THE NATURE OF PEER WORKPLACE INCIVILITY AND BULLYING AMONG RESIDENTIAL CARE AIDES IN LONG-TERM CARE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Residential care aides (RCAs; unregulated workers also known as certified nursing assistants or personal care assistants) provide much of the hands-on care in long-term residential care (LTRC). While many RCAs report being exposed to violent or aggressive acts from residents, we know little about their exposure to incivility and bullying from their colleagues. This is a significant knowledge gap as increased workplace incivility and bullying is associated with specific gender-dominated fields, hierarchical and stressful work environments, and low job autonomy, all of which characterize LTRC. Drawing on data from a critical ethnography examining workplace incivility and bullying among RCAs in a rural, not-for-profit care home, this presentation explores the types of incivility and bullying encountered by RCAs, and the contextual factors impacting their experiences with such behaviors. To date, more than 50 hours of participant observation, and 20 in-depth interviews with RCAs, licensed practical nurses, support staff, and management have been conducted. Findings illustrate the pervasiveness of incivility; while bullying acts (repeated, hostile behaviors intended to undermine, humiliate or injure) were rare, incivility (low-intensity acts with an ambiguous intent to harm) was an almost daily occurrence. Commonly-occurring behaviors included ignoring and refusing co-worker’s requests for help, social exclusion, acting impatient with, blaming and criticizing co-workers, and insisting on getting one’s own way. Chronic staffing shortages, staffing arrangements, and workload issues exacerbated RCAs’ experiences. Findings provide an important first step in understanding the nature of workplace incivility and bullying in LTRC.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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".