The Gerontologist
Vol. 46, No. 5, 571573
Guest Editorial
Imagining the Disciplinary Advancement of
Gerontology: Whither the Tipping Point?
What will transform gerontology from an interdis-
ciplinary to a disciplinary eld of study? Is gerontology
already a discipline? Has the eclipse occurred? What
evidence do we have that a transformation has
occurred or will soon occur? These questions receive
systematic treatment by Alkema and Alley (2006) in
a thoughtful essay about the evolution of gerontology.
Alkema and Alley (2006) are to be commended for
spurring us to systematically consider these questions.
Disciplinary evolution is not on an inexorable course of
destiny; it can be altered, and frank discussion in highly
visible outlets such as The Gerontologist can inuence
the movement toward disciplinary status for gerontol-
ogy. At the same time, the authors show that there is
a structural lag in the evolution of gerontology into
a discipline. There is the rhetoric and the reality of
disciplinary status for gerontology. The authors state
that gerontology appears to be a discipline (empha-
sis added). Elsewhere in their article they state that
gerontology is achieving the criteria to be considered
a unique eld of inquirya sign that the tipping point
is imminent. These and other statements manifest some
equivocation by the authors, but they display an
optimism that the tipping point has already occurred
or that we are on the verge of such a change. Is this
conclusion reasonable? Has a shift occurred so that
gerontology is now a discipline? If not, is there
sufcient activity to conclude that the change is
imminent? Gerontologists can be euphoric about
disciplinary evolution, but we should also ask whether
nongerontologists regard gerontology as a discipline.
Alkema and Alley (2006) do a wonderful job of
summarizing some of the milestones in the evolution of
gerontology, recounting the creation of the Geronto-
logical Society of America, the Administration on
Aging, the National Institute on Aging, and the
accumulated knowledge of the eld. The authors
discuss tensions in the evolution of gerontology as
a discipline on two fronts: intellectual and social. They
Address correspondence to Kenneth F. Ferraro, Center on Aging and
the Life Course, Purdue University, 302 Wood Street, West Lafayette, IN
47907-2108. E-mail: ferraro@purdue.edu.
1
Center on Aging and the Life Course, Purdue University, West
Lafayette, IN.
Vol. 46, No. 5, 2006
Copyright 2006 by The Gerontological Society of America
Kenneth F. Ferraro, PhD1
argue that the intellectual debates center on integration
across what they term the source disciplines, and the
social debates center on the political economy of higher
education and research infrastructure. Most of us are
acutely aware of the tensions to advance gerontology
within universities, colleges, medical schools, and
organizations that support research. Many such organ-
izations play a zero-sum game and are reluctant to
privilege gerontology at the expense of other elds of
study. Although it could be argued that efforts to
develop gerontology into a discipline should focus on
the social side, the authors dedicate the majority of their
essay to the intellectual evolution of gerontology. The
hope is that a clearer and more compelling vision of the
discipline of gerontology will lead to revised social
arrangements within organizations that support higher
education, research, or both. Moreover, this is the arena
over which gerontologists have the most control.
Has a Paradigm Shift Occurred?
In keeping with Kuhns (1962) view of how scientic
elds of study change, Alkema and Alley (2006) argue
that research paradigms change in major ways when
existing paradigms fail to provide the compelling
answers to key questions in the eld of study. Of
course, many elds do not want to surrender areas of
inquiry to new elds; rather, the source disciplines
evolve to incorporate the new ideas that arise in what
are often considered subfields. Whether it is biology
or sociology, the existing disciplines develop subelds
(e.g., biology of aging, sociology of aging) as ways to
extend the reach of the existing disciplines and
implement innovations that arise in the upstart areas
of inquiry. The point is that disciplinary evolution is
a protracted process because the existing disciplines are
not stagnant; they seek to incorporate good ideas and
methods from the emerging areas in an attempt to
provide compelling answers to basic questions.
So what will it take for a eld such as gerontology to
evolve into a discipline? The authors argue that four
elements are critical to the evolution: theory, research
methodology, formalized organizations supporting the
571
 Table 1. Tenets of a Gerontological Imagination past research on the science of gerontology, I do not
think that a paradigm shift has occurred. Gerontology
Tenet Description is not yet a discipline. Assuredly, it appears to be
moving toward being a discipline, but I do not think
1. Aging and causality Aging is not a cause of all age-related
phenomena. Thus, gerontologists
that there is evidence of a major shift on either social or
maintain a healthy skepticism intellectual grounds, much less a revolution in Kuhns
for what are attributed to be (1962) use of the term. Neither do I see a shift to
age effects. disciplinary status as imminent. It is comingand I
2. Aging as Aging involves biological, wholeheartedly welcome itbut the road is long and
multifaceted change psychological, and social changes the journey is slow.
