The Teletalker – A Design Researcher’s Tool to Explore Intergenerational Online Video Connectivity in-the-Wild
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Disussing the Digital Divide
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Aims and Objectives
- How could the benefits of online video connectivity be demonstrated to older adults?
- What type of interface and interaction mechanisms in the artefact are intuitive to older adults?
- How was the TT concept received by the audiences and did they use it? (social science level)
- Was the hand mechanism intuitive to switch the sound on? (engineering level)
- How did the TT in-the-wild interventions involve people in the design of online social interaction? (design level)
2.2. Theoretical Underpinning
2.3. The Research Tool – the Teletalker (TT)’s Design Principles
2.4. The TT Technical Set-up
2.5. Procedure
2.5.1. The Three Design Research Interventions
2.5.2. Recruitment of Participants
2.5.3. Data Collection
2.5.4. Data Analysis
- Social science: returns on use and behaviour by people as well as users’ attitudes and motivations;
- Engineering: returns on suitability of the technology, natural interaction, and affordance of the volume mechanism;
- Design: returns on inspirations for future placements, applications, feedback on forms, and style improvements.
- Conversation about the TT itself (i.e. ticket to talk concept);
- Small talk;
- Reminiscence;
- Future-directed personal questions.
2.5.5. Ethical Approval
3. Results
3.1. Results of the First Intervention – Connecting Younger People with Older People
TT Conversation Results
Member of the research team: Are you here tomorrow?Day centre client: Tuesdays and Thursdays.Member of the research team: Tuesdays and Thursdays.Day centre client: Yeah.Member of the research team: No, am going back home tonight. I’m not living in London.Day centre client: Ahh.Member of the research team: I’m living in France.Day centre client: Oh you’re lucky the weather is better there.Member of the research team: Whoa, in the north of France it’s just like here, isn’t it?Day centre client: Ah (chuckle).Member of the research team: It’s near Lille. Have you been to Lille?(inaudible)Day centre client: Aw that’s better.(inaudible)Day centre client: Sunny June, but I don’t know what happened this month.Member of the research team: (chuckle).Day centre client: Turned out all that horrible.
3.2. Results of the Second Intervention – Connecting Younger with Younger People
3.3. Results of the Third Intervention – Connecting Older with Older People
4. Discussion
4.1. Reactions towards the TT
4.2. Attitudes towards and by TT Participants
4.3. Developing an Intuitive Ineraction Mechanism
4.4. Limitations of the Research
4.5. Proposed Recommendations
- Consider undertaking a scoping review in order to synthesize existing and recently published work on intergenerational communication and digital video presence. Like the aforementioned art interventions [103,104,105] operated without sound, it is questionable that hearing each other is necessary when these interaction points are placed in public locations. For communications scholars and gerontologists, but also for policymakers, it might be interesting to video connect, without audio, public intergenerational places such as plazas, shopping malls, or two separate parks in order to observe who and how people interact through the system (e.g., [119]).
- In addition, future work may wish to employ the TT kiosks (or a modified version) and place them where the context is specific and purposeful. For example, the TT kiosks could connect two selected groups, such as one of older adults and one of younger adults who share similar interests but could not easily travel to each other’s location. One idea could be to connect an arts and crafts club in England with an arts and crafts club in Wales. Creatives, media practitioners, and community workers would benefit from learning whether reactions towards video connectivity and attitudes towards older people are repeated or comparable in this context.
- Future work may consider undertaking a scoping review to synthesise existing and recently published work on intergenerational communication and ageism. As Drury et al. [120] suggests, people live in an increasingly age-segregated society [120]. Knowledge needs to be synthesized in order to understand which strategies are effective to uncover and reduce ageist attitudes, as well as whether digital technological interventions such as YouTube, Facebook, and videogames [5,7,121,122] may help positive intergenerational communication, as noted by Marston and van Hoof [123] across age-friendly cities and communities. Policy makers will benefit from learning about these strategies to break the age segregation/ageism cycle.
- Research approaches involving constructive design research or co-production are beneficial in uncovering the differing power levels of participants involved [124,125,126] and discriminating attitudes held [127] (p.8), and should be adopted more frequently by researchers in order to elicit knowledge and collaboration to enrich the variety of approaches applied in disciplines such as gerontology and communication studies.
- Future research employing constructive design research intervention it is beneficial to have a people-rich research team, consisting of researchers from various disciplines in order to help capture returns and interpreting the data from different perspectives and theories. When carrying out real environmental research, explicit attention needs to be paid to the information being provided before and after the intervention to entice, attract, and involve participants. Researchers may need to seek out the opinions of leading individuals to explain about the research intervention in detail to avoid unnecessary resistance to participation.
5. Conclusions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Collected Returns
- Engineering (E)—comments and feedback on the mechanism or functionality of the TT.
- Social science (SS)—learnings around the people.
- Design (D)—aspirations and desires what to use the TT for, and suggestions on its form, look and feel.
