From entrepreneurship-theory-and-practice-skills
Sharpens an ETP manuscript's headline contribution into a specific theoretical and practice claim, tested by a one-sentence framing formula.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/entrepreneurship-theory-and-practice-skills:etp-contribution-framingThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- A reviewer or coauthor asks "what is the contribution, in one sentence?" and you stumble
ETP's identity is theory AND practice. A passing ETP contribution makes a specific theoretical claim — a new construct, a mechanism, a boundary condition, a reconciliation — and a specific, mechanism-derived practice claim. Both must be true, both must be earned by the evidence, and the practice claim cannot be a decorative afterthought. This is the single most ETP-specific framing demand: many strong-theory papers fail at ETP because their practice section reads as an obligatory paragraph.
| Layer | The claim must… | Failure tell |
|---|---|---|
| Theory | Name what changes in a specific entrepreneurship conversation | "We contribute to the literature" (which one? what changes?) |
| Practice | Follow from the mechanism; name who acts differently and how | "Managers should consider…" (generic, not mechanism-derived) |
| Calibration | Match the strength of the claim to the evidence (extend ≠ overturn) | Abstract overclaims relative to results |
Write the pair as two sentences and test them against each other: if the practice sentence does not follow from the theory sentence, one of them is wrong.
Force the headline into: "We show that [entrepreneurial mechanism] explains [outcome] under [boundary condition], which means [theory move] and implies [practitioner action]." If you cannot fill every slot with something specific and non-obvious, the contribution is not yet framed. The boundary condition is doing real work here — at ETP a contribution that holds "always, for everyone" usually means the scope was never thought through.
ETP's USASBE heritage means a reviewer may be a practitioner-facing scholar. The practice implication should be (1) derived from your mechanism, (2) actionable by a named actor (founder, investor, family-firm successor, educator, policymaker), and (3) honest about what is not yet known. "Entrepreneurs should be alert to opportunities" is not a contribution; "investors should weight a founder's prior failure as a learning signal rather than a red flag, because failure speeds subsequent pivoting" is.
Not every contribution is a "new effect." Naming the shape you are claiming helps you frame it honestly and helps a reviewer see it.
State which shape you claim before you draft the abstract; a paper that claims "new effect" but actually offers a "boundary" usually reads as overclaimed to an ETP reviewer.
A paper finds that founders who reason via affordable loss (rather than expected return) survive longer in highly uncertain markets. A weak framing says: "We contribute to the effectuation literature and managers should consider affordable loss." An ETP-strength framing builds the matched pair. Theory: it qualifies the effectuation–causation debate by showing effectual logic's survival advantage is conditional on market uncertainty — under low uncertainty, predictive (causal) logic does as well or better; the boundary condition is the contribution, not the main effect. Practice: because the advantage is conditional, the implication is specific — investors and accelerators should not treat predictive business plans as a universal quality signal; in genuinely uncertain markets they should reward evidence of affordable-loss experimentation instead. The two sentences are mutually consistent (the practice tip follows directly from the boundary condition), and the claim is calibrated to "qualify," not "overturn."
【Journal】Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice
【Theory contribution】what changes in <named conversation>
【Practice contribution】who does what differently, derived from the mechanism
【One-sentence claim】We show [mechanism] → [outcome] under [boundary], meaning [theory] and implying [action]
【Calibration】claim strength vs. evidence (inductive/quant/conceptual)
【Abstract = delivery?】Y/N
【Next skill】etp-tables-figures
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin entrepreneurship-theory-and-practice-skillsFrames explicit theoretical contributions for the Journal of Business Venturing (JBV) by stating new entrepreneurial theory, boundary conditions, and multidisciplinary reach. Use when results exist but contribution is thin or implicit.
Frames the one-sentence theoretical contribution for Organization Studies manuscripts, sharpening intro/discussion claims. Use when reviewers question contribution or when findings lack a theoretical move.
Sharpens the one-sentence theoretical contribution and practical implications for JMS manuscripts when the 'so what' is the bottleneck.