Intergenerational Education and Learning: We Are in a New Place

Full text

Metadata of the chapter that will be visualized online
Chapter Title Intergenerational Education and Learning: We Are in a New Place AU1
Copyright Year 2016
Copyright Holder Springer Science+Business Media Singapore
Corresponding Author Family Name Mannion
Particle
Given Name Greg
Suffix
Division/Department School of Education
Organization/University University of Stirling
Street Room A44, Pathfoot
City Stirling
State Scotland
Postcode FK9 4LA
Country UK
Email greg.mannion@stir.ac.uk
Abstract This chapter reviews and synthesizes contemporary theorizations and
empirical research on intergenerational education and learning. Fast-
changing contexts (such as aging populations, migration, and
environmental crises), international policy, and interdisciplinary research
all suggest intergenerational education is in a new and exciting “place.”At
the center of much of the contemporary literature is the idea that contact
between generations can and does lead to intergenerational learning for
participants. However, this review suggests three emerging and necessary
orientations for theory, policy, and practice in support of intergenerational
education and learning: (1) the need to shift from looking at program
inputs and outputs in a unigenerational manner toward an appreciation of
how the processes of intergenerational learning and practice are
relationally and reciprocally experienced and impactful across
generations; (2) the need to shift from looking at intergenerational
learning within families to harnessing the untapped potential for
extrafamilial places of intergenerational encounters as contexts of
learning; and (3) the need to widen the purposes of intergenerational
programs: these will include improved relations between the generations
but should also include improved ecosocial wellbeing. Taken together,
these three shifts are suggestive of a need for a place-responsive
understanding of intergenerational education and learning.
Keywords
(separated by “-”)
Baby boomers - Beanpole family structures - Children’s participation
programs - Cohesion - Cohort-based approach - Cultural commons -
Ecosocial wellbeing - European Network for Intergenerational Learning
(ENIL) - Extrafamilial intergenerational relations - Formal school systems -
Generation - Geographically oriented perspectives - Intergenerational
education - Inclusive and reciprocal process - Intergenerational practice -
Intrafamilial multigenerational relations - National and international
BookID 322255_0_En__ChapID _Proof# 1 - 1/9/16

governmental policy - Non-representational theory - Place-based
intergenerational differences - Place-based learning - Radical collegiality -
Sociological studies of family life - Sociology of childhood -
Unigenerational focus
BookID 322255_0_En__ChapID _Proof# 1 - 1/9/16

1Intergenerational Education and Learning:
2We Are in a New Place AU1
3Greg Mannion
4Contents
51 Introduction ................................................................................... 2
62 Contexts and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1 Generation as a Conceptual Organizer ................................................. 4
2.2 Intergenerational Practice . .............................................................. 5
2.3 Intergenerational Education and Learning .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
73 Intergenerational Education and Learning: In a New Place ................................. 7
84 Schools as Places of Intergenerational Learning? .. . ........................................ 14
95 Toward Place- and Generation-Responsive Curriculum Making ............................ 16
10 6 Conclusion .. .................................................................................. 17
11 References .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 18
12 Abstract
13 This chapter reviews and synthesizes contemporary theorizations and empirical
14 research on intergenerational education and learning. Fast-changing contexts
15 (such as aging populations, migration, and environmental crises), international
16 policy, and interdisciplinary research all suggest intergenerational education is in
17 a new and exciting “place.”At the center of much of the contemporary literature
18 is the idea that contact between generations can and does lead to intergenerational
19 learning for participants. However, this review suggests three emerging and
20 necessary orientations for theory, policy, and practice in support of
21 intergenerational education and learning: (1) the need to shift from looking at
22 program inputs and outputs in a unigenerational manner toward an appreciation
23 of how the processes of intergenerational learning and practice are relationally
24 and reciprocally experienced and impactful across generations; (2) the need to
25 shift from looking at intergenerational learning within families to harnessing the
G. Mannion (*)
School of Education, University of Stirling, Stirling, Scotland, UK
e-mail: greg.mannion@stir.ac.uk
#Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016
S. Punch, R.M. Vanderbeck (eds.), Families, Intergenerationality, and Peer Group Relations,
Geographies of Children and Young People 5, DOI 10.1007/978-981-4585-92-7_5-1
1

