“Discredited identity”

Sample Solution

Goffman, Erving. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity, Prentice-Hall Inc., 1963. When discussing people with disabilities, Erving Goffman use the term “discredited identity” to refer to individuals who have been assigned a negative social status due to their physical or mental impairment (Goffman 1963). This is largely compounded by how society views disabilities as something undesirable and even shameful which can lead to feelings of stigma or worthlessness in those affected. This idea of being “discredited” has played an important role in shaping the way disabled individuals interact with others; often leading them to keep their disability hidden from public view in order avoid judgement and discrimination (Tromp et al., 2018). The concept of a discredited identity is closely related to group pride which refers to collective positive regard for one’s own social category (Dovidio & Gaertner 2020). People with disabilities may be less likely to show public displays of pride in their identity due this perceived discrediting . Society itself tends to discourage such expressions since it contradicts common stereotypes about disability being something that should be kept out of sight and not celebrated openly . Even today ,the media continues to portray disabled people in a negative light as helpless victims instead of capable citizens worthy of respect (Szymanski & Chung 2020). Furthermore ,internalized stigma also plays a part here as some disabled people may feel reluctant towards identifying themselves publicly because they fear what others might think or say (Jorm et al., 2012 ). This can create additional levels of insecurity which may cause some members within this marginalized community to shy away from expressing themselves outwardly regardless of how proud they actually are internally.

eye to it based on faith in autonomous auditing organizations. These standards can be supplemented by both qualitative and quantitative concepts. Reworking the auditing boundaries by segregation of tasks between the insiders and the outsiders (separation of task from ownership). Also, by hindering the propagation of self-structured image of companies through networks. Internal seniors and auditing company can also define information sharing system that is more transparent for the actors analyzing the final report (sans any restriction from either institution).

Conclusion

Measures give structure because they force the aspects of on environment to conform to the interventions set up by the superior hierarchy in order to allow for comparison and better development of the environment overall. Industries and sectors are complex and different from one another in many ways, they are complicated and vague. Therefore, they can never capture all aspects of activities or performances that are measured. Even with the continuous evolution of standardization process, there will always be areas left uncovered or not completely standardized to enable better performance. These changes will always be a moving target for those who invest their time in finding way to manipulate the system, and search for loopholes. Transparency is a referral more than practiced even if it is believed to lead to a stronger governance. Auditing too, will take on many forms in different sectors based on the needs for standardization for example the weight awarded to detection vs prevention. These methods will always be needed for in their absence there would be poor administration, a higher chance of deception and inefficient culture in the organization. Not all aspects that are measured are the ones that matter as we saw in the cases described above, in a social environment, these standards cannot blindly adopt to the rules set up by the mainstream industries since they have different areas that need attention. Similarly, with the presence of individuals looking to manipulate the system, there will be aspects that even when measured do not fully ca