No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
It is an exciting time to be studying the social worlds in which we grow up and grow older. We have an unprecedented amount of information from high-quality panel and cohort studies that in some cases stretch over many decades. Such studies are not just limited to the United States and Europe; these types of studies are appearing in Africa, South America, and Asia. A great number of methodological tools have been developed to take full advantage of these studies, including advanced statistical techniques to harness repeated measures over many years and data linkages to records, biomarkers, or neighborhood that increase the explanatory power of these studies. The range and sophistication of the methods employed to study lives, couples, and families over time are illustrated in the important 2018 special issue of Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences (JG:SS) on Methodological Innovations. Key theoretical frameworks that undergird our work are being continuously refined, tested, and sometimes revisited in light of current events, just as Dannefer and Crystal did for cumulative dis/advantage theory in the 2020 special issue of JG:SS. In that issue, Dannefer (2020) explicitly links the problem of race to the systemic conditions that serve to perpetually disadvantage some groups relative to others. This formulation provides a foothold for those studying the noxious effects of structural racism over the life course. Crystal (2020) argues for the integration of historical events and economic policies to better understand accumulative disadvantage within and between cohorts, particularly in light of the 2008 financial crisis and looming student debt crisis. Critical perspectives have been used to examine emerging problems in society such as the tension between volitional extended working life and the inability to ever retire, particularly as it intersects with gender (Leime et al., 2017). At the same time, frameworks from other areas of social science are being integrated into the study of age and aging. Intersectionality, for example, is being used with great effect to understand how sexual and gender minorities view and experience aspects of older adulthood (Umberson et al., 2017). JG:SS has been on an upward trajectory in impact and reach due, in large part, to its long line of exemplary Editors. My immediate predecessor, Deborah Carr, instituted a number of innovations in the publication and dissemination processes, especially expanding the social media exposure of articles. She shepherded several cutting-edge special issues, on methodological innovations and cumulative dis/advantage theory as I mention above, but also on the timely issue of aging “alone” and how perspectives on social isolation and integration may differ in international context (November 2019). The impact of her leadership will be visible for many years to come. A substantial portion of the credit for JG:SS’s continuing success, however, is due to the high quality of the contributions from authors around the field. As a reviewer and as an Associate Editor over the past several years, I have had the great pleasure of reading studies that address important questions on age, aging, and life course, often integrating innovations, linking to policy or structural change, or substantially advancing our knowledge in an area of inquiry. JG:SS is distinct from other social science journals devoted to age and aging due to its emphasis on both well-articulated conceptual frameworks and advanced methodological approaches. I am likewise continually impressed by the reviewers and Editorial Board members who share this common vision of the Journal and hold authors to this high standard. My primary goal is to build on JG:SS’s current momentum in visibility, impact, and prestige, continuing to increase its impact and reach. While this can be accomplished in many ways, here I mention three domains particularly relevant in this moment in time: diversity, globalization, and amplitude. By diversity, I am referring to both those who produce the science and those who are studied. First, across the spectrum, from potential new contributors to the Editorial Board and Associate Editors, I am committed to continuing Carr’s and previous Editors’ work to increase diversity and representation. We know that the only way truly to achieve these goals is to work continuously to recruit scholars from underrepresented groups at all points in the pipeline. I look forward to working with the GSA Minority Task Force and other constituencies in this endeavor. Second, many of us are all-too-familiar with that sentence in the Methods section telling the reader that there were too few participants of a particular group for meaningful analysis, thus were dropped from the study. The continual erasure of minority groups from studies of aging and the life course leaves us with a substantial void in our understanding. Underscoring the critically important distinction between minority aging and disparities, I strongly encourage studies that focus on minority populations such as Black or Hispanic older adults, especially underrepresented populations in science, such as Asian American, Native American, LGBTQ+, or rural older adults. We are at a unique point in human history with intersecting trends of population aging, globalization, and urbanization, and new understandings of how individual health, aging and opportunities are being impacted by such forces. As noted at the outset, our field has never had as much data on as many aspects of individual lives and patterns of aging from around the world as we have now. The potential to understand how much societal or regional context matters for aging has never been greater. JG:SS is receiving a growing number of manuscripts from international researchers and from domestic researchers studying societies beyond the United States, which is an exciting development. The preponderance of international studies of older adults provides fresh opportunities to understand what is universal about aging and what is particularistic by societal context. One possibility is to test premises that may seem almost axiomatic about the aging experience in the United States or even in Europe but may not hold in vastly different societal contexts around the globe. Another possibility is to develop more comparative work across cohorts or societies, which may help us understand policies related to aging, such as pension schemes, mandatory retirement, and health care. It is not that these areas of inquiry do not exist, simply that much more can be done. I use the word “amplitude” to capture the breadth, range, and magnitude of the impact of our science on older adults and persons across the life course. As a field, have we fully maximized opportunities to share our knowledge and discoveries, and thus potentially to impact the lives of current older adults or future cohorts? I strongly encourage researchers to integrate innovation that may spark new research or contribute to discourse about current issues for older adults. Studies could integrate historical events (e.g., 2008 crisis, disasters) or take advantage of recent policy changes to understand the impact on older adults. For instance, now that the impacts of neoliberal policies instituted in the 1980s are coming to fruition (Weller & Newman, 2020), what does the vast economic inequality among Baby Boomers tell us about their effectiveness? Further, our amplitude can be maintained or increased by focusing on issues that are front-of-mind for older adults and their families, such as cognitive health and intergenerational relations. With so many potential social factors influencing the health and well-being of older adults, practitioners and policy makers rely on us to convey which factors have the greatest impact or which domains have the greatest potential for effective intervention. This is one area where qualitative and smaller-scale studies can be effective by providing texture and detail to the lived experience of older adults that cannot be captured in larger-scale quantitative studies. Thank you to the GSA Publications Committee, GSA Editor Search Workgroup and its Chair J. Scott Brown for your hard work on behalf of the Society and the Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences. I am honored and humbled to have been selected to be the next Editor-in-Chief. I look forward to working with the contributors, reviewers, Editorial Board Members, Associate Editors, and GSA staff to continue the long tradition of publishing state-of-the-art science on age, aging, and the life course!
Loading…
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 1 citations exist upstream.
Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.