key: cord-0798434-l7p0sxqu
authors: Branicki, Layla J.
title: COVID‐19, Ethics of Care, and Feminist Crisis Management
date: 2020-06-17
journal: Gend Work Organ
DOI: 10.1111/gwao.12491
sha: 5b7d50c103bae55954be3d809348d86f44a643ae
doc_id: 798434
cord_uid: l7p0sxqu

The COVID‐19 pandemic threatens both lives and livelihoods. To reduce the spread of the virus, governments have introduced crisis management interventions that include border closures, quarantines, strict social distancing, marshaling of essential workers and enforced homeworking. COVID‐19 measures are necessary to save the lives of some of the most vulnerable people within society, and yet in parallel they create a range of negative everyday effects for already marginalized people. Likely unintended consequences of the management of the COVID‐19 crisis include elevated risk for workers in low‐paid, precarious, and care‐based employment, over‐representation of minority ethnic groups in case numbers and fatalities, and gendered barriers to work. Drawing upon feminist ethics of care, I theorize a radical alternative to the normative assumptions of rationalist crisis management. Rationalist approaches to crisis management are typified by utilitarian logics, masculine and militaristic language, and the belief that crises follow linear processes of signal detection, preparation/prevention, containment, recovery, and learning. By privileging the quantifiable ‐ resources and measurable outcomes ‐ such approaches tend to omit considerations of pre‐existing structural disadvantage. This paper contributes a new theorization of crisis management that is grounded in feminist ethics to provide a care‐based concern for all crisis affected people.

how anthropogenic (human-made) crises can be transformed by feminism towards a sustainable future (e.g., see Biesecker & von Winterfeld, 2018) . In contrast, I focus on how institutions and organizations manage high impact, low probability exogenous crisis events (Pearson & Clair, 1998) . This paper responds to calls for organizational concepts of care to be "grounded in philosophies of care rather than business theories" (Elley-Brown & Pringle, 2019, p. 1). By drawing on the ethics of care approach brought to prominence by Carol Gilligan (1993) , I propose that crisis management ought to be considered "…not as a math problem with humans but a narrative of relationships that extend over time…" (Gilligan, 1993, p. 28) . Gilligan (1993, p. 62) suggests that, "The ideal of care is thus an activity of relationship, of seeing and responding to need, taking care of the world by sustaining the web of connection so that no one is left alone." This conceptualization emphasizes the importance of ongoing, interdependent relationships as sites of care (Lawrence & Maitlis, 2012; Sevenhiujsen, 2003) and in so doing brings discourses of care from the background of crisis management to its foreground. Held (2006) contends that recognizing the ethical centrality of care is transformative, because it shifts the normative focus towards issues that are often marginalized, makes these issues visible, and in so doing improves lives.

I begin by reflecting on the complications and concerns that arise from the approaches adopted to managing the COVID-19 pandemic, before unpacking the assumptions and dimensions of rationalist crisis management in more detail. Next, drawing upon an ethics of care perspective I present a feminist alternative to rational crisis management, entailing a heightened appreciation of reciprocal care and relational needs and capacities within a feminist crisis management. Finally, I outline the social change that could be provoked by a care-based approach to crisis management.

As I write this paper, on the 15th of May 2020, the novel influenza virus has infected 4,443,986 people and caused 302,468 deaths (John Hopkins, 2020) . Troubling images of the effects of the virusbody bags, overwhelmed medical facilities and hazmat suits -have become "matter out of place" (Douglas, 1966) . In Italy, the US and the UK, the number of severe COVID-19 cases (i.e. those requiring hospitalization) has exceeded the capacity of hospitals, medical personnel, and healthcare supply chains to respond. The threat posed by a novel influenza outbreak was well known. In the 100 years prior to 2019, there had been four major influenza outbreaks: "Spanish Influenza" in 1918/19, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in 2003, "Swine Influenza" (H1N1) in 2009, and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) since 2012 (CDC, 2019a (CDC, , 2019b . "Spanish Flu" is estimated to have caused between 20-50 million deaths worldwide (CDC, 2018), casting a long institutional shadow and becoming totemic of the risks posed by a runaway novel influenza outbreak. References to the outbreak still appear in national risk registers globally (e.g. UK National Risk Register, 2008). More recently, SARS and MERS were largely contained through traditional public health interventions, such as, quarantine and contact checking (Bell, 2004) , and H1N1 spread to a large population but produced only moderately severe illness (WHO, 2009) . Despite prior knowledge about the threat posed by a novel influenza outbreak the people, health systems, businesses and legislative authorities of many countries were insufficiently prepared for COVID-19.

