Keywords

In this chapter, we offer some advice on writing papers based on entrepreneurial theorizing. Although editors from several notable journals have written notes on writing, these notes tend to be rather general (e.g., the “From the Editors” seven-paper series from the Academy of Management Journal [2011] or the note on writing introductions for theory papers [Barney, 2018]). As such, we take a perspective directly applicable to entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial theorizing to offer something more hands-on. We believe the time is ripe for a discussion on writing entrepreneurship papers due to the growing number of such papers submitted to entrepreneurship journals. As editors of some of the top entrepreneurship journals, our experience is that papers are often “unnecessarily” rejected not because the underlying research is fundamentally faulty but because authors neglect some of the basics that make a strong paper.

Thus, we begin by offering 11 simple rules to guide entrepreneurial theorizing when developing an entrepreneurship paper based on what has worked for us in the past. Second, we provide a template outlining what content to include in each section of an entrepreneurship paper as well as examples of how we have undertaken these tasks in previous papers. Finally, we discuss some writing heuristics to improve authors’ writing quality.Footnote 1

We mainly use excerpts from our own work as examples (independent, together, and with coauthors) not because we believe our writing is the best but because we know these papers well and crafted them using the simple rules, paper templates, and writing heuristics outlined in this chapter. Now, we turn to the simple rules.

Simple Rules for Developing an Entrepreneurship Paper

Simple Rule 1: Ensure Your Paper Is Relevant to Entrepreneurship Scholarship

Most general advice about writing papers applies to writing entrepreneurship papers. However, we can still add a few hints that are specific to entrepreneurship papers, particularly papers submitted to entrepreneurship journals. It is not ground-breaking advice that an entrepreneurship paper needs to explain or otherwise inform readers about an entrepreneurial phenomenon that is relevant to people beyond entrepreneurship scholars. In some recent papers, we have discussed why entrepreneurial phenomena are important, why the field of entrepreneurship is well situated to provide such relevance, and how entrepreneurship research can be undertaken (Shepherd, 2015; Shepherd & Patzelt, 2017; Wiklund et al., 2019; and many of this book’s chapters). Although grounding a paper in a relevant entrepreneurial phenomenon is essential, it is not enough to stimulate an academic study. This grounding needs to be accompanied by the importance of the study for the entrepreneurship literature. While many works have attempted to demarcate the field of entrepreneurship, including what does and does not belong within this literature (Shane & Venkataraman (2000) is likely the most well-known), we do not consider it productive for individual papers to undertake such discussions (unless that is a paper’s primary purpose; see also Shepherd [2015] for an expansion on this point). Rather, we believe it is more valuable to define the main concepts of a paper and then demonstrate—however briefly—how they connect to current conversations in the entrepreneurship literature.

Our approach of combining wider relevance and importance to the existing literature when developing an entrepreneurship paper resolves the dichotomy between basic and applied research. We encourage and strive for research that aims to provide fundamental understanding as well as wider relevance. In our own papers, we like to clarify our work’s relevance to entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial theorizing, and entrepreneurship scholarship from the very beginning. For example, the following excerpt from the beginning of a paper illustrates Simple Rule 1 well. The very first sentence establishes the paper’s relevance for entrepreneurship, and the subsequent sentences turn to discuss the current state of knowledge and the gap in the literature (Bakker & Shepherd, 2017: 130):

The exploration and exploitation of potential opportunities is critical to firm performance (Bingham & Eisenhardt, 2011; Ireland, Hitt, Camp & Sexton, 2001; Sirmon, Hitt & Ireland, 2007). Consequently, the concept of opportunities has emerged as a central notion in a number of fields of research, including entrepreneurship (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000), strategic management (Foss, Lyngsie & Zahra, 2013; Suarez, Grodal & Gotsopoulos, 2014), and institutional theory (Battilana & Casciaro, 2012; Zietsma & Lawrence, 2010). Despite the progress we have made toward understanding opportunities and the manner in which they are explored and exploited, most prior research has assumed that actors typically identify and assess a single opportunity at a time (Gruber, MacMillan & Thompson, 2008). Recent research, however, has found that firms often identify multiple potential opportunities simultaneously (e.g., Barreto, 2012; Gruber et al., 2008; 2013).

Simple Rule 2: Contribute to the Entrepreneurship Literature by Theorizing from Another Literature

When writing an entrepreneurship paper, it is useful to consider the process as involving (at least) two literatures. The first is the entrepreneurship literature, wherein there is a gap that needs to be filled or a problem that needs to be solved. Authors can discuss the specific entrepreneurship literature they draw on in the introduction of their papers by conveying what scholars do and do not know from this literature and why it is vital to fill the focal gap or solve the focal problem. The second literature, which should be different from the first, provides the theoretical basis for filling the gap in/solving the problem from the first literature.Footnote 2 There are two major implications from this simple rule of including two literatures. First, breaking this simple by using only the entrepreneurship literature results in the following reasoning: the literature with the gap/problem will be used to fill the gap/solve the problem in itself. This reasoning rarely makes sense to readers. Second, breaking this rule by discussing contributions to numerous (disparate) literatures typically leaves a reader asking, “Are you talking to me?” and “Who is the primary audience for this paper?”.

The thrust of the contributions stated in a paper needs to be to the specific entrepreneurship literature that had the gap/problem. This approach makes a paper’s main audience clear. However, while most of a paper’s contributions need to be to the entrepreneurship literature with the gap/problem, the final contribution should be to the theoretical literature from which the solution came. This final contribution back to the literature from which the solution was drawn (i.e., Literature 2) is necessary because it ensures that we, as scholars, are not merely borrowers. Indeed, entrepreneurship scholars may borrow a theory from psychology, for example, and simply apply it in the entrepreneurial context without modification. However, in many cases, it is important to reflect on how a theory needs to be adapted, altered, or otherwise changed to “work” in the entrepreneurial context. Given the extreme nature of the entrepreneurial context due to the associated uncertainty, time pressures, cognitive load, emotional reactions, social interactions, and so on, there is an opportunity for entrepreneurship scholars to go beyond simply borrowing current theories to extending and expanding those theories. For instance, the following excerpt not only explains the gap in the literature and how the paper contributes to the entrepreneurship literature by filling this gap but also details what the paper provides back to appraisal theory, the theoretical basis of the study (Jenkins et al., 2014: 18–19):

