Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T05:50:33.082Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Widowers' strategies of self-representation during research interviews: a sociological analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 January 2009

DEBORAH K. VAN DEN HOONAARD
DEBORAH K. VAN DEN HOONAARD*
Affiliation:
St Thomas University, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada.
*
Address for correspondence: Deborah K. van den Hoonaard, Department of Gerontology, St Thomas University, Fredericton, New Brunswick E3B 5G3, Canada. E-mail: dkvdh@stu.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article analyses the strategies that older widowers used to assert their masculinity during in-depth research interviews by the author, a middle-aged woman. Twenty-six widowers living in Atlantic Canada and Florida in the United States and who were aged from 56 to 91 years participated in the study. The author analysed the interviews from a symbolic-interactionist perspective that looks at the world from the perspective of those being studied. The widowers used various strategies of impression management to reinforce their identity as ‘real men’ during the interviews. These strategies included taking charge of the interview, using personal diminutives and endearments to assert control, lecturing the interviewer about various topics including differences between men and women, and bringing attention to their heterosexuality by referring to themselves as bachelors and commenting on increased attention from women. The paper chronicles the process of discovery of the importance to the study participants of portraying themselves as men. It was found that older widowers' identity as ‘real men’ is precarious because they lack three essential components of masculinity: being in a heterosexual relationship, being employed, and being young. The article makes extensive use of the participants' quotations to demonstrate their attempts, through impression management, to maintain a masculine identity while discussing the very topics that threatened it.

