Jane Bringolf, Author at - Page 42 of 100

TikTok and older adults

Hand holding a smartphone with the TikTok icon.

New research shows older adults are reframing ageing with TikTok.

TikTok has a reputation for being the playground of teenagers and younger adults. However, older adults are having fun with it too.

Compared to Facebook and Twitter, TikTok videos create opportunities for older adults to be influencers across all age groups. A new study from Singapore found that TikTok had both positive and negative aspects for older adults.

In trying to show that “oldies” can be “with it” they make fun of their conditions. But joking about one’s limitations brought about by the ageing process does little to dispel negative stereotypes. Negative stereotypes have an impact on how older adults feel about themselves as they grow older. So it’s not just how other people view them.

These feelings impact health and wellbeing and sense of self. However, the study showed such jokes are outnumbered by videos of older people defying stereotypes and embracing their ageing bodies.

An older woman with white hair and dressed in bright yellow and wearing sunglasses is singing into a microphone enthusiatically on TikTok.

Older adults are challenging stereotypes on TikTok.

The title of the article is, Not Too Old for TikTok: How Older Adults are Reframing Aging. The researchers compiled the most viewed videos of users aged 60 years and older with at least 100,000 followers. From a base of 1382 videos, they found 348 that had ageing content and these were used for analysis.

Three themes on ageing

Three themes emerged from the videos. Most fell under the theme of defying age stereotypes (71%). These videos were about embracing their ageing bodies. Making light of age-related vulnerabilities was present in 18% of the uploads. These videos joked about age stereotypes about such things as dementia. Calling out ageism (11%) revolved around older people condemning ageist practices.

The authors recommend encouraging older adults to create their own social media content. This is one way to counter some of the negative stereotypes about older people being technophobes. It will also encourage them to share the experiences of later life and become more active in age-based advocacy.

Assistive technology is for everyone

“Assistive technology” isn’t always high-tech or for a niche group.

You wouldn’t call a dish-drawer dishwasher assistive technology, but that is what it is. People who have difficulty bending, or fill the dishwasher from a sitting position, find it very assistive. The label of “assistive technology” has evolved from the old language of “aids and equipment for people with disability”. But all technology is assistive – it just depends on perspective.

One of the problems is the stigma attached to labelling items as assistive technology. For example, no-one thinks of a handrail on a staircase as being under this term. But as soon as one goes in the shower recess – suddenly it becomes a disability device bringing the associated stigma with it. And why the stigma?

Stigma arises from the notion that having a disability or reduced capability is something to hide. In many ways we haven’t moved on from last century thinking. Occupational therapists lament the number of devices left collecting dust in a cupboard. Aesthetics have taken a back-seat in many of these designs which doesn’t encourage use.

But assistive technology could be coming of age. An article in The Conversation covers a new report from the World Health Organisation. The article looks at Australia’s performance in this global report. The recommendations are: to better understand real life experiences, set up a national data-set, and improve workforce capacity.

Enabling people to stay home and live independently is one of the benefits of good choices in assistive technology. So home design is another technology factor – it’s not just about gadgets.

The title of the article is, From glasses to mobility scooters, ‘assistive technology’ isn’t always high-tech.

A previous article shows how technology can upgrade the simple walking cane.

Retire the retirement village

The Longevity by Design banner in pink and purple.

Age-friendly communities where people of all ages live, work and play could be the way of the future. That means the desirability of age-segregated living could be on the way out. Many people will live 30 years after the age of 65 years. By 2030 all baby boomers will have turned 65 and Gen X will be joining the older cohort. It’s time to retire the retirement village concept according to an article in The Conversation. This is based on feedback from older people in a Longevity By Design Challenge. This means we have to re-think the notion of retirement and approaches to urban design. The Design Challenge asked:

How do we best leverage the extra 30 years of life and unleash the social and economic potential of people 65+ to contribute to Australia’s prosperity?

