<scp>LGBTQI+</scp> professional accountants and the consequences of stigmatization: An identity work perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Using a qualitative research design and drawing on an identity work perspective, we explore how LGBTQI+ professional accountants relate their self‐identity to their professional occupation and manage their stigmatized identity at work. Sharing original empirical data from focus groups and semi‐structured interviews with LGBTQI+ professional accountants, we show how they engage in inward‐facing identity work by resisting stigmatizing pressures by conceiving of a self that is both outside the norm (“deviant”) and adapted to it (i.e., a deviant‐adapted self). However, we also find that stigmatized identities can be embraced by participants as legitimate sources of distinct professional dispositions and a more powerful work ethic. This finding offers a less confrontational view of how marginalized identities and sexuality intersect with the accounting profession. In outward‐facing processes of identity work, we show considerable variations in how and when participants communicate about their stigmatized identity. Finally, we highlight the collective dynamic of stigma management as a fundamental condition of possibility for targets to overcome the limits of atomized individual action. However, this collective dynamic entails the risk of all targets being absorbed into a collective representation and social‐identity that either makes them invisible, or directly opposes certain aspects of their self‐identity. In this respect, we show how some of our participants actively contribute to the creation of a collective social‐identity to combat stigmatization within firms, which in turn generates symbolic power differentials and symbolic violence within LGBTQI+ professional accountants.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 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".