Day | No. | Returns | Type: Engineering (E), Social Science (SS), Design (D) | Interpretation |
---|---|---|---|---|
Day 1 | 1 | I explain to the helper of the research team how the hand mechanism works. Although he listened, he thought that it worked like a switch where one puts the hand in to switch the sound on and the hand in again to switch the sound off. | E | Expected the mechanism to work like a switch (and not like a contact point where you had to leave your hand in there). |
Day 1 | 2 | A member of the university staff learnt through a TT conversation with person M. (in her 70s) about the game “Hoy”. The university staff member later explained that he had no idea what older people do in day centres and felt that he learnt something new through the conversation and having a view into the day centre. | SS | The older conversant was happy to share about hobbies/activities in her life. University staff learnt what people do in day centres. |
Day 1 | 3 | Students were hesitant to put their hand into the hole: “I wouldn’t put my hand in there. I’d expect to find a keyboard”. “You need to tell me who it is connected to”. | E D | The hole was not inviting as a mechanism. Expectations by students were to have a keyboard for typing rather than speaking. The ambiguity of the kiosk and mechanism created a need for information. |
Day 1 | 4 | Three women from a local community group came to see the Teletalker after reading the announcement in the charity’s newsletter. Their reactions were, “really easy to use”, “really simple”. They liked the idea of visual connection with sound and could see their group connected to the over-50s club or with the library. They describe themselves as “still fit”, in comparison to the clientele that has to go to the day centre. | E D SS | The kiosk, mechanism, and concept were perceived as “easy to use” by active older people. Aspirations to connect their group to places of social and public activity. Distinguishing attitude by active older people towards day centre clients. |
Day 1 | 5 | At the day centre, person A. (in her 80s, female) asked me quietly “Why”? In her view, students and older people did not have the same interests and she would not know what to talk about. She was not interested in trying the TT. | SS | The concept of connecting (and speaking to) students was not attractive to all day centre clients. Not enough commonality or reason to interact with each other. |
Day 1 | 6 | Three daycentre clients tried out the TT and held small talk with members of the researching team. I had to help with placing their hands over the hole for the sensor to work. | SS E | (Some) interest in exchanging/trying out the TT by day centre clients. Mechanism to switch the sound on and to keep it on was not intuitive. |
Day 2 | 7 | On Wednesdays, a different group of clients came to the day centre. A woman of this group complained that she had not been informed about the research (as she was on holiday) and that she was not interested in being involved. Although I tried explaining to her what the research was about and that she did not have to be using the TT or even be near it, she did not warm to the idea. She did not accept compromises such as moving the Teletalker to a different point in the room where she would not been seen. Her objection to the TT created negativity and suspicion from other day centre clients towards the TT, which meant that I decided to keep the TT switched off at the day centre for the day. | SS | The day centre client, who felt not well informed enough about the research took an opposing position and was not prepared to make compromises. The dynamics in the day centre changed because this woman was opinion-leading. Her peers followed her suspicious attitude towards the research. In conversation with the day centre management team, I learnt how clients have their preferences in seats and activities. The management team had observed opinion leaders around the tables who strongly influence the dynamics towards activities. |
I installed myself with a laptop in the university building and connected to the TT (university kiosk). | ||||
Day 2 | 8 | Some people waved, but no one came to talk to me through the TT. | SS | The view attracted some interest, but people were hesitant to try out the TT. |
Day 2 | 9 | One student said after trying the TT, “Not very hygienic to put your hand in there”. She wanted a movable camera and to update the style of the kiosk, stating, “It doesn’t look modern”. She would have liked to have the TT like a help desk service in an office. | E D | The hole mechanism deterred people from using it. Form and style of the kiosk not attractive enough for this student. Movable camera as added functionality to improve the view. Aspirations to use it as a help desk. |
Day 2 | 10 | One of the students suggested giving the TT the look of a jukebox, as this would be something to connect young and old. Another student suggested having a switch to change locations for the view. | D E | “Jukebox” design as a connecting point for young and old. Switching the view into different locations as added functionality to make the TT proposition more attractive. |
Day 3 | 11 | Reaction by a member who works with vulnerable older people was initial disappointment, “It is chunky, in the open and what’s the difference to Skype?”. He expected the TT to connect, by a “hand push”, children to their grandparents in a care home. A person of the day centre management team defended the TT, “It’s a very good way of introducing older people to technology and it’s not about people staying at home.” | D E SS | The form and functionality disappointed this particular person (who had increased expectations because we had several conversations beforehand). He expected a simple video telephone with one button to speak and to be used in a quiet place. Day centre management understood that demonstrating the TT in the day centre is about bringing technology to places where older and mostly computer illiterate people meet. |
Day 3 | 12 | A student looked all the way around the TT to see how it worked and he was impressed by the hand mechanism. | E D | The bespoke volume mechanism made a student curious. |
Day 3 | 13 | Another student in favour of the TT suggested to connect different countries (e.g., India with the U.K.). | D | Aspirations to have a connection or view into a different country (similar suggestion to return 10). |