Sixteen cross-disciplinary creative teams considered longevity in the context of buildings and neighbourhoods. Together the participants concluded that design for older people is inclusive design. No matter how old you are you still want the same things for a good life. That means autonomy and choice, purpose, good health and financial security. The title of the article is, Retire the retirement village – the wall and what’s behind it is so 2020, and explains how the challenge was run and some of the findings. Key points emerging from the challenge were inclusive infrastructure, people of all ages together, and a mobility “ecosystem” made up of different types of transport options. The underpinning principles turned out to be age-friendly communities, something the World Health Organization has promoted for more than ten years.

Boomers are over them

A scene from the charrette where people are sitting round a table discussing their project.

The ABC also reported on the Design Challenge and how to prepare and adapt Australian cities to capitalise on our longevity bonus. It seems walled and gated age-segregated enclaves might have had their day. Instead, the future might hold more age-inclusive neighbourhoods where older people continue to contribute into late age. So, no more need for doom and gloom about population ageing. As an urban design challenge the design of homes suited for all ages was not included. The ABC article is titled, Retirement villages have had their day: Baby boomers are rethinking retirement.

Banner for the Longevity by Design challenge in 2021.

A second Longevity by Design session was held in 2021 with the theme, Feels Like Home. This one was focused on aged care and the key points are in the video below.

Urban planning for population longevity

A row of two storey houses painted in different pastel colours.

Urban designers are potential champions for improvements for population ageing. That is a key theme in an article that proposes ways for helping older people stay put in their home, and if not, in their community. The article discusses current innovations to make neighbourhoods and homes more supportive both physically and socially. These include: enriching neighbourhoods, providing collective services, building all-age neighbourhoods, creating purpose-built supportive housing. The title of the article is, “Improving housing and neighborhoods for the vulnerable: older people, small households, urban design, and planning”. Open access available from SpringerLink, or via ResearchGate.

From the abstract

Currently preferences and policies aim to help older people to stay in their existing homes. However, the majority of homes in the U.S. and many other countries are not designed to support advanced old age. Also, they are not located to easily provide support and services. The paper examines the existing range of innovations to make neighbourhoods and homes more supportive, physically, socially, and in terms of services. These include: enriching neighbourhoods, providing collective services, building all-age neighbourhoods, creating purpose-built supportive housing, developing small scale intergenerational models, and engaging mobility, delivery, and communications innovations.

Racial segregation by design

Aerial view of a major highway intersection within an urban area. Racial segregation can be caused by design.

Is urban planning racist? We could also ask if urban planning is ableist or sexist. The answer to all three is probably, ‘yes’, but to what degree. Lisa Stafford argues strongly that planning is ableist, and transport planners have been considering gender for a while now. In a FastCo article, one architect believes there is racial segregation by design. Segregation by Design in the United States aims to document the destruction of communities through urban renewal and freeway construction. Australians are familiar with this as ‘gentrification’ where certain groups of people are excluded and their social networks decimated. And it is likely to segregate other groups too. Segregation by Design highlights 80 American cities destroyed by racist planning. It does this though annotated satellite imagery, historical ‘redlining’ maps, and archival photos. Redlining is a term for race-based exclusionary tactics in real estate in the US. The title of the FastCo article is, Segregation by Design: How one architect is vizualising the legacy of America’s racist urbanism. The case studies usefully illustrate the arguments and there are links to other references.

“Segregation By Design joins the conversation at a time of unprecedented spending on American infrastructure. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 unlocks over $1 trillion to remake cities with the promise of a better future. While more money is not the only answer to the mechanisms of oppressive public planning, it’s a promising start. For Susaneck and his passion project, understanding urban planning’s racist past is the key to constructing more equitable cities in the future—filled with accessible public transit, pedestrian-friendly roads, and ample public space for all.”

