| HOME | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
EDITORIAL |
Correspondence: Address correspondence to Kenneth F. Ferraro, Center on Aging and the Life Course, Purdue University, 302 Wood Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2108. E-mail: ferraro{at}purdue.edu.
What will transform gerontology from an interdisciplinary to a disciplinary field of study? Is gerontology already a discipline? Has the eclipse occurred? What evidence do we have that a transformation has occurred or will soon occur? These questions receive systematic treatment by Alkema and Alley (2006) in a thoughtful essay about the evolution of gerontology.
Alkema and Alley (2006) are to be commended for spurring us to systematically consider these questions. Disciplinary evolution is not on an inexorable course of destiny; it can be altered, and frank discussion in highly visible outlets such as The Gerontologist can influence the movement toward disciplinary status for gerontology. At the same time, the authors show that there is a structural lag in the evolution of gerontology into a discipline. There is the rhetoric and the reality of disciplinary status for gerontology. The authors state that "gerontology appears to be a discipline" (emphasis added). Elsewhere in their article they state that gerontology "is achieving" the criteria to be considered a unique field of inquiry—a sign that the tipping point is imminent. These and other statements manifest some equivocation by the authors, but they display an optimism that the tipping point has already occurred or that we are on the verge of such a change. Is this conclusion reasonable? Has a shift occurred so that gerontology is now a discipline? If not, is there sufficient activity to conclude that the change is imminent? Gerontologists can be euphoric about disciplinary evolution, but we should also ask whether nongerontologists regard gerontology as a discipline.
Alkema and Alley (2006) do a wonderful job of summarizing some of the milestones in the evolution of gerontology, recounting the creation of the Gerontological Society of America, the Administration on Aging, the National Institute on Aging, and the accumulated knowledge of the field. The authors discuss tensions in the evolution of gerontology as a discipline on two fronts: intellectual and social. They argue that the intellectual debates center on integration across what they term the source disciplines, and the social debates center on the political economy of higher education and research infrastructure. Most of us are acutely aware of the tensions to advance gerontology within universities, colleges, medical schools, and organizations that support research. Many such organizations play a zero-sum game and are reluctant to privilege gerontology at the expense of other fields of study. Although it could be argued that efforts to develop gerontology into a discipline should focus on the social side, the authors dedicate the majority of their essay to the intellectual evolution of gerontology. The hope is that a clearer and more compelling vision of the discipline of gerontology will lead to revised social arrangements within organizations that support higher education, research, or both. Moreover, this is the arena over which gerontologists have the most control.
Has a Paradigm Shift Occurred?
In keeping with Kuhn's (1962) view of how scientific fields of study change, Alkema and Alley (2006) argue that research paradigms change in major ways when existing paradigms fail to provide the compelling answers to key questions in the field of study. Of course, many fields do not want to surrender areas of inquiry to new fields; rather, the source disciplines evolve to incorporate the new ideas that arise in what are often considered subfields. Whether it is biology or sociology, the existing disciplines develop subfields (e.g., biology of aging, sociology of aging) as ways to extend the reach of the existing disciplines and implement innovations that arise in the upstart areas of inquiry. The point is that disciplinary evolution is a protracted process because the existing disciplines are not stagnant; they seek to incorporate good ideas and methods from the emerging areas in an attempt to provide compelling answers to basic questions.
So what will it take for a field such as gerontology to evolve into a discipline? The authors argue that four elements are critical to the evolution: theory, research methodology, formalized organizations supporting the field of study, and a common vernacular. It is fairly easy to argue that the latter two are well developed. It is more difficult to argue, however, that theories and research methods in gerontology have taken hold. Does gerontology have its own theories and methods?
Alkema and Alley (2006) identify three theories as having considerable impact and promise: life course, cumulative disadvantage, and ecological theories of aging. They elsewhere refer to these as perspectives, and there are debates as to whether these three are indeed theories (e.g., Elder 1998; Hatch 2005). The authors privilege social science explanations of aging, but they are to be commended for identifying potential linkages beyond the social sciences.
For research methods, the authors point to the importance of longitudinal designs, and this may be a place where gerontology could claim some independence from the existing disciplines. This is not to say that cross-sectional designs are unimportant for specific research questions, but to privilege methods that are more dynamic; aging should be about the study of change.
On the basis of the evidence that Alkema and Alley (2006) present, as well as my own observations and past research on the science of gerontology, I do not think that a paradigm shift has occurred. Gerontology is not yet a discipline. Assuredly, it appears to be moving toward being a discipline, but I do not think that there is evidence of a major shift on either social or intellectual grounds, much less a revolution in Kuhn's (1962) use of the term. Neither do I see a shift to disciplinary status as imminent. It is coming—and I wholeheartedly welcome it—but the road is long and the journey is slow.
In pondering the two domains of disciplinary evolution, I believe there is far more promise on the intellectual front than the social side for an imminent shift. The interest in biomarkers of aging is but one example of keen interest by behavioral and social scientists to integrate biological data in their analyses of the aging process. As Alkema and Alley (2006) point out, there are exciting investigations that are integrating the concepts, theories, and methods of scientists from varied fields. They provide several exemplars, and there are dozens of others that are truly transformative for the field.
