Papers - Kinoshita, Shu

書評 三井さよ著『ケアと支援と「社会」の発見 : 個のむこうにあるもの』

木下 衆

ソシオロジ / ソシオロジ編集委員会 編 (社会学研究会)  67 ( 3 ) 95 - 102 2023.02

ISSN  0584-1380

認知症の人の心はどこにあるのか : 社会学の立場から—特集 認知症と社会

木下 衆

三田評論  ( 1271 ) 27 - 32 2022.11

ISSN  1343-618X

トクシュウ ヤング ケアラー : カゾク シュギテキ フクシ ・ ヒンコン ノ レンサ ・ コドモ ノ ケンリ …

木下 衆

現代思想 50 ( 14 ) 175 - 182 2022.11

書評　井口高志著『認知症社会の希望はいかにひらかれるのか――ケア実践と本人の声をめぐる社会学的探求』

木下 衆

社会学評論 289 2022

書評 井口高志著『認知症社会の希望はいかにひらかれるのか : ケア実践と本人の声をめぐる社会学的探求』

木下 衆

社会学評論 = Japanese sociological review / 日本社会学会 編 73 ( 1 ) 79 - 81 2022

ISSN  0021-5414

Notes on video in social interactions

Kinoshita Shu

Mita journal of sociology  ( 26 ) 49 - 54 2021.07

書評　井口高志著『認知症社会の希望はいかにひらかれるのか：ケア実践と本人の声をめぐる社会学的探求』」

木下 衆

『社会学評論』 289 2021

自著を語る～MY FIRST BOOK～　『家族はなぜ介護してしまうのか―認知症の社会学』

木下 衆

Kansai Sociological Review (Kansai Sociological Association)  20 ( 0 ) 79 - 80 2021

ISSN  13474057

• Access to Document (DOI)
• CiNii Research

自著を語る――MY FIRST BOOK （木下 衆、『家族はなぜ介護してしまうのか――認知症の社会学』、世界思想社、2019 年）

木下 衆

フォーラム現代社会学 20 2021

書評に応えて（『家族はなぜ介護してしまうのか――認知症の社会学』）

木下衆

ソシオロジ 65 ( 2 ) 130 - 134 2020.10

認知症家族介護から見える介護保険の歩み : 「真面目で、意識の高い介護家族」は、なぜ、何に悩むのか? (特集 介護保険は持続可能か)

木下 衆

都市問題 (後藤・安田記念東京都市研究所)  111 ( 4 ) 35 - 40 2020.04

ISSN  0387-3382

（書評）平山亮（著）『介護する息子たち――男性性の死角とケアのジェンダー分析』

木下衆

家族社会学研究 30 ( 2 ) 254 - 255 2018.10

Managing Family Caring : Doing Sociology for Sociologists

木下 衆

現象と秩序 (現象と秩序企画編集室)   ( 8 ) 39 - 66 2018.03

Single Work,  ISSN  2188-9848

酒井泰斗・浦野茂・前田泰樹・中村和生・小宮友根 編『概念分析の社会学2——実践の社会的論理——』（ナカニシヤ出版、2016年）

木下 衆

保健医療社会学論集 (日本保健医療社会学会)  28 ( 1 ) 100 - 101 2017

ISSN  1343-0203

誰が、認知症患者の人生を知っているのか? : 葛藤し、戸惑う、「新しい認知症ケア」時代の家族たち (特集 認知症新時代)

木下 衆

現代思想 (青土社)  43 ( 6 ) 192 - 203 2015.03

"Approaching" the "Life" of a Dementia Patient : Sociological Analysis of Interactions between Family Carers and the Patient

KINOSHITA Shu

Kansai sociological review (関西社会学会)  13 ( 13 ) 45 - 57 2014.05

Accepted,  ISSN  1347-4057

　View Summary

How do people react to and interpret the behaviors of an individual labeled a "dementia patient"? To answer this question, an in-depth analysis of one particular case of "the new century of dementia care" (Iguchi 2007) is presented in this paper. "The new century of dementia care" defines the current Japanese perspective on dementia care in which much importance is attached to communication between patients and their carers. This perspective recognizes that carers often try to "approach" patients in their current condition with the expectation that they may react. Moreover, carers regard such "approaching" as a "moral duty." What seems to be lacking is detailed analysis of the actual "approaching" or communication that occurs, the findings on which could lead to a reformation of present sociological frameworks on dementia care that emphasize the "self-fulfilling prophecy of impairment" (Lyman 1989). Data were gathered from participant observations within care settings, and this paper discusses in particular the interactions between Ms L (the patient) and her family. Data analysis revealed many elements of "the new century of dementia care," where Ms L's family was strongly oriented to "approach" (or communicate with) her with expectations of her reaction. Thus, their case was deemed a particular example of such care. Family carers almost always referred to Ms L's previous way of life before she was diagnosed with dementia. The study found a certain standard of "approaching" in dementia care, which I termed "life," after the geriatric psychiatrist Isao Ozawa's (2003) discussion. Further, a paradoxical conclusion was drawn: because carers respect the "life" of patients as a standard of care, carers must mobilize all their knowledge about patients in caring for them. While dementia care often centers on care settings, "what patients want/like/feel" and so on is highly dependent on interactions with carers.

