The State of Theory in LGBTQ Aging: Implications for Gerontological Scholarship

Abstract

Social research in lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) aging is a rapidly growing field, but an examination of the use of theory has not yet been conducted for its impact on the field’s direction. We conducted a systematic review of empirical articles published in LGBTQ aging in the years 2009–2017 (N 102). Using a typology of theory use in scholarly articles, we analyzed these articles for the types of theories being used, the degree to which theories were used in each article, and the analytical function they served. We found that 52% of articles consistently applied theory, 23% implied or partially applied theory, and 25% presented as atheoretical. A wide range of theories were used and served multiple analytical functions such as concept development and explanation of findings. We discuss the strengths and weaknesses of theory use in this body of literature, especially with respect to implications for future knowledge development in the field.

The Families of LGBTQ Older Adults: Theoretical Approaches to Creative Family Connections in the Context of Marginalization, Social‐Historical Change, and Resilience

“…In gerontology, as well, there is a growing interest in the complexities and diversity in how sexual and gender minorities are faring in a world still marked by marginalization and discrimination, yet with greater social and legal acceptance on the horizon. In a recent gerontological review of the levels of theoretical visibility in LGBTQ aging (Fabbre, Jen, & Fredriksen‐Goldsen, ), the focus is on individuals' experiences with aging, without attention to family relationships and structures. Again, in the aging literature, the focus is more on the physical and emotional dimensions of health—an individual‐level phenomenon—rather than family relationships and diverse family structures (Blieszner & Voorpostel, ; Van Wagenen, Driskell, & Bradford, ).…”

“…Although analysis of explicit theory use in empirical articles is common, as demonstrated in the literature we cite, other schemes for analyzing the state of theory use can be found. For example, Fabbre et al () used a typology of five levels—seemingly absent, implied, partially applied, retrospectively applied, and consistently applied—to examine theory use in LGBTQ aging scholarship.…”

“…Thus, 75% of the articles used at least some theory (combining explicit and implicit use) to examine LGBTQ older adults and their families. Considering other analyses of theory use in the family gerontology literature, 75% is on par with a recent analysis of theory use to guide the grandparent literature (77.28%; Allen et al, ) and theory use in the study of LGBTQ aging (75%; Fabbre et al, ). It is also a slight increase over the 1990s review of the family gerontology literature, where Roberto et al () found that 69% of articles were guided by an explicit or implicit theory.…”

“…The life course perspective is the most common theory used among the 18 explicit articles. Life course is a major family theory that is also the predominant theory used in family gerontology (Allen et al, ; Blieszner & Voorpostel, ; Roberto et al, ), as well as in the general LGBTQ aging literature (Fabbre et al, ). To illustrate, Lannutti () identified the life course perspective as guiding her grounded theory study of the emerging and rapidly changing legal and social context of same‐sex marriage for older lesbian and gay couples who had chosen either to marry or to remain unmarried in Massachusetts at a time when legal same‐sex marriage was first becoming available.…”

“…Additionally, acknowledging individual sexual and gender identities within same‐sex or same‐gender couples will broaden the literature to include trans and bisexual individuals (Fish & Russell, ). It is encouraging that work on transgender elders is starting to amass (Fabbre et al, ; Witten, ). We anticipate that the emerging literature on younger bisexual and transgender individuals and their families will expand to include older adults, particularly with the aging of the baby‐boom generation (Pfeffer & Jones, ; Rodriguez Rust, ).…”