Feminism, Masculinity, and Active Representation: A Gender Analysis of Representative Bureaucracy

• DOI: 10.1177/0095399719888470
• Date: 01 August 2020
• Published date: 01 August 2020
• Author: Sebawit G. Bishu,Alexis R. Kennedy,Nuri Heckler
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399719888470

Administration & Society

2020, Vol. 52(7) 1101 –1130

© The Author(s) 2019

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0095399719888470

journals.sagepub.com/home/aas

Article

Feminism, Masculinity,

and Active

Representation: A

Gender Analysis

of Representative

Bureaucracy

Alexis R. Kennedy1, Sebawit G. Bishu1,

and Nuri Heckler2

Abstract

Representative bureaucracy examines how identity impacts bureaucratic

decision-making. Under certain circumstances, identity congruence between

government officials and citizens will result in positive outcomes. This article

explores how representative bureaucracy literature studies the effects of

gender identity and matching. Although studies demonstrate that context

and organizational environment impact identity, scholars don’t systematically

analyze how outcomes are affected by gender, rely predominantly on binary

gender variables, seldom acknowledge organizations as masculine spaces,

and don’t problematize masculinity. Using critical gender theory, we offer

new proposals for how to expand our understanding of institutionalized

gender norms as they relate to public sector decisions.

Keywords

representative bureaucracy, gender, masculinity, outcomes

1University of Colorado Denver, USA

2University of Nebraska Omaha, USA

Corresponding Author:

Alexis R. Kennedy, School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado Denver, 1380 Lawrence St

#500, Denver, CO 80204, USA.

Email: alexis.kennedy@ucdenver.edu

888470AASXXX10.1177/0095399719888470Administration & SocietyKennedy et al.

research-article2019

1102 Administration & Society 52(7)

The study of representative bureaucracy is the normative theory that indi-

viduals in society will more likely have their needs met if public servants

share their demographics, beliefs, or values. Hannah Pitkin (1967) defined

passive or descriptive representation as “being something rather than doing

something” (p. 209). She later argued that representation should not end at

shared demographic identity but should extend to doing something in the

interest of represented groups. In representative bureaucracy literature, gen-

der identity is a significant determinant of client outcomes. However, primar-

ily due to the quantitative analytical nature of most research on representative

bureaucracy, the meaning and impact of gender is underexplored. Instead,

demographic information collected through surveys and censuses are used as

proxies to determine whether bureaucrats and their clients who share gender

characteristics create positive outcomes for the represented group. Although

studies have acknowledged that context and organizational environment

impact identity (Meier, 2018), representative bureaucracy scholars have not

systematically analyzed how outcomes are affected by gender, have relied

predominantly on quantitative methods that use binary gender variables,

have seldom acknowledged that organizations and institutions are masculine

spaces, and have not problematized masculinity in organizations.

While the questions explored by critical gender theory and representative

bureaucracy studies are not the same—representative bureaucracy deals with

representation by bureaucrats, whereas critical gender theory explores how

gender is institutionalized in society—when studying gender representation,

public administration scholars can benefit from critical gender literature. By

aligning representative bureaucracy conditions with critical gender theory,

this article offers a way to unlock some of the contextual pressures surround-

ing the gendered nature of citizens, bureaucrats, organizations, policies, and

program areas.

In this article, we assess the application of representative bureaucracy

studies through the lens of critical gender theory at societal, organizational,

and individual levels. First, we theoretically ground our understanding of

sex and gender in an acknowledgment of the pervasiveness of masculinity

in society. Second, we discuss how most public organizations are gendered

institutions, molded based on a “masculine ethic” (Connell, 2006; Duerst-

Lahti & Kelly, 1995). Third, we assess how current literature in representa-

tive bureaucracy explores identity within different contexts including

policy areas, geographies, and demographic identities. We demonstrate

how conditions in which representative bureaucracy create positive out-

comes for individuals, such as identity salience, discretion, critical mass,

and environmental pressures, are effectively understood through the use of

critical gender theory.