The invisible supporters

Abstract

This article examines how written feedback is used to support the production of texts for purposes of reuse. The case study refers to an entrepreneur training program at the University of Texas at Austin. In the program, Korean startups are trained in understanding the US market, and developing pitches that convince US investors. They are supported by Quicklook® reports. A Quicklook report delivers snapshots of the market receptivity for the startup’s product. Market analysts write the reports. In the final stage of drafting, program staff members supervise the report author. This study investigates how supervisors use commenting and how the goal of creating a highly reusable text source guides the feedback process. The database was examined quantitatively (frequency of drafting and commenting) and qualitatively (functional comment types). The results offer valuable insights into actual writing processes in business settings and how professionals interact to ensure a reusable product. The findings indicate a broad range of comment functions. Overall, we distinguish two main categories: feedback activities focusing on Quicklook reports as reusable resource, and feedback activities focusing on collaboration and workflow. Each category includes functional comment types. Further research is needed to learn more about professional strategies of reflecting on text quality, the quality of assessments, or the ratio between detected and real deficiencies of a document.

Value Creation in Start-Up Discourse: Linking Pitch and Venture Through Logics of Justification

“…For example, new studies on value creation may consider not only written material, but also oral and visual devices, which are critical in the elaboration process of the pitch. Studies also may consider accessing participants' direct discourse via interviews of entrepreneurs (e.g., Williams et al 2016), conducting detailed examinations of stakeholder comments in process documents (e.g., Jakobs & Digmayer, 2020), conducting entrepreneur autoethnographies (e.g., Belinsky & Gogan, 2016), or observing internal firm deliberations. These approaches could allow researchers to further explore the editing strategies start-ups use for their pitches.…”

Emotion, Rhetoric, and Entrepreneurial Experience: A Survey of Start-Up Community Membership

“…Other such studies within the field of RPC have examined entrepreneurs’ writing practices (Jakobs & Digmayer, 2020; Spartz & Weber, 2015), pitching practices (Belinsky & Gogan, 2016; Cabezas et al, 2020; Galbraith et al, 2014; Lucas et al, 2016; Spinuzzi et al, 2014; Spinuzzi, Nelson, et al, 2015; Spinuzzi, Pogue, et al, 2015), and value proposition development (London et al, 2015; Spinuzzi et al, 2018). A growing number of these studies have foregrounded the intersections of entrepreneurial identity and cultural context with communicative practice (Fraiberg, 2021b; Lauren & Pigg, 2016; Mara, 2008; Rajan, 2021; Van Hout & Van Praet, 2016; Williams, 2010; Williams et al, 2016, 2020).…”