Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This article explores the role of social construction in public administrators’ differential treatment of older Americans as a vulnerable population during the COVID-19 pandemic. The analysis compares differences in how both federal and state web sites reacted to information that increased age and male sex correlated with negative COVID-19 outcomes and relates these differences in presentation to hegemonic constructions of each group.

Keywords

Social construction intersectionality age discrimination

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alvarez

and Porac

(2020). Imagination, indeterminacy and managerial choice at the limit of knowledge. Academy of Management Review, 45(4) 725–744.

Bearfield

(2009). Equity at the intersection: Public administration and the study of gender. Public Administration Review 69(3), 383–386.

Bell

(2020). Diversity in Organizations, 2nd ed. Mason, OH: Southwestern Cengage Learning.

Berger

and Luckman

(1966). The. Social Construction of Reality. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Bhopal

and Bhopal

(2020). Sex differential in COVID-19 mortality. Lancet. Accessed at the lancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31748-71/fulltext.

Breslin

, Pandey

and Riccucci

(2017). Intersectionality in public leadership research: A review and future research agenda. Review of Public Personnel Administration 37(2), 160–182.

Burnier

(2006). Masculine markets and feminine care: A gender analysis of the National Performance Review. Public Administration Review 66(6), 861–872.

California Department of Public Health (2020). COVID 19. Accessed at cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/immunization/ncov2019.aspx.

Carbado

(2013). Colorblind Intersectionality. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 38(4), 511–545.

10.

Davis

(2008). Intersectionality as buzzword: A sociology of science perspective on what makes a feminist theory successful.” Feminist Theory 9(1), 67–85.

11.

Diekman

and Eagly

2000. Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women and men of the past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 26(10), 1171–1188.

12.

Gerring

(2004). What is a case study and what is it good for? American Political Science Review 98(2), 341–354.

13.

Goldberg

(2000). Age Works. New York: Free Press.

14.

Griffiths

, Sharma

, Holliday

, Enyia

, Valliere

, Semlow

, Stewart

and Blumenthal

(2020). Men and COVID-19: A Biopsychosocial approach to understanding sex differences in mortality and recommendations for practice and policy interventions. Preventing Chronic Disease, 17, July. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5888/pcd17200247.

15.

Hall

, Zavattaro

, Battaglio

R. P.

, and Hail

(2020). Global reflection, conceptual exploration, and evidentiary assimilation: COVID-19 viewpoint symposium introduction. Public Administration Review 80(4), 590–594.

16.

Hakivsky

(2014). Rethinking care ethics: On the premise and potential of an intersectional analysis.” American Political Science Review 108(2), 252–264.

17.

Haslanger

(2012). Resisting Reality: Social Construction and Social Critique. New York: Oxford University Press.

18.

Ingols

and Blake-Beard

(2011). Using power to influence outcomes: Does gender matter? Journal of Management Education 35(5), 713–748.

19.

Jin

, Bai

, He

, Wu

, Liu

, Han

, Liu

, and Yang

2020. Gender differences in patients with COVID-19: Focus on severity and mortality. Frontiers in Public Health. Accessed at frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/Fpub2020.00152/full.

20.

Julnes

(2012). Engaging Hispanics in governance: A social constructivist interpretation. In The State of Citizen Participation in America, 195–224, ed. Schachter

and Yang

. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

21.

Kettl

2020. States divided: The implications of American federalism for COVID-19. Public Administration Review. 80(4), 595–602.

22.

Knox

, Lowe

, and Mummolo

(2020). Administrative records mask racially biased policing. American Political Science Review 114(3), 619–637.

23.

Letherby

, Scott

, and Williams

(2013). Objectivity and Subjectivity in Social Research. London: Sage.

24.

Levy

(2017). Age-stereotype paradox: opportunity for social change. The Gerontologist. 57 (suppl 2), S118–S126.

25.

Lopez

(1994). The social construction of race. Harvard Civil Rights Civil Liberties Law Review 29(1), 1–62.

26.

Makita

, Mas-Bleda

, Stuart

, and Thelwell

(2019). Aging, old age, and older adults: a social media analysis of dominant topics and discourses,” Ageing and Society, first view 1–26. Doi:10.1017SO144686X19001016.

27.

