Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistic Recycling: The process of quoting in increasingly mediatized settings
Edited by Lauri Haapanen and Daniel Perrin
[AILA Review 33] 2020
► pp. 21–46

The invisible supporters

Writing for reuse

| RWTH Aachen University
| RWTH Aachen University
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.
Keywords: writing and text reuse in business-related environments, entrepreneurship communication, commenting activities, functional feedback types
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The case study
  • 3.Literature review
  • 4.Research methodology
    • Data collection
    • Data preparation
      • Data analysis
      • Quantitative analysis
      • Qualitative analysis
  • 5.Quantitative results
    • Number of feedback providers
    • Number of feedback loops per case
    • Frequency of commenting per draft
    • Frequency of commenting per document structure part
  • 6.Qualitative results: Functions of commenting
    • 6.1Feedback activities focusing on Quicklook reports as reusable resources
      • Feedback activities related to content
      • “Comments co-creating value and knowledge”
      • “Comments raising awareness on divergences between national markets”
      • Feedback activities related to argumentation
      • “Comments asking for clarification”
      • “Comments asking for quantification”
      • “Comments verifying the relevance of information”
      • “Comments asking for evidence”
      • “Comments indicating gaps and failures”
        • Feedback related to the text quality
      • “Comments improving the structure”
      • “Comments improving formulations”
      • “Comments improving visual text design elements”
    • 6.2Feedback activities focusing on collaboration and workflows
      • Feedback activities related to collaboration
        • “Comments serving co-creation”
        • “Comments encouraging the author”
        • “Comments initiating external support”
      • Feedback activities related to the workflow
        • “Comments organizing the next steps”
        • “Comments initiating a media switch”
  • 7.Conclusion and outlook
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 7 October 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.00028.jak
References (31)
References
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beyer, K. (2018). InliAnTe: Instrument für die linguistische Analyse von Textkommentierungen. Linguistik online, 91(4), 15–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brand, D. (2005). Writing for a living: Literacy and the knowledge economy. Written Communication, 22(2), 166–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Haapanen, L., & Perrin, D. (2018). Media and quoting: Understanding the roles, purposes and processes of quoting in mass and social media. In C. Cotter & D. Perrin (Eds.), Handbook of language and media (pp. 424–442). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jakobs, E.-M. (1999). Textvernetzung in den Wissenschaften. Zitat und Verweis als Ergebnis rezeptiver, reproduktiver und produktiver Prozesse. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Textproduktion und Kontext: Domänenspezifisches Schreiben. In N. Janich (Ed.), Textlinguistik. 15 Einführungen (pp. 255–270). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Jakobs, E.-M., & Spinuzzi, C. (2014a). Professional domains: Introduction: Domain specific perspectives in text production research. In E.-M. Jakobs & D. Perrin (Eds.), Handbook of writing and text production (pp. 325–332). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014b). Professional domains: Writing as creation of economic value. In E.-M. Jakobs & D. Perrin (Eds.), Handbook of writing and text production (pp. 361–384). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kendall Roundtree, A. (2017). Sizing up single-sourcing: Rhetorical interventions for XML documentation. In A. P. Lamberti & A. R. Richards (Eds.), Complex worlds: Digital culture, rhetoric and professional communication (pp. 213–234). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kleimann, S. (1993). The reciprocal relationship of workplace culture and review. In R. Spilka (Ed.), Writing in the Workplace: New Research Perspectives (pp. 71–83). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Klewes, J., Popp, D., & Rost-Hein, M. (2017). Out-thinking organizational communications. The impact of digital organization. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paradies, J., Dobrin, D., & Miller, R. (1985). Writing at Exxon ITD: Notes on the writing environment of an R&D organization. In L. Odell & D. Goswami (Eds.), Writing in nonacademic settings (pp. 281–307). New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
Perrin, D. (2013). The linguistics of newswriting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sauer, B. (2003). The rhetoric of risks. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schindler, K. (2013). Texte beurteilen – Feedback geben. Kompetenzen für Lehramtsstudierende. In H. Brandl et al. (Eds.), Mehrsprachig in Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft. Mehrsprachigkeit, Bildungsbeteiligung und Potenziale von Studierenden mit Migrationshintergrund (pp. 57–68). Bielefeld: Zif.Google Scholar
Schindler, K., & Wolfe, J. (2014). Beyond single authors: Organizational text production as collaborative writing. In E.-M. Jakobs & D. Perrin (Eds.), Handbook of writing and text production (pp. 159–173). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spinuzzi, C. (2010). Secret sauce and snake oil: Writing monthly reports in a highly contingent environment. Written Communication, 27(4), 363–409. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sun, H. (2012). Cross-cultural technology design: Crafting culture-sensitive technology for local users. New York, NU: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swarts, J. (2009). Recycled writing: Assembling actor networks from reusable content. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 24(2), 127–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolfe, J. (2010). Team writing: A guide to working in groups. Boston, MA: Bedford-St. Martins.Google Scholar
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
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Sabaj, Omar, Clay Spinuzzi, Germán Varas, Paula Cabezas & Valentin Gerard
2023. “The Basis of Aaaalll of Our Program!” The Start-Up Chile Playbook as Metagenre. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 66:3 ► pp. 300 ff. DOI logo
Varas, Germán, Omar Sabaj, Clay Spinuzzi, Miguel Fuentes, Valentin Gerard & Paula Cabezas
2023. Value Creation in Start-Up Discourse: Linking Pitch and Venture Through Logics of Justification. International Journal of Business Communication ► pp. 232948842211470 ff. DOI logo
Gogan, Brian & Stacy J. Belinsky
2022. Emotion, Rhetoric, and Entrepreneurial Experience: A Survey of Start-Up Community Membership. Journal of Business and Technical Communication 36:4 ► pp. 440 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 august 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.