sociology of aging - queen's university · (overview/strengths/weaknesses) ... perspectives on...

1

Sociology of Aging – SOCY 424 FALL 2015

Friday at 11:30-2:30 Botterell Hall (18 Stuart Street) ROOM B148

Instructor: Lisa Carver, M.A. PhD Candidate

Instructor Contact Information: [email protected]

Office Hours: Wednesday 1:30 pm to 3:00 pm or by appointment (D428 Mackintosh-Corry)

By 2031 Canadians over 65 years old are expected to comprise 25% of the population. This

course provides an introduction to contemporary issues on social aging, focusing on sociological

perspectives and theories of aging including: post-structuralism, postmodernism, social structural

(gender, race and social class) and cultural factors. Students will draw on sociological literature

to on aging to critically examine: 1) how aging is influenced by gender roles, culture, sexuality,

social class and ethnicity; 2) the importance of understanding the aging body as a social

construct; 3) how physical aspects of society (environment, buildings, transportation) influence

the experience of aging; and 4) the sociological impact of aging successfully with disability

and/or illness.

Course Goals and Objectives

This is a seminar course, and the active and thoughtful participation of students is required. This

class is a culture of possibility (Roberson 2011:885)1, using a variety of activities outside the

usual lecture context to facilitate learning. Each week you will be expected to read and discuss 1

or more articles.

Classes will be divided into three time blocks (11:30-12:20; 12:30-1:20; 1:30-2:20), with short

breaks between the sessions. Generally we will begin with the lecture component. After the first

break we will have guest presentations or a continuation of the lecture/discussion of material.

The final block of time in the class will be devoted to small group interactions focused on the

readings. The class will conclude with a brief presentation of one reading

(overview/strengths/weaknesses) from each group. The purpose is for you to engage with the

material, developing and defending your perceptions in a climate of support and constructive

criticism from your peers.

Evaluation

Grading Scheme Due Dates

Class presentation 30% November 13th

, 20th

, 27th

& December 4th

Reading Response Diary 20% November 6th

Paper or Case study 40% December 4th

Class participation & attendance 10% Calculated after end of class

1Roberson, Sam. 2011. “Defying the Default Culture and Creating a Culture of Possibility” Education131(4):885-

904.

mailto:[email protected]

2


Late Policy

Late assignments will be penalized 5% per day.

Class presentation 30%

– 20 minutes (plus 5 minutes for questions)

The purpose of the presentation is to give students the opportunity to orally present their

understanding of the material. Presentations will be done individually, but it is expected that you

will collaborate with your peers in the development of your presentation. You will provide the

instructor and other students with 2 or 3 journal articles to use for preparation for your

presentation. Since the other students will have already read the material you provided them the

presentation must engage with the material in such a way that the depth of your understanding is

apparent and you go beyond a cursory review. Your presentation must be framed from a

sociological perspective.

Potential Presentation topics:

1. Elder abuse 2. Self-concept and aging

3. Emergencies and elders

(tornados, earthquakes,

pandemics etc)

4. Resilience and aging

5. Knowledge translation of aging

research

6. Gerotranscendence and aging

7. Ageism and stereotypes 8. Global issues in aging

9. Illness and aging 10. Dementia care (Dutch farm)

11. Rural elders 12. Social stability & subsistence

13. Elder women 14. Cultural beliefs, religion

15. Visual impairment 16. Migration, immigration

17. Mobility challenges 18. Policy change/protection of elders

19. Sexuality and aging 20. Good death - bad death

21. Sexual orientation and aging 22. Assisted suicide

23. Bereavement and social

exclusion

24. Organ & body donation

25. Intergenerational linkages 26. Your idea??? Must get approval well

before presentations begin

Aspects you will have to cover in your presentation:

1. An overview of the topic from a sociological perspective

2. A critical assessment including strengths, weaknesses and debates in the literature

3. At least two examples of research that substantiate your argument (journal articles)

3


4. Questions for your peers that can be used to inspire discussion after your presentation

5. An outline of your presentation – which will be provided to the instructor and the other

students electronically prior to the presentation. Make sure that you include definitions

of terminology and important concepts. Also include the list of references used for your

presentation.

It is expected that you will use slides for your presentation and that you will facilitate a class

discussion afterwards.

