| HOME | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Correspondence: Address correspondence to Hans-Werner Wahl, PhD, German Center for Research on Aging at the University of Heidelberg, Bergheimer Strasse 20, D-69115 Heidelberg, Germany. E-mail: wahl{at}dzfa.uni-heidelberg.de
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 TOP Abstract Challenges of Environmental...Environmental Gerontology:...Theory in Environment...References |
|---|
By the end of the 1980s, however, Lawton himself became somewhat critical about the development of EG. These concerns culminate in his 1990 Handbook of the Psychology of Aging chapter coauthored with Parmelee; in this chapter they speak of the need "to move the field beyond its current languishing state" (Parmelee & Lawton, p. 483). Thus, it is essential to know what has gone right and what, in recent years, may have gone wrong with EG. Our efforts to address this broad topic are shaped by three more specific objectives: (a) to provide a general characterization of the challenges and historical contexts of EG, so we might better understand what has been achieved and what remains contentious and the focus of argumentation; (b) to draw a rough picture of the relationship between empirical achievements of EG over the past two decades and theoretically defined functions of the environment; and (c) to similarly review theoretical achievements within EG over this period of time. Such theoretical and empirical achievements may be seen as the two fundamental pillars that support EG.
|
Challenges of Environmental Gerontology and Some Historical Considerations |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractChallenges of Environmental...Environmental Gerontology:...Theory in Environment...References |
|---|
EG is concerned with the varieties of private housing arrangements of older people in terms of household composition, ownership, housing standards, time of residency, and residential satisfaction (e.g., Kendig & Pynoos, 1996). It is concerned with the nature and impact of home modifications, including both theoretical models and planning guidelines necessary for the refitting of homes (e.g., Gitlin, 1998), and with the scope of institutional aging from relocation to the design of dementia units and other specialized care settings (e.g., Cohen & Weisman, 1991; Day, Carreon, & Stump, 2000). It is concerned with studying the role of neighborhoods as they present both opportunities and constraints to their residents (e.g., Scheidt & Windley, 1985), and with the community setting as the locus of aging within a broader, social policy perspective (e.g., Lawton, 1977; Schaie, Wahl, Mollenkopf, & Oswald, 2003). It is also concerned with exploring the role of sociophysical contexts at the macroscale, of which the rural–urban boundary is among the most prominent (e.g., Coward & Krout, 1998). As heterogeneous as it might sound, the preceding list captures only a portion of the work conducted under the rubric of EG.
As a consequence of this diversity, theoretical approaches and empirical research strategies within EG are challenged to address very different levels of analysis regarding both place type and scale of social aggregation (from home to neighborhood, to city, and to rural region as well as individual, to group, to organization) and very different processes (such as perceptual, cognitive, and affective). Empirical work is challenged to build on very different research designs (from descriptive and open field studies to experimental controls). Research-application issues are framed within very different means–ends structures (from providing basic data for social policy decisions to planning and design guidance for continuing care retirement communities). Value orientations frequently reflect very different ethical backgrounds (from providing stimulating environments for very competent sun-belt migrants to dealing with the environmental component of dying with dignity in a nursing home). One may thus conclude that pluralism—in terms of theory, empirical research, the application of findings, and value issues—is among the most essential characteristics of EG. Although this probably is also true for other gerontological subdisciplines, it seems to us particularly pronounced in EG; such pluralism is also a hallmark of the cognate field of environmental psychology, essential to understanding its presently "paradoxical" state (Stokols, 1995).
