2:55 ص
Esoo
Britt Östlund
Despite the fact that old people´s technological needs have been given much attention
to in the last decennium, especially old users of information- and communication
technology, technology has not found its natural place in research on ageing in
modern societies. This article examines to what extent social science research exist
in the field of ageing and technology and where we can find the interface between
technological and social science expertise. Scientific publications during the period
1983-2002 are analysed in terms of theoretical content, the role of the elderly as
being regarded as objects or subjects, and if technology is called into question in
any respect. Scientific well-grounded knowledge exist besides less well-substantiated
assumptions regarding the effects of technology and a premature body of
thoughts on the relationship between technology and the elderly.
Keywords: ageing, technology, technology studies
ageing as part of their activities. Biologists
study the physical changes associated
with ageing, economists study the
role of the elderly in social economics,
social psychologists study role changes,
etc. The American sociologist Robert
Atchley (1997) has pointed out how a
number of sciences address four aspects
of ageing in this regard – the physical, the
psychological, the psychosocial and the
social, which are referred to collectively
as gerontology.
Another approach to categorisation
views gerontology as a collective term for
research on the elderly from social science,
behavioural science and cultural
As an area of research, technology and
the elderly can best be understood
through its historical evolution. It is a
relatively new field. The extent to which
it can be viewed as an established area
of research, or perhaps more aptly a potential
research area, constitutes the primary
issue addressed in this paper.
Although technology issues are well
established in a number of disciplines
and research directions, they have not
yet found their natural place among researchers
examining ageing and the elderly.
Many disciplines and research directions
currently include the particular
study of the problems associated with
45
Britt Östlund
science perspectives, while geriatrics
covers the medical aspects. It must also
be noted that many other researchers in
both the social sciences and technological
fields are engaged in research on ageing
and the elderly without considering
themselves to be gerontologists and
geriatricians. Regardless of categorisation,
no research orientation which relates
technology to ageing and the elderly
has existed until quite recently. From
having constituted a particularly marginalised
issue which was noted in isolated
cases, the elderly became a central
theme in connection with the development
of information and communications
technology in the 1990s. The issue
of the elderly and technology had been
noted earlier at a few conferences and
in connection with evaluations of security
alarm systems (Robinson et al., 1983;
Ström & Ottosson, 1986; Grip, 1978;
Wallengren & Samuelsson, 1988). Visions
of the role of the elderly in the IT society
were articulated in a number of policy
documents which put the issue on the
political agenda and resulted in funding
for research and development (Bangemann,
1994; Swedish Government Offices,
1995/96; Swedish Handicap Institute,
1997). Part of the reason for paying
such close attention to the elderly in the
context of a technological society concerns
the need for markets in which to
sell the new technological advances. But
another part is due to increased awareness
of a growing elderly population in
the Western world, and to assumptions
about the problems associated with this
increase.
The term “gerontechnology” was
coined in the early 1990s in connection
with these developments. Gerontechnology,
which derives from a Man-Machine
perspective, is intended to compensate
for human deficiencies and prevent
ageing-related effects. Social science
researchers are contributing their
knowledge in collaboration with researchers
from natural science backgrounds,
applications-oriented engineers,
architects and designers. The aim
is to apply social scientists’ knowledge
of the needs and life situations of the elderly
to making products and systems
which are optimally adapted for the elderly.
Gerontechology, however, has not
been embraced by all social science researchers.
Some are critical of the concept
based on what they perceive to be
incomplete perceptions of human behaviour,
and stereotypical images of elderly
technology users.
This divide between researchers
trained in the social sciences who accept
a division of labour in which they devote
themselves to the non-technical issues
and those who do not is readily apparent
in the literature survey presented
here. The issue of what is to be considered
technical or non-technical raises
fundamental questions of scientific
theory as it relates to the social science
mission. In other words, how do researchers
with technology backgrounds
think in comparison with those trained
in the social sciences?
Neither has it been possible to avoid
such issues in the work of analysing the
material included in the research survey.
How is technology to be understood in
relation to ageing? Where does the interface
between technological and social
science expertise in this context lie? Why
is it difficult for social scientists to accept
gerontechnology? What is the attitude of
the researcher with a social science
background toward technology? What
Science Studies 2/2004
46
contributions can be derived from a social
science perspective?
Renewed Calls for an
Interdisciplinary Approach
The research funding which was made
possible when the elderly garnered attention
as an important group in the IT
society of the future emphasised the
need for collaborative interaction between
technical expertise and knowledge
of the needs of the elderly and their
integration into society. Arenas were created
in which researchers from different
backgrounds could engage one another.
One underlying idea was that collaboration
among such researchers would
solve problems that neither engineers
nor geriatrics researchers could solve by
themselves. This type of thinking is not
new.
The discourse concerning the problem
of a lack of communication between
the natural sciences and the humanities,
and its consequences, often takes as its
starting point Charles P. Snow’s book
concerning the two cultures (Snow,
1993). Considering the current discussion,
it appears that the gap between the
cultures is deepening at the same time
as the demand for interdisciplinary research
is increasing. One example is the
American debate, in which the lack of
such communication is evinced by natural
scientists that criticise humanists for
undermining public confidence in rationality
and objectivity.1 We know at the
same time that interdisciplinary initiatives
are common today.
Snow’s thought process was actually
quite simple, insofar as he called attention
to these deficiencies and believed
that they could be resolved by reorganising
the educational system. Such
thinking presumes that different research
traditions are capable of engaging
and cross-fertilising one another. In
addition to obstacles which have to do
with academic traditions, differing linguistic
usage and people’s willingness or
unwillingness to collaborate, such a
meeting of the minds also presumes the
existence of an area of overlapping interests,
or of a logic which is meaningful
to both sides.
The author’s own experiences derived
from participating in one of these EUfunded
projects concerning technology
and the elderly, COST A5: Ageing and
Technology, have demonstrated the
need for an interdisciplinary approach.
There is in fact a tendency to underestimate
the theoretical starting points. Social
scientists are often more interested
in reflecting on the origins of technology
and the forces which drive it than are
technology researchers. In this context,
the question of the best way to create
interaction between elderly people and
the use of technology in their daily lives
has been reduced to a matter of wedding
technology, which is taken as a given,
with agreed conceptions regarding the
elderly. It is not uncommon for the elderly
to be assigned the role of object
rather than subject, and perceptions regarding
how technological development
proceeds are particularly deterministic
and linear.
When it comes to technology and the
elderly, these problems become especially
evident. The elderly are so obviously
the objects of other people’s preconceptions
about their needs and capabilities.
Thus the technological development
which is currently targeting the
elderly finds that these preconceptions
47
Britt Östlund
conform well to notions of what technology
should be contributing. One example
is the preconception that information
technology should serve as a tool for
elderly people to create social contacts
and keep themselves informed. This is
an obvious conclusion if ageing is generalised
as a state in which one spends
the bulk of one’s time at home, has limited
mobility and a diminished capacity
to meet people in other ways. Listening
to elderly people, one quickly realises that
such generalisations are not tenable.
The Contribution of Social Science
to Research on Technology and the
Elderly
The Danish professor of social planning
Bent Flyvbjerg has addressed the issue
of the nature of the genuine contribution
which social science research has to
make. He believes that it is better to accentuate
the differences than to have
social science research emulate and
adapt to natural science research, as it
often does (Flyvbjerg, 2001).
By referring back to Aristotle’s concepts
of episteme, techne and phronesis,
Flyvbjerg shows that natural scientific
knowledge and philosophically rooted
research have entirely different focuses.
He thus rejects attempts to have these
researchers engage on the same level, or
believes at any rate that such an approach
is fair to neither epistemological
orientation. Clearly, social-science oriented
researchers can make contributions
to projects with technical applications,
but these researchers can be most
useful when they make use of their distinctive
focus.
In the Aristotelian sense, natural scientific
knowledge is characterised by
episteme, an analytical approach in
which generalisability and independence
of context are considered to be
characteristic of knowledge. Techne refers
to applied technical knowledge and
practical attainments characterised by
an instrumental rationality. The modern
equivalents of techne are technique and
technology. Phronesis, which is the third
Aristotelian concept, refers to the ethical,
practical, pragmatic and behaviouroriented
aspects which Flyvbjerg believes
characterise social science research.
The emphasis here is on practice
before discourse, and on the value of
grounding problems in their context.
The demand for generalisability and
context-independent theorisation thus
becomes irrelevant.
Table 1 illustrates how researchers
from a technology background and those
from a social science background tend to
think, and what distinguishes them.
Technical research is characterised by an
analytical thought process which strives
for objectivity, generalisability and independence
from context. The technical
researcher is driven to apply technical
knowledge to solve problems or, in some
other way, create new possibilities for
people. To be able to do this (and it is
implicitly assumed possible) these researchers
must find a means of identifying
and categorising needs for which
technical solutions are to be created.
One of the things expected of social science
researchers is that they will contribute
to such categorisations. In other
words, the technology already exists, and
now the problem is to find appropriate
corresponding categories.
Social science research is characterised
as subject-oriented, empirical and
grounded in context. This does not mean
Science Studies 2/2004
48
that social science research does not
strive for general elements, but rather
that these elements are based on the results
of studies of practical behaviour
rather than causal links. The technology
is not a given but rather can itself serve
as the object of research and redesign
(just as the concept of the elderly can).
Collaboration with technical research on
social science’s own terms thus leads to
increased knowledge and understanding
of social actions and daily routines.
The Concept of Power is Key
Flyvbjerg devotes a great deal of space
to the concept of power. Because the
social science mission is ethical, practical,
pragmatic and behaviour-oriented,
the concept of power is unavoidable.
Flyvbjerg believes that it constitutes the
core of social science and philosophy,
and quotes Bertrand Russell in that “the
fundamental concept in social science
is Power, in the same sense in which En-
Table 1. Survey of concepts derived from Aristotle. Interpretation of how
technology researchers and social science researchers think about
technology.
Technology in social science research –
Phronesis
Epistemological interests
Ethical, practical, pragmatic and
behaviour-oriented knowledge.
Context-dependent.
View of technology
What creates change? How?
For whom? What creates differences?
Focus
Both the elderly and technology are
objects for research.
Access and use of technology by the
elderly are results of the social order.
Expectations on what social science
contribute to phronesis
Understanding of human behaviour
and daily routines.
The concept of power is key.
Technology in technical research –
Techne
Epistemological interests
Application of analytical knowledge
which is generalisable and contextindependent.
Practical attainments
characterised by instrumental rationality.
View of technology
Technology creates change.
Technology solves problems, compensates,
prevents, enables.
Focus
The elderly are the focus, the technology
is given.
The elderly have needs that technology
can meet.
Expectations on what social science
contribute to techne
Knowledge of a non-technical nature.
The concept of power is irrelevant.
49
Britt Östlund
ergy is the fundamental concept in physics”
(Flyvbjerg, 2002). This is often the
point most clearly noticeable when a
social scientist works in collaboration
with a technical researcher. The concept
of power is irrelevant from a techne perspective.
(see Table 1). This does not
mean that engineers are not interested
in modifications or well-defined needs
when developing applications. It means
that changing power structures is not at
the heart of technical research unless
social science perspectives are integrated.
Conversely, it is by focusing on
power and influence that the social scientist
can answer many questions concerning
the availability of technology
among various groups of people, and the
importance it assumes in different
physical and social contexts.
Flyvbjerg discusses the concept of
power based on a number of authors and
compares Steven Lukes with Foucault.
