Introduction
The issue of aging and solitude has been a topic of interest for millennia since many people have pondered regarding which environment makes one happy – on their own or surrounded by others. While much research has been conducted in order to review the given matters, it is noteworthy that many articles have been written that provided their perspectives. For instance, in the article by Goldstein and Gebeloff and the research by Schafer and colleagues on the correlation between solitude and well-being in older adults, both materials have different approaches to presenting information.
Discussion
Before analyzing the two works, it is necessary to give an overview. The New York Times article by Goldstein and Gebeloff (2022) claims that aging alone is associated with poor physical and emotional health outcomes as well as shorter longevity. In their writing, they relied on the research findings of Dr. Schafer, which state that older adults are often more lonesome compared to those living with others, even when they have a busy social and family life (Goldstein & Gebeloff, 2022). Both materials were published in the same year, 2022, and have a certain similarity, such as focusing mainly on the terms of loneliness and older adults. However, while the magazine article was published in 2022, the material for the research was retrieved from 20 industrialized Western nations in 2009/2010 and 2015/2016, which was then published in 2022 in The Journal of Gerontology (Schafer et al., 2022). However, there are more differences between the materials mentioned.
Firstly, the approach of both works varies greatly in their format. Goldstein and Gebeloff in their writing of the article material strove to have a text that would be both entertaining and simple to use. As a result, they were not constrained in their decisions and were free to follow any style of writing as long as it was appealing to the general public. On the opposite, Schafer and colleagues followed a formal approach with a strict research template.
Then, when it comes to the structure of both materials, The New York Times article follows a more freestyle without any visible constraints. The article has a certain introduction, body paragraphs, which emphasize the findings from the study and interviews with representatives of the elderly groups, and an appropriate conclusion. In turn, research has a completely opposite structure, with more pages of material and different requirements. Firstly, the study has an abstract that provides an insight into the research’s main points. Then, the work is divided into segments, such as an introduction with objectives, methodology, results, and discussion. Overall, the study by Schafer and colleagues is roughly two times bigger than the magazine article.
Moreover, the writing style of the article is narrative and simple, with the use of phrasal verbs and colloquialisms. For instance, in one paragraph, Goldstein and Gebeloff (2022) mention that the social housing of the country “has grown out of sync” in many respects with these changing demographics. The journalists strive to avoid complicated scientific words that might confuse the general public who might not be acquainted with such terminology. The reason for this is to additionally make the material more entertaining. In comparison, the research article by Schafer and colleagues (2022) has a scientific descriptive style of writing, using the appropriate terminology, mentioning such words as samples, pooled longitudinal regression models, variables, and others. In this case, the research encompasses the research template in its style.
The audience for The New York Times magazine article is the general public who might take an interest in the topic of solitude in older adults. The material is aimed at retaining the attention of the readers, which is why the authors aside from offering raw research material, combine it with interviews with retired individuals, such as Ms. Felders, Mr. Miles, and Ms. Selman (Goldstein & Gebeloff, 2022). In turn, the research conducted by Schafer and colleagues (2022) is aimed at academics and other researchers who might proceed with the chosen issue and develop it further. For instance, in the end, Schafer and colleagues suggest that future studies determine whether there are gender, racial/ethnic, and geographic differences in the effectiveness of compensating connections.
Finally, when it comes to the information, presentation, writing style, approach, and format that could be altered to appeal to the general public and properly relay the findings of the study at hand, a less formal approach could be applied. For instance, while the information of the research does not pose any challenges to comprehend, its presentation indeed is a barrier. For this, a less descriptive and more narrative style of writing can be used, along with simplifying the presentation by omitting abstracts and methodology. The format might be one of a prolonged essay, with specific references to corroborate one’s statements. As a result, a less formal approach can make the reading of the material more manageable.
Conclusion
In sum, both the paper by Goldstein and Gebeloff and the study by Schafer and colleagues on the relationship between isolation and well-being in older individuals use distinct methods of information presentation. The material differs in format, with the article having few constraints and writing freely and the study having to follow the research template. Then, the format of the article reminds me of an essay, while the study follows the format with an abstract, methodology, findings, and discussion. The style of writing in the article is simple and informal, while the one of the study is formal and scientific. Finally, the audience of the article is the general public and the readers of the study are assuming the academic public.
References
Goldstein, D., & Gebeloff, R. (2022). As Gen X and Boomers age, they confront living alone. The New York Times. Web.
Schafer, M. H., Sun, H., & Lee, J. A. (2022). Compensatory connections? Living alone, loneliness, and the buffering role of social connection among older American and European adults. The Journal of Gerontology, 77(8), 1550–1560. Web.