Mintrom

and O'Connor

(2020). The importance of policy narrative: Effective government responses to COVID-19. Policy Design and Practice https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2020.1813358.

28.

Mississippi State Department of Health (2020). High Risk Individuals. Accessed at msdh.ms.gov/msdhsite/static/14.0420.html.

29.

New Jersey. (2020). COVID-19 Information Hub. Accessed at covidl9.nj.gov.

30.

New York State. (2020). Information on Novel Coronavirus. Accessed at coronavirus.health.ny.gov/protect-yourself-and-your-family-coronavirus-covid-19.

31.

Norris

and Reddick

(2013). Local e-government in the United States: Transformation or incremental change? Public Administration Review 73, 1, 165–175.

32.

Outshoorn

(2002). Gendering the ‘graying’ of society: a discourse analysis of the care gap. Public Administration Review 62, 2, 185–196.

33.

Perry

and Nigg

(1985). Emergency management strategies for communicating hazard information. Public Administration Review 45 (special issue), 72–77.

34.

Piotrowski

and Liao

(2012). The usability of government information: The necessary link between transparency and participation, 77–98. In The State of Citizen Participation in America ed. Schachter

and Yang

. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

35.

Rejda

1999. Social Insurance and Economic Security, sixth ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

36.

Riccucci

(2002). Managing Diversity in Public Sector Workforces. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

37.

Roberts

(2020). The third and fatal shock: How pandemic killed the millennial paradigm. Public Administration Review 80 (4), 603–609.

38.

Schachter

(2010). Objective and subjective measures: A note on terminology. Administration and Society 42(5), 550–567.

39.

Schachter

(2013). Constructing age through bona fide occupational qualifications: De jure discrimination's last stand? Public Administration Quarterly 37(3), 374–392.

40.

Schneider

and Ingram

(1997). Policy Design for Democracy. Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas Press.

41.

Schon

(1979). A meta-analysis of age differences in job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 71(1):1, 33–38.

42.

Soedirgo

and Glas

(2020). Toward active reflexivity: Positionality and practice in the production of knowledge. PS: Political Science and Politics 53(3), 527–531.

43.

Soss

(1999). Lessons of welfare: Policy design, political learning, and political action. American Political Science Review 93(2), 363–380.

44.

Soss

(2006). Talking our way to meaningful explanations: A practice-centered approach to in-depth interviews for interpretative research, 127–149. In Interpretation and Method, ed. Yanow

and Schwartz-Shea

. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

45.

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. (2020). Stay Strong South Carolina. Accessed at scdhec.gov/infectious-disease-2019-COVID-19/are-you-higher-risk-severe-illness-COVID-19.

46.

Takahashi

. (2020). Sex differences in immune responses that underlie COVID-19. Nature https.//doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2700-3(2020).

47.

Texas Health and Human Services. (2020). Coronavirus Disease. Accessed at dshs.texas.gov/coronavirus/.

48.

Van Dooren

and Noordegraaf

(2020). Staging science: Authoritativeness and fragility of models and measurements in the COVID-19 crisis. Public Administration Review 80 (4), 610–615.

49.

Wagenaar

(2011). Meaning in Action: Interpretation and Dialogue in Policy Analysis. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

50.

Walter

and McGregor

(2020). Sex- and gender-specific observations and implications for COVID-19. Western Journal of Emergency Medicine 21(3), 507–509.

51.

Weible

, Nohrstedt

, Cairney

, Carter

, Durnova

, Heikkila

, Ingold

, McConnell

, and Stone

(2020). COVID-19 and the policy sciences: Initial reactions and perspectives. Policy Sciences 53, 225–241.

52.

Weick

(1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

53.

Wisconsin Department of Health Services (2020). Are You at Higher Risk? Accessed at dhs.wisconsin.gov/COVID-19/risks.htm.

54.

Wright

and Merritt

(2020). Social equity and COVID-19: The case of African Americans, Public Administration Review 80, 5, 820–826.

55.

Yanow

(1996). American ethnogenesis and public administration. Administration and Society 27(4), 483–509.

56.

Yanow

(2000). Conducting Interpretative Policy Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

57.

Young

(2020). Implementation of digital-era governance: The case of open data in U.S. cities. Public Administration Review 80(2), 305–315.

Social Construction of Vulnerable Populations: The Case of Age in the COVID-19 Pandemic

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References