ABSTRACT
During the past two decades, environmental gerontology has not flourished as scholars in the field once anticipated. This article considers reasons for this claim, focusing specifically on the place of theory and, more broadly, on the undergirding functions of paradigms for the field. It is argued that progress in this diverse field has slowed in recent years due the decline of useful theoretical research on practice, the limited applicability of current research in the field, and a positivist approach that focuses on predictive, context-independent processes while ignoring the physical environment is an essential contextual element in the aging process. Moreover, it is argued that claims that adoption of a natural or “hard” science paradigm will reinvigorate research in environmental gerontology are misguided. Rather, the case is made that environmental gerontology is not a “normal” science (judged against Kuhnian criteria) but appears currently to be in a pre-paradigmatic stage. Debates within the social-behavioral sciences about their “real science” status directly affect environmental gerontology, particularly with regard to context-dependent and independent findings. Consistent with an interpretive perspective, it is argued that because environmental gerontology ultimately solution-driven, it must focus on practical activity and practical knowledge generated from context-bound, every-day practices. This requires holistic methodologies such case studies, precedents, and exemplars necessarily and directly tied to their actual local contexts.
