Social identity management strategies used by workers with acquired hearing loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: There is a paucity of knowledge about social identity-management by persons with hearing loss. The objective of the study was to gain an understanding from the perspective of the participants, the ways in which workers with acquired hearing loss manage their identity in the workplace. PARTICIPANTS: Twelve persons with acquired hearing loss, who were gainfully employed in a variety of settings and occupations in three Canadian cities, participated in audio-recorded semi-structured interviews. METHODS: A secondary qualitative analysis was conducted on transcripts of interviews collected in a previous study on factors that influence disclosure of hearing loss in the workplace. A qualitative descriptive research paradigm was adopted and content analyses were used to extract pertinent information from verbatim transcripts. RESULTS: Participants described a range of identity-management strategies enacted in the workplace. Five recurrent themes emerged as important considerations in the Art of Identity Management in the workplace: 1. Managing the situation, 2. Having a buddy system, 3. Feeling comfortable, 4. Using personal resources, 5. It gets easier with time. CONCLUSIONS: Social identity-management is a complex process. Although persons with acquired hearing loss experience different challenges from other persons with invisible stigmas, similarities in the range of social identity-management strategies employed were evident in our findings. In addition, the social cognitive learning model of disclosure appears to be relevant to the experiences of our participants. The implications of the findings emphasize the importance of all stakeholders working collaboratively to address the issues of the growing population of workers with hearing loss.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".