Abstract
Older adults are often plagued with the stereotype that they have outgrown any semblance of sexual identity. This stereotype is prominent in the workplace, as older coworkers are assumed to be past the stage in their lives where sexuality is an aspect of one’s identity. The present study explored how age was a central factor in describing sexuality in the workplace. More specifically, active interviews unearthed age of organization members as a prominent rationale for why sexual discussion is prohibited in the workplace. Results indicated a discursive divide separating older workers from their younger counterparts, reifying the notion that older coworkers are largely asexual. Implications are provided and include an opportunity to see age at the intersection of sexuality as a discursive dividing line in the workplace.
As organizational communication researchers move toward a greater understanding of the role of sexual identity in the workplace (Spradlin, 1998; Willis, 2009; Woods & Lucas, 1993), it is important to explore how and whether older employees are acknowledged as having a sexual identity. This is especially salient, given the number of older people in the workplace (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012). Thus far, research has revealed instances in which older coworkers are discursively divided in the workplace based on stereotypes concerning sternness (Gullette, 2004), resistance to change (Williams & Giles, 1996), inability to learn (Allen, 2011; Reio & Sanders-Reio, 1999), and lacking sexual identity (Blaikie, 1999; Gullette, 2004; Hummert, Garstka, Ryan, & Bonnesen, 2006; Trethewey, 2001). Building from research exploring age and sexuality (Blaikie, 1999; Gullette, 2004; Hummert et al., 2006; Trethewey, 2001), the present study conceptualizes (st)ageism—the phenomenon in which younger employees communicate with the assumption that older employees have passed a certain stage in their lives, precluding them from sexual identity.
Background and Approach
Considerations of age in the workplace often emerge through stereotypes, which are “oversimplified preconceptions and generalizations about members of social groups” (Allen, 2011, p. 2). These generalizations “provide meaning and organize perceptions, inferences, and judgments about persons belonging to a particular social category” (Lott & Saxton, 2002, p. 482). Literature exploring stereotypes about aging includes the impact of age stereotypes on communication (Hummert, Garstka, Ryan, & Bonnesen, 2006) and attitudes toward stereotypes (Hummert, Garstka, Shaner, & Strahm, 1995). Stereotypes of age include mental loss, diminishing communicative competence, and ineptness with regard to fashion (Hummert et al., 2006).
Central to the present study is the power of communicated stereotypes to divide workplace members considered to be older. Foucault’s (1984) concept of dividing practices is used to understand how newcomers who fall outside of social expectations are divided from the norm. Dividing practices occur when emblems of identity are adopted or assigned that distinguish one’s self from the expected norm (Foucault, 1984). For employees perceived as “older,” everyday spaces are often experienced within segregated discourses in which stereotypes preclude communication that is otherwise common to the workplace. This prompts the question of whether such divisions are justified.
The discursive construction of age does much to limit and divide the experiences of older coworkers (du Gay, 1996; Gullette, 1997, 2004; McCann & Giles, 2004; Trethewey, 2001). Gullette (2004) explains that “[a]ge is becoming an overriding constructor of difference and an alarmingly ubiquitous focus of subjectivity throughout the life course” (p. 35). Indeed, Gullette’s (1997, 2004) argument that age is an important and ever-present dividing factor is supported by the ways sexuality in the workplace is explained.
Not only are stereotypes that divide older people from younger employees marginalizing, but they also perpetuate a reality that simply is not true (Bouman, Arcelus, & Benbow, 2006; Grott & Hinchliff, 2003). Oppenheimer (2002) describes three types of attitudes held about later-life sexuality: (a) discreet silence, (b) distaste, and (c) a “tunnel vision” that views sexuality only in terms of (heterosexual) physical acts. This listing is important because it acknowledges the relevant proportion of older adults that do in fact view sexuality with “distaste.” However—seconding the position of Jeffrey Weeks (2000)—it is important to view sexuality in broader aspects in which it is as much about words, images, and rituals as it is about the body. In short, sexuality is more complex than simply being sexually active. Sexuality represents a wide variety of characteristics and makes up a significant amount of our personhood. To discursively construct a group as being devoid of this identity creates a marginalizing effect in the workplace and can be considered ageism, defined as “the systematic stereotyping and discrimination against people because they are old” (Markson & Hollis-Sawyer, 2000, p. 1). The purpose of this study is to explore the discursive means by which stereotypes about age and sexuality are created and reified in the workplace. The surfacing of age as the central component for describing sexuality prompted the following research question:
Research Question: In what ways does age emerge in communication about sexual identity in the workplace?