The benefit of designing for everyone

The assumption that designing for everyone will cost more often goes unchallenged. Even economic arguments for business benefits rarely cut through because of this. If economic arguments for inclusion worked we wouldn’t still be talking abut it. A Centre for Inclusive Design report analyses inclusive business practice and covers some areas not covered before. The report analyses education, retail and financial services and argues inclusive design can drive financial, economic and social improvements. PwC was commissioned for the report, The Benefit of Designing for Everyone.

Jeremy Thorpe from PwC says, “Inclusive design is a no-regrets process that creates significant benefits which are currently being left on the table. It is an overlooked step in maximising the potential of Australian business and ensuring a more productive Australia.” There is also an infographic with the key information, and a summary report and a Word version.

The report analyses three key industries in Australia: education, retail and financial services. Each one can benefit from taking a universal design approach to improve their bottom line.

David Masters, Corporate Affairs Director, Microsoft Australia, said,

“Accessibility is often focused on compliance, and while that is incredibly important, this report clearly shows that inclusion drives economic benefit too. Embedding inclusion in the upfront design phase ensures organisations are delivering products and services for everyone. Inclusive design is driving innovation at Microsoft and is a concept that all organisations should be embracing.”

It is good to see more work being done on the economics of inclusion. However, such arguments over the last ten years have yet to make their mark. The inclusive tourism industry is testament to that as well as the housing industry. Let’s hope someone is listening and willing to act.

Viewing products online with Coles

Anyone buying or selling online wants the best possible view of the product. Buyers want to see relevant size and shape and key information. Sellers want the maximum number of sales. Making visual information clear, and easy to read and understand is key. Coles supermarkets has devised an image guide for suppliers to make products more readily recognised. So viewing products online with Coles should get easier for everyone. eBay sellers should also note.

The Coles guide is based on work carried out some years ago by the Inclusion Design Group at Cambridge University. This work is updated as they continue their research. The Coles guide is easy to read and gives instructions about images that suppliers should send them. These instructions are good for anyone who has a product or merchandise to sell.

The guide covers the use of 2D and 3D images, out of pack images and lifestyle images. The Coles website will feature a first image with the brand with the option for further images with a click. This gives the opportunity to see front, back, left and right side of the product.

A previous post, Smart Phones and Shopping explained some of the background and has a video explaining how it all works.

Housing and health – a much needed partnership

Research collaborations between different disciplines are a good way to build knowledge and share resources. Housing and health is one area where more cross-sector collaboration is needed. But collaboration doesn’t just happen. Stuart Butler and Marcella Maguire say in their article that collaboration needs a supporting infrastructure.

Butler and Maguire argue that health and housing partnerships remain in their infancy compared with other collaborations. So what is holding up the development of this essential partnership? They say it is the need for connective tissue.

“Connective tissue is a way of describing the infrastructure needed to support intentional alignment, coordination, and integration between sectors or organizations that serve the same or similar populations in a community.

By “infrastructure” we mean both tangible elements, such as information exchange systems, financing, personnel, shared language, and the intangible elements of trust and shared goals. Developing systems and trust that address cross-sector needs does not just happen; it requires a deliberate process that moves beyond the individual goals of any one system towards a community-wide approach.”

Why the partnership is important

Housing can be the platform for the range of services needed to promote good health. It is a foundational social driver of health. Housing and health partnerships are particularly valuable for addressing the needs of marginalised populations. Collaboration supports:

- - Ageing in the home and community
  - Meeting future pandemic situations
  - Ending homelessness and housing instability
  - Supporting NDIS participants and their families
  - Addressing some of the impacts of climate change

Components of success

The authors say the components of success include clearly defined goals, network development, and working on projects together. And a good point is made about budgets and cost-shifting:

“Partnerships are often weakened by the “wrong pockets” problem. This exists when one sector needs to invest in a way that benefits another sector but offers little or no direct cost savings to the first sector. In a housing-health partnership, for example, a housing authority might be considering improving safety features in all bathrooms for older residents. But the main cost saving would be to the Medicare program, not to the housing budget.”

The title of the article is, Building connective tissue for effective housing-health initiatives.

