{"title":"从概念差距到政策对话:老龄化研究和残疾研究中的残疾和老年概念方法","authors":"Salla Era, Hisayo Katsui, Teppo Kröger","doi":"10.1017/s1474746424000058","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this study, we investigated the conceptual approaches to disability and ageing in two leading social scientific journals (<jats:italic>Ageing & Society</jats:italic> [AS] and <jats:italic>Disability & Society</jats:italic> [DS]) of the research fields that form the bases of policies on disability and ageing. This study aimed to identify the journals’ trajectories of conceptual development and their differences, and through that, find possible pathways for further interaction between the yet largely separate policy frameworks for disability and ageing. Our analysis showed considerable differences between the conceptual approaches of the two journals, with the dominant approach in DS being sociomaterial and individual-functional in AS. We conclude this paper by identifying the conceptual gaps in the respective journals, suggesting a further collaboration between the approaches in research as well as policies. These gaps could be potentially narrowed, leading to a constructive dialogue on older disabled people.","PeriodicalId":47397,"journal":{"name":"Social Policy and Society","volume":"61 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"From Conceptual Gaps to Policy Dialogue: Conceptual Approaches to Disability and Old Age in Ageing Research and Disability Studies\",\"authors\":\"Salla Era, Hisayo Katsui, Teppo Kröger\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s1474746424000058\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this study, we investigated the conceptual approaches to disability and ageing in two leading social scientific journals (<jats:italic>Ageing & Society</jats:italic> [AS] and <jats:italic>Disability & Society</jats:italic> [DS]) of the research fields that form the bases of policies on disability and ageing. This study aimed to identify the journals’ trajectories of conceptual development and their differences, and through that, find possible pathways for further interaction between the yet largely separate policy frameworks for disability and ageing. Our analysis showed considerable differences between the conceptual approaches of the two journals, with the dominant approach in DS being sociomaterial and individual-functional in AS. We conclude this paper by identifying the conceptual gaps in the respective journals, suggesting a further collaboration between the approaches in research as well as policies. These gaps could be potentially narrowed, leading to a constructive dialogue on older disabled people.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47397,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Policy and Society\",\"volume\":\"61 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Policy and Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1474746424000058\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL ISSUES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Policy and Society","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1474746424000058","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL ISSUES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
在本研究中,我们调查了构成残疾与老龄化政策基础的两个研究领域的主要社会科学期刊(《老龄化与社会》[Ageing & Society [AS] 和《残疾与社会》[Disability & Society [DS]])中有关残疾与老龄化的概念方法。本研究旨在确定这两份期刊的概念发展轨迹及其差异,并由此找到残疾与老龄政策框架之间进一步互动的可能途径。我们的分析表明,两份期刊的概念方法存在很大差异,《残疾》的主导方法是社会物质,而《老龄》的主导方法是个人功能。在本文的最后,我们指出了两本期刊在概念上的差距,建议在研究和政策方面进一步加强合作。这些差距有可能缩小,从而就老年残疾人问题开展建设性对话。
From Conceptual Gaps to Policy Dialogue: Conceptual Approaches to Disability and Old Age in Ageing Research and Disability Studies
In this study, we investigated the conceptual approaches to disability and ageing in two leading social scientific journals (Ageing & Society [AS] and Disability & Society [DS]) of the research fields that form the bases of policies on disability and ageing. This study aimed to identify the journals’ trajectories of conceptual development and their differences, and through that, find possible pathways for further interaction between the yet largely separate policy frameworks for disability and ageing. Our analysis showed considerable differences between the conceptual approaches of the two journals, with the dominant approach in DS being sociomaterial and individual-functional in AS. We conclude this paper by identifying the conceptual gaps in the respective journals, suggesting a further collaboration between the approaches in research as well as policies. These gaps could be potentially narrowed, leading to a constructive dialogue on older disabled people.