Our understanding of the pluralistic nature of EG is further enhanced by consideration of its historical roots. Aging has long been regarded as a process strongly determined by a biological program inherent in the organism; the explicit consideration of environmental variables having an impact on the course and outcome of human aging was an important step in the historical development of gerontology. The growing role of a social science perspective within gerontology beginning at the end of the forties—which set the stage for the then new field of social gerontology—as well as the prominent role of learning theories in psychology in the fifties and sixties—which attributed a major role to the environment in all periods of human development—supported such a perspective. EG channeled these trends within gerontology, placing particular emphasis on the sociophysical component of social and cultural influences on aging. Other contextual influences included the Chicago school of urban sociology in the twenties (e.g., Park, Burgess, & McKenzie, 1925), the writings of Lewin in the thirties and forties (e.g., Lewin, 1935), and the emergence of environmental psychology in the sixties and seventies (e.g., Barker, 1968; see also Pastalan & Carson, 1970); each has provided additional and substantial roots for the development of EG. Emerging from these diverse origins, EG's struggle for acknowledgment in terms of theory and empirical research was framed from the beginning within now-classic fields of tensions of social and behavioral gerontology. These tensions include linking microlevels with macrolevels of analysis, linking psychological with sociological and social policy perspectives (as well as with perspectives such as architecture and design), and the linking of descriptive "field" methodological approaches with experimental variation strategies. This struggle in its clearest form is likely represented by institutional settings for older people as a setting for research. By way of example, institutional aging has been analyzed during EG's history in terms of multiple perspectives: as a system of microecologies such as self-care situations (e.g., Baltes & Wahl, 1992); from a system organizational point of view (e.g., Lemke & Moos, 1980); in terms of psychosocial analyses targeting the role of environmental factors for subjective well-being (e.g., Kahana, Liang, & Felton, 1980), paralleled by architectural and design analyses (e.g., Cohen & Weisman, 1991); and through descriptive research approaches on the qualitative level (such as the in-depth understanding of the experience of aging within an institution; Gubrium, 1975/1997), complemented by (quasi-) experimental research, prototypically exerted within the paradigm of control-induced interventions, beginning with the classic studies of Langer and Rodin (1976) and Schulz (1976).
In terms of landmark work driving the evolution of EG within gerontology, the chapter by Kleemeier (1959; but see also Kleemeier, 1956) in the Handbook of Aging and the Individual edited by James E. Birren (1959) can be seen, in a sense, as the "birth" of a rigorous environmental gerontology. In the sixties, the first large environmental gerontology data sets (such as Carp, 1966) were generated and this level of intense activity continued during the seventies, with the need for better understanding of a large and rapidly growing body of data gaining high priority. Without question, the 1973 chapter of Lawton and Nahemow, presenting their Press-Competence Model and the famous "Figure 1" (undoubtedly among the mostly reproduced in gerontology textbooks, chapters, and articles in general) is a landmark. This level of theoretical activity culminated during the eighties in a book edited by Lawton, Windley, and Byerts (1982) entitled Aging and the Environment: Theoretical Approaches, and was also strongly reflected in chapters such as those by Carp (1987) in the influential Handbook of Environmental Psychology (edited by Stokols & Altman, 1987), Lawton (1977) in the first edition of the Handbook of the Psychology of Aging (edited by Birren & Schaie, 1977), and Scheidt and Windley (1985) in the second edition of the Handbook of the Psychology of Aging (edited by Birren & Schaie, 1985). In addition, a now classic "translation" of major EG findings for planning and design application was provided by Lawton (1980). Since the seventies of the past century, EG has found clear acceptance as a major subfield of gerontology and is well represented in major gerontology textbooks internationally.
|
|
Environmental Gerontology: Recent Empirical Research |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractChallenges of Environmental...Environmental Gerontology:...Theory in Environment...References |
|---|
Trends in the Recent Empirical EG Literature: A Quantitative View
Our quantitative analysis of the empirical EG literature published between 1989 and 2000 is organized into 2-year intervals from 1989–1990 to 1999–2000. Reflecting the fact that EG has been strongly (although not exclusively) driven by a psychology-based perspective (Powell Lawton was a psychologist as well), in which the relation between the behavior of aging persons and their sociophysical environments was the major target of analysis, our search focused on studies addressing the link between behavioral processes and sociophysical environments in persons aged 65 and older. We used for this purpose the literature documentation system PsycInfo, the major documentation system of psychology-oriented scholarly literature. Although such a search strategy is obviously not a comprehensive documentation of the empirical EG literature, it is seen as providing substantial information with respect to trends in the psychology–aging–environment triad. In a two-step procedure, we first identified by means of a computer-based search all environment-related aging literature. This search proved to be insufficiently fine grained, yielding a body of research containing a variety of studies–focused on social environments, genetic–environment interactions, and so on—not of direct relevance to EG. Thus, the computer-based search was followed by a hit-by-hit inspection in order to ensure the empirical and EG nature of each study. The major criterion for this decision was that links between the sociophysical environment and the behavior of older people were explicitly addressed by empirical means in each study. Furthermore, we differentiated among three classic research themes of EG in their broadest understanding (e.g., Wahl, 2001b), namely addressing the role of the private (traditional) home environment (including issues such as neighborhood and outdoor mobility), the role of planned environments (including institutional environments, but also relatively new housing options such as assisted living facilities; e.g., Regnier, 2002), and residential decisions (including residential decisions from home to home, from home to institution, intrainstitutional, or from institution to home).
