EVALUATION OF START-UP NARRATIVES FROM THE ARGUMENTATION PERSPECTIVE: CASE STUDY OF ITU BIG BANG START-UP CHALLENGE

Öz

Entrepreneurs need investor support to start their ventures and ensure their sustainability and progress. In start-up competitions that bring entrepreneurs and investors together, entrepreneurs have very limited time to convince investors. In this limited time, they need to persuade investors to support them. The aim of this study is to discuss how start-ups shape their narratives while they are trying to get investment, at what points the narratives differ from similar studies, and whether these differences, if any, are related to the context. The study is designed as the first phase of the postgraduate thesis. For this reason, it focuses on the narratives of the ITU Big Bang Start-up Challenge organization, the scope of which is determined as a case study, in 2019 and 2020. In this exploratory study, similar and different aspects are tried to be determined by narrative analysis. The most striking finding of the study is that the start-ups participating in the organization, which was determined as a case study, differed considerably from previous research on incomplete syllogism.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Entrepreneurship
• entrepreneurial narrative
• argumentation theory
• start-up

START-UP ANLATILARININ ARGÜMANTASYON PERSPEKTİFİNDEN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ: İTÜ BİG BANG START-UP CHALLENGE ÖRNEK OLAYI

Öz

Girişimciler girişimlerini başlatmak, girişimlerinin sürdürülebilirliğini ve ilerlemesini sağlamak için yatırımcı desteğine ihtiyaç duyarlar. Girişimciler ile yatırımcıları bir araya getiren start-up yarışmalarında ise girişimcilerin yatırımcıları ikna edebilmeleri için çok kısıtlı zamanları vardır. Bu kısıtlı zamanda yatırımcıları kendilerine destek vermek için ikna etmeleri gerekmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, start-upların yatırım alma çabasını sergilerken anlatılarını nasıl şekillendirdikleri, anlatıların benzer araştırmalardan hangi noktalarda farklılaştığı ve varsa bu farklılıkların bağlamla ilişkili olup olmadığını tartışmaktır. Çalışma, lisansüstü tez çalışmasının ilk aşaması olarak tasarlanmıştır. Bu nedenle kapsamı örnek olay olarak belirlenen İTÜ Big Bang Start-up Challenge organizasyonunun 2019 ve 2020 yıllarında yer verilen anlatılara odaklanmaktadır. Keşfedici nitelikte olan bu araştırmada anlatı analizi ile benzer ve farklı yanlar belirlenmeye çalışılmaktadır. Çalışmanın en çarpıcı bulgusu örnek olay olarak belirlenen organizasyona katılan start-upların eksik tasım konusunda önceki araştırmalardan oldukça farklılaşmasıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Girişimcilik
• girişimci anlatı
• argümantasyon teorisi
• start-up
• yatırımcı

Kaynakça

1. Allison, T.H, Davis, B.C., Webb, J.W. ve Short, J.C. 2017. Persuasion in crowdfunding: an elaboration likelihood model of crowdfunding performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 32, 707-725.
2. Berglund, H. ve Glaser, V. 2021. The Artifacts of Entrepreneurial Practice. Thompson, N.,
3. Blank, S. 2013. Why the lean start-up changes everything. Harvard Business Review, 91(5), 63-72.
4. Byrne, O., Teague, B. ve Jenkins, A. (Der.) Research Handbook on Entrepreneurship as Practice. Edgar Elgar Publishing, Inc. (Basım aşamasında)
5. Chen, X., Yao, X. ve Kotha, S. 2009. Entrepreneur passion and preparedness in business plan presentations: A persuasion analysis of venture capitalists’ funding decisions. Academy of Management, 52(1).
6. Davis, B.C., Hmieleski, K.M., Webb, J.W. ve Coombs, J.E. 2017. Funders’ positive affective reactions to entrepreneurs’’ crowdfunding pitches: The influence of perceived product creativity and entrepreneurial passion. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(1), 90-106.
7. Elgendy, N., Elragal, A. ve Päivärinta, T. 2021. DECAS: a modern data-driven decision theory for big data and analytics, Journal of Decision Systems, DOI: 10.1080/12460125.2021.1894674.
8. Erduran, S., Simon, S. ve Osborne, J. 2004. TAPping into Argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's Argument Pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education. 88.