Some assume that failure has strong positive implications for the individual entrepreneur and represents the “fire that tempers the steel” (Timmons, 1999: 47). Others assume that failure has devastating implications for the individual (Singh et al., 2007). In this research . . . we are able to conceptually and empirically resolve this apparent conflict in individuals’ interpretations of failure. . . . Finally, we contribute to appraisal theory by considering the role of prior failure for the appraisal-emotion relationship in stressful situations. . . . We suggest that previously experiencing a similar failure can provide an individual with coping resources that act as a buffer in the appraisal-emotion relationship. This finding is likely to be relevant in other settings in which bouncing back after prior failures is important for achieving goals, such as elite sports (Jones, 2002) and job loss. (Leana & Feldman, 1988)

Simple Rule 3: Be a Barn Builder, Not a Barn Destroyer

Given all this talk about gaps in the literature and the need to contribute by filling these gaps, it may seem easy to criticize prior studies. However, we avoid being too critical of other studies because as the old saying goes (and as we discussed in Chapter 4), “It is easier to tear a barn down than to build a barn.” Thus, we offer critics an alternative approach, one that we have found to be particularly useful in generating something new that is also of value. According to this approach, authors should (1) respect the studies that have come before theirs, (2) realize that one paper cannot do everything, and (3) recognize that all papers have flaws (even one’s own). This approach provides authors with a sturdier foundation for developing a paper (and for living life as an entrepreneurship scholar). Nevertheless, we recognize that some individuals prefer to be critics, and although it can sometimes be valuable to tear a barn down, we argue that barn builders make more considerable contributions to entrepreneurial theorizing and to advancing the entrepreneurship field. Accordingly, as authors, reviewers, and colleagues, we beseech you to be barn builders. For instance, in the following excerpt discussing our paper’s contribution, we acknowledged the exceptional research that has come before ours (Shepherd et al., 2014: 537):

In this study, we contribute to the scholarly conversation on learning from failure and on the implications of the timing of project termination by exploring the contextual factors that help explain the link between speed of termination (i.e., delayed or rapid) and learning from the failure experience. Research has identified the cognition underlying the timing of the decision to terminate poorly performing projects (Ross & Staw, 1993; Staw & Ross, 1987) and its organizational learning implications (Corbett et al., 2007). Although these studies have deepened our understanding of those who decide on project termination (i.e., who “own the option”), they do not explore (because it is not their purpose) the contextual mechanisms that link timing of termination to the reactions of those working on the project (i.e., those who “are the option”; McGrath et al., 2004). Our analysis, findings, and theorizing offer an initial step in this direction. In doing so, we make contributions to the literature on both learning from failure and project termination.

Simple Rule 4: Be Clear Regarding What Your Paper Is Not About

Although the introduction identifies what a paper is about, for many papers (particularly theory papers or papers utilizing deductive entrepreneurial theorizing), it is also useful to specify what the paper is not about. In doing so, authors can set readers’ expectations regarding the focus on of the entrepreneurial theorizing. Indeed, there are generally many more factors and explanations for variation in a dependent variable than one paper’s theorizing can capture. By acknowledging these numerous factors while also directly stating that investigating them is beyond the scope of the focal paper (they could be used as control variables however), authors can prevent readers from becoming disappointed due to their initial expectations about a paper’s theorizing not being met.

The factors and explanations that a paper does not cover may inform the assumptions and boundary conditions of that paper’s entrepreneurial theorizing. Boundary conditions set the amount of entrepreneurial-phenomenon terrain a paper covers, as reflected in the paper’s breadth and depth of entrepreneurial theorizing (see Chapter 4). Authors can explain their papers’ assumptions and boundary conditions before beginning their main theorizing (i.e., after the introduction). In Patzelt and Shepherd (2011b), for example, we stated the following:

Further, we acknowledge our model’s underlying assumptions and boundary conditions. First, we focus on the recognition of sustainable development opportunities for someone (third-person opportunities), but we do not investigate individuals’ assessments whether these opportunities represent opportunities for themselves (and thus, their intentions and decisions to exploit those opportunities [first-person opportunities]). Both are distinct, subsequent steps in models of entrepreneurial action (McMullen & Shepherd, 2006; Shepherd et al., 2008). We acknowledge the extant literature on entrepreneurial cognition and psychology that in contrast to our work, focuses more on the second step and investigates entrepreneurial decisions to act on opportunities (e.g., Krueger, 2000). Second, we assume that sustainable development entrepreneurs are motivated by more than just personal economic gain. We acknowledge that pure personal economic gains can also motivate individuals to direct their attention toward sustainable development opportunities (Dean & McMullen, 2007; Solow, 1993). However, consistent with our definition of sustainable development opportunities, we focus on gains for those other than the entrepreneur because these (perhaps additional) gains distinguish sustainable development from purely economic opportunities (Cohen, Smith, & Mitchell, 2008; Young & Tilley, 2006). Finally, we acknowledge that many factors beyond the knowledge and motivation variables of our model—such as the individuals’ networks (Ozgen & Baron, 2007), cognitive structures (Baron & Ensley, 2006; Krueger, 2007), and values (Davidsson & Wiklund, 1997)—may influence individuals’ recognition of sustainable development opportunities. Investigating all these factors is beyond the scope of our study. We will now present our model by first investigating aspects of knowledge and then motivation.

Simple Rule 5: In the Literature Review, Tell Your Story; Don’t Summarize Others’ Stories

We have noticed that some people misconstrue the label “Literature Review” in one of two ways. First, some authors review the entrepreneurship literature they discussed in the introduction. However, the theoretical framework section needs to center on the solution—what fills the gap—and thus comprises the domain of the theory borrowed and modified for the entrepreneurial context to fill the gap (see Simple Rule 2). Simple Rule 5 thus helps decrease redundancies in the first sections of a paper. Second, some people misconstrue “review” as the need for a “summary” of all related papers. A strong indication of a summary is when most paragraphs in the literature review begin with the name of a study or authors. Such an approach typically provides a hodgepodge of paper synopses that are only loosely connected.