With respect to the results of this search strategy, it should first be noted that the absolute numbers of empirical studies identified varied substantially, from 71 (1995–1996) to 104 (1999–2000), without any clear trend across the pairs of years. Second, Figure 1 depicts the relative numbers of studies organized according to the three categories just described above: (a) private home environment; (b) planned environments; and (c) residential decisions. Although one should be careful regarding the absolute numbers behind these graphs, it seems as if the interest in residential decisions has grown since 1993–1994. One interpretation of this trend is that besides relocation from home to institution and intrainstitutional relocation, home-to-home relocation has found growing attention in recent years as a psychological challenge and as a means to improve one's person–environment fit, while aging (e.g., Kling, Seltzer, & Ryff, 1997; Oswald, Schilling, Wahl, & Gäng, 2002; Serow, Friedrich, & Haas, 1996). In addition, a slight decrease regarding psychology-oriented studies concerned with planned environments is apparent as well, whereas the interest in the private home environment seems to have "recovered" after some decrease between 1995 and 1998. Such regained interest in private home environments in recent time is also reflected in books and chapters such as those by Gitlin (1998); Schaie and colleagues (2003); Scheidt and Windley (1998, 2003); Wahl, Scheidt, and Windley (in press); and Slangen-de Kort (1999).
Lawton's Three Functions of the Environment Approach: Framework for Analysis of Recent Empirical Work in EG
What kinds of research questions and findings lie behind this body of empirical literature? For this question to be approached in a theory-driven manner, Lawton's (1989) differentiation between three basic functions of the environment in terms of (a) maintenance, (b) stimulation, and (c) support is used to consider the empirical research in each of these domains. The environmental function of maintenance highlights the important role of constancy and predictability of the environment. The environmental function of stimulation typically means the departure from the usual in the environment, the appearance of a novel array of stimuli and their effects on behavior. The environmental function of support can typically be seen in the environment's potential to compensate for reduced or lost competencies. Examples of the maintenance function of the environment in terms of private home environments and planned environments would be cognitive–affective feelings related to these places "maintaining" the self and continuity in later life. The stimulation function of these environments may be seen, for instance, in their role in eliciting new social or other leisure behaviors. The support function of the home environment or planned environments typically is reflected in issues such as barrier-freeness and accessibility. This conceptualization may also be transferred to residential decisions, the third research domain, in the sense that such decisions are also related to the maintenance function of the environment. In particular, residential decisions question the maintenance capacity of existing environments and the search for other settings better suited to the meeting of these needs. In addition, residential decisions and the outcome of relocation may be driven more by seeking of new stimulation (e.g., new landscapes) or new support (e.g., barrier-freeness of an assisted living facility). Obviously, these three functions of the environment are interrelated and can be separated only on the analytical level. Nevertheless, Lawton's conceptualization is helpful in providing a metalevel perspective for person–environment relations in old age, and it assists in the organization and evaluation of the variety of empirical findings in EG.
Drawing on the research analysis provided by Wahl (2001b), Table 1 uses this conceptual tool to systematize empirical research in EG during the 1990s of the last century. The table, organized as a 3 x 3 matrix, highlights typical examples for key research questions, key research pathways, and key research findings in accordance with the three functions of the environments as well as the three major research domains (private home environment, planned environments, and residential decisions).