26 untapped potential for extrafamilial places of intergenerational encounters as
27 contexts of learning; and (3) the need to widen the purposes of intergenerational
28 programs: these will include improved relations between the generations but
29 should also include improved ecosocial wellbeing. Taken together, these three
30 shifts are suggestive of a need for a place-responsive understanding of
31 intergenerational education and learning.
32 AU2
Keywords
33 Baby boomers •Beanpole family structures •Children’s participation programs •
34 Cohesion •Cohort-based approach •Cultural commons •Ecosocial wellbeing •
35 European Network for Intergenerational Learning (ENIL) •Extrafamilial
36 intergenerational relations •Formal school systems •Generation •Geographically
37 oriented perspectives •Intergenerational education •Inclusive and reciprocal
38 process •Intergenerational practice •Intrafamilial multigenerational relations •
39 National and international governmental policy •Non-representational theory •
40 Place-based intergenerational differences •Place-based learning •Radical colle-
41 giality •Sociological studies of family life •Sociology of childhood •
42 Unigenerational focus
43 1 Introduction
44 Policy is now framing intergenerational learning as an important area for develop-
45 ment toward more cohesive and sustainable futures. A nexus of wider concerns and
46 potentialities are set to sustain this drive: the need for members of families, organi-
47 zations, business, education, and other communities to encourage better transfers of
48 knowledge, values, and dispositions in order to address social issues (such as
49 cohesion and migration), and environmental and ecological issues. There is a
50 scarcity of intergenerational education projects on the ground that are sustained
51 over longer periods of time, and even fewer empirical studies of these. It is also only
52 relatively recently that theoretical definitions have been offered. Hence,
53 intergenerational education is very much an emerging field but it does provide a
54 rich seam for further growth in policy and practice, and a new horizon for research.
55 The chapter is structured in the following manner. The first sections set out the
56 selected sources to outline the context, background, and terminology used in
57 intergenerational education research. Intergenerational learning and education can
58 be said to be in a new place but where is the field to go next? Three “shifts”in
59 direction are offered and some key implications considered. These shifts are:
60 1. From looking at inputs and outputs of education as unigenerational toward more
61 relational and reciprocal framings
62 2. From looking at intergenerational encounters as mainly or solely intrafamilial
63 toward realizing that untapped potential for extrafamilial intergenerational
64 contact.
2 G. Mannion

65 3. From seeing the goal as mainly or solely for improved relations between the
66 generations toward an understanding that intergenerational education provides a
67 distinctive opportunity to address wider issues such as ecosocial wellbeing
68 2 Contexts and Terminology
69 Changes in the demographics of the population across the world mean that people
70 are living longer and this is bringing dramatic changes in the nature of family life and
71 community ties. We have seen growing concerns with how different generations
72 transfer capital wealth, care, and other social goods between them (Kohli and
73 Künemund 2003). On the one hand, as Minority World populations age, there are
74 concerns over increased generational niching (for example with some neighbor-
75 hoods becoming “childfree”), which are seen to restrict intergenerational encounters.
76 There has also been a worry over the loss of expertise as older workers retire in
77 increasingly higher numbers. There is a perceived increase in the proverbial gener-
78 ation gap, a process that likely began about 50 years ago (see Sánchez et al. 2007).
79 The aging of some countries’populations, new research on learning in older
80 adulthood, and advances in understandings of the potential contributions of the
81 young to social problems, all mean there are new potentialities for intergenerational
82 encounters and for these encounters to be educational or to result in significant
83 learning. What we notice is that as old forms of intergenerational relation are being
84 extinguished, new intergenerational spaces and relations also gain traction within
85 formal social institutions (such as schools and businesses) and beyond, for example,
86 young people’s political action online and in community-based green activism. With
87 these new practices comes the need to research and understand how
88 intergenerational learning “takes place”and what its various reciprocal effects are.
89 We need a geography of intergenerational education.
90 One area emerging as a goal for intergenerational learning is the desire to address
91 sustainability. At national and supranational levels, as we face new threats of climate
92 change, the loss of tangible and intangible heritage, habitat destruction, fuel and food
93 poverty, calls are made for a reconsideration of the contract between current, past,
94 and future generations. With new threats, the environmental and other injustices
95 done to past, current, and future generations are coming more into view. Across
96 space and time, as more countries face the effects of cross-border and cross-
97 generational environmental and social issues (such as manmade climate change,
98 migration, and terrorism), the need for better and more purposeful intergenerational
99 contact and communication comes to the fore (see Tremmel 2010; Sylvain and
100 Tremmel 2010). Intergenerational encounters are seen as a force for challenging
101 age-segregation (Strom and Strom 2016) and diverse forms of ecosocial injustices
102 (Corcoran and Hollingshead 2014).
103 Understanding places as intergenerationally made, remade, and inscribed lead us
104 to some interesting challenges and tensions. Within and through intergenerational
105 practices and relations come new problems but also some possibilities. Rather than
106 solely looking at intergenerational relations as sites of competition for financial
Intergenerational Education and Learning: We Are in a New Place 3

