Journal of Business Venturing—From Understanding to Impact: Evidence-Based Intervention

From Understanding to Impact: Evidence-Based Entrepreneurial Interventions

Guest editors:

Michael M. Gielnik, Leuphana University, Germany (michael.gielnik@leuphana.de)

Matthew J. Higgins, Tulane University & NBER, USA; Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Germany (matt.higgins@tulane.edu)

Reddi Kotha, Singapore Management University, Singapore (reddikotha@smu.edu.sg)

Shuhua Sun, Tulane University, USA (ssun7@tulane.edu)

Marilyn A. Uy, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore (muy@ntu.edu.sg)

JBV Editor:

Nicola Breugst, Technical University of Munich, Germany (nicola.breugst@tum.de)

Special issue information:

Background and Motivation: Why We Need a Special Issue on Entrepreneurial Interventions

Entrepreneurship research has made significant theoretical and empirical progress in understanding the mechanisms that drive entrepreneurial success. Scholars have extensively examined decision-making (Camuffo et al., 2024; Shepherd et al., 2015), affect and emotions (Breugst & Shepherd, 2015; Uy et al., 2017), motivation and goals (Gielnik et al., 2014; Murnieks et al., 2020), resource mobilization (Clough et al., 2019; Villanueva et al., 2012), mentorship (Eesley & Wang, 2017; Kirsch et al., 2024), entrepreneurial financing and small business loans (De Bettignies, 2008; Higgins et al., 2021), and various macro-institutional conditions (Bjørnskov & Foss, 2016; Levie & Autio, 2011), generating robust theoretical insights on factors that shape entrepreneurial entry and growth. However, translating these insights into effective entrepreneurial interventions remains a challenge. Indeed, despite the theoretical and empirical advances, the effectiveness of entrepreneurial interventions remains unevenly understood.

An emerging body of research highlights the substantial impact of entrepreneurial interventions on shaping various outcomes. For instance, Campos et al. (2017) found that entrepreneurial training programs incorporating psychological mechanisms, such as personal initiative, significantly outperformed traditional business training in boosting sales and profits among self-employed individuals in West Africa. Kotha et al. (2023) demonstrated that embedding growth-catalyst tools within entrepreneurship training programs helped early-stage entrepreneurs in Singapore scale their ventures. At an ecosystem level, Hallen et al. (2020) examined the role of accelerators, showing that structured accelerator models can be systematically designed and replicated to improve entrepreneurial outcomes. Collectively, these studies highlight the importance of intervention design and contextual factors in shaping entrepreneurial success, offering empirical insights into the conditions that enhance long-term impact.

Notably, the significance of such interventions extends beyond individual entrepreneurial outcomes. Increasingly, entrepreneurship and self-employment programs are also recognized as powerful vehicles for addressing broader societal challenges, including poverty alleviation, livelihood generation, and inclusive economic development, especially in contexts marked by inequality or exclusion. For instance, Banerjee et al. (2015) evaluated a multifaceted Graduation program targeting individuals living in extreme poverty, showing that relatively short-term interventions centered on self-employment can generate lasting improvements in both economic and psychological well-being.

However, interventions can also yield unexpected and sometimes counterproductive outcomes, challenging assumptions about their universal effectiveness. For instance, Bjorvatn et al. (2020) conducted a randomized controlled field experiment in Tanzania to test an edutainment-based intervention aimed at fostering youth entrepreneurship. While the intervention increased interest in entrepreneurship, particularly among females, it also led to reduced investment in formal education without translating into higher rates of business ownership. This finding underscores the importance of contextual factors, unintended behavioral shifts, and long-term consequences, reinforcing the need for a more nuanced approach to studying entrepreneurial interventions that accounts for both their intended benefits and potential unintended effects to refine theory and practice (Bamberger et al., 2016).

Our proposed Special Issue addresses the critical need to bridge entrepreneurship theory and real-world impact by systematically examining how, when, and why interventions improve entrepreneurial outcomes. Intervention research not only tests causality and advances substantive theory, but also identifies best practices and scalable solutions: from behavioral nudges and psychological support to training programs, mentorship, policy measures, financial incentives, and institutional support such as incubators and accelerators. These interventions draw from diverse theoretical foundations. Without intervention studies, we risk producing a vast amount of research that is published but remains largely disconnected from real-world applications, failing to drive meaningful impact (Melnyk & Morrison-Beedy, 2018).

