Spinuzzi, C., Altounian, D., Pogue, G., Cochran, R., & Zhu, L. (2018). Articulating problems and markets: A translation analysis of entrepreneurs’ emergent value propositions. Written Communication, 35(4), 379-410.

Spinuzzi, C., Altounian, D., Pogue, G., Cochran, R., & Zhu, L. (2018). Articulating problems and markets: A translation analysis of entrepreneurs’ emergent value propositions. Written Communication, 35(4), 379-410. 

In this qualitative study (original research article), Spinuzzi et al analyze a competition at an accelerator, SEAL. Most of the firms are tech-centered firms, who haven't yet focused on bringing the tech to a market. Thus, in the intro (and presumably through the rest of the article), Spinuzzi et al focus on the story of W1, who developed an amazing technology, but who was having trouble explaining who should buy it, why, how, etc. Again, Spinuzzi seems to be focused on the tech to product transition rather than the product to business transition. Spinuzzi et al will be doing a translation analysis, albeit focusing on the first two moments: problematization and interessement. For memory's sake, the other two, final moments are translation and mobilization. 

Oh, ooops, translation is the name for all four moments, not a moment in the process. The four moments are problematization, interessement, enrollment, and mobilization. So you forgot enrollment. 

You also forgot to talk about the value proposition, which is even in this article's title. "...the value proposition is not an advertising, marketing, or branding gambit meant to describe an existing product. Nor is it an abstract statement with weak connections to concrete decisions, as vision and mission statements sometimes are. Rather, the value proposition, once accepted, becomes inscribed in contracts, organization, business model, research and development (R&D), and a number of other ways; it provides the underlying agreement on which the venture is founded. If the assemblage resists—for instance, if W1’s technology were to fail to reliably detect zebra mussels—the value proposition must be reformulated or abandoned." Underlying agreement. So it's a test. Like we don't know if it will work, it's hypothetical. 

Three terms get used in the value proposition section: emergent, material, and consequences. 

"Marketing scholars such as Skålén et al. (2014) and Kowalkowski et al. (2012) have turned to practice theory to articulate the value proposition as a reciprocal achievement among actors. But we turn instead to the sociology of translation. For our purposes—understanding emergent, material, consequential arguments—the sociology of translation has advantages over practice theory. First, it allows us to analyze value propositions as arguments that audiences evaluate, resist, co-iterate, and can be convinced by. Second, it emphasizes material interactions and resistance, whereas practice theory tends to describe intangibles such as knowledge, needs, rules, principles, and norms. Third, it has been used and developed in rhetoric and writing studies, providing better integration with the concerns of this field, both in the rhetoric of entrepreneurship (e.g., Belinsky & Gogan, 2016; Galbraith, McKinney, DeNoble, & Ehrlich, 2014; Lucas, Kerrick, Haugen, & Crider, 2016) and in the field as a whole." Interesting. Intangibles. 

The AADF model. "In this study, we applied the AADF model to identify how participants iterated their value propositions in their problematization and interessement attempts" "In our previous work, we have found that entrepreneurs iterate value propositions along at least four dimensions: 

• argument, 
• application, 
• design, and 
• financial model"

This is described in table 2, which "Characteriz[es] Four Rhetorical Transformations of Value Propositions."

Research question. "How would entrepreneurs attempt to problematize the world so that their technologies could be positioned as solutions, then interesse market actors who needed those solutions, and would these changes result in transforming their value propositions?"

8 firms total. Table 3 describes those 8 firms. The algorithm for selection is described on pg. 378. The "investment potential" criteria is a key selection criteria, which is on table 3 but also a part of the judges' rubric for scoring teams in SEAL. 

They collected

• pitch decks
• Surveys: Business Pitch Presentation Feedback Form (BPPFFs)
• Observations
• Video recorded pitches
• Structured training
• Interviews
• Semistructured initial interviews with selected 2017 SEAL program firm leads
• Semistructured final interviews with selected 2017 SEAL program firm leads. 
• Semistructured interviews with selected 2017 SEAL program mentors 

You'll have to ask Spinuzzi again why nonexclusive coding is the best, or why he prefers it. In an email he says this, "Non-exclusive coding facilitates bottom-up exploration. It's also not tractable to inter-rater reliability. For that reason, it's common to see people who use this coding scheme discuss how they generated codes collaboratively. Here's an example from Propen and Schuster: "We each then developed inductively codes, or categories and subcategories of topics, from the samples, models, and heuristics. We then developed a merged list and recoded across the entire data set to create a comprehensive list of features of the VIS" (p.12)"

"Coding. We limited coding to three datasets: (a) initial interviews with firms, (b) final interviews with firms, and (c) interviews with mentors. (We chose not to code video-recorded pitches because our review of the videos sug- gested that the oral pitches were redundant with the interviews and pitch decks.) Coding was nonexclusive. Authors 2 and 3 coded entries under Author 1’s direction, initially using descriptive starter codes (Miles et al., 2014) based on central concerns implied within our theoretical frame, such as the identified problem and solution; value proposition development; and the degree to which a value proposition had been described or proposed. Once starter codes were applied, Authors 2 and 3 performed open coding (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) to inductively identify recurrent themes related to problematization, interessement, and value proposition statements and transfor- mations. Appendix A shows selected codes." I don't get the distinction between between descriptive starter codes (Miles et al., 2014) and open coding (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). It just seems like they're all inductive codes based on the theoretical framework. 

"Notably, all of these firms developed soft- ware products, which were comparatively easy to develop and iterate in com- parison to the solutions of the technology-first firms. Since the technologies built by the problem-first firms were easy to iterate, the firms themselves could pivot more easily." Interesting. 

Table 5, which seems important, breaks down firms' value propositions into the following five dimensions

• "Written value proposition from kickoff deck
• Spoken value proposition (Interview 1)
• Written value proposition from Demo Day deck
• Spoken value proposition (Interview 2)
• Iterations"

Looks like on the iterations part, Spinuzzi et al are bringing in the AADF model. But if they're applying the AADF model, then how is Callon being applied?

In the findings, we get the much-used distinction (by me) of technology- versus problem-first firms. 

The results is broken into five sections:

• pre-SEAL
• Kickoff
• SEAL
• Demo day
• Post-SEAL

Yea, I don't get it. Both the translation terms AND the AADF model are being applied in the results. Why both?

"In this article, we have examined a specific case: how student entrepreneurs iterated their value propositions. Through this qualitative case study, we examined how these entrepreneurs developed claims that their technological innovations could help specific people with specific problems." Developed. Yes. Those stories are in the results. 

"In keeping with the sociology of translation, we examined incidents in which these firms identified problems (problematization) and the markets or market representatives that faced these problems (interessement), and we identified specific pathways that the firms followed to iterate their value proposition claims. These value propositions would ideally be stable enough to support other entrepreneurial decisions; in some cases, they appear to be." So both frameworks are apparent in this. Maybe the distinction has to do with the split between methodology and method. 

What's the RQ again? "How would entrepreneurs attempt to problematize the world so that their technologies could be positioned as solutions, then interesse market actors who needed those solutions, and would these changes result in transforming their value propositions?" OK. So it's really two questions. 

Research question. 

• "How would entrepreneurs attempt to problematize the world so that their technologies could be positioned as solutions, then interesse market actors who needed those solutions, and 
• would these changes result in transforming their value propositions?"<---AADF

"We have demonstrated how, in technology entrepreneurship, the first two moments can be—and are frequently expected to be—relatively stabilized in a claim, the value proposition. This claim is then presented in a pitch, which can serve as a trial before the enrollment and mobilization required to complete translation and cement a lasting alliance." Trial. relatively stabilized. Cement. 

"The value proposition is relatively stable, but must still be flexible enough to endure this round of co-iteration." What did they say earlier? An invitation to ... "Lusch and Webster (2011) similarly define a value proposition as “an invitation [to potential buyers and resource-provider partners] to partici- pate in the process of cocreating value that is superior to competitor offerings” (p. 132)."

"mutual persuasion with a consensus that emerges over time and across parties"

https://utexas.box.com/s/pvvvmn397sqyt4uwno298gxvhlb6pvax