Dalmer Nicole K
Department of Sociology, Otonabee College, Trent University, Room 230, 1600 West Bank Drive, Peterborough, ON K9L 0G2, Canada.
J Aging Stud. 2019 Mar;48:40-49. doi: 10.1016/j.jaging.2019.01.002. Epub 2019 Jan 18.
The home environment is pivotal in the lives of older people, intimately intertwined with one's sense of self and belonging. Aging in place (AIP), continuing to live in the same or familiar place or community for as long as possible not only fulfills a neoliberal and economic imperative but aligns with the wishes of a majority of older Canadians, who prefer to age in place. Despite policies' contributions to differing experiences of aging, the potential bearing of the narratives embedded within AIP or age-friendly policies remains unexamined. Within an institutional ethnography method of inquiry, this study applied Bacchi's "What's the Problem Represented to be?" (WPR) approach to structure the discovery of governing narratives about familial care work embedded within seven Canadian aging in place policies at the municipal, provincial, and federal level. I analyzed these policies for their role in coordinating the experiences of caring for an older adult who is aging in place in London, Canada's first age-friendly city. Of particular interest for this study is uncovering whether these texts recognize the work, and in particular the information work, of providing care to an older adult who is AIP. The policies' overall focus on self-reliance, independence, and resourcefulness frames aging in place as a process that can and should be responsibly managed. Information is introduced as a helpful tool to secure and preserve older adults' independence and usefulness to their community. The policies' problematizations frame successful aging in place as governed through a logic of choice, where a complex problem is framed as a matter of choice. Ultimately, however, while the policies offer a number of different "choices" for older adults to AIP, a critical unpacking of the problematizations reveals the choice to AIP to be illusory. There is only one option presented in the policies and that is to AIP.
家庭环境在老年人的生活中至关重要,与个人的自我认知和归属感紧密相连。就地养老(AIP),即尽可能长时间地在同一个或熟悉的地方或社区生活,不仅符合新自由主义和经济需求,也符合大多数加拿大老年人的意愿,他们更倾向于就地养老。尽管政策对不同的养老经历有一定作用,但AIP或老年友好型政策中所蕴含的叙事的潜在影响仍未得到审视。在一种制度民族志研究方法中,本研究应用了巴基的“问题被呈现为什么?”(WPR)方法,来构建对加拿大市级、省级和联邦层面的七项就地养老政策中所蕴含的关于家庭护理工作的主导叙事的发现。我分析了这些政策在协调加拿大首个老年友好型城市伦敦一位就地养老的老年人的护理经历方面所起的作用。本研究特别感兴趣的是,这些文本是否认识到为就地养老的老年人提供护理的工作,尤其是信息工作。这些政策总体上对自力更生、独立性和足智多谋的关注,将就地养老构建为一个能够且应该得到负责任管理的过程。信息被作为一种有助于确保和维护老年人独立性以及他们对社区有用性的工具引入。这些政策的问题化将成功的就地养老构建为由一种选择逻辑所支配,即一个复杂问题被框定为一个选择问题。然而,最终,虽然这些政策为就地养老的老年人提供了许多不同的“选择”,但对这些问题化的批判性剖析表明,就地养老的选择是虚幻的。政策中只呈现了一个选择,那就是就地养老。