in individuals at varying rates. In pondering the two domains of disciplinary
The transitions associated with evolution, I believe there is far more promise on the
growing older are probably not intellectual front than the social side for an imminent
linearly related to chronological
age, and the process of aging itself
shift. The interest in biomarkers of aging is but one
is also multidimensional in nature. example of keen interest by behavioral and social
3. Genetic inuences The imprint of genetics on scientists to integrate biological data in their analyses
on aging development and aging is of the aging process. As Alkema and Alley (2006) point
substantial. Genetics inuences out, there are exciting investigations that are inte-
not only longevity but also grating the concepts, theories, and methods of scientists
biological and behavioral from varied elds. They provide several exemplars, and
processes across the life course. there are dozens of others that are truly transformative
4. Aging and Age is positively associated with for the eld.
heterogeneity heterogeneity in a population.
5. Aging and life- Aging is a lifelong process, and
I have argued elsewhere that attempting to identify
course analysis using a life-course perspective a theory of aging may be too great a task for gerontology
helps advance the scientic (Ferraro, 1990). Competing theories within gerontology
study of aging. are not a problem; indeed, competing theories are often
6. Aging and Disadvantage accumulates over the where the most rapid scientic advances occur. Rather,
cumulative life course, thereby differentiating I think that what gerontology needs is a paradigm
disadvantage a cohort over time. a fundamental image of its subject matter that expresses
7. Aging and There is a propensity toward ageism the assumptions and key concepts for the eld. Is there
ageism in modern societies; ageism may a superstructure to the main ideas that captivate the
also exist among elderly people
or those who work with or for
interests of scholars interested in aging? Are there any
elderly people. Even scholars concepts and principles in gerontology that guide the
interested in aging may disciplinary research of both biologists and sociologists?
manifest ageism. In an attempt to foster paradigm development, I
proposed a gerontological imagination: an awareness
Note: Adapted from Ferraro (2006). of the process of human aging that enables one to
understand the scientic contributions of a variety of
eld of study, and a common vernacular. It is fairly researchers studying aging (Ferraro, 2006, p. 327). I
easy to argue that the latter two are well developed. It articulated seven tenets of how gerontologists think
is more difcult to argue, however, that theories and when I rst wrote about it (Ferraro, 1990). Although I
research methods in gerontology have taken hold. have changed some tenets, seven remain in my attempt
Does gerontology have its own theories and methods? to develop a paradigm, and these are summarized in
Alkema and Alley (2006) identify three theories as Table 1. For gerontology to advance as a discipline, I
having considerable impact and promise: life course, believe greater attention has to be given to basic
cumulative disadvantage, and ecological theories of concepts such as skepticism about aging effects,
aging. They elsewhere refer to these as perspectives, heterogeneity, cumulative disadvantage, and the mul-
and there are debates as to whether these three are tifaceted nature of change. Robust discussion of the
indeed theories (e.g., Elder 1998; Hatch 2005). The tenets may lead to agreement on the importance of
authors privilege social science explanations of aging, longitudinal methods for the study of aging, but I
but they are to be commended for identifying potential believe the rst goal is to articulate what we mean by
linkages beyond the social sciences. our paradigm. How do gerontologists think about the
For research methods, the authors point to the aging process?
importance of longitudinal designs, and this may be A common vernacular, professional organizations,
a place where gerontology could claim some indepen- and research advocates are important to the disciplinary
dence from the existing disciplines. This is not to say evolution of gerontology. What is more important,
that cross-sectional designs are unimportant for specic however, is a coherent statement of what it means to
research questions, but to privilege methods that are think as a gerontologist. What concepts in gerontology
more dynamic; aging should be about the study of would the disciplines want to appropriate for guiding
change. research and education? A gerontological imagination
On the basis of the evidence that Alkema and Alley helps frame discussion of these questions; it is a uid
(2006) present, as well as my own observations and conception of the eld (Ferraro, 2006).

572 The Gerontologist

 Although there is cause for optimism on the
intellectual side of disciplinary evolution, the most
compelling evidence that a shift has not occurred is
on the social side. Some organizations that support
research on aging do not even like the use of the g-
word (gerontology). The Association for Gerontology
in Higher Education routinely sponsors sessions on
how to defend gerontology programs (e.g., When
the Wolf is at the Door at its 2006 meeting), and
gerontology at most colleges and universities is by and
large a nice supplement to existing programs. Many
universities are trying to do more with less, and
gerontology often nds itself in this position. It gains
visibility on the vibrancy of scholarship related to
aging, but a tiny percentage of institutions of higher
education have recurring budgets that truly support
gerontology. Rather, the eld exists on double count-
ing budgets and achievements with the existing
disciplines (i.e., departments). Gerontology lacks the
political capital of programs such as African American
studies or womens studies. Indeed, to create a top-
notch aging center that would transcend and be
somewhat independent from the disciplines would be
an expensive proposition. Only a handful of universi-
ties have boldly approached the task with any sense
of enduring commitment. How could we, therefore,
conclude that the tipping point has occurred? Geron-
tology is not yet a discipline.