Keywords

widowersgender and interviewingmasculinity
Type
Research Article
Information
Ageing & Society , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , February 2009 , pp. 257 - 276
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arber, S., Davidson, K. and Ginn, J. 2003. Gender and Ageing: Changing Roles and Relationships. Open University Press, Maidenhead, Berkshire.Google Scholar
Arendell, T. 1997. Reflections on the researcher-researched relationship: a woman interviewing men. Qualitative Sociology, 20, 3, 341–68.Google Scholar
Becker, H. S. 1996. The epistemology of qualitative research. In Jessor, R., Colby, A. and Schweder, R. (eds), Essays on Ethnography and Human Development. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 53–71.Google Scholar
Becker, H. S. 1998. Tricks of the Trade: How to Think About Your Research While You're Doing It. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Bennett, K. M., Hughes, G. M. and Smith, P. T. 2003. ‘I think a woman can take it’: widowed men's views and experiences of gender differences in bereavement. Ageing International, 28, 4, 408–24.Google Scholar
Bernard, J. 1973. The Future of Marriage. Bantam, New York.Google Scholar
Calasanti, T. 2004. Feminist gerontology and old men. Journals of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 59B, 6, S305–14.Google Scholar
Calasanti, T. and King, N. 2005. Firming the floppy penis: age, class, and gender relations in the lives of old men. Men and Masculinities, 8, 1, 3–23.Google Scholar
Charmaz, K. 1991. Good Days, Bad Days: The Self in Chronic Illness and Time. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Charmaz, K. 1994. Identity dilemmas of chronically ill men. Sociological Quarterly, 35, 2, 269–88.Google Scholar
Connell, R. W. 1987. Gender and Power: Society, the Person and Sexual Politics. Polity, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Conroy, P. 1995. Beach Music. Bantam, New York.Google Scholar
Davidson, K. 1999. Gender, Age and Widowhood: How Older Widows and Widowers Differently Realign their Lives. Unpublished Ph.D thesis, Department of Sociology, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, UK.Google Scholar
Drummond, M. and Smith, J. 2006. Ageing men's understanding of nutrition: implications for health. Journal of Men's Health and Gender, 3, 1, 56–60.Google Scholar
Edley, N. and Wetherell, M. 1995. Men in Perspective: Practice, Power and Identity. Prentice-Hall Harvester Wheatsheaf, London.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Doubleday, Garden City, New York.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. 1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Pantheon, New York.Google Scholar
Gurney, J. N. 1985. Not one of the guys: the female researcher in a male-dominated setting. Qualitative Sociology, 8, 1, 42–61.Google Scholar
Hollander, J. A. and Gordon, H. R. 2006. The processes of social construction in talk. Symbolic Interaction, 29, 2, 183–212.Google Scholar
Holstein, J. A. and Gubrium, J. F. 1995. The Active Interview. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.Google Scholar
Kanter, R. M. 1977. Men and Women of the Corporation. Basic, New York.Google Scholar
Kaufman, G. and Uhlenberg, P. 1998. Effects of life course transitions on the quality of relationships between adult children and their parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 4, 924–39.Google Scholar
Lareau, A. 2000. My wife can tell me who I know: methodological and conceptual problems in studying fathers. Qualitative Sociology, 23, 4, 407–33.Google Scholar
Lopata, H. Z. 1973. Widowhood in an American City. Schenkman, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Lopata, H. Z. 1996. Current Widowhood: Myths and Realities. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.Google Scholar
Martin-Matthews, A. 1991. Widowhood in Later Life. Butterworths, Toronto, Ontario.Google Scholar
Martin-Matthews, A. 2000. Intergenerational caregiving: how apocalyptic and dominant demographies frame the questions and shape the answers. In Gee, E. M. and Gutman, G. M. (eds), The Overselling of Population Aging: Apocalyptic Demography, Intergenerational Challenges, and Social Policy. Oxford University Press, Toronto, Ontario, 64–79.Google Scholar
Meadows, R. and Davidson, K. 2006. Maintaining manliness in later life: hegemonic masculinities and emphasized femininities. In Calasanti, T. M. and Slevin, K. F. (eds), Age Matters: Realigning Feminist Thinking. Routledge, New York, 295–312.Google Scholar
Morgan, D. H. J. 1992. Discovering Men. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Moore, A. J. and Stratton, D. C. 2002. Resilient Widowers: Older Men Speak for Themselves. Springer Publishing Company, New York.Google Scholar
Nock, S. L. 1998. Marriage in Men's Lives. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Pini, B. 2005. Interviewing men: gender and the collection and interpretation of qualitative data. Journal of Sociology, 41, 2, 201–16.Google Scholar
Ribeiro, O., Paúl, C. and Nogueira, C. 2007. Real men, real husbands: caregiving and masculinities in later life. Journal of Aging Studies, 21, 4, 302–13.Google Scholar
Russell, C. 2007. What do older women and men want? Gender differences in the ‘lived experience’ of ageing. Current Sociology, 55, 2, 173–92.Google Scholar
Schwalbe, M. and Wolkomir, M. 2001. The masculine self as problem and resource in interview studies of men. Men and Masculinities, 4, 1, 90–103.Google Scholar
Sontag, S. 1972. The double standard of aging. Saturday Review Magazine (New York City), (September 23), 29–38.Google Scholar
Spector-Mersel, G. 2006. Never-ending stories: western hegemonic masculinity scripts. Journal of Gender Studies, 15, 1, 67–82.Google Scholar
Stephenson, P. H., Wolfe, N. K., Coughlan, R. and Koehn, S. D. 1999. A methodological discourse on gender, independence, and frailty: applied dimensions of identity construction in old age. Journal of Aging Studies, 13, 4, 391–401.Google Scholar
Thompson, E. H. Jr 1994. Older Men's Lives. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.Google Scholar
Thompson, E. H. Jr 2006. Image of old men's masculinity: still a man? Sex Roles, 55, 633–48.Google Scholar
Thorne, B. 1993. Gender Play: Girls and Boys in School. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey.Google Scholar
UK Office of National Statistics 2001. Mid-Year Population Estimates 2001. Office of National Statistics, London. Available online at www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget_print.asap?ID=738 [Accessed August 24 2007].Google Scholar
US Census Bureau 2007. Marital status of people 15 years and over by age, sex, personal earnings, race and Hispanic origin, 2006. Table A1, Current Population Survey, 2006: Annual Social and Economic Supplement. US Census Bureau, Department of Commerce, Washington DC. Available online at www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hh-fam/cps2006.html [Accessed August 24 2007].Google Scholar
van den Hoonaard, D. K. 1997. Identity foreclosure: women's experiences of widowhood as expressed in autobiographical accounts. Ageing and Society, 17, 5, 533–51.Google Scholar
van den Hoonaard, D. K. 1999. No regrets: widows' stories about the last days of their husbands' lives. Journal of Aging Studies, 13, 1, 59–72.Google Scholar
van den Hoonaard, D. K. 2001. The Widowed Self: The Older Woman's Journey through Widowhood. Wilfrid Laurier University Press, Waterloo, Ontario.Google Scholar
van den Hoonaard, D. K. 2005. ‘Am I doing it right?’ Older widows as participants in qualitative research. Journal of Aging Studies, 19, 3, 393–406.Google Scholar
Warren, C. A. and Hackney, J. K. 2000. Gender Issues in Ethnography. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.Google Scholar
West, C. and Zimmerman, D. H. 1987. Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1, 2, 125–51.Google Scholar
Williams, C. L. and Heikes, E. J. 1993. The importance of researchers' gender in the in-depth interview: evidence from two case studies of male nurses. Gender and Society, 7, 2, 280–91.Google Scholar