The management of the COVID-19 crisis has led to unprecedented impacts. In a first wave of crisis measures, the virus was constructed as a threat from the outside. Countries such as Australia closed their borders to visitors and introduced enforced quarantines for returning citizens and residents. As evidence of community transmission emerged, a second wave of crisis measures were introduced. Many countries issued social distancing guidance that recommended staying six feet from other people (CDC, April 4, 2020) and/ or introduced "shelter-in-place" orders that required residents to only leave their homes for "essential activities" (City and County of San Francisco, 2020) . Together, these measures transformed daily life. COVID-19 policies originated from government but were translated into action by organizations. Employers made decisions about whether, when, and how to move to remote working. Although some of us were required to stay at home, essential workerssuch as cleaners, doctors, nurses, porters, supermarket cashiers, and delivery drivers -were asked to stay at work. As more people self-isolated, businesses struggled to remain financially viable and millions of employees were furloughed or lost their jobs. Globally, it is estimated that COVID-19 will lead to the loss of up to 195 million full-time jobs (International Labor Organization, 2020) . The world was waking up to a new reality triggered by a large-scale public health crisis and worsened by the threat posed to the economic system. How a crisis is managed can result in unintended consequences (Grabowski and Roberts, 1997) . Evidence began to emerge that people from already structurally disadvantaged groups were being disproportionately impacted by both COVID-19 and the measures put in place to control its spread. An American study found that structural factorshealthcare access, density of household, and unemploymenthad contributed to counties with a higher composition of African Americans experiencing greater rates of both COVID-19 infection and death (Barron-Lopez, 2020). In England, people are more likely to die from COVID-19 if they live in a socio-economically deprived area (Pidd, Barr & Mohdin, 2020) .

Those in low-paid care-based employment, disproportionately women and people from ethnic minority backgrounds, also face disproportionate risks as the essentialness of their roles and precarity of their employment reduces their ability to stay at home. A recent United Nations report (2020, p. 2) highlights that "the impacts of COVID-19 are exacerbated for women and girls simply by virtue of their sex." The report goes on to say that due to COVID-19 women are facing compounded economic impacts due to the disproportionately precarious nature of their work, adverse health effects due to the redirection of resources, greater levels of unpaid work, and increased exposure to gender-based violence. COVID-19 is likely to have long-run impacts on workplace equality, as women are potentially excluded from a shrinking job market and/ or experience stalled career progression. Alessandra Minello (2020, paragraph 7), speaking about academia in an article in Nature, argued "in the long run, these changes in productivity will affect careers. Those with fewer care duties are aiming for the stars."

Crises, and crisis management, have become the subject of a growing and increasingly prominent strand of management research and practice (see Bundy et al., 2017; Williams et al., 2017 for reviews), with major strands of research oriented to organizational preparation for, mitigation of, and learning from crisis events (what Bundy et al., 2017 call the "internal" approach), and communication with, and management of, stakeholders affected by crisis events (referred to as the "external" approach by Bundy et al., 2017) . In order to critically reflect on and surface the often implicit ethical assumptions inherent in mainstream crisis management research and practice, I focus on the classic and highly cited contributions of Mitroff and colleagues (Mitroff, 1988; Mitroff, Shrivastava, & Udwadia, 1987; Pearson & Mitroff, 1993) because they continue to exert considerable influence on crisis management research and practice, and exemplify the rational crisis management paradigm.