I have argued elsewhere that attempting to identify a theory of aging may be too great a task for gerontology (Ferraro, 1990). Competing theories within gerontology are not a problem; indeed, competing theories are often where the most rapid scientific advances occur. Rather, I think that what gerontology needs is a paradigm—a fundamental image of its subject matter that expresses the assumptions and key concepts for the field. Is there a superstructure to the main ideas that captivate the interests of scholars interested in aging? Are there any concepts and principles in gerontology that guide the disciplinary research of both biologists and sociologists?
In an attempt to foster paradigm development, I proposed a gerontological imagination: "an awareness of the process of human aging that enables one to understand the scientific contributions of a variety of researchers studying aging" (Ferraro, 2006, p. 327). I articulated seven tenets of how gerontologists think when I first wrote about it (Ferraro, 1990). Although I have changed some tenets, seven remain in my attempt to develop a paradigm, and these are summarized in Table 1. For gerontology to advance as a discipline, I believe greater attention has to be given to basic concepts such as skepticism about aging effects, heterogeneity, cumulative disadvantage, and the multifaceted nature of change. Robust discussion of the tenets may lead to agreement on the importance of longitudinal methods for the study of aging, but I believe the first goal is to articulate what we mean by our paradigm. How do gerontologists think about the aging process?
|
Although there is cause for optimism on the intellectual side of disciplinary evolution, the most compelling evidence that a shift has not occurred is on the social side. Some organizations that support research on aging do not even like the use of the "g-word" (gerontology). The Association for Gerontology in Higher Education routinely sponsors sessions on how to defend gerontology programs (e.g., When the Wolf is at the Door at its 2006 meeting), and gerontology at most colleges and universities is by and large a nice supplement to existing programs. Many universities are trying to do more with less, and gerontology often finds itself in this position. It gains visibility on the vibrancy of scholarship related to aging, but a tiny percentage of institutions of higher education have recurring budgets that truly support gerontology. Rather, the field exists on double counting budgets and achievements with the existing disciplines (i.e., departments). Gerontology lacks the political capital of programs such as African American studies or women's studies. Indeed, to create a top-notch aging center that would transcend and be somewhat independent from the disciplines would be an expensive proposition. Only a handful of universities have boldly approached the task with any sense of enduring commitment. How could we, therefore, conclude that the tipping point has occurred? Gerontology is not yet a discipline.
26 Years of Stability and Change
In Alkema and Alley's (2006) attempt to help advance the disciplinary evolution of gerontology, they offer an integrative gerontology model that privileges three disciplines: biology, psychology, and sociology. My first reaction is that the contributions of epidemiology to scholarship on aging are so substantial that it should have equal footing with the three articulated in their model. Epidemiologic studies of early origins and ecological influences on health are transforming how gerontologists think about the aging process (e.g., Cagney, Browning, & Wen, 2005; Kuh, Ben-Shlomo, Lynch, Hallqvist, & Power, 2003).
The integrative gerontology model advocated by Alkema and Alley (2006) bears a striking resemblance to a discussion that played out on the pages of The Gerontologist 26 years ago. A special issue titled "Foundations for Gerontological Education" described a collaborative effort between the Gerontological Society (as it was known then) and the Association for Gerontology in Higher Education (which was previously an independent organization). The focus was the core curriculum: What are the core components of a valid education in gerontology? Although there were nuances in the report, the core was defined by three clusters: biomedical, psychosocial, and socioeconomic environmental (Johnson et al., 1980). So, how much has changed in 26 years?
The core disciplines have remained fairly stable, but I think we are seeing more interdisciplinary inquiry than occurred in the past. Scholars are creatively linking fields of study to both conduct scientific inquiries and shape the paradigm of gerontology. The core disciplines are shaping gerontology, but gerontology also has more influence on the existing disciplines (Wilmoth & Ferraro, 2006).
The congruence between the Foundations Project and the integrative model of Alkema and Alley (2006) is substantial. This is both a validation of the earlier report and an indication of growing confidence in these core elements. Gerontologists need some understanding of these three clusters or disciplines. At the same time, how much mastery in each of the three areas is necessary? Gerontology struggles with the tension between disciplinary depth and interdisciplinary breadth. As the authors note, gerontological education that results in a jack-of-all-trades is a disservice to the field. Most of us reject the dilettante version of gerontology education, but we want our students to go beyond a single discipline. Some doctoral programs err on the side of disciplinary depth, with minimal interdisciplinary breadth; others take the opposite approach. Gerontologists agree that a balance is needed; we disagree on the optimal balance.
In an earlier Forum paper on disciplinary evolution, my colleague and I argued that there is a generational component to scientific revolutions and disciplinary evolution (Bass & Ferraro, 2000). Although the field is currently debating the proper approaches to gerontology education and research, the actors will change. There is a new generation of scholars arising from doctoral programs, especially the gerontology doctoral programs, which will have different allegiances and will likely accelerate the evolution of gerontology into a discipline. Indeed, the tipping point will occur after considerable cohort succession. It is coming, but the pace is slow.
Footnotes
1 Center on Aging and the Life Course, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. 
Received for publication April 28, 2006. Accepted for publication June 29, 2006.
References
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|---|
