Transcending borders and stereotypes: Older parents’ intergenerational contacts and social networking through digital platforms
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Older adults are often portrayed as incompetent digital citizens, mostly stemming from the popular perception of older adults as “digital immigrants.” The purpose of this research study was to study how older adults can effectively engage in digital platforms. Following a qualitative approach, 30 older parents who have emigrated children (15 males and 15 females) from Kerala, India, were interviewed who were active users of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). The findings show how the respondents embraced digital technologies stemming from perceived emotional benefits associated with intergenerational contact, without which they would not have ventured into the digital space. From seeking emotional goals initially, the respondents gradually started pursuing intellectual goals in the digital world. The varying degrees of expertise of older adults in the digital space indicate that they cannot arbitrarily be categorised as digital immigrants. Instead, they are “digital citizens” who gradually better themselves in social networks, information literacy and social participation online.
Metrics
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Since 2020 the International Journal of Ageing and Later Life uses a Creative Commons: Attribution license, which allows users to distribute the work and to reform or build upon it without the author's permission. Full reference to the author must be given.
References
Bengtsson, M. (2016). How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis. NursingPlus Open 2, 8–14. doi: 10.1016/j. npls.2016.01.001
Bennett, S., Maton, K. & Kervin, L. (2008). The “digital natives” debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology 39(5), 775–786. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00793.x
Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G. & Freeman, L. C. (2002). Ucinet 6 for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.
Brancaccio, D. (2019). Age of Fraud: Are Seniors more Vulnerable to Finan¬cial Scams? Available on https://www.marketplace.org/2019/05/16/ brains-losses-aging-fraud-financial-scams-seniors/ (Accessed: October 10, 2021).
Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford Uni¬versity Press.
Cable.uk. (2020). Available on https://www.cable.co.uk/mobiles/world¬wide-data-pricing/ (Accessed: January 4, 2021).
Carstensen, L. L., Isaacowitz, D. M. & Charles, S. T. (1999). Taking time seriously. A theory of socioemotional selectivity. The American Psychol¬ogist 54(3), 165–181. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.54.3.165
Chadda, R. K. & Deb, K. S. (2013). Indian family systems, collectivistic so¬ciety and psychotherapy. Indian Journal of Psychiatry 55(Suppl 2), S299– S309. doi: 10.4103/0019-5545.105555
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Council for Social Development. (2017). Digital Literacy Training to Non-IT Literate Citizens. Available on http://www.csdindia.org/pdfs/Proj¬ect-reports/Digital-Literacy-Report-2017.pdf (Accessed: January 5, 2021).
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among the Five Approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cullen, R. (2001). Addressing the digital divide. Online Information Review 25(5), 311–320. doi: 10.1108/14684520110410517
Digital Empowerment Foundation. (2018). Available on https://www. defindia.org/national-digital-literacy-mission/ (Accessed: January 5, 2021).
Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2009). One Europe, digitally divided. In A. Chadwick (ed.), Handbook of Internet Politics (pp. 288–304). New York, NY: Routledge.
Dingli, A. & Seychell, D. (2015). Who are the digital natives? In A. Dingli & D. Sey shell (eds.), The New Digital Natives (pp. 9–22). Berlin: Springer.
Fusch, P. I. & Ness, L. R. (2015). Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report 20(9), 1408–1416. doi: 10.46743/2160-3715/2015.2281
Gruhn, D., Sharifian, N. & Chu, Q. (2016). The limits of a limited future time perspective in explaining age differences in emotional function¬ing. Psychology and Aging 31(6), 583–593. doi: 10.1037/pag0000060
Hallberg, L. R. (2006). The “core category” of grounded theory: Making constant comparisons. International Journal of Qual¬itativeSstudies on Health and Well-being 1(3), 141–148. doi: 10.1080/17482620600858399
Handcock, M. S. & Gile, K. J. (2011). Comment: On the concept of snowball sampling. Sociological Methodology 41(1), 367–371. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9531.2011.01243.x
Heart, T. & Kalderon, E. (2013). Older adults: Are they ready to adopt health-related ICT? International Journal of Medical Informatics 82(11), e209–e231. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2011.03.002
Kania-Lundholm, M. & Torres, S. (2015). The divide within: Older active ICT users position themselves against different “Others.” Journal of Aging Studies 35, 26–36. doi: 10.1016/j.jaging.2015.07.008
Kania-Lundholm, M. & Torres, S. (2017). Older active users of ICTs make sense of their engagement. Seminar.Net, 13(1). Available on https://journals.oslomet.no/index.php/seminar/article/view/2297 (Accessed: January 2, 2021). Kelly, S. E. (2010). Qualitative interviewing techniques and styles. In I. Bourgeault, R. Dingwall & R. De Vries (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Methods in Health Research (pp. 307–326). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Kim, M. & Choi, D. (2018). Development of youth digital citizenship scale and implication for educational setting. Journal of Educational Technol¬ogy & Society 21(1), 155–171. Kumari, A.B. & Dhruvarajan, R. (2001). Ageing in India: Drifting inter¬generational relations, challenges and options. Ageing and Society 21(5), 621–640. doi: 10.1017/S0144686X0100842X Majumdar. (2018). Fortune India. Data and the New India. Available on https://www.fortuneindia.com/opinion/data-and-the- new-india/ 102658
(Accessed: January 10, 2021).
Morris, A. (2007). E-literacy and the grey digital divide: A review with recommendations. Journal of Information Literacy 1(3), 13–28. doi: 10.11645/1.3.14
Mossberger, K. (2009). Toward digital citizenship: Addressing inequal¬ity in the information age. In A. Chadwick & P. N. Howard (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics (pp. 173–185). London: Taylor & Francis.
Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J. & McNeal, R. S. (2008). Digital Citizenship: The Internet, Society, and Participation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Newzoo. (2018). Newzoo Global Mobile Market Report 2019 | Light Version. Available on https://newzoo.com/insights/trend-reports/newzoo-global-mobile-market-report-2019-light-version/ (Accessed: January 15, 2021).
Parayil, G. (1996). The “Kerala model” of development: Development and sustainability in the Third World. Third World Quarterly 17(5), 941–958. doi: 10.1080/01436599615191
Prensky, M. (2001), “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1”, On the Horizon 9(5), 1–6. doi: 10.1108/10748120110424816
Rajan, S. I. & Balagopal, G. (eds.). (2017). Elderly Care in India: Societal and State Responses. Singapore: Springer.
Rajan, S. I. & Zachariah, K. C. (2019). Emigration and remittances: New ev¬idences from the Kerala migration survey 2018. eSocialSciences. Work¬ing Papers id: 12989.
Schou, J. & Hjelholt, M. (2018). Digital citizenship and neoliberalization: Governing digital citizens in Denmark. Citizenship Studies 22(5), 507– 522. doi: 10.1080/13621025.2018.1477920
Schreurs, K., Quan-Haase, A. & Martin, K. (2017). Problematising the digital literacy paradox in the context of older adults’ ICT use: Aging, media discourse, and self-determination. Canadian Journal of Communi¬cation 42(2), a3130. doi: https://doi.org/10.22230/cjc.2017v42n2a3130
Selwyn, N. (2004). The information aged: A qualitative study of older adults’ use of information and communications technology. Journal of Aging studies 18(4), 369–384. doi: 10.1016/j.jaging.2004.06.008
Selwyn, N., Gorard, S., Furlong, J. & Madden, L. (2003). Older adults’ use of information and communications technology in everyday life. Age¬ing and Society, 23(5), 561–582. doi: 10.1017/s0144686x03001302
Shade, L. R. (2002). Gender & Community in the Social Construction of the Internet (vol. 1). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.
Shelley, M., Thrane, L., Shulman, S., Lang, E., Beisser, S., Larson, T. & Mu¬titi, J. (2004). Digital citizenship. Social Science Computer Review 22(2), 256–269. doi :10.1177/0894439303262580
Simsek, E. & Simsek, A. (2013). New literacies for digital citizenship. Contemporary Educational Technology 4(2), 126–137. doi: 10.30935/ cedtech/6097
Sinclair, S. & Geoffrey, R. (2016). Voyant tools. Available on http://voy¬ant-tools.org/ (Accessed: January 1, 2021).
Singh, S. (2010). Digital Divide in India. International Journal of Innovation in the Digital Economy, 1(2), 1–24. doi: 10.4018/jide.2010040101
Smith, J. P. & Majmundar, M. (2012). Aging in Asia: Findings from new and emerging data initiatives. Washington DC: National Academies Press.
Srivastava, S. (2020). International Literacy Day: Bridging India’s Digital Divide. Bloomberg Quint. Available on https://www.bloombergquint. com/technology/international-literacy-day-bridging-indias-digital-divide#:~:text=As%20per%20a%20report%20from,India’s%20pop-ulation%20is%20digitally%20illiterate.&text=However%2C%20 until%20October%202018%2C%20around,just%201.67%25%20of%20 India’s%20population. (Accessed: January 5, 2021).
Thapa, D. K., Visentin, D., Kornhaber, R. & Cleary, M. (2018) Migration of adult children and mental health of older parents’ left behind’: An integrative review. PLoS One 13(10), e0205665. doi: 10.1371/journal. pone.0205665
The Economic Times. (2020). India is world’s most digitally dexterous coun¬try: Survey. Avaiable on https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/internet/india-is-worlds-most-digitally-dexterous-country-survey/ articleshow/75178052.cms?from=mdr (Accessed: January 3, 2021).
Thomas, M. (ed.). (2011). Deconstructing Digital Natives: Young People, Tech¬nology, and the New Literacies. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Thomas, T. (2018). Kerala Tops Smartphone Penetration in India; Gu¬jarat, Punjab close behind. Ulta News. Available on https://ultra. news/t-t/40425/kerala-tops-smartphone-penetration-in-india-gu¬jarat-punjab-close-behind#:~:text=Kerala%20has%20emerged%20 as%20the,firm%20tracking%20the%20technology%20sector.&text=-Kerala%20led%20the%20charts%20with,and%20Punjab%20at%20 about%2059%25 (Accessed: February 8, 2021).
Torres, J. M., Sofrygin, O., Rudolph, K. E., Haan, M. N., Wong, R. & Gly¬mour, M. M. (2020). Adult child US migration status and cognitive de¬cline among older parents who remain in Mexico. American Journal of Epidemiology 189(9), 761–769. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwz277
Vigouroux-Zugasti, E. & Bourret, C. (2019). Digital disqualification, digital suffering, digital reliance: The case of French retired people over sixty years old. The Fifth International Conference on Human and Social Analyt¬ics, Jul 2019, Rome, Italy. Available on https://hal.archives-ouvertes. fr/hal-02363646/document (Accessed: February 5, 2021).
Wang, Q. E., Myers, M. D. & Sundaram, D. (2013). Digital natives and digital immigrants. Business & Information Systems Engineering 5(6), 409–419. doi: 10.1007/s12599-013-0296-y
Yeo, A., Legard, R., Keegan, L., Ward, K., Nicholls, M. C. & Lewis, J. (2013). In-depth Interviews. In J. Ritchie, J. Lewis, C.M. Nicholls & R. Ormston (eds.), Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers (pp. 177–208). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zachariah, K. C., Mathew, E. T. & Rajan, S. I. (2001). Social, economic and demographic consequences of migration on Kerala. International Mi¬gration 39(2), 43–71. doi: 10.1111/1468-2435.00149