|
Second, a broad variety of research addressing the stimulating function of the environment can also be found in the available literature from the nineties to the present. A basic and repeatedly proven insight to consider here is that most of the older person's day is clearly spent within the home, a pattern which is particularly pronounced in the oldest old (Baltes, Maas, Wilms, Borchelt, & Little, 1999; Baltes, Wahl, & Schmid-Furstoss, 1990). As a consequence, person–environment interchange processes at the symbolic or overt level have a major impact on the behavioral and emotional functioning of older people, affecting their ability to maintain a level of competence, live a fulfilled life, and rearrange their environment in order to serve changing needs and goals. With respect to institutional settings, features of the physical environment (e.g., room structure) as well as the social environment (e.g., staff behavior) promote social contacts and the maintenance of leisure activities, as well as inhibit "negative" behaviors such as agitation and verbal disruptions (e.g., Baltes & Wahl, 1992; Cohen-Mansfield, Werner, & Marx, 1990; Day et al., 2000). Empirical research during the nineties on relocation has gradually begun to confirm the notion that moving from one place to another in later life may provide a developmental opportunity and not only a traumatic experience for the normally aging adult (e.g., Haas & Serrow, 1993; Kling et al.,1997; Oswald et al., 2002).
Third, consideration of the support function of the environment has been closely associated with EG ever since Lindsley's (1964) well-known introduction of the term "prosthetic environment." A surprise is that this body of empirical research is not as broad as one might assume, given the centrality of this topic in theoretical terms, especially in relation to the Press-Competence Model of Lawton and Nahemow (1973) as well as for purposes of application (Gitlin, 1998; Regnier & Pynoos, 1992). Most clearly, physical and spatial characteristics have been shown to be associated with different levels of independence in the behavioral competence of older people in private home environments as well as institutions (e.g., Day et al., 2000; Gitlin, 1998; Slangen-de Kort, 1999; Wahl, Oswald, & Zimprich, 1999); causal relations, however, remain relatively unclear. Finally, the support function of relocation becomes most clear in terms of moving to an institution. Additional empirical research on this classic topic of EG has been provided during the nineties, underscoring, among other issues, that such support functions becomes particularly critical in the oldest old (Serow et al., 1996).
In sum, one may conclude that recent empirical research has addressed the basic domains of EG (private home environment, planned environments, and residential decisions) as well as the basic functions that the environment provides for older persons (maintenance, stimulation, and support) in a quite substantial manner. In addition, as we can see in Table 1, a diversity of research questions, pathways, and findings can be detected from the literature. It seems, however, that most of these topics represent a continuation of EG research that was already begun in the seventies and eighties of the past century (e.g., Lawton, 1977; Parmelee & Lawton, 1990; Scheidt & Windley, 1985). In other words, it is not easy to identify much innovation in recent EG research. This should not, however, be automatically equalized with a stagnation and an ongoing "languishing state" (Parmelee & Lawton, 1990, p. 483) of EG. Replication and extension while following "old" research questions is a worthy enterprise. However, it might mean that recent theoretical developments from both within and outside gerontology, a sample of which are outlined in the following section, have not had much input into recent empirical EG in a way that would lead to new questions and new approaches.
|
Theory in Environment Gerontology: Patterns and Possibilities |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractChallenges of Environmental...Environmental Gerontology:...Theory in Environment...References |
|---|
In responding to Birren's observation regarding the "theory poor" nature of aging research, Bengtson and Schaie (1999) characterized the end of the 20th century as "an intellectual and scientific context that seems ... increasingly dismissive of the importance of theory" (p. ix), suggesting that this diminution of interest in theory and theory development is the result of broader intellectual currents in the social sciences. In similar terms, Bengtson, Rice, and Johnson (1999) pointed to the postpositivist critique of the entire theory-building process central to traditional social science research, with its goal of formulating and substantiating universally generalizable principles. "Some contemporary scholars," they suggested, "including many gerontologists—would probably agree with the principle of epistemic relativism, rejecting scientific claims to absolute truth and reason" (p. 14).
Although the most extreme of postpositivist critiques do indeed call into question the entire enterprise of theory building, many more moderate perspectives (e.g., Fishman, 1999; Polkinghorne, 1992) usefully question the hegemony of positivism and offer what Altman and Rogoff (1987) have characterized as alternative "world views" for the behavioral sciences in general and environmental psychology in particular. Do such alternatives have utility for EG as well?