Interdisciplinary Contributions and Multidisciplinary Perspectives

To fully capture the complexity of entrepreneurial interventions, this Special Issue welcomes contributions from a broad range of disciplines beyond entrepreneurship. Interventions do not operate in isolation; they are shaped by cognitive, institutional, technological, financial, and economic forces, necessitating cross-disciplinary engagement. We encourage scholars from psychology, economics, strategic management, institutional and organizational theory, sociology, information systems, finance, and public policy to offer their unique perspectives. By integrating diverse theoretical frameworks and methodological approaches, we aim to engage not only entrepreneurship scholars but also researchers in other domains. We invite studies that evaluate, test, and refine entrepreneurial interventions across multiple levels (i.e., individual, team, firm, ecosystem, etc.) to build a more comprehensive understanding of how interventions shape entrepreneurial success.

We encourage submissions that theorize how interventions work and engage with their content, including what is delivered and why it matters. We welcome submissions that consider the implications of transferring interventions across institutional settings, i.e., how interventions developed in one setting are translated into others, and how these adaptations shape short- and long-term outcomes. For example, Claus et al. (2021) show how an enterprise financing intervention, culturally detached from its original context, was initially seen as successful at the point of adoption but ultimately collapsed as the translation process led participants to reject it over time. To promote research transparency and rigor, we encourage the submission of pre-registered studies and other open science practices. We welcome research that explores a wide range of topics, including but not limited to:

1. Effectiveness and Impact of Entrepreneurial Interventions

• How do various entrepreneurial interventions (e.g., training, mentoring, funding programs, policy changes, government initiatives, to name a few) differ in their impact on entrepreneurial performance and success?
• How do psychological and behavioral interventions (e.g., mindset training, resilience coaching, etc.) influence entrepreneurial decision-making?
• What are the long-term effects of interventions on entrepreneurial performance?
• What is the theory of change underlying the effectiveness of entrepreneurial interventions? That is, what are the pathways, mechanisms, or processes explaining entrepreneurial interventions’ long-term effectiveness?
• What are boundary conditions of the effectiveness of entrepreneurial interventions? That is, for whom and why are some interventions more effective than others?

2. Unintended Consequences of Entrepreneurial Interventions

• How can field experiments capture both intended and unintended effects of entrepreneurial interventions?
• Under what conditions do entrepreneurial interventions create adverse incentives (e.g., reducing risk-taking, over-reliance on subsidies, etc.)?
• How can research better capture heterogeneous entrepreneurial intervention effects across different demographic, industry, and geographic contexts?

3. AI-Augmented Entrepreneurial Interventions

• How do AI-driven entrepreneurial interventions (e.g., algorithmic mentorship, automated funding allocation, etc.) compare to traditional entrepreneurial support mechanisms?
• How can real-time data and AI-driven analytics improve the measurement of entrepreneurial intervention outcomes?
• What are the scalability and ethical implications of AI in entrepreneurial education, funding, and strategy development?

4. Success Indicators and Metrics

• What are the most reliable metrics for evaluating the success of entrepreneurial interventions across different levels (i.e., individual, firm, society/community, country)?
• How can we develop measures that capture both short-term and long-term impacts of entrepreneurial interventions?
• What role do financial vs. non-financial performance indicators play in assessing entrepreneurial intervention effectiveness?

5. Meta-Analytic Approaches to Entrepreneurial Interventions and Impact

• How can meta-analyses systematically synthesize findings on the effectiveness of entrepreneurial interventions across diverse studies?
• How can meta-analytic techniques uncover patterns, boundary conditions, and methodological gaps in entrepreneurial intervention research to guide future studies?

Submission Process and Deadlines

Further Information

The special issue welcomes studies from any geographic location and is not limited to a specific regional context. The guest editors will organize information sessions and pre-submission events to build momentum around the special issue and encourage high-quality submissions. Participation is entirely optional and not required for submission; attendance will have no bearing on editorial decisions. We plan to hold the pre-submission event in Spring 2026 at Tulane University. For submissions that receive revise-and-resubmit invitations, another workshop will be held in January 2027 at the Max Planck Institute in Munich. Please feel free to email any of the guest editors for further information.

References:

Bamberger, M., Tarsilla, M., &Hesse-Biber, S. (2016). Why so many “rigorous” evaluations fail to identifyunintended consequences of development programs: How mixed methods cancontribute. Evaluation and Program Planning, 55, 155–162.

Banerjee, A., Duflo, E., Goldberg, N.,Karlan, D., Osei, R., Parienté, W., Shapiro, J., Thuysbaert, B., & Udry, C.(2015). A multifaceted program causes lasting progress for the very poor:Evidence from six countries. Science, 348(6236).https://doi-org.proxy.library.ju.se/10.1126/science.1260799

Bjørnskov, C., & Foss, N. J. (2016).Institutions, entrepreneurship, and economic growth: what do we know and whatdo we still need to know? Academy of Management Perspectives, 30(3),292–315.