Lukes believes that there are two types
of questions regarding power which are
important: the results of power being exercised,
and the location of the power
centre. From Lukes’ perspective, the following
questions are important: Who
can alter the interests of whom? Who has
control over whom? Who has control
over resources? Who is responsible for
the results? Who gets to divide the results?
Where is the source of change located?
Where would alternative actions
have made a difference? Foucault on the
other hand believes that power is an attribute
of a complex strategic situation
in a society at a given time. For him,
power cannot be sought in a centre. It is
present everywhere and can arise in
many different ways. He provides us with
an approach which makes it possible
to analyze social practices, both the official
discourses embodied in social policies
and informal discourses among
those operating and implementing policies
and knowledge. One field where a
Foucauldian perspective is significant is
in the discourse of community care and
old people’s welfare, more precisely his
analysis of punishment and medicine
and the construction of patients through
disciplinary techniques (Foucault, 1977).
Rethinking gerontology in these terms
reveals the rationalities and technologies
of care management which aims to
construct the “elderly person” and survey
older people. Safety alarms and residential
control systems telling old people
when to wake up and when to take
their medicine are examples of such surveillance
technologies. These technologies
that seem to empower old people is
in fact, based on a Foucauldian perspective,
a strategy of power and domination
practiced by care managers, gerontologists
and experts (Powell, 2004). The notion
of the stereotypical elderly person
constructed through these disciplinary
techniques hold more than one dimension.
In his article, James Powell points
out the dimension of normalization
power when old users of surveillance
applications are called service users,
consumers or clients. Another dimension
is the need for generalized needs in
order to fit the application of analytical
knowledge as pointed out in table 1
above. The concept of old people as a
rather homogenous group is an example
of such generalization.
Different Rationalities
Another way of explaining the differences
between a technical perspective
and a social science perspective is to
Science Studies 2/2004
50
describe the rationalities or logical
thought processes which the researchers
follow. A technical rationality is based
on calculations of predictable processes.
Conversely, empirically grounded research
proceeds on the assumption that
the role of technology in practical use is
both predictable and unpredictable. The
social scientist can accompany the technical
researcher in pursuing an analytical
rationality as far as it goes, but he can
then press on and describe behaviours
and routines outside the realm of predictability.
Indeed, the social scientist is
interested in more than just how well the
technological intentions agree with the
actual result. He is interested primarily
in the structure of daily life, and in the
ways in which the technology will or will
not be integrated into daily routines.
The integration of technology into
daily life has been described entirely or
in part using phenomenological approaches.
Berger and Luckmann (1966)
have provided the basis for understanding
how everyday knowledge evolves.
Other authors have also conducted empirical
studies and formulated concepts
and theories based on the practice of
technology (see Silverstone & Hirsch,
1992; Lie & Sörensen, 1996). There are
also interesting examples of technical
researchers who have discovered that
there is something beyond the analytical
level which is difficult to express,
such as MIT researcher von Hippel, who
speaks of the user as a carrier of “sticky
information” (von Hippel, 1988; Porter,
1998).
The integration of technology into
daily life entails in practice that it become
invisible. It is indeed the very fact
that it is non-problematic which causes
it to be moulded into habits or integrated
into habits, routines and other behaviours
which the individual accepts as
given. One of the characteristics of daily
life is the fact that, as long as life is proceeding
normally, there is nothing to reflect
about. Things are simply taken as
given. Daily recurrent activities which
initially demanded attention and care
eventually become habits and routines.
It is only when something occurs which
shakes up our daily existence that our
habits can be observed and reflected on.
This is the process by which we develop
the fundamental sense of security which
is part of our daily lives. Integration may
be described as a multistage process of
domestication or as a learning process.
Silverstone describes it as a process in
which technology is purchased, evaluated,
and incorporated and then it acquires
meaning for those who live in its
environment. Conversely, technology
which is not integrated is problematic,
and it poses problems or goes unused.
Such technology is thus often visible to
the individual. Dreyfus and Dreyfus
(1988) describe the integration of technology
as a learning process in five
stages, from being a novice, an advanced
beginner and competent, to become a
proficient and an expert. They point to
the fact that people function as more
than problem solvers when interacting
with new methodologies and experiences.
Levels of Research Regarding
Technology and Man
Two thought models concerning the relationship
between man and technology
derived from two sociologists, one of
whom worked in collaboration with a
psychologist at a technical college, may
51
Britt Östlund
also help to sort out these issues. Here
we still find ourselves in the divide between
two scientific viewpoints. In this
case, however, the questions are asked
from the standpoint of the problematic
surrounding IT use from a user perspective,
and not from the standpoint of different
disciplines or any specific technical
application.
The first thought model comes from
an article by Jan-Erik Hagberg which appeared
in an anthology on the theme
“technology/politics/the future”. Hagberg
believes that the discussion of technology,
social effects and social changes
must be conducted on two levels. “One
level pertains to the social, economic,
political and cultural factors which give
the development of technology its direction
and content. Another level pertains
to how different types of technology are
developed and acquire their properties,
how this occurs in relation to the users
of the technology, and what options and
freedom of action the individual users
actually have when new technology is
disseminated in the society” (Hagberg,
2002).
This two-fold division may be compared
with a thought model formulated
by Karlsson and Östlund (1999). It is a
thought model drawn from a 1999 anthology
which was intended to collect
and compare articles from various disciplines
with an empirically grounded
user perspective. The results of the comparison
point to three levels with different
focuses on the relationship between
user and technology.
The first level focuses on the design
and structure of the technical artefact.
A typical guiding question at this level is
how is this mobile phone to be designed
so that it will be easy to use? The second
level focuses on the use of the technology,
and seeks clarification of its importance
in the user’s life. Typical questions
asked here include: on what occasions
will the user use the mobile phone? What
practical or symbolic significance does
the mobile phone have in the user’s daily
life? The third level focuses on technology
and social development, and poses
questions concerning the social consequences
of increased mobile phone use,
or what are the driving forces behind the
increasing prevalence of mobile phone
use?
Both thought models include a level
which poses questions concerning social
development and the driving forces
behind technological development. The
user and his context come into play on
the second levels. In Karlsson & Östlund’s
thought model this level is subdivided
into two levels: one focused on
concrete structure and design, and another
focused on understanding the factors
(i.e., impediments and options) associated
with use. Employing Flyvbjerg’s
terminology, we have already abandoned
the analytical rationality once we
pass the first level in the Karlsson &
Östlund model.
Current Social Science Research on
Technology and the Elderly
Where then do we find the social science
researchers who have published on the
topic of technology and the elderly? Do
we find them on an analytical technical
rational level, supplementing technical
expertise with information and knowledge
about non-technical issues with
regard to ageing and the elderly? Or do
we find them taking a phenomenological
approach, studying both the eldScience
Studies 2/2004
52
erly and technology as phenomena? And
if such is the case, how prevalent are
questions concerning priority of interpretation
with regard to the problems
and needs of the elderly? In light of the
foregoing, three questions have been
applied to the empirical material which
constitutes the basis of this research survey.
1. What is the research orientation? To
what theories or schools of thought do
the researchers subscribe, and what
more or less explicit assumptions do
they make? “Schools of thought” is used
here as a designation for shared assumptions
which can be the result of
empirical studies or other starting
points, but which do not constitute a
coherent theory.
2. The role of the elderly in the research
– is it pointed out and discussed? Are
the elderly viewed as object or subject?
Are preconceptions regarding ageing
and the elderly discussed?
3. The role of technology – is it pointed
out or called into question in any respect?
Is technology viewed as given in
advance, or is it also a topic of discussion?
Method, Selection and Limitations
The research survey is based on literature,
articles from scientific journals and
proceedings from conferences published
from 1983 to 2002. 1983 was the
year for the first publication that linked
ageing and technology as research concepts
(Robinson et al., 1983) and 2002
was the year when the Swedish Institute
for the Study of Ageing and Later Life
decided to analyse this field and develop
a research programme as a part of an
attempt to renew gerontological research.
The study was conducted in
three stages: Database searches and categorisation
of publications, supplementation
with known scientific publications
not found in the databases and
analysis of a selection of publications
with respect to the foregoing questions.
The material is limited to social science
publications with a focus on technology
and the elderly or on research
and development in which social science
researchers have been involved.
The latter is the rule rather than the exception,
since this subject area is interdisciplinary
in nature. “Social science”
research refers here mainly to sociology.
The aim of including social psychology,
history, ethnology, anthropology and
cultural geography has not been attainable,
given the absence of such research
literature from the material.
No limits were imposed in advance on
the areas of technology involved. As the
categorisation of the articles below indicates,
access to subject areas has been
identical with their delimitation. For reasons
having to do with this subject area’s
close ties to IT development and
communications technology, these areas
constitute the dominant technology
field. This also means that the technical
expertise involved in the publications
generally involves computer science and
systems analysis.
Prior to the more in-depth analysis of
a number of publications, the material
was limited to publications about technology
related to the social integration,
social participation, social relations,
daily lives and gender of the elderly, as
well as gerontechnology. The analysis
thus excludes certain fields, among
them geriatrics and rehabilitative medicine,
functional limitations, the supply
53
Britt Östlund
system for technical aids (assistive technology,
occupational therapy), healthcare
and, most importantly, the distribution
of such care by healthcare personnel.
Categorisation and Analysis of
Publications
The database search yielded a total of
220 hits; 197 hits on the ISI Web of Science,
which contains only scientific material,
and 23 hits on Libris WebSearch,
specifically in the sociological abstracts
and social service abstracts databases.2
Forty-six of the 197 hits on the ISI Web
of Science can be categorised as social
science research on the basis of their titles.
The other 151 hits concern only intra-
disciplinary technical questions with
no link to social science issues. Of the 23
hits on Libris, 16 may be categorised as
social science research, two as reports
from symposia which address social science
issues, and five as publications in
the form of policy documents, handbooks
and articles with no scientific pretensions
(see Table 2).
In addition to the material derived
from the database searches, it was
deemed necessary to undertake some
supplementation with scientific publi-
Table 2. Distribution of social science publications in databases
Social science publications on ISI Web of Science Libris WebSearch
technology and ageing
Social relations 2 -
Everyday Life 18 4
Gender - 1
Gerontechnology - 2
Design - 2
Organisation of technology 9 1
within health care and
home help service
Housing 3 2
Communication, language 1 -
Abuse, criminality 4 -
Economic development 1 -
Evaluation models 1 -
General social science related 7 4
to ageing and elderly people
Total 46 16
Science Studies 2/2004
54
cations which contribute to clarifying
this area of research. These supplements
are Baack (1991), Karlsson & Östlund
(1999) and Steenbekkers & Beijsterveldt
(1998). Of the publications derived from
the databases and the supplementation
performed, 26 were subjected to more
in-depth analysis. The result of this
analysis is presented below.
Theoretical Orientation of Publications
The first question concerns the research
orientation. To what theories or schools
of thought do the researchers subscribe,
and what more or less explicit assumptions
do they make? The term “schools
of thought” is used here in parallel with
“theory” to more thoroughly describe the
assumptions, approaches and thought
processes which guide research in this
area. Analysis of the material reveals three
such schools of thought, each with its
own character and scientific status. First,
there is a scientifically well-grounded
knowledge of ageing and the elderly as
mediated by gerontologists, sociologists
and social science researchers, and by
psychologists and computer scientists
(human factors). Second, we find more
or less well-substantiated or reported
assumptions regarding the effects of
technology use by the elderly. Third,
there is a body of premature thought
surrounding the relationship between
technology and the elderly. No problematisation
occurs unless it is demonstrated
that some type of knowledge is at
issue here. In other words, ageing and the
elderly are well problematised and scientifically
grounded, the technology is nonproblematised
and thus viewed as given,
and the relationship between technology
and the elderly is scarcely developed.