An alternative approach, which we believe is ultimately more productive, is to name the section “Theoretical Framework” to signal to readers that the section goes beyond merely summarizing others’ work to offer the focal paper’s story. When telling a story is the primary goal, citations of prior work simply support characters. Indeed, theorizing can be conceptualized as strong storytelling such that audiences appreciate those stories they find more plausible and interesting (Pollock & Bono, 2013; Shepherd & Suddaby, 2017; Weick, 2012; also see Chapter 1). A helpful method to assist with storytelling in the literature review (or theoretical framework) section is to write the main text of the story with “(xx)” where citations need to be added in the next draft. This approach ensures that citations support a story instead of entirely comprising the story. Importantly, we are not trying to imply that citations are unnecessary; they are critical but, again, in supporting a story. Authors can improve the narrative flow of their papers by defining concepts early on in the literature review/theoretical framework and then using them consistently throughout the rest of their papers. Each paragraph and sentence should build upon the preceding ideas such that readers are driven toward a specific set of conclusions clearly and straightforwardly that avoids repetition and theorizing by citation.

Finally, in a deductive paper, it is typically helpful to provide readers with the big picture first (i.e., in the opening paragraph and in the description of the model) and then develop each part thereafter. (In an inductive paper, the author typically describes the parts first and then builds up to the big picture.) By providing the big picture first, the authors give readers a roadmap to navigate the rest of the focal paper. This big picture is frequently a paragraph that presents the theoretical approach (from Literature 2) used to address an issue (from Literature 1) through a series of relationships that are introduced in this paragraph but developed in later sections. The following excerpt exemplifies the big-picture idea of this simple rule:

We build on affective events theory (AET, Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) and the leadership literature (House, 1981; Rooney & Gottlieb, 2007; Sharma & Pearsall, 2016) to develop our supportive leadership model of managing employees' negative emotions after entrepreneurial project failure. We illustrate this model in Fig. 1. Specifically, we explain how supportive leadership (from the employee's perspective) and time since project failure conjointly moderate the relationship between employees' recalled negative emotions after their last major project failure and their current job satisfaction, and through job satisfaction, their current job performance. We detail the nature of these relationships in the sections that follow. (Patzelt et al., 2021: 3)

Simple Rule 6: Think Strategically About What to Cite

Flowing from the simple rule above, Simple Rule 6 has three main aspects. First, in the introduction, it is crucial to join the ongoing scholarly discourse in the entrepreneurship literature. Accordingly, authors need to cite recent papers from the literature, most likely including recent papers from the journal to which a focal paper will be submitted. Citing the literature in this way is not meant to curry favor with the editor of the journal but instead represents a real attempt to enter and contribute to the ongoing discourse and speak to the journal’s audience (plus, one or two of the reviewers are likely to be authors who have themselves published papers on the topic in the journal). This same advice applies to the entrepreneurship literature mentioned in Simple Rule 2.

Second, citations from the literature used to build a theoretical model need to include seminal citations as the basis of this theoretical approach. In other words, when developing the plausibility of a theoretical approach, it is beneficial to provide some knowledge about its foundations (without providing a full-blown historical account of its formation). It is also helpful to highlight recent applications of the focal theory and advancements in that literature.

Finally, citations need to reflect the foundations of the author’s reasoning. For instance, if an author applies a specific theoretical perspective, the author’s citations then need to align with that perspective. Likewise, if the point an author cites refers to a certain level of analysis, the paper(s) cited to support that point must be at the same level of analysis. In Simple Rule 5, we discussed the method of writing the main text of one’s story and then adding citations later. An opposite method is to read only the citations of one’s story to see if they flow together coherently (i.e., a citation is coherent within a set of citations, and sets of citations are coherent within the section of a paper). Mixing citations for different perspectives, theories, levels of analysis, etc., can lead to confusion and incoherence for shrewd readers of entrepreneurship research.

Simple Rule 7: Contextualize the Context

For this rule, the question is whether to put context in the foreground or the background. While we are not sure we can provide any definitive answer to this question, we hope that by highlighting our difficulties in handling this issue, we help other scholars find their own way. For instance, we have investigated the entrepreneurial orientation of Swedish small businesses (Wiklund & Shepherd, 2003, 2005; Wiklund et al., 2009) and entrepreneurs with mental disorders, such as attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (Wiklund et al., 2018). Reflecting on these papers, we see that the context for the first topic (Swedish small businesses) was in the background (e.g., discussed in the research method section), whereas the context for the second topic was in the foreground. Putting context in the background tends to make theorizing more generalizable (in our case, we simply tested a more general theory in a specific context) while putting context in the foreground usually makes theorizing richer. A simple rule of thumb for this issue could be to bring context to the foreground when there is reason to believe it is unique in such a way that it influences theorizing (e.g., it reverses the direction of correlations [e.g., Wiklund et al., 2017]); otherwise, context should be put in the background. Indeed, contextualization is a significant issue that goes beyond the scope of this chapter (see Chapter 4). For more on this topic, we refer interested readers to the following paper on the entrepreneurial context (e.g., Welter, 2011) as well as to further examples of context in the foreground (e.g., Bakker & Shepherd, 2017; Hsu et al., 2016; Mittermaier et al., 2021a) and in the background (e.g., McKelvie et al., 2018; Wiklund & Shepherd, 2005).

Simple Rule 8: Don’t Reinvent the Wheel; Use an Exemplar

While most authors want to emphasize the novelty of their papers, we recommend that they find novelty in content, not in structure. Indeed, maybe the most important writing advice we can give entrepreneurship scholars is to find and emulate an exemplar paper—namely, a paper that has different content than the in-progress paper but the “right” structure. For our own writing, we consult exemplars for both macro-structure (i.e., headings and subheadings) and micro-structure issues (i.e., the flow of ideas from one sentence to the next in a particular paragraph and from one paragraph to the next in a subsection). Using an exemplar helps avoid some of the anxiety and uncertainty surrounding how to organize a paper’s content (also see the structure template below).