Multiple World Views: Interactionalism, Transactionalism, and Alternatives
This question of world views has engaged the interest of leading theorists in EG for more than two decades. In response to such questions, we consider some key authors, who have actively struggled with these issues in recent times. Altman and Rogoff (1987) present four "world views" in psychology—trait, interactional, organismic, and systemic—predicated on varying philosophies of science and their goals. Each is likewise associated with a different definition of psychology, and its appropriate unit(s) of study, as well as assumptions about the nature of person–environment relations and methods and strategies of research. Although Altman and Rogoff focus on the utility of these world views for environmental psychology, we believe there are also useful insights and perspectives for research and theory building in EG. Of the four world views they present, it is the "interactional" perspective, with people and environment treated as discrete entities, that continues to underlie most EG research and theory building. Golant (1998), for example, explicitly assumed such an interactional perspective. The construction and operation of his conceptual model, as well as its underlying assumptions, are interactional in their orientation. For Golant, "a set of distinct antecedents, which include personal qualities and behaviors, subjectively interpreted environmental attributes, and psychological processes, both independently and in interaction with each other, are construed as causal influences of a set of individually experienced outcomes" (Golant, 1998, p. 36).
In recent years, however, and likely influenced by broader intellectual forces and the postpositivist ethos described in the preceding section, there has been increasing oscillation between interactionalist and transactionalist perspectives, resulting in what we might characterize as a "philosophical tension" within EG. This tension may be observed quite clearly in the various theoretical formulations of Lawton and colleagues over a period of two decades. In 1980, Lawton elegantly adapted Lewin's ecological equation to reflect an interactional perspective. Lewin (1951), building on his concept of the "life space," had argued that behavior (B) is a function of person (P) and environment (E), that is, B = f(P, E); to the extent "person" and "environment" represent an indivisible whole, this might well be viewed as a transactional perspective (Parmelee, 1998). Lawton, however, amended Lewin's equation to include a P x E function, B = f(P, E, P x E), with P x E being defined as "the interface between the two elements ... this interface is similar to what the statistician calls an ‘interaction'" (Lawton, 1980, p. 17). Although acknowledging the intellectual justification for and satisfactions of a transactional perspective, Lawton felt the need to opt for interactionalism: "many theorists believe that the interchanges between person and environment are so intricate, so continuously shifting and mutually causal, that it is difficult to view them as separate entities. There is much to be said for this point of view ... however ... when one must operationalize, measure, and treat variables statistically, the problems become hopeless unless distinctions are made ..." (Lawton, 1980, p. 11).
Lawton's interactional position was substantially reconsidered, however, in his chapter in the 1990 Handbook of the Psychology of Aging (Birren & Schaie, 1990) coauthored with Parmelee, in which they advanced the position that interactional perspectives were not able to deal with "the complexity of the total system" of person, social environment, and physical setting. Expressing concern for the "lull" in EG research and theory building during the 1980s (Parmelee & Lawton, 1990, p. 464), they pin-pointed transactional models of person–environment (P–E) relations, along with the methodologies that complement such models, as especially promising approaches (Parmelee, 1998, p. 161). Yet, by the end of the decade, Lawton seemed in large part to have returned to his interactional position of 1980: "although person and environment form a unified system where what is inside is philosophically inseparable from what is outside, for heuristic purposes, it is necessary to speak of, and attempt to measure, them separately" (Lawton, 1998, p. 1).
This "tension between holistic ... and separatist ... views" (Lawton, 1998, p. 1) is clearly reflected in Lawton's own writing and thinking, as well as in EG more broadly. One might reasonably worry that EG has reached an epistemological and theoretical impasse. However, if we return to Altman and Rogoff's analysis of world views in psychology (as referenced by both Parmelee & Lawton, 1990, and Golant, 1998), we find that interactionalism and transactionalism are but two of four proposed world views. Furthermore, examination of several less typical areas of EG research and theory building suggest that Altman and Rogoff's other two proposed world views—trait and organismic (or systemic)—both hold promise for theoretical development within EG. Gitlin's (2000) work on home modification assumes what might be characterized as a trait-based world view. Beginning with the observation that some older persons are more effective than others in making home modifications that can moderate the consequences of chronic illness, Gitlin posed a question of theoretical and practical significance, asking "why some older people are better environmental problem solvers than others" and noting that the reasons, at present, are "poorly understood" (Gitlin, 2000, p. 44). Similarly, the work of Moos and Lemke (e.g., 1994) on "sheltered care" environments illustrates the potential benefits of an organismic perspective in synthesizing essential elements of interactionalism and transactionalism. Moos's work is also systemic in its approach, exploring the relationships among organizational, social, psychological, and architectural dimensions; it continues a long-standing, albeit modest, tradition of systemic work within environmental psychology, reflected in the "ecological psychology" of Barker (1968) and associates (cf. Norris-Baker, 1998) and, more recently, in Canter's (1991) "theory of place."