Empirical Foundation
The contents of the publications can be
divided into two levels, meso and macro.
At the meso-level are social relationships
and daily needs and routines, primarily
the need for care and other assistance.
At the macro-level are socio-economic
studies regarding access to information
and communications technology. Hagberg’s
(2002) thesis that the discussion
of technology and the elderly is being
conducted on two levels may thus be
viewed as empirically substantiated.
Empirically supported assumptions
and conclusions regarding the need for
technology on the part of the elderly
generally derive from statistical studies
or interview studies. These may pertain
to statistics on population trends or proportions
of people who have functional
limitations or require care. The interview
studies pertain to communication patterns
among the elderly, or their social
relationships within the family, at home
or in institutions.
Assumptions concerning the use of
technology by the elderly are based
largely on studies of the effects of technology
in different environments. Examples
of such studies include how it impacts
their independence in some respect,
integration in the IT society as related
to socio-economics, employment
rates, gender, and the effects of living in
a home which contains a large number
of technical solutions, that is, a “mechanised
environment”.
The material contains one coherent
theory, which is gerontechnology (Graafman
et al., 1998; Mollenkopf, 1996). As
noted earlier, this theory has its roots in
Man-Machine Interaction (MMI) and
Man-Computer Interaction (MCI), and
55
Britt Östlund
is intended to guide designers and developers
of technology in their efforts to
apply technology solutions. Technology
has the mission and capability of preventing
or compensating for physical
and social losses, and of enabling elderly
people to live independent lives. Their
needs for mobility and social contact are
viewed as being relatively constant. Because
technology is modifiable, it can
also be adapted to variations in the
needs of the elderly. The underlying justification
for subscribing to this theory
is thus that ageing can and should be
compensated for, and that the losses
entailed by ageing are undesirable.
Other comparable terms are associated
with technological advances for
those subject to functional limitations.
Examples are “design for all” and “universal
design”. These two terms refer to
availability for everyone, rather than just
the functionally limited. The idea is that
the user-friendliness ascribed to technical
aids and other technical applications
created for the functionally limited also
constitutes user-friendliness and makes
living easier for most users, whether
functionally limited or not.
Assumptions Regarding the Effects of
Technology
The bulk of the publications address
what is assumed in terms of the expected
effects or, to a lesser extent, the empirically
substantiated effects of the use of
technology among elderly individuals
and groups of elderly people. One assumption
which is made is that many
functionally limited elderly persons can
be compensated using technology
(Dozet et al., 1999; Dozet et al., 2002;
Harrington & Harrington, 2000; Heikkilä,
1999; Johansson, 2001). Others proceed
on the basis of population statistics and
call for better adaptation of technology,
where the needs of the elderly are better
defined (Czaja & Barr, 1989; Cullen, 1997;
Graafmans et al., 1998; Enders, 1995;
Fries, 1997; Mollenkopf, 1996; Mollenkopf
et al., 2000; Poulson, 1996; Walker,
2001; Steenbekkers & Beijstervaldt,
1998). The tacit assumptions which
clearly underlie these proposals consist
of stereotypical images of ageing combined
with the insight that the elderly
comprise a heterogeneous group. The
summary conclusion may thus be drawn
that we are dealing largely with effects
studies pertaining to specific solutions,
and that structure and context are lacking.
To start with theoretical differences
between disciplines should not be underestimated.
Another conclusion that
has the advantage of being hard to avoid
is the clash between rationalities. On the
one hand researchers seem ambivalent
towards an instrumental rationality because
they are dependent on calculations
of predictable processes and generalisations.
On the other hand they
learn from social science that daily life
of old people is very much context-dependent.
This is especially true for
gerontechnologists who are dependent
on the image of elderly having a need to
compensate or prevent for deterioration
of ageing to fit their analytical approach.
At the same time they learn about the
heterogeneity of ageing and that the use
and meaning of technology is a result of
social practise rather than technical
data.
Science Studies 2/2004
56
The Relationship Between Technology
and the Elderly
The lack of developed thought concerning
the relationship between the elderly
and technology is evinced in critical
questions and ambivalent questioning
by researchers regarding technology’s
raison d’etre (Berg, 1985; Sackmann in
Mollenkopf, 1996). A few authors have
emphasised thought concerning the
driving forces behind the development
of technology for the elderly in terms of
push or pull factors (Karlsson & Östlund,
1999). Others argue that technological
development is evolutionary, and that
the new technology is dependent upon
the use of technology which is already
established (Enders, 1995). As Table 1
indicates, we are faced with two different
types of epistemological interest,
namely the application of technology,
and reflections regarding technology.
Salient difficulties are also apparent in
reconciling these more clearly, such as
Flyvbjerg’s thesis that technology and
social science constitute knowledge at
different levels. Technology is, for the
most part, accepted as a given in the
material in question. Technology is
viewed as an independent variable, even
though a number of authors raise the
issue of whether it can be modified
through better-organised design processes.
The critical questions and the dilemma
of reconciling these levels point
to the need for development; the premature
thinking is waiting to mature. This
is exemplified by the need expressed to
“unlock the power of the design methods”
in order to progress (Graafmans &
Taipale, 1996), or the need for a change
in attitude toward elderly technology
users (Czaja & Barr, 1989; Enders, 1995;
Fries, 1997; Östlund, 1999).
The Role of Technology
Another question concerns the role of
technology – has it been called into
question or criticised in any respect? Is
technology viewed as given in advance,
or is it also a topic for discussion? Technology
is specified when it appears, but
it appears as a general concept as well.
One important delimitation is that
“technology” refers to technical solutions,
that is, ready-made applications
such as security alarms or the Internet,
rather than technical knowledge in the
sense of the Aristotelian term “techne”,
or knowledge which is in the process of
being applied and developed in various
concrete solutions.
Few authors raise issues concerning
the priority of interpretation with regard
to the elderly or include social science
issues when discussing technology. One
of the authors does so when he speaks
of “empowerment” (Walker, 2001). He
contends that the elderly should, from a
social science perspective, occupy centre
stage in the research process. On the
other hand, when it comes to technology
he accepts that social development
contributes only non-technical reflections,
and makes reference to gerontechnology.
The division of labour is relatively
clear insofar as those who possess technical
expertise write about technology,
while gerontologists and sociologists
write about the elderly. In one of the anthologies,
seven out of 26 articles problematise
the relationship between technology
and the elderly. The sociologists
write about the social integration and
57
Britt Östlund
social relationships of the elderly. Psychologists
and doctors write about functional
limitations and dementia. Engineers
and psychologists write about traffic
and mechanised environments and
homes (Mollenkopf, 1996).
One conclusion is thus that technology
is relatively non-problematised
throughout the material, with the exceptions
of Karlsson & Östlund and Sackmann
in Mollenkopf. With a few exceptions,
the role of technology is thus not
discussed. The assumptions which more
or less explicitly serve to guide the authors
are that technology is a given, but
does afford certain possibilities of modification
to suit the elderly. The most extreme
perspective, from which technology
appears not to be thought about at
all, is represented by an author who asserts
that there is no evidence that technology
should have any role to play
whatsoever for elderly people (Berg,
1985).
The Role of the Elderly
Is the role of the elderly in the research
called into question and discussed? Are
the elderly viewed as object or subject?
Are preconceptions regarding ageing
and the elderly described? How, then, to
characterise these elderly people for
whom technology is to be adapted?
Many authors address this issue by referring
to the elderly as a heterogeneous
group. These authors believe that it is
becoming more and more apparent that
the view that the elderly constitute a
homogenous group with uniform needs
is restrictive in a design work context
(Czaja & Barr, 1989; Cullen & Moran;
1992; Cullen & Robinson, 1997; Graafmans
et al., 1998; Mollenkopf, 1996;
Walker, 2001).
Based on statistics and preconceptions
which are held but all too seldom
described by the authors, the elderly are
characterised as weak and sick, and as
having a need for social contact, continued
activity and compensation for
physical and social losses. This is most
evident in the concept of gerontechnology,
even though the anthologies
in which the term appears also include
articles which offer a significantly more
critical perspective. The most flagrant
example is Steenbekkers & Beijstervaldt,
where the physical need for technology
among the elderly is measured in almost
Tayloristic fashion. These generalisations
are also accompanied by preconceptions
of the elderly as being fearful
of or unfamiliar with technology. This is
most clearly evinced in the scientific discourse
conducted during the 1990s in
publications such as Interaction with
Computers, Telecommunications Policy
and Educational Computing Research, in
which scales were developed for measuring
just how afraid of technology the
elderly actually are, and whether training
can alleviate such fears (Dyck et al.,
1998).
It is clear that those authors who have
studied technology use by the elderly
acquire a more nuanced picture, and feel
compelled to rid themselves of prejudices
concerning elderly people. One
example of this is the finding that the
elderly desire to use computers to a
greater extent than expected, which contradicts
the assumption that the elderly
are technically illiterate or unwilling to
embrace new technology (Thompson,
1996). Östlund also describes how attitudes
toward the elderly, rather than
their own capabilities and desires, can
Science Studies 2/2004
58
be limiting. The lack of empirical studies
concerning the daily lives of the elderly
creates a fertile ground for erroneous
assumptions. Socio-economic studies
which illustrate the distribution of
technology and other resources also
naturally nuance conceptions of the elderly,
and can help pave the way for more
well-founded assumptions.
Experience derived from technical research
and development also gives rise to
critical questions concerning how the
elderly should be viewed. In this material
these issues are raised mainly by authors
at technical colleges, principally designoriented
researchers, but also by sociologists
(Czaja & Barr, 1989; Bouchayer in
Mollenkopf, 1996; Karlsson & Östlund,
1999).
The Contribution of Social Science
Research
In order to ascertain the ways in which
these publications contribute to technology
and the elderly as an area of research,
they have been categorised as
follows:
Category 1: those taking a technical,
analytical, rational approach to the issue
of technology and the elderly, or
Category 2: those in which practice,
context and power are key to the issue
of technology and the elderly
The results point to a divide between
social science researchers who contribute
solely non-technical information
and a supplementary perspective and
those who also take a phenomenological
approach or clearly articulate social science
issues concerning power and influence.
The results also indicate that a number
of authors fall into both categories. Ambivalence
is evident in that the authors
want to strengthen the influence of the
elderly on technology and heighten
awareness of technology’s context, while
at the same time they want people who
design technology to incorporate the
information offered by those who research
the elderly. In Mollenkopf, for example,
the editor addresses in her introduction
the issue of not viewing man
and technology as two separate entities.
She asserts that this way of thinking
about the use of technology needs to be
altered by relating these concepts to one
another. At the same time, the editor
proposes in her conclusions that a database
containing information from sociologists
and technicians should be set
up. Rather than forging a relationship
between the concepts, such a proposal
would seem to constitute almost a
reductive measure.
On the other hand, it may be fully possible
to feel at home in both camps. In a
technical, analytical phase the social science
researcher can set limits and contribute
to an understanding of what
should be possible in the development
of new technology. In addition, involvement
in the daily lives of the elderly
while gathering data often provides
ideas for technical solutions which could
be utilised by designers and technology
developers. The social science researcher
can also be helpful in design
processes when the elderly are involved.
