PB2A: Gender Ratio in Relation to Group Leadership Emergence

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.