Dementia and intersectionality : exploring the experiences of older people with dementia and their significant others
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this thesis is to demonstrate that new and varied views of dementia surface when the concept of intersectionality is applied to dementia research; and that these perspectives pose challenges to our assumptions about what it is like to have dementia. Grounded theory research from a feminist and anti-oppression perspective was undertaken to explore the question of the relationships between older people‘s experiences of dementia and the intersections of gender, class, ‘race’, and ethnicity. During nine months of field research in Canada, interviews, participant observation, photography, and focus groups were undertaken with eight older people with dementia and their significant others. The participants ranged from multiply marginalized to multiply privileged on the basis of their ‘race’, ethnicity, gender, and class. The grounded theory arising from this research explains the complex nature of the relationships between the subjective experiences of older people living with dementia and the intersections of ethnicity, ‘race’, class, and gender. I argue that there is a connection between social location and lived experiences of dementia; and that these relationships can be observed across and within the categories of experiencing, othering, and theorising. Experiencing captures the diversity of older people’s experiences of dementia, which range from ‘not a big deal’ to ‘a nuisance’ to ‘hellish’: these views are associated with social location, with the multiply privileged older people holding the most negative views of dementia and the multiply marginalized older people dismissing the significance of dementia. Othering refers to the marginalisation to which people with dementia are subject: it is shown to be a marked feature of life with dementia and to be connected to social location, with the multiply privileged people being othered more often as a result of their dementia status; the more marginalised participants demonstrating resilience (as an acquired characteristic); and all being subject to both othering practices and enabling behaviours enacted by members of their social worlds, such as their significant others. The theorising category refers to people with dementia being active meaning makers who theorise about dementia: the outcome of this intellectual activity is shown to be related to social location, with the most privileged participants being the only ones to view dementia as a brain disease; and all others making strategic use of the normal aging theory to avoid marginalisation due to dementia. The result of the theorising done by older people with dementia is a dialectical theory of dementia that positions dementia as a bio-psycho-social phenomenon, disrupts the false dichotomy between normal and pathological, and integrates emic and etic perspectives on dementia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.028 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".