However, this is not the primary mission
of the social scientist.
That mission is inherent in the researcher’s
ability to examine practical
factors in context, and the consequent
ability to develop knowledge about age59
Britt Östlund
ing and the elderly in a technological
society based on understanding rather
than on positivistic impulses. We may
even ask ourselves whether social science
researchers are delinquent in their
duty if they do not do this. Based on this
material, Flyvbjerg can find support for
his contention that the social sciences
lose their edge when they try to be sensitive
to the natural sciences and technical,
analytical modes of thought rather
than pursuing their true mission. At any
rate, the technical scientists certainly
cannot be accused of failing to pursue
their own true missions.
The consequence of the fact that technology
is non-problematized and the
concept of the elderly scarcely developed
is that social science runs the risk
of not having much influence in this
field. The definition of old users and
their capacity and needs as well as the
access to design processes can be said
to be in the hands of researchers with a
technical perspective. In Luke´s perspective
they have the control over the
resources and the privilege of defining
needs and target groups. In a Foucaldian
perspective there is room for yet another
power struggle within the complex situation
of design. Defining needs separate
from the users will be proven right or
wrong when technical solutions are installed
in old people´s homes and environments.
The possibilities of the users
becoming non-receivers or non-users,
or even resistant towards new technological
applications are still options for
changing the balance of power. Another
risk for social scientists is that their contributions
will legitimise technological
projects and confirm underlying false
assumptions on social change.
Conclusion
With this the social science perspective
on technology and the elderly leaves a
good deal to be desired. One encounters
here, not only a need for knowledge
about the role of technology in the lives
of the elderly and about ageing in a modern
technical society, but fundamental
theoretical challenges to be faced as well.
With one foot planted in theoretical
sources and the other in the results obtained
from empirical research into the
practice of technology and the elderly,
the area of technology and the elderly
could in all likelihood contribute important
and groundbreaking knowledge.
This area could also contribute to improving
and advancing communication
between philosophy and technology.
In light of the material available regarding
research on technology and the
elderly, this survey has focused on two
questions. One is, in its most extreme
form: to what extent shall social science
researchers simply support technological
development? Shall social scientists
consent to collaborate with technical
researchers on an analytical level to
which the technology beckons? If the
answer to this question is affirmative,
then no greater efforts are needed. This
collaboration is already ongoing, and
interest in involving experts who can
supplement technology development
and modify it on behalf of the elderly is
strong.
The other question is this: should an
area of research which addresses the
practice of technology and the perspective
of the elderly critically and independently
be developed?
An affirmative response to this question
demands that efforts be made. ProScience
Studies 2/2004
60
posals concerning such efforts should be
part of the discussion regarding the future
orientation of social science research
on technology and the elderly.
Notes
1 Review by Ross, Andrew: Science Wars,
published 1996, in Issues in Science and
Technology Online. Spring 1998.
2 LIBRIS WebSearch is the collective name
for several bibliographic services offered
by the LIBRIS Department at the Royal
Library in Stockholm. Access to the service
is free. The most important service is
the LIBRIS Database with more than four
million titles representing the holdings of
about 300 Swedish libraries, mainly research
libraries. Search words used in this
web search are ageing, elderly, old, older
and later life in combination with general
and specific technology related concepts.
References
Atchley, R.C.
1997 “Social Forces and Aging: an Introduction
to Social Gerontology” 8th ed.
Belmont, London: Wadsworth Publishing
Company.
Baack, S.A. & Brown, T.S.
1991 “Attitudes Towards Computers: Views
of Older Adults Compared with Those
of Young Adults”. Journal of Research on
Computing in Education 23(3): 422-
434.
Bangemann M.
1994 “Europe and the Global Information
Society. Recommendations to the European
Council, European Union.
High-Level Group on the Information
Society”. Brussels: European Commission
(The “Bangemann Report”).
Berg, S.
1985 Review on Dunkle, Ruth E, Haug Marie
R & Rosenberg Marvin (eds). “Communications
Technology and the Elderly:
Issues and Forecasts”. Ageing and Society
5(4): 509-10.
Berger, P. & Luckmann, T.
1966 “The Social Construction of Reality: A
Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge”.
New York: Anchor Books.
Czaja, S.J. & Barr, R.A.
1989 “Technology and the Everyday Life of
Older Adults”. The Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social
Science 503: 127-37.
Cullen, K. & Moran, R.
1992 Technology and the Elderly. The Role of
Technology Prolonging the Independence
of the Elderly in the Community
Care Context. FAS research report EUR
14419 EN.
Cullen, K. & Robinson, S.
1997 Telecommunications for Older People
and Disabled People in Europe. Result
from the MART study in the TIDE-programme,
EC.
Datainspektionen (The Swedish Data
Inspection)
1995 ”LEXIT. Scenario om den offentliga
förvaltningens IT-användning år 2005”
(Scenarios on the use of IT in Public
Administration by the year 2005) Appendix
2, Stockholm, Sweden.
Dozet, A., Lyttkens, C.H. & Nystedt, P.
2002 “Health Care for the Elderly: Two Cases
of Technology Diffusion”. Social Science
& Medicine 54: 49-64.
Dreyfus, H. & Dreyfus S.
1988 “Mind Over Machine: The Power of
Human Intuition and Expertise in the
Era of the Computer”. New York: Free
Press.
Dyck J.L., Gee, N.R. & Smither J.A-A.
1998 “The Changing Construct of Computer.
Anxiety for Younger and Older Adults.”
Computers in Human Behaviour 14: 1.
Enders, A.
1995 “The Role of Technology in the Lives of
Older People”. Generations, Spring
19(1): 712.
Flyvbjerg, B.
2001 Making Social Science Matter. Why Social
Inquiry Fails and How it Can Succeed
Again. Cambridge UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Foucault, M.
1977 Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the
Prison. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
61
Britt Östlund
Fries, B.E.
1997 “Changing the Technology of Assessing
the Elderly: The Example of the R.A.I.”
Generations, Spring 21(1): 59-61.
Graafman, J., Taipale, V. & Charness, N. (eds.)
1998 Gerontechnology - A Sustainable Investment
in the Future. Amsterdam:
IOS Press.
Grip, L-G.
1978 ”Trygghetslarm. Larm- och signalsystem
för åldringar och handikappade”
(Safety Alarms. Alarm and Signal
Systems for Elderly and Handicapped
Persons). Psykotekniska Institutet,
Stockholm University.
Hagberg, J-E.
2002 ”Tekniklandskapets vardagliga panorama.
Teknikutveckling, vardagsteknik
och gamla människor” (The Panorama
of the Daily Technological Landscape.
Technical Development, Everyday Life
Technology and Old People). Pp.57-76
in Stressor, L. (eds.) Spänningsfält.
Tekniken, Politiken, Framtiden (Tensions.
Technology, Politics, Future).
Stockholm: Carlssons Publications.
Harrington, T. & Harrington, M.K.
2000 Gerontechnology - Why and How.
Bouma Foundation for Gerontechnology:
Shaker Publishing Netherlands
Heikkilä, J., Kallio, J., Saarinen, T. &
Tuunainen, V.P.
1999 ”EC of Groceries for Elderly and Disabled.
A Comparison of Alternative Service
Models”. Information Technology &
People 12(4): 389-402.
Johansson, Y.
2001 Äldre människor, yngre teknik (Old
People, Young Technology). Dalarnas
forskningsråd i Falun.
Karlsson, M. & Östlund, B. (eds.)
1999 Users in Action. Stories of Users and
Telematics in Everyday Life. Swedish
Board for Transport and Communication
Analysis, Report 8.
Lie, M. & Sörensen, K.H. (eds.)
1996 Making Technology Our Own. Domesticating
Technology into Everyday Life.
Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.
Mollenkopf, H. (ed.)
1996 Elderly People in Industrialised Societies.
Social Integration in Old Age by or
Despite Technology? Edition Sigma
Rainer Bohn Verlag: Berlin.
Mollenkopf, H., Meyer S., Schulze, E.,
Wurm, S. & Friesdorf, W.
2000 Technik im Haushalt zur Unterstutzung
einer selbstbestimmten
Lebensfuhrung im Alter. Zeitschrift fur
Gerontologie und Geriatrie Band 33
Heft 3, Steinkopff Verlag.(Technology in
the household for increased independence
and support for elderly people.
Journal for Geronthology and Geriatrics
Vol 33: 3 Steinkopff Publishing
Company).
Porter, M.E.
1998 The Competitive Advantage of Nations.
Free Press: USA.
Poulson, D., Nicolle, C., Richardson, S.,
Ashby, M., Phillips, K., Audouard, E.,
Stapleton L,, Waddell, N., & Owen, H. (eds.)
1996 Userfit. A Practical Handbook on Usercentred
Design for Assistive Technology.
TIDE: European Commission.
Powell, J.
2004 “Rethinking Gerontology: Foucault,
Surveillance and the Positioning of Old
Age”. Sincronía, E-Journal of Culture
Studies published: University of
Guadalajara.
Robinson, P.K., Livingston, J. & Birren, J. (eds.)
1983 Aging and Technological Advances.
Proceedings of a symposium on aging
and technological advances sponsored
by the NATO Special Program Panel on
Human Factors, August 22-26, 1983.
University of Southern California, Los
Angeles.
Silverstone, R. & Hirsch, E. (eds.)
1992 Consuming Technologies. Media and
Information in Domestic Spaces. London:
Routhledge.
Snow, C.P.
1993 Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution.
London: Cambridge University
Press.
Science Studies 2/2004
62
Steenbekkers, L.P.A. & van Beijersterveldt,
C.E.M. (eds.)
1998 Design-relevant Characteristics of Ageing
Users. Subfaculty of Industrial Design
Engineering, Delft University of
Technology.
Ström, C. & Ottosson, D. (eds.)
1986 Teknik och åldrande: symposium i
Wennergren Center Stockholm 9-10
maj 1985. Arbetsgruppen för studiet av
de äldres problem. Liber förlag. (Technology
and Ageing: symposium at the
Wennergren Center in Stockholm May
9-10, 1985. The working group for the
study of old peoples problems).
Swedish Government Offices
1995/96: 125 ”Åtgärder för att bredda och
utveckla användningen av informationsteknik”
(Measures to broaden and
develop the use of information technology).
Stockholm Sweden.
Swedish Handicap Institute
1997 “IT för funktionshindrade och äldre.
Förslag till handlingsprogram för åren
1998-2002” (IT for disabled and elderly.
Proposal for a Work Programme for
1998-2002). Stockholm, Sweden.
Thompson, M.
1996 “Computer Technology: How it Impacts
the Lives of Older Adults”. Ageing International
23(1): 85-91.
von Hippel, E.
1988 The Sources of Innovation. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Walker, A.
2001 Research for an Ageing Society. Clinical
Medicine, July/August 1(4,).
Wallengren, B. & Samuelsson, S-M.
1988 En jämförande undersökning av trygghetstelefonens
användning i södra
sjukvårdsregionen (A comparative survey
on the use of safety alarmes in the
south region) Rådet för hälso- och
sjukvårdsforskning, Report no 7.
Östlund, B.
1995 Gammal är äldst. En studie av teknik i
äldre människors vardagsliv (A Study of
Technology in Old People´s Everyday
Life). Linköping Studies in Arts and Science.
No 129.
