Sexuality Content in Gerontological Research

Background and Purpose:

Scholars from multiple disciplines have remarked on the silences regarding sexuality in academic literature (Hammonds, 1995; Stein & Plummer, 1994; Van Vorrhis & Wagner, 2002). This absence, makes it unclear to what extent sexuality studies' advances have been incorporated into the field of social gerontology. Social gerontology is an important subfield for investigating sexual silences, as stereotypes of older individuals as “asexual” may make these gaps particularly likely in aging research. Delineating the discursive field of sexuality and gerontology is critical, as it represents the state of the field, provides scholars with the framework for their research, and guides future inquiry. In particular, I ask: How do gerontological journals represent older sexualities, in general, and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender sexualities more particularly?

Methods:

This study employs mixed methods to conduct an interpretive content analysis of gerontological literature. To identify relevant articles, I used all 21 English journals ranked by ISI's journal citation reports. Within these, I conducted key-word searches to identify articles that address issues of sexuality during a twenty year span (1988-2007), identifying 70 relevant articles. These articles were then coded quantitatively and qualitatively by myself and a research assistant. Open and focused coding, which draws from inductive and deductive techniques (Emerson, Fretz & Shaw, 1995), was employed.

Results:

Quantitative analysis shows that about 0.5% of all articles published in gerontology journals dealt with issues of sexuality. This is significantly lower than Van Vorrhis & Wagner's (2002) findings about social work's inclusion of GLBTQ issues. More prestigious gerontology journals are significantly less likely to include sexuality related articles (p=<.05). Yet, over time, gerontology journals are significantly more likely to publish sexuality related articles (p=<.001). Four qualitative themes emerged in the coding these data. The first, Justifying Sexuality, demonstrates how many of the strategies researchers use to justify the importance of studying sexuality simultaneously presents problems which are relatively unexplored. The second, (Hetero)sexualities, describes how the majority of research that investigates “sexuality” assumes heterosexuality. The third theme, Lesbian and Gay Older Adults, shows that articles describing lesbian and gay older adults are primarily problem focused, although not exclusively, and narrowly focused on lesbian and gay identities to the exclusion of other sexual minority individuals. Lastly, in Managing Older Adults' Sexualities, analysis found a major concern regarding how older adults' sexualities are “managed” in care facilities.

Conclusions and Implications:

This project has important implications for social work practice and research regarding the sexualities of older adults. Gerontological research has done relatively little to describe the sexualities of older adults, especially in top tier journals. However this trend is shifting. As the qualitative findings suggest, the research that is available to gerontological social workers researchers is limited. To foster productive aging, research must more appropriately incorporate older adults' sexualities. Future research with older adults may explore the roles of sexualities in the lives of older adults, explore the “management” of older sexualities in a variety of settings, and continue to examine how older sexualities are produced.