Arguing a position: Academic Paper or Case Study 40%

You may do either a position paper or a case study.

If you chose to do a position paper, it must be presenting and supporting a perspective on an

issue(s) regarding the sociology of aging. This is not an overview of the literature, but an

argument for a particular position which you support with academic sources. It cannot be the

same as your presentation, but it may be related to it. You will be marked on the strength of your

argument, writing, your use of supporting material and referencing (ASA style).

If you chose to do a case study you must base it on interviews with someone over the age of 65

years old. You will be presenting a position derived from the information you gather in your

interviews and supported by academic sources. This is not a biography, although you may use

biographical examples from your interviews to illustrate ideas. You must integrate theoretical

perspectives on the sociology of aging into your analysis of the case study and presentation of

the position.

ASA format is required for the paper/case study, as is thoughtful analysis of the topic/case study.

Reading Response Diary 20%

Your reading response diary is a hand written document (unless you have an exemption from

disability services) to help you connect with the era experienced by those who are over age 65

years old. You must write legibly. You may add illustrations if you wish. You are expected to

use a bound book (blank or lined paper). You are expected to be sophisticated in terms of

language (no slang or text style abbreviations).

Each week you will chose one or more readings to comment on. In your comments you will:

1. Give an overview of the article including the purpose, importance, strengths and

weaknesses

2. Your thoughts about the article, how it relates to your life or those around you.

4


3. Your thoughts in terms of how this article sheds light or creates questions concerning

your presentation or paper topic(s)

4. Response to the ideas presented by a guest speaker, linked to the week’s readings

You will be graded based on the presence of a reading response for every week; the quality of

remarks, creativity and insight.

Class participation & attendance 10%

Attending each class is not sufficient to get full marks for participation. You are expected to

have read 1-2 of the assigned articles before coming to class. You will be working in small

groups every week to discuss 1 article and then, as a group, present the article to the class

(overview and strengths/weakness). If you are absent without contacting the instructor before

the class (or after with a doctor’s note) you will be given a zero for participation in that class.

Academic Integrity

Academic integrity is constituted by the five core fundamental values of honesty, trust, fairness,

respect and responsibility (see www.academicintegrity.org). These values are central to the

building, nurturing and sustaining of an academic community in which all members of the

community will thrive. Adherence to the values expressed through academic integrity forms a

foundation for the "freedom of inquiry and exchange of ideas" essential to the intellectual life of

the University (see the Senate Report on Principles and Priorities

http://www.queensu.ca/secretariat/policies/senateandtrustees/principlespriorities.html).

Students are responsible for familiarizing themselves with the regulations concerning academic

integrity and for ensuring that their assignments conform to the principles of academic integrity.

Information on academic integrity is available in the Arts and Science Calendar (see Academic

Regulation 1 http://www.queensu.ca/artsci/academic-calendars/2011-2012-calendar/academic-

regulations/regulation-1 ), on the Arts and Science website (see

http://www.queensu.ca/artsci/academics/undergraduate/academic-integrity), and from the

instructor of this course. Departures from academic integrity include plagiarism, use of

unauthorized materials, facilitation, forgery and falsification, and are antithetical to the

development of an academic community at Queen's. Given the seriousness of these matters,

actions which contravene the regulation on academic integrity carry sanctions that can range

from a warning or the loss of grades on an assignment to the failure of a course to a requirement

to withdraw from the university.

Copyright of Course Materials

5


The material on this website is copyrighted and is for the sole use of students registered in SOCY

424. The material on this website may be downloaded for a registered student’s personal use, but

shall not be distributed or disseminated to anyone other than students registered in SOCY 424.

Failure to abide by these conditions is a breach of copyright, and may also constitute a breach of

academic integrity under the University Senate’s Academic Integrity Policy Statement.

Text: articles as assigned

6


September 18th

:

Welcome; Ethnic & Cultural Diversity; Social Constructions of Age

Review of Syllabus

Review of assignments

Myths of aging

What are the biological, psychological, and social dimensions of age?

How do they differ in different societies and subgroups?

How can age be studied at the macro and micro levels?

Population aging

Shaw, Frank. 2002. “Is the Ageing Population the Problem it is Made out to Be?” Foresight –

The Journal of Future Studies, Strategic Thinking and Policy 4(3):4-11.

