Science, technology and the ‘grand challenge’ of ageing—Understanding the socio-material constitution of later life

Abstract

In this paper, we introduce the themes addressed and the approaches used in this special issue. We start by briefly discussing the state of the art in research and policy making related to science, technology and ageing. We argue that an important gap characterizes this state of the art: current approaches do not consider material practice and materiality to be an inherent part of later life as constituted in contemporary societies. Science and Technology Studies (STS) provide both the theories and methods to address this gap, and thus deploy a theoretical and empirical understanding of science, technology and ageing that captures how later life co-evolves with the practices of technology use and design. We briefly discuss how the articles in the collection each contribute to such an understanding across various locations. We conclude that, together, the contributions specify a perspective on the socio-material constitution of later life that implicates an important agenda for the future study of ageing and gerontechnology innovation.

Introduction

Demographic ageing is widely seen as a major challenge that drives the future of science and technology policy and management in industrialized societies (Grübler et al., 2007, Phillips, 2011, Schuitmaker, 2012). In Western Europe, the population aged 65 or higher will increase from 18.5% in 2010 to 27.3% in 2035, and the population aged 80 or higher will increase from 5.1% to 8.6% in the same period.¹ A common reasoning among policy makers, companies, researchers and lobby groups suggests that this demographic disruption will lead to a crisis for healthcare systems, for pension schemes, for the innovative capacity of economies, and for the social relations between different age groups (Nye, 2009). Science, technology and innovation are widely perceived to provide the means for solving this “grand challenge” of demographic ageing (Östlund, 2004, Mort et al., 2012, Neven, 2011, Peine and Herrmann, 2012, De Smedt et al., 2013, Cagnin et al., 2012). In the EU, for instance, the Ambient Assisted Living Joint Programme has funded research and development into ICT-based solutions to support active and healthy ageing with about 700 million EUR since 2008; an additional 143 million EUR were funded through the FP7 programme on “ICT for Health and Ageing Well” in 2013 alone.²

At the same time, the nature of later life and its relation with science and technology is changing. Current generations of older persons have experienced different waves of new household technology innovations during their life course; and with the baby boomers,³ the first cohort that has been exposed to modern digital technology, at least in the later phases of their lives, is going into retirement (Sackmann and Weymann, 1994, Mollenkopf, 2003). The baby boomers are also the first cohort that has been enculturated into consumer lifestyles, which implies that many of them continue to express their life styles and develop identity through the use and consumption of technology well into old age (Joyce and Mamo, 2006, Jones et al., 2008, Higgs et al., 2009, Gilleard and Higgs, 2011). In other words, older persons are increasingly used to use technology as part of everyday culture. As Loe has recently pointed out: Even the oldest old of today “can be and are technogenarians in their active use of everyday technologies to create meaningful lives and maintain health” (Loe, 2010, p. 320).

Innovations for older persons are usually referred to as gerontechnologies (Graafmans et al., 1998, Charness and Schaie, 2003, Joyce and Loe, 2010, Sixsmith and Gutman, 2013). They are not only seen as a potential solution to the problems and challenges associated with ageing; they are also perceived to have a considerable potential to open new market opportunities for innovative companies (Kohlbacher and Herstatt, 2011, Gassmann and Keupp, 2009) and scientific enterprise, and to provide learning opportunities, new experiences, enablement or simply fun for older persons (Astell, 2013, Larsen et al., 2013). Gerontechnological innovations are embedded in a “triple-win narrative”, where policy makers, innovators and older persons are said to equally benefit from scientific and technological innovation (see Neven, 2011, Neven, 2014). So far, however, the realization of this triple-win has remained disappointing (Gassmann and Keupp, 2009, Kohlbacher and Hang, 2011, Sixsmith, 2013, Östlund, 2011, Botero and Hyysalo, 2013).

This special issue focuses on a pertinent reason for this disappointment: The current generation of older persons creates “new patterns for life in the space between […] the ‘main acts’ of adulthood (career- and family-building) and the frailties of old age” (Moen and Spencer, 2006: 133). It has remained challenging to address these new patterns in innovation processes (Sixsmith, 2013, Lawton, 1998, Fozard et al., 2009, Wahl et al., 2012). Ageing baby boomers are different from younger users in terms of the needs that arise from ageing bodies (Twigg, 2004, Brooks, 2010, Czaja et al., 2013); they have undergone different technological experiences during their lives (Docampo Rama et al., 2001, Fozard and Wahl, 2012, Sackmann and Winkler, 2013); they are apt to reject technologies that too overtly position them as frail and old (Neven, 2010, Bailey et al., 2011, Jæger, 2005a); and they rearticulate meaning and identity as they move into later life with new and existing technology (Gilleard and Higgs, 2011, Mollenkopf et al., 2011, Chapman, 2006). Yet they often also defy existing stereotypes of inept and vulnerable technology users that are set apart primarily by the problems they have in engaging with science and technology as passive recipients (Joyce and Loe, 2010, Brittain et al., 2010, Östlund and Linden, 2011, Loe, 2011). As technology users, current generations of older persons are characterized by a simultaneous need to create new patterns of meaning and sense of self for retirement and later life on the one hand, and to cope with emerging illness and frailty on the other (Peine and Neven, 2011, Peine et al., 2014). Failing to address this simultaneous identity as agents and recipients of scientific and technological change constitutes a risk to produce a triple loss—older persons do not get the technologies they need, companies fail to tap into the opportunities of the emerging silver market, and the government subsidies for gerontechnological innovations result in prototypes and experiments that do not spread or scale.