Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 622

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Normalizing Dirty Work: Managerial Tactics For Countering Occupational Taint

E. Ashforth, Blake, E. Kreiner, Glen, A. Clark, Mark, Fugate, Mel·2007·Academy of Management Journal

Abstract

Dirty work refers to occupations that are viewed by society as physically, socially, or morally tainted. Using exploratory, semistructured interviews with managers from 18 dirty work occupations, we investigated the challenges of being a manager in tainted work and how managers normalize taint--that is, actively counter it or render it less salient. Managers reported experiencing role complexity and stigma awareness. Four types of practices for countering taint were revealed: occupational ideologies, social buffers, confronting clients and the public, and defensive tactics. We discuss links between these practices.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5465/amj.2007.24162092

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 622

Metadata

Authors
E. Ashforth, B., E. Kreiner, G., A. Clark, M., & Fugate, M.
Venue
Academy of Management Journal
Published
2007-02
Volume
50
Issue
1
Pages
149-174
ISSN
  • 0001-4273 (ISSN-L)
  • 1948-0989
OpenAlex
W2049412439
Cited by
622
References
3
FWCI
20.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.