Lum Terry Yat-Sang
Sau Po Centre on Ageing and Department of Social Work and Social Administration, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong.
Ageing Int. 2013 Jun;38(2):171-178. doi: 10.1007/s12126-012-9171-2.
The public discourse on productive aging as a research and policy initiative has just begun in greater China. Two conferences in Mainland China in 2009 and 2011 and subsequent conferences in Taiwan and Hong Kong in 2012 have set it in motion. Because applied social science research has just started in greater China, researchers in Chinese societies will benefit from the experience and rich literature accumulated over the last three decades in the West. In this paper, I review and reflect on the research methods used in productive aging research in both Chinese societies and in the West. I believe that to advance productive aging research in greater China, we need to (1) discuss and agree upon a definition of productive aging, (2) identify and differentiate outputs and outcomes of productive aging activities in greater China, (3) develop precise measures for productive aging involvement, (4) focus on institutional (program and public policy) factors that promote productive aging involvement, (5) use a strong research design (such as a quasi-experimental design) to establish the internal validity of productive aging programs, and (6) be theory-driven. Lastly, productive aging should be seen as a choice, not an obligation for older people; otherwise, the productive aging agenda will be seen as exploiting older people. It is important that Chinese researchers and policy-makers have this in mind when they are advocating productive engagement of older people in China.
在大中华地区,关于将积极老龄化作为一项研究及政策倡议的公众讨论才刚刚开始。2009年和2011年在中国大陆召开的两次会议,以及随后于2012年在台湾和香港召开的会议推动了这一进程。由于应用社会科学研究在大中华地区才刚刚起步,中国社会的研究人员将受益于西方在过去三十年积累的经验和丰富文献。在本文中,我回顾并反思了中国社会和西方在积极老龄化研究中所使用的研究方法。我认为,为了推动大中华地区的积极老龄化研究,我们需要:(1)讨论并就积极老龄化的定义达成共识;(2)识别并区分大中华地区积极老龄化活动的产出和成果;(3)制定衡量积极老龄化参与度的精确指标;(4)关注促进积极老龄化参与的制度(项目和公共政策)因素;(5)采用强大的研究设计(如准实验设计)来确立积极老龄化项目的内部有效性;(6)以理论为导向。最后,积极老龄化应被视为老年人的一种选择,而非义务;否则,积极老龄化议程将被视为对老年人的剥削。中国的研究人员和政策制定者在倡导中国老年人积极参与时牢记这一点非常重要。