Different types of entrepreneurship studies require different structures, such as (1) deductive empirical studies with the context in the background (e.g., Breugst & Shepherd, 2017; Patzelt & Shepherd, 2011a; Wiklund & Shepherd, 2005) and with the context in the foreground (e.g., Bakker & Shepherd, 2017); (2) inductive studies based on constant comparisons of multiple cases (see Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007, for a description of the approach; e.g., see Preller et al., 2020; Wiklund et al., 2016; or Williams & Shepherd, 2016, for application), the Gioia method (see Gioia et al., 2013, for a description of the approach; e.g., see Shepherd et al., 2017a, 2017b for application), and understanding processes (McMullen & Dimov, 2013; e.g., Burgelman, 1983); and (3) literature review and research agenda papers (Short, 2009; e.g., Shepherd et al., 2015; Ucbasaran et al., 2013; Wiklund et al., 2018). (4) Deductive theory papers typically have a less formulaic structure, but a few potential entrepreneurship exemplars include Miller et al. (2012); Patzelt and Shepherd (2011a, 2011b); Sarasvathy (2001); and Shepherd et al. (2017a, 2017b). Exemplars also exist for (5) multilevel studies (Shepherd, 2011; e.g., Breugst et al., 2020; Shepherd, 2009; Tracey et al., 2011;), (6) multiple study papers (e.g., Hsu et al., 2017; Peng et al., 2019), (7) formal models (e.g., Lévesque & Minniti, 2011; Lévesque et al., 2009), (8) simulations (Breig et al., 2018; e.g., Johnson et al., 2018; Welter & Kim, 2018), and (9) more abductive studies (Shepherd & Suddaby, 2017; e.g., Bullough & Renko, 2017; Mollick, 2014).

Simple Rule 9: Illustrate with Figures

Overall, authors want to tell plausible stories, and figures can help significantly in this regard. First, providing a holistic picture of a paper’s conceptual model at the start of the theory section gives readers a roadmap for the rest of the paper. Arguably, this is the most popular use of a figure. Second, figures can be used to illustrate entrepreneurial processes, or the sequencing of decisions, activities, and/or events. Third, figures are vital in helping readers understand non-linear relationships, including curvilinear (e.g., Patzelt et al., 2020; Shepherd et al., 2003), contingent (e.g., Wiklund & Shepherd, 2003), and configurational relationships (e.g., Tryba et al., 2022; Wiklund & Shepherd, 2005). An additional advantage of offering such figures is that readers can more fully comprehend the effect sizes of different relationships (when the scale is provided on both axes). Finally, figures are also helpful in showing the results of “less normal” methods, such as fuzzy-set analysis (e.g., Lisboa et al., 2016), and of more complex data-collection processes (e.g., Shepherd et al., 2014; Williams & Shepherd, 2016).

Simple Rule 10: Discuss How Our Understanding of the Topic Has Changed

By the end of writing a paper, authors are often so relieved to be near the finish line that they do not give the discussion section the attention it deserves. While many find their energy starting to fade when it comes time to write this section, the discussion is an author’s chance to complete the arc of plausible storytelling. Said differently, the discussion should tie a paper’s story together, ensuring there are no loose ends. In particular, we like to write the discussion while keeping the introduction as well as the gap and contributions established there in mind to ensure the discussion clarifies and expands upon how the paper fills the gap, makes specific contributions to entrepreneurial theorizing, and directs readers to think about the topic differently after finishing the paper. When beginning to write the discussion, we typically take the three or four contributions mentioned in the introduction (see Simple Rule 2) and elaborate on them (roughly two paragraphs for each contribution) in the discussion. This elaboration process entails the author’s reflections on the study’s contributions to both the entrepreneurship literature and the literature used to develop the study’s theorizing. Here, the key is not to center on the study’s findings as much as on the insights stemming from those findings. To communicate these new insights, the discussion needs to reconnect to the entrepreneurship literature and highlight the non-trivial, non-obvious aspects of the study’s findings.

An effective discussion sparks readers’ imagination and leaves them excited from learning something new (e.g., “I never considered that,” “I can apply that,” “That gives me an idea”). For direction, there are many helpful guides to writing a discussion (i.e., Geletkanycz & Tepper, 2012) as well as good exemplars of discussions in the entrepreneurship papers we listed for Simple Rule 8. Moreover, an effective discussion acknowledges the focal study’s limitations (since all studies have weaknesses) and recommends opportunities for future research to further extend knowledge of entrepreneurial phenomena by overcoming the current study’s limitations and boundary conditions. Identifying future research opportunities also underscores a study’s relevance and interesting conclusions. Indeed, highly impactful research reveals new perspectives and paths for future research that were hidden before.

A final common mistake in the discussion section is simply not having a discussion. This issue can manifest in the form of repeating major findings or moving directly to the conclusion. Moreover, some scholars explore very broadly in the discussion section—too broadly, going beyond the scope of the focal paper. Rather, an effective discussion helps readers reflect on the study at hand and appreciate how their understanding of the entrepreneurial phenomenon and entrepreneurship literature has been changed, extended, or otherwise altered because of the current paper.

Simple Rule 11: Work on Your Writing Skills

Just as most people believe they are above-average drivers, most scholars believe they are above-average writers. This, of course, cannot be true—everyone cannot be above average. As such, it is important to improve one’s writing skills as poor writing quality, including spelling errors, omitted references, and other evident weaknesses, is an instant turnoff and cast doubt on all other aspects of a paper’s quality.

Regardless of what we believe our writing prowess to be, the following lessons have served us well in enhancing our own writing skills. First, to improve our writing skills and become better writers, we seek out and learn from feedback on our writing as well as study the writing of published papers. Second, writing a good paper takes time and typically involves many drafts and rewrites. Third, we ensure the writing process is collaborative—we are comfortable rewriting our coauthors’ sentences, and they are comfortable rewriting ours. Indeed, a story becomes increasingly more plausible the more we work on it, especially as we tell and retell the story to others. Finally, we frequently hire a professional copyeditor to “polish” our manuscripts (with the added benefit of learning the feedback).

A Template for an Entrepreneurship Paper

Now that we have gone through the 11 simple rules, we offer a template for how to structure a typical paper. To demonstrate this concept more fully, we structure this section just as we usually structure our papers. However, instead of an entrepreneurship topic, the topic here is “how to write a paper.” We are in no way claiming that ours is the only way or even the best way to structure papers, but it is “a way, our way.” In addition, the template is likely most suitable for empirical papers that use quantitative methods, which represent the most common type of entrepreneurship research, and thus offers the best format to apply the simple rules just discussed and to demonstrate some attributes of the craft of writing entrepreneurship papers. Undoubtedly, other types of papers can make significant contributions to the entrepreneurship field (most of which are discussed in Simple Rule 8), but we offer the following to provide authors with a start.