Methods
Phenomenology describes how one adjusts to lived experiences and hermeneutics describes the interpretation of the “texts” of life (van Manen, 1990). Together, hermeneutic phenomenology concentrates on the personal insights that contribute to one’s thoughtfulness and ability to interact with others (Rorty, 1979; van Manen, 1990) and can be seen as a pursuit of the intersubjectivity of intentional consciousness (Schutz, 1967). Utilizing the philosophical underpinnings of the active interview, data were collected with the assumption that knowledge was constructed through the act of attaining it (Holstein & Gubrium, 1995; Kvale, 2009). In other words, interviews were active in that they cocreated meaning (Holstein & Gubrium, 1995; Kvale, 2009; Miles & Huberman, 1994). In an active interview, the interviewer “activates narrative productions, [and] suggests narrative positions, resources, and orientations” (Kvale, 2009, p. 158). Interviewees also had an active role, becoming a researcher by composing meaning through a coconstructive process with the interviewer (Holstein & Gubrium, 1995; Kvale, 2009).
Participants
Participation was limited to adults aged eighteen or older, who work or have worked outside the home. Of the 60 people who participated in this study, 28 (47%) were men, 30 (50%) women, and 2 (3%) identified as genderqueer. Ages ranged from 19 to 65 with a mean age of 34. Most participants identified their ethnicity as European American (86%), with some representation of Native American (5%), Asian American (5%), Hispanic (2%), and African American (2%) also included.
Participants were recruited through word of mouth, listserv advertisements, informal dissemination of information at community events, and online social sites such as Facebook. Listservs consisted primarily of online community newsletters and campus organizations (e.g., LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer) support organizations). Dissemination of recruitment scripts continued throughout the course of data collection. In addition to aforementioned advertising, snowball sampling was used (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002). Participant recruitment continued concurrently as the interview process took place.
Interviews
Interview locations included conference rooms in libraries, coffee shops, restaurants, and participants’ homes. To allow for a more diverse sample, 10 of the 60 interviews took place via Skype. Though it would make sense that participants would feel more comfortable engaging in the active interview process in the comfort of their own home, I detected no apprehension from participants who preferred to interview in public spaces. This is likely because participants had almost complete control over where interviews took place. Participants received 20 dollars at the beginning of the interview and were assured that they could skip any question without deduction to the monetary incentive. Interview times ranged from 18 to 132 min with a mean time of 42 min. All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed.
Each interview began with a demographic questionnaire soliciting names, ages, occupations, number of years in occupation, sexual orientation, level of education, and socioeconomic status. It was at this point that participants were asked to select a pseudonym. Participants were asked questions that sought to explore communication of sexual identity in the workplace. Questions included “Describe for me the nature of sexuality in the workplace” and “Who are you with regard to sexuality?” The term sexuality was interpreted in a number of ways, ranging from sexual orientation, to promiscuity, to openness to communicating about one’s sexuality.
Given that active interviews develop a cocreation of meanings, it makes sense that demographics of the author impact the meanings created. Pertinent to the present study, the author acknowledges that her own age influenced the interviews. At the time the interviews were conducted, the investigator was in her late 20s. This likely both enabled and constrained participant contributions. For example, the author’s younger age at the time of data collection might have helped younger participants feel more comfortable in sharing information about age “from one twenty-something to another.” At the same time, older participants may have felt less inclined to engage in a discussion about age, given the perceived age divide between interviewer and interviewee.
Phenomenological saturation
Phenomenological saturation is the point at which the essence of the experience has been attained. After interviewing roughly 54 participants, the author arrived at a point at which responses could be anticipated. Because five appointments were set at the time phenomenological saturation was determined, the author proceeded in conducting those interviews. Admittedly, one final participant was recruited for the sake of having an even 60 participants. After conducting the 60th interview, a thematic analysis of the data took place.
