Keywords

1 Introduction

The pandemic caused by the COVID-19 pandemic triggered societal, institutional and individual responses worldwide (United Nations, 2020). Social science researchers have been some of the hardest hit by the pandemic. Social science research entails having to engage and build relationships with prospective and actual participants. There are social aspects to consider from planning the project, gaining access to the participants, sending them information about the research, presenting yourself as a researcher, asking for their consent, conversations on clarifications about the project, and so on. Usually, researchers set-out into data generation prepared with the correct methods and tools to answer research questions. But during the time of the pandemic, all these plans had to either be halted, cancelled or re-worked.

This chapter is a narrative of my research experience as a PhD candidate working on an intergenerational research project during the time of a pandemic. My experience might not be a unique one as there are thousands of PhD students and researchers who have had to pivot during this time. This pivot—which is what I like to call the point of transition of my project—could be viewed by others as resilience. In my view, this pivot was key to survival.

In this chapter, I will talk about the intertwined dilemmas, motives and actions brought about by the conditions of the crisis affecting my decisions for pivoting to an entirely different research design. In this, I lean on Hedegaard’s (2008, 2009) cultural-historical wholeness approach in order to demonstrate how societal and institutional regulations and practices have formed the conditions for my individual pivot. I will talk about the dilemmas I faced in the form of the demands and conditions that regulations during the pandemic brought. I will also discuss my motives for pushing on with my research project, and how I was able to formulate new action plans through digital methods.

I will also talk about the transformations to the methods I have chosen to still be able to do research intergenerational engagements and programmes between young children and older adults. In this light, the book chapter aims to unpack researcher reflexivity throughout the research process.

2 Research on Intergenerational Engagements and Programmes

Over the past recent decades, there has been a growing body of literature describing the growing age separation within societies (Kaplan, 2002). Due to advances in technology, older adults are living longer but are more prone to being socially isolated. Younger children in some countries have been found to have little opportunity to interact with older adults. This pattern of increasing age segregation has been “linked to the decline in life satisfaction among older persons and the increase in negative stereotypes toward the aged and aging among younger people” (Kaplan, 2002).

Intergenerational programmes are systemic efforts to bring younger generations and older generations together. The US National Council on Aging (1981) has defined it as activities or programs driven by institutional policies that increase cooperation, interaction or exchange between any two generations, particularly between the youngest and oldest generations, otherwise referred to as book-end generations. These programs involves the sharing of skills, knowledge or experience between old and young to promote mutual benefits and foster relationships. Further, these programs are conceptualized with aims to meet needs of both populations by fostering growth, understanding and friendship between generations, and enacted within the best interest of both populations that are considered more vulnerable and dependent on society.

However, there are countries and contexts where institutional intergenerational programmes are rare, and in some cases, do not exist. Countries, such as the Philippines, do not have a lot of institutions that cater specifically to older adults and the elderly because caring for the older generations primarily lies within family settings (Oropilla & Guadana, 2021). As such, there must be a recognition of this context in my study in the terminologies used: intergenerational engagements are more informal initiatives that occur in family and community settings and intergenerational programmes that are more formal and are anchored in institutional practices. These operational definitions align with the place-based conceptualization of intergenerational contact zones (Kaplan et al., 2020). As such, it was also important for me to be able to include both these formal and informal intergenerational contexts in this research project.

Within the cultural-historical perspectives that is theoretically relevant to this research project, it was important to acknowledge that the social conditions of children, their environments and the people they constantly interact with have transitioned and transformed in the light of the regulations and policies relevant to the time of the crisis. As such, it was important to recognize their lived experiences in their households and communities as rich data sources for authentic lived experiences that have changed according to the demands of an arguably historical time period.

3 The Dilemma: Implications of the COVID-19 Pandemic to IG Research

The COVID-19 pandemic impacted global nations and local communities in many ways—work-force dynamics shifted to virtual platforms, schools and kindergartens closed temporarily, airports and borders were closely monitored, and some borders have closed down. Trips, plans, events have been cancelled. Everyone was asked to stay home and practice social distancing to prevent the spread of virus. Families were forced to stay home, and work or study from their households.

