Advertisement

Technology and Ageing—Theoretical Propositions from Science and Technology Studies (STS)

  • Alexander PeineEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter, I explore new grounds for theorizing ageing and digital technology. I do so by summarizing insights from critical studies of science and technology, i.e. the field of Science and Technology Studies (STS), in relation to ageing. The discussion revolves around three major insights that can be derived from the STS literature on ageing and technology: (i) that ageing and technology mutually shape each other, (ii) that older persons often are agents and co-creators in innovation processes and that (iii) design paternalism still often leads to ageist assumptions in technology projects. The sections are illustrated with empirical examples and together provide pertinent insights into the relevance of digital technologies in relation to theories of ageing and gerontechnology.

Keywords

Gerontechnology Active ageing Design paternalism Innovation 

References

  1. Aceros, J. C., Pols, J., & Domènech, M. (2015). Where is grandma? Home telecare, good aging and the domestication of later life. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 93, 102–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akrich, M. (1992). The description of technical objects. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society—Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 205–224). Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Akrich, M. (1995). User representations: Practices, methods and sociology. In A. Rip, T. J. Misa, & J. Schot (Eds.), Managing technology in society: The approach of constructive technology assessment (pp. 167–184). London: Pinter Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Bailey, C., Foran, T. G., Scanaill, C. N., & Dromey, B. (2011). Older adults, falls and technologies for independent living: A life space approach. Ageing & Society, 31(05), 829–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brittain, K., Corner, L., Robinson, L., & Bond, J. (2010). Ageing in place and technologies of place: The lived experience of people with dementia in changing social, physical and technological environments. Sociology of Health & Illness, 32(2), 272–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burdick, D. C., & Kwon, S. (Eds.). (2004). Gerotechnology—Research and practice in technology and aging. New York: Springer Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  7. Bytheway, B. (2005). Ageism. In M. L. Johnson, V. L. Bengtson, P. G. Coleman, & T. B. L. Kirkwood (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of age and ageing (pp. 338–345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Charness, N., & Schaie, K. W. (Eds.). (2003). Impact of technology on successful aging. New York: Springer Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  9. Compagna, D., & Kohlbacher, F. (2015). The limits of participatory technology development: The case of service robots in care facilities for older people. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 93, 19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cutler, S. (2006). Technological change and aging. In R. H. Binstock & L. K. George (Eds.), Handbook of aging and the social sciences (pp. 258–276). Burlington: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  11. Czaja, S. J., Sharit, J., Charness, N., Fisk, A., & Rogers, W. (2001). The center for research and education on aging and technology enhancement (CREATE): A program to enhance technology for older adults. Gerontechnology, 1(1), 50–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dannefer, D., & Daub, A. (2009). Extending the interrogation: Life span, life course, and the constitution of human aging. Advances in Life Course Research, 14(1&2), 15–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. European Commission. (2017). Blueprint digital transformation of health and care for the ageing society. Available online http://bit.ly/2j4gxCg. Accessed January 8, 2018.
  14. Faulkner, A. (2009). Medical technology into healthcare and society: A sociology of devices, innovation and governance. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Featherstone, M., & Hepworth, M. (2005). Images of ageing: Cultural representations of later life. In M. L. Johnson, V. L. Bengtson, P. G. Coleman, & T. B. L. Kirkwood (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of age and ageing (pp. 354–362). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fisk, A. D., Rogers, W. A., Charness, N., Czaja, S. J., & Sharit, J. (2009). Designing for older adults—Principles and creative human factors approaches. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  17. Graafmans, J., & Taipale, V. (1998). Gerontechnology—A sustainable investment in the future. In J. Graafmans, V. Taipale, & N. Charness (Eds.), Gerontechnology—A sustainable investment in the future (pp. 3–6). Amsterdam et al.: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  18. Jones, I. R. (2015). Connectivity, digital technologies and later life. In J. Twigg & W. Martin (Eds.), Routledge handbook of cultural gerontology (pp. 438–446). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Joyce, K., & Loe, M. (2010). A sociological approach to ageing, technology and health. Sociology of Health & Illness, 32(2), 171–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Joyce, K., & Mamo, L. (2006). Graying the cyborg: New directions in feminist analyses of aging, science, and technology. In T. Calasanti & K. Slevin (Eds.), Age matters: Realigning feminist thinking. Taylor & Francis Group, Routledge: New York, London.Google Scholar