107 transfers or as a battleground for age-differentiated meaning making, this chapter
108 seeks to extend the field by considering the intergenerational dimensions of learning.
109 In the chapter, learning can be understood as the gaining of new knowledge, skills,
110 and dispositions or values through a potentially reciprocal process occurring across
111 generational divides. Given what we have said about the ecosocial context, and
112 considering social demographics and intergenerational justice, when it comes to
113 intergenerational education and learning, we can say we are in a “new place.”
114 2.1 Generation as a Conceptual Organizer
115 The term generation carries different emphases depending on how you characterize it
116 and each provides a platform for understanding how learning and education can
117 intergenerationally occur. Three possible views can be in operation –often at the
118 same time.
119 (i) For some, “generation”has a predominantly intrafamilial meaning. A within-
120 family definition of generation will lead us to consider the relations among
121 older and younger members of a family; for sure, learning occurs within
122 families and interesting studies are emerging that show how reciprocal learning
123 among siblings and parents can occur in bilingual homes (Gregory 2001) and
124 how learning is mutually experienced among grandparents and the young to
125 promote cultural continuity as well as change (Kenner et al. 2007).
126 (ii) For others, a more societal view of generation is what is meant: generations
127 inhabit different social groups. Within the social view, learning can be seen as
128 occurring through contact between often overly niched social groups within but
129 also outside of the family.
130 (iii) For yet others, a chronological or cohort-based approach carries more leverage
131 (Alanen and Mayall 2001): the so-called baby boomers are, for example, a
132 distinct cohort whose distinct experiences characterize their dispositions to the
133 world. Learning about and from the experiences of diverse family members,
134 from folk outside of our families, and from cohorts of past, current, and future
135 groups can help us notice how intergenerational learning occurs.
136 As we might expect, different ideas of generation lead us to different views on
137 what counts as intergenerational learning and education. For this chapter, no one of
138 these meanings of generation will suffice to capture a person’s intergenerational
139 position or the complete set of opportunities for learning across generational divides.
140 In fact, in any one setting, social, familial, and cohort perspectives on generation
141 seem interconnected and permeable as perspectives on intergenerational education
142 and making meaning. Indeed, for any one person with their set of intergenerational
143 relations, all three forms of generational understanding are possible and with these
144 comes a wide array of possible opportunities for intergenerational education and
145 learning. To allow for this enriched generational perspective, the evidence in this
146 chapter suggests that we need all three lenses on generation to appreciate the
4 G. Mannion

147 contemporary situation and the possible futures. There are encounters between
148 generations at all levels, between social groups, between cohorts over time, and
149 among different age groups at any one time and through these encounters people
150 have the potential to learn. Thus, intergenerational learning occurs within the
151 intimate spaces of family life and outside of them, through everyday lived moments
152 here and now and across a longer arc of time. Hence, we can begin to see how a
153 generationally informed and “geographical”perspective on learning can help us
154 address all kinds of social and ecological issues whilst also highlighting the need for
155 better intergenerational relations.
156 2.2 Intergenerational Practice
157 Intergenerational practice as a term began to be used in the 1980s as projects of
158 various kinds sprung up to help build relationships between generations and facil-
159 itate exchanges of ideas and resources. In early definitions, it has more recently been
160 described as an inclusive and reciprocal process that builds on the resources brought
161 by each generation and having the following aim: “to bring people together in
162 purposeful, mutually beneficial activities which promote greater understanding and
163 respect between generations and contributes to building more cohesive communi-
164 ties”(Centre for Intergenerational Practice, 2001, cited in Beth Johnson Foundation
165 2011). Intergenerational projects often seek to function as “vehicles for the purpose-
166 ful and ongoing exchange of resources and learning among older and younger
167 generations for individual and social benefits”(Hatton-Yeo 2006, p. 2). Kaplan’s
168 (2004) useful typology helps describe intergenerational practice with some forms of
169 intergenerational practice being irregular or once off, while others are more pro-
170 grammatic and involve sustained interactions over time perhaps forming
171 intergenerational communities. While early discourses regarding intergenerational
172 practice focused on one-way exchanges and outcomes, such as efforts to get adults to
173 educate the young or getting the young to support, serve, or assist older members of
174 society; now there is a widespread acceptance of the importance of seeing
175 intergenerational practice as a reciprocal process involving all-age exchanges
176 (Jarrott et al. 2006; VanderVen 1999 AU3,2004; Mannion 2012). The following Gener-
177 ations United definition emphasizes this reciprocity. For them, intergenerational
178 practice involves:
179 activities or programmes that increase cooperation, interaction and exchange between people
180 from any two generations. They share their knowledge and resources and provide mutual
181 support in relations benefiting not only individuals but their community. These programs
182 provide opportunities for people, families and communities to enjoy and benefit from a
183 society for all ages. (Generations United, undated) (cited in Sánchez et al. 2007, p. 35, italics
184 in original).
185 Commentators have worried over the possibility of greater and multiple genera-
186 tion gaps emerging as older and younger people begin to experience forms of
Intergenerational Education and Learning: We Are in a New Place 5