Template Section 1: Introduction to the Paper

The first paragraph of a paper is vital because it sets the stage, introducing readers to the paper’s overall theme and the ongoing scientific conversation the authors are engaging with. We like to think of the introduction as the opening chord of a song. Indeed, it typically takes listeners mere seconds to identify the music style of a song, and they often decide within that short timeframe whether or not they like the song. Similarly, readers often decide whether or not they like a paper after the first few sentences. Authors should therefore ensure the opening sentences of their papers arouses readers’ interest and gives them a taste of what is to follow. In our own papers, we typically begin by stating something about why the focal topic is important, preferably to society more generally but, if not, to the research community more specifically. For instance, the first few sentences of Wiklund and Shepherd (2003: 72) specify why entrepreneurial orientation is salient to businesses and managers:

A general tendency in today’s business environment is the shortening of product and business model life cycles (Hamel, 2000). Consequently, the future profit streams from existing operations are uncertain and businesses need to constantly seek out new opportunities. Therefore, they may benefit from adopting an entrepreneurial strategic orientation (EO).

Another way authors can convey the importance of a study in the introduction is to offer a practical example or quote from a practitioner demonstrating the study’s topic. Such examples need to closely connect to the core of the study at hand and not be too general. As a result, it may be difficult or even impossible to find a practical example that is spot on for many studies. However, when an example fits well, it can be a great way to start a paper. In Shepherd et al., (2013: 1251), for instance, we began with the following example to illustrate the potential negative consequences stemming from entrepreneurs disengaging their values when making decisions regarding opportunity exploitation (we looked a long time for this example [see also Simple Rule 1]):

Götz Werner, founder and owner of dm (Germany’s largest chain of pharmacies), has repeatedly stated that society “cannot develop if we destroy nature” and has further noted that dm customers expect the company to sell only products consistent with this credo. However, dm is known to sell products containing palm oil produced in unsustainable ways that can ultimately result in the destruction of rain forests. When confronted with this fact, Mr. Werner commented, “If a producer makes shower gel that customers want [to buy], we sell it. It is the responsibility of the producers [to comply with environmental standards]” (ARD, 2012). Situations such as this, in which individuals overtly state strong moral values yet act in ways inconsistent with them, pose a paradox: How can such persons express strong support for certain values but then openly violate them?

In the rest of the first paragraph of this paper, we explained what we know about the topic from the current entrepreneurship literature.

In the second paragraph of a paper, we usually offer a brief overview of relevant entrepreneurship research to highlight outstanding questions, conflicting results, or something else that signals a research gap (or problem), and we also typically argue why this gap needs to be filled (or problem solved). Indeed, while a research gap is necessary for conducting research, a gap alone is not enough because some gaps end up leading to research questions that are not very interesting—the answers may be obvious. Thus, arguing why it is important to fill the identified research gap is important, but doing so can be quite difficult, with many authors (including ourselves at times) falling short in doing so. The following example shows how we articulated a gap in the literature, argued the importance of filling the gap, and outlined how we intended to fill it (Dahlqvist & Wiklund, 2012: 186):

Despite the fact that over the past decade, the opportunity-based conceptualization suggested by Shane and Venkataraman (2000) has received extraordinary following, it appears that entrepreneurship scholars do not study opportunities empirically. . . . We maintain that one important reason is that relevant measures of opportunity have been lacking. Our paper develops such a measure. Thus, it can assist scholars in empirically studying entrepreneurship in a way consistent with their definitions of their field or research.

After we establish a gap in the literature and justify our approach to filling it, we then explain the purpose of the paper and the intended contributions. While the purpose can usually be explained in one sentence, the contributions typically cover a few paragraphs, constituting the bulk of the remainder of the introduction. In general, we try to list at least three contributions to the entrepreneurship literature that has the research gap/problem (see Simple Rule 2).

If we have enough space after outlining the paper’s contributions, we sometimes write a short paragraph summarizing the structure of the rest of the paper.

Template Section 2: The Theoretical Framework and Hypothesis Development Section

After the introduction, we move to entrepreneurial theorizing. While we sometimes separate the description of our theoretical framework from our hypothesis development, more often, we include several different subsections under a general heading, as we do below.

Template Section 2.1: Theoretical Framework

In general, we find it helpful to present our overarching theoretical framework before putting forth our hypotheses. We try to use active voice when presenting our framework and to tell our story with appropriate citations as support instead of merely summarizing the literature (see Simple Rule 5). To remind ourselves of this aim and to signal it to readers, we tend to label this section “Theoretical Framework” instead of “Review,” or in some cases, we decide to be more specific about the theorizing to come by naming the section after the model we are developing. We also like to provide an overarching figure and big-picture description of the theoretical model if possible (see Simple Rule 9). Doing so provides readers with a better understanding of the entrepreneurial theorizing and hypothesis development to come.

A common mistake in this section is presenting a theoretical framework that attempts to incorporate numerous different theories, sometimes even including incompatible theoretical approaches (see Simple Rules 2, 4, and 5). In our own work, we typically develop more focused theoretical frameworks that build on a single theory or integrate no more than two different theories. For instance, in Jenkins et al. (2014), we explain how the paper builds on a general theory—appraisal theory—and include a figure of the overarching theoretical model. Still, this example breaks from our own norm by presenting the figure after the subsection(s) justifying and presenting all the hypotheses. We usually place this figure after the first paragraph introducing the model but before the hypothesis subsection(s). In this case, we thought about presenting the model up front but felt it made more sense to develop the different parts of our framework and then bring them together at the end to tell the big-picture story of the study (an approach often used for more inductive and abductive studies).

Template Section 2.2: Hypotheses

This subsection develops the hypotheses that will be empirically tested in the paper and thus serves as a bridge between the theoretical framework and the empirical results. Since hypotheses are anchored in theory, in this subsection, we usually focus on explaining how theoretical constructs are related instead of describing the actual empirical indicators used in the empirical study. For instance, in Wennberg et al. (2011), the construct representing the dependent variable is “performance,” which we captured with several different indicators. Thus, we wrote the hypotheses in the following way (1130):

H1: Firms started by university-educated entrepreneurs as commercial spinoffs perform better than firms started by university-educated entrepreneurs as university spinoffs in terms of (a) growth in sales revenue, (b) growth in employment, and (c) survivability.

Thus, we formulated the hypothesis to indicate both the construct of interest (performance) and the indicators of that construct (sales growth, employee growth, and survival). Although this approach does not always work, when it does, we find it helps build a stronger link between the theory and empirical sections of a paper.

