The American Sociologist

, Volume 36, Issue 3–4, pp 88–104 | Cite as

Social gerontology as public sociology in action

  • Norella M. Putney
  • Dawn E. Alley
  • Vern L. Bengtson


Burawoy (2005) argues that sociology needs to re-establish a public sociology oriented toward society’s problems and the practice of its unique knowledge if it is to again be taken seriously by the public, policymakers, and others. Yet, it is unclear how best to achieve these goals. We argue that the relatively young field of social gerontology provides a useful model of successful public sociology in action. As a multidisciplinary field engaged in basic and applied research and practice, social gerontology’s major aim is to improve the lives of older people and to ameliorate problems associated with age and aging. Thus social gerontology has routinely reached beyond the academy to engage with its publics. We review the field’s historical and theoretical development and present four examples of public sociology in action. Several factors have contributed to social gerontology's success in achieving the goals of public sociology: (1) Working in multidisciplinary teams which promote collaboration and respect for diverse perspectives. (2) Its ability to advocate “professionally” for its publics without favoring one group at the expense of another. (3) The unique affinity of its theories and practices with its disciplinary values. (4) The constructive effects of its ongoing questioning of values and ethics. Working in a multidisciplinary field with multiple publics, social gerontologists have been able to blend professional, critical, policy, and public sociologies to a considerable degree while contributing toward improvements in well-being.


