Digitalization and demographic change are two major and interrelated social transformations that will significantly shape and potentially benefit, European societies in the twenty-first century. Digital technologies permeate all aspects of life [5] and this is not limited to younger cohorts, but accounts for older adults just as well [11]. Consequently, being able to access, use, and critically reflect upon digitalization processes is a key factor in today’s knowledge societies, based upon conceptual approaches from several disciplines. Even though new ageing populations are increasingly being digitalized, studies still come to the conclusion that a digital divide between age groups persists and continues to intersect with gender [6] and other difference categories.

The uptake of digital technologies in the context of ageing populations is a heavily researched topic [23] and has been widely discussed in this journal as well [19, 25]. The vast majority of research focuses on the positive potential of digitalization and highlights anticipated outcomes of digital inclusion, e.g., enhanced physical and mental health and cognitive functioning, mobility, social connectedness, safety, daily leisure activities [4, 21], also for older adults with mobility restrictions, disabilities or dementia [18], living in care homes [13] and in communities [17]. Conversely, digital exclusion can negatively affect various realms of life and can result in restricted access to information, social connections, and a range of online services from banking to shopping and, not least, healthcare services, which provide a particularly sensitive area of exclusion for older adults [2]. Most recently, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has shown how social relations and nonparticipation in the digital world can result in a double jeopardy for social exclusion especially in times of physical distancing [22].

However, and in line with discourses around digital fatigue and digital detox [24], studies have also questioned the uncritical assumption that digital technology is always beneficial for its users, including older adults. Research has thereby also shown potential risks of digitalization for ageing well. These comprise, inter alia, the phenomenon of quantified agein as the standardization of diverse ageing experiences by monitoring and assessing, for example, walking speed or brain functioning through technological devices, and the resulting pressure for self-optimization [15]. Another risk of digitalization for ageing well is that deficit-based images of ageing are inscribed into technologies in the course of their development [8]. These negative images, often associating in later life with decline and dependency, may lead to rejection of use, and might even activate and reinforce negative images of ageing [1, 22].

We still know little about what digital inclusion and exclusion means for older adults

Therefore, even though a wide range of research exists on digitalization and later life, we still know little about what digital inclusion and exclusion means for older adults and their experiences of ageing, and how digital inclusion can be fostered in a way that older adults themselves want it. Instead, a large part of the relevant literature follows an interventionist logic, which assumes that age(ing) is a problem to be solved with technological interventions [20]. Such an interventionist logic also results in a certain paternalism in technology development for older people: Experts and not older adults themselves, define both later life problems and their potential digital solutions [16]. But if we were to ask older people, for example, what their solution to loneliness in later life would be, most likely their first answer would not be a robot.

In this special issue we wanted to create an opportunity to gather insights from the perspective of older adults themselves on digitalization and the way they themselves experience this digital transformation. We focus on participatory perspectives on research digitalization and highlight the perspectives of older adults towards digital inclusion and exclusion and showcase how technology development could look like if older adults were actively involved in it.

The inclusion of older people in research is a relatively new concept, predominantly explored in the UK, USA and Canada [10]. There are a number of approaches to this type of research, and this plurality is apparent in the terminology appearing in the academic literature. Inclusive research overlaps with terms such as user-led research, community research, participatory action research (PAR), collaborative research and co-research [3]. There is a growing interest in participatory approaches in technology development, designing new products with older adults, and gaining insights into their understanding of technology across the fields of gerontology, gerontechnology and human-computer interaction (HCI). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the co-operation in recent research projects harnessing participatory approaches operates predominantly in digital spaces, which adds another layer to the consideration of the technology in participatory approaches in ageing research.

Therefore, in this special issue, we want to look closer at the role of technology in participatory approaches in ageing research and also at the role of participatory approaches in research on technology in older age. It aims at presenting innovative perspectives on possible ways of capturing different voices and experiences of older adults by involving them as co-creators in ageing research. Applying what we deemed participatory approaches enables insights to be gained into older adults’ experiences and facilitates their voices across different disciplines and within ageing research as such. This approach contributes to reorienting research and policy toward more inclusive and adequate designs that capture the voices and needs of older adults. This seems especially important regarding broadly defined question of technology in digitalized societies. Hence, the aim of this special issue is to stimulate an interdisciplinary debate in international gerontology on the significance of digital technology in participatory approaches in ageing research.

Consequently, this special issue (1) looks at the research process through the lens of known and emerging benefits and challenges resulting from involving older adults as co-creators, (2) showcases projects across different domains and different jurisdictions that use participatory approaches researching about or using different technological aspects in ageing research and (3) advances scientific insights into technology in participatory approaches involving older adults. To do so, we have assembled three papers that focus on different aspects of digital inclusion and exclusion from the perspective of older adults themselves and further develop insights into participatory practice with older adults.