Societal regulations during the pandemic created dilemmas as the conditions brought about new sets of demands. The dilemma came in the form of implications of the COVID-19 pandemic to research. PhD candidates such as myself experienced this societal situation and dilemma as a crisis, most especially in terms of research-design plans and methodology. This was true particularly for my project on intergenerational experiences of younger children and older adults. In partnership with a couple of Norwegian kindergartens, initial plans included staging intergenerational events and activities for younger children and older adults to share. These events were to be venues for co-narrations and co-creations to happen. However, as kindergartens were shut-down temporarily for six weeks, and older adults being most at-risk of getting infected by the COVID-19 virus, the original research design had to be foregone to protect all groups. Early on, I had a realization that I would not be able to push through with researching with children and older adults—at least not in the traditional sense. My research design and plans had to be re-worked. It was at this point that the pivots came in.

In basketball, pivots are made by players as they stand in one place, with one foot on the ground and the other being used to change their direction as they ponder on their game plan on where best to bring the basketball. They pivot around, pondering on whether they should pass the ball to their teammates or whether they should take the next step themselves while dribbling the ball lest they be charged with a travelling violation. While I am not the biggest basketball fan, I have always had tremendous respect for athletes for being quick on their head and feet. In a matter of split-seconds, they can assess and evaluate their situations to change their direction and actions while also collaborating with their teammates. I took inspiration from their game play and used this metaphor as I navigated my PhD research project. Knowing that there are many several ways to ‘shoot the ball,’ how should I proceed?

As I pondered on re-designing my project, some of the dilemma, thoughts and questions came into my mind. I wrote my thoughts down to come up with a feasible “gameplan” and/or new angle for my research project.

The dilemma I have enumerated below are brought about by the societal demands and conditions in the form of global and local rules and regulations that everyone have had to comply with during the time of the pandemic. All aspects of life—social, material and environmental aspects—have had to manipulated in order to participate safely. Safely, during the time of the pandemic, meant choosing options that have the lowest risk for spreading or catching infection. This translated to limitations and conditions to social interactions—to maintain social distancing, keep a distance of at least 2 meters from each other. In terms of material and environmental conditions, restrictions were set in place such that one had to observe physical boundaries that cannot be crossed. All these conditions posed demands on everyone that had to overcome—truly a time of crisis that warranted changes in practices and actions in order learn, develop and succeed. Ultimately, overcoming the dilemmas could be views as part of my formation to become a more experienced researcher.

4 The Motives

During this difficult time, I could say that the motives of my research pivot were mostly personal but supported/guided/influenced by institutional practices that enabled/allowed me to take a step further from where I was at the onset of the pandemic. My main motive was to finish my PhD within my funding period. Even before the pandemic, I have already set a very strict and set of deadlines for myself. During the pandemic, I knew I had to move quickly so I could still be productive. I had to overcome the dilemmas by holding on to my personal motives—my “whys,” or the main reasons why I embarked on this research journey in the first place.

While of different foci, I think of the process as similar to what Marianne Hedegaard (2019) wrote about as she addressed a dilemma relating to conducting research on children’s thinking and concept formation in which the researcher also participates. In her paper, she has had to talk about the dilemma, the motives and she also drew on her personal biography in order to sort out the actions necessary to overcome her dilemma (Hedegaard, 2019). She examined institutional objectives as well as children’s motive orientations as well as her own, which is also something that I will do in the following sections of this book chapter.

While finishing the PhD within a given deadline was my main motive for making calculated pivots, I had several other motives related to the research curiosity within my subject and overcoming the dilemma of researching on intergenerational engagements and programmes between young children and older adults. I had to find a way to understand these activity settings, especially in the light of the pandemic that seemingly had a huge impact on social relations. There were several questions in my head that contributed to the motive of finding out answers related to my research project:

  • How did the pandemic crisis affect relationships between older adults and younger children?

  • How can intergenerational engagements and programmes be sustained during these times?

  • How else do intergenerational interactions happen? In what forms? How frequent? What kind of tools/artefacts are used? Do they use other applications, like the ones specially designed for long-distance relationships? What other activities do they take-part in?

  • In terms of generating data, balancing protection of at-risk groups and exploring research questions:

    • Is it possible to do purposeful snowball sampling to have some case studies to explore these questions?

    • Can I generate data through video/ phone interviews since I cannot be in their homes?

    • Can I ask the families to document intergenerational interactions themselves?

The Norwegian government had a press conference for children on 16th March, 2020 where they addressed children’s concerns and questions about the pandemic. The children had different kinds of concerns—when will school be re-opened, what should they do about cancelled birthday parties and travel plans with the families? There was also one que there was a question from the children about how to interact and communicate with grandparents who are older than 60 years old. The Norwegian government’s response to the children’s questions are aligned with Elin Eriksen Ødegaard’s advice as published in the local newspaper: be creative—use different virtual platforms like Facetime, Skype, etc. to talk to grandparents (Drægebø, 2020).