Day 3 | 14 | Member of university staff conversed with three daycentre clients through the TT. One of the day centre clients used it for the second time and became comfortable with the hand mechanism. | SS E | Interest in interacting with people and trying out the technology was generated and maintained by having an interesting conversation partner (member of university staff). One older person learnt how to use the hand mechanism. |
Day 3 | 15 | Two young students went straight to the TT at university. One said, “It’s here where you can watch old people and speak to the old dudes.” The other answered, “how cute”. | SS | (Patronising) attitude by young people towards older people. The TT was an exciting event for them. |
Day 3 | 16 | Two more women from the local club (see return no. 4) came to see the TT, but problems with the sound quality made it impossible for them to experience a conversation through the TT. They searched around the TT to see how the connection worked. | D E | The TT was curiosity evoking, despite the sound not working. A functional prototype with good sound quality was crucial to generate an enjoyable experience. |
Day 4 | 17 | The TT was moved into the hallway of the Age U.K. day centre, near the reception desk. Some Friday day clients were part of the Wednesday group, who previously rejected the TT (return 7). I could hear that they were pleased that they were not overheard playing bingo and that the “ghastly thing”, the “big brother” thing, was removed from the main hall. | SS D | Negative attitudes towards the TT with regards to being seen and heard were expressed. |
Day 4 | 18 | Q. (in his 70s), a volunteer for the day centre reception desk (not computer literate), was sceptical of the TT. He did not really want to have the “thing” near him. I played “kleine Nachtmusik” on YouTube and demonstrated how the hand mechanism worked. This changed his attitude. He enjoyed being in control of switching the music on and off by simply placing his hand over the little hole, or, as I showed him, by placing a piece of paper there to black out the light. He was a big fan of Mozart and used to play music himself. | SS E | Initial negative attitude towards the TT was changed by finding something that interested Q., i.e., classical music. The hand mechanism was attractive once Q. understood it. The idea to use a piece of paper made the mechanism act like a switch. |
Day 4 | 19 | Q. spoke through the TT with a younger member of the researching team. | SS | Q. was pro-active and opened up to cross-generational conversations. |
Day 4 | 20 | Day centre client J. had a conversation with a member of the research team. J. recounted a memory of the wartime (without being prompted to do so), where he had fallen into a coma. J. had to stop the conversation due to overwhelming emotions. | SS | Interest in having conversations is there, but recounting memories from the past can bring up emotions, which may be difficult to manage for both the raconteur as well as the listener. |
Day 4 | 21 | A group of four business students were impressed by the TT. They suggested using it as a customer service desk in department stores such as John Lewis, or for train stations or for McDonald’s drive-thru. | D | Aspirations to use it as a customer service/information desk, similar to return 9. |
Day 4 | 22 | Three women from a tai chi club (who were informed about the research through the daycentre newsletter) came to see the TT. They spoke to Q. over the Teletalker for a short while, before a connection problem occurred. | SS E | TT attracted an audience that specifically travelled to the university to see it. Technical problems dampened the experience. |
Day 4 | 23 | 3p.m.: Day centre clients started to leave. I waved through the TT at them and some waved back. | SS | Visual interaction was reciprocated despite resistance/disinterest in trying the TT out during the day. |
Day 4 | 24 | Apart from Q. and one day centre client, no one else of the day centre came to try out the TT. A member of the day centre team explained that it had to do with peer pressure. Other day centre clients might have not wanted to upset the opinion-leading day centre client(s). | SS | Peer pressure or not interfering with the opinion leaders was a factor that needs to be considered in understanding daycentre clients’ behaviour and actions. |
Day | No. | Returns | Type: Engineering (E), Social Science (SS), Design (D) | Interpretation |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1 | One kiosk was put into the university’s café area and it generated large interest with the students. My supervisor observed how students were communicating non-verbally through the Teletalker, first with sign language, then by holding up signs spelling out messages. The students had not read any of the instructions on how to use the Teletalker or ignored it because they simply enjoyed the visual connection. | SS D | Students enjoyed the visual connection to another location in the building. Students found their own ways of using the TT to interact with each other. The instructions on how to use the TT were not noticeable enough. |
2 | 2 | I had five students who were curious about the Teletalker after I switched it on. One of them tried it out, but he found the hand mechanism confusing. He was not sure whether he had to keep his finger on the hole or not. | SS E | Curiosity in groups. The affordance of the hand mechanism was still not clear, although sign and descriptions were given. |
2 | 3 | Another student of the group went to the second kiosk to be the conversation partner. The feedback I received from him about the Teletalker was that it was “pretty decent”. | SS | The experience was seen as enjoyable. |
2 | 4 | The students, as a group, suggested having a button or an area where one could touch rather than covering a little hole. | E | Use a button rather than a touch area. |
2 | 5 | I sat in the university café near the TT, ready for any potential interaction. I could see students and staff glancing at the screen from the other floor, but hardly anyone stopped. | SS | Students were interested but hesitant. |
2 | 6 | One student said hello into the TT from the other location, but he did not wait until I answered back. | SS | The student did not receive rewarding ‘feedback’ quickly enough to stop in front of the TT. |