Despite the fact that old people´s technological needs have been given much attention
to in the last decennium, especially old users of information- and communication
technology, technology has not found its natural place in research on ageing in
modern societies. This article examines to what extent social science research exist
in the field of ageing and technology and where we can find the interface between
technological and social science expertise. Scientific publications during the period
1983-2002 are analysed in terms of theoretical content, the role of the elderly as
being regarded as objects or subjects, and if technology is called into question in
any respect. Scientific well-grounded knowledge exist besides less well-substantiated
assumptions regarding the effects of technology and a premature body of
thoughts on the relationship between technology and the elderly.
Keywords: ageing, technology, technology studies
ageing as part of their activities. Biologists
study the physical changes associated
with ageing, economists study the
role of the elderly in social economics,
social psychologists study role changes,
etc. The American sociologist Robert
Atchley (1997) has pointed out how a
number of sciences address four aspects
of ageing in this regard – the physical, the
psychological, the psychosocial and the
social, which are referred to collectively
as gerontology.
Another approach to categorisation
views gerontology as a collective term for
research on the elderly from social science,
behavioural science and cultural
As an area of research, technology and
the elderly can best be understood
through its historical evolution. It is a
relatively new field. The extent to which
it can be viewed as an established area
of research, or perhaps more aptly a potential
research area, constitutes the primary
issue addressed in this paper.
Although technology issues are well
established in a number of disciplines
and research directions, they have not
yet found their natural place among researchers
examining ageing and the elderly.
Many disciplines and research directions
currently include the particular
study of the problems associated with
45
Britt Östlund
science perspectives, while geriatrics
covers the medical aspects. It must also
be noted that many other researchers in
both the social sciences and technological
fields are engaged in research on ageing
and the elderly without considering
themselves to be gerontologists and
geriatricians. Regardless of categorisation,
no research orientation which relates
technology to ageing and the elderly
has existed until quite recently. From
having constituted a particularly marginalised
issue which was noted in isolated
cases, the elderly became a central
theme in connection with the development
of information and communications
technology in the 1990s. The issue
of the elderly and technology had been
noted earlier at a few conferences and
in connection with evaluations of security
alarm systems (Robinson et al., 1983;
Ström & Ottosson, 1986; Grip, 1978;
Wallengren & Samuelsson, 1988). Visions
of the role of the elderly in the IT society
were articulated in a number of policy
documents which put the issue on the
political agenda and resulted in funding
for research and development (Bangemann,
1994; Swedish Government Offices,
1995/96; Swedish Handicap Institute,
1997). Part of the reason for paying
such close attention to the elderly in the
context of a technological society concerns
the need for markets in which to
sell the new technological advances. But
another part is due to increased awareness
of a growing elderly population in
the Western world, and to assumptions
about the problems associated with this
increase.
The term “gerontechnology” was
coined in the early 1990s in connection
with these developments. Gerontechnology,
which derives from a Man-Machine
perspective, is intended to compensate
for human deficiencies and prevent
ageing-related effects. Social science
researchers are contributing their
knowledge in collaboration with researchers
from natural science backgrounds,
applications-oriented engineers,
architects and designers. The aim
is to apply social scientists’ knowledge
of the needs and life situations of the elderly
to making products and systems
which are optimally adapted for the elderly.
Gerontechology, however, has not
been embraced by all social science researchers.
Some are critical of the concept
based on what they perceive to be
incomplete perceptions of human behaviour,
and stereotypical images of elderly
technology users.
This divide between researchers
trained in the social sciences who accept
a division of labour in which they devote
themselves to the non-technical issues
and those who do not is readily apparent
in the literature survey presented
here. The issue of what is to be considered
technical or non-technical raises
fundamental questions of scientific
theory as it relates to the social science
mission. In other words, how do researchers
with technology backgrounds
think in comparison with those trained
in the social sciences?
Neither has it been possible to avoid
such issues in the work of analysing the
material included in the research survey.
How is technology to be understood in
relation to ageing? Where does the interface
between technological and social
science expertise in this context lie? Why
is it difficult for social scientists to accept
gerontechnology? What is the attitude of
the researcher with a social science
background toward technology? What
Science Studies 2/2004
46
contributions can be derived from a social
science perspective?
Renewed Calls for an
Interdisciplinary Approach
The research funding which was made
possible when the elderly garnered attention
as an important group in the IT
society of the future emphasised the
need for collaborative interaction between
technical expertise and knowledge
of the needs of the elderly and their
integration into society. Arenas were created
in which researchers from different
backgrounds could engage one another.
One underlying idea was that collaboration
among such researchers would
solve problems that neither engineers
nor geriatrics researchers could solve by
themselves. This type of thinking is not
new.
The discourse concerning the problem
of a lack of communication between
the natural sciences and the humanities,
and its consequences, often takes as its
starting point Charles P. Snow’s book
concerning the two cultures (Snow,
1993). Considering the current discussion,
it appears that the gap between the
cultures is deepening at the same time
as the demand for interdisciplinary research
is increasing. One example is the
American debate, in which the lack of
such communication is evinced by natural
scientists that criticise humanists for
undermining public confidence in rationality
and objectivity.1 We know at the
same time that interdisciplinary initiatives
are common today.
Snow’s thought process was actually
quite simple, insofar as he called attention
to these deficiencies and believed
that they could be resolved by reorganising
the educational system. Such
thinking presumes that different research
traditions are capable of engaging
and cross-fertilising one another. In
addition to obstacles which have to do
with academic traditions, differing linguistic
usage and people’s willingness or
unwillingness to collaborate, such a
meeting of the minds also presumes the
existence of an area of overlapping interests,
or of a logic which is meaningful
to both sides.
The author’s own experiences derived
from participating in one of these EUfunded
projects concerning technology
and the elderly, COST A5: Ageing and
Technology, have demonstrated the
need for an interdisciplinary approach.
There is in fact a tendency to underestimate
the theoretical starting points. Social
scientists are often more interested
in reflecting on the origins of technology
and the forces which drive it than are
technology researchers. In this context,
the question of the best way to create
interaction between elderly people and
the use of technology in their daily lives
has been reduced to a matter of wedding
technology, which is taken as a given,
with agreed conceptions regarding the
elderly. It is not uncommon for the elderly
to be assigned the role of object
rather than subject, and perceptions regarding
how technological development
proceeds are particularly deterministic
and linear.
When it comes to technology and the
elderly, these problems become especially
evident. The elderly are so obviously
the objects of other people’s preconceptions
about their needs and capabilities.
Thus the technological development
which is currently targeting the
elderly finds that these preconceptions
47
Britt Östlund
conform well to notions of what technology
should be contributing. One example
is the preconception that information
technology should serve as a tool for
elderly people to create social contacts
and keep themselves informed. This is
an obvious conclusion if ageing is generalised
as a state in which one spends
the bulk of one’s time at home, has limited
mobility and a diminished capacity
to meet people in other ways. Listening
to elderly people, one quickly realises that
such generalisations are not tenable.
The Contribution of Social Science
to Research on Technology and the
Elderly
The Danish professor of social planning
Bent Flyvbjerg has addressed the issue
of the nature of the genuine contribution
which social science research has to
make. He believes that it is better to accentuate
the differences than to have
social science research emulate and
adapt to natural science research, as it
often does (Flyvbjerg, 2001).
By referring back to Aristotle’s concepts
of episteme, techne and phronesis,
Flyvbjerg shows that natural scientific
knowledge and philosophically rooted
research have entirely different focuses.
He thus rejects attempts to have these
researchers engage on the same level, or
believes at any rate that such an approach
is fair to neither epistemological
orientation. Clearly, social-science oriented
researchers can make contributions
to projects with technical applications,
but these researchers can be most
useful when they make use of their distinctive
focus.
In the Aristotelian sense, natural scientific
knowledge is characterised by
episteme, an analytical approach in
which generalisability and independence
of context are considered to be
characteristic of knowledge. Techne refers
to applied technical knowledge and
practical attainments characterised by
an instrumental rationality. The modern
equivalents of techne are technique and
technology. Phronesis, which is the third
Aristotelian concept, refers to the ethical,
practical, pragmatic and behaviouroriented
aspects which Flyvbjerg believes
characterise social science research.
The emphasis here is on practice
before discourse, and on the value of
grounding problems in their context.
The demand for generalisability and
context-independent theorisation thus
becomes irrelevant.
Table 1 illustrates how researchers
from a technology background and those
from a social science background tend to
think, and what distinguishes them.
Technical research is characterised by an
analytical thought process which strives
for objectivity, generalisability and independence
from context. The technical
researcher is driven to apply technical
knowledge to solve problems or, in some
other way, create new possibilities for
people. To be able to do this (and it is
implicitly assumed possible) these researchers
must find a means of identifying
and categorising needs for which
technical solutions are to be created.
One of the things expected of social science
researchers is that they will contribute
to such categorisations. In other
words, the technology already exists, and
now the problem is to find appropriate
corresponding categories.
Social science research is characterised
as subject-oriented, empirical and
grounded in context. This does not mean
Science Studies 2/2004
48
that social science research does not
strive for general elements, but rather
that these elements are based on the results
of studies of practical behaviour
rather than causal links. The technology
is not a given but rather can itself serve
as the object of research and redesign
(just as the concept of the elderly can).
Collaboration with technical research on
social science’s own terms thus leads to
increased knowledge and understanding
of social actions and daily routines.
The Concept of Power is Key
Flyvbjerg devotes a great deal of space
to the concept of power. Because the
social science mission is ethical, practical,
pragmatic and behaviour-oriented,
the concept of power is unavoidable.
Flyvbjerg believes that it constitutes the
core of social science and philosophy,
and quotes Bertrand Russell in that “the
fundamental concept in social science
is Power, in the same sense in which En-
Table 1. Survey of concepts derived from Aristotle. Interpretation of how
technology researchers and social science researchers think about
technology.
Technology in social science research –
Phronesis
Epistemological interests
Ethical, practical, pragmatic and
behaviour-oriented knowledge.
Context-dependent.
View of technology
What creates change? How?
For whom? What creates differences?
Focus
Both the elderly and technology are
objects for research.
Access and use of technology by the
elderly are results of the social order.
Expectations on what social science
contribute to phronesis
Understanding of human behaviour
and daily routines.
The concept of power is key.
Technology in technical research –
Techne
Epistemological interests
Application of analytical knowledge
which is generalisable and contextindependent.
Practical attainments
characterised by instrumental rationality.
View of technology
Technology creates change.
Technology solves problems, compensates,
prevents, enables.
Focus
The elderly are the focus, the technology
is given.
The elderly have needs that technology
can meet.
Expectations on what social science
contribute to techne
Knowledge of a non-technical nature.
The concept of power is irrelevant.
49
Britt Östlund
ergy is the fundamental concept in physics”
(Flyvbjerg, 2002). This is often the
point most clearly noticeable when a
social scientist works in collaboration
with a technical researcher. The concept
of power is irrelevant from a techne perspective.
(see Table 1). This does not
mean that engineers are not interested
in modifications or well-defined needs
when developing applications. It means
that changing power structures is not at
the heart of technical research unless
social science perspectives are integrated.
Conversely, it is by focusing on
power and influence that the social scientist
can answer many questions concerning
the availability of technology
among various groups of people, and the
importance it assumes in different
physical and social contexts.
Flyvbjerg discusses the concept of
power based on a number of authors and
compares Steven Lukes with Foucault.