  21. Joyce, K., Peine, A., Neven, L., & Kohlbacher, F. (2017). Aging: The socio-material constitution of later life. In U. Felt, R. Fouché, C. Miller, & L. Smith-Doerr (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (4th ed., pp. 915–942). Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kwon, S. (Ed.). (2017). Gerontechnology: Research, practice, and principles in the field of technology and aging. New York: Springer Publishing.Google Scholar
  23. Lassen, A. J., Bønnelycke, J., & Otto, L. (2015). Innovating for ‘active ageing’ in a public–private innovation partnership: Creating doable problems and alignment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 93, 10–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Loe, M. (2010). Doing it my way: Old women, technology and wellbeing. Sociology of Health & Illness, 32(2), 319–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Loe, M. (2015). Comfort and medical ambivalence in old age. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 93, 141–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Loos, E., Haddon, L., & Mante-Meijer, E. (Eds.). (2012). Generational use of new media. Adlershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  27. López Gómez, D. (2015). Little arrangements that matter. Rethinking autonomy-enabling innovations for later life. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 93, 91–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Malanowski, N. (2009). ICT-based applications for active ageing: Challenges and opportunities. In M. Cabrera & N. Malanowski (Eds.), Information and communication technologies for active aging—Opportunities and challenges for the European Union (pp. 107–127). Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  29. Marshall, B. L., & Katz, S. (2016). How old am I? Digital culture and quantified ageing. Digital Culture & Society, 2(1), 145–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McCreadie, C. (2010). Technology and older people. In D. Dannefer & C. Phillipson (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social gerontology (pp. 607–617). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Milligan, C., Roberts, C., & Mort, M. (2011). Telecare and older people: Who cares where? Social Science and Medicine, 72(3), 347–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Moen, P., & Spencer, D. (2006). Converging divergences in age, gender, health, and well-being—Strategic selection in the third age. In R. H. Binstock & L. K. George (Eds.), Handbook of aging and the social sciences (pp. 127–144). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mort, M., Roberts, C., & Callen, B. (2012). Ageing with telecare: Care or coercion in austerity? Sociology of Health & Illness, 35(6), 799–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mort, M., Roberts, C., Pols, J., Domenech, M., & Moser, I. (2013). Ethical implications of home telecare for older people: A framework derived from a multisited participative study. Health Expectations.Google Scholar
  35. Neven, L. (2011). Representations of the old and ageing in the design of the new and emerging: Assessing the design of ambient intelligence technologies for older people. Enschede: University of Twente.Google Scholar
  36. Neven, L. (2015). By any means? Questioning the link between gerontechnological innovation and older people’s wish to live at home. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 93, 32–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Neven, L., & Leeson, C. (2015). Beyond determinism: Understanding actual use of social robots by older people. In D. Prendergast & C. Garattini (Eds.), Aging and the digital life course (Vol. 3, pp. 84–102). New York: Berghahn.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Neven, L., & Peine, A. (2017). From triple win to triple sin: How a problematic future discourse is shaping the way people age with technology. Societies, 7(3), 26–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Neves, B. B., Franz, R. L., Munteanu, C., & Baecker, R. (2017). Adoption and feasibility of a communication app to enhance social connectedness amongst frail institutionalized oldest old: An embedded case study. Information, Communication & Society, 1–19.Google Scholar
