| name | etp-tables-figures |
| description | Use when building the exhibits for an Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (ETP) manuscript — results tables, the theoretical/mechanism model figure, and (for qualitative work) the Gioia data structure, in APA style. |
Tables & Figures (etp-tables-figures)
When to trigger
- Your results tables are dense walls of coefficients a reviewer cannot read
- The paper has no figure that shows the theoretical model / mechanism
- A qualitative paper lacks a data-structure figure (1st-order → 2nd-order → dimensions)
- Tables use significance asterisks as the headline and omit effect sizes / CIs
- Exhibits are not APA-formatted or appear at the end rather than near their callout
What ETP exhibits must do
At ETP, exhibits carry two loads: the empirical (do the numbers support the claim?) and the theoretical (can a reader see the mechanism?).
The journal's strong-theory identity means a conceptual/mechanism figure is expected in most papers — a diagram of the hypothesized chain (antecedents → entrepreneurial mechanism → outcomes, with moderators/mediators) — and for inductive work a Gioia data structure is essentially mandatory.
Format to APA: descriptive titles, defined abbreviations, notes that make the table self-contained.
The exhibit suite by paper type
| Paper type | Expected core exhibits |
|---|
| Deductive quantitative | Theoretical model figure; descriptives + correlations; main regression table; interaction/moderation plots |
| Survival / event-history | Theoretical figure; Kaplan–Meier curves; hazard table with hazard ratios + CIs |
| SEM | Theoretical model figure; measurement model (loadings, AVE, CR); structural model with standardized paths |
| Inductive / qualitative | Gioia data structure; process model figure; quotation table linked to informants |
| Mixed methods | Data structure (qual phase) + regression/SEM (quant phase) + an integrating figure |
Make results tables earn their space
- Lead with magnitude, not stars. Report coefficients with standard errors and, where possible, confidence intervals; give effect sizes (hazard ratios, marginal effects, standardized betas).
Significance asterisks may appear by APA convention, but they cannot be the story.
- One question per table. A reader should know what claim each table tests from its title.
- Show the moderation, don't just tabulate it. An interaction is best read as a simple-slopes plot; a table of products rarely communicates the contingency.
- Correlation tables: include means, SDs, and reliabilities on the diagonal for self-report constructs.
The mechanism figure is a contribution, not decoration
A clean theoretical model figure does triple duty: it states the hypotheses visually, signals the entrepreneurial mechanism (so a reviewer cannot mistake it for a generic-org model), and gives the reader a map for the results.
Label the constructs with your entrepreneurial names (e.g., "affordable-loss reasoning," "socioemotional wealth"), not generic placeholders, and make moderators/mediators visually distinct.
Qualitative exhibits
The Gioia data structure is the trust contract for inductive ETP work: it shows the inductive chain from informant terms to theoretical dimensions.
Pair it with a process-model figure (the dynamic "movie" of the static data structure) and a quotation table that ties evidence to dimensions and informants.
Thin or absent data structures are a fast credibility loss.
Execution bridge (StatsPAI / Stata MCP)
Generate exhibits from the fitted result, not by retyping numbers (the usual source of
body-vs-appendix drift). Full map: execution-with-mcp. ETP is entrepreneurship, where selection and survival bias are pervasive — foreground identification and selection corrections.
- Tables:
etable (multi-model columns) or did_summary_to_latex straight from the
result_id.
- Figures:
plot_from_result / enhanced_event_study_plot / event_study_table —
axis units and the SE/clustering note baked in.
- Every note names the estimator + clustering and states the effect size in
interpretable units.
See a full fitted-result → exhibit chain in the JF execution walkthrough.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- No mechanism figure in a theory-forward paper
- Asterisk-as-headline tables with no effect sizes or CIs
- Generic-construct labels that let a reviewer recast the model as non-entrepreneurial
- Interaction-as-table with no simple-slopes plot
- Decorative figures that repeat the text without adding interpretive value
- Thin/absent Gioia structure in an inductive submission
Worked vignette (illustrative)
A quantitative effectuation paper submits four dense regression tables, asterisks marking significance, and no figure.
An ETP-ready exhibit suite reorganizes this.
Add a theoretical model figure first: boxes labeled with the entrepreneurial constructs (affordable-loss reasoning → venture survival), market uncertainty drawn as a moderator on the path — so a reviewer immediately sees the mechanism is effectual, not generic risk-taking.
Collapse the four tables into one descriptives-plus-correlations table (means, SDs, reliabilities on the diagonal) and one main results table that leads with hazard ratios and confidence intervals, with asterisks demoted to a footnote per APA.
Replace the buried interaction term with a simple-slopes plot: two survival curves, high vs. low uncertainty, making the contingency legible at a glance.
The result is fewer exhibits doing more work, each self-contained, and the mechanism visible to a reviewer in the first figure rather than reconstructed from a coefficient table.
Output format
【Journal】Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice
【Mechanism figure】present? entrepreneurial labels? Y/N
【Core exhibit suite】list matched to paper type
【Results table】leads with magnitude (effect size + CI)? Y/N
【Moderation】shown as simple-slopes plot? Y/N
【Qual exhibits】Gioia data structure + process model? (if applicable)
【APA + self-contained】titles/notes/abbrevs defined? Y/N
【Next skill】etp-writing-style
