too much in the paper (weakening its potential contribution).

Reviewer Implication 3: Remember that not All Entrepreneurship Papers Need to Be Highly Contextualized or Widely Generalizable

While many reviewers may believe entrepreneurship research needs greater contextualization, some authors produce papers with broad models. Again, reviewers need to ask, “Does the paper offer adequate breadth to cover the optimal level of entrepreneurial-phenomenon terrain given the lack of depth that contextualization could have offered?” Broad papers also have the potential to make contributions to the entrepreneurship literature and need to be evaluated with that possibility in mind, not based on some other research question in a particular entrepreneurial context. Likewise, papers that examine a context in depth should not automatically face reviewer criticism for their limited generalizability or lack of transferability to other contexts. In these cases, reviewers need to ask, “Does the depth of the paper cover adequate terrain given the model’s lack of breadth?” Reviewers need to carefully contemplate authors’ context choices and critique their papers from that position.

Editor Implication 1: Watch Out for Unproductive Reviews

Above, we argued that it is relatively easy for reviewers to make suggestions for ways to increase a paper’s breadth and depth. At times, however, such suggestions can diminish a paper’s value and weaken its contribution, resulting in its rejection or decreased impact on the field. For editors, it is sometimes tempting to catalog all the additions and changes an author could make to a paper, but to inspire productive papers, it is essential to work with reviewers’ comments such that authors can improve their papers. This chapter focuses on the author’s claims about their depth-to-breadth ratios and the amount of entrepreneurial-phenomenon terrain their papers cover. Consistent with this focus, reviewers need to assess papers based on the entrepreneurial-phenomenon terrain authors intended to cover and not necessarily the terrain the reviewers would have covered had they written the respective papers. Indeed, as the old (and rather morbid) saying goes, “There are many ways to skin a cat.” As such, it is crucial that editors not recount the various ways that reviewers would have skinned the cat but instead ask how valid is an author’s approach to skinning the cat and what recommendations can enhance the effectiveness of that approach.

Editor Implication 2: Reconcile Opposing Productive Reviews

For papers that do not cover sufficient terrain but have the potential to do so, reasonable reviewers could have different opinions regarding how to improve the paper’s entrepreneurial theorizing, possibly including both recommendations for increasing breadth and recommendations for increasing depth for the same paper. Indeed, reviewers frequently disagree with each other (Chrisman et al., 2017) and suggest conflicting recommendations. In such cases, the editor needs to provide the focal author guidance, or else the author may try to appease both reviewers and fail by trying to do too much in one paper. The editor can acknowledge the pros and cons of both possibilities but should recommend one path as potentially stronger, or at least urge the author to avoid pursuing both paths. The author may find it difficult to go against a reviewer’s suggestions, so it is vitally important for the editor to provide a clear guiding statement. Hopefully, the reviewer whose recommendations were not followed understands the editor’s decision for the paper revision. If not, the editor must be ready to overrule a reviewer demanding a certain depth-to-breadth ratio when the author chooses a different ratio to cover the optimal terrain.

Editor Implication 3: Reward Different Ratios of the Optimal Terrain for a Paper

While all entrepreneurial theorizing should pursue a depth-to-breadth ratio that covers an optimal amount of terrain, not all ratios will lead to equal contributions. Take, for example, the scenario where many papers on the same topic have roughly the same ratio of depth to breadth (e.g., low depth and high breadth). A paper with a different ratio (e.g., greater depth and less breadth) is likely to contribute to our understanding of entrepreneurial phenomena more than another paper with similar breadth and depth as those already published and thus make a greater contribution to advancing the field. This recognition is even more important when the reviewers for the new paper are among those who have published on the topic at the current (populated) depth-to-breadth ratio and may expect the new paper to conform to their ratio preference and existing norm (despite this preference and norm weakening the focal paper’s contribution). Therefore, a paper with a different ratio from that of published papers and reviewers’ own papers could be more challenging to see through the R&R process (e.g., necessitate more work by editors) but may provide a more valuable contribution to entrepreneurial theorizing. Considering papers with different depth-to-breadth ratios than published papers may facilitate editors in balancing the quality-quantity trade-off in running their journals (for editors’ quality-quantity trade-off, see Chrisman et al. [2017]).

Conclusion

Writing highly impactful entrepreneurship papers is challenging. Furthermore, the notion of what constitutes a good contribution to entrepreneurial theorizing can feel nebulous for authors, and the appropriate balance between a paper’s breadth and depth is not always obvious. Compounding matters further, reviewers typically come from diverse (and anonymous) backgrounds, which affects how they “receive” the entrepreneurship papers they review. Our goal in this chapter was to offer insights and recommendations to help entrepreneurship scholars improve their papers to further the field of entrepreneurship (i.e., building a barn) such that others will have increased difficulty criticizing their outcomes (i.e., pulling the barn down). Given our discussion on contributing to the entrepreneurship literature, we hope reviewers remember the following saying when assessing papers: “It is easier to pull a barn down than to build one.”