2 | 7 | A fashion design student commented on the TT’s visual style as appropriate for its purpose of connecting to people, in particular older people. “It reminds me of the old radios 1930 style and those round clocks”. | D | Style seen as appropriate |
2 | 8 | In the afternoon, a student came to see how the TT worked and looked around the kiosk. | SS | Curiosity around the kiosk. |
2 | 9 | One student, who had come past the TT kiosk several times, saw me setting up the TT and said that it was a great idea and that it would be useful to “have them everywhere” around the campus. | D | Student is open to the idea of having several spaces connected on the campus. |
3 | 10 | Because there was no interaction generated through the TT by students spontaneously, I decided to be pro-active: I asked students to re-enact the potential use of the TT. | SS | See video. |
4 | 11 | A member of staff (a lecturer) praised the Teletalker on the second floor because it was a good way for him to check the length of the queues at the café. | SS D | TT used as a means to survey the space and to inform decisions as to when to get coffee. |
4 | 12 | Another member of staff (a lecturer) was excited about the research and explained that the TTs reminded her of the “Hole in Space project”. | SS D | The concept of the TT was attractive and reminded this person of another art installation. |
5 | 13 | A computer science student tried out the Teletalker and provided feedback. She was positive about the concept, but suggested using pressure pads on the floor to switch the sound on and to provide clear feedback such as “on air” lights to signal when the volume is and that conversation partners could hear one. | D E | Rather than a button, this person suggested pressure pads (acting like a button) and to provide better visual feedback for when the sound is switched on. |
5 | 14 | Two feedback forms were filled in and left with the TT kiosk (hallway location); see table below. | See Table A3. |
Questions | Respondent 1 | Respondent 2 |
---|---|---|
1. Was there anything you particularly liked about the experience? | It’s funny. | Random communication. |
2. How could the experience be improved? | The sound was not very clear. It took a while to understand. Cool. | By observing who makes connections and whether location is a factor and whether casing is a factor and basically testing and analysis, not just putting it there. |
3. Where would you like to see the Teletalker placed in the future? | It feels like Harry Potter. Haha. | Between two disparate groups say: old people/young people Mosque/church Birth clinic/funeral pastier. |
Day | No. | Returns | Type: Engineering (E), Social Science (SS), Design (D) | Interpretation |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1 | Due to a persistent sound issue, I decided to concentrate on the visual connection only. The visual connection enabled daycentre clients and staff to wave to each other. As both TT kiosks were placed in fixed positions, the idea was to get people near the TT in order to wave and smile. | E D | N/A |
1 | 2 | Some clients at the day centre 1 were not keen on interacting with the day centre 2 clients. I learnt through chats with these clients that there was some kind of competition with day centre 2 regarding resources being allocated (exercise classes or similar activities), and these particular day centre 1 clients felt disadvantaged. | SS | There was a previous history, which made the connection between the two centres for some participants less enjoyable. |
1 | 3 | Staff members were very pleased to wave and mouthed messages to fellow staff at day centre 1. | SS | Staff were happy to have the visual connection. |
1 | 4 | I learnt from one of my helpers, N., at the day centre 2, two clients were disappointed that they could not use the TT with sound. They remembered N. from the last round of field research and they had been patiently waiting for the opportunity to speak through the TT all morning. | SS | Two clients were patiently waiting to use the TT with sound, because they enjoyed using it the last time. |
1 | 5 | Filling in the forms. | SS | It was not feasible to have day centre clients fill in feedback forms. Many had eye sight problems and or tremors. They did not want to fill them in. |
References
- Standard Eurobarometer 88 Autumn 2017. Report. Media use in the European Union: 2017. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/ResultDoc/download/DocumentKy/82786 (accessed on 3 February 2020).
- Pew Research Centre (Pew) Tech Adoption Climbs among Older Americans: 2017. Available online: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2017/05/17/tech-adoption-climbs-among-older-adults/ (accessed on 15 November 2019).
- Pew Research Centre (Pew) Technology Use among Seniors: 2017. Available online: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2017/05/17/technology-use-among-seniors/ (accessed on 5 February 2020).
- Office for National Statistics (ONS). Internet users, UK: 2019. Available online: https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/itandinternetindustry/bulletins/internetusers/2019 (accessed on 15 November 2019).
- Marston, H.R.; Freeman, S.; Bishop, K.A.; Beech, C.L. A Scoping Review of Digital Gaming Research Involving Older Adults Aged 85 and Older. Games For. Health J. 2016, 5, 157–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Gatto, S.L.; Tak, S.H. Computer, Internet, and E-mail Use Among Older Adults: Benefits and Barriers. Educ. Gerontol. 2008, 34, 800–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ivan, L.; Hebblethwaite, S. Grannies on the Net: Grandmothers’ Experiences of Facebook in Family Communication. RJCPR. 2016, 18, 11–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nimrod, G. The benefits of and constraints to participation in seniors’ online communities. Leisure Studies 2014, 33, 247–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baez, M.; Nielek, R.; Casati, F.; Wierzbicki, A. Technologies for promoting social participation in later life. In Ageing and Digital Technology; Neves, B.B., Vetere, F., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 285–306. [Google Scholar]
