This paper reviews and critiques the abstract of a 2007 study by Wu and Chiang examining how cultural diversity affects employee job satisfaction in Taiwanese-owned companies operating in mainland China. The review identifies key elements missing from the original abstract—including methodology, statistical analyses, and a clear conclusion—and uses information drawn from the full article to address those gaps. The paper then presents a redeveloped abstract that incorporates all standard components: research purpose, participant description, instruments used, analytical methods (Mann-Whitney U-test, T-test, and Cronbach alpha), and a summary of findings showing that Taiwanese employees report higher job satisfaction than their Chinese counterparts.
The paper demonstrates the technique of abstract evaluation and reconstruction. Rather than simply summarizing a study, the author identifies the formal components an abstract should contain (topic, research question, methodology, analysis, findings, and conclusion), diagnoses which are absent, and then synthesizes information from the full article to produce a corrected version. This shows the ability to apply genre conventions critically.
The paper opens by introducing the source study and evaluating what its original abstract does and does not include. It then identifies the missing methodological and analytical details and explains how they were retrieved from the full article. Finally, it presents a complete redeveloped abstract incorporating all components, followed by the reference. The structure moves logically from diagnosis to remedy.
The research study entitled "The Impact on the Cultural Diversity to Employees' Job Satisfaction between Mainland China and Taiwan: A Comparison of Taiwanese Invested Companies," by Chuan-Cheng Wu and Yu-Chen Chiang (2007), examined the effect of cultural diversity on employee satisfaction among mainland Chinese and Taiwanese employees. In the abstract of the research article, the authors shared key points about their research, although the details provided were incomplete. Among the research details included in the abstract were the research topic, the research question, the participant groups in the study, and a summary of the key findings.
However, the following items were not specifically included in the original abstract: methodology, the analyses used, and a conclusion that clearly communicates the main result of the study to readers. These omissions leave the abstract incomplete by conventional academic standards, which typically require all of these elements to be present so that readers can quickly assess the scope, rigor, and significance of a study without consulting the full text.
Reviewing the full research article, these missing details can be identified. To develop a complete abstract for the study, these gaps must be addressed in the redeveloped version. For Wu and Chiang's study, the method used is a survey, employing an instrument adapted from the Chinese Culture Connection study. Participants were Chinese and Taiwanese employees working in Taiwanese-owned companies based in mainland China. The total sample size was 451, after accounting for unreturned questionnaires and invalid respondents.
The primary data analyses used were: (i) the Mann-Whitney U-test and T-test, to examine the relationship between cultural diversity and employee satisfaction; and (ii) Cronbach's alpha, to determine the validity and reliability of the instrument adapted for the study.
The redeveloped abstract addresses all key components absent from the original, including methodology, statistical analyses, and a clear summary of findings. By incorporating these elements, the abstract meets standard academic expectations and gives readers a complete picture of the study's purpose, design, and conclusions. This exercise underscores the importance of thorough abstract writing in communicating research effectively within the field of international human resource management.
You’re 50% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.