See also the WHO Housing and Health Guidelines which includes a chapter on accessible housing.

Built environment, climate and mental health

The Matilda Centre based at the University of Sydney is a collaboration of academics, practitioners and policy makers. The Centre recently ran a webinar on the built environment, climate and mental health. The speakers were Dr Susie Burke, Professor Susan Thompson and Dr Lyrian Daniel.

The YouTube video below runs for an hour. The three speakers give their perspectives on climate change and mental health and the role of planners.

Susie Burke talks about the way in which climate change impacts mental health. There are direct impacts, such as the time of a flood or fire, and indirect causes – the flow-on effects. Also, there are vicarious effects – individuals not directly affected but concerned for the effects on others.

Susan Thompson says planners appreciate the importance of the built environment in increasing health and wellbeing. Our health and wellbeing is dependent on how and where we live. And the health of our planet also ultimately underpins our health.

Places that support physical activity are good for mental health across all ages. Getting active for getting from place to place in daily life also supports mental wellbeing. But physical activity and transport needs to be fun and easy to do. And of course, green open space is important for both humans and the planet.

Lyrian Daniel talks about climate change, housing and mental health outcomes and patterns of disadvantage. Poor housing conditions, climate risk and mental health are closely linked. Affordability, especially for rental housing, adds to the mental health burden. Her key point is that housing has a clear role in mental health and wellbeing.

In the short question session at the end, Susan Thompson says we have all the tools and guidelines but no political leadership. So we all need to be advocating.

A framework to understand universal design

If there was an assessment tool for access and inclusion, would this encourage designers to think about population diversity in their designs? If the answer is ‘yes’ then this will be a step forward. But would such a tool become yet another checklist for designers? But perhaps a simple framework to understand universal design would be useful for design and evaluation.

Erica Isa Mosca and Stefano Capolongo embarked on a research study to find such a framework. Their first paper was published in 2018. It is titled, Towards a Universal Design Evaluation for Assessing the Performance of the Built Environment. They concluded that the involvement of users as well as methods such as checklists were needed for the next step.

The next step was a literature review. The researchers’ quest was to find ways to provide design information to architects so that they could go beyond access standards. The literature review is titled, Inspiring architects in the application of Design-for-All: Knowledge transfer methods and tools.

The researchers found four criteria which were critical for translating user needs into design strategies. The diagram below shows the four criteria. Using these criteria, the researchers developed an evaluation framework.

The final stage of the research project produced a useful framework for designers. This framework is about performance and assessing the built environment beyond access codes. The framework aligns with the current universal design thinking by including the concepts of co-design. The framework is shown in the diagram below.

There is more on this framework in another CUDA post titled, Universal design evaluation framework.

Age and workplace competence

If we say older people make more loyal and reliable employees, what does that say about younger people? And anyway, are these stereotypes valid? Ironically, public policy uses age stereotypes to overcome stereotypes about older workers. However, the connection between age and workplace competence is not supported in the research.

One of the key issues here is that there is no clear definition of what an ‘older worker’ is. This makes it difficult to build relevant public policy. The range of ages is between 40 and 64 depending on who is doing the research.

The other issue is how to manage the intersection of age with other characteristics such as gender and work type. So, there is a need for an approach that acknowledges people of a given age are not all alike. The stereotypes are a social construct and have little to do with individuals. Hence, employment programs should be based on individual need rather than age. Indeed, older age based programs only serve to entrench the stereotypes.

Age discrimination is not related to one age group. Younger people face discrimination in the workplace too. The research indicates that the attributes canvased by advocates of older workers are not necessarily those that employers seek.

Firefighters and two firetrucks attending to a fire. — Emergency workers transfer knowledge to new contexts. Image by Jon Pauling.

Public policy that pushes for a longer working life also makes several assumptions. People who work in jobs that cannot be done in later life, are overlooked in this scenario. And ‘productive ageing’ might not mean paid work, or that retirement is unproductive.