- Vroman, K.G.; Arthanat, S.; Lysack, C. “Who over 65 is online?” Older adults’ dispositions toward information communication technology. Comp. Hum. Beh. 2015, 43, 156–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dykstra, P.A.; Van Tilburg, T.G.; de Jong Gierveld, J. Changes in older adult loneliness results from a seven-year longitudinal study. Res. Aging 2005, 27, 725–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Prieto-Flores, M.E.; Forjaz, M.J.; Fernandez-Mayoralas, G.; Rojo-Perez, F.; Martinez-Martin, P. Factors associated with loneliness of noninstitutionalized and institutionalized older adults. J. Aging Health 2011, 23, 177–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Victor, C.; Scambler, S.; Bond, J. The Social World of Older People. Understanding Loneliness and Social Isolation in Later Life; Open University Press: Maidenhead, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Cornwell, E.Y.; Waite, L.J. Social disconnectedness, perceived isolation, and health among older adults. J. Health Soc. Behav. 2009, 50, 31–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Perissinotto, C.M.; Cenzer, I.S.; Covinsky, K.E. Loneliness in older persons: A predictor of functional decline and death. Arch. Intern. Med. 2012, 172, 1078–1084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hagestad, G.O.; Uhlenberg, P. The social separation of old and young: A root of ageism. J. Soc. Issues 2005, 61, 343–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harwood, J. Understanding Communication and Aging: Developing Knowledge and Awareness, 1st ed.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Bergman, Y. Ageism in Childhood. In Ageism: Stereotyping and Prejudice Against Older Persons, 2nd ed.; Nelson, T.D., Ed.; MIT press: Cambridge, UK; Massachusetts, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- DiMaggio, P.; Hargittai, E.; Celeste, C.; Shafer, S. From unequal access to differentiated use: A literature review and agenda for research on digital inequality. Soc. Inequal. 2004, 1, 355–400. [Google Scholar]
- Selwyn, N. Reconsidering political and popular understandings of the digital divide. New Med. Soc. 2004, 6, 341–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Dijk, J.A. Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics 2006, 34, 221–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hsieh, J.P.A.; Rai, A.; Keil, M. Understanding digital inequality: Comparing continued use behavioral models of the socio-economically advantaged and disadvantaged. Mis Q. 2008, 32, 97–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stiakakis, E.; Kariotellis, P.; Vlachopoulou, M. From the digital divide to digital inequality: A secondary research in the European Union. In Proceedings of the International Conference on e-Democracy, Athens, Greece, 23–25 September 2009; pp. 43–54. [Google Scholar]
- Olsson, T.; Samuelsson, U.; Viscovi, D. At risk of exclusion? Degrees of ICT access and literacy among senior citizens. Inf. Commun. Soc. 2019, 22, 55–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lenhart, A.; Horrigan, J.B. Re-visualizing the digital divide as a digital spectrum. IT Soc. 2003, 1, 23–39. [Google Scholar]
- Friemel, T.N. The digital divide has grown old: Determinants of a digital divide among seniors. New Med. Soc. 2016, 18, 313–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goodman-Deane, J.; Keith, S.; Whitney, G. HCI and the older population. Univers. Access Inf. Soc. 2008, 8, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tinker, A. Older People in Modern Societyb; Longman: London, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Loos, E. Senior citizens: Digital immigrants in their own country? Observatorio 2012, 6, 1–23. [Google Scholar]
- Nelson, E.A.; Dannefer, D. Aged heterogeneity: Fact or fiction? The fate of diversity in gerontological research. Gerontologist 1992, 32, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neves, B.B.; Vetere, F. Ageing and Digital Technology; Springer: Singapore, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Stone, M.E.; Lin, J.; Dannefer, D.; Kelley-Moore, J.A. The continued eclipse of heterogeneity in gerontological research. J. Gerontol. 2017, 72, 162–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Genoe, R.; Kulczycki, C.; Marston, H.; Freeman, S.; Musselwhite, C.; Rutherford, H. E-Leisure and Older Adults: Findings from an International Explor. Study. TRJ 2018, 52, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huber, L.; Watson, C. Technology: Education and Training Needs of Older Adults. Educ Gerontol. 2014, 40, 16–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leonard, K.C.; Hebblethwaite, S. Exploring Community Inclusion in Older Adulthood through the Use of Computers and Tablets. TRJ 2017, 51, 274–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Marston, H.R.; Genoe, R.; Freeman, S.; Kulczycki, C.; Musselwhite, C. Older Adults’ Perceptions of ICT: Main Findings from the Technology In Later Life (TILL). Study Healthc. 2019, 7, 86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Melenhorst, A.-S.; Rogers, W.A.; Bouwhuis, D.G. Older adults’ motivated choice for technological innovation: Evidence for benefit-driven selectivity. Psych. Aging 2006, 21, 190–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wagner, N.; Hassanein, K.; Head, M. Computer use by older adults: A multi-disciplinary review. Comput. Hum Behav. 2010, 26, 870–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neves, B.B.; Franz, R.L.; Munteanu, C.; Baecker, R. Adoption and feasibility of a communication app to enhance social connectedness amongst frail institutionalized oldest old: An embedded case study. Inf. Commun. Soc. 2018, 21, 1681–1699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nedelcu, M.; Wyss, M. ‘Doing family’through ICT-mediated ordinary co-presence: Transnational communication practices of Romanian migrants in Switzerland. Glob. Netw. 2016, 16, 202–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ames, M.G.; Go, J.; Kaye, J.J.; Spasojevic, M. Making love in the network closet: The benefits and work of family videochat. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Conference on CSCW, Savannah, GA, USA, 6–10 February 2010; pp. 145–154. [Google Scholar]
- United Nations (UN) World Population Ageing 2017 Highlights. Available online: https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/ageing/WPA2017_Highlights.pdf (accessed on 10 February 2020).