187 segregation from each other and/or from the rest of society. The fear of increased
188 generation gaps and intensified generational niching means governments have begun
189 to react with policy initiatives. National and international governmental policy now
190 more clearly attends to the need to address and improve relations among people from
191 all generations. These policies often center on the keynote idea of the creation of a
192 “society for all ages”(UN), which is seen as an effort to reduce the segregation of
193 society, improve intergenerational ties, and support mutually productive exchanges
194 between generations (Krašovec and Kump 2010; United Nations 2007).
195 2.3 Intergenerational Education and Learning
196 While “intergenerational practice”framed policy at the turn of the millennium, in the
197 last decade, an interest in looking more closely at intergenerational learning has
198 emerged in policy and in a number of academic disciplines. This is because policy
199 makers, practitioners, and academics have realized that learning could play an even
200 greater part in the way inter- and intragenerational relations and practices are
201 sustained and reinvented. Intergenerational learning, however conceived, will be
202 founded to some degree on the sustenance, creation, and expression of relations
203 between generations. In academia and in practice, the move to looking at the
204 relations between generations has been pivotal in a range of disciplines and here
205 the concern for extrafamilial encounters are seen as key (see Vanderbeck and Worth
206 2015). Gerontology, education, sociology, and business studies are the cases in point
207 we look at these later in the chapter.
208 There is now a marked focus on intergenerational learning that has led to a
209 plethora of EU and other international policy and research initiatives. As a result,
210 more robust definitions and some early empirical work on the scope and nature of
211 intergenerational learning and intergenerational education are now available. New
212 networks such as the European Network for Intergenerational Learning (ENIL) (see:
213 http://www.enilnet.eu) have been influential. The European Network for
214 Intergenerational Learning (ENIL) defines intergenerational learning as a partner-
215 ship based on reciprocity and mutuality involving people of different ages in gaining
216 skills, values, and knowledge. For ENIL, intergenerational learning must be
217 multigenerational, planned to achieve purposeful and progressive learning and
218 lead to mutually beneficial learning outcomes (ENIL 2012). Kaplan (2004) empha-
219 sizes that the outcomes will be reciprocally experienced, however, even though one
220 generation may be nominally the provider and another the recipient. Hence,
221 intergenerational learning requires some interaction between the generations and
222 some cross-generational transfers. Notably, it is not necessarily the case that all
223 participating generations will be in receipt of the same inputs or educational pro-
224 graming or that, as outputs they would learn the same thing. Nevertheless, these
225 definitions might only capture some aspects of the significance of intergenerational
226 learning’s impacts.
227 Geographically oriented perspectives are emerging too. Mannion (2012) empha-
228 sizes the reciprocal and place-based elements in intergenerational education.
6 G. Mannion