Kinsella, Kevin. 2002. “Demographic Dimensions of Global Aging.” Journal of Family Issues

21:541-558.

Buchignani, Norman and Christopher Armstrong-Esther. 1999. “Informal Care and Older Native

Canadians.” Ageing and Society 19:3-32.

Ng, Anita Ching Ying, David Phillips and WillaimKeng-mun Lee. 2002. “Persistence and

Challenges to Filial Piety and Informal Support of Older Persons in a Modern Chinese

Society: A Case Study in TuenMun, Hong Kong.” Journal of Aging Studies 16:135-153.

Shenk, Dena. 2000. “Views of Aging African American Women: Memories Within the

Historical Context.” Journal of Aging and Identity 5(2):109-125.

September 25th

:

Premodernity, Modernity and Postmodernity

Premodernity

Modernity

Postmodernity

Aboderin, Isabella. 2004. “Modernisation and Ageing Theory Revisited: Current Explanations of

Recent Developing World and Historical Western Shifts in Material Family Support for

Older People.” Ageing and Society 24:29-50.

Lee, Raymond. 2008. “Modernity, Mortality and Re-Enchantment: The Death Taboo Revisited.”

Sociology 42(4):745-59.

Polivka, Larry. 2000. “Postmodern Aging and the Loss of Meaning.” Journal of Aging and

Identity, 5(4):225-235.

7


Powell, Jason and Charles Longino, Jr. 2001. “Towards the Postmodernization of Aging: The

Body and Social Theory.” Journal of Aging and Identity 6(4):199-206.

Warren, Carol. 1998. “Aging and Identity in Premodern Times.” Research on Aging 20(1):11-35.

October 2nd

:

Sociological Perspectives & Theories of Aging

Structural-Functional perspective

Theory of disengagement

Activity Theory

Continuity Theory

Symbolic-Interaction

Social conflict

McMullin, Julie Ann. 2000. “Diversity and the State of Sociological Aging Theory.” The

Gerontologist 40(5):517-530.

Fine, Michael. 2014. “Nurturing Longevity: sociological constructions of ageing, care and the

body.” Health Sociology Review 23(1):33-42.

Cumming, Elaine. 1963. “Further Thoughts on the Theory of Disengagement.” International

Social Science Journal, 15(3):377-393.

Lemon, Bruce, Vern L. Bengtson and James A. Person. 1972. “An Exploration of the Activity

Theory of Aging: Activity Types and Life Satisfaction among In-Movers to a Retirement

Community.” Journal of Gerontology 27(4):511-523.

Linda K. George. 1993. “Sociological Perspectives on Life Transitions.” Annual Review of

Sociology 19:353-373.

October 9th

:

Life Course Perspective & Overarching lives

Aging Self, Creativity & Wisdom

Life Course Perspective

How age-segregated or age-integrated is the adult life course in our society, and why?

When does older adulthood begin, and what roles, phases, and transitions does it contain?

Why do earlier life conditions matter so much for later life outcomes?

How is the accumulation of advantage across the life course similar to or distinct from

the accumulation of disadvantage?

8


Which “turning points” do you think are particularly important for understanding an

individual’s life course, and how could we best study turning points and their

consequences?

Crimmins, Eileen, Mark D. Hayward, Aaron Hagedorn, Yasuhiko Saito and Nicolas Brouard.

2009. “Change in Disability-Free Life Expectancy for Americans 70 Years Old and

Older.” Demography 46:627-646.

Ferraro, Kenneth F. and Tetyana Pylypiv Shippee. 2009. “Aging and Cumulative Inequality:

How Does Inequality Get Under the Skin?” Gerontologist 49(3):333-343.

Fine, Michael and Caroline Glendinning. 2005. “Dependence, independence or interdependence?

Revisiting the concepts of ‘Care’ and ‘Dependency’.” Ageing and Society 25:601-21.

Brewer, Loretta. 2001. “Gender Socialization and the Cultural Construction of Elder

Caregivers.” Journal of Aging Studies 15:217-35.

Russell, Richard. 2001. “In Sickness and in Health: A Qualitative Study of Elderly Men who

Care for Wives with Dementia.” Journal of Aging Studies 15:351-67.

