Entrepreneurship scholars have over-invested in borrowed theories and under-invested in the evidence needed to test them—or to build something better. This editorial, written on the occasion of ETP’s 15th anniversary and my departure as Editor-in-Chief, argues for a rebalancing around the research question-design-data trio: important questions rooted in phenomena, designs matched to claims, and serious investment in data quality. The field’s greatest strength has always been its willingness to ask important questions, and its most enduring theoretical contributions come from developing home-grown theories addressing these questions rather than importing frameworks from outside. AI makes this rebalancing urgent. When the front end of a paper can be generated by a machine, the distinctive value of scholarship must reside in the question, the design, and the evidence. The field’s future depends on producing work that reveals how entrepreneurship actually works, and on exporting those insights rather than merely importing ideas from other disciplines.
AntonakisJ. (2017). On doing better science: From thrill of discovery to policy implications. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 3–14.
2.
BakerT.NelsonR. E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 329–366.
3.
BaumolW. J. (1968). Entrepreneurship in economic theory. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, 58(2), 64–71.
4.
BortJ.WiklundJ.CrawfordG. C.LernerD. A.HuntR. A. (2024). The strategic advantage of impulsivity in entrepreneurial action: An agent-based modeling approach. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 48(2), 547–580.
5.
CrosinaE.MismettiM.De MassisA.PrattM. G.WilliamsT. A. (2025). Ethnography in entrepreneurship research: Promises, pitfalls, and practical pathways. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 49(6), 1499–1534.
6.
DavidssonP. (2015). Entrepreneurial opportunities and the entrepreneurship nexus: A re-conceptualization. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(5), 674–695.
7.
DavidssonP. (2016). Researching entrepreneurship: Conceptualization and design (2nd ed.). Springer.
8.
DimovD.MaulaM.RommeA. G. L. (2023). Crafting and assessing design science research for entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 47(5), 1543–1567.
9.
FellnhoferK.WennbergK.AllisonT. H.AreniusP.LévesqueM.GishJ. J.PollackJ. M. (2026). Enhancing transparency and replicability in entrepreneurship research with preregistrations, registered reports, and registered revisions: A call for papers. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 50, 643–670.
10.
GartnerW. B. (1988). “Who is an entrepreneur?” is the wrong question. American Journal of Small Business, 12(4), 11–32.
11.
LernerD. A.HuntR. A.DimovD. (2018). Action! Moving beyond the intendedly-rational logics of entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 33(1), 52–69.
12.
LévesqueM.ObschonkaM.NambisanS. (2022). Pursuing impactful entrepreneurship research using artificial intelligence. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 46(4), 803–832.
13.
MaulaM.MickiewiczT.VismaraS.WiklundJ. (Forthcoming). Investing in data quality for high-impact entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice.
14.
MaulaM.StamW. (2020). Enhancing rigor in quantitative entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 44(6), 1059–1090.
15.
McMullenJ. S.BrownellK. M.AdamsJ. (2021). What makes an entrepreneurship study entrepreneurial? Toward a unified theory of entrepreneurial agency. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 45(5), 1197–1238.
16.
McMullenJ. S.ShepherdD. A. (2006). Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 132–152.
17.
RönkköM.MaulaM.WennbergK. (2025). Qualitative comparative analysis in entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 49(4), 963–991.
18.
SarasvathyS. D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 243–263.
19.
ShaneS.VenkataramanS. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.
20.
ShepherdD. A.WiklundJ. (2020). Simple rules, templates, and heuristics! An attempt to deconstruct the craft of writing an entrepreneurship paper. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 44(3), 371–390.
21.
ShepherdD. A.WiklundJ. (Forthcoming). What if we took entrepreneurship practice seriously? Prescriptive theorizing from explanatory models for practical implications. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice.
22.
ShepherdD. A.WincentJ.ChaseS. R. (2025). What if we are the WEIRD ones? A call (and roadmap) for more non-WEIRD entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 49(5), 1223–1260.
23.
SuttonR. I.StawB. M. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 371–384.
24.
ThurikA. R.AudretschD. B.BlockJ. H.BurkeA.CarreeM. A.DejardinM.RietveldC. A.SandersM.StephanU.WiklundJ. (2024). The impact of entrepreneurship research on other academic fields. Small Business Economics, 62, 727–751.
25.
van BurgE.CornelissenJ.StamW.JackS. (2022). Advancing qualitative entrepreneurship research: Leveraging methodological plurality for achieving scholarly impact. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 46(1), 3–20.
26.
WestwoodS. J. (2025). The potential existential threat of large language models to online survey research. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(47), e2518075122.
27.
WiklundJ. (Forthcoming). Policy impact as a byproduct of good science: Reflections from an FT50 journal. In SteingardD.AdieE. (Eds.), Policy impact in business and management research. Sage.
