Subjugation and Resistance in Older Gay Men's Health Care Experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The scholarship on aging among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) adults has, in recent years, experienced unprecedented growth. Despite this emerging body of literature, research on older gay men’s health care experiences remains limited. This qualitative study, which is framed theoretically by Foucauldian governmentality and intersectionality, and informed methodologically by a poststructuralist approach to grounded theory known as situational analysis, attempts to address this gap in the literature. Specifically, drawing on interviews with 27 Toronto-based gay men ages 50 and over, 16 of whom reported being HIV-positive at the time of recruitment, the study offers insight on the health care experiences of older gay men. More specifically, the study highlights processes of subjugation and resistance reflected in the accounts of the participants. Chapter 1 provides a critical review of the literature, highlights the role of Foucauldian governmentality and intersectionality in situating the study theoretically, and outlines the study’s research design. Chapter 2 contains an overview of the study’s key findings, which specifically delineate how sociohistorically significant discursive forces rooted in homophobia and HIV stigma, older gay men’s interpretations of medical practices, as well as institutional constructions of gay aging bodies, together reflect the role of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in shaping older gay men’s subjugation and resistance across health settings. Drawing on the study’s insights, and the centrality of Foucauldian governmentality in supporting the conceptualization of these findings, chapter 3 examines the utility of this theoretical framework in guiding and enriching qualitative studies informed by situational analysis. Chapter 4 utilizes the accounts of this study’s HIV-positive participants to identify the health care and social service needs of this population, and incorporates an intersectional lens to conceptualize variations in the service priorities of this group along dimensions of difference such as socioeconomic status, ability, and race. Finally, chapter 5 concludes with a discussion of the study’s contributions to substantive and theoretical bodies of scholarship, and an overview of the inquiry’s implications for policy and practice in the area of gay aging.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".