Lukes believes that there are two types
of questions regarding power which are
important: the results of power being exercised,
and the location of the power
centre. From Lukes’ perspective, the following
questions are important: Who
can alter the interests of whom? Who has
control over whom? Who has control
over resources? Who is responsible for
the results? Who gets to divide the results?
Where is the source of change located?
Where would alternative actions
have made a difference? Foucault on the
other hand believes that power is an attribute
of a complex strategic situation
in a society at a given time. For him,
power cannot be sought in a centre. It is
present everywhere and can arise in
many different ways. He provides us with
an approach which makes it possible
to analyze social practices, both the official
discourses embodied in social policies
and informal discourses among
those operating and implementing policies
and knowledge. One field where a
Foucauldian perspective is significant is
in the discourse of community care and
old people’s welfare, more precisely his
analysis of punishment and medicine
and the construction of patients through
disciplinary techniques (Foucault, 1977).
Rethinking gerontology in these terms
reveals the rationalities and technologies
of care management which aims to
construct the “elderly person” and survey
older people. Safety alarms and residential
control systems telling old people
when to wake up and when to take
their medicine are examples of such surveillance
technologies. These technologies
that seem to empower old people is
in fact, based on a Foucauldian perspective,
a strategy of power and domination
practiced by care managers, gerontologists
and experts (Powell, 2004). The notion
of the stereotypical elderly person
constructed through these disciplinary
techniques hold more than one dimension.
In his article, James Powell points
out the dimension of normalization
power when old users of surveillance
applications are called service users,
consumers or clients. Another dimension
is the need for generalized needs in
order to fit the application of analytical
knowledge as pointed out in table 1
above. The concept of old people as a
rather homogenous group is an example
of such generalization.
Different Rationalities
Another way of explaining the differences
between a technical perspective
and a social science perspective is to
Science Studies 2/2004
50
describe the rationalities or logical
thought processes which the researchers
follow. A technical rationality is based
on calculations of predictable processes.
Conversely, empirically grounded research
proceeds on the assumption that
the role of technology in practical use is
both predictable and unpredictable. The
social scientist can accompany the technical
researcher in pursuing an analytical
rationality as far as it goes, but he can
then press on and describe behaviours
and routines outside the realm of predictability.
Indeed, the social scientist is
interested in more than just how well the
technological intentions agree with the
actual result. He is interested primarily
in the structure of daily life, and in the
ways in which the technology will or will
not be integrated into daily routines.
The integration of technology into
daily life has been described entirely or
in part using phenomenological approaches.
Berger and Luckmann (1966)
have provided the basis for understanding
how everyday knowledge evolves.
Other authors have also conducted empirical
studies and formulated concepts
and theories based on the practice of
technology (see Silverstone & Hirsch,
1992; Lie & Sörensen, 1996). There are
also interesting examples of technical
researchers who have discovered that
there is something beyond the analytical
level which is difficult to express,
such as MIT researcher von Hippel, who
speaks of the user as a carrier of “sticky
information” (von Hippel, 1988; Porter,
1998).
The integration of technology into
daily life entails in practice that it become
invisible. It is indeed the very fact
that it is non-problematic which causes
it to be moulded into habits or integrated
into habits, routines and other behaviours
which the individual accepts as
given. One of the characteristics of daily
life is the fact that, as long as life is proceeding
normally, there is nothing to reflect
about. Things are simply taken as
given. Daily recurrent activities which
initially demanded attention and care
eventually become habits and routines.
It is only when something occurs which
shakes up our daily existence that our
habits can be observed and reflected on.
This is the process by which we develop
the fundamental sense of security which
is part of our daily lives. Integration may
be described as a multistage process of
domestication or as a learning process.
Silverstone describes it as a process in
which technology is purchased, evaluated,
and incorporated and then it acquires
meaning for those who live in its
environment. Conversely, technology
which is not integrated is problematic,
and it poses problems or goes unused.
Such technology is thus often visible to
the individual. Dreyfus and Dreyfus
(1988) describe the integration of technology
as a learning process in five
stages, from being a novice, an advanced
beginner and competent, to become a
proficient and an expert. They point to
the fact that people function as more
than problem solvers when interacting
with new methodologies and experiences.
Levels of Research Regarding
Technology and Man
Two thought models concerning the relationship
between man and technology
derived from two sociologists, one of
whom worked in collaboration with a
psychologist at a technical college, may
51
Britt Östlund
also help to sort out these issues. Here
we still find ourselves in the divide between
two scientific viewpoints. In this
case, however, the questions are asked
from the standpoint of the problematic
surrounding IT use from a user perspective,
and not from the standpoint of different
disciplines or any specific technical
application.
The first thought model comes from
an article by Jan-Erik Hagberg which appeared
in an anthology on the theme
“technology/politics/the future”. Hagberg
believes that the discussion of technology,
social effects and social changes
must be conducted on two levels. “One
level pertains to the social, economic,
political and cultural factors which give
the development of technology its direction
and content. Another level pertains
to how different types of technology are
developed and acquire their properties,
how this occurs in relation to the users
of the technology, and what options and
freedom of action the individual users
actually have when new technology is
disseminated in the society” (Hagberg,
2002).
This two-fold division may be compared
with a thought model formulated
by Karlsson and Östlund (1999). It is a
thought model drawn from a 1999 anthology
which was intended to collect
and compare articles from various disciplines
with an empirically grounded
user perspective. The results of the comparison
point to three levels with different
focuses on the relationship between
user and technology.
The first level focuses on the design
and structure of the technical artefact.
A typical guiding question at this level is
how is this mobile phone to be designed
so that it will be easy to use? The second
level focuses on the use of the technology,
and seeks clarification of its importance
in the user’s life. Typical questions
asked here include: on what occasions
will the user use the mobile phone? What
practical or symbolic significance does
the mobile phone have in the user’s daily
life? The third level focuses on technology
and social development, and poses
questions concerning the social consequences
of increased mobile phone use,
or what are the driving forces behind the
increasing prevalence of mobile phone
use?
Both thought models include a level
which poses questions concerning social
development and the driving forces
behind technological development. The
user and his context come into play on
the second levels. In Karlsson & Östlund’s
thought model this level is subdivided
into two levels: one focused on
concrete structure and design, and another
focused on understanding the factors
(i.e., impediments and options) associated
with use. Employing Flyvbjerg’s
terminology, we have already abandoned
the analytical rationality once we
pass the first level in the Karlsson &
Östlund model.
Current Social Science Research on
Technology and the Elderly
Where then do we find the social science
researchers who have published on the
topic of technology and the elderly? Do
we find them on an analytical technical
rational level, supplementing technical
expertise with information and knowledge
about non-technical issues with
regard to ageing and the elderly? Or do
we find them taking a phenomenological
approach, studying both the eldScience
Studies 2/2004
52
erly and technology as phenomena? And
if such is the case, how prevalent are
questions concerning priority of interpretation
with regard to the problems
and needs of the elderly? In light of the
foregoing, three questions have been
applied to the empirical material which
constitutes the basis of this research survey.
1. What is the research orientation? To
what theories or schools of thought do
the researchers subscribe, and what
more or less explicit assumptions do
they make? “Schools of thought” is used
here as a designation for shared assumptions
which can be the result of
empirical studies or other starting
points, but which do not constitute a
coherent theory.
2. The role of the elderly in the research
– is it pointed out and discussed? Are
the elderly viewed as object or subject?
Are preconceptions regarding ageing
and the elderly discussed?
3. The role of technology – is it pointed
out or called into question in any respect?
Is technology viewed as given in
advance, or is it also a topic of discussion?
Method, Selection and Limitations
The research survey is based on literature,
articles from scientific journals and
proceedings from conferences published
from 1983 to 2002. 1983 was the
year for the first publication that linked
ageing and technology as research concepts
(Robinson et al., 1983) and 2002
was the year when the Swedish Institute
for the Study of Ageing and Later Life
decided to analyse this field and develop
a research programme as a part of an
attempt to renew gerontological research.
The study was conducted in
three stages: Database searches and categorisation
of publications, supplementation
with known scientific publications
not found in the databases and
analysis of a selection of publications
with respect to the foregoing questions.
The material is limited to social science
publications with a focus on technology
and the elderly or on research
and development in which social science
researchers have been involved.
The latter is the rule rather than the exception,
since this subject area is interdisciplinary
in nature. “Social science”
research refers here mainly to sociology.
The aim of including social psychology,
history, ethnology, anthropology and
cultural geography has not been attainable,
given the absence of such research
literature from the material.
No limits were imposed in advance on
the areas of technology involved. As the
categorisation of the articles below indicates,
access to subject areas has been
identical with their delimitation. For reasons
having to do with this subject area’s
close ties to IT development and
communications technology, these areas
constitute the dominant technology
field. This also means that the technical
expertise involved in the publications
generally involves computer science and
systems analysis.
Prior to the more in-depth analysis of
a number of publications, the material
was limited to publications about technology
related to the social integration,
social participation, social relations,
daily lives and gender of the elderly, as
well as gerontechnology. The analysis
thus excludes certain fields, among
them geriatrics and rehabilitative medicine,
functional limitations, the supply
53
Britt Östlund
system for technical aids (assistive technology,
occupational therapy), healthcare
and, most importantly, the distribution
of such care by healthcare personnel.
Categorisation and Analysis of
Publications
The database search yielded a total of
220 hits; 197 hits on the ISI Web of Science,
which contains only scientific material,
and 23 hits on Libris WebSearch,
specifically in the sociological abstracts
and social service abstracts databases.2
Forty-six of the 197 hits on the ISI Web
of Science can be categorised as social
science research on the basis of their titles.
The other 151 hits concern only intra-
disciplinary technical questions with
no link to social science issues. Of the 23
hits on Libris, 16 may be categorised as
social science research, two as reports
from symposia which address social science
issues, and five as publications in
the form of policy documents, handbooks
and articles with no scientific pretensions
(see Table 2).
In addition to the material derived
from the database searches, it was
deemed necessary to undertake some
supplementation with scientific publi-
Table 2. Distribution of social science publications in databases
Social science publications on ISI Web of Science Libris WebSearch
technology and ageing
Social relations 2 -
Everyday Life 18 4
Gender - 1
Gerontechnology - 2
Design - 2
Organisation of technology 9 1
within health care and
home help service
Housing 3 2
Communication, language 1 -
Abuse, criminality 4 -
Economic development 1 -
Evaluation models 1 -
General social science related 7 4
to ageing and elderly people
Total 46 16
Science Studies 2/2004
54
cations which contribute to clarifying
this area of research. These supplements
are Baack (1991), Karlsson & Östlund
(1999) and Steenbekkers & Beijsterveldt
(1998). Of the publications derived from
the databases and the supplementation
performed, 26 were subjected to more
in-depth analysis. The result of this
analysis is presented below.
Theoretical Orientation of Publications
The first question concerns the research
orientation. To what theories or schools
of thought do the researchers subscribe,
and what more or less explicit assumptions
do they make? The term “schools
of thought” is used here in parallel with
“theory” to more thoroughly describe the
assumptions, approaches and thought
processes which guide research in this
area. Analysis of the material reveals three
such schools of thought, each with its
own character and scientific status. First,
there is a scientifically well-grounded
knowledge of ageing and the elderly as
mediated by gerontologists, sociologists
and social science researchers, and by
psychologists and computer scientists
(human factors). Second, we find more
or less well-substantiated or reported
assumptions regarding the effects of
technology use by the elderly. Third,
there is a body of premature thought
surrounding the relationship between
technology and the elderly. No problematisation
occurs unless it is demonstrated
that some type of knowledge is at
issue here. In other words, ageing and the
elderly are well problematised and scientifically
grounded, the technology is nonproblematised
and thus viewed as given,
and the relationship between technology
and the elderly is scarcely developed.
