The article I have
chosen is from the Journal of Applied
Psychology, titled "The Effects of Proportional Representation and
Gender Orientation of The Task on Emergent Leadership Behavior in Mixed-Gender
Work Groups" and is by Karakowsky and Siegel. Like many studies, when
finished it was sent to a journal for publication. This publication follows
multiple conventions that are quickly caught upon further inspection. First, the
paper opens with an abstract. The abstract is an introduction of sorts; it
informs the reader of what the paper will cover. The abstract is placed at the
beginning so readers can have a better understanding of what is being studied,
as the titles are not always the most descriptive! Information presented is
defended through the use of citations. Outside sources are quoted to build the
background and defend the author’s claims. Citations are used to build the
credibility of the premises written. The text is presented in two columns. The
columns stand as two textual pillars, compiling the information that the
researchers have input. This convention exists to keep the information organized;
it’s hard to get lost between two blocks! The columns of text are only broken
for headings and tables. The headers (usually italicized) break up sections, cluing
the reader in on the information that will be discussed below it. The article
covers a lot of information and in as such requires an efficient method of
presentation. This need fueled the decision to use tables in the paper. A table
organizes data obtained from research and presents it in an easy to read
fashion for the reader’s convenience. The paper ends with the discussion
section, where the findings are broken down. The discussion section is placed
at the end to break down the technical jargon of the results section.
Karakowsky and
Siegel use ethos and diction heavily throughout the paper. Ethos is their most
common rhetorical feature with the citations being their preferred method of building
it. The citations are a form of ethos as they uphold the statements being made
by the duo. Their citation for the statement about women being more affected by
gender incongruence is evidence of their need to defend their points (page 620).
Ethos is also built by placing the author’s university below their name. By attaching
an educational institution, the research that follows appears more credible. Science
is based on evidence and the evidence they provide is through their citations
and info presented.
The diction of the
paper is notable with the use of jargon and high language. Jargon is used throughout
the article with words like “tilted” and “skewed” taking new meanings (page 622).
Technical research terms are also used by the authors and are a helpful way for
a reader to know what field the paper is from. The technical terms let a reader
know that what they are reading is an applied psychology paper and as such will
use terms from that field. The jargon also serves to build ethos, as only
applied psychologists would have different definitions for common words. The high
language is exhibited through the lack of slang used in the article, creating a
formal feel for the reading. The removal of slang combined with the use of polysyllable
words create an elevated language which informs readers that the material being
covered is both formal and serious. The word and language choice was a
deliberate decision made by the authors’ to separate their work from pop
culture works and represent themselves as experts. By avoiding slang and
instead writing with jargon in high language, Karakowsky and Siegel build how
they wish their paper to be read and represent themselves as
scientists/psychologists.
The researchers
wanted to know how gender ratios affected leadership behavior in mixed gender group;
whether men or women were more affected (if at all) by being in the minority or
majority group when the team is divided along gender lines. The research also
covered how the gender association of the task affected leadership emergence of
the respective genders. To answer these questions researchers used experimental
observation where they observed multiple groups of varying gender distributions
and recorded their discussions while they solved an assigned problem. The group
discussions were recorded with the leadership of each group participant rated
by group members and the research panel. The numbers were all compiled into a
formula and the results were compared.
What struck me as
most important to the piece was the discussion section where they listed the
limitations of their study. The researchers admitted the difficulty of
generalizing their findings based on their sample population, duration of the
study, etc. This admittance of the lack of generalization is noteworthy as
although their findings are interesting, they lack the ability to be applied
outside of their specific parameters.