The principal ethical orientation of classical crisis management is ego-istic, calculative, and broadly utilitarian. Mitroff (1988) characterizes the central purpose of crisis management as addressing the following question: "Is there a rational way to select which potential crises an organization should prepare for, and which can be 'safely' ignored?" (Mitroff, 1988, p. 15 ), noting that "the trick is to think about potential crises as logically as you think about other business issues" (op. cit. p. 20). The objective of crisis management is principally to protect and sustain the organization, and only secondarily to protect and advance the interests of other stakeholders.

Crises are conceived of as "disasters precipitated by people, organizational structures, economics, and/or technology that cause extensive damage to human life and natural and social environments. They inevitably debilitate both the financial structure and the reputation of a large organization" (Mitroff et al., 1987, p. 283) . The discourse of crisis management emphasizes the calculation of impacts in financial, legal or human terms, and implicit in classic crisis management is a boundedly rational calculus, in which a focal organization is seen as weighing the costs and benefits associated with planning for and mitigating specific crisis events. For example, Mitroff et al. (1987, p. 283 ) cite the following motivating insight regarding the incidence and impacts of crises, "The number of product-injury lawsuits terminating in million-dollar awards has increased dramatically in the past decade: In 1974 fewer than 2,000 product injury lawsuits were filed in U.S. courts; by 1984, the number had jumped to 10,000".

Central to most models of crisis management (for classic conceptualization see Pearson and Mitroff, 1993) are the assumptions of linear multi-stage crisis processes, and clearly delineated, bounded, and relatively brief, crisis events. Crisis management encompasses: (i) the pre-crisis phase which focuses on detecting/ identifying/ anticipating and preparing for crises, to reduce the likelihood of a crisis emerging, and to ensure that the organization is as prepared as it can be; (ii) the during crisis phase, where the organization is concerned to manage/respond to the crisis and to mitigate its effects; and (iii) the post-crisis phase, emphasizing recovery and repair, in which the organization takes measures to return to "normal" and to learn from a given event in the hope that it isn't repeated in future.

Together, the stages of crisis management emphasize the agency of firms at various points in the crisis management process, and the capacity of firms to avoid, mitigate, and learn from crises. Inherent to crisis management is a philosophy of crises being "manageable", even to the point that "organizations do create the crises they face in the special sense that the kinds of early warning, prevention, damage limitation, learning and recovery mechanisms they institute are one of the most important factors affecting what kinds of crises occur" (Mitroff, 1988, p. 20) . This extends to deploying discourse that characterizes adverse events that affect an organization as being the result of various "failures", "faults", "deficiencies" or as a reflection of "poor company culture" (Mitroff et al., 1987, p. 288) .

Regarding how rational crisis management conceives of the management of crises, the emphasis lies with the need to develop a specialist organizational function charged with managing crises. As Pearson and Mitroff (1993) put it, crisis management requires that, An appropriate infrastructure must be in place…Permanent crisis management teams must be established…membership on such teams includes all functions and specialities required to deal with crises, such as the CEO and top executives from operations, legal, human resources, management information systems, security and safety, environmental health, public affairs, and finance (1993, p. 54 ).

Thus, the emphasis is on coordination via a specialist managerial function which leverages the full authority and hierarchical power of the organization's senior management.

Before embarking on a discussion of ethics of care and how it might inform the theory and practice of crisis management, it is important to recognize that conceptualizations of crisis appear frequently in feminist works and to distinguish crisis as understood in feminist writing from crisis management as a specific activity undertaken within institutions and organizations in society. Feminist writing in sociology and political science has problematized a focus on specific crises, in favor of provoking a broader recognition of the endemic presence and wider societal significance of notions of crisis. For example, Otto (2011) highlights that "crises have become an everyday technique of global governance, authorizing the operation of a more hegemonic legal order and reducing (though not eliminating) the space for political contestation and critique" (Otto, 2011, p. 6) . Similarly, Griffin (2015) critiques "neo-liberalism's gendered techniques of crisis governance, facilitating 'effective' crisis management while censoring challenges to the hierarchies, shock tactics and austerity measures on which crisis governance depends for its smooth operation" (Griffin, 2015, p. 67) . These accounts analyze crisis management at a societal level of analysis, placing an emphasis on how crises are leveraged to reinforce existing hegemonies.

