A Guide for Understanding,Publishing,and Building a Career in Entrepreneurship Education

Abstract

The following manuscript is a helpful overview for current and aspiring academics that seek to better understand academic research, the publishing process, and building a career in entrepreneurship education. We draw from management literature given the theoretical and practical similarities, and we provide suggestions to entrepreneurship educators as a means of starting a dialogue as opposed to presenting fact. While this guide is not directed toward experienced scholars, it may serve as a helpful review. Publishing in entrepreneurship journals is a worthwhile scholarly endeavor for researchers in a variety of fields and we hope our efforts are helpful to scholars, authors, and entrepreneurship educators.

Keywords

entrepreneurship education research teaching service career development

Introduction and Implications for Entrepreneurship Education

We weigh in on the process of reading academic research, learning to write for academic publications, and building a career in academia, particularly for the relatively new academic area of entrepreneurship. Subsequently, we hope this may serve as a graduate level teaching and research tool to help others pursue their academic goals in entrepreneurship. To explore this process, our collaboration is made up of authors from varying disciplines at differing career stages. Accordingly, many of these recommendations come from guidance of the senior faculty member. Together, we seek to create templates that help future scholars understand the field, push forth their manuscripts for academic publication in entrepreneurship, and build a fruitful career.

Graduate students spend an enormous amount of time getting accustomed to life in academia. This period of adaptation is not insignificant since the timeframe for graduate study is somewhat fixed. They read an endless number of journal articles and try to make sense of a newly discovered, and at times, a seemingly foreign language. Then, they are instructed to read and fully understand academic articles and develop manuscripts that contribute to their academic field. Many entrepreneurship programs broadly follow APA guidelines for publishing in the social sciences (Calfee & Valencia, 2007). Management is also a helpful area for entrepreneurship scholars to draw from given that they both provide important insights to theory and practice. In fact, many entrepreneurship focused PhD programs are still housed within management departments (e.g., Auburn University, Texas Tech University, University of Washington) or blended departments (e.g., University of Minnesota, Louisiana State University) as opposed to operating in standalone entrepreneurship departments (e.g., Baylor University, Syracuse University, Oklahoma State University). Accordingly, it is fitting for entrepreneurship researchers can look to management researchers since these scholars have weighed in to help us better understand more about the research processes. While some career-related research has been conducted, such research typically focuses on undergraduate students (Laker & Laker, 2007; Lyon & Kirby, 2000; Salvador & Teckchandani, 2020). Research focusing on doctoral students, while valuable in its own right, is now often quite dated (e.g., McCaskey, 1975). Further, despite a great deal of research on various topics in management education (e.g., Bacon et al., 1999) as well as a growing body in entrepreneurship education (e.g., Vanevenhoven & Liguori, 2013), there is not a wealth of practical guidance provided for the up-and-coming scholars in these fields. We believe it is also worthwhile to push forward ideas for graduate students to help guide their development. To that end, our manuscript further explores four key elements to assist entrepreneurship educators: understanding academic research, writing for scholarly publication, comprehending descriptive statistics of published papers from a management and entrepreneurship journal, and guidance for building a career in entrepreneurship education.

Reading and Writing Papers

An author must meet many criteria to publish their manuscripts and much research has been developed to help authors. For example, scholars have weighed in on theory building and developing a theoretical contribution (Corley & Gioia, 2011; Kilduff, 2006; Whetten, 1989), enlightened us about what is not theory (Sutton & Staw, 1995), and showed us how to develop novel theoretical insight (Lepine & Wilcox-King, 2010). Prior research has also helped guide our manuscripts on topics such as writing ethically (Kacmar, 2009; Lenz, 2014), finding opportunities for contribution in organization studies (Locke & Golden-Biddle, 1997), and providing ideas to make research interesting (Bartunek et al., 2006). Others scholars have given advice to help authors obtain citations for their published papers (Judge et al., 2007), describing why manuscripts get rejected (Daft, 1995), suggesting the importance of positioning within the target journal (Ketchen, 2002), and even figuring out which topics are hot and which are not (Morrison, 2010). These articles shed light on a variety of important considerations for scholars yet much of this guidance bypasses the basic tenants that, in most cases, must be followed to publish research in entrepreneurship. For an overview of questions to ask and issues to consider when reading a paper, please see Table 1.