Papers usually present more than one hypothesis. While some authors like to build one long theoretical argument and then list all of their hypotheses collectively at the end, we prefer presenting separate arguments for each hypothesis because this approach forces us to theorize on each hypothesis. The content leading up to a hypothesis centers on explaining the causal mechanisms for that hypothesis—namely, why a particular construct relates to another. We typically word our hypotheses to ensure the text makes both the direction (positive or negative) and form (unless it is linear, which is the implicit assumption) of the relationship clear.

Template Section 3: The Methods Section

The methods section—of all the sections in a paper—is the most standardized across journals. As such, following the structure of an exemplar is easiest and most useful in this section (see Simple Rule 8). Due to this standardization, our approach to writing this section, including the subheadings, organization, and text within each subsection, is very similar to that of many other scholars. When scholars use a different structure for this section than what is expected, it tends to send a negative signal to readers about the author’s competence and sometimes annoys readers because “things are not where they should be.”

Template Section 3.1: Research Design and Sample

We begin this subsection by first explaining why the sample we selected is appropriate for the research question. In general, there are no ideal samples. Instead, the most important aspect of a sample is its appropriateness for the paper at hand, so clearly explaining this appropriateness is quite helpful in persuading readers of the data’s validity. Next, we move on to describe the overall research design, sampling frame, and sampling process. The goal here is to give enough detail so others could reproduce the study if they desired. We usually describe the respective sample in terms of size, response rate, representativeness, potential tests of non-response bias, and other applicable sample characteristics (e.g., age, gender balance, and education). Pérez-Luño et al. (2011) is an excellent exemplar for this section.

Template Section 3.2: Variables and Measures

For this subsection, we generally discuss each dependent and independent variable under separate headings and all the control variables under a joint heading. In addition to explaining how we measured each variable, we either describe each measure’s source (if it is someone else’s measure) and any changes we made to it or validate a new measure. These descriptions can be rather long at times, for instance, when detailing why we opted for a certain operationalization (e.g., ADHD [Wiklund et al., 2017]) or how we created and validated a new measure to test our hypotheses (e.g., Covin et al., 2015; Patzelt et al., 2020; Shepherd et al., 2011, 2013).

Template Section 4: The Analyses and Results Section

We usually begin this section by presenting a table with the descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations and some descriptives of the sample in the text. This basic information is essential because it helps readers assess the nature of the research and also possibly re-analyze the data, such as in a meta-analysis.Footnote 3 Next, we discuss the tests of the hypotheses mainly by presenting the results in various tables and referencing them in the text. We like to first restate each hypothesis verbatim, then move to present the exact results for the specific hypothesis, and end by commenting on whether the hypothesis was supported. We also find it helpful to discuss the hypotheses in the same order we presented them earlier in the paper to avoid reader confusion and ensure narrative flow. Likewise, we present the variables in the same order we initially presented them and use the same names for these variables throughout the text rather than abbreviations (unless common abbreviations such as EO). This approach demonstrates the authors’ attention to detail and concern for making readers’ lives easier, both of which reviewers and editors appreciate. In this section, we also comment on other aspects of the results if appropriate. For instance, sometimes it is necessary to discuss the effect sizes of the results instead of merely relying on p values below a certain threshold. Furthermore, journals increasingly require additional tests and/or post hoc analyses, which we describe after presenting the results of the hypothesis testing (e.g., see Bakker & Shepherd, 2017; Wiklund et al., 2017; which may require additional data collection [e.g., see Shepherd et al., 2013]).

Template Section 5: The Discussion Section

To ensure the discussion section is not too myopic, it can be helpful for a coauthor who did not conduct the analysis to write the first draft of this section or for the author who conducted the analysis to wait a few days between writing the results and discussion sections (see Simple Rule 10). To open the discussion section, we typically restate the overall research question and describe how the results answered that question. We then outline how the paper informs or otherwise contributes to the relevant literature(s) (see Simple Rule 2). As we discussed earlier, we like to revisit the intended contributions articulated in the introduction to make sure we recapture them in the discussion section without going on a tangent, such as by bringing up potential contributions to literatures not previously mentioned in the paper (see Simple Rule 10). We then tend to elaborate on each intended contribution with one or two paragraphs each. This elaboration incudes our reflections on the study’s contributions to and implications for the entrepreneurship literature (Literature 1 in Simple Rule2) and the literature used to build the study’s theorizing (Literature 2 in Simple Rule 2).

We also generally dedicate a couple of paragraphs to discussing the study’s implications for practice, whether for entrepreneurs, educators, or policymakers. We urge authors to think deeply about such implications and whether they can be gleaned from their studies’ findings. Indeed, a common mistake in the discussion section of many entrepreneurship papers is that the practical implications are too far removed from the focal study’s findings and do not go beyond the general idea that “practitioners should be aware of the findings of the study.” For example, Wiklund et al. (2018) briefly discussed how their findings can inform counselors working with entrepreneurs who have ADHD, and Wennberg et al. (2011) extensively discussed the policy implications of their study. To develop tangible and practical implications, authors can draw on previous literature outlining particular tools and approaches that practitioners can use to act on a study’s implications. For example, Patzelt et al. (2021) described how managers can utilize supportive leadership to help employees regulate negative emotions stemming from project failure. We expounded upon the specific practices involved in such supportive leadership when discussing the practical implications of this finding (Patzelt et al., 2021: 15):

The supportive leadership literature identifies different ways leaders can provide support to employees, thus potentially helping them deal with the negative impact of recent project failure. For example, it emphasizes that supportive leaders should encourage employees to work together, trust each other, and focus on collaborating to achieve goals important to their shared projects rather than on achieving their personal goals (Choi et al., 2003; Euwema et al., 2007). Such behaviors are consistent with the notion that leaders can facilitate social interactions in project transitions (Patzelt et al., 2020). In addition, studies emphasize that supportive leaders should show respect and concern for employees and their particular situations (House, 1981; Judge et al., 2004; Rafferty and Griffin, 2006), such as a recent experience of project failure. Finally, supportive leaders should directly interact with employees to encourage initiative and demonstrate trust in them (Carmeli et al., 2010; Jansen et al., 2016; Van de Ven & Chu, 1989). Our study suggests that these leadership behaviors may be valuable for employees after they have experienced the failure of an entrepreneurial project.