26 Years of Stability and Change
In Alkema and Alleys (2006) attempt to help advance
the disciplinary evolution of gerontology, they offer
an integrative gerontology model that privileges three
disciplines: biology, psychology, and sociology. My rst
reaction is that the contributions of epidemiology to
scholarship on aging are so substantial that it should have
equal footing with the three articulated in their model.
Epidemiologic studies of early origins and ecological
inuences on health are transforming how gerontologists
think about the aging process (e.g., Cagney, Browning, &
Wen, 2005; Kuh, Ben-Shlomo, Lynch, Hallqvist, &
Power, 2003).
The integrative gerontology model advocated by
Alkema and Alley (2006) bears a striking resemblance
to a discussion that played out on the pages of The
Gerontologist 26 years ago. A special issue titled
Foundations for Gerontological Education described
a collaborative effort between the Gerontological
Society (as it was known then) and the Association
for Gerontology in Higher Education (which was
previously an independent organization). The focus
was the core curriculum: What are the core components
of a valid education in gerontology? Although there
were nuances in the report, the core was dened by
three clusters: biomedical, psychosocial, and socioeco-
nomic environmental (Johnson et al., 1980). So, how
much has changed in 26 years?
The core disciplines have remained fairly stable, but I
think we are seeing more interdisciplinary inquiry than
occurred in the past. Scholars are creatively linking
Vol. 46, No. 5, 2006
elds of study to both conduct scientic inquiries and
shape the paradigm of gerontology. The core disciplines
are shaping gerontology, but gerontology also has more
inuence on the existing disciplines (Wilmoth &
Ferraro, 2006).
The congruence between the Foundations Project
and the integrative model of Alkema and Alley (2006) is
substantial. This is both a validation of the earlier
report and an indication of growing condence in these
core elements. Gerontologists need some understanding
of these three clusters or disciplines. At the same time,
how much mastery in each of the three areas is
necessary? Gerontology struggles with the tension
between disciplinary depth and interdisciplinary
breadth. As the authors note, gerontological education
that results in a jack-of-all-trades is a disservice to the
eld. Most of us reject the dilettante version of
gerontology education, but we want our students to
go beyond a single discipline. Some doctoral programs
err on the side of disciplinary depth, with minimal
interdisciplinary breadth; others take the opposite
approach. Gerontologists agree that a balance is
needed; we disagree on the optimal balance.
In an earlier Forum paper on disciplinary evolution,
my colleague and I argued that there is a generational
component to scientic revolutions and disciplinary
evolution (Bass & Ferraro, 2000). Although the eld is
currently debating the proper approaches to gerontol-
ogy education and research, the actors will change.
There is a new generation of scholars arising from
doctoral programs, especially the gerontology doctoral
programs, which will have different allegiances and
will likely accelerate the evolution of gerontology into
a discipline. Indeed, the tipping point will occur after
considerable cohort succession. It is coming, but the
pace is slow.
References
Alkema, G. E., & Alley, D. E. (2006). Gerontologys future: An integrative
model for disciplinary advancement. The Gerontologist, 46, 574582.
Bass, S. A., & Ferraro, K. F. (2000). Gerontology education in transition:
Considering disciplinary and paradigmatic evolution. The Gerontologist,
40, 97106.
Cagney, K. A., Browning, C. R., & Wen, M. (2005). Racial disparities in
self-rated health at older ages: What difference does the neighborhood
make? Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 60B, S181S190.
Elder, G. H., Jr. (1998). The life course as developmental theory. Child
Development, 69, 112.
Ferraro, K. F. (1990). The gerontological imagination. In K. F. Ferraro (Ed.),
Gerontology: Perspectives and issues (pp. 318). New York: Springer.
Ferraro, K. F. (2006). The gerontological imagination. In J. M. Wilmoth &
K. F. Ferraro (Eds.), Gerontology: Perspectives and issues (3rd ed., pp.
325342). New York: Springer.
Hatch, S. L. (2005). Conceptualizing and identifying cumulative adversity and
protective resources: Implications for understanding health inequalities.
Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 60B, S130S134.
Johnson, H. R., Britton, J. H., Lang, C. A., Seltzer, M. M., Stanford, E. P.,
Yancik, R., et al. (1980). Foundations for gerontological education. The
Gerontologist, 20(3 pt 2), 161.
Kuh, D., Ben-Shlomo, Y., Lynch, J., Hallqvist, J., & Power, C. (2003). Life
course epidemiology. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health,
57, 778783.
Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Wilmoth, J. M., & Ferraro, K. F. (2006). The fountain of gerontological
discovery. In J. M. Wilmoth & K. F. Ferraro (Eds.), Gerontology:
Perspectives and issues (3rd ed., pp. 312). New York: Springer.
573