- Baltes, P.B.; Smith, J. New frontiers in the future of aging. Gerontology 2003, 49, 123–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, I.R. Connectivity, digital technology and later life. In Routledge Handbook of Cultural Gerontology; Twigg, J., Martin, W., Eds.; Routledge International: Abingdon, UK, 2015; pp. 438–446. [Google Scholar]
- Merkel, S.; Kucharski, A. Participatory Design in Gerontechnology: A systematic literature review. Gerontologist 2019, 59, e16–e25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Blair, T.; Minkler, M. Participatory Action Research With Older Adults: Key Principles in Practice. Gerontologist 2009, 49, 651–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Fischer, B.; Peine, A.; Östlund, B. The Importance of User Involvement: A Systematic Review of Involving Older Users in Technology Design. Gerontologist 2019, 163, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Compagna, D.; Kohlbacher, F. The limits of participatory technology development: The case of service robots in care facilities for older people. Tech. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2015, 93, 19–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loos, E.; Haddon, L.; Mante-Meijer, E. Generational Use of New Media; Ashgate: Farnham, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Nixon, P.G.; Rawal, R.; Funk, A. Digital Media Usage across the Life Course; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Taipale, S.; Wilska, T.A.; Gilleard, C. Digital Technologies and Generational Identity: ICT Usage Across the Life Course; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Gaver, W.; Boucher, A.; Bowers, J.; Blythe, M.; Jarvis, N.; Cameron, D.; Kerridge, T.; Wilkie, A.; Phillips, R.; Wright, P. The photostroller: Supporting diverse care home residents in engaging with the world. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 7–12 May 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Frohlich, D.M.; Lim, C.; Ahmed, A. Co-designing a diversity of social media products with and for older people. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Software Development and Technologies for Enhancing Accessibility and Fighting Info- Exclusion, Vila Real, Portugal, 1–3 December 2016; pp. 323–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Duarte, C.; Coelho, J. Design of social network services for and with older adults. In Ageing and Digital Technology; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 307–326. [Google Scholar]
- Cruz, E.G.; Noske-Turner, J.; Sinanan, J. Vignethnographies: A Method for Fast, Focused and Visual Exploration. In Ageing and Digital Technology; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 115–131. [Google Scholar]
- Ivan, L. communities. In Ageing and Digital Technology; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 133–150. [Google Scholar]
- Taipale, S.; Petrovčič, A.; Dolničar, V. Intergenerational solidarity and ICT usage: Empirical insights from Finnish and Slovenian families. In Digital Technologies and Generational Identity; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2017; pp. 69–86. [Google Scholar]
- Schreder, G.; Siebenhandl, K.; Mayr, E.; Smuc, M. The ticket machine challenge: Social inclusion by barrier-free ticket vending machines. In Generational Use of New Media; Ashgate: Farnham, UK, 2012; pp. 129–148. [Google Scholar]
- Yost, E.; Winstead, V.; Berkowsky, R.W. Googling grannies: How technology use can improve health and well-being in aging populations. In Digital Media Usage across the Life Course; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2016; pp. 162–175. [Google Scholar]
- Koskinen, I.; Zimmerman, J.; Binder, T.; Redström, J.; Wensveen, S. Design Research Through Practice: From the Lab, Field, and Showroom; Morgan Kaufmann: Waltham, MA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Rogers, Y. Interaction Design Gone Wild: Striving for Wild Theory. Interactions 2011, 18, 58–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pescosolido, B.A. Beyond rational choice: The social dynamics of how people seek help. Am. J. Sociol. 1992, 97, 1096–1138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Watzlawick, P.; Bavelas, J.B.; Jackson, D.D. Pragmatics of Human Communication: A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies and Paradoxes; WW Norton & Company: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Wiberg, M. The Interaction Society: Practice, Theories and Supportive Technologies; Information Science Publishing: London, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Braithwaite, V. Reducing ageism. In Ageism: Stereotyping and Prejudice against Older Persons; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, UK, 2002; pp. 311–337. [Google Scholar]
- Pew Research Centre (Pew) The Internet and Campaign 2002. Available online: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2003/01/05/the-internet-and-campaign-2002/ (accessed on 21 February 2020).
- Frayling, C. Research in Art and Design. Royal College of Art Research Papers 1993, 1, 1–5. Available online: http://researchonline.rca.ac.uk/384/3/frayling_research_in_art_and_design_1993.pdf (accessed on 15 November 2019).