Successful Aging Participatory Action Research Social Exchange Theory Public Sociology Multidisciplinary Field 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aboderin, I. 2004. “Decline in Material Family Support for Older People in Urban Ghana, Africa: Understanding Processes and Causes of Change.” Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences 59B: S128-S137.Google Scholar
  2. Achenbaum, W.A. 1987. “Can Gerontology Become a Science? Journal of Aging Studies 1: 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. —. 1995. Crossing Frontiers: Gerontology Emerges as a Science. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Arber, S., and Ginn, J. 1995. Connecting Gender and Aging: A Sociological Approach. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Atchley, R.C. 1989. “A Continuity Theory of Normal Aging.” The Gerontologist 29: 183–190.Google Scholar
  6. Baars, J. 1991. “The Challenge of Critical Theory: The Problem of Social Construction.” The Journal of Aging Studies 5: 219–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bengtson, V.L., and Allen, K.R. 1993. “The Life Course Perspective Applied to Families over Time.” In P. Boss, W. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. Schumm, and S. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of Family Theories and Methods: A Contextual Approach (pp. 452–475). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  8. Bengtson, V.L., Burgess, E.O., and Parrott, T.M. 1997. “Theory, Explanation, and a Third Generation of Theoretical Development in Social Gerontology.” Journal of Gerontology 52B: S72-S88.Google Scholar
  9. Berger, P.L., and Luckmann, T. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  10. Biggs, S. 2005. “Beyond Appearances: Perspectives on Identity in Later Life and Some Implications for Method.” Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences 60B: SI 18-S128.Google Scholar
  11. Binstock, R.H., and Quadagno, J. 2001. “Aging and Politics.” In R.H. Binstock and L.K. George (Eds.), Handbook of Aging and the Social Sciences (pp. 333–351). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  12. Birkman, L.F. 2004. “The Health Divide.” Contexts 3: 38–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Blau, P.M. 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  14. Brady, D. 2004. “Why Public Sociology May Fail.” Social Forces 82: 1629–1638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Burawoy, M. 2004. “Public Sociologies: Contradictions, Dilemmas, and Possibilities.” Social Forces 82: 1603–1618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. —. 2005. 2004. “Presidential Address: For Public Sociology.” American Sociological Review 70: 4–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. —, Gamson, W., Ryan, D., Pfohl, S., Vaughan, D., Derber, C., and Schor, J. 2004. “Public Sociologies: A Symposium from Boston College.” Social Problems 51: 103–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Burton, L. 1992. “Black Grandmothers Rearing Children of Drug-Addicted Parents: Stressors, Outcomes, and Social Service Needs.” The Gerontologist 32: 744–751.Google Scholar
  19. Bytheway, B. 1994. Ageism. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Calasanti, T. 2004. “Feminist Gerontology and Old Men.” Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 59B: S305-S314.Google Scholar
  21. Cowgill, D.A., and Holmes, L.D. 1974. “Aging and Modernization. A Revision of Theory.” In J. Gubrium (Ed.), Laterlife: Community and Environmental Policies (pp. 305–323). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  22. Cumming, E., and Henry, W. 1961. Growing Old: The Process of Disengagement. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  23. Dannefer, D. 2003. “Cumulative Advantage/Disadvantage and the Life Course: Cross-Fertilizing Age and Social Science Theory.” Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences 58B: S327–337.Google Scholar
  24. Department of Work and Pensions. 2004. Link-age: Developing Networks of Services for Older People. Retrieved August 2005 from: Scholar
  25. Dowd, J.J. 1975. “Aging as Exchange: A Preface to Theory.” Journal of Gerontology 30: 584–594.Google Scholar
  26. Dowdell, E.B. 1995. “Caregiver Burden: Grandparents Raising Their High-Risk Children.” Journal of Psychosocial Nursing 33(3): 27–30.Google Scholar
  27. Dressel, P., and Barnhill, S. 1994. “Reframing Gerontological Through and Practice: The Case of Grandmothers with Daughters in Prison.” The Gerontologist 34: 685–690.Google Scholar
  28. Elder, G.H., Jr. 1992. “Models of the Life Course.” Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews 21: 632–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. — and Johnson, M.K. 2002. “The Life Course and Aging: Challenges, Lessons, and New Directions.” In R. A. Settersten, Jr. (Ed.), Invitation to the Life Course: Toward New Understandings of Later Life (pp. 49–81). Amityville, New York: Baywood.Google Scholar
  30. Estes, CL. 2001. “Political Economy of Aging: A Theoretical Framework.” In CL. Estes and Associates. Social Policy and Aging: A Critical Perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. —, Gerard, L.E., Jones, J.S., and Swan, J.H. 1984. Political Economy, Health, and Aging. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  32. Evans, G, and Carmichael, A. 2002. Users Best Value—A Guide to Good Practice in User Involvement in Best Value Reviews. York, UK: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
  33. Foucault, M. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of a Prison. Trans. A. Sheridan. New York: Vintage/Random House.Google Scholar
  34. Fuller-Thomson, E., Minkler, M., and Driver, D. 1997. “A Profile of Grandparents Raising Grandchildren in the United States.” The Gerontologist 37: 406–411.Google Scholar
  35. Garfinkel, H. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood. NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  36. Gubrium, J.F. 1993. Speaking of Life: Horizons of Meaning for Nursing Home Residents. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  37. —, and Holstein, J.A. 1999. “Constructionist Perspectives on Aging.” In V.L. Bengtson and K.W. Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of Theories of Aging (pp. 287–305). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Habermas, J. 1971. Knowledge and Human Interests. Trans. J.J. Shapiro. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  39. Hendricks, J. 1992. “Generations and the Generation of Theory in Social Gerontology.” International Journal of Aging and Human Development 35: 31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. — and Achenbaum, A. (1999). “Historical Development of Theories of Aging.” In V.L. Bengtson and K.W. Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of Theories of Aging (pp. 21–39). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  41. Homans, G.C. 1961. Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  42. Hooyman, N.R., and Kiyak, H.A. 2005. Social Gerontology: A Multidisciplinary Perspective. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  43. Horkheimer, M. and Adorno, T.W. 1944. “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception.” In M. Horkheimer and T.W. Adorno (Eds.). Dialectic of Enlightenment. Trans. J. Cumming.Google Scholar
  44. Jendrek, M.P. 1994. “Grandparents Who Parent Their Grandchildren: Circumstances and Decisions.” The Gerontologist 34: 206–216Google Scholar
  45. Kristof, N.D. 1996. “Aging World, New Wrinkles.” New York Times, September 22, pp. 4-1.Google Scholar
