Article Review

After a consultation with the Women's Studies research librarian and extensive Google Scholar searches, I not only came up with some great examples of the major research, but a number of minor sources that cited the aforementioned few. The three names that came up most often were Candida Brush and the pair, E. Holly Buttner and Benson Rosen, with the latter two together being much more directly referential of women's issues, rather than simply giving a cursory overview, as with Brush. The most pertinent article to my research was called "Bank Loan Officers' Perceptions of the Characteristics of Men, Women, and Successful Entrepreneurs." Using the psychological aspects of my research questions, specifically the perceived character differences between men and women, this report fits perfectly with the scheme of my intended topic. The title is to the point, but detailed, no epitaph necessary, and the "summary" (basically an abstract) begins by specifically acknowledging that the basis is "anecdotal" (i.e. qualitative) in scheme and that this research is geared towards specifically analyzing if women are, in fact, reduced to their sex stereotypes. The research methodology is based on survey, and rather than synthesizing a particular pedagogical or epistemological theory in its scope, it basically just reports on the data collected.

Plotting through the essay

As we all know, my charts are a level that could be generously described as "subpar," and I work best, for my own purposes, with word articulation, so here's a paragraph by paragraph analysis in that more appropriate format:

Introduction

(P1): Background statistics in terms of history of entrepreneurship
(P2): Historical success contingencies and their pitfalls
(P3): Female entrepreneurs' reflections on the roots of their unequal access/sex discrimination
(P4): Summary of intended processes of analysis

Characteristics of Entrepreneurs

(P1): Straightforward delineation of positive characteristics associated with successful entrepreneurship
(P2): Summary of the aforementioned

Entrepreneurial Attributes and Sex Stereotypes

Positing exactly what it implies; is there a corollary between the aforementioned characteristics and sex stereotypes? This builds specifically on the characteristics posited as central to a bank loaner's understanding of successful entrepreneurs

Purpose of the study
Again, straightforward, but clarifying for those who may not understand why understanding and offering a solution is so very important

Method

A paragraph on the sample, obviously essential in terms of validating the methodology
A paragraph on the procedure, again essential to this methodology, as it hinges on data collection from surveyed participants
A series of paragraphs and bullet points outlining the measurement increments, which is something I had never thought about, but is obviously essential in purely qualitative research, as it outlines how bank loan officers rate certain characteristics on a scale of 1 to 6.

Results

Three introductory paragraphs defining the math parts of gathering statistical data. I don't understand it, but it's obviously important.

Men, Women, and Successful Entrepreneurs
(P1): Introduction of the diagrams pictured later. Explanatory, and sequentially comes directly after they paragraphs they address, a clear stylistic choice
(P2): Introduction of hypothesis, and its apparent veracity
(P3): Integration of previous research that drew similar, but possibly dimensionally deepened results
(P4&5): Restatement of positive data findings, and more detail to that end
(P6): Conclusion drawing

Gender of the Loan Officer
(P1&2): A sort of control for the possible influence of other factors, including the influence of the loan officer's own gender. This draws from similar comparable studies as well, with dubious results ("women managers rate women as unfit to hold managerial positions")

Discussion

(P1): Confirmation of hypothesis

(P2): Further analysis synthesizing this research with previous similar findings ("extending" it)

(P3): Citation of numerous other studies for further bolstering of the argument that the stereotypes adversely influence female performance

(P4): Restatement of the goals of the study, in terms of the argumentation for an overhaul of perceptions of the veracity of gender stereotyping

(P5): Clarification of the choice of scope

(P6): Introduction of another possible contributing factor (social networking)

(P7): Research extension proposition, for clarifying purposes and the advancement of understanding

(P8): Proposed solution, in terms of what the woman can do, rather than institutional change (as an aside, this is where the argumentation dated itself and became problematic to me, as the burden of responsibility was passed off to the woman, rather than situated clearly where it should be, in the hands of the bank loan officers themselves and their dated, misogynistic attitudes)

(P9): Wrap-up, stating the importance of women in the small business sector and offering a macro appeal to the reader

Structural Critical Analysis

The methodology obviously differs from mine, as I will base it almost entirely on synthesis of previously gathered data and theoretical analysis. The style in general is not even remotely similar to my proposed format, but it's not supposed to be. Correspondingly, my "method" paragraphs will differ in their totality from what is outlined in this paper. I'm just glad to be working with something beyond raw data and an interpretive abstract. The citation style differs from my own completely as well.

One problem with this source, however, is that it was written in 1988, so it will only be useful insofar as to contextualize historical attitudinal change, while providing a rationale for why this research was and continues to be valuable, as over twenty years later, these are still problems women face.

In terms of organization, I will not specifically stress sex differences in the very beginning as a central part of unequal access, but synthesize this as one of many problems. My scope is much broader and this only confronts one of my research questions. I will not make it a point to restate every point I make in a summary paragraph before moving on to the next section, as I think of it as a contrived effort to meet a word count. I have no intention on wasting the time of the people who bother to read what will likely be a mildly dry piece of research by restating my thoughts every few paragraphs. However, the progression from the statistical history of women in entrepreneurship to the things that historically caused failure was very natural for me and I liked that as a structural device. A lot of the ideas obviously build on each other, like math almost, so when the audience understands one claim or idea, the researchers introduce another corresponding idea and this ordering prevents any unnecessary misunderstanding of the background. I will probably not add charts right in the middle of my paragraphs, even if they're relevant, because stylistically, I find them a bit garish. The "purpose" paragraph seems essential to me, as many people dismiss the current relevance of issues that are central to the female experience. The idea of gradual progression of ideas seems central to making a cohesive argument that people can actually understand.

Works Cited

Buttner, E. Holly, and Benson Rosen. Bank Loan Officers' Perceptions of the Characteristics of Men, Women, and Successful Entrepreneurs. Rep. Vol. 3. New York: Journal of Business Venturing, 1988. Web. 1 Oct. 2010.