October 16th

:

Gender, Linked lives/Sexuality

How do partners select and influence each other at various stages in the life course?

How do social norms shape the linking of lives?

How much, and in what ways, does the principle of linked lives apply to weak ties

between individuals?

Twig, Julia. 2004. “The Body, Gender and Age: Feminist Insights in Social Gerontology.”

Journal of Aging Studies 18:50-73.

Sassler, Sharon. 2010. “Partnering Across the Life Course: Sex, Relationships, and Mate

Selection.” Journal of Marriage and Family 72(3):557-575.

Waltz, Thomas. 2002. “Crones, Dirty Old Men, Sexy Seniors: Representations of the Sexuality

of Older Persons.” Journal of Aging and Identity 7(2):3-23.

Burton, Linda M. 1996. “Age Norms, the Timing of Family Role Transitions, and

Intergenerational Caregiving among African American Women.” The Gerontologist

36:199-208.

9


Granovetter, Mark S. 1973. “The Strength of Weak Ties.” American Journal of Sociology

78(6):1360-1380.

October 23rd

:

Transportation, Outdoor Spaces and Buildings

Environment as a factor in aging

How could housing and accessibility policies shape the process of aging?

Disability and accessibility

Consider these 3 as 1 reading:

1. Global Age-friendly Cities: A Guide. 2007. World Health Organization

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2007/9789241547307_eng.pdf

2. Age-friendly Cities checklist

www.who.int/ageing/publications/Age_friendly_cities_checklist.pdf

3. Ontario Accessibilities Act

http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/en/mcss/programs/accessibility/index.aspx

Dupuis, Jossette, Deborah R. Weiss, and Christina Wolfson, C. 2007. “Gender and

Transportation Access Among Community-Dwelling Seniors.” Canadian Journal on

Aging. 26(2):149-158.

Mercado, Ruben, Antonio Paez and Bruce K. Newbold. 2010. “Transport policy and the

provision of mobility options in an aging society: a case study of Ontario, Canada.”

Journal of Transport Geography 18:649-661.

Michael, Yvonne L., Mandy K. Green, and Stephanie A. Farquhar. 2006. “Neighborhood Design

and Active Aging.” Health & Place 12(4):734-740.

Scott, Darren M, Kenneth B. Newbold, Jamie E.L. Spinney, Ruben Mercado, Antonio Paez, and

Pavlos S. Kanaroglou. 2009. “New Insights into Senior Travel Behavior: The Canadian

Experience.” Growth and Change 40(1):140-168.

October 30th

:

Social structure and human agency

How much do governments affect their citizens’ life course?

How can better understand human agency, which is often treated by sociologists as a

“black box” or random error?

http://www.who.int/ageing/publications/Age_friendly_cities_checklist.pdf

http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/en/mcss/programs/accessibility/index.aspx

10


To what extent can individuals exercise agency given the structural constraints they face?

What policies seem promising for dealing with the challenges of an aging population in

the U.S., and why?

How could policies shape the process of retirement to create a successful transition and

secure financial prospects in retirement?

If we manage to slow the process of human aging and extend life expectancies, what will

the implications be for our society?

Oeppen, Jim and James W. Vaupel. 2002. “Demography: Enhanced: Broken Limits to Life

Expectancy.” Science 296(5570):1029-1031.

Brueckner, Hannah and Karl Ulrich Mayer. 2004. “Destandardization of the Life Course: What It

MightMean? And If It Means Anything, Whether It Actually Took Place?” Pp. 27-54 in

The Structure of the Life Course: Standardized? Individualized? Differentiated?, edited by

R. Macmillan. New York NY: Elsevier.

Hitlin, Steven, and Glen H. Elder, Jr. 2007. “Time, Self, and the Curiously Abstract Concept of

Agency.” Sociological Theory 25:170-191.

Thoits, Peggy A. 1994. “Stressors and Problem-Solving: the Individual as Psychological

Activist.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 35:143-159.

Wilkins, Amy C. 2004. “Puerto Rican Wannabes: Sexual Spectacle and the Marking of Race,

Class, and Gender Boundaries.” Gender & Society 18(1):103-121.

November 6th

:

Successful Aging

Quality of Life/Adaptation

Models of successful aging

Razanova, Julia. 2010. “Discourse of Successful Aging in The Globe and Mail: Insights from

Critical Gerontology.” Journal of Aging Studies 24(5):725-744.