Table 1.

Questions to Ask When Reading Entrepreneurship Education Academic Research.

1. What was the main contribution(s) of the reading to entrepreneurship education?

2. What are the boundary conditions (implicit or explicit) of the readings: what contextual factors may need to be considered?

3. Are there mediating or moderating variables that may add richness to our understanding of the phenomenon?

4. What are the implicit or explicit assumptions of the article? Are they valid?

5. What theoretical models were used and are they appropriate? Could the topic be approached from alternative theoretical perspectives?

6. Why was the article written (to solve what issue)? Did it answer the “so what” question?

7. Was the literature review adequate? Was there enough theoretical contribution?

8. If empirical, how would you evaluate the methodology used? Do you see any alternatives to their usage?

9. Does the paper go beyond citing significance levels? For example, are the outcomes thoroughly explained and vetted?

10. Are their suggestions for future research usable?

Despite all of these efforts, many of which are powerful and insightful in their own right, there is little guidance as to how these papers should be written (e.g., formatting, sections, and the content within these sections). This is critical for most disciplines, but particularly in entrepreneurship where the standard template for published articles is still evolving. For example, entrepreneurship is still a somewhat emerging discipline and independent entrepreneurship departments are not common within universities (Carraher & Paridon, 2015; Kuratko, 2005). Given the newness of entrepreneurship as a field (i.e., early efforts to major issues in the field only date back to the 90’s; Gartner, 1990), there are certain norms and standards that have yet to be routinized. Even some of the assumptions and logic has been shown to evolve in the past two decades (Shane, 2012). Yet we much better understand the dynamics and uniqueness of the field given our work with emerging and novel phenomena (Zahra, 2007). Perhaps as an emerging and continuously developing field, this “how-to” has been overlooked as too simplistic. Prior research has provided the entire process of publishing (Belcher, 2009) and brief how-to suggestions have also been written; however, as simple is it may be, scholars have not provided the basics to help guide research for those still trying to grasp the publication process in entrepreneurship.

Emerging management scholars may mistakenly correlate publishing in field entrepreneurship to simply writing about small businesses instead of corporations. Because this template applies to most theoretical and empirical papers in entrepreneurship journals, we believe it is a helpful, useful, and worthwhile endeavor and while this might seem elementary, given the target audience likely has a graduate degree or beyond, most will remember their struggle with publishing throughout the first year(s) as a PhD student, PhD candidate, or newly minted academic. Accordingly, we believe that new graduate students, as well as less-practiced researchers, could use and derive value from this type of template. Thus, we set out to better understand entrepreneurship article structure, basic tenants, and unwritten rules of formatting and framing manuscripts. Please see Table 2 for a simple and helpful guide of items to be included in entrepreneurship manuscripts.

Table 2.

General Manuscript Sections and Content Guidance for Entrepreneurship Education.^a

Major sections	Content guidance
Introduction	• State what questions you are seeking to answer and what the paper is about (1–3 paragraphs)• State and cite what the most (3–5) closely related prior studies suggest (2–3 paragraphs) • State how prior research has not answered your questions and how you contribute to the literature by doing so (1–2 paragraphs) • Conclude with a paragraph that outlines the rest of the paper (1 paragraph)
Theory and hypotheses	• Start with an overview of the literature and theoretical lens(es) (1–2 pages) • Build up to each hypothesis by providing sources, logic and reasoning. (3–5 pages contingent on the number of hypotheses)
Data and method	• Describe your sample (1 paragraph+ as necessary) • Describe your methodology (varies in length)
Results	• Provide the correlation table• Explain each coefficient and whether is supports or does not support each of your hypotheses (∼1 page) • Create additional tables as needed
Discussion	• Similar to the introduction, describe what the paper is about and what questions you sought out to answer (1–3 paragraphs) • Explain what the literature was missing and how you contributed to filling this gap (2–3 paragraphs) • Provide practical implications of your study (1–2 paragraphs) • Describe the limitations of your study (1–2 paragraphs) • Provide future research based on your limitations as well as other ideas (1–3 paragraphs) • Provide a brief conclusion (1 paragraph)
References	• Follow submission guidelines; if no submission guidelines are listed, defer to APA• Most research papers have 5–10 pages of double spaced references

