Between the corporation and the closet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to engage the ecological model as a conceptual tool to examine the ethics of conducting research on LGBTQ+ individuals in the workplace. In particular, it focuses on outness and the act of outing in research. Design/methodology/approach Established methodologies for studying LGBTQ+ persons in the workplace are examined using a critical outness lens. The ecological model is used to identify a critical path forward for researchers working with LGBTQ+ participants and to improve LGBTQ+ workplace experiences more broadly. Findings The tension between the ethics of coming out of the closet and the ethics of outing someone for the greater good is problematized. It suggests that organizational and diversity scholars approach research methods with an understanding of the role played by the body and sexuality in LGBTQ+ workplace research. Practical implications Researchers should recognize that workers may have varying degrees of outness within their organization and/or across their private and public lives. Originality/value Research on LGBTQ+ persons in the workplace is limited, and research examining the ethics of relevant methods is scarcer still. This paper begins a discussion on how researchers can trouble current hegemonic approaches to LGBTQ+-centered research in organizations.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".