• Access to Document (DOI)

"Claims of Privileged Knowledge" in Family Care:Analysis of the Care for the Elderly with Dementia from a Social Constructionist Perspective

KINOSHITA Shu

JSR (The Japan Sociological Society)  64 ( 1 ) 73 - 90 2013

Accepted,  ISSN  0021-5414

　View Summary

Family caretakers of the elderly with dementia often claim that they "are the only people who know the real condition of these elderlies." In this paper, I examine such remarks as the "claims of privileged knowledge" (Gubrium & Holstein 1990), which appear to conflict with recent medical theories about dementia. In recent years, Japanese medical practitioners have argued that dementia patients sustain their ability to interact, and they demand that such ability be respected. Family caretakers, on the other hand, seem to ignore the elderlies abilities and impose upon them their "definition of reality" (Amada 2007). However, in this article, I emphasize that their claims are based on "dementia" as a medical concept and medical practitioners discourses that stress the dementia patients ability to interact. Many medical practitioners have pointed out that the environment and those concerned, such as doctors, social workers, and patients relatives, often dramatically change the dementia patients conditions because they sustain the patients interaction abilities. For that feature of "dementia," those concerned tend to make inconsistent judgments about the patients conditions (e.g., "You said that hes getting worse and worse, but he is fine because he talked to us a lot about our old times."). In such cases, family caretakers often insist on interpreting the patients reactions (such as "talking about old times to relatives") as symptoms of dementia and remain steadfast in their judgment. In brief, family caretakers make "claims of privileged knowledge" about how to apply the concept of "dementia" to the elderlies daily lives and presume the elderlies conditions. Such conflicts between the family caretakers and others reveal problems in the order of family care in "the new century of dementia care" (Iguchi 2007) in Japan.

"How to hold a mock peer review session? : Publishing and improving articles on the website"

Kinoshita Shu, Kashida Yoshio

Social sciences research, University of Tokushima (徳島大学)  26   15 - 28 2012.12

ISSN  0914-6377

Conceptual Analysis of "Dementia" among Family Caregivers in SHGs : Construction of "Dementia" and Remedying Troubles by Family Caregivers

KINOSHITA Shu

The Japanese Journal of Health and Medical Sociology (日本保健医療社会学会)  22 ( 2 ) 55 - 65 2012

Accepted,  ISSN  1343-0203

　View Summary

In this paper, I examine "dementia" as the concept, which indicates "who" and "how to" remedy troubles about care. I analyze data collected through participant observations and interviews in self-help groups (SHGs) that family caregivers of the demented elderly attended. I emphasize the following four points. First, if elderlies are represented as " the demented, " they are exempted from the responsibility of remedying troubles. Second, assigning such responsibilities to "family caregivers" implies that they must provide care by considering that people with dementia "cannot think logically, while their emotional abilities are preserved." Third, people with dementia are regarded as "innocent" or "harmless" as a result of this categorization. Fourth, by participating in SHGs, family caregivers can develop a new frame of interpretation for "troubles to remedy" in dementia.

• Access to Document (DOI)

Ethics for Being Peer Reviewed : Case Study of a Mock Peer Review(Research Works, Writing Research Papers, Research Fund Projects)

KINOSHITA Shu

The Japanese Journal of Health and Medical Sociology (日本保健医療社会学会)  23 ( 1 ) 28 - 37 2012

ISSN  1343-0203

　View Summary

In this paper, I examine the peer-reviewing process as an institutional setting and analyze how contributors should act to establish it. For this purpose, I use the record of a mock peer review hosted by The Japanese Society of Health and Medical Sociology, where my article was reviewed. In this article, I distinguish two aspects of the peer review: "communication" and "evaluation." Moreover, I emphasize that contributors must interpret every aspect of comments provided by reviewers as "evaluation"; contributors must divide reviewers' long comments into brief checklist points in their articles. In the peer-reviewing process, reviewers have more power than contributors do, and such a situation is sometimes considered "unequal." However, this inequality must be overcome by contributors' skills of interpreting comments, not through the abstract "equal dialogue" with reviewers.

• Access to Document (DOI)