Derived from a survey of 60 full length articles published in non-special issues of Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Journal of Business Venturing, Journal of Small Business Management, and Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal in 2015.

At the outset of a career in academia, the new scholar’s questions about manuscript writing most often concern the descriptive characteristics of a manuscript. For example, new scholars often question how many citations they should have in their paper, or whether or not having three co-authors is unusual. Moreover, one of the most rudimentary questions that new scholars find themselves asking senior researchers is, “how much detail or how many paragraphs should I dedicate to a particular section?” Many of us have taken graduate seminars and written seminar papers wherein our professors had a range of expectations in terms of page length. Within most graduate programs, new doctoral students are asked to write a seminar paper and instructed to write the seminar paper as if “it was going to be submitted to a journal, but to stop after writing a proposed methods section.” However, these instructions often involve some required page length (i.e. 20–25 pages). Although these page length guidelines make sense for ensuring that doctoral students diligently develop the topic of their seminar papers, a new doctoral student may question whether or not these page length requirements are reasonable when it comes to publishing in journals. In practice, we know that a 25-page manuscript may be way too long for many journals while simultaneously being way too short for other journals in the same field.

To further complicate the issue, students may submit their seminar papers to an entrepreneurship conference only to find that their now-completed seminar paper exceeds the page limit for the conference.¹ For example, top entrepreneurship conferences, such as the United States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship (USASBE), have a 30-page (inclusive of references and all supplementary material) maximum page limit for conference papers (USASBE, 2016). The doctoral student may now question whether or not they wrote an impractically long front end to their paper, based on the requirements for their seminar since the front end of a paper containing 25 pages of text alone can easily exceed a 30-page conference paper page limit when references and supplementary materials are included. Thus, the purpose of Table 2 and the following discussion is to shed light on the question of article page length along with other descriptive features of a journal article in the field of entrepreneurship.

More on Entrepreneurship Journals

In order to discern the objective characteristics of entrepreneurship journal articles, we performed an analysis of the descriptive attributes across a sampling of the full-length, non-special issue articles published in Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Journal of Business Venturing, Journal of Small Business Management, and Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal for the year 2015. Our methods of analysis employed a simple, but effective, approach based on counting each of the objective features of the manuscripts and then taking the mean and standard deviation of the count.

The findings of our analysis show varying lengths per section in terms of paragraphs with the introduction being the shortest section and the greatest number of paragraphs being dedicated to theory development. This will be helpful for new scholars to determine the average number of paragraphs per sub-section of a manuscript. The results of this analysis may help to roughly inform a new scholar as to what sections of manuscripts authors and editors of previously published work have deemed most important and worthy of detail. Moreover, the results of this descriptive analysis align with much of the normative literature on manuscript construction in general management journals which agree that a strong theoretical contribution is a most crucial part of any high-impact academic manuscript and is not an area where one should cut corners in terms of detail (Corley & Gioia, 2011; Lepine & Wilcox-King, 2010; Whetten, 1989). See Table 3 for a summary of the results of our descriptive analysis and other potentially useful summary statistics of common paper elements associated with four of the top journal outlets for entrepreneurship research.

Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics of Common Manuscript Elements.