After discussing the implications, we then articulate the study’s limitations. This subsection is very straightforward to write—we are merely honest and demonstrate awareness of the study’s actual weaknesses. Some of these limitations may be identified through the review process. Any reader with research experience knows that every study has limitations (see Simple Rules 3 and 4), so editors and reviewers tend to find it irritating when authors simply do not see any weaknesses in their studies or try to conceal them. We always advocate for self-awareness and transparency in research, and this is one place to demonstrate them. After listing the limitations, we also generally mention future research opportunities to build on the study’s implications for research, implications for practice, and limitations, and we articulate a few questions that make the most sense in terms of further advancing the study’s contributions.

Template Section 6: The Conclusion Section

For the conclusion, we usually write only one paragraph or a couple of short paragraphs; however, we sometimes do not include a conclusion at all (e.g., Wiklund et al., 2016). Essentially, we do not consider the conclusion to be a particularly critical section of a paper, but that said, we often like to leave readers with something positive at the end of a paper (consistent with Simple Rule 3).

Some Heuristics for Improving Writing Quality

This section is based on a working paper (Shepherd, Seyb, and Ferguson).

Academic writing is a highly iterative process requiring in-depth thinking, organizing, writing, and revising. Throughout this process, authors have to make numerous decisions regarding their work’s content, style, and structure, which makes creating a publication-worthy document a significant endeavor. Although this chapter is by no means a comprehensive guide, we hope the previous material and the writing heuristics below help entrepreneurship scholars write and revise their work (and thus their entrepreneurial theorizing) effectively and efficiently.

Writing Heuristic 1: Write and Rewrite for Clarity

While most people talk about “writing a paper,” we believe the phrase “rewriting a paper” is perhaps more appropriate. Indeed, like many scholars, we frequently go through several dozen rounds of rewrites before a paper is fully accepted and published. For instance, Bakker and Shepherd (2017) went through 125 versions before it was accepted for publication. Indeed, when it comes to the writing process, the quote “How do I know what I think until I see what I say” (often attributed to E.M. Forster) seems appropriate. As this quote indicates, there are advantages to writing a very rough first draft to spark the momentum for a paper. The roughness of such a draft reduces pressure and thereby helps decrease the likelihood of writer’s block. Although this highly iterative process is time-consuming, requiring considerable attention to detail and diligence, the improved writing quality is worth the extra work because it increases a manuscript’s chance of being accepted for publication.

These iterations also involve attempts to increase argument clarity. While the meaning of and connections between statements and paragraphs may seem clear to authors when they are fully immersed in the literature, these details may be less obvious to less immersed readers. Indeed, everyone approaches specific topics from different vantage points, even knowledgeable audiences, so it is important to ensure arguments are well organized and cohesive. For instance, “transitions” showing readers how two ideas within a paragraph relate help improve clarity. Transitions guide readers through a paper’s reasoning and establish how all of the components of a piece of writing contribute to the overall argument. The example below shows revised wording and the introduction of a transition in response to the copyeditor’s comment regarding clarity:

Example Writing Heuristic 1

We found in entrepreneurs’ narratives that while negative emotions may trigger sensemaking efforts, the presence of positive emotions provided an emotional context in which cognitive strategies could be used. We also found in entrepreneurs’ narratives that emotion-focused coping played a key role in the emergence of these positive emotions. While the Now Feeling Good group reported these effects firsthand, the entrepreneurs’ narratives in the Delayed Suffering group did not because their negative emotions reportedly increased after the business failure event, while their positive emotions remained low. As these results suggest, the use of cognitive strategies represents a link between the “broaden-and-build” role of positive emotions (Fredrickson, 1998, 2001) and making sense of one’s failure experience. (Byrne & Shepherd, 2015: 395)

Writing Heuristic 2: Use Active Voice

Just like the third-person narrative voice, the use of passive voice in academic writing became customary due to scholars’ desire to come across as more objective. Although passive voice is often used in academic writing in some languages (e.g., German), in English, it tends to result in wordy, overly complex sentences that leave readers asking, “Who is doing what?” People usually speak in an active voice in their day-to-day conversations, centering stories on people doing things, and performing specific actions. Accordingly, as readers, people are more receptive to active voice and can follow the meaning of material written in an active voice more easily. Active voice also reduces wordiness and results in less complex sentence structures, both of which are important in clearly conveying an argument. Although authors often think about active voice in terms of themselves (i.e., what they did), this heuristic also applies when referring to others’ work, as the following example illustrates:

Example Writing Issue 2

To date, numerous definitions have been employed by researchers.

Example Revised—Writing Heuristic 2

To date, researchers have used numerous definitions for business failure, which vary in terms of their inclusivity. . . (Ucbasaran et al., 2013: 166)

Writing Heuristic 3: Start Paragraphs with a Topic Sentence

In general, each paragraph in a paper should focus on one central topic and then elaborate on it. If a paragraph covers two topics, it might be better to divide the paragraph to make each topic more prominent and digestible. To introduce the topic of a paragraph and thus guide readers, authors should begin each paragraph with a “topic sentence,” as illustrated in the following example:

Example Writing Issue 5

Compassion refers to “the feeling that arises in witnessing another’s suffering, and that motivates a subsequent desire to help” (Goetz et al., 2010, p. 351). According to the organizational perspective, individuals often start organizing activities to alleviate suffering by noticing, feeling, and responding compassionately to others’ needs (Dutton et al., 2006; Frost, 1999). Therefore, compassion involves feelings that can lead to action. For example, within existing organizations, compassionate individuals may realign and redeploy the existing infrastructure—routines, systems, and resources—in a way that minimizes organizational members’ suffering (Dutton et al., 2006; Lilius et al., 2008, 2011; Rynes et al., 2012). Complementing work on compassion organizing, the prosocial venturing literature has revealed that founders’ compassion can drive the emergence of prosocial ventures to alleviate the suffering of those outside the focal organization (Drabek & McEntire, 2002). Both the organizational perspective (Dutton et al., 2006) and the prosocial venturing literature (Bacq & Alt, 2018; Miller et al., 2012) assume that compassion is the key motivational trigger that increases individuals’ likelihood of taking action to alleviate others’ suffering.