These few examples suggest that there are opportunities for EG to explore, or create, alternatives to the interactional and transactional world views that have guided theory development within the field over the past two decades (cf. Weisman, Chaudhury, & Diaz Moore, 2000). In doing so it is imperative to keep in mind Altman and Rogoff's caution that there is never a simple one-to-one correspondence between world view and individual projects or researchers: "no research example, theory, or theorist can be exclusively pigeonholed into one or another world view" (Altman & Rogoff, 1987, p. 11; also see Gitlin, 2003, and Golant, 2003, both this issue).
Rethinking the Theory–Research–Application Triad Within EG: Some Open Questions
World views in EG must deal not just with different models of the person–environment relationship but also with fundamental decisions of emphasis and "units of study" (Altman & Rogoff, 1987, p. 7). Indeed, there has been discussion, going back to the first collection of essays on theory in EG (Lawton et al., 1982), regarding what substantive focus (or foci) most effectively advances theoretical development. Lawton and colleagues (1982, p. 2) suggested three possible approaches to EG research (following citations, see Lawton et al., 1982, pp. 2–3). They characterized the first of these approaches as focusing on evaluation of the designed "product" (i.e., environment) with this information guiding subsequent cycles of design. Their second approach is characterized as an orientation to "place," "where psychological and behavioral processes are incidentally studied as they may relate to the outcomes of, behavior in, or adjustment to places such as cities, neighborhoods, hospitals, homes." The third of their approaches presents a contrasting focus on basic research and environmental "processes" such as environmental cognition, territorial behavior, crowding, and the like. "Understanding of the general effects of these processes, independent of the places where they occur, is sought." Likely reflective of then-current positivist notions of science, Lawton and colleagues (1982, p. 3) established a clear hierarchy with respect to the relevance of these three approaches to the development of EG theory. The "product" approach was judged least relevant, with "place" in an interim position, and environmental "processes" deemed most relevant. The preeminent position assigned to "process" is reflected in the contents of their volume, which includes chapters on environmental perception and cognition, environmental dispositions (traits), and environmental stress as well as four chapters with a strong emphasis on person–environment fit, competence, and adaptation. Relatively little attention is paid by contributors to either product or place.
This strong focus on process issues has clearly served the field of gerontology admirably over the past half century. One might ask, however, whether, in the next millennium, it will represent the most effective path to the building of an EG. Is Lawton, Windley, and Byert's privileging of process appropriate? Is it possible—if we so choose—to study "psychological and behavioral processes ... as they may relate to the outcomes of, behavior in, or adjustment to places such as cities, neighborhoods, hospitals, homes ..." in a purposeful fashion rather than just "incidentally" (Lawton et al., 1982, p. 2)? There appears to be increasing interest, within EG (Rowles & Watkins, 2003; Weisman et al., 2000) as well as in environmental psychology, in viewing "place" as the key integrative construct in conceptualizing both the environments occupied by older persons and older persons' interactions with these environments. Other theoretical challenges await EG as well. Is it possible, in the study of a single nursing home, to effectively link sociological and organizational theories appropriate to the understanding of residents, staff, and administration? How can research, following Lawton's (1983) conceptualization of the "good life" effectively relate environment in "objective" and "perceived" terms? And, not least important, is it possible to respond to the classic challenge of meaningfully linking theory, research, and application (cf. Stokols, 1995)?
