Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T03:56:30.430Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

No place for old women: a critical inquiry into age in later working life

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2016

ANN THERESE LOTHERINGTON ,
AUD OBSTFELDER  and
SUSAN HALFORD
ANN THERESE LOTHERINGTON*
Affiliation:
Centre for Women's and Gender Research, Faculty of Social Sciences, Humanities and Teacher Education, UiT the Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
AUD OBSTFELDER
Affiliation:
Centre for Care Research, NTNU in Gjøvik, Norway.
SUSAN HALFORD
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, Social Policy & Criminology, Faculty of Social and Human Sciences, University of Southampton, UK.
*
Address for correspondence: Ann Therese Lotherington, UiT the Arctic University of Norway, P.O. Box 6050 Langnes, 9037 Tromsø, Norway E-mail: ann.t.lotherington@uit.no
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Western countries currently face pressing demands to transform the labour market participation of older workers, in order to address the pressing economic and social challenges of an ageing population. However, in this article we argue that our understanding of older workers is limited by a dominant discourse that emphasises individuals rather than organisations; and valorises youth as the performative aspiration for all workers, regardless of age. To see things differently, and to see different things, we offer a novel analytical synthesis that combines insights from post-foundational feminist theory, the 2007 film No Country for Old Men and an empirical study of older nurses working in the Norwegian public health-care system. Our aim is to provide the foundations for alternative interventions in the world of work that might underpin a more sustainable future for older workers.

