Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T15:19:26.313Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Missionary Zeal and the Scholarly Stance: Policy and Commitment in Research on Old Age*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 November 2008

Gilbert Smith
Gilbert Smith
Affiliation:
Professor of Social Administration, Department of Social Policy and Professional Studies, University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, United Kingdom.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is a danger that the ‘missionary zeal’ exhibited by some social gerontologists in the interests of those members of society who are older than others, may endanger the subject's ‘scholarly stance’ and the potential contribution to social policy of research on old age. This paper discusses four facets of the matter: (1) the anticipated values underpinning policies of state welfare (2) personal feelings and values in the business of research (3) values and the kind of data we value and (4) the question of whose side we are on. The paper concludes with a theoretical model of the relationship between the social policy process and the social research process as framework for understanding exactly how values about ageing impact both research about ageing and the relationship between that research and relevant social policies.

Type
Research Article
Information
Ageing & Society , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , June 1989 , pp. 105 - 121
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

1 Johnson, M. L. ‘That was your life: a biographical approach to later life’, ch. 14 in Carver, Vida and Liddiard, Penny (eds), An Ageing Population, Hodder and Stoughton, in association with The Open University Press, Sevenoaks, Kent, 1978.Google Scholar

2 ESRC. Research Initiative on Ageing, a Brief to the Research Initiative. Human Behaviour and Development Group, Swindon (Mimeo), 1989.Google Scholar

3 Fennell, G., Phillipson, C. and Evers, H.The Sociology of Old Age, Open University Press, Milton Keynes and Philadelphia, 1988.Google Scholar

4 Rein, M.Social Science and Public Policy, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1976.Google Scholar

5 Phillipson, C. and Walker, A. ‘The case for a critical gerontology’, in di Gregorio, S., Social Gerontology: New Directions, Croom Helm, London, 1987.Google Scholar

6 Phillipson, C.Capitalism and the Construction of Old Age, Macmillan, London, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Walker, A. and Phillipson, C. ‘Introduction’, in Phillipson, C. and Walker, A. (eds), Ageing and Social Policy: A Critical Assessment, Gower, Aldershot, Hampshire, 1986.Google Scholar

8 Townsend, P. ‘Ageism and social policy’, ch. 2 in Phillipson, C. and Walker, A. (eds), Ageing and Social Policy: A Critical Assessment, Gower, Aldershot, Hampshire, 1986.Google Scholar

9 Smith, G.Social Need: Policy, Practice and Research, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1980.Google Scholar

10 Townsend, P. and Wedderburn, D.The Aged in the Welfare State, Bell, London, 1965.Google Scholar

11 Marshall, T. H. ‘Value problems of welfare – capitalism’, Journal of Social Policy, 1, 1 (1972), 15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 Smith, G. ‘An agenda for the reform of welfare: some west European comparisons’, ch. 19 in Ching-Yung Lee, P. (ed.), Dimensions of Social Welfare Transition, Chu Liu, Taipei, Republic of China, 1988.Google Scholar

13 Myrdal, G. ‘The place of values in social policy’, Journal of Social Policy, 1, 1 (1972), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 Bell, C. and Newby, H. ‘Epilogue’, in Bell, C. and Newby, H. (eds), Doing Sociological Research, Allen and Unwin, London, 1977.Google Scholar

15 Johnson, J. M.Doing Field Research, The Free Press, New York; Collier Macmillan, London, 1975.Google Scholar

16 Whyte, W. F.Street Corner Society, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1943, 1955.Google Scholar

17 Wax, R. H.Doing Fieldwork, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1972.Google Scholar

18 Wolff, K. H. ‘Surrender and community study’, in Vidich, A. J. et al. (eds), Reflections on Community Studies, Wiley, New York, 1964, pp. 233–64.Google Scholar

19 Sheskin, A.Cryonics: A Sociology of Death and Bereavement, John Wiley, New York, 1979.Google Scholar

20 Smith, G. and Cantley, C.Assessing Health Care: A Study in Organizational Evaluation, Open University Press, Milton Keynes, 1985.Google Scholar

21 Allbrow, M. ‘The study of organizations: objectivity or bias?’, in Gould, J. (ed.), Penguin Social Science Survey, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1968.Google Scholar

22 Rosenhead, J. and Thunhurst, C. ‘Operational research and cost benefit analysis: whose science?’, ch. 19, in Irvine, J. et al. (ed.), Demystifying Social Statistics, London, Pluto, 1979, pp. 289–304.Google Scholar

23 Douglas, J. D.Investigative Social Research, Sage, London, 1976.Google Scholar

24 Becker, H. ‘Whose side are we on?’, Social Problems, 14, 1967, 239–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25 Denzin, N.The Research Act in Sociology, Butterworth, London, 1970.Google Scholar

26 Hill, M. and Bramley, G.Analysing Social Policy, Blackwell, Oxford, 1986.Google Scholar

27 Smith, G. ‘The place of “professional ideology” in the analysis of “social policy”: some theoretical conclusions from a pilot study of the children's panels’, The Sociological Review, 25, 4 (1977), 843–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28 Smith, G. 1977, ibid.