Parmelee and Lawton (1990, pp. 464–465) suggested that theoretical work in EG "lagged" because much of the more recent work emerged from more "applied" fields such as architecture and interior design, planning, and other service professions: "Although much useful knowledge has been produced, such research neither utilized nor generated much theory." They argued that limited demand for theory-based research was insufficient "to reinforce development of theory, which became less and less available to generate more productive research" (p. 465). Here again, more contemporary philosophies of the social sciences are beginning to rethink this traditional research-application dichotomy. By way of example, the work of Kurt Lewin holds great potential for EG, not only for his transactional focus on life space, as highlighted by Parmelee (1998), but equally for his "action research" perspective. In addition to Lewin's classic work, more recent theoretical approaches to the nature of practice and the problem-solving process (e.g., Polkinghorne, 1992; Schön, 1983) may aid in the resolution, or at least the moderation, of these familiar tensions within environmental gerontology. Within the domain of specialized environments for dementia care, there has been, over the past 30 years, a succession of "model" facilities—designed as test beds for experimentation and evaluation—and clearly in the spirit of Lewin's model of action research (Weisman, 2003). Additionally, these model facilities—beginning with Lawton's pioneering efforts in creating the Weiss Institute—are clearly reflective of a systemic–organismic world view; organizational factors (mission, policies, and procedures), staff issues (titles, training, responsibilities, and even dress), and physical environment were all conceptualized as interrelated subsystems.
Conclusions
Whereas the historical development of EG as a major gerontological subfield has been critical for gerontology as a whole because of the explicit emphasis placed on sociophysical surroundings and their influence on aging processes and outcomes, the diversity of its roots has led to a pronounced heterogeneity of EG in terms of level of analysis, range of research approaches, research themes, and research concepts. After a period of dynamic development in terms of theory production and the provision of a wide range of person–environment related empirical findings during the sixties, seventies, and eighties, concerns have been raised since the 1990s in terms of the need "to move the field beyond its current languishing state" (Parmelee & Lawton, 1990, p. 483). Our analysis of the empirical and theoretical achievements of EG over the past decade lends support to the notion that the "diagnosis" of EG provided by Parmelee and Lawton has yet to lead to a substantial "cure." A considerable body of empirical research, in both quantitative and qualitative terms, has been generated in the nineties. However, although it addresses all three theoretical functions of the environment suggested by Lawton (1989) as critical components of aging, this body of work remains quite diverse in nature and in large part represents an extension of the research tracks of earlier empirical EG. This absence of innovativeness might be due to a lack of new theoretical developments in recent years or perhaps a too strong emphasis on some lines of theoretical development that might prove to be not very productive in the longer run. Instead of ongoing and exclusive discussion of "transactional" versus "interactional" research in EG (Lawton, 1998; Parmelee & Lawton, 1990), it is from our perspective better to acknowledge that the multiple world views reflected in such research paradigms are all equally worth considering in different research or application contexts of EG (cf. Stokols, 1987). To move beyond a "languishing state," EG is in need of new theoretical and empirical impulses of the kind to be found in the following Forum contributions of Gitlin and Golant (this issue).
|
Footnotes |
|---|
2 School of Architecture & Urban Planning, Institute on Aging & Environment, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.
Decision Editor: Laurence G. Branch, PhD
Received for publication May 22, 2002. Accepted for publication October 25, 2002.
|
References |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractChallenges of Environmental...Environmental Gerontology:...Theory in Environment...References |
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  S. Iwarsson, H.-W. Wahl, C. Nygren, F. Oswald, A. Sixsmith, J. Sixsmith, Z. Szeman, and S. Tomsone Importance of the Home Environment for Healthy Aging: Conceptual and Methodological Background of the European ENABLE-AGE Project Gerontologist, February 1, 2007; 47(1): 78 - 84. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. E. Alkema and D. E. Alley Gerontology's Future: An Integrative Model for Disciplinary Advancement. Gerontologist, October 1, 2006; 46(5): 574 - 582. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. R. Kovach, B. R. Logan, P. E. Noonan, A. M. Schlidt, J. Smerz, M. Simpson, and T. Wells Effects of the Serial Trial Intervention on Discomfort and Behavior of Nursing Home Residents With Dementia American Journal of Alzheimer's Disease and Other Dementias, May 1, 2006; 21(3): 147 - 155. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. Newcomer, T. Kang, M. LaPlante, and S. Kaye Living Quarters and Unmet Need for Personal Care Assistance Among Adults With Disabilities J. Gerontol. B. Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci., July 1, 2005; 60(4): S205 - S213. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Iwarsson A Long-Term Perspective on Person-Environment Fit and ADL Dependence Among Older Swedish Adults Gerontologist, June 1, 2005; 45(3): 327 - 336. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. N. Gitlin Conducting Research on Home Environments: Lessons Learned and New Directions Gerontologist, October 1, 2003; 43(5): 628 - 637. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|---|