Population ageing has brought calls to prolong working lives. This has the potential to be a good thing for individuals and the economy. However, not everyone has a job-type that will support the extension of their paid working life.

Public policy

Philip Taylor and Warwick Smith provide a thoughtful overview of the situation in their conference paper, Rethinking Advocacy on Ageing and Work. Policymaking should aim for measures that support all people in transition, for instance, in entry to work, job loss and re-entry to work, based on the assumption that the needs of young and old are not
much different.

Advocates for older workers might be doing them a dis-service by perpetuating stereotypes. Younger and older workers are not in competition. Consequently both will benefit from efforts to promote their sustained employment.

Examples of stereotyping in reports

Front cover of What's Age Got to do with it? — Front cover of report

Four years ago Per Capita published a report with the title, What’s age got to do with it? It challenged the stereotypical statements about older workers. Although these were meant to be positive statements, they were reinforcing stereotyping. Stereotypes gain currency in society and the result is discrimination.

The Australian Human Rights Commission has re-used the title for their report, What’s age got to do with it? A snapshot of ageism across the Australian lifespan. The research for the report sought Australian thoughts about age and ageism.

The research focused on attitudes about age rather than behaviours. It involved an online survey of 2440 Australians and 11 focus groups. Ninety per cent of respondents agreed that ageism exists. However, some respondents weren’t clear what ageism is.

Making jokes about age was seen as more acceptable than making jokes about race or gender. Many thought the media played a significant role in producing stereotypical portrayals of all age groups. Stereotypes are strongly held by each group and accepted as fact. The report explores this.

Ageism impacts our human rights. We all have a right to health, education, housing and employment. We have the right to basic freedoms and to make choices. Consciously or subconsciously those in power can infringe these rights based on what they believe to be true .

The report was led by Kay Patterson, Commissioner for Ageing and consequently, the report is presented within this context. However the findings support the earlier work by Philip Taylor and Warwick Smith in the Per Capita report. Their work challenged the earlier report, Willing to Work, also published by the Human Rights Commission,

Professor Philip Taylor is a CUDA Board Member and presented at the UD2021 Conference in Melbourne.

Debunking the myths about ageing and work

Age discrimination is illegal in Australia, but when it comes to employment things get tricky. And then there is the question of the government wanting people to work to a later age. However, what are the real facts on this issue? Philip Taylor lists eight myths in a summary of an article for the Diversity Council of Australia.

Debunking the myths:

Myth 1. Age discrimination towards older workers is endemic. Reality: Age discrimination is potentially faced by all workers.

Myth 2: Different generations have different orientations to work. Reality: It is employee life stage (e.g. school leaver, working parent, graduating to retirement) that makes a big difference – not generation.

Myth 3: Older people are an homogeneous group. Reality: Older and younger people have intersectional parts of their identity which impacts on how they experience inclusion at work.

Myth 4: Older workers outperform younger ones in terms of their reliability, loyalty, work ethic and life experience. Reality: Performance is not linked to age – except in very rare circumstances.

Myth 5: Older people have a lifetime of experience that managers should recognise. Reality: Relevant experience, is more valuable than experience, of itself.

Myth 6: Younger workers are more dynamic, entrepreneurial, and tech savvy than older workers. Reality: Older people have a lot to offer the modern workplace.

Myth 7: Younger workers feel entitled and won’t stick around. Reality: Younger workers are more likely to be in insecure employment and to experience unemployment.

Myth 8: Older people who stay on at work are taking jobs from younger people. Reality: Increasing the employment of older workers does not harm and may even benefit, younger people’s employment prospects.

The title of the article on the Diversity Council website is, Myth Busting Age Discrimination at Work. You will have to sign in for the full paper.

The summary is titled, What are the myths (and facts) on ageing and work? and you can find out a little more about the myths listed above.

You might be interested in a related article on including people with disability in the workplace – it’s a lot easier than most people think.

Author: Jane Bringolf