4.5 Article

The Institutional Active Aging Paradigm in Europe (2002-2015)

期刊

GERONTOLOGIST
卷 60, 期 3, 页码 406-415

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/geront/gnz094

关键词

Policy; Qualitative research; Positive aging; Institutional discourse

资金

  1. Facultad de Ciencias Politicas y Sociologia (University of Granada)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Objectives: The paradigm of active aging has been slowly gaining ground in Europe as the ideal framework for public policy and for responding to the population's aging. Taking the work by Rune Ervik as its point of departure, this article updates his conclusions on conceptualizations and policies of active aging by performing a study of the institutional discourses in the matter produced by the World Health Organization (WHO), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and the European Union (EU). Methods: A corpus of 15 WHO, OECD, and EU documents published in the period 2002-2015 and tackling active aging were analyzed qualitatively through a combination of content and thematic analysis, based on a scheme integrated by deductive and inductive iterative manual and computerized codification. Results: The institutional discourses on active aging analyzed have not changed dramatically in the period considered. However, a divergent path has emerged regarding the accent placed on participation and contribution in the construction of the paradigm: the more socially productive and health-oriented WHO discourse is slowly separating from the more economically productive and labor-oriented discourses of the EU and OECD. Discussion and Implications: The institutional paradigm on active aging is evolving into a reductive treatment of a phenomenon that is multidimensional. International institutions and researchers should pay closer attention and forge a path toward an honest and critical examination of the real conditions and expectations of older people concerning the discursive and practical proposals of active aging, in all its different forms.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据