‘I wasn’t my authentic self': identity concealment during placement-based work-integrated learning among students from equity-deserving groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores how students from equity-deserving groups (EDGs) manage concealable stigmatized identities during placement-based work-integrated learning (WIL). Through thematic analysis of interviews with 36 participants, we identify students’ motivations for identity concealment or disclosure, the strategies they use, the impacts on their WIL experiences, and their recommendations for institutional support. Students concealed identities to access work, avoid detection, and conform to organizational norms, while others disclosed identities to self-verify and embrace authenticity. Partial disclosure and full concealment emerged as key strategies, shaped by perceptions of workplace receptivity and the temporary nature of WIL experiences. The findings reveal that identity concealment impacts students’ social relationships and well-being in complicated ways and usually undermines the educative potential of WIL. Students called on institutions to address identity stigmatization by equipping employers with tools to support diversity, including improving job advertisement transparency, offering workplace cultural safety training, and facilitating meaningful student-employer interactions. By amplifying students’ voices, this study provides actionable insights for institutions to create culturally safe WIL environments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".