Elements within the paper^a	Mean	SD
Number of authors	2.67	0.80
Number of propositions or hypotheses	3.41	2.06
Number of tables	4.52	2.22
Number of figures	1.27	1.44
Number of references	81.83	28.88
Number of appendix	0.53	.98
Number of introduction paragraphs	5.80	1.74
Number of theory paragraphs	17.90	8.37
Number of methods paragraphs	11.46	5.72
Number of results paragraphs	10.38	6.21
Number of discussion/conclusion paragraphs	10.35	5.50

In addition, we seek to answer other descriptive questions regarding journal article composition such as: “how many co-authors?” and “how many hypotheses?” Accordingly, our analysis suggests that having anywhere between one and four authors and two to five hypotheses is typical. While we understand that our descriptive analysis does not offer any normative implications, we believe that it can be used as a guide for new scholars to check if their draft is falling within the typical boundaries in entrepreneurship publishing. That is, our findings cannot speak to whether or not it is good or bad to have a paper with seven co-authors, but perhaps the new scholar may look to this guide and take the time to reflect upon if they really should have so many co-authors. Likewise, if a paper has 14 hypotheses, a new scholar may realize how atypical that feature of their paper is and reflect upon whether or not they are making unnecessary hypotheses. Of further guidance, information regarding a journal’s guidelines as well as their aims and scope is useful, relatively explicit and available at most journals’ websites.

In summary, this brief descriptive analysis gives new authors some ideas and boundary conditions to consider when crafting and submitting entrepreneurship manuscripts. Accordingly, this analysis serves the purpose of addressing descriptive attributes of journal articles (e.g. number of paragraphs per section, number of co-authors, and the number of hypotheses). It is our hope that new scholars may use these findings to answer some of the rudimentary questions regarding the composition of a typical entrepreneurship journal article. Thus, the findings of this section should allow the new scholar to focus a greater amount of time asking the more complicated questions related to theory development and contribution when seeking research consultation from senior faculty.

Student and Faculty Guide to Teaching

A wealth of resources is available for new teachers positioned to instruct curriculum in entrepreneurship education. Best practices for entrepreneurship education include maintaining a high degree of curriculum diversity, incorporating experiential learning, creating the opportunity to experience failure in different forms, allowing for risk and opportunity identification, providing time for exposure to and interaction with industry professionals, learning from experienced teachers, employing multidisciplinary approaches, maintaining a focus on the entrepreneurial environment, and including content that approaches entrepreneurial intentions (Naia et al., 2015). Active learning in the classroom environment also plays a key role in effective teaching as passive learning may fall short (Ruskovaara & Pihkala, 2013). Kassean et al. (2015) also further note the need for and importance of experiential exercises. Noteworthy readings such as Heidi Neck’s entrepreneurship as practice are useful in courses of this nature. More practically oriented entrepreneurship curriculum may include student directed learning, learning through first-hand experiences, teaching from both academics and real-life practitioners/professionals, expert mentors, networking, pitch competitions, simulations, and lectures that incorporate real-life entrepreneurs (Piperopoulos & Dimov, 2015).

A vast amount of free content is also available online. For example, The United States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship® (USASBE) offers free content including a platform for syllabi and experiential exercise exchanges in which faculty may view and share effective teaching content and methods (USASBE, 2020). Learning innovations such as teaching cases and/or case studies encourage students to be more involved in entrepreneurial thinking and decision making, and allow for a shift away from learning that is traditionally passive (Piperopoulos & Dimov, 2015). Bae et al. (2014) note that entrepreneurship education may not change pre-education entrepreneurial intentions and, as such, curriculum must be targeted as if the desired outcome is to alter pre-education entrepreneurial intentions and most preconceived notions regarding entrepreneurship. A focus on behavior, skills and the performance of individual entrepreneurs should be employed in effective entrepreneurship education (Bae et al., 2014).