  46. Kuhn, M. 1983. Remarks to symposium at the Gerontological Society of America annual meeting, November 21.Google Scholar
  47. Kuypers, J.A., and Bengtson, V.L. 1973. “Social Breakdown and Competence: A Model of Normal Aging.” Human Development 16: 181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lemon, B.W., Bengtson, V.L., and Peterson, J.A. 1972. “An Exploration of the Activity Theory of Aging.” Journal of Gerontology 27: 511–523.Google Scholar
  49. McKerlie, D. 2001. “Justice between the Young and Old.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 30: 152–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. McMullen, J. 1995. “Theorizing Age and Gender Relations.” In S. Arber and J. Ginn (Eds.), Connecting Gender and Aging: A Sociological Approach. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Mannheim, K. 1952. “The Problems of Generations.” In D. Kecskemeti (Ed.), Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge (pp. 276–322). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. (Original work published 1922).Google Scholar
  52. Marx, K. 1967. Capital Vol. 1: A Critique of Political Economy. New York: International Publishers. (Original work published 1867).Google Scholar
  53. Mead, G.H. 1934. Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  54. Minkler, M., Driver, D., Roe, K., and Bedeian, K. 1993. “Community Interventions to Support Grandparent Caregivers.” The Gerontologist 33: 807–811.Google Scholar
  55. Minkler, M., and Roe, K.M. 1993. Grandmothers as Caregivers: Raising Children of the Crack Cocaine Epidemic. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  56. Minkler, M., Roe, K.M., and Price M. 1992. “The Physical and Emotional Health of Grandmothers Raising Grandchildren in the Crack Cocaine Epidemic.” The Gerontologist 32: 752–761.Google Scholar
  57. Moody, H.R. 1993. “Overview: What Is Critical Gerontology and Why Is It Important?” In T.R. Cole, W.A. Achenbaum, P.L. Jakobi, and R. Kastenbaum (Eds.), Voices and Visions: Toward a Critical Gerontology. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  58. —. 2001. “The Humanities and Aging: A Millennial Perspective.” The Gerontologist 41: 411–415.Google Scholar
  59. Myerhoff, B. 1979. Number Our Days. New York: Dutton.Google Scholar
  60. National Institute of Mental Health 2000. Translating Behavioral Science into Action. Report of the National Advisory Mental Health Council behavioral science workgroup. Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health.Google Scholar
  61. National Institute on Aging. 1993. “Aging Institute Funds Six New Centers to Apply Social and Behavioral Research.” Retrieved August 2005 from: PR 19931102AingInstitute.htmGoogle Scholar
  62. National Institute on Aging. 2004. Six New Roybal centers for applied gerontology established by National Institute on Aging. Retrieved August 2005 from: PR20041026RoybalCenters.htmGoogle Scholar
  63. National Institutes of Health. 1997. “Edward R. Roybal Centers for Research on Aging,” NIH Guide, 26(14). Retrieved August 2005 from: http://grants.nih.bov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-AG-97-005.htmlGoogle Scholar
  64. Nielsen, F. 2004. “The Vacant‘We’: Remarks on Public Sociology.” Social Forces 82: 1619–1627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Older People's Steering Group. 2004. Older People Shaping Policy and Practice. York, UK: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
  66. Parsons, T. 1942. “Age and Sex in the Social Structure of the United States.” American Sociological Review 7: 604–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Pillemer, K., Czaja, S., Schulz, R., and Stahl, S.M. 2003. “Finding the Best Ways to Help: Opportunities and Challenges of Intervention Research on Aging.” The Gerontologist 43, Special Issue 1 (Challenges of Traditional Research on Aging: The Experience of the Roybal Canters), 5-8.Google Scholar
  68. Preston, S. 1984. “Children and the Elderly: Divergent Paths for America's Dependents.” Demography 21: 435–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Ray, R.E. 1996. “A Postmodern Perspective on Feminist Gerontology.” The Gerontologist 36: 674–680.Google Scholar
  70. —. 2004. “Toward the Croning of Feminist Gerontology.” Journal of Aging Studies 18: 109–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Riley, M.W., Foner, A., and Waring, J. 1988. “Sociology of Age.” In N.J. Smelser (Ed.), Handbook of Sociology (pp. 243–290). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  72. Riley, M. W., Johnson, M., and Foner, A. 1972. Aging and Society. Vol III: A Sociology of Age Stratification. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  73. Riley, M.W., Kahn, R.L., and Foner, E. 1994. Age and Structural Lag: Society's Failure to Provide Meaningful Opportunities in Work, Family, and Leisure. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  74. Riley, M.W., and Loscocco, K.A. 1994. “The Changing Structure of Work Opportunities: Toward an Age-Integrated Society.” In R.P. Abeles, H.C. Gift, and M.G. Ory (Eds.), Aging and Quality of Life. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  75. Roe, K.M., Minkler, M., and Barnwell, R-S. 1994. “The Assumption of Caregiving: Grandmothers Raising the Children of the Crack Cocaine Epidemic.” Qualitative Health Research 4: 281 -303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Roe, K.M., Minkler, M., Thompson, G., and Saunders, F.F. 1996. “Health of Grandmothers Raising Children of the Crack Cocaine Epidemic.” Medical Care 34: 1072–1084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Rose, A. 1964. “A Current Theoretical Issue in Social Gerontology.” The Gerontologist, 4, 46–50.Google Scholar
  78. Rowe, J.D., and Kahn, R.L. 1998. Successful Aging. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  79. Saluter, A.F. 1992. “Marital Status and Living Arrangements: March 1991.” Current Population Reports (Series P-20 No. 461). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  80. Samuelson, R. 2005. “It's More than Social Security.” The Washington Post, January 14, p. A-19.Google Scholar
  81. Schmeeckle, M., and Bengtson, V.L. 1999. “Successful Aging. Conclusions from a Longitudinal Study: Cross National Perspectives.” Review of J. W. Rowe and R. L. Kahn, Successful aging. Contemporary Gerontology, 5(3): 87–90.Google Scholar
  82. Silverstein, M., Conroy, S. J., Wang, H., Giarrusso, R., and Bengtson, V. L. 2002. “Reciprocity in Parent-Child Relations over the Adult Life Course.” Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 57B: S3-S13.Google Scholar
  83. Simmel, G. 1950. Conflict: The Web of Group-Affiliations. Translated by K.H. Wolff (and) Reinhard Bendix. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. (Original work published 1908).Google Scholar
  84. Sorokin, P. A. 1947. Society, Culture, and Personality. New York: Harper and Brothers.Google Scholar
  85. Stroller, E.P. 1993. “Gender and the Organization of Lay Health Care: A Socialist-Feminist Perspective.” Journal of Aging Studies 7: 151–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Tittle, C.R. 2004. “The Arrogance of Public Sociology.” Social Forces 82: 1639–1643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Turner, J.H. 2003. The Structure of Sociological Theory. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Transaction Publishers 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Norella M. Putney
    • 1
  • Dawn E. Alley
    • 2
  • Vern L. Bengtson
  1. 1.Ethel Percy Andrus Gerontology Center at the University of Southern CaliforniaUSA
  2. 2.University of Southern California, Davis School of GerontologyUSA

Personalised recommendations