Empirical Foundation
The contents of the publications can be
divided into two levels, meso and macro.
At the meso-level are social relationships
and daily needs and routines, primarily
the need for care and other assistance.
At the macro-level are socio-economic
studies regarding access to information
and communications technology. Hagberg’s
(2002) thesis that the discussion
of technology and the elderly is being
conducted on two levels may thus be
viewed as empirically substantiated.
Empirically supported assumptions
and conclusions regarding the need for
technology on the part of the elderly
generally derive from statistical studies
or interview studies. These may pertain
to statistics on population trends or proportions
of people who have functional
limitations or require care. The interview
studies pertain to communication patterns
among the elderly, or their social
relationships within the family, at home
or in institutions.
Assumptions concerning the use of
technology by the elderly are based
largely on studies of the effects of technology
in different environments. Examples
of such studies include how it impacts
their independence in some respect,
integration in the IT society as related
to socio-economics, employment
rates, gender, and the effects of living in
a home which contains a large number
of technical solutions, that is, a “mechanised
environment”.
The material contains one coherent
theory, which is gerontechnology (Graafman
et al., 1998; Mollenkopf, 1996). As
noted earlier, this theory has its roots in
Man-Machine Interaction (MMI) and
Man-Computer Interaction (MCI), and
55
Britt Östlund
is intended to guide designers and developers
of technology in their efforts to
apply technology solutions. Technology
has the mission and capability of preventing
or compensating for physical
and social losses, and of enabling elderly
people to live independent lives. Their
needs for mobility and social contact are
viewed as being relatively constant. Because
technology is modifiable, it can
also be adapted to variations in the
needs of the elderly. The underlying justification
for subscribing to this theory
is thus that ageing can and should be
compensated for, and that the losses
entailed by ageing are undesirable.
Other comparable terms are associated
with technological advances for
those subject to functional limitations.
Examples are “design for all” and “universal
design”. These two terms refer to
availability for everyone, rather than just
the functionally limited. The idea is that
the user-friendliness ascribed to technical
aids and other technical applications
created for the functionally limited also
constitutes user-friendliness and makes
living easier for most users, whether
functionally limited or not.
Assumptions Regarding the Effects of
Technology
The bulk of the publications address
what is assumed in terms of the expected
effects or, to a lesser extent, the empirically
substantiated effects of the use of
technology among elderly individuals
and groups of elderly people. One assumption
which is made is that many
functionally limited elderly persons can
be compensated using technology
(Dozet et al., 1999; Dozet et al., 2002;
Harrington & Harrington, 2000; Heikkilä,
1999; Johansson, 2001). Others proceed
on the basis of population statistics and
call for better adaptation of technology,
where the needs of the elderly are better
defined (Czaja & Barr, 1989; Cullen, 1997;
Graafmans et al., 1998; Enders, 1995;
Fries, 1997; Mollenkopf, 1996; Mollenkopf
et al., 2000; Poulson, 1996; Walker,
2001; Steenbekkers & Beijstervaldt,
1998). The tacit assumptions which
clearly underlie these proposals consist
of stereotypical images of ageing combined
with the insight that the elderly
comprise a heterogeneous group. The
summary conclusion may thus be drawn
that we are dealing largely with effects
studies pertaining to specific solutions,
and that structure and context are lacking.
To start with theoretical differences
between disciplines should not be underestimated.
Another conclusion that
has the advantage of being hard to avoid
is the clash between rationalities. On the
one hand researchers seem ambivalent
towards an instrumental rationality because
they are dependent on calculations
of predictable processes and generalisations.
On the other hand they
learn from social science that daily life
of old people is very much context-dependent.
This is especially true for
gerontechnologists who are dependent
on the image of elderly having a need to
compensate or prevent for deterioration
of ageing to fit their analytical approach.
At the same time they learn about the
heterogeneity of ageing and that the use
and meaning of technology is a result of
social practise rather than technical
data.
Science Studies 2/2004
56
The Relationship Between Technology
and the Elderly
The lack of developed thought concerning
the relationship between the elderly
and technology is evinced in critical
questions and ambivalent questioning
by researchers regarding technology’s
raison d’etre (Berg, 1985; Sackmann in
Mollenkopf, 1996). A few authors have
emphasised thought concerning the
driving forces behind the development
of technology for the elderly in terms of
push or pull factors (Karlsson & Östlund,
1999). Others argue that technological
development is evolutionary, and that
the new technology is dependent upon
the use of technology which is already
established (Enders, 1995). As Table 1
indicates, we are faced with two different
types of epistemological interest,
namely the application of technology,
and reflections regarding technology.
Salient difficulties are also apparent in
reconciling these more clearly, such as
Flyvbjerg’s thesis that technology and
social science constitute knowledge at
different levels. Technology is, for the
most part, accepted as a given in the
material in question. Technology is
viewed as an independent variable, even
though a number of authors raise the
issue of whether it can be modified
through better-organised design processes.
The critical questions and the dilemma
of reconciling these levels point
to the need for development; the premature
thinking is waiting to mature. This
is exemplified by the need expressed to
“unlock the power of the design methods”
in order to progress (Graafmans &
Taipale, 1996), or the need for a change
in attitude toward elderly technology
users (Czaja & Barr, 1989; Enders, 1995;
Fries, 1997; Östlund, 1999).
The Role of Technology
Another question concerns the role of
technology – has it been called into
question or criticised in any respect? Is
technology viewed as given in advance,
or is it also a topic for discussion? Technology
is specified when it appears, but
it appears as a general concept as well.
One important delimitation is that
“technology” refers to technical solutions,
that is, ready-made applications
such as security alarms or the Internet,
rather than technical knowledge in the
sense of the Aristotelian term “techne”,
or knowledge which is in the process of
being applied and developed in various
concrete solutions.
Few authors raise issues concerning
the priority of interpretation with regard
to the elderly or include social science
issues when discussing technology. One
of the authors does so when he speaks
of “empowerment” (Walker, 2001). He
contends that the elderly should, from a
social science perspective, occupy centre
stage in the research process. On the
other hand, when it comes to technology
he accepts that social development
contributes only non-technical reflections,
and makes reference to gerontechnology.
The division of labour is relatively
clear insofar as those who possess technical
expertise write about technology,
while gerontologists and sociologists
write about the elderly. In one of the anthologies,
seven out of 26 articles problematise
the relationship between technology
and the elderly. The sociologists
write about the social integration and
57
Britt Östlund
social relationships of the elderly. Psychologists
and doctors write about functional
limitations and dementia. Engineers
and psychologists write about traffic
and mechanised environments and
homes (Mollenkopf, 1996).
One conclusion is thus that technology
is relatively non-problematised
throughout the material, with the exceptions
of Karlsson & Östlund and Sackmann
in Mollenkopf. With a few exceptions,
the role of technology is thus not
discussed. The assumptions which more
or less explicitly serve to guide the authors
are that technology is a given, but
does afford certain possibilities of modification
to suit the elderly. The most extreme
perspective, from which technology
appears not to be thought about at
all, is represented by an author who asserts
that there is no evidence that technology
should have any role to play
whatsoever for elderly people (Berg,
1985).
The Role of the Elderly
Is the role of the elderly in the research
called into question and discussed? Are
the elderly viewed as object or subject?
Are preconceptions regarding ageing
and the elderly described? How, then, to
characterise these elderly people for
whom technology is to be adapted?
Many authors address this issue by referring
to the elderly as a heterogeneous
group. These authors believe that it is
becoming more and more apparent that
the view that the elderly constitute a
homogenous group with uniform needs
is restrictive in a design work context
(Czaja & Barr, 1989; Cullen & Moran;
1992; Cullen & Robinson, 1997; Graafmans
et al., 1998; Mollenkopf, 1996;
Walker, 2001).
Based on statistics and preconceptions
which are held but all too seldom
described by the authors, the elderly are
characterised as weak and sick, and as
having a need for social contact, continued
activity and compensation for
physical and social losses. This is most
evident in the concept of gerontechnology,
even though the anthologies
in which the term appears also include
articles which offer a significantly more
critical perspective. The most flagrant
example is Steenbekkers & Beijstervaldt,
where the physical need for technology
among the elderly is measured in almost
Tayloristic fashion. These generalisations
are also accompanied by preconceptions
of the elderly as being fearful
of or unfamiliar with technology. This is
most clearly evinced in the scientific discourse
conducted during the 1990s in
publications such as Interaction with
Computers, Telecommunications Policy
and Educational Computing Research, in
which scales were developed for measuring
just how afraid of technology the
elderly actually are, and whether training
can alleviate such fears (Dyck et al.,
1998).
It is clear that those authors who have
studied technology use by the elderly
acquire a more nuanced picture, and feel
compelled to rid themselves of prejudices
concerning elderly people. One
example of this is the finding that the
elderly desire to use computers to a
greater extent than expected, which contradicts
the assumption that the elderly
are technically illiterate or unwilling to
embrace new technology (Thompson,
1996). Östlund also describes how attitudes
toward the elderly, rather than
their own capabilities and desires, can
Science Studies 2/2004
58
be limiting. The lack of empirical studies
concerning the daily lives of the elderly
creates a fertile ground for erroneous
assumptions. Socio-economic studies
which illustrate the distribution of
technology and other resources also
naturally nuance conceptions of the elderly,
and can help pave the way for more
well-founded assumptions.
Experience derived from technical research
and development also gives rise to
critical questions concerning how the
elderly should be viewed. In this material
these issues are raised mainly by authors
at technical colleges, principally designoriented
researchers, but also by sociologists
(Czaja & Barr, 1989; Bouchayer in
Mollenkopf, 1996; Karlsson & Östlund,
1999).
The Contribution of Social Science
Research
In order to ascertain the ways in which
these publications contribute to technology
and the elderly as an area of research,
they have been categorised as
follows:
Category 1: those taking a technical,
analytical, rational approach to the issue
of technology and the elderly, or
Category 2: those in which practice,
context and power are key to the issue
of technology and the elderly
The results point to a divide between
social science researchers who contribute
solely non-technical information
and a supplementary perspective and
those who also take a phenomenological
approach or clearly articulate social science
issues concerning power and influence.
The results also indicate that a number
of authors fall into both categories. Ambivalence
is evident in that the authors
want to strengthen the influence of the
elderly on technology and heighten
awareness of technology’s context, while
at the same time they want people who
design technology to incorporate the
information offered by those who research
the elderly. In Mollenkopf, for example,
the editor addresses in her introduction
the issue of not viewing man
and technology as two separate entities.
She asserts that this way of thinking
about the use of technology needs to be
altered by relating these concepts to one
another. At the same time, the editor
proposes in her conclusions that a database
containing information from sociologists
and technicians should be set
up. Rather than forging a relationship
between the concepts, such a proposal
would seem to constitute almost a
reductive measure.
On the other hand, it may be fully possible
to feel at home in both camps. In a
technical, analytical phase the social science
researcher can set limits and contribute
to an understanding of what
should be possible in the development
of new technology. In addition, involvement
in the daily lives of the elderly
while gathering data often provides
ideas for technical solutions which could
be utilised by designers and technology
developers. The social science researcher
can also be helpful in design
processes when the elderly are involved.