Marquez, David. X., Eduardo Bustamante, Bryan Blissmer, and Thomas Prohaska. 2009.

“Health Promotion for Successful Aging.” American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine.

3(1):12-19.

Depp, Colin A. and Dilip V. Jeste. 2006. “Definitions and predictors of successful aging: A

comprehensive review of larger quantitative studies.” American Journal of Geriatric

Psychiatry 14(1):6-20.

11


Cho, Jimmyoung, Peter Martin, and Leonard W. Poon. 2012. “The older they are, the less

successful they become? Findings from the Georgia Centenarian Study.” Journal of Aging

Research 2012:1-8.

Dillaway, Heather E. and Mary Byrnes. 2009. “Reconsidering successful aging. A call for

renewed and expanded academic critiques and conceptualizations.” Journal of Applied

Gerontology 28(6):702–722.

November 13th

: WEEK 9 PRESENTATIONS

November 20th


November 27th


December 4th

: WEEK 12 PRESENTATIONS & Conclusions

FINAL PAPER DUE

12


Appendix A

Marking Guidelines

A Range (80 and above)

Papers in this range will show excellence in most or all of the

categories we look for:

Introduction: The introduction will ideally establish an

argument, accurately describe the paper’s methodology (i.e.,

list the topics it will cover), and state a thesis.

Thesis: It will be concise and analytical, and will show

insight into the student’s topic.

Organization: The argument will be logically broken down

into manageable units, each of which will be well supported

by appropriate evidence. There will be smooth transitions

between the paper’s sections.

Development: There is more than the summation of others’ ideas. Every detail is

analysed and introduced in support of some facet of the author’s argument.

Use of Evidence: Evidence will be carefully analysed and effectively integrated, and

appropriate conclusions will be drawn from it. If secondary evidence is cited, it will be

fully and accurately documented.

Conclusion: There will be an effective conclusion that steps back from the paper’s

argument and contextualizes it, or indicates how it might be taken to the next level.

Style: The paper will be largely free from error and awkwardness; the writing will be

clear and effective, without being wordy or mannered.

Formatting: The paper will be cleanly and accurately formatted.

83 and up: These papers are structurally sound, mechanically flawless, and show impressive

interpretative ability. Either they show truly insightful reading of existing research, or their

argument is strikingly original, or they combine creativity and analysis in ways that get our

attention.

80–82 (A-): These papers demonstrate some excellence, but are held back by some logical,

structural, or mechanical problem. The most common problems are:

The thesis, though suitably analytical, isn’t well enough supported with evidence.

Queen’s Grading System

A+ 90% and above

First-class

marks A 85% – 89%

A- 80% – 84%

B+ 75% – 79%

Second-

class marks B 70% – 74%

B- 65% – 69%

C+ 60% – 64%

Pass C 55% – 59%

C- 50% – 54%

F below 50% Failure

13


Evidence won’t be effectively used: the author might quote references without analysing

them, or draw inappropriate conclusions from them. Evidence might be badly integrated,

or too sparse.

The writing will be problematic: either there will be occasional mechanical problems, or

the paper will be too wordy, unclear, or prone to generalization.

Transitions between sections of the paper may be weak or abrupt.

The paper will be inconsistent: well argued parts will alternate with at least one section

that is noticeably weaker.

B Range (70–79)

Most papers fall in this range. B-range marks are good marks: these papers meet our

expectations, but are held back by some of the following characteristics.

Introduction: The introduction might resort to generalization instead of establishing a

specific analysis, or forget to describe its methodology (a very common omission).

Thesis: The thesis may be descriptive rather than argumentative. The argument may be

weak or very obvious (i.e., domestic violence is harmful) The author may make value

judgements that cannot be proven (e.g., “I think that Marx had a fear of being wealthy”).

Organization: Generally the paper will be broken down into logical units, but not all of

them may support the thesis equally well. Sometimes there will be a couple of pages of

exposition and then one paragraph that must do all the work of supporting the thesis.

Alternatively, there might be a section that doesn’t seem to belong in the paper.

Development: There may be summary of existing research in places.