229 Mannion (2012) notes that much of the earlier commentary and research on
230 intergenerational practice set out to describe practice and to name many diverse
231 outcomes in health, leisure, educational, public service, and personal development
232 (Brown and Ohsako 2003) in order to raise its profile. Since outcomes are so diverse,
233 the challenge has been to discern what is distinctive about intergenerational educa-
234 tion. Drawing on empirical work on diverse programs of intergenerational education,
235 Mannion (2012) offers a more extended and place-sensitized characterization of
236 what is needed for intergenerational learning to potentially occur including an
237 emphasis on the situated or emplaced nature of all learning:
238 Intergenerational education (a) involves people from two or more generations participating
239 in a common practice that happens in some place; (b) involves different interests across the
240 generations and can be employed to address the betterment of individual, community, and
241 ecological well-being through tackling some problem or challenge; (c) requires a willingness
242 to reciprocally communicate across generational divides (through activities involving con-
243 sensus, conflict, or cooperation) with the hope of generating and sharing new
244 intergenerational meanings, practices, and places that are to some degree held in common,
245 and (d) requires a willingness to be responsive to places and one another in an ongoing
246 manner (Mannion 2012, p. 397).
247 Looking at purposes is another way to discern the distinctiveness of
248 intergenerational learning. As demonstrated above, intergenerational education
249 would expectedly aim to promote greater understanding and respect between
250 generations. Without this outcome, almost any form of education that involves
251 different age groups could claim to be “intergenerational.”Mannion (2012) suggests
252 improved intergenerational relations are not sufficient as goals. Taking a situated
253 view, because intergenerational programs are always located some “where”or place,
254 they will generate new meanings, practices, and effects within these places. Like
255 Mannion (2012), Granville and Ellis (1999, p. 236) argue for this expanded view of
256 goals arguing that a truly intergenerational program must show a benefit and value
257 for both generations and “demonstrate an improvement in the quality of life for both,
258 and from that, an improvement in the quality of life for all.”Similarly, Mannion
259 (2012) notices and theorizes how it is within and through place-change processes
260 that intergenerational education occurs. This has implications for what directions
261 intergenerational programming might be considered and is captured below.
262 3 Intergenerational Education and Learning: In a New Place
263 We have seen the reasons why intergenerational learning and education might be
264 considered to have arrived at a new juncture and how policy, practice, and theory
265 might be responding. The next section summarizes the new directions of travel for
266 the field which seem set to reposition it further in a new place. In formal, nonformal AU4,
267 and informal learning, where age-segregation is often still the norm, or where
268 intergenerational contact remains less visible or supported, three emerging shifts or
269 step changes are noticeable. It can be agued that taking each on board will help gain
Intergenerational Education and Learning: We Are in a New Place 7

270 the as yet unrealized benefits of intergenerational contact and learning. These shifts
271 mean intergenerational education and the learning can be better understood,
272 supported, and utilized more effectively for ecosocial wellbeing. Three “shifts”
273 signpost new directions for intergenerational education theory, policy, and practice.
274 The three shifts are:
275 1. From looking at inputs and outputs of education as unigenerational toward more
276 relational and reciprocal framings
277 2. From looking at intergenerational encounters as mainly or solely intrafamilial
278 towards realizing that untapped potential for extrafamilial intergenerational
279 contact
280 3. From seeing the goal as mainly or solely for improved relations between the
281 generations toward an understanding that intergenerational education provides a
282 distinctive opportunity to address wider issues such as ecosocial wellbeing
283 The next sections take these “shifts”in turn explicating some of the rationales and
284 the implications of each. While these three shifts are already in train to some degree
285 across many arenas, they need to be more comprehensively taken on board for a
286 more forthright direction of travel to emerge. As we will see, early responses to the
287 changes in demographic structure were unigenerational, intrafamilial, and concerned
288 with single-issue features (for example lifelong learning in workforces). Now, there
289 is increased interest in taking a more relational view on the role of intergenerational
290 education and learning as part of a wider set of inputs, processes and impacts of
291 societal changes. Indeed, a relational view permeates these shifts in perspective or
292 reframings. This is critical if we are to understand the intergenerational dimensions
293 of sociomaterial practice and learning in many spheres of life and across discipline:
294 inter alia, formal education (at school, college, and in higher education), in sociol-
295 ogy, in gerontology, in issues such as children’s rights and participation, in the
296 workplace, and in wider society as it faces ecological and other challenges.
297 1. Moving from Unigenerational to Intergenerational Framings of Education and
298 Learning
299 The initial response to the changing population profile in research had been to pay
300 closer attention to the experience of older members of society. In social and health-
301 related studies (for example, in health, welfare, and employment) researchers began
302 to look at the experiences of older people (Atchley 1980). More recently, a relational
303 turn is noticeable across many disciplines that had taken a singular or
304 unigenerational focus. Influenced by generational changes in demographics and
305 wider intergenerational exchange, in many disciplines, especially in the last 10–15
306 years, researchers have turned their attention to intergenerational matters. This has
307 been the case for research in education, social policy, welfare, and health. This has
308 been possible, in part, through the application of a generational or cohort approach to
309 the social experience Mannheim (1952). The relational turn is noticeable in many
8 G. Mannion