In the first paper that opens this collection, Alexander Seifert takes a closer look at the subjective perception of digital exclusion. It draws on data that were collected with a survey (N = 1604) of Swiss individuals aged 18–98 years and shows how people both over and under the age of 65 years of age feel digitally excluded because they cannot always master current everyday technologies. Older persons tend to belong to the group with very strong feelings of digital exclusion; however, the multivariate correlation analysis shows that the influence of age is levelled out by other variables, such as income and attitude towards technology in general. The author concludes that although digital transformation is progressing, there are still inequalities in technology use, which can manifest in feelings of digital exclusion. In addition to the question of which older individuals do or do not use technology, the issue of subjective feelings of exclusion should be given greater consideration in future research.

In the second paper, Katja Rießenberger sheds light on the intersection of age and gender as dimensions of horizontal inequalities in gerontechnology development, and how to take this into account to support the further development of co-creation practices. She explains how design paternalism and age scripting contribute to marginalization of older adults in technology development and argues that the introduction of co-creative methods of participatory design has the potential to counteract the digital exclusion of technology users. At the same time this contribution highlights that as there are diverse challenges when putting those methods into practice regarding the claim to be more socially inclusive and democratizing technology development, it is necessary to investigate the effect that age and gender may play when considering participatory design in gerontechnology. She concludes that participatory design approaches need to be enhanced by a critical awareness of gendered and ageist notions to avoid the risk of reinforcing ageist and sexist stereotypes.

The third paper by Clarke et al. showcases how digital technology in participatory research with older people can be implemented in a way that could be inclusive and positive for all actors involved. This article provides a discussion on the benefits and challenges of diary methods, visuals, and digital technologies. By focussing on lived experiences of older adults (aged 70–84 years) during the COVID-19 pandemic this study shows how combining visual, creative, digital and diary methods creates space for a slow science where knowledge is generated through reflection and reflexivity. The authors conclude that utilizing such methods offers a flexible approach as it does not imply a binary understanding of empowered versus exploited, or control versus autonomy [12]. Instead, such approaches sit on a spectrum upon which there are complex interactions.

Participation does not solve all problems arising from digital transformations and demographic change

All three papers argue that digital exclusion is a major risk for ageing in digitalized societies, and participatory research on ageing and technologies can be one means to counteract this risk; however, we also want to emphasize that participation is not the solution to all problems arising from digital transformations and demographic change, and participatory approaches do in fact have their limits.

One of the main limitations we see is the fact that participation does not always lead to the claimed benefits in terms of shifting the power dynamic and fully including voices and experiences of non-academic populations [9]. This is, we want to argue, also a problem of institutional logics within academia: even if research institutions as well as funding bodies increasingly recognize the value of involving non-academics in research projects, their actual position and power in co-creating academic knowledge remains limited. Often, participation serves as a “fig leaf” and means of disseminating research results instead of creating them on equal terms. Power hierarchies between academic and non-academic researchers may materialize in questions like: who gets to define the research question? Who has the power to decide how to spend the project money? Who is being paid for research, and who is not? Whose voices are included in the first place, and which are heard and have consequences, in the process? Challenging such power dynamic is additionally complicated by beliefs and assumptions around age(ing) at the backdrop of digitalization, namely that older adults are often reluctant and incompetent users, and these beliefs are also often shared by both academic and non-academic researchers themselves. As a result, the role of non-academic co-researchers in projects remains underdefined, creating challenges for standardized processes in academic institutions, such as ethics committees or concerns around renumeration and insurance of co-researchers.

To tackle these limitations and establish participatory approaches as legitimate methodology for academics and their institutions, we need to further develop participatory approaches in both conceptual and methodological ways, and consequently integrate them into scientific training and self-conceptions. This requires a systematic definition of participation, both in relation to existing concepts in gerontology and the social sciences at large. For example, cumulative disadvantage/advantage theory [7] might be used to explain participation inequality in later life, and Adorno’s maxim of emancipation toward autonomy (Mündigkeit) for education (Erziehung) and critical learning about and living with digital technologies could help to enhance emancipation in a digitalized society [14], not only in young adulthood, but also in later life.

Finally, although participatory research does not provide answers to all questions, current societal challenges of digitalization and demographic change make it even more apparent that we cannot do research about, but without older adults anymore, and digital tools provide us with more and diverse means of involving older adults in different life situations in research. We still need to harness this potential for ageing research, and this special issue aims to contribute to this endeavor.