A smaller body of work addresses how individuals (primarily women) draw upon care to overcome the challenges of large-scale crisis. For example, Meliou's (2020) qualitative study examines how female entrepreneurs in Greece drew upon familial resources of care during periods of financial crisis and austerity. In contrast, my concern in this paper is to explore the value of directing a feminist lens, in the specific form of ethics of care, to the management of specific crises at individual, organizational, and societal levels. Thus, notwithstanding the broader role of crisis in societal governance, my concern lies with feminizing the practices of crisis management at multiple levels of analysis.

In a conversation between Inbar Livnat and Paula-Irene Villa Braslavsky (2020) that appeared in Gender, Work & Organization's Feminist Frontiers a theme emerged regarding who or what "takes care of care" (p. 270). The conversation progressed to consider the "crisis of care" in capitalist economic settings, and the ways in which "everyday caring have to be taken care of by somebody, somehow; an arrangement, an organization, by other people." (Livnat & Braslavsky, 2019, p. 72) . These notions of care as solution, and care as liability, resonate with how the COVID 19 crisis has been managed. Notions of care are frequently invoked in relation to the management of the COVID-19 crisis. We are asked to take care for ourselves and each other by socially isolating. If we are parents, we are asked to care for children and their education as schools close. If we have been lucky enough to keep our jobs, we are expected to continue to care about our work and our productivity. We are even asked to care for the economy, by getting back to working and spending as normal. The management of COVID-19 has led to unbalanced expectations about who is doing caring (Minello, 2020) , masculinized ideals of competitive performance (Ivancheva, & Keating, 2019) , and for some a loss of access to care as resources are diverted towards the COVID crisis. These care-based discourses are problematic because they lack both (a) an intimate understanding of what it means to take, give, and receive care (Sevenhuijsen, 2003) , and (b) reflexivity regarding the likely gendered and other inequitable consequences of mobilizing care instrumentally towards managing the COVID crisis.

Carol Gilligan's (1993) [first published in 1982, 1993 edition referred to throughout] conceptualization of "ethic of care" provides a basis to illuminate the normative dimensions of crisis management and to feminize its focal concerns and praxis. Gilligan recasts moral problems as "problems of human relations" (1993, p. xix) and the approach to moral reasoning and action is therefore notably experiential. The ethic of care emerges from Gilligan's (1977, p. 482) search "…to identify in the feminine experience and construction of social reality a distinctive voice, recognizable in the different perspective it brings to bear on the construction and resolution of moral problems." Drawing on psychological interviewing techniques Gilligan was able to demonstrate that girls and women tended to speak differently about morality when compared to boys and men.

Jake's judgments reflect the logic of the justice approach. Her incipient awareness of the "method of truth," the central tenet of nonviolent conflict resolution, and her belief in the restorative activity of care, lead her to see the actors in the dilemma arrayed not as opponents in a contest of rights but as members of a network of relationships whose continuation they all depend upon. (Gilligan, 1993, p. 30 ). Gilligan (1993) therefore came to identify a paradox in that "…the very traits that traditionally have defined the "goodness" of women, their care for and sensitivity to the needs of others, are those that mark them as deficient in moral development" (1993, p. 18 ). Gilligan's research (1977 Gilligan's research ( , 1993 subsequently challenged Kohlberg's "so-called objective" (1993, p. xviii) position on the stages of moral judgment development (1993, p. 18) , reflecting that rather than being "…seen as a developmental deficiency, this bias appears to reflect a different social and moral understanding" (1977, p. 482 ). Gilligan went on to suggest, (1993, p. 18 ).

In the two excerpts above, Gilligan introduces four central tenants of her theory: non-violent conflict resolution, contextual and narrative understanding, the activity of care, and networks of relationships and responsibilities.