9. Fernández-Vázquez, J. ve Álvarez-Delgado, R. 2020 Persuasive strategies in the SME entrepreneurial pitch: Functional and discursive considerations, Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 33:1, 2342-2359.
10. Fox, J. ve Modgil, S. 2007. From Arguments to Decisions: Extending the Toulmin View. 10.1007/978-1-4020-4938-5_18.
11. Gartner, W.B. 2010. A new path to the waterfall: A narrative on the use of entrepreneurial narrative. International Small Business Journal, 28(1).
12. Garud, R., Gehman, J. ve Tharchen, T. 2018. Performativity as Ongoing Journeys: Implications for Strategy, Entrepreneurship, and Innovation. Long Range Planning, 51(3): 500–509.
13. Gross, A. ve Dearin, R. 2003. Chaim Perelman. New York: State University of New York Press.
14. Holt, R., ve Macpherson, A. 2010. Sensemaking, rhetoric, and the socially competent entrepreneur. International Small Business Journal, 28(1).
15. Lee, M. ve Lee, K. 2019. Uses of Rhetorical Reasoning Theories in Business Communication Researches. Business Communication Research and Practice. 2. 28-33.
16. Lewinski, M. ve Mohammed, M. 2016. Argumentation theory. K. B. Jensen ve R. T. Craig (Der.) The International Encyclopedia of Communication Theory and Philosophy. Hoboken, New Jersey: JohnWiley & Sons.
17. Lounsbury, M. ve Glynn, M. A. 2001. Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7): 545–564. Lucas, K., Kerrick, S.A., Haugen, J. ve Crider, C.J. 2016. Communicating entrepreneurial passion: personal passion vs. perceived passion in venture pitches. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 59(4).
18. Nayır, Z., D. ve Gümüştaş, K.N.2017. Belagat (retorik) ne sağlar? Sosyal girişimcilerin meşruiyet kazanma çabaları, Yönetim Organizasyon Kongresi.
19. Osterwalder, A. ve Pigneur, Y. 2010. Business model generation: a handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers. John Wiley & Sons.
20. Perelman C. 1979. Rhetorical Perspectives on Semantic Problems. The New Rhetoric and the Humanities. Synthese Library, vol 140. Springer, Dordrecht.
21. Perelman, C. ve Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. 1971. The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. London: University of Notre Dame Press.
22. Porter, M. ve Kramer, M.2011. Creating shared value: How to reinvent capitalism and unleash the wave of innovation and growth. Harvard Business Review, 89 (1/2), 62-77.
23. Schwarz, B. ve Baker, M. 2016. Dialogue, argumentation and education: History, theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.
24. Soublière, J.-F. ve Gehman, J. 2019. The Legitimacy Threshold Revisited: How Prior Successes and Failures Spill Over to Other Endeavors on Kickstarter. Academy of Management Journal. 63(2), 472-502.
25. StartUp, Nevzat Aydın Söyleşi, Şubat-Nisan, 2021, 24- 29.
26. Strauss, A. ve Corbin, J. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27. Toulmin, S. E. [1958] 2003. The uses of argument (yenilenmiş baskı.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28. Toulmin, S. E., Rieke, R. ve Janik, A. 1984. An Introduction to Reasoning. 2nd Edition. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
29. Toulmin, S. E., Rieke, R., ve Janik, A. 1979. An introduction to reasoning. New York: Macmillan.
30. van Eemeren F.H., Garssen B., Krabbe E.C.W., Snoeck Henkemans A.F., Verheij B. ve Wagemans J.H.M. 2014. The New Rhetoric. Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Springer, Dordrecht.
31. van Werven, R., Bouwmeester, O. ve Cornelissen, J.P. 2015. The power of arguments: How entrepreneurs convince stakeholders of the legitimate distinctiveness of their ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(4), 616-631.
32. van Werven, R., Bouwmeester, O. ve Cornelissen, J.P. 2019. Pitching a business idea to investors: How new venture founders use micro-level rhetoric to achieve narrative plausibility and resonance. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 37(3).
33. von der Mühlen, S., Richter, T., Schmid, S. vd. 2019. How to improve argumentation comprehension in university students: experimental test of a training approach. Instructional Science, 47(2), 215-237.
34. Wenzel, J. W. 1990. Three perspectives on argument: Rhetoric, dialectic, logic. J. Schuetz ve R. Trapp (Der.) Perspectives on argumentation: Essays in honor of Wayne Brockriede. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland. Ariteknokent.com.tr 2021a. https://www.ariteknokent.com.tr/tr/hakkinda/birlikte-ileriye(Erişim tarihi:26.04.2021)
35. Ariteknokent.com.tr 2021b. https://www.ariteknokent.com.tr/tr/ekosistem/itu-cekirdek(Erişim tarihi:26.04.2021)
36. Bigbang.itücekirdek 2021. https://bigbang.itucekirdek.com/girisimler(Erişim tarihi:22.04.2021)
37. Endeavor. 2021. https://endeavor.org.tr/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Endeavor_Giri%C5%9Fimci-Sunum-Teknikleri.pdf
38. Etohum.2021. https://www.etohum.com/blog-tr/yatirimci-sunumu.
39. İtüçekirdek.com. 2021a. https://itucekirdek.com/hakkimizda/(Erişim tarihi:22.04.2021)
40. İtüçekirdek.com. 2021b. https://itucekirdek.com/big-bang/)(Erişim tarihi:22.04.2021)
41. Tgbd.org.tr.2021a. https://www.tgbd.org.tr/itu-ari-teknokent-firmasi-231 (Erişim Tarihi:28.04.2021)
42. Tgbd.org.tr.2021b. https://www.tgbd.org.tr/turkiyede-teknoparklar-icerik-35 (Erişim Tarihi: 28.04.2021)