Immersing students in real-life competitions or situations in which they present real pitches to real stakeholders allows students the opportunity to explore entrepreneurial possibilities firsthand in the face of contingencies (Harmeling & Sarasvathy, 2013). Walter et al. (2013) state that promoting ties to industry professionals in entrepreneurship education courses may encourage students to realize their entrepreneurial potential and may stimulate the development of stronger entrepreneurial intentions. Those instructors that are successful in training potential entrepreneurs both in the classroom and in a real-life context have been found to possess charismatic traits that allow individuals to relate to students and therefore, effective teachers should not forgo their internal enthusiasm for entrepreneurship and should express this enthusiasm in both verbal and non-verbal methods to students, if possible (Sánchez, 2013). O’Connor (2013) expresses that effective entrepreneurship education should focus on sustainable business creation that results from strategic reasoning and decision making that focuses on long-term survival as opposed to a sole focus on maximizing productivity, thus causal thinking. By incorporating these methods, resources and best practices, new teachers can develop and implement effective teaching plans that optimize student learning and growth.

Faculty Guide for Building a Research Profile

In our final section, we present some recommendations for building a research profile and career planning as a faculty member in entrepreneurship. Accordingly, our most senior researcher separated this into six fundamental recommendations, which we further elaborate on in the following paragraphs. For an overview of the six recommendations, see Table 4.

Table 4.

Faculty Guide for Building a Research Profile.

1. Collaborate with your doctoral chair, ex-doctoral students, and other faculty colleagues. This helps with possible research topics/plans.

• You can share data sets together.

• You can also work together on the “right” outside activities.

2. Focus your research on something you are really interested in, not just something you think will get published. Interests and publishing need not be mutually exclusive.

• Do not let access to data/dissertation data sit. Get them under review.

• Have secondary interests and data sets starting while you are editing and finalizing your dissertation.

3. Expand your network to find co-authors, new sources of data and help when you are getting crushed by reviewers.

• Your research partners are key people.

• Sharing your work can provide valuable input and multiple your efforts.

4. Build your professional relationships with businesses, trade/professional relationships for access.

• Think about what you can do for them, not what they can do for you.

• Keep up with relationships even when projects are not active. Review others’ projects; help them find other experts; or do a “free” seminar/speech for their classes.

5. Apply for grants-they provide the extras needed to do it right, and they are often a source of travel, research assistant funding and great press for your Dean.

• For international research, translations are expensive.

• Funding gives you the ability to provide research funds and travel for partners.

• Share publications on an as-contributed basis.

• Think international and expand good research to multiple countries.

6. Help develop your career by expanding opportunities for scholars from related fields. Think cross-discipline activities (and it might also be easier to publish – what is old to you is new to them).

Table A1.

Entrepreneurship Conferences, Affiliated Journals, and Doctoral Programming.

Entrepreneurship conferences	Affiliated journals	Doctoral programming
Academy of Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Knowledge (ACIEK)	Assorted Special Issues	X
Academy of Management (AOM), Entrepreneurship Division (ENT)	Entrepreneurship is within the aims and scope of all AOM journals	Yes
Babson College Entrepreneurship Research Conference (BCERC)	Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research	Yes
European Council for Small Business and Entrepreneurship (ECSB)	n/a	Yes
Global Consortium of Entrepreneurship Centers (GCEC)	n/a	x
Global Research Symposium on Marketing and Entrepreneurship (GRSME)	Assorted Special Issues	Yes
International Council for Small Business (ICSB)	Journal of Small Business Management	x
Small Business Institute (SBI)	Journal of Small Business Strategy; Small Business Institute Journal	Yes
Southern Management Association (SMA)	Journal of Management	Yes
Strategic Management Society (SMS), Entrepreneurship and Strategy Division	Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal	Yes
United States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship (USASBE)	Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy	Yes

We begin with the topic of collaboration. This includes all three core components of a faculty position (i.e., research, teaching, and service). By collaborating on research, faculty can work to their strengths. For example, if a faculty member is strong with regard to theory, but less so with methodology, s(he) should find collaborators who are strong in methodology. Secondly, our senior writer has noticed that many faculty members neglect to collaborate on teaching, in spite of the fact that there have been numerous advances in pedagogy that can be shared amongst faculty (e.g., DeSimone, 2016). Collaboration in teaching also has a great deal of power through sharing materials, lessons, exercises, and experiential activities. Not only can this save faculty time, it can also enhance quality by providing a better work experience for faculty and a higher quality learning environment for students. Third, collaborate on service; exchange ideas and work together to find service contributions that fit faculty strengths to add value and serve in fulfilling activities. Through collaboration, faculty can build valuable relationships in research and in practice. For more on developing relationships, see item 4 in Table 4.

