Abstract:

The researcher provided a background context for the study. The researcher started by what will be accomplished in the study but there was no identification of the gap that is to be filled. It has to be stated. The methodology does not seem to be clearly articulated. Some sentences, especially the one starting with "Furthermore, another group ...," seem to be missing some elements and need to be completed for clarity.

Title: The title is clear and related to the research. The title ties in with the hypotheses, and the method section.

References: The references are fine. The listings follow the APA standard and there are not mistakes in the listings.

In reviewing the introduction/background of the paper I endeavored to follow the outline as stated in the video by making sure that the author placed the topic of the research in context, explained why the subject is important, and that the purpose of the research is stated.

My first impression is that the introduction does not have a level heading. Rather the author used the topic as as the introduction. Having the topic is fine but there should be a level heading labeled "Introduction."

The topic is introduced close to the end of paragraph and supported by the literature based on previous works in the field. The author used Hofstede's (1980, 1998) work on "Culture consequences: International differences in work-related values," and Masculinity and femininity: The taboo dimension of national cultures" along with different works of Schein (1973, 2001) Schein and Mueller (1992), and Schein and other collaborators. These are the giants in the field of culture and stereotypical issues against fiemales.

The author introduced the purpose of the study in paragraph one of page 4 with the sentence starting "The aim of the present study was to analyze the impact of cultural background in terms of a possible moderator on..." which is good. It gives the readers what to expect.

The study population is a broad one covering Germany, Australia, and India with discussion of the cultural views of the male and female descriptive and prescriptive norms.

The three hypotheses in the introduction could have been well defined, or clearly stated so that the readers know what the author seeks to study exactly. I am not sure "We assume" for the hypotheses is appropriate. Assumption of "leader-male" not "leader-female" may be true in several cultures but then the veracity of the assumption is what is being tested, so the author could find some other expressions for the hypotheses.

The elements of the method section are not clearly designed. The section begins with the statement that "students in three different countries were asked to estimate the percentage to which..." The section should have begun with the type of study it is, whether quantitative or qualitative. If quantitative then the type of quantitative study it is. In other words a brief idea of the methodology, and if possible why this method fits the study better than the other methodology.

The author seems to discuss many other issues before getting to the point. For example instead of stating the dependent variable is...the author started by stating "participants were asked to evaluate the particular group/themselves..." and goes on. Later the variable was introduced with the statement "Leadership-specific characteristics served as dependent variable." It would have been much more understandable and straight to the point by stating "the dependent variable for this study is "leadership-specific characteristics."

Participant selection is by random selection but this was not stated till the end of the paragraph. This leaves the reader guessing all along. Before then the population and the composition of the participants were discussed. The selection method should have come right at the very beginning of the discussion of the population.

The method section did not mention the use of Likert-Scale but that is what is used in the study with ratings ranging from 0 through 7. The survey instrument, and the measures are fine but clarity in the whole method section is required.

From the review, the research, or hypothesis, is based on deduction, inference and opinion, so does not require an analysis. On the other hand if the research were an empirical experiment where there is a need to quantify the uncertainty then analysis is required. The research as stated above is based on deduction, and inference and does not need analysis.

The Author however, performed an analysis, so based on the analysis, the countries selected to represent the population-Australia, Germany, and India- to study cultural stereotyping is fine but a rational should have been provided as to why Australia which seems to have similar culture as Germany is selected.

The elements selected-Male Executives, Male-Female Executives, Female Executives-are reflected in table one. The other elements of leadership traits such as task initiating, and person oriented, are analyzed and displayed in table two. The same applies to other tables as well. The statistical methods Multivariate Analyis, and Univariate are fine and appropriate.

Finally the tables which display the analysis graphically for all the analyses performed meet the requirements for presenting tables in studies as outlined in the APA standard.

In reviewing the Discussion section of the paper, my main objective was to ascertain if the results addressed the aims of the study. The study's aim as stated in the introduction was to find the cause and the extent of women's under-representation in management in comparison to men all over the world.

One of the requirements for an effective Discussion is that the author makes "direct explicit statements of the result. The author in the study did that by stating that "In the present study, the stereotype was clearly found in the male participants of the three investigated countries." This opening remarks helps the reader to connect the theme-gender stereotyping-of the study to the discussion.

Despite this the author did not start the opening statements of the Discussion section succinctly with statements that embodied the crux of the Discussion-gender stereotyping. It would have been better to start with something like: In this study the stereotype was clearly found in male participants..." then have the opening statement "The think-manager-think-male." The reason for this is that, the reader who is skimming through the material, wants to get a gist of the discussion in the first few sentences.

A good aspect of the Discussion section is that, the author related the study to existing knowledge, which is the findings on the masculinity/femininity of the work-related values by Hofstede (1980, 1998). This is good because it provided a foundation on which the current study was rooted in.

Limitations of the study is an area that authors have to be cognizant of. Every study has some limitation, and should be brought to the attention of the reader. The author of the article brought the limitations of the study out. The limitation starts on the last paragraph of the Discussion with the statement, "The measurement of the prescriptive norms in the study might be problematic." and went on to give reasons for the limitation.

The limitation could have been succinctly stated. There is nothing wrong with stating "A limitation of the study is..." and continue on to list the limitation.

Finally, the author opened the door for future studies of "whether counter-stereotypic effect shown by the Australian women can possibly be related to disadvantageous or preferential treatment of women in their country."

Some aspects of the Discussion are not succinctly stated making it a little bit difficult to follow the author's arguments. However, on the whole, the Discussion has most of the elements that need to be present in an acceptable Discussion section of a Journal.

Comments on discussion and conclusions