Keywords

ageingorganisationsgenderfeminist theoryfilm
Type
Articles
Information
Ageing & Society , Volume 37 , Issue 6 , July 2017 , pp. 1156 - 1178
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acker, J. 1990. Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: a theory of gendered organizations. Gender and Society, 4, 2, 139–58.Google Scholar
Ainsworth, S. and Hardy, C. 2008. The enterprising self: an unsuitable job for an older worker. Organization, 15, 3, 389–405.Google Scholar
Alvesson, M. and Skjöldberg, K. 2009. Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research. Sage, London.Google Scholar
Berg, M. and Mol, A. (eds) 1998. Differences in Medicine. Unravelling Practices, Techniques and Bodies. Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina.Google Scholar
Biggs, S. 2004. Age, gender, narratives and masquerades. Journal of Aging Studies, 18, 1, 45–58.Google Scholar
Blog 2008. No Country for Old Men: A Somewhat Complete Analysis. Available online at http://toomanycupcakes.blogspot.no/2008/03/no-country-for-old-men-somewhat.html [Accessed 12 January 2015].Google Scholar
Borghans, L. and Weel, B. T. 2002. Do Older Workers Have More Trouble Using a Computer Than Younger Workers? ROA-RM-2002/1E, Research Centre for Education and the Labour Market, University of Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Brannen, J. and Nilsen, A. 2013. Methodological approaches, practices and reflections. In Nilsen, A., Brannen, J. and Lewis, S. (eds), Transitions to Parenthood in Europe. Policy Press, Bristol, UK, 27–40.Google Scholar
Busch, T., Johnsen, E., Klausen, K. K. and Vanebo, J. O. 2011. Modernisering av offentlig sektor. Trender, ideen og praksiser. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo.Google Scholar
Butler, J. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
Chatrakul Na Ayudhya, U., Smithson, J. and Lewis, S. 2014. Focus group methodology in a life course approach – individual accounts within a peer cohort group. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 17, 2, 157–71.Google Scholar
Duncan, C. and Loretto, W. 2004. Never the right age? Gender and age-based discrimination in employment. Gender, Work and Organization, 11, 1, 97–115.Google Scholar
Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S. and Tinkler, J. 2006. Digital Era Governance: IT Corporations, the State and E-Government. Oxford University Press, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Featherstone, M. and Hepworth, M. 1991. The mask of ageing and the postmodern lifecourse. In Featherstone, M., Hepworth, M. and Turner, B. (eds), The Body: Social Processes and Cultural Theory. Sage, London, 371–389.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 1972. The Archaeology of Knowledge. Tavistock, New York.Google Scholar
Friedberg, L. 2003. The impact of technological change on older workers: evidence from data on computer use. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 56, 3, 511–29.Google Scholar
Halford, S., Kukarenko, N., Lotherington, A. T. and Obstfelder, A. 2015. Technical change and the un/troubling of gendered ageing in healthcare work. Gender, Work and Organization, 22, 5, 495–509.Google Scholar
Halford, S., Lotherington, A. T., Dyb, K. and Obstfelder, A. 2010. Un/doing gender with ICT? NORA: Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, 18, 1, 20–37.Google Scholar
Halford, S., Obstfelder, A. and Lotherington, A. T. 2009. Beyond implementation and resistance: how the delivery of ICT policy is reshaping healthcare. Policy and Politics, 37, 1, 113–28.Google Scholar
Haraway, D. 1991. Situated knowledges. The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. In Haraway, D. (ed.), Simians, Cyborgs and Women. The Reinvention of Nature. Free Association Books, London, 183–201.Google Scholar
Haraway, D. 1996. Modest witness: feminist diffractions in science studies. In Galison, P. and Stump, D. J. (eds), The Disunity of Science, Boundaries, Contexts, and Power. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, 428–45.Google Scholar
Haraway, D. 1997. Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium. FemaleMan©_Meets_OncoMouse. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Haraway, D. 2004. The Haraway Reader. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Holweg, M. 2007. The genealogy of lean production. Journal of Operations Management, 25, 2, 420–37.Google Scholar
Krekula, C. 2007. The intersection of age and gender. Reworking gender theory and social gerontology. Current Sociology, 55, 2, 155–71.Google Scholar
Law, J. and Singleton, V. 2012. ANT and Politics: Working in and on the World. URL: www.sv.uio.no/sai/english/research/projects/newcomers/publications/working-papers-web/ant-and-politics.pdf [Accessed 25 January 2016].Google Scholar
Loretto, W., Vickerstaff, S. and White, P. 2009. The Future for Older Workers. Policy Press, Bristol, UK.Google Scholar
Lotherington, A. T. and Obstfelder, A. 2014. ‘Du må være ung for å henge med i dag!’ Inkluderings- og ekskluderingsmekanismer på det høyteknologiske sykehuset. Søkelys på arbeidslivet, 31, 1/2, 118–35.Google Scholar
Mol, A. 2002. The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina.Google Scholar
Mol, A. 2008. The Logic of Care. Health and the Problem of Patient Choice. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 2013. Ageing and Employment Policies: Norway 2013: Working Better with Age. OECD Publishing, Paris.Google Scholar
Posthuma, R. A. and Campion, M. A. 2009. Age stereotypes in the workplace: common stereotypes, moderators, and future research directions. Journal of Management, 35, 1, 158–88.Google Scholar
Riach, K. and Kelly, S. 2015. The need for fresh blood: understanding organizational age inequality through a vampiric lens. Organization, 22, 3, 287–305.Google Scholar
Rodriguez, K., Schwartz, J., Lahman, M. and Geist, M. 2011. Culturally responsive focus groups: reframing the research experience to focus on participants. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 10, 4, 400–17.Google Scholar
Thomas, R., Hardy, C., Cutcher, L. and Ainsworth, S. 2014. What's age got to do with it? On the critical analysis of age and organizations. Organization Studies, 35, 11, 1569–84.Google Scholar
Trethway, A. 1999. Disciplined bodies: women's embodied identities. Organization Studies, 20, 3, 423–50.Google Scholar
Sandelowski, M. 2000. Desires and Devices: Gender, Technology and American Nursing. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.Google Scholar
Sennett, R. 2008. The Craftsman. Penguin Books, London.Google Scholar
Strangleman, T. 2009. The Remembrance to a Lost Work: Nostalgia, Labour and the Visual. Available online at http://www.nowaytomakealiving.net/post/269/ [Accessed 12 January 2015].Google Scholar
Wajcman, J. 2004. TechnoFeminism. Polity Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Warr, D. 2005. ‘It was fun … but we don't usually talk about these things’: analyzing sociable interaction in focus groups. Qualitative Inquiry, 11, 2, 200–25.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, S. 1999. Focus groups: a feminist method. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 2, 221–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Health Organization 2002. Active Ageing. A Policy Framework. WHO/NMH/NPH/02.8, World Health Organization, Geneva.Google Scholar