Thematic analysis
Thematic analysis is “the process of recovering the theme or themes that are embodied and dramatized in the evolving meanings and imagery of the work” (van Manen, 1990, p. 78). Taking a step away from the more rigid coding practices of content analysis, thematic analysis is a process of insightful invention (van Manen, 1990). Recalling that the purpose of active interview is the construction of knowledge through the interview process, it makes sense that an analysis allowing for invention was used.
First, upon completing the transcription process, a cold reading of the interviews allowed for a thoughtful reacquaintance of each one. Notes for each interview were made as initial themes began to emerge. Initial themes were determined in relation to the research questions. For example, “(st)ageism” was an initial theme because of its connection to the lived experience of sexuality and age. It was in these initial notes that terms emerged to potentially describe the lived experience of age and sexuality at work. Once each interview was read in its entirety, the author was ready to selectively return to the data with a keen eye for essential or revealing aspects of the phenomenon.
Allowing the research question to serve as a guide, a color scheme was developed based on the initial themes that emerged from the cold reading of the interviews. For example, because age emerged immediately as a central factor for explaining sexuality at work, age was assigned the arbitrary color yellow. In addition to color coding themes, notes were written in the margins of the interview data. After a set of codes had been determined, data were examined with the emergent codes in mind.
In the final analysis, data were approached with particular consideration for the themes created in the second stage of analysis. The final round of data analysis also resulted in the elimination of less rigorous themes. For example, an initial theme of stereotypes of age and sexuality was occupation. However, after further consideration, occupation seemed largely anecdotal and even contradictory. Once participants’ words were used in the creation of themes, it was important to ensure these words were not misused. To insure that participants’ experiences were not misrepresented, several measures were taken to verify the data.
Verification
Creswell (2007) suggests a minimum of two methods of verification to be used for qualitative studies. Therefore, two were implemented for this project: classifying researcher bias and negative case analysis. First, an attempt was made to acknowledge any bias that the author might bring to this project. This included acknowledging lineage as a social justice researcher and the a priori assumptions previous research may have brought to this project. Second, a negative case analysis occurred in the data analysis process. A negative case analysis is the process of continually refining analysis as a result of disconfirming evidence (Creswell, 2007). All anomalies and “negative cases” were acknowledged in the larger study from which this article stems.
Findings
Analysis of the interviews revealed that (st)ageism is created through popular stereotypes about older coworkers, and maintained through dividing practices in which older coworkers are kept out of certain conversations. This section illustrates both themes.
The Age Stereotype
Much of the literature on aging discusses the socially constructed assumption that older people are asexual and therefore averse to expressions of sexuality (Blaikie, 1999; Gullette, 2004; Trethewey, 2001). This assumption emerged consistently in interviews, particularly through (a) assumptions that young coworkers are friendly and accepting and (b) language suggesting that “old school” ideals are to be avoided.
The young and the friendly
Age stereotypes emerged, as younger coworkers were assumed to be cheerful and accepting of diversity and older coworkers were thought to espouse a more disciplined workplace ethic. Poignantly, Truesinger (a 31-year-old book store clerk) describes her workplace, stating that “nobody is above 35, so we’re very casual and cheerful; very friendly.” Less abruptly, Kyle (a 36-year-old bar tender) assumes that his coworkers are easy to work with because they are young and therefore at a “fun time in their lives.” Some participants discussed being able to be more open with their sexual identity because they work with younger people. Discussing being openly transgender, Iaeuan (a 30-year-old residence hall manager) explains that “some of my students . . . they’ll blink a little and then be like ‘okay, whatever’ and it’s like oh the joys of being ten or 12 years younger than me.” Here, Iaeuan attributes his students’ ambivalent (“whatever”) attitude to being young. The stereotype that younger coworkers are more accepting of sexual identity at work—including variant gender and sexual identity—begs the question of how older coworkers are perceived.
Avoiding the “old school.”
In addition to suggesting younger coworkers are inherently more cheerful, informal, and open to diverse sexual identities, interviews unearthed a language for describing aged and outdated ideologies about sexuality and work. Several participants used the term old school to describe practices that occur in their workplace that have become outdated. For example, BlackMamba (a 27-year-old children’s councilor) describes being closeted at work as an “old school” practice that he refuses to adopt. Carson (a 28-year-old phlebotomist) explains that he was fired from a previous job because it was an “old school work environment.” Connecting the term to coworkers, Sara (a 31-year-old prison guard) describes “old school” officers who are less likely to be accepting of lesbian coworkers. Assumptions that young coworkers are open to expressing sexual identity and older coworkers are not impacted communication choices. Specifically, how and whether participants talked about sexuality at work depended largely on the perceived ages of coworkers.