Nonviolence is central in Gilligan's writing, because "the injunction against hurting" enables a conceptualization of care that asserts "moral equality between the self and other and to include both in the compass of care" (1993, p. 90) . Moral equivalence between care for others and care for oneself is important because care is 'easy to sentimentalize and privatize' (Tronto, 1993, p. 118) . Held (2006, p. 95) clarifies that "neither is it satisfactory to think of caring relationships as merely what rational individuals may choose to care about as long as they give priority to universal, impartial, moral principles." Care in this sense is not a virtuous disposition (i.e. women behaving selflessly), but rather both a value and a practice (Held, 2006; Tronto, 1993) that is pursued relationally and results in enhancing the other's well-being (Noddings, 2003) . Care is also dependent upon context because it "is distorted if abstracted from particular contexts and specific relations" (Fitzgerald, 2020, p. 4 ).

Relationships, with others and larger society, are important in Gilligan's (1993) work because they are "sites of care" (Lawrence & Maitlis, 2012, p. 642) . Our individual lives are only possible because of our caring relationships with other people (Sevenhuijsen, 2003) .

Critical to Gilligan's (1993, p. 126 ) theory is the "rediscovery of connection, in the realization that self and other are interdependent and that life, however valuable in itself, can only be sustained by care in relationships." At the same time, ethics of care also reflect "the tie between relationship and responsibility" (Gilligan, 1993, p. 173) and therefore "concern about how to fulfill conflicting responsibilities to different people."

In Gilligan's (1993) approach, human relationships are not only socially but politically situated. As Held (2006, p. 95 ) explains, "turning everyone into a liberal individual leaves no one adequately attentive to relationships between persons, whether they be caring relations within the family or social relations holding communities together." Ethics of care challenge notions of neo-liberal individualism and resist the centrality of justice ethics and the primacy of rationality (Gilligan, 2011) . Ethics of care and justice are often presented as alternative moral positions (Gilligan, 1993; Lawrence & Maitlis, 2012) , however care can be understood as "the wider moral framework into which justice should be fitted" (Held, 2006, p. 71 ). The ethic of care perspective therefore critiques the norm of independent citizenship that is common to neo-liberal modes of governing and organizing and the centrality of individualism in many moral theories (Sevenhuijsen, 2003) .

Ethics of care have been applied in a wide range of management research settings. For example, Nicholson and Kurucz (2019) examine the potential for ethics of care to illuminate the ethical dimensions of relational leadership for sustainability. They conceptualized an ethical framework for relational leadership for sustainability that distinguishes between "what we do" ("caring for" and "caring about") and "who we are" (i.e. primacy of relationships, complexity in context, mutual wellbeing focus, engaging whole person) (Nicholson & Kurucz, 2019, p. 36) . Lawrence and Maitlis's (2012) conceptualize "how an ethic of care might be enacted inside organizations among their members" (p. 644) to understand organizations as potential "sites of care and compassion" (p. 659). They propose that the care enacted through discursive practices and everyday working relationships increases organizational members' feelings of support and connection. Carmeli, Brammer, Gomes, and Tarba (2017, p. 1380 ) also apply Gilligan's work at the organizational level of analysis to empirically examine "why and how an organizational EoC fosters employee involvement in sustainability-related behaviors at work." They found that organizations that exhibited care towards their employees foster higher levels of employee satisfaction and involvement in sustainability-related activities. The ethics of care perspective therefore enabled Carmeli et al. (2017) to provide a micro-foundational understanding of organizational sustainability.

A further relevant literature develops ethics of care in the context of public policy. Stensöta (2015, p. 185) suggests that while ethics of care were traditionally applied in carebased settings (e.g. nursing) that they are now being used "to dissect the current arrangement of care provision (or rather non-care provision) in policies and administrative procedures." A new strand of literature has thus developed on normative public policy. For example, Fitzgerald (2020) seeks to reimagine government through an application of ethics of care (understood as critical political theory), by creating a thought experiment about the creation of a "Department of Care" which provokes reconsideration of "the norms underpinning governments and institutions more broadly" (p. 9). Building on the work of Tronto (1993) , Sevenhuijsen's (2003) application of ethics of care to Dutch social policy provokes discussion of four key dimensions of care.