  40. Nimrod, G., Janke, M. C., & Kleiber, D. A. (2016). Leisure and aging qualitative research 15 years into the third millennium. Journal of Leisure Research, 48(1), 12–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Oudshoorn, N. (2011). Telecare technologies and the transformation of healthcare. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Oudshoorn, N., & Pinch, T. (2008). User-technology relationships: Some recent developments. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (3rd ed., pp. 541–565). Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  43. Peace, S., & Hughes, J. (Eds.). (2010). Reflecting on user-involvement and participatory research. London: Center for Policy and Aging.Google Scholar
  44. Peine, A. (2009). Understanding the dynamics of technological configurations—A conceptual framework and the case of smart homes. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(3), 396–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Peine, A., Faulkner, A., Jæger, B., & Moors, E. (2015). Science, technology and the ‘grand challenge’ of ageing—Understanding the socio-material constitution of later life. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 93, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Peine, A., & Herrmann, A. M. (2012). The sources of use knowledge: Towards integrating the dynamics of technology use and design in the articulation of societal challenges. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(8), 1495–1512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Peine, A., & Moors, E. H. M. (2015). Valuing health technology—Habilitating and prosthetic strategies in personal health systems. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 93, 68–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Peine, A., & Neven, L. (2011). Social-structural lag revisited. Gerontechnology, 10(3), 129–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Peine, A., Rollwagen, I., & Neven, L. (2014). The rise of the “innosumer”—Rethinking older technology users. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 82, 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Peine, A., van Cooten, V., & Neven, L. (2017). Rejuvenating design: Bikes, batteries, and older adopters in the diffusion of e-bikes. Science, Technology and Human Values, 42(3), 429–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pew Research Center. (2014). Older adults and technology use. Retrieved March 17, 2017, from http://pewrsr.ch/2mALjr9.
  52. Pinch, T., & Swedberg, R. (2008). Introduction. In T. Pinch & R. Swedberg (Eds.), Living in a material world: Economic sociology meets science and technology studies (pp. 1–26). Cambridge: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pols, J., & Willems, D. (2011). Innovation and evaluation: Taming and unleashing telecare technology. Sociology of Health & Illness, 33(3), 484–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pritchard, G. W., & Brittain, K. (2015). Alarm pendants and the technological shaping of older people’s care. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 93, 124–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rosales, A., & Fernández-Ardèvol, M. (2016). Beyond WhatsApp: Older people and smartphones. Romanian Journal of Communication and Public Relations, 18(1), 27–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sanchez-Criado, T., López, D., Roberts, C., & Domenech, M. (2014). Installing telecare, installing users: Felicity conditions for the instauration of usership. Science, Technology and Human Values, 39(5), 694–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schulz, R., Wahl, H. W., Matthews, J. T., De Vito Dabbs, A., Beach, S. R., Czaja, S. J., et al. (2015). Advancing the aging and technology agenda in gerontology. Gerontologist, 55(5), 724–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Silverstone, R., Hirsch, E., & Morley, D. (1992). Information and communication technologies and the moral economy of the household. In R. Silverstone & E. Hirsch (Eds.), Consuming technologies—Media and information in domestic spaces (pp. 15–31). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  59. Sixsmith, A. (2013). Technology and the challenge of aging. In A. Sixsmith & G. Gutman (Eds.), Technologies for active aging (pp. 7–25). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Vines, J., Pritchard, G., Wright, P., Olivier, P., & Brittain, K. (2015). An age old problem: Examining the discourses of ageing in HCI and strategies for future research. ACM Transaction on Computer-Human Interaction, 22, 1, Article 2.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2696867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Waycott, J., Pedell, S., Vetere, F., Ozanne, E., Kulik, L., Gruner, A., et al. (2012). Actively engaging older adults in the development and evaluation of tablet technology. In Proceedings of the 24th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference (pp. 643–652).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Utrecht UniversityUtrechtNetherlands

Personalised recommendations