Inspired by this response to the children, I took this as an encouragement to think outside of the box, beyond my original research plans. Like the children, I also had to be creative in re-planning my research in order to overcome the dilemmas presented by the present conditions. However, to be able to do so, I needed to make sure that my next steps would be supported by the people within my research environment such as my supervisors, but also of the research institution to which I belong. Thankfully, I have received support from my supervisors who have directed me to look at different methods that could be used for fieldwork during a pandemic (Lupton, 2021). The university also provided support to PhD candidates during this time by (1) extending work contracts by at least 1–4 months, (2) providing a fixed budget for purchasing necessary equipment, or being allowed to borrow monitors, docking stations and office chairs for workspaces at home, and lastly (3) offering hotlines for mental health concerns. Being a foreign PhD candidate during the pandemic was particularly stressful because of all the uncertainties not just in the country where I was based, but also in my home country. Having these support was very much appreciated as it addressed not just cognitive dilemmas, but also some emotional dilemmas as well. In addition, the PhD committee was also very supportive of changes that needed to be made in order to continue research projects during this time. As the Norwegian government obligated higher education institutions to continue educational programs without any delays of the planned milestones for students, the PhD programme committee understood the need to be flexible to new research plans. In line with this, I have received reassurance that I could make changes to my research plans not least from the Norwegian Centre for Research Data [Norsk senter for forskningsdata] (NSD) where I sought ethical clearance. These institutional practices during the time of the pandemic created conditions that allowed me to act and move on.

5 The Actions

In order to continue research to understand intergenerational engagements and programmes particularly within the context of the crisis that was the COVID-19 pandemic, the research pivot that I had to make was an unfolding of innovation, creativity and resourcefulness through digital means. As such, I turned to online data generation in order to push through with my research project.

As I prepared my pivot, I was inspired by some suggestions for doing fieldwork during the pandemic. Dr. Deborah Lupton (2021) started a crowd-sourced document where many researchers all over the world sent in low-infection and low-risk methods to generate data during the times of the pandemic. It was an early recognition that researchers all over the world have been affected drastically by the pandemic, but also an acknowledgment that innovation could be attained by collaborating and sharing of ideas.

Below are methods that I have considered—some of them I have made use of, and some of them I had to modify in order to be culturally-sensitive to the participants. I will discuss the final methods I have utilized in the next section of this chapter:

5.1 Epistolary and/or Semi-structured Online Interviews

Epistolary interviews, as first described by Debenham (2001) are asynchronous, one-to-one interviews mediated by technology. This is also a recommended method of doing fieldwork during a pandemic as these interviews will be done on online platforms to ensure that risk for transmission of infection is lowered to none. Research participants were sent open-ended and probing questions through email that they can respond to when the time is suitable for them. This method supposedly gives them time to think about the questions and their responses. I had hoped that this will also result to thoughtful exchanges between myself and the participants, developing our relationship further. I thought that this method was particularly advantageous as it gives a neutral arena for both myself and participants in using a language that is not our mother-tongue, especially in the Norwegian data generation. Additionally, this method was supposed to allow me to conduct several interviews simultaneously and not have to transcribe their answers, and data from one interview can prove useful in other interviews. However, early on, I received feedback from one of the teachers in a Norwegian kindergarten that it was better if they can just send in their responses through online survey forms.

5.2 Online Form and Photo/Video/Voice Elicitation

An online form was made in SurveyXact was disseminated through email and Facebook to targeted groups that included families with young children and older adults. This online form had open-ended questions that sought narratives of intergenerational interactions and activities of younger children and older adults while on lockdown. It also included open-ended questions asking about the tools used for these interactions. Additionally, research participants were given an option and instructions to send photos and video documentation of these activities—making the photos and videos participant-produced.

Another online form was created in collaboration with Livsglede for Eldre (The Joy of Life for the Elderly) to understand the transitions and transformations to intergenerational programs in kindergartens in Norway during the time of the pandemic. The questions in the online form also served as the jump-off point for the probing questions for the online focus group discussions.