(St)ageism as a Dividing Practice
Participants continually discussed forming social groups based largely on age. Steph (a 28-year-old assistant professor) explains that “there’s actually the new faculty . . . [who have] been overwhelmingly young and single, so it’s kind of, like we have a group to do social activities.” Though Steph only mentions age in passing, many other participants demonstrated a more central awareness of age in the social aspect of their work lives. Recalling that dividing practices is a phenomenon in which those who fall outside of social expectations are divided from the norm (Foucault, 1984), the remainder of the results illuminates the possibility that the stereotypes demonstrated in the previous section serve to divide coworkers, based on age. Specifically, the following exemplars indicate that (a) workplaces with older employees are less likely to have employees who communicate sexual identity, (b) employees tend to exclude older coworkers from discussion of sexual identity, and (c) older coworkers have perspectives on sexual identity at work. Importantly, a negative case analysis of (st)ageism is also included.
Attempting asexual workspaces
Some participants, like Will (a 30-year-old optical technician), explained that sexuality was never discussed at work because “ there are a lot of older employees.” Building on the assumption that younger coworkers are open-minded with regard to sexual identity in the workplace, and resistant to “old school” sensibilities that nonetheless surface, participants discussed communication practices that are dictated by age. Kris (a 32-year-old human resource director) describes the age range of her coworkers as a determining factor for whether sexual discourses would be considered appropriate:
Most of the people in my office are older. I’m the youngest person in my office. Most of the people I’ve worked with are in their 50s. They don’t talk about, or we, this group doesn’t talk about our own sexuality so much.
Kris infers that because she works with people in their 50s, sexuality is not an acceptable topic. Kris does not explicitly put forth a causal argument in which older coworkers result in a silencing of sexual communication. However, by mentioning the age of her coworkers, then explaining that the group does not talk about sexuality, Kris takes for granted that age serves as an indicator for whether a workplace will be open to sexual communication. This reflects a (st)ageist assumption that older coworkers are beyond a point in their lives in which they possess a sexual identity or are of a generation that views talk about sexuality at work inappropriate.
Further illuminating the avoidance of sexuality in the presence of older coworkers, Fiona (a 30-year-old medical lab technologist) explains that she would be uncomfortable discussing sexuality at work with people her parents’ age:
Within my work group, I’ve got a pretty comfortable set of people that are in my age range—between college graduate and mid-30s… Within the larger demographic, there are some people who are…maybe not my parents’ age, but close to the latter half of their working years; people in their mid 60s are working here, and so I wouldn’t necessarily feel comfortable saying, “I had a great night on Friday!”
Fiona suggests that the lack of sexual talk may have less to do with the perspectives of older coworkers and more to do with younger employees’ unwillingness to talk about sexuality with coworkers who are their parents’ age.
Up to this point, examples have been provided that indirectly speak to a (st)ageist work environment. However, many participants reflected the saliency of age by conceptualizing older coworkers as being at a stage in their lives in which sexuality is unimportant. Implicitly designating a postsexual stage of life, Olivia speaks with the assumption that an “older” coworker with a family and kids would not be interested in communication about sexuality:
Now there’s like this older lady that works there with us, we would never say that to her. But she’s got like a family and kids and stuff and she doesn’t want to hear about my sexual experiences. (Olivia, 22, server, straight, 108–110)
By mentioning her coworker being married and having children, Olivia suggests that older coworkers might be at a different stage in their lives that excludes an appreciation of talk of sexuality at work. Similarly, in the quote already provided, Fiona explains choosing not to talk about her personal life with coworkers who are “close to the latter half of their working years.” Scarlet (a 35-year-old store clerk) reinforces a language of (st)ageist distancing, explaining that, “At the winery I was a lot more open about who I am [bisexual] to a few of my coworkers, but then a lot of the winery employees were little old grandmas and they didn’t need to know.” These examples suggest that as coworkers draw closer to retirement age, they reach a stage where talk of sexuality is unappreciated. It is important to recall that participants were not asked to talk about age in the workplace, but rather age naturally emerged as a taken-for-granted factor. In addition to describing workplaces with older adults as places where talk about sexuality would not take place, many participants discussed limiting sexual discourse when older organization members were present.