Use of Evidence: Evidence may not be effectively integrated: the author will quote or

cite without analysing the evidence or explaining its significance. Reading of existing

research may be somewhat descriptive, or else there won’t be very much of it. Some

points may lack sufficient evidence.

Conclusion: The conclusion might largely repeat the introduction, or else be too brief

and lack integration with rest of the paper. On the other hand, the conclusion might state

the paper’s thesis more effectively than the introduction.

Style: There may be grammatical errors and instances of awkward style (e.g., wordiness,

word-choice errors). Alternatively, the writing might show little variation in sentence

structure, for example, using many short, declarative sentences.

Formatting: There may be occasional signs of carelessness.

14


B+ (77–79): B+ papers are very good. There is a clear thesis, although it might be unanalytical.

The argument is generally well developed and supported with evidence. The author’s research

shows good judgement and insight. These papers are largely free from serious structural or

mechanical problems. There might be a few errors or signs of carelessness, or problems with the

use of evidence (it might not be well enough integrated, or sufficiently analysed). Most

commonly, these papers play things too safe: they avoid difficulty, and stick to simple claims

that can be definitively proven.

B (73–76): The thesis may be unanalytical, and the paper may include too much summary of

existing research. Sometimes there won’t be an obvious thesis in the introduction: the paper has

an argument, but it’s not clearly stated anywhere, so the reader has to guess. Transitions between

paragraphs may be perfunctory or absent. It may be unclear why the author is discussing a

particular topic at a particular point in the argument. There may not be enough evidence, or it

may be insufficiently analysed or integrated. B papers tend to be inconsistent: parts of the

argument may be underdeveloped, textual support may be uneven, or only part of the paper may

pertain to the thesis. Papers in this range may contain misreadings, or base broad claims on

slender evidence. Instead of trying to make fine distinctions or showing the complexity of an

issue, these papers may offer black-and-white judgements.

B- (70–72): B- papers are generally B papers with writing problems that are serious enough to

interfere with clarity. There may also be paragraphing problems, which often indicate difficulty

in breaking the argument down into logical units.

C and D Ranges (50–70)

These papers do not meet our expectations. D- and C-range papers show similar problems to B-

range ones, but more pervasively. Note that you need a minimum mark of B- (2.6 grade

points) in SOCY 122 to take further Sociology courses. Introduction: Generally perfunctory:

two to three sentences that state the thesis, but do little else. Where the intro is longer, it will

likely have too much generalization.

Thesis: There may not be one, or it may be too descriptive, simple, or difficult to

identify. Very commonly the thesis will be vague: the author won’t offer enough context

or explanation to make the argument clear. These papers might offer value judgements

instead of arguments that can be proven with evidence.

Organization: There may be paragraphing problems (e.g., too many short paragraphs, no

topic sentences, no transitions between paragraphs). Parts of the essay may not relate to

the thesis, and there may be no clear principle governing the order of the essay’s parts.

15


Development: These papers may depend heavily on the summary of existing research.

The author’s ideas may require more explanation. There may be too little insight into

research, or it may be too descriptive or prone to error. The argument may follow the text

too closely, simply covering events in the order in which they occur. These papers may

contradict themselves.

Use of Evidence: There may be unsupported generalizations, and the paper lacks

sufficient evidence. There may be many long quotations with too little commentary to

relate them to the thesis or to justify their length. Quotations may not be sufficiently

analysed.

Conclusion: May be formulaic, or may repeat the introduction.

Style: Awkward and faulty, exhibiting frequent errors in grammar and punctuation. The

choice of words may not be adequate for the expression of complex ideas. These papers

are likely to be generally unclear.

Formatting: There may be clear signs of carelessness and haste.

C papers (60–69): These essays earn a passing grade, but are problematic. The author must

review the elements of essay structure (introductions and conclusions, paragraphs with topic

sentences and transitions) and correct any writing problems.

D papers- (50–59): Although technically they pass, these papers show little knowledge of the

text and little attempt to engage with the topic. The thesis is probably weak and poorly

supported. Structural problems that make the paper difficult to understand: paragraphs may not

connect to one another or add up to an argument. Evidence may be minimal or misinterpreted.

Writing problems tend to be pervasive. The essay may be too short, and will show signs of being

written in haste.

sociology of aging - queen's university · (overview/strengths/weaknesses) ... perspectives on...

Documents