Caring about stands for the recognition that there is a need for care. The corresponding value is attentiveness. Essential to good care is the ability and willingness to put ourselves in a situation where we understand the needs and the perspectives of others. Taking care of consists of taking the necessary steps in the care situation in question. 'Taking care of' is based on the willingness and capacity to take responsibility that 'something' is done to provide for the need in question. Caregiving, the third dimension, consists of carrying out actual caring activities that ensure that the caring needs are met. This supposes that people have the competence and the resources for care-giving in accordance with what is needed in the situation concerned. Care receiving refers to the interaction between the care-giver and care recipient: for the caring process to succeed it is important that there is room for responsiveness in order to assure that the care receiver responds well to the care received. (Sevenhuijsen, 2003, p. 184) .

These granular notions of types of care are important because they enable a conceptual distinction to between the carrying out care (caregiving) which is often associated with carebased contexts, with recognition of the need for care (caring about), taking responsibility for care (taking care), and the connection between the care giver and care recipient (care receiving).

A multifaceted consideration of care highlights two complications. First, as Sevenhuijsen (2003) notes, ethics of care requires consideration of trust in the context of care-based relations. Sevenhuijsen (2003, p. 186) observes that if the care given and received becomes one-sided it exhibits an "asymmetrical reciprocity" which can lead to adverse effects such as paternalism, social divisions, or unhelpful role signification (e.g. "rescuer and victim"). Second, Jordan (2020, p. 21) , writing about "caring masculinity/ies" in the context of fathers' rights groups, raises a parallel point about the mobilization of care towards the notions or protection / protector. Jordan's (2020) work therefore highlights the importance of context within which narrative of care emerge and the complexities they provoke. Phillips and Willatt (2020, p.214) also recognize the possibility for "regressive and paternalistic care practices to emerge in relation to the raced, classed and gendered structures." Trust therefore matters to care, because without openness about vulnerability and an empathetic quality of understanding towards others, connection is eroded (Sevenhuijsen, 2003) .

Having considered the basic tenets of ethics of care, I now return to crisis management, and to more formally comparing rational crisis management literature with an alternative feminist crisis management informed by an ethic of care. Writing at the individual level of analysis, Gilligan (1993) makes two key observations about personal crisis: (a) that crisis reveals the "predicament of human relationships" (p. 108), and (b) that crisis can create "a return to a missed opportunity for growth" (1993, p. 109) . The link between crisis, caring (including self-care), social relationships and responsibility is also applicable to crisis at other levels of analysis. Prior work by Simola (2003) considers ethics of justice and care in the context of corporate crisis management. Simola's (2003) research is therefore primarily concerned with corporate responses to organizational crises, rather than a feminist perspective on crisis management. This is demonstrated in the article's conclusion, where Simola (2002, p. 358) suggests that, First, further consideration should be given to the circumstances under which one approach might be more appropriate than the other approach. Is there a particular set of circumstances under which corporate leaders might be well advised to use either an ethic of justice or an ethic of care?

Choosing between ethical framings depending upon their utility seems somewhat problematic in relation to how both ethics of care and justice are theorized (e.g., see Held, 2006) . I present my comparison of the rational approach to crisis management and feminist crisis management in table one, below. Table one contrasts the two alternative approaches to crisis management along several dimensions that relate to the underlying assumptions and understanding of crisis that each approach embodies. Table one encapsulates the key dimensions on which the alternative approaches differ. Regarding the underlying assumptions of crisis management, perhaps the principal points of divergence between the two approaches relate to their underlying logicsrespectively calculative and relationaland their assumptions regarding the objectives of crisis managementrespectively, a return to "normal" versus individual and social transformation. Rational crisis management emphasizes a weighing of costs and benefits and implementing practices that return a society or organization to its original state following a crisis. In contrast, a feminist crisis management might emphasize a relational logic grounded in preserving and extending relationships through a crisis through caring and seeing opportunities for a crisis to lead to a social transformation.

