1887
Volume 33, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1461-0213
  • E-ISSN: 1570-5595

Abstract

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.

Available under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/aila.00028.jak
2020-10-07
2021-08-04
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/aila.00028.jak.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/aila.00028.jak&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Alvarez, I., Espasa, A., & Guasch, T.
    (2011) The value of feedback in improving collaborative writing assignments in an online learning environment. Studies in Higher Education, 37(4), 387–400. 10.1080/03075079.2010.510182
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2010.510182 [Google Scholar]
  2. Ballantyne, D., & Varey, R. J.
    (2006) Creating value-in-use through marketing interaction: The exchange logic of relating, communicating and knowing. Marketing Theory, 6(3), 335–348. 10.1177/1470593106066795
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593106066795 [Google Scholar]
  3. Beyer, K.
    (2018) InliAnTe: Instrument für die linguistische Analyse von Textkommentierungen. Linguistik online, 91(4), 15–40.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Brand, D.
    (2005) Writing for a living: Literacy and the knowledge economy. Written Communication, 22(2), 166–197. 10.1177/0741088305275218
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088305275218 [Google Scholar]
  5. Cho, K., Schunn, C., & Charney, D.
    (2006) Commenting on writing. Typology and perceived helpfulness of comments from novice peer reviewer and subject matter experts. Written Communication, 23(3), 260–294. 10.1177/0741088306289261
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088306289261 [Google Scholar]
  6. Guasch, T., Espasa, A., & Martinez-Melo, M.
    (2019) The art of questioning in online learning environments: The potentialities of feedback in writing. Higher Education, 44(1), 111–123.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Haapanen, L., & Perrin, D.
    (2018) Media and quoting: Understanding the roles, purposes and processes of quoting in mass and social media. InC. Cotter & D. Perrin (Eds.), Handbook of language and media (pp.424–442). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Jakobs, E.-M.
    (1999) Textvernetzung in den Wissenschaften. Zitat und Verweis als Ergebnis rezeptiver, reproduktiver und produktiver Prozesse. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110945928
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110945928 [Google Scholar]
  9. (2018) Textproduktion und Kontext: Domänenspezifisches Schreiben. InN. Janich (Ed.), Textlinguistik. 15 Einführungen (pp.255–270). Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Jakobs, E.-M., & Spinuzzi, C.
    (2014a) Professional domains: Introduction: Domain specific perspectives in text production research. InE.-M. Jakobs & D. Perrin (Eds.), Handbook of writing and text production (pp.325–332). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110220674.325
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110220674.325 [Google Scholar]
  11. (2014b) Professional domains: Writing as creation of economic value. InE.-M. Jakobs & D. Perrin (Eds.), Handbook of writing and text production (pp.361–384). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110220674.359
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110220674.359 [Google Scholar]
  12. Jakobs, E.-M., Spinuzzi, C., Digmayer, C., & Pogue, G.
    (2015) Co-creation by commenting: Participatory ways to write Quicklook reports. Proceedings of the IEEE International Professional Communication Conference 2015, 291–297.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Kendall Roundtree, A.
    (2017) Sizing up single-sourcing: Rhetorical interventions for XML documentation. InA. P. Lamberti & A. R. Richards (Eds.), Complex worlds: Digital culture, rhetoric and professional communication (pp.213–234). New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Kleimann, S.
    (1993) The reciprocal relationship of workplace culture and review. InR. Spilka (Ed.), Writing in the Workplace: New Research Perspectives (pp.71–83). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Klewes, J., Popp, D., & Rost-Hein, M.
    (2017) Out-thinking organizational communications. The impact of digital organization. Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑41845‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41845-2 [Google Scholar]
  16. Leijten, M., Van Waes, L., Schriver, K., & Hayes, J.
    (2014) Writing in the workplace: Constructing documents using multiple digital sources. Journal of Writing Research, 5(3), 285–337. 10.17239/jowr‑2014.05.03.3
    https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2014.05.03.3 [Google Scholar]
  17. London, N., Pogue, G., & Spinuzzi, C.
    (2015) Understanding the value proposition as a co-created claim. Proceedings of the IEEE International Professional Communication Conference 2015, 298–305.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Paradies, J., Dobrin, D., & Miller, R.
    (1985) Writing at Exxon ITD: Notes on the writing environment of an R&D organization. InL. Odell & D. Goswami (Eds.), Writing in nonacademic settings (pp.281–307). New York, NY: Guilford.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Perrin, D.
    (2013) The linguistics of newswriting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aals.11
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.11 [Google Scholar]
  20. Sauer, B.
    (2003) The rhetoric of risks. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 10.4324/9781410606815
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410606815 [Google Scholar]
  21. Schindler, K.
    (2013) Texte beurteilen – Feedback geben. Kompetenzen für Lehramtsstudierende. InH. Brandl (Eds.), Mehrsprachig in Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft. Mehrsprachigkeit, Bildungsbeteiligung und Potenziale von Studierenden mit Migrationshintergrund (pp.57–68). Bielefeld: Zif.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Schindler, K., & Wolfe, J.
    (2014) Beyond single authors: Organizational text production as collaborative writing. InE.-M. Jakobs & D. Perrin (Eds.), Handbook of writing and text production (pp.159–173). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110220674.159
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110220674.159 [Google Scholar]
  23. Spinuzzi, C.
    (2010) Secret sauce and snake oil: Writing monthly reports in a highly contingent environment. Written Communication, 27(4), 363–409. 10.1177/0741088310380518
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088310380518 [Google Scholar]
  24. Spinuzzi, C., Nelson, R. S., Thomson, K. S., Lorenzini, F., French, R. A., Pogue, G., Burback, S. D., & Momberger, J.
    (2014) Making the pitch: Examining dialogue and revisions in entrepreneurs’ pitch decks. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 57(3), 158–181. 10.1109/TPC.2014.2342354
    https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2014.2342354 [Google Scholar]
  25. Spinuzzi, C., Nelson, R. S., Thomson, K. S., Lorenzini, F., French, R. A., & Pogue, G.
    (2015) Remaking the pitch: Reuse strategies in entrepreneurs’ pitch decks. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 58(1), 45–68. 10.1109/TPC.2015.2415277
    https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2015.2415277 [Google Scholar]
  26. Spinuzzi, C., Jakobs, E.-M., & Pogue, G.
    (2016) A good idea is not enough: Understanding the challenges of entrepreneurship communication. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Competitive Manufacturing Technologies, 547–552.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Spinuzzi, C.
    (2017) Introduction to special issue on the rhetoric of entrepreneurship: theories, methodologies, and practices. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 31(3), 504–507. 10.1177/1050651917695537
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651917695537 [Google Scholar]
  28. Sun, H.
    (2012) Cross-cultural technology design: Crafting culture-sensitive technology for local users. New York, NU: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199744763.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199744763.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  29. Swarts, J.
    (2009) Recycled writing: Assembling actor networks from reusable content. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 24(2), 127–163. 10.1177/1050651909353307
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651909353307 [Google Scholar]
  30. Wolfe, J.
    (2010) Team writing: A guide to working in groups. Boston, MA: Bedford-St. Martins.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Zehner, B., & Pletcher, G.
    (2017) Successful technology commercialization – Yes or no? Improving the odds. The quick look methodology and process. MINIB, 25(3), 81–102.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/aila.00028.jak
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/aila.00028.jak
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error