5.3 Online Focus Group Discussions

Focus group discussions of six practitioners from different Norwegian municipalities were undertaken. Focus group discussions can offer a lot of information on a topic in a relatively short time. For this research, the focus group discussion was a venue for early years practitioners to share their thoughts and opinions and possibly generate ideas on intergenerational programmes in early years settings in Norway.

6 The Transformation

Ultimately, I undertook intergenerational studies in two different contexts and countries; transitions and transformations to intergenerational programmes in kindergarten institutions in Norway and intergenerational engagements within multi-generational families in the Philippines (see Table 18.1).

Table 18.1 Summary of research methods
Full size table

As above, I had to align the transformations to my research methodology to the ongoing social conditions of the time. This entailed choosing low infection risk methods using online platforms and tools. There were many additional advantages to using digital platforms for research during this time. One such advantage was the possibility to generate data simultaneously with participants from different parts of the world—saving on travel costs, energy and time. This also afforded the participants to respond on their own time, under their own terms as it was a time of transition and transition for everyone. However, as it was a difficult time for everyone, it also proved difficult to gain access to participants. In the end, the participants from the Philippines came from my own social circles, with whom I have already established trustful relationships. In Norway, cooperating with Livsglede for Eldre was key to gaining access to a wider network of participants. Having both international and local networks to collaborate with is something that I remain grateful for to this day. After all, social science research entails social cooperation, trust and reciprocity to work.

7 Conclusion: Some Reflections

Marianne Hedegaard sated that:

children’s formation as persons is connected to their social situations that change through their life course, depending on the institutional practices they participate in, and thereby their opportunities to acquire motives, social competence, thinking and conceptual skills. (Hedegaard, 2019, p. 1)

I argue that it is the same for adults, for PhD candidates, for researchers. The pandemic showed us just how our social conditions force us to develop as individuals—ones who can make pivots and think out of the box. We have been given an opportunity to be resilient and persevere. However, beyond resilience, which is a concept often romanticized when looking at an individual, I would like to believe that my success is a systemic process of institutional and personal support. I could never have thrived if I was not in an environment where I was too restricted.

As a conclusion, I offer some reflections that I hope would provide additional insights to readers of this book:

  1. 1.

    Innovation leans on existing networks (many of which already were digital)

    As mentioned, it would not have been possible to continue without the help, encouragement and support of other people—both physically and digitally. To me, researchers are most resilient, creative and resourceful when they have supportive environments where they are encouraged to try new ideas. This of course means being allowed to fail, but also being allowed to learn from failures—especially during the time when a lot was unknown and unsure.

  2. 2.

    Crisis as making the dialectic nature of research more transparent.

    In addition, the research process, as in this case, is necessarily relational and dialectical in nature—very much anchoring on socio-cultural and cultural-historical perspectives where persons are intertwined within their environments where time and events are relevant. In this sense, the research process, the researcher as well as the phenomenon being studied is always in a transitionary and transformative state as change is constant with time.

  3. 3.

    Having had institutional support was also key to being able to pivot the way I have. The flexible and supportive nature of institutional practices of the time enabled me to be confident in following through my actions.

  4. 4.

    Pivoting to online data gathering saved me so I am thankful. It allowed me to show my skills as a developing researcher. However, there are limitations that must be recognized—the ability to participate, access to participation, the invisible or not reachable, unheard voices: The participants who have given consent to participate in this research have chosen to show what could be viewed as normative, middle-class culture intergenerational engagements and practices during the time of a pandemic, where resources and materials are more readily available to young children and their grandparents. As such, these case studies can also point to the apparent lack of representation of non-normative intergenerational engagements where more complex challenges such as extreme poverty, physical or mental illness, family violence, parent separation, etc. are interspersed with the challenges of the ongoing pandemic. While this is something that is seemingly unrepresented in the two case studies, this research sets groundwork for possible future research to include intergenerational research in different contexts. Hence, we can also think of ways of how it will be possible for their voices to be heard, for their lived experiences to be represented, documented and included, for their materiality to be improved, and for intergenerational research to work with them.

  5. 5.

    Some of data the participants provided in the form of written narratives, videos and photos gave visual snippets of intergenerational engagements, in the family context, during an ongoing pandemic. These were pre-filtered by parents and provided single camera point of view. In addition, the video clips were short. In some clips, they do not include full dialogues/ conversations between younger children and older adults. The longest video clip was 1 min and 18 seconds. Above all, the actors were aware of the documentation. As such, there is a need to see beyond the visual data generated. As researchers, we need to ask «why are we seeing what we are seeing?»