The positive experiences associated with coming out at work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Much research has focused on the negative aspects of disclosing sexual orientation and/or gender identity in the workplace but less has explicitly examined the positive aspects. This lack of research is problematic as this can oversimplify the work lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer (LGBTQ) people. The current study examines positive intrapersonal, interpersonal and work opportunity experiences associated with coming out in the workplace as LGBTQ. Design/methodology/approach The current study surveyed 135 working adults who identified as LGBTQ and used a mixed qualitative and quantitative design to examine the relationship between disclosure and various positive workplace experiences. Findings Results suggest that sexual orientation disclosure at work was related to participants perceiving multiple positive interpersonal as well as work opportunity experiences. Furthermore, results suggest gender identity disclosure was similar to, but not the same as, sexual orientation disclosure in terms of perception of positive experiences. Originality/value Previous research on disclosure at work has taken a somewhat narrow and typically quantitative approach. The current study provides more nuance to the phenomenon by broadly examining multiple positive experiences associated with disclosure and studying them qualitatively in order to best understand participants' experiences in their own voices.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| 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".