Jbv Contribution Framing

---
name: jbv-contribution-framing
description: Use when turning results or a theory into an explicit contribution for the Journal of Business Venturing (JBV) — stating what new theory of the entrepreneurial phenomenon the paper delivers, its boundary conditions, and its multidisciplinary reach. Frames the claim; it does not build the mechanism (jbv-theory-development) or polish the prose (jbv-writing-style).
---

# Contribution Framing (jbv-contribution-framing)

## When to trigger

- Results exist but the "so what for entrepreneurship theory" is thin or implicit
- A reviewer/field editor calls the contribution "incremental" or "a setting, not a contribution"
- You cannot state in one sentence what the field now knows about entrepreneurship that it did not
- You need to write the contribution paragraph of the intro and the theoretical-implications section

## The JBV contribution bar

JBV is a discipline-defining FT50 flagship, so the theory bar is high: the paper must **clarify assumptions, expose tensions, or challenge orthodoxies** about the entrepreneurial phenomenon. State the contribution explicitly — it cannot be left implicit.

- **Phenomenon-centered**: the contribution must be to understanding entrepreneurship — venture creation, entrepreneurial cognition/behavior, financing, teams, social/sustainable/international entrepreneurship, or ecosystems — not a generic organizational insight that merely used a startup sample.
- **What changes**: name the assumption you overturn, the tension you resolve, or the new mechanism you reveal in the entrepreneurial process.
- **Multidisciplinary reach**: because JBV spans economics, psychology, and sociology, articulate which conversation(s) the contribution advances and whether it travels across lenses.

## Match the contribution to your mode

- **Hypothesis-testing paper**: the contribution is the validated (or surprising) mechanism plus its boundary conditions; say what the confirmed/disconfirmed prediction teaches about entrepreneurship.
- **Narrative/interpretive paper**: JBV values "theories, narratives, and interpretations," so the contribution can be a reconceptualization or process theory — state the new way of seeing the phenomenon and why it is more useful.

## Build the contribution statement

1. **Before**: what the entrepreneurship field assumed or could not explain.
2. **Move**: the specific theoretical move (new mechanism, boundary, reconception, integration of lenses).
3. **After**: what we now understand about the entrepreneurial phenomenon.
4. **Boundary conditions**: where the claim holds (stage, context, venture type, ecosystem).
5. **Implications**: for entrepreneurship theory first; practice (founders, investors, policy) second.

## Checklist

- [ ] One-sentence claim of new entrepreneurship knowledge is explicit
- [ ] Contribution is to the phenomenon, not a generic org insight on a startup sample
- [ ] An assumption is challenged / tension resolved / orthodoxy questioned
- [ ] Boundary conditions stated
- [ ] Conversation(s) advanced named; cross-lens reach noted if any
- [ ] Practical relevance to founders/investors/policy articulated, but secondary to theory

## Anti-patterns

- **"First to study X in startups"** dressed up as a contribution.
- **Confirmation-only** — replicating a known effect in a new venture sample.
- **Setting, not contribution** — the insight would hold for any organization.
- **Implicit contribution** — the reader must infer the "so what."

## Output format

```
【New knowledge】one sentence: what entrepreneurship now knows ...
【Before→move→after】...
【Assumption/orthodoxy challenged】...
【Boundary conditions】stage / context / venture type ...
【Conversations advanced】econ / psych / sociology ...
【Practical relevance】founders / investors / policy ...
【Next step】jbv-tables-figures or jbv-writing-style
```