A Good Idea is Not Enough: Understanding the Challenges of Entrepreneurship Communication

This paper addresses a less-investigated issue of innovations: entrepreneurship communication. Business and marketing studies demonstrate that new product development processes do not succeed on good technical invention alone. To succeed, the invention must be appropriately communicated to a market and iterated through dialogue with potential stakeholders. We explore this issue by examining communication-related challenges, abilities and barriers from the perspectives of innovators trying to enter an unfamiliar, foreign market. Specifically, we summarize results of a set of studies conducted in the Gyeonggi Innovation Program (GIP), an entrepreneurship program formed by a partnership between the University of Texas at Austin and Gyeonggi-Do Province in South Korea. Through the GIP, Korean entrepreneurs attempt to expand domestically successful product ideas to the American market. The study results demonstrate that these innovators must deal with a broad range of challenges, particularly (1) developing deeper understanding of market needs, values, and cultural expectations, and (2) producing pitches with the structure, claims and evidence, and engagement strategies expected by American stakeholders. These studies confirm that a deeper understanding of successful new product development (NPD) projects requires not only a culturally authentic NPD process model, but also communication-oriented research. The GIP approach offers insights into good programmatic concept and effective methods for training engineers to become entrepreneurs. Yet we also identify potential improvements for such programs. Finally, we draw implications for studying entrepreneurship communication.IC2 Institut

Innovate Again, Innovate Here

The Economic Development: Generating Entrepreneurs (EDGE) Program, funded by the Walton Family Foundation, was initiated in Northwest Arkansas in Spring 2018. The program, managed by the IC2 Institute at The University of Texas at Austin (UT Austin) had the following goals: to assess policies, players and programs in the region; to engage in pilot, collaborative programs in entrepreneurship linking Austin and Northwest Arkansas; and to develop a nationally distinctive strategy for entrepreneurship for the region.Walton Family FoundationIC2 Institut

The Parasitoid Complex of Forest Tent Caterpillar, \u3ci\u3eMalacosoma Disstria\u3c/i\u3e (Lepidoptera: Lasiocampidae), in Eastern Wyoming Shelterbelts

A parasitoid complex affecting the forest tent caterpillar, Malacosoma disstria, was investigated during 1978-79 in shelterbelts in eastern Wyoming. Egg parasitoids included five species: Ablerus clisiocampae, Ooencyrtus clisiocampae, Telenomus clisiocampae, Tetrastichus sp. 1 and Telenomus sp. Thirteen hymenopterous species and five dipterous species were reared from larvae and pupae of the forest tent caterpillar. The most common 5th-instar larval parasitoids were the tachinid flies, Lespesia archippivora and Archytas lateralis. Of the pupal parasitoids reared, 640/0 were Diptera and 36% were Hymenoptera. Four previously unrecorded parasitoids of M. disstria were reared: Cotesia alalantae, Macrocentrus irridescens, Pimpla sanguinipes erythropus, and Lespesia flavifrons.

Factors Associated with Return to a Child Advocacy Center for a Subsequent Sexual Abuse Allegation: A Longitudinal Analysis

Child sexual abuse is a widespread problem impacting substantial numbers of youth (Finkelhor, Shattuck, Turner, & Hamby, 2014). There are many factors that make telling someone about sexual abuse difficult for children, which can mean disclosures are delayed and children are at-risk longer. After initial victimization, there is increased risk for children to experience subsequent sexual abuse victimization (Pittenger, Pogue, & Hansen, 2018). Using the framework of Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model, the present study examined predictors to distinguish children who are at the highest risk of returning to a Child Advocacy Center (CAC) for a subsequent sexual abuse referral. It also explored factors predicting that children will disclose sexual abuse or present with corroborating evidence of abuse. The bioecological model includes person-specific factors, microsystem (e.g., family) factors, and exosystem (e.g., community) factors. Case files of 4,971 youth who presented to a CAC for an initial sexual abuse referral between 2002 and 2012 were examined to identify factors across contextual levels. Almost one in five children experienced a subsequent sexual abuse referral and returned before 2017. Across all contextual levels, the following factors were associated with a return to the CAC: younger age, female gender, a mental health diagnosis, family history of substance abuse and/or domestic violence, mental health treatment, and lower neighborhood income. Predictors of disclosing abuse during the forensic interview included: older age, female gender, a mental health disorder, nonfamilial perpetrator, familial substance abuse and/or domestic violence, and therapeutic involvement. This study adds to the literature on child sexual abuse victimization and disclosure rates in addition to identifying factors that can be used to determine a child’s risk level for subsequent referrals. If the highest-risk children are identified and interventions are provided to mitigate risk, the need for subsequent referrals may decrease. The implications for CACs are discussed as well as techniques which have been developed and show promise at assisting children to disclose abuse (e.g., extended forensic interviews). Adviser: David J. Hanse

What makes a few more than a lot: a study of context-dependent quantifiers

“Hey can you help me move? I warn you I have a lot of books, though.” When we interpret such sentences we might assume that our friend is implying that there will be some heavy lifting, because she own “a lot of books”. If you’re opposed to heavy lifting, you probably want to know how many books your friend wants you to help her move. While it is easy to determine the quantities picked out by numerals, discovering the meaning of quantifiers, such as “a lot”, is less clear. For example, in a survey people gave different quantities for “a few” and “a lot” depending on the context they were asked about, choosing to give quantities as high as 76 for “a few friends on Facebook” and as low as 4 for “a lot of houses”. I ask what role context plays in these interpretations, and propose two possible hypotheses: the Fixed Quantities Hypothesis, and the Relative Quantities Hypothesis. The Fixed Quantities Hypothesis assumes that these terms pick out an exact range of quantities (e.g., 3-5 for “a few”) and that the effect of context is due to people being pragmatically generous in their interpretations (Leech, 1983; Brown & Levinson, 1987; Lasersohn, 1999). The Relative Quantities Hypothesis instead argues that the ranges picked out by each of the terms is relative to the context, and therefore these terms might be similar to relative gradable adjectives (e.g., the meaning of the word “tall” is dependent on the reference set, e.g., what counts as “tall” is different for a mug versus a building; Kennedy, 2007; Syrett, Kennedy, & Lidz, 2010). I attempt to tease apart these two theories by looking at whether people find certain quantities implausible for some contexts leading them to think a speaker is being sloppy (Experiment 1), whether the context effect persists even under light-to-no pragmatic pressure (Experiment 2), and whether we find the effect of context even with minimal knowledge of novel contexts (Experiment 3). The results favour the Relative Quantities Hypothesis, and I discuss potential future work investigating the role of distributional knowledge on quantifier mappings