Secondly, our senior faculty member suggests maintaining focus. This recommendation is multi-faceted. First, a niche should be determined; it is great to have secondary interests but being passionate about a research focus will lead to better progress and more enthusiasm, which in-turn will produce better results in publishing, in the classroom, and with service. Faculty should determine what topics they want to research, notably where interests are maintained to focus on these projects and those that are closely related. Maintaining a certain level of focus ensures progress in a specific research area and allows faculty to develop and deepen a narrow area of expertise. Our senior faculty member also reaffirms the importance of a strong network. To develop their research, faculty should expand their network by finding other scholars and professionals that are also passionate about similar research topics and who share similar interests. Networking in topics of passionate interest will feel much less like networking and much more like developing professional relationships centered around common interests. In this regard, the need to develop professional relationships that have a certain depth is also noted by our senior faculty member. Networking around focus areas in entrepreneurship education will be readily available at conferences and through local organizations such as small business development centers, which in turn can lead to deeper professional relationships and may reveal professionals in other disciplines as potential collaborators. These collaboration efforts are invaluable because of the varying perspectives developed about common topics of focus and interest.

While many of the above action items for developing a career do not require funding (i.e., determining focal topics), finding additional resources can be a worthwhile endeavor. A primary way of doing so is by developing ideas that match available grants. Not only will receiving grants generally please department chairs and deans, but this will also allow for the acquisition of high quality and costly data, more conference travel, and additional support to assist academic endeavors. Entrepreneurship related grants are available from organizations such as the Kauffman Foundation, Entrepreneur and Innovation Exchange and even through federal programs such as those available through the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development programs. Suggestions one through five in Table 4 equally contribute to the theme of employing a cross-discipline approach to the process of developing a professional research profile, which is the final recommendation from our most senior faculty member. Such a cross-discipline approach may allow for publication opportunities that would otherwise not be possible and may distinguish individuals within focused research areas, ultimately allowing for a more comprehensive research profile and giving rise to a career as a faculty member in entrepreneurship. Certainly, this summary along with the information in Table 4 is not all-inclusive to having a successful career in entrepreneurship education. However, we hope that this holistic approach to charting a career in entrepreneurship education will prove insightful to new faculty and those who hope to transition from allied fields of academia.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Chase J. Edwards

Joshua S. Bendickson

Note

References

Bacon

D. R.

Stewart

K. A.

Silver

W. S.

(1999). Lessons from the best and worst student team experiences: How a teacher can make the difference. Journal of Management Education, 23(5), 467–488.

Bae

T. J.

Qian

Miao

Fiet

J. O.

(2014). The relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions: a meta–analytic review. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(2), 217–254.

Bartunek

Rynes

Ireland

(2006). What makes management research interesting and why does it matter? Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 9–15.

Belcher

W. L.

(2009). Writing your journal article in twelve weeks: A guide to academic publishing success. Sage.

Calfee

R. C.

Valencia

R. R.

(2007). APA guide to preparing manuscripts for journal publication (revised) [Technical guide]. American Psychological Association. (Original work published 1985)

Carraher

S. M.

Paridon

T. J.

(2015). Entrepreneurship journal rankings across the discipline. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 19(2), 89–98.

Corley

K. G.

Gioia

D. A.

(2011). Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 12–32.

Daft

R. L.

(1995). Why I recommend that your manuscript be rejected and what you can do about it. In Cummings

L. L.

Frost

P. J.

(Eds.), Publishing in the organizational sciences (2nd ed., pp. 164–182). Sage Publications.

DeSimone

J. A.

(2016). Exemplary exercises for entrepreneurship education. Management Teaching Review, 1(3), 170–175.