Communicating around age
Similar to using age to explain the lack of sexual discourses at work, some participants used age to describe when sexual talk was permissible. Lisa (a 41-year-old volunteer coordinator) uses age as a dividing line for when sexual discourse is or is not appropriate:
Amongst the women my age and younger, you can pretty much say anything in that crowd, but when one of the older ladies was there who was maybe not as comfortable with it, we know not to be talking about… sex or anything like that.
Lisa explains that the presence of sexual discourse is contingent on the ages of the coworkers in the office at any given time. As explained more thoroughly in the Discussion section, the assumption that sexuality should not be discussed in the presence of older coworkers has important implications for social divisions in the workplace. For some participants, conceptually dividing coworkers based on age was quite salient.
Some participants were more cognizant of their age-based stereotypes than others. Interestingly, TheChef (a 33-year-old executive chef) describes his assumption that older coworkers do not want to discuss sexuality as a “prejudice”:
There are certain things you can talk about and they vary from person to person. And some of them are prejudices that we have, internally. For example, I wouldn’t discuss with [“Barbara”] her sex life. Now, that’s probably because [Barbara] is a decade or two older than me.
Though TheChef explicitly claims that Barbara’s age influences the existence of sexuality, gender functions as an implicit factor as well. More consideration of the influence of gender on (st)ageism is provided in the Discussion section.
Though most participants explained sexuality at work in a way that divides older workers from the rest of the social group, some participants expressed skepticism toward the legitimacy of these conceptual divisions. Providing another example of the age stereotype, Mary (a 31-year-old shopkeeper) also acknowledges the shaky ground on which this assumption rests:
In terms of discussing, discussing more details, I probably reserved that conversation with coworkers who are closer to my own age.
Is it that you get different ideas about sex across generations?
You do, although I was surprised by how open-minded some of the much older people where [laughs]. So you never, you really never know.
Here, Mary expresses surprise when older coworkers behave in ways outside the socially constructed assumptions of what it means to be older. Specifically, by describing older coworkers as “open-minded,” Mary contradicts the popular assumption that older people are rigid or “set in their ways” (du Gay, 1996; Gullette, 1997, 2004; McCann & Giles, 2004). The violation of the age stereotype that Mary mentions suggests an opportunity for changing workplace discourses at the intersection of age and sexuality. Another opportunity to resist (st)ageist workplace divisions is through the perspectives of older coworkers.
Responding to (st)ageism
Most participants, regardless of their age, positioned themselves within the younger cohort of their coworkers. This is not surprising, as people are cognizant of their proximity to old age and eager to distance themselves from it (Gullette, 2007). However, a few participants expressed how their sexual identity has changed as they have aged. Peter (a 58-year-old social worker) explains that as she ages, she becomes less concerned with meeting social expectations in the workplace. She says, “I’m very okay with who I am and I haven’t always been that way, I’ve had to be very cautious, but I’m at an age and a place in my life where you either accept me or you don’t and I’m perfectly fine either way.” Peter’s “either you accept me or you don’t” attitude suggests ambivalence in response to how she is perceived at work. Though Peter provides only one example of coping with (st)ageism, her ambivalence suggests an opportunity for resisting (st)ageist assumptions by expressing one’s self in the workplace without a preoccupation with how one might be stereotyped. Other possible means of addressing (st)ageism are included in the discussion section.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to explore the age-based stereotypes used to explain sexuality in the workplace. The themes that emerged culminate into a (st)ageist assumption that older organization members are past a stage in their lives in which they have—or wish to communicate—a sexual identity. Specifically, it was taken for granted that younger employees would be “friendlier” and more tolerant of the communication of sexual identities than older employees. Similarly, a language referring to “old school” perspectives indicated a workplace ideology that was to be avoided. Participants discussed feeling uncomfortable at the prospect of talking about sex in the presence of older coworkers. Furthermore, affirming the research of Gullette (2004, 2007) and Trethewey (2001), a salient discourse of (st)ageism emerged in which it was believed that people do not have a sexual identity or wish to discuss sexuality after passing a certain stage in their lives. Finally, a few participants shed light on sexuality in the workplace from the perspective of an older workplace member. These results unearth important insight into stereotypes that result in dividing practices.