- Binder, T.; Redström, J. Exemplary Design Research. In Proceedings of the DRS Wonderground Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, 1–4 November 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Basaballe, D.A.; Halskov, K. Dynamics of Research through Design. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 11–15 June 2012; pp. 58–67. [Google Scholar]
- Hutchinson, H.; Mackay, W.; Westerlund, B.; Bederson, B.B.; Druin, A.; Plaisant, C.; Roussel, N. Technology probes: Inspiring design for and with families. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA, 5–10 April 2003; pp. 17–24. [Google Scholar]
- Dunne, A.; Raby, F. Design Noir: The Secret Life of Electronic Objects; Birkhauser: Basel, Switzerland, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Grönvall, E.; Kinch, S.; Petersen, M.G.; & Rasmussen, M.K. Causing commotion with a shape-changing bench: Experiencing shape-changing interfaces in use. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Toronto, ON, Canada, 26 April–1 May 2014; pp. 2559–2568. [Google Scholar]
- Walker, B.; Markowski, M. The Megafobia V-armchair thrill-seeking experience for older audiences-An artistic intervention at Age UK Barnet. In Proceedings of the Electronic Visualisation of the Arts (EVA) Conference, London, UK, 11–13 July 2017; pp. 112–113. [Google Scholar]
- Blythe, M.; Wright, P.; Bowers, J.; Boucher, A.; Jarvis, N.; Reynolds, P.; Gaver, W.W. Age and Experience: Ludic engagement in a residential care setting. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems (DIS) Conference, Aarhus, Denmark, 16–20 August 2010; pp. 161–170. [Google Scholar]
- Zimmerman, J.; Forlizzi, J. The role of design artifacts in design theory construction. Artifact J. Des. Pract. 2008, 2, 41–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robson, C. Real World Research: A Resource for Users of Social Research Methods in Applied Settings, 3rd ed.; Wiley & Sons: Padstow, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Bevan, B.; Gutwill, J.P.; Petrich, M.; Wilkinson, K. Learning through STEM-rich tinkering: Findings from a jointly negotiated research project taken up in practice. Sci. Educ. 2015, 99, 98–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dourish, P. Re-Space-ing Place: “Place” and “Space” Ten Years On. Proceedings of Computer Supoorted Cooperative Work (CSCW), Banff, AB, Canada, 4–8 November 2006; pp. 299–308. [Google Scholar]
- Vom Lehn, D.; Heath, C. Misconstruing interaction. Proceedings of interactive Learning in Museums of Art and Design, London, UK, 17–18 May 2002; pp. 1–16. [Google Scholar]
- Romero, N.; Sturm, J.; Bekker, T.; De Valk, L.; Kruitwagen, S. Playful persuasion to support older adults’ social and physical activities. Interact. Comput. 2010, 22, 485–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sokoler, T.; Svensson, M.S. Embracing ambiguity in the design of non-stigmatizing digital technology for social interaction among senior citizens. Behav. Inform. Tech. 2007, 26, 297–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- McCreadie, C.; Tinker, A. The acceptability of assistive technology to older people. Ageing Soc. 2005, 25, 91–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carstensen, L.L.; Isaacowitz, D.M.; Charles, S.T. Taking time seriously. A theory of socioemotional selectivity. Am. Psychol. 1999, 54, 165–181. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Gaver, W.W. The video window: My life with a ludic system. Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. 2005, 10, 60–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dunbar, R. Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Gaver, W.W.; Beaver, J.; Benford, S. Ambiguity as a Resource for Design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA; 2003; pp. 233–240. [Google Scholar]
- Cross, N. Designerly Ways of Knowing; Springer: London, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Sokoler, T.; Svensson, M.S. Ticket-to-Talk-Television: Designing for the circumstantial nature of everyday social interaction. In Proceedings of the NordicCHI, Lund, Sweden, 18–22 October 2008; pp. 334–343. [Google Scholar]
- Gaver, B.; Dunne, T.; Pacenti, E. Design: Cultural probes. Interactions 1999, 6, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gaver, W.; Boucher, A.; Pennington, S.; Walker, B. Cultural probes and the value of uncertainty. Interactions 2004, 11, 53–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mattelmäki, T. Applying probes–from inspirational notes to collaborative insights. CoDesign 2005, 1, 83–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol 2006, 3, 77–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gibson, J.J. Chapter Eight: The Theory of Affordances. In The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception; Houghton Mifflin: Boston, MA, USA, 1979; Available online: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/eab2/b1523b942ca7ae44e7495c496bc87628f9e1.pdf (accessed on 15 November 2019).
- Norman, D.A. Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions 1999, 6, 38–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turner, P. Affordance as context. Interac. Comput. 2005, 17, 787–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coupland, J. Small Talk: Social Functions. R. Langu. Soc. Interact. 2003, 36, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mitzner, T.L.; Boron, J.B.; Fausset, C.B.; Adams, A.E.; Charness, N.; Czaja, S.J.; Sharit, J. Older adults talk technology: Technology usage and attitudes. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2010, 26, 1710–1721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Tsui, K.M.; Desai, M.; Yanco, H.A.; Cramer, H.; Kemper, N. Measuring Attitudes Towards Telepresence Robots. Int. J. Intell. Control Syst. 2011, 16, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
- Garfield, M.J. Acceptance of Ubiquitous Computing. Inf. Syst. Manag. 2005, 22, 24–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ndiwalana, A.; Chewar, C.M.; Somervell, J.; McCrickard, D.S. Ubiquitous Computing: By the People, For the People. In Proceedings of the CHI’03 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA, 5–10 April 2003; pp. 968–969. [Google Scholar]
- Rentto, K.; Korhonen, I.; Väätänen, A.; Pekkarinen, L.; Tuomisto, T.; Cluitmans, L.; Lappalainen, R. Users’ Preferences for Ubiquitous Computing Applications at Home. In Proceedings of the EUSAI 2003, Veldhoven, The Netherlands, 3–4 November 2003; pp. 384–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Home office. Public Attitudes towards CCTV: Results from the Pre-intervention Public Attitude Survey Carried out in Areas Implementing CCTV. Available online: http://library.college.police.uk/docs/hordsolr/rdsolr1005.pdf (accessed on 15 November 2019).