10.

Gartner

W. B.

(1990). What are we talking about when we talk about entrepreneurship? Journal of Business Venturing, 5(1), 15–28.

11.

Harmeling

S. S.

Sarasvathy

S. D.

(2013). When contingency is a resource: Educating entrepreneurs in the Balkans, the Bronx, and beyond. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(4), 713–744.

12.

Judge

T. A.

Cable

D. M.

Colbert

A. E.

Rynes

S. L.

(2007). What causes a management article to be cited—Article, author, or journal? Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 491–506.

13.

Kacmar

K. M.

(2009). From the editors: An ethical quiz. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 432–434.

14.

Kassean

Vanevenhoven

Liguori

Winkel

D. E.

(2015). Entrepreneurship education: A need for reflection, real-world experience and action. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 21(5), 690–708.

15.

Ketchen

D. J.

(2002). Some candid thoughts on the publication process. Journal of Management, 28(5), 585–590.

16.

Kilduff

(2006). Publishing theory. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 252–255.

17.

Kuratko, D. F. (2005). The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Development, trends, and challenges. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), 577–597.

18.

Laker

D. R.

Laker

(2007). The five-year resume: A career planning exercise. Journal of Management Education, 31(1), 128–141.

19.

Lenz

(2014). Scientific ethics and publishing conduct. Journal of Business Economics, 84(9), 1167–1189.

20.

LePine

J. A.

Wilcox-King

(2010). Developing novel theoretical insight from reviews of existing theory and research. Academy of Management Review, 35, 506–509.

21.

Locke

Golden-Biddle

(1997). Constructing opportunities for contribution: Structuring intertextual coherence and “problematizing” in organizational studies. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 1023–1062.

22.

Lyon

D. W.

Kirby

E. G.

(2000). The career planning essay. Journal of Management Education, 24(2), 276–287.

23.

McCaskey

M. B.

(1975). Training doctoral students in research. Journal of Management Education, 1(3), 25–32.

24.

Morrison

(2010). OB in AMJ: What is hot and what is not. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 932–936.

25.

Naia

Baptista

Januário

Trigo

(2015). Entrepreneurship education literature in the 2000s. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 18(1), 111–135.

26.

O’Connor

(2013). A conceptual framework for entrepreneurship education policy: Meeting government and economic purposes. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(4), 546–563.

27.

Piperopoulos

Dimov

(2015). Burst bubbles or build steam? Entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial self‐efficacy, and entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(4), 970–985.

28.

Ruskovaara

Pihkala

(2013). Teachers implementing entrepreneurship education: Classroom practices. Education + Training, 55(2), 204–216.

29.

Salvador

Teckchandani

(2020). Incorporating career exploration into an introductory organizational behavior course. Management Teaching Review, 5(2), 172–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/2379298119830278.

30.

Sánchez

J. C.

(2013). The impact of an entrepreneurship education program on entrepreneurial competencies and intention. Journal of Small Business Management, 51(3), 447–465.

31.

Shane

(2012). Reflections on the 2010 AMR decade award: Delivering on the promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 37(1), 10–20.

32.

Sutton

R. I.

Staw

B. M.

(1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 371–384.

33.

United States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship. (2016). Submission page. https://www.softconf.com/g/usasbe2017/user/scmd.cgi?scmd=submitPaperCus tom&pageid=18

34.

United States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship. (2020). About USASBE. http://www.trepedhelp.com/

35.

Vanevenhoven

Liguori

(2013). The impact of entrepreneurship education: Introducing the entrepreneurship education project. Journal of Small Business Management, 51(3), 315–328.

36.

Walter

S. G.

Parboteeah

K. P.

Walter

(2013). University departments and self–employment intentions of business students: A cross–level analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(2), 175–200.

37.

Whetten

D. A.

(1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution?. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490–495.

38.

Zahra

S. A.

(2007). Contextualizing theory building in entrepreneurship research. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(3), 443–452.