However, this is not the primary mission
of the social scientist.
That mission is inherent in the researcher’s
ability to examine practical
factors in context, and the consequent
ability to develop knowledge about age59
Britt Östlund
ing and the elderly in a technological
society based on understanding rather
than on positivistic impulses. We may
even ask ourselves whether social science
researchers are delinquent in their
duty if they do not do this. Based on this
material, Flyvbjerg can find support for
his contention that the social sciences
lose their edge when they try to be sensitive
to the natural sciences and technical,
analytical modes of thought rather
than pursuing their true mission. At any
rate, the technical scientists certainly
cannot be accused of failing to pursue
their own true missions.
The consequence of the fact that technology
is non-problematized and the
concept of the elderly scarcely developed
is that social science runs the risk
of not having much influence in this
field. The definition of old users and
their capacity and needs as well as the
access to design processes can be said
to be in the hands of researchers with a
technical perspective. In Luke´s perspective
they have the control over the
resources and the privilege of defining
needs and target groups. In a Foucaldian
perspective there is room for yet another
power struggle within the complex situation
of design. Defining needs separate
from the users will be proven right or
wrong when technical solutions are installed
in old people´s homes and environments.
The possibilities of the users
becoming non-receivers or non-users,
or even resistant towards new technological
applications are still options for
changing the balance of power. Another
risk for social scientists is that their contributions
will legitimise technological
projects and confirm underlying false
assumptions on social change.
Conclusion
With this the social science perspective
on technology and the elderly leaves a
good deal to be desired. One encounters
here, not only a need for knowledge
about the role of technology in the lives
of the elderly and about ageing in a modern
technical society, but fundamental
theoretical challenges to be faced as well.
With one foot planted in theoretical
sources and the other in the results obtained
from empirical research into the
practice of technology and the elderly,
the area of technology and the elderly
could in all likelihood contribute important
and groundbreaking knowledge.
This area could also contribute to improving
and advancing communication
between philosophy and technology.
In light of the material available regarding
research on technology and the
elderly, this survey has focused on two
questions. One is, in its most extreme
form: to what extent shall social science
researchers simply support technological
development? Shall social scientists
consent to collaborate with technical
researchers on an analytical level to
which the technology beckons? If the
answer to this question is affirmative,
then no greater efforts are needed. This
collaboration is already ongoing, and
interest in involving experts who can
supplement technology development
and modify it on behalf of the elderly is
strong.
The other question is this: should an
area of research which addresses the
practice of technology and the perspective
of the elderly critically and independently
be developed?
An affirmative response to this question
demands that efforts be made. ProScience
Studies 2/2004
60
posals concerning such efforts should be
part of the discussion regarding the future
orientation of social science research
on technology and the elderly.
Notes
1 Review by Ross, Andrew: Science Wars,
published 1996, in Issues in Science and
Technology Online. Spring 1998.
2 LIBRIS WebSearch is the collective name
for several bibliographic services offered
by the LIBRIS Department at the Royal
Library in Stockholm. Access to the service
is free. The most important service is
the LIBRIS Database with more than four
million titles representing the holdings of
about 300 Swedish libraries, mainly research
libraries. Search words used in this
web search are ageing, elderly, old, older
and later life in combination with general
and specific technology related concepts.
References
Atchley, R.C.
1997 “Social Forces and Aging: an Introduction
to Social Gerontology” 8th ed.
Belmont, London: Wadsworth Publishing
Company.
Baack, S.A. & Brown, T.S.
1991 “Attitudes Towards Computers: Views
of Older Adults Compared with Those
of Young Adults”. Journal of Research on
Computing in Education 23(3): 422-
434.
Bangemann M.
1994 “Europe and the Global Information
Society. Recommendations to the European
Council, European Union.
High-Level Group on the Information
Society”. Brussels: European Commission
(The “Bangemann Report”).
Berg, S.
1985 Review on Dunkle, Ruth E, Haug Marie
R & Rosenberg Marvin (eds). “Communications
Technology and the Elderly:
Issues and Forecasts”. Ageing and Society
5(4): 509-10.
Berger, P. & Luckmann, T.
1966 “The Social Construction of Reality: A
Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge”.
New York: Anchor Books.
Czaja, S.J. & Barr, R.A.
1989 “Technology and the Everyday Life of
Older Adults”. The Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social
Science 503: 127-37.
Cullen, K. & Moran, R.
1992 Technology and the Elderly. The Role of
Technology Prolonging the Independence
of the Elderly in the Community
Care Context. FAS research report EUR
14419 EN.
Cullen, K. & Robinson, S.
1997 Telecommunications for Older People
and Disabled People in Europe. Result
from the MART study in the TIDE-programme,
EC.
Datainspektionen (The Swedish Data
Inspection)
1995 ”LEXIT. Scenario om den offentliga
förvaltningens IT-användning år 2005”
(Scenarios on the use of IT in Public
Administration by the year 2005) Appendix
2, Stockholm, Sweden.
Dozet, A., Lyttkens, C.H. & Nystedt, P.
2002 “Health Care for the Elderly: Two Cases
of Technology Diffusion”. Social Science
& Medicine 54: 49-64.
Dreyfus, H. & Dreyfus S.
1988 “Mind Over Machine: The Power of
Human Intuition and Expertise in the
Era of the Computer”. New York: Free
Press.
Dyck J.L., Gee, N.R. & Smither J.A-A.
1998 “The Changing Construct of Computer.
Anxiety for Younger and Older Adults.”
Computers in Human Behaviour 14: 1.
Enders, A.
1995 “The Role of Technology in the Lives of
Older People”. Generations, Spring
19(1): 712.
Flyvbjerg, B.
2001 Making Social Science Matter. Why Social
Inquiry Fails and How it Can Succeed
Again. Cambridge UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Foucault, M.
1977 Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the
Prison. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
61
Britt Östlund
Fries, B.E.
1997 “Changing the Technology of Assessing
the Elderly: The Example of the R.A.I.”
Generations, Spring 21(1): 59-61.
Graafman, J., Taipale, V. & Charness, N. (eds.)
1998 Gerontechnology - A Sustainable Investment
in the Future. Amsterdam:
IOS Press.
Grip, L-G.
1978 ”Trygghetslarm. Larm- och signalsystem
för åldringar och handikappade”
(Safety Alarms. Alarm and Signal
Systems for Elderly and Handicapped
Persons). Psykotekniska Institutet,
Stockholm University.
Hagberg, J-E.
2002 ”Tekniklandskapets vardagliga panorama.
Teknikutveckling, vardagsteknik
och gamla människor” (The Panorama
of the Daily Technological Landscape.
Technical Development, Everyday Life
Technology and Old People). Pp.57-76
in Stressor, L. (eds.) Spänningsfält.
Tekniken, Politiken, Framtiden (Tensions.
Technology, Politics, Future).
Stockholm: Carlssons Publications.
Harrington, T. & Harrington, M.K.
2000 Gerontechnology - Why and How.
Bouma Foundation for Gerontechnology:
Shaker Publishing Netherlands
Heikkilä, J., Kallio, J., Saarinen, T. &
Tuunainen, V.P.
1999 ”EC of Groceries for Elderly and Disabled.
A Comparison of Alternative Service
Models”. Information Technology &
People 12(4): 389-402.
Johansson, Y.
2001 Äldre människor, yngre teknik (Old
People, Young Technology). Dalarnas
forskningsråd i Falun.
Karlsson, M. & Östlund, B. (eds.)
1999 Users in Action. Stories of Users and
Telematics in Everyday Life. Swedish
Board for Transport and Communication
Analysis, Report 8.
Lie, M. & Sörensen, K.H. (eds.)
1996 Making Technology Our Own. Domesticating
Technology into Everyday Life.
Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.
Mollenkopf, H. (ed.)
1996 Elderly People in Industrialised Societies.
Social Integration in Old Age by or
Despite Technology? Edition Sigma
Rainer Bohn Verlag: Berlin.
Mollenkopf, H., Meyer S., Schulze, E.,
Wurm, S. & Friesdorf, W.
2000 Technik im Haushalt zur Unterstutzung
einer selbstbestimmten
Lebensfuhrung im Alter. Zeitschrift fur
Gerontologie und Geriatrie Band 33
Heft 3, Steinkopff Verlag.(Technology in
the household for increased independence
and support for elderly people.
Journal for Geronthology and Geriatrics
Vol 33: 3 Steinkopff Publishing
Company).
Porter, M.E.
1998 The Competitive Advantage of Nations.
Free Press: USA.
Poulson, D., Nicolle, C., Richardson, S.,
Ashby, M., Phillips, K., Audouard, E.,
Stapleton L,, Waddell, N., & Owen, H. (eds.)
1996 Userfit. A Practical Handbook on Usercentred
Design for Assistive Technology.
TIDE: European Commission.
Powell, J.
2004 “Rethinking Gerontology: Foucault,
Surveillance and the Positioning of Old
Age”. Sincronía, E-Journal of Culture
Studies published: University of
Guadalajara.
Robinson, P.K., Livingston, J. & Birren, J. (eds.)
1983 Aging and Technological Advances.
Proceedings of a symposium on aging
and technological advances sponsored
by the NATO Special Program Panel on
Human Factors, August 22-26, 1983.
University of Southern California, Los
Angeles.
Silverstone, R. & Hirsch, E. (eds.)
1992 Consuming Technologies. Media and
Information in Domestic Spaces. London:
Routhledge.
Snow, C.P.
1993 Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution.
London: Cambridge University
Press.
Science Studies 2/2004
62
Steenbekkers, L.P.A. & van Beijersterveldt,
C.E.M. (eds.)
1998 Design-relevant Characteristics of Ageing
Users. Subfaculty of Industrial Design
Engineering, Delft University of
Technology.
Ström, C. & Ottosson, D. (eds.)
1986 Teknik och åldrande: symposium i
Wennergren Center Stockholm 9-10
maj 1985. Arbetsgruppen för studiet av
de äldres problem. Liber förlag. (Technology
and Ageing: symposium at the
Wennergren Center in Stockholm May
9-10, 1985. The working group for the
study of old peoples problems).
Swedish Government Offices
1995/96: 125 ”Åtgärder för att bredda och
utveckla användningen av informationsteknik”
(Measures to broaden and
develop the use of information technology).
Stockholm Sweden.
Swedish Handicap Institute
1997 “IT för funktionshindrade och äldre.
Förslag till handlingsprogram för åren
1998-2002” (IT for disabled and elderly.
Proposal for a Work Programme for
1998-2002). Stockholm, Sweden.
Thompson, M.
1996 “Computer Technology: How it Impacts
the Lives of Older Adults”. Ageing International
23(1): 85-91.
von Hippel, E.
1988 The Sources of Innovation. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Walker, A.
2001 Research for an Ageing Society. Clinical
Medicine, July/August 1(4,).
Wallengren, B. & Samuelsson, S-M.
1988 En jämförande undersökning av trygghetstelefonens
användning i södra
sjukvårdsregionen (A comparative survey
on the use of safety alarmes in the
south region) Rådet för hälso- och
sjukvårdsforskning, Report no 7.
Östlund, B.
1995 Gammal är äldst. En studie av teknik i
äldre människors vardagsliv (A Study of
Technology in Old People´s Everyday
Life). Linköping Studies in Arts and Science.
No 129.
0 التعليقات:
إرسال تعليق