310 disciplines: gerontology, sociology, and education are the examples we can consider
311 briefly next.
312 Gerontology, unsurprisingly, has focused on the care, welfare, heath, and ongoing
313 contribution to society of aging populations (Hooyman and Kiyak 2008). Until
314 recently, the field did not pay much attention to the relations and processes that
315 conspire to create the social and medical condition and experience of aging. More
316 lately, it has become clear that a more relational account of aging was needed to
317 understand the dynamics of the aging population (Andershed 2006). Renewed
318 interest is now found in, for example, studies of the age-old contract between
319 generations or what encourages members from one generation to give financial
320 and other resources to another (see Albertini and Kohli 2012) but do not take
321 transfers of learning as a possible intergenerational conduit of exchange.
322 The education and learning of older adults has come to the fore in gerontology
323 too. Strom and Strom (2016) challenge false assumptions about the age at which
324 people are considered to have stopped learning, arguing that as people live longer we
325 need to provide for older adult education and not underestimate the abilities of older
326 people and the potential for all generations to engage in reciprocal forms of learning
327 (among older adults, grandchildren, and their grandchildren’s parents). In education,
328 schools are experimenting with intergenerational models (Mannion and Adey 2011;
329 Intergenerational Schools 2014) with multiage classrooms both indoors and out
330 where there is ample opportunity for peer-to-peer learning with adults working as
331 mentors and co-learners.
332 Somewhat separately, in the sociology of childhood, until the late 1990s at least,
333 the focus had been firmly on children and childhood as a life phase. In much of the
334 late 1980s and 1990s, studies of childhood and children’s lives, in the so-called New
335 Sociology of Childhood (Prout and James 1990) sought to understand the experience
336 of children and young people as participants with rights and agency in society in
337 their own right (Qvortrup 1994). As services and research communities sought to
338 respond to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC),
339 Tisdall and Punch (2012) note that in that period binary framings of adult-and-child
340 were used less than critically alongside modernist “mantras”about the need to
341 understand young people’s own cultures, and the need to advance their agency and
342 participation.
343 In response, in sociological research on children’s rights and participation, there
344 are calls to recognize a more relational perspective on pupil voice and children’s
345 views (Mannion 2007; Percy-Smith and Thomas 2010; Wyness 2013). Fielding
346 (1999) suggests that schools in particular should adopt a form of “radical collegial-
347 ity”between pupils and teachers. Mannion (2007) emphasizes that
348 “intergenerational becoming”better characterizes so-called children’s participation
349 programs since adulthood and childhood and intertwined and it is both adults and
350 children who coconstruct the opportunities for participation. Taft AU5(2014), however,
351 warns that children’s positioning as less powerful than adults means we need to
352 attend to this aspect with great care for intergenerational dialogue to be effective.
353 Either way, children’s participation research calls into the frame the need for
Intergenerational Education and Learning: We Are in a New Place 9

354 improved adult-child relations as key to addressing the rights of young people to
355 having a say in matters that affect them.
356 Similarly, in sociological studies of family life, taking a relational, generational,
357 or intergenerational reading has become more significant (see for example, Brannen
358 et al. 2013; Thomson 2014). Looking at the effects of demographic changes in a
359 relational way has led researchers to reappraise all kinds of social exchange prac-
360 tices: for example, sibling relations (Punch and Tisdall 2014; see also Punch AU6, this
361 volume), fatherhood (Brannen et al. 2011), motherhood (Davis 2012), and the
362 longitudinal changes in the intergenerational division of work and care (Brannen
363 et al. 2004).
364 In education itself, as with other disciplines at the outset, a unigenerational and
365 unidirectional view on learning between generations was taken. Brătianu and Orzea
366 (2012) suggest that intergenerational learning was historically a process found
367 mainly in family life through which the older people shared their values, beliefs,
368 and tacit knowledge with younger members. The flow of education was from older
369 to younger, through transmission and cultural reproduction