Example Revised—Writing Heuristic 5: Both the organizational perspective (Dutton et al., 2006) and the prosocial venturing literature (Bacq & Alt, 2018; Miller et al., 2012) assume that compassion is the key motivational trigger that increases individuals’ likelihood of taking action to alleviate others’ suffering. Compassion refers to “the feeling that arises in witnessing another’s suffering, and that motivates a subsequent desire to help” (Goetz et al., 2010, p. 351). According to the organizational perspective, individuals often start organizing activities to alleviate suffering by noticing, feeling, and responding compassionately to others’ needs (Dutton et al., 2006; Frost, 1999). Therefore, compassion involves feelings that can lead to action. For example, within existing organizations, compassionate individuals may realign and redeploy the existing infrastructure—routines, systems, and resources—in a way that minimizes organizational members’ suffering (Dutton et al., 2006; Lilius et al., 2008, 2011; Rynes et al., 2012). Complementing work on compassion organizing, the prosocial venturing literature has revealed that founders’ compassion can drive the emergence of prosocial ventures to alleviate the suffering of those outside the focal organization (Drabek & McEntire, 2002). (Mittermaier et al., 2021b: 4)

Writing Heuristic 4: Connect Ideas and Paragraphs

The transition example we gave for Writing Heuristic 1 was at the sentence level, but it is also important to add transitions at the paragraph level to connect the ideas presented in one paragraph to those presented in the next paragraph. Like with sentences, successfully transitioning between paragraphs improves the clarity, flow, and plausibility of the focal story. In the following example, the copyeditor indicated that we needed to use signposts to tell readers what is to come and thus connect ideas between paragraphs (each mechanism had its own paragraph). Signaling ideas in this way demonstrates that the focal author has carefully considered the structure and content of their argument. When readers know what an author intends to discuss, it helps them grasp the author’s perspective, even if they would have made different narrative choices in their writing.

Example Writing Issue 4

Therefore, an organization’s perception is likely broadened by self-compassion via three distinct mechanisms.

Example Revised—Writing Heuristic 4: Therefore, an organization’s perception is likely broadened by self-compassion via three distinct mechanisms—self-kindness, common humanity, and mindfulness. (Shepherd et al., 2016: 48)

Writing Heuristic 5: Provide Descriptive Examples to Illustrate Arguments

Providing supplementary details or an example to illustrate a point makes writing deeper and more comprehensive and thus helps convey meaning to readers. However, adding an example, particularly a well-known example, could end up detracting from the arguments established in a paper because people can interpret an example from numerous perspectives. Therefore, a hypothetical example is sometimes a better option because it can be tailored to directly support the point being made in the paper. Alternatively, authors can use an example that has already been cited in the literature. The following is an example of this heuristic:

Example Writing Issue 5

Legislation may validate the social meaning of an act, thereby making an act more or less socially acceptable and even prompting the erosion of well-established norms (Efrat, 2006). To illustrate this point, Efrat (2006) details how legislative reform in Japan has reduced the entrenched traditional stigma of bankruptcy. In summary, the more the law penalizes failure, the greater the likelihood that failure is stigmatized.

Example Revised—Writing Heuristic 5: Legislation may validate the social meaning of an act, thereby making an act more or less socially acceptable and even prompting the erosion of well-established norms (Efrat, 2006). To illustrate this point, Efrat (2006) details how legislative reform in Japan has reduced the entrenched traditional stigma of bankruptcy; he points to evidence reporting a causal relationship between the increasing leniency of insolvency laws and a decline in suicide (which has historically followed the shame associated with insolvency and bankruptcy). In summary, extant work suggests that the more the law penalizes failure, the greater the likelihood that failure is stigmatized. (Ucbasaran et al., 2013: 177)

Writing Heuristic 6: Make Items in a List Parallel

Lists can help authors effectively and concisely communicate important information. To reduce readers’ burden, make sure the wording of each element in a list is parallel (e.g., all elements begin with a verb, all begin with a noun, or all begin with question words [e.g., how, why, where, how, who]). Here is an example:

Example Writing Issue 6

Although there are many research opportunities possible from taking a more activity-based perspective, I propose that important future research avenues worth exploring include (1) the activities that lead to the identification of what is believed (or doubted) to be an opportunity (third- and/or first-person opportunity), (2) how and why an individual’s prior knowledge impacts the types of activities undertaken to form an opportunity belief (third- and/or first-person opportunity), (3) how and why the nature of an individual’s motivation impacts the types of activities undertaken to form an opportunity belief (third- and/or first-person opportunity), (4) the interrelationship between activities contribute to an opportunity belief (third- and/or first-person opportunity), (5) how and why specific activities influence an individual’s prior knowledge and motivation (which in turn can influence subsequent activities), (6) how and why changed knowledge in the evaluation stage impacts knowledge in the attention stage for the identification of subsequent potential third-person opportunities, and (7) how and why the changed motivation of the evaluation stage impacts motivation in the attention stage for the identification of subsequent third-person opportunities.

Example Revised—Writing Heuristic 6: Although there are many research opportunities possible from taking a more activity-based perspective, I propose that important future research avenues worth exploring include (1) which activities lead to the identification of what is believed (or doubted) to be an opportunity (third- and/or first-person opportunity), (2) how and why an individual’s prior knowledge impacts the types of activities undertaken to form an opportunity belief (third- and/or first-person opportunity), (3) how and why the nature of an individual’s motivation impacts the types of activities undertaken to form an opportunity belief (third- and/or first-person opportunity), (4) how the interrelationship between activities contributes to an opportunity belief (third- and/or first-person opportunity), (5) how and why specific activities influence an individual’s prior knowledge and motivation (which in turn can influence subsequent activities), (6) how and why changed knowledge in the evaluation stage impacts knowledge in the attention stage for the identification of subsequent potential third-person opportunities, and (7) how and why the changed motivation of the evaluation stage impacts motivation in the attention stage for the identification of subsequent third-person opportunities. (Shepherd, 2015: 496)

Conclusion

In this chapter, our goal was to offer some advice on crafting a good entrepreneurship paper using primarily our own experiences with missteps, failures, and some successes. We began by outlining 11 simple rules to consider when developing an entrepreneurship paper. Next, we provided a template to organize the content required in each section of an entrepreneurship paper and presented examples of how we have applied this template in previous papers. Finally, we discussed six writing heuristics to help authors enhance their writing quality. We hope these simple rules, template sections, and writing heuristics help scholars as they craft entrepreneurship papers to advance entrepreneurial theorizing.