Bjorvatn, K., Cappelen, A. W., Sekei, L.H., Sørensen, E., & Tungodden, B. (2020). Teaching through television:Experimental evidence on entrepreneurship education in Tanzania. ManagementScience, 66(6), 2308–2325. https://doi-org.proxy.library.ju.se/10.1287/mnsc.2019.3321

Breugst, N., & Shepherd, D. A.(2015). If you fight with me, I’ll get mad! A social model of entrepreneurialaffect. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice.https://doi-org.proxy.library.ju.se/10.1111/etap.12211

Campos, F., Frese, M., Goldstein, M.,Iacovone, L., Johnson, H. C., Mckenzie, D., & Mensmann, M. (2017). Teachingpersonal initiative beats traditional training in boosting small business inWest Africa. Science, 357, 1287–1290.

Camuffo, A., Gambardella, A., Messinese,D., Novelli, E., Paolucci, E., & Spina, C. (2024). A scientific approach toentrepreneurial decision-making: Large-scale replication and extension. StrategicManagement Journal, 45(6), 1209–1237.

Claus, L., Greenwood, R., & Mgoo, J.(2021). Institutional translation gone wrong: The case of villages for Africain Rural Tanzania. Academy of Management Journal, 64(5),1497–1526. https://doi-org.proxy.library.ju.se/10.5465/AMJ.2017.1089

Clough, D. R., Fang, T. P., Vissa, B.,& Wu, A. (2019). Turning lead into gold: How do entrepreneurs mobilizeresources to exploit opportunities? Academy of Management Annals, 13(1),240–271. https://doi-org.proxy.library.ju.se/10.5465/annals.2016.0132

De Bettignies, J. E. (2008). Financingthe entrepreneurial venture. Management Science, 54(1), 151–166.

Eesley, C., & Wang, Y. (2017).Social influence in career choice: Evidence from a randomized field experimenton entrepreneurial mentorship. Research Policy, 46(3), 636–650.https://doi-org.proxy.library.ju.se/10.1016/j.respol.2017.01.010

Gielnik, M. M., Barabas, S., Frese, M.,Namatovu-Dawa, R., Scholz, F. A., Metzger, J. R., & Walter, T. (2014). Atemporal analysis of how entrepreneurial goal intentions, positive fantasies,and action planning affect starting a new venture and when the effects wearoff. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(6), 755–772.https://doi-org.proxy.library.ju.se/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.09.002

Hallen, B. L., Cohen, S. L., &Bingham, C. B. (2020). Do accelerators work? If so, how? OrganizationScience, 31(2), 378–414. https://doi-org.proxy.library.ju.se/10.1287/orsc.2019.1304

Higgins, M. J., Lacombe, D. J., Stenard,B. S., & Young, A. T. (2021). Evaluating the effects of Small BusinessAdministration lending on growth. Small Business Economics, 57(1),23–45. https://doi-org.proxy.library.ju.se/10.1007/s11187-019-00291-1

Kirsch, J., Dibbern, R., Patzelt, H.,& Breugst, N. (2024). Entrepreneurs’ evaluations of mentors: The role ofvalue similarities and mentors’ experiences. Entrepreneurship Education andPedagogy, 0(0), 1–31. https://doi-org.proxy.library.ju.se/10.1177/25151274241239674

Kotha, R., Vissa, B., Lin, Y., &Corboz, A. V. (2023). Do ambitious entrepreneurs benefit more from training? StrategicManagement Journal, 44(2), 549–575. https://doi-org.proxy.library.ju.se/10.1002/smj.3438

Levie, J., & Autio, E. (2011).Regulatory burden, rule of law, and entry of strategic entrepreneurs: Aninternational panel study. Journal of Management Studies, 48(6),1392–1419.

Melnyk, B. M., & Morrison-Beedy, D.(2018). Intervention research and evidence-based quality improvement:Designing, conducting, analyzing, and funding. Springer Publishing Company.

Murnieks, C. Y., Klotz, A. C., &Shepherd, D. A. (2020). Entrepreneurial motivation: A review of the literatureand an agenda for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(2),115–143. https://doi-org.proxy.library.ju.se/10.1002/job.2374

Shepherd, D. A., Williams, T. A., &Patzelt, H. (2015). Thinking about entrepreneurial decision making: Review andresearch agenda. Journal of Management, 41(1), 11–46.https://doi-org.proxy.library.ju.se/10.1177/0149206314541153

Uy, M. A., Sun, S., & Foo, M. D.(2017). Affect spin, entrepreneurs’ well-being, and venture goal progress: Themoderating role of goal orientation. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(4),443–460. https://doi-org.proxy.library.ju.se/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2016.12.001

Villanueva, J., de Ven, A. J., &Sapienza, H. J. (2012). Resource mobilization in entrepreneurial firms. Journalof Business Venturing, 27(1), 19–30.