(St)ageism: A Dividing Practice
Foucault’s (1984) concept of dividing practices was used as a theoretical framework to capture the ways in which sexuality was used to discursively divide various groups. The division by age was the most salient dividing practice of all. Recall that dividing practices occur when emblems of identity are adopted or assigned that distinguish someone from the expected norm (Foucault, 1984). In the present study, stereotypes served as conceptual dividing lines between research participants and coworkers who they considered to be older.
Participants such as Kris took for granted that a workplace with older employees would be free of communication about sexuality. Similarly, Lisa and TheChef described limiting talk about sex to when older coworkers are not present. Both the assumption that a workplace with older coworkers is asexual and the assumption that one should only communicate about sexuality when older coworkers are not present conceptually divide older coworkers from the norm. Fiona’s discomfort in talking about sexuality in front of older coworkers also presents a dividing practice in that older coworkers are left out of disclosures that might bring coworkers closer together. Perhaps the most poignant is Olivia’s assumption that her coworker is past a certain age in which she “wants” to hear about late night exploits. The assumption that sexuality is a topic exclusive to younger coworkers divides older coworkers from normal workplace communication.
By dividing one’s self from older coworkers, participants may be trying to distance themselves from old age, and the asexuality assumed to be a natural aspect. It should be noted that almost all participants who discussed age—whether they be 19 years old or over 50—positioned themselves within the younger age group. Also, participants may elect not to talk about sexuality as a means of not offending and thereby maintaining harmony with older coworkers.
Interestingly, age emerged on occasion at the intersection of gender. Trethewey (2001) explores the added obstacles of aging women in the workplace, arguing that women are pressured to preserve an unattainable youth-like femininity. Trethewey (2001) found that in addition to experiencing fewer instances of sexual harassment, midlife women in turn faced a pathological “erasure” of their sexuality (p. 200) as a result of popular discourses of aging. Such an erasure was evident in the present study, in part because of younger coworkers’ unwillingness to talk about sexuality in the presence of older coworkers.
Finally, some participants expressed that, in their older age, they no longer care what other coworkers think about them. This resistance to self-disciplining would allow an interesting opportunity to problematize stereotypes, as older coworkers might openly contradict them.
Limitations
First, a study that included research questions about age and sexuality from the outset might have yielded an even richer data set. Specifically, it was only after initial interviewing that age emerged as a significant aspect of talking about sexuality in the workplace. Additionally, this study provided a diversity of perspectives, yet the majority came from White middle-class standpoints. Finally, research bias was a possibility. Not quite 30 years old at the time of data collection, the author was reflexive in considering the implications of being in the largely undivided age cohort.
Conclusion
It has long been acknowledged that the assumption that older people are asexual and unappreciative of sexual discourses is a socially constructed reality in workplaces, rather than the thoughtful accommodation of a biological fact (Butler, 1990, 2004; Gullette, 1997, 2007; Trethewey, 2001). Nevertheless, some participants indicated discomfort in discussing sexual topics in the presence of older coworkers.
The stereotypes participants used to describe sexuality at work came from experiences in which these factors appeared to hold true. Importantly, the purpose of this article was not to comment on the accuracy of stereotyping. Indeed, owing to the belief that organizations do not house monolithic truths (Ashcraft & Mumby, 2004; Taylor, 2005), it was acknowledged that the stereotypes were likely well-founded and ill-founded at the same time. The choice not to discuss sexual topics in the presence of older coworkers may have shown respect to the sensibilities of others, and at the same time served as a silencing factor for older coworkers, excluded from sexual discussion. This study introduced (st)ageism as a culmination of stereotypes that served to divide older coworkers and managers from their younger counterparts, through conceptualizations of sexuality in the workplace.
Future research should explore ways of deconstructing (st)ageist assumptions while maintaining workplace harmony that (st)ageist assumptions might seek to maintain. For example, future research should explore (st)ageism from the perspective of older employees. Additionally, research should continue to explore age at the intersection of gender. More specifically, a study comparing age and sexual identity with gender could unearth and/or debunk assumptions about the lived experience of age, sexuality, and gender in the workplace.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded in part by the University of Missouri Faculty-Alumni Graduate Student Support Fund.