Perhaps the most significant points of difference in the two approaches' understandings of crises relate to assumptions about temporality and boundedness. Rational crisis management tends to see crises as episodes in isolationboth in the sense of isolation from broader contexts in which they arise, and in the sense of separation from other, related, crises that co-occur. In this view, crises are temporally and socially specific. In contrast, feminist crisis management would see crises as multiple and contextualized, as enduring and overlapping phenomena that are enmeshed and embedded within each other to a significant extent. Crises compound and confound each other within webs of relationships informed by care.

COVID-19 has shown the limitations of rational crisis management, and the need for an alternative approach grounded in different assumptions and oriented to distinct outcomes. Lawrence and Maitlis (2012) propose that ethic of care scholarship tends to focus more on theory than action, and in this paper I highlight the practical advantages that could flow from thinking and acting differently about crisis, especially socially disruptive extreme crises like COVID-19 that have multiple effects on societies globally. My analysis of crisis management is explicitly feminist in orientation and transformational in objective. I draw upon Gilligan's ethic of care as a theoretical viewpoint to "provide a language" for crisis management which could "…transform the social norms that impact on individual behavior and effect institutional and organizational arrangements" (Pullen, Lewis, & Ozkazanc-Pan, 2019, p. 3) .

To do this, I contrast rational crisis management and an alternative perspective that is concerned with caring about, taking care, care giving and care receiving (Sevenhuijsen, 2003) in the context of large-scale crisis events like COVID-19. I have proposed that feminist crisis management rests on fundamentally different foundations, embodies distinct behaviors, policies, and perspectives, seeks alternative ends, and follows alternative processes.

Coronavirus: Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern's full COVID-19 speech

A new study shows just how badly black Americans have been hit by Covid-19

Public health interventions and SARS spread

Dangerous knowledge: The political, personal, and epistemological promise of feminist research in management and organization studies

Notion of multiple crisis and feminist perspectives on social contract

Why resilience managers aren't resilient, and what human resource management can do about it

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

Crises and crisis management: Integration, interpretation, and research development

An organizational ethic of care and employee involvement in sustainability-related behaviors: A social identity perspective

History of 1918 Flu Pandemic

2009 H1N1 Pandemic (H1N1pdm09 virus)

Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS)

Social Distancing, Quarantine, and Isolation

City and County of San Francisco, Department of Public Health

Johnson says this is war

Stop calling coronavirus pandemic a 'war'. The Conversation

Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo

Sorge, Heideggerian Ethic of Care: Creating More Caring Organizations

Reimagining Government with the Ethics of Care: A Department of Care

In a different voice: Women's conceptions of self and of morality

In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development

Joining the Resistance

Risk mitigation in large-scale systems: Lessons from high reliability organizations

Crisis, austerity and gendered governance: a feminist perspective

Oxford: OUP. International Labor Organization (2020) ILO: COVID-19 causes devastating losses in working hours and employment

Precarity, gender and care in the neoliberal academy

COVID-19 Dashboard by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering

Masculinizing Care? Gender, Ethics of Care, and Fathers' Rights Groups

Care and possibility: Enacting an ethic of care through narrative practice

Who takes care of 'care'? Gender

Family as a eudaimonic bubble: Women entrepreneurs mobilizing resources of care during persistent financial crisis and austerity. Gender, Work & Organization

The pandemic and the female academic

Crisis management: Cutting through the confusion

Effective crisis management

National Risk Register of Civil Emergencies -2008 edition

Relational leadership for sustainability: Building an ethical framework from the moral theory of 'ethics of care'

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education

Remapping crisis through a feminist lens

Reframing crisis management

From crisis prone to crisis prepared: A framework for crisis management

Embodiment, care and practice in a community kitchen

Calls for health funding to be prioritised as poor bear brunt of Covid-19

A critical moment: 25 years of Gender

Public Ethics of Care: A General Public Ethics

The Case Against Waging 'War' on the Coronavirus

The place of care: The relevance of the feminist ethic of care for social policy

Ethics of justice and care in corporate crisis management

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic of care

Policy Brief: The Impact of COVID-19 on Women

Organizational response to adversity: Fusing crisis management and resilience research streams

Extreme events, organizations and the politics of strategic decision making

Statement to the press by WHO Director-General Dr Margaret Chan

WHO Director-General's opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 -11

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved