Moore |1

Chadwyck Moore
De Piero
Writing 2
June 9, 2016
Mixing Up Gender: How Different Publications Approach Mixed Gender Work Groups
Workplace diversity has become a coined phrase in the business world, with resources
dedicated to the study of it. This trend focuses on how to organize efficient work groups based on
everything from race to religion and creed. This focus on diversity also stretches into how men
and women work together. These mixed gender interactions are pored over in the academic field
with the disciplines of applied psychology and management theory being drawn upon for this
essay. That being said, academic sources are not the only fields that question the relationship
between men and women in the workplace, even layman pop sources provide their own insight
into the issue. When covering the same topic, each source focuses on building ethos and aiding
readers in understanding information with academic sources using uniform organization
conventions, while pop sources focus on creating a simple read.
The articles to be examined are from the Journal of Applied Psychology, a study by
Karakowsky and Siegel (K&S) on leadership emergence in mixed gender work groups, the
Academy of Management Journal, a field study by Chatman and. O'Reilly (C&O) on asymmetric
reactions by men and women in relation to gender demography in work groups, and an article
from the Fiscal Times by Mackey that covers men and women working together. Each source
focuses on a different aspect of mixed gender work groups. These articles each follow their own
conventions with the academic sources following a more stringent organization.

Moore |2

The stringency of the academic sources conventions begins with organization, with each
using the IMRAD organization methodIMRAD meaning intro, methods, results, and
discussions. The use of IMRAD encourages uniformity in the genre. With a uniform organization
readers will better be able to find the relevant section of any article. These sections make it easier
for the reader to find what they are looking for in an article that could become quite lengthy.
To further aid the reader in finding information, academic sources separate ideas into
clear sections through the use of headers. Headers keep a reader on track so they can always
know what is coming up ahead. Headers like Men's and women's expressions of the likelihood
of leaving their work groups. (C&O) inform a reader about what will be discussed. The
stringency of academic sources organization is done in order to ensure efficient reading of the
piece. Even under a section of IMRAD the sections can become quite lengthy, possibly losing a
reader. This focus on a uniform organization in academic sources is done with the readers
comprehension in mind.
These conventions are a stark contrast to the writing norms of the non-academic Fiscal
Times source. The organization differs by not following IMRAD and instead organizing
paragraphs into bite size chunks. These chunks are small paragraphs that serve to break each idea
into its own section, no matter how minor. Instead of having headers that break the ideas under
the umbrella of IMRAD, Mackey gives each idea, example, etc. its own paragraph. By
organizing her paper in this way the article becomes simpler to read. The paragraphs are small to
make sure a reader cannot get lost in the reading.
Ethos is the preferred rhetorical device in academia. Ethos is the credibility of the
authors statements (something key to a researcher) as if the reader does not feel they can trust
them they will not read it. Due to this, heavy consideration to building ethos is shown with both

Moore |3

writers showing frequent citations and quoting of outside sources, with C&O (management)
making their first of many citations early on in their work (195). These outsides sources are cited
to uphold the observations made by the authors. By quoting an outside source, a reader can be
given context from the field and be provided more evidence for their observations. Science is
based upon the evidence presented and as such academic papers focus on it.
The focus on ethos is not exclusive to the journal sources. Mackey makes many claims in
her article, defending them through citing outside sources in lieu of providing her own data. This
reliance on quotes is due to the low authority that Mackey has as an outsider to the field. Mackey
makes statements such as Strong leadership is required to deal with these conflicts, a statement
made as a solution to issues between men and women working together (Mackey). Mackey as a
journalist does not hold the authority to make these claims, so she quotes people who do. They
are significant because they stop her statements from being unsubstantiated claims, instead
making them defended statements.
The source of the data quoted differs between academic and pop sources. The journals
provide original data, such as the finding that men respond to being in the minority more
negatively than women do. This discovery was made following a universally accepted testing
method, the scientific method, and is accepted as fact one it is peer-reviewed. Research is not
present in Mackeys article, where she only cites the work of others and provides no data she
found herself. This separation in the approach to ethos is due to audience expectations; casual
readers do not expect the author to perform a peer reviewed field study for their information,
only that the information is clear and understandable.
Ethos is built through more than just citations with the word choice, or diction, playing a
key role in building the credibility of authors in both disciplines. Diction varies between each

Moore |4

piece with the academic sources focusing on the use jargon whilst the pop source leaning
towards accessible language. Jargon is used, according to Boyd in Murder! (Rhetorically
Speaking), to exclude those outside of the field and create an insiders club (Boyd 89). This
insiders club is deserving of credibility and explains the scholarly focus on its use. An example
of this insider club knowledge is C&Os skimming of topics while using jargon. C&O speak
heavily on the Similarity-attraction theory citing it as a possible influence for gender
interaction in the workplace. A definition for the theory is never provided, reflecting the writers
forethought of their audience. Since their audience is other managers, they are able to use
specific terms to communicate their knowledge effectively. Jargon allows them to build ethos
and communicate clearly.
Comparatively, Mackey writes for the layman and as such uses approachable language
devoid of jargon. Unlike the academic sources, Mackey avoids excessively long words or vague
terms. She instead uses common words such as different, with the most complex word
appearing to be dubious. Diction affects how a reader interprets the piece with the authors of
each respective source deciding to use language reflective of their audience.
Even with the same topic, the audiences and purposes of each piece differed. These
separate audience expectations, according to Boyd, affect how rhetoric is used by the authors
(100). The Journal of Applied Psychology wrote for psychologists, Academy of Management
wrote for managers, and Fiscal Times wrote for the everyman.
With their audience in mind, each writer made different decisions in how to present their
piece. As academic sources K&S and C&O use technical data, peer references, and their own
findings to support their statements. Academic sources aim to enter their ideas as facts and as
such require more proof for their claims. This leads to K&S defending their ideas through

Moore |5

experiments and surveys run by themdetailing how they came across findings in the methods
section. Pop sources aim to please the casual audience, whose expectations are not as lofty. This
lowered expectation allows pop sources like Mackey to cite others to defend their statements.
This expectation leads her to focus on simplicity and ease of reading in lieu of hard evidence.
The approach to the topic, more specifically what questions they asked, differs the most
between the sources. K&S focus on how gender demography affects leadership emergence,
questioning if being in the gender minority affects how likely one participates in a group. This is
expected of a psychological study as the feelings and mindset of each participant was the focus.
C&O, however, see mixed-gender work groups from a management perspective and question
whether men and women would even wish to work together. They study how men and women
choose to work together when assigned to groups with varying gender divides and given the
option to switch to another at any time. The management perspective focuses on how cohesive
the groups are and the application of gender ratio in the workplace. Maureen Mackey as a popsource writer sees the topic in its depth and wants to provide a magic bullet of understanding.
She wants to provide readers with a one-stop way to have some idea of what the field is and as
such focuses on breadth instead of depth. Even with the same topic different disciplines approach
it differently.
Moves are the decisions made by the author to convey their argument. They are personal
decision that work within conventionsguidelines for a genre not decided by the author. Each
source makes unique moves to strengthen their argument with the scholarly sources making
similar movements. The moves are pulled from They Say, I Say. K&S, as well as C&O, use the
entertaining objections and introducing standard views moves often. These moves are
credibility building moves linked to the frequent citing. By introducing standard views and

Moore |6

entertaining objections the journal authors are able to build ethos. Addressing counters makes
them appear reasonable, while introducing standard views provides context that can help a reader
appreciate the new findings. Mackeys move appears to be the puny paragraph. She uses short
paragraphs often, with some being composed of nothing more than drop quotes. These serve to
make the reading as simple as possible; she does not want to challenge the reader. Each point
gets its own paragraph to guide the reader through her work.
Depth is the difference maker between academic and pop sources. Academic sources
provide a depth that is missed in non-academic sources. They analyze ideas, provide original
data, and possess detailed discussion that explains findings. Academic sources can also provide
applications, with C& Os discussion section dishing advice to managers on how their findings
could be applied into the workplace (206). This depth provides more information available for
learning. That is to not illegitimatize non-academic sources whose greatest strength is the
accessibility. Pop sources are excellent starting points to any issue as they provide a breadth
instead of depth. This breadth can aid in understanding academic sources, as the reader would
enter with some background knowledge. Pop sources are also more lenient in their presentation
of information, using videos and images that can further elaborate an idea while academic
sources stick to bland blocks of text that can be tedious to follow.
Regardless of the topic, similar rhetorical choices and moves are made in the disciplinary
sources. Even though the focus may differ, each source follows their genres conventions to meet
their audiences expectations. Even when the same choices are made, they are expressed
differently.