- Pike, D. The Telectroscope: A Response. J. Vict. Cult. 2012, 17, 534–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Electronic Cafe International. Hole-In-Space, 1980. Available online: http://www.ecafe.com/getty/HIS/ (accessed on 1 July 2014).
- Sermon, P. Telematic Practice and Research Discourses: Three Practice-based Research Project Case. In Art Practice in a Digital Culture, 1st ed.; Gardine, H., Gere, C., Eds.; Ashgate Publishing: London, UK, 2010; pp. 153–164. [Google Scholar]
- CBC News. Video Banking Makes Robbery Impossible - Latest Hamilton News - CBC Hamilton 2012. Available online: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/video-banking-makes-robbery-impossible-1.1194199 (accessed on 13 May 2015).
- Camp, C.J.; Dietrich, M.S.; Olson, K.R. Curiosity and uncertainty in young, middle aged, and older adults. Educ. Geronto. 1985, 11, 401–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McGillivray, S.; Murayama, K.; Castel, A.D. Thirst for Knowledge: The Effects of Curiosity and Interest on Memory in Younger and Older Adults. Psychol. Aging 2015, 30, 835–841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sakaki, M.; Yagi, A.; Murayama, K. Curiosity in old age: A possible key to achieving adaptive aging. Neuroscie. Biobehav. Rev. 2018, 88, 106–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kidd, C.; Hayden, B.Y. The Psychology and Neuroscience of Curiosity. Neuron 2015, 88, 449–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bond, R. Group size and conformity. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 2005, 8, 331–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gerard, H.B.; Wilhelmy, R.A.; Conolley, E.S. Conformity and group size. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1968, 8, 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Levitan, L.C.; Verhulst, B. Conformity in groups: The effects of others’ views on expressed attitudes and attitude change. Political Behav. 2016, 38, 277–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rizzo, V.M.; Toseland, R.W. What’s Different About Working with Older People in Groups? J. Geront. Soc. Work. 2013, 44, 5–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- North, M.S.; Fiske, S.T. An inconvenienced youth? Ageism and its potential intergenerational roots. Psychol. Bull. 2012, 138, 982–997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Stets, J.E.; Burke, P.J. Identity theory and social identity theory. Soc. Psych. Quart. 2010, 63, 224–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Montepare, J.; Zebrowitz, L. A social-developmental view of ageism. In Ageism: Stereotyping and Prejudice Against Older Persons; Nelson, T.D., Ed.; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2002; pp. 129–161. [Google Scholar]
- Nelson, T.D. Ageism: Prejudice against our feared future self. J. Soc. Issues 2005, 61, 207–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clark, A.; Holland, C.; Katz, J.; Peace, S. Learning to see: Lessons from a participatory observation research project in public spaces. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2009, 12, 345–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Drury, L.; Hutchison, P.; Abrams, D. Direct and extended intergenerational contact and young people’s attitudes towards older adults. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2016, 55, 522–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Harley, D.; Fitzpatrick, G. YouTube and intergenerational communication: The case of Geriatric1927. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 2008, 8, 5–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zargham, S.; Ćalić, J.; Frohlich, D.M. 4streams: An ambient photo sharing application for extended families. In Proceedings of the 2015 British HCI Conference, Lincoln, UK, 13–17 July 2015; ACM Press: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 165–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marston, H.R.; van Hoof, J. “Who Doesn’t Think about Technology When Designing Urban Environments for Older People?” A Case Study Approach to a Proposed Extension of the WHO’S Age-Friendly Cities Model. Int. J. Environ. Res Public Health 2019, 16, 1–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Voice Global: “A Neighbour, She’s very Kind to me but She’s Eighty---I Think She’s Eighty Seven”: Older People’s Views on and Experiences of Getting Help and Support from Neighbours. Available online: https://www.voice-global.org/media/1129184/janet-grime-final-report-april-11-2016.pdf (accessed on 15 November 2019).
- Buffel, T. Social research and co-production with older people: Developing age-friendly communities. J. Aging Stud. 2018, 44, 52–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rémillard-Boilard, S.; Buffel, T.; Phillipson, C. Involving Older Residents in Age-Friendly Developments: From Information to Coproduction Mechanisms. J. Hous. F. Elder. 2017, 31, 146–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buffel, T. Older Coresearchers Exploring Age-Friendly Communities: An “Insider” Perspective on the Benefits and Challenges of Peer-Research. Gerontologist 2019, 59, 538–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
© 2020 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Markowski, M. The Teletalker – A Design Researcher’s Tool to Explore Intergenerational Online Video Connectivity in-the-Wild. Societies 2020, 10, 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc10010025
Markowski M. The Teletalker – A Design Researcher’s Tool to Explore Intergenerational Online Video Connectivity in-the-Wild. Societies. 2020; 10(1):25. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc10010025
Chicago/Turabian StyleMarkowski, Marianne. 2020. "The Teletalker – A Design Researcher’s Tool to Explore Intergenerational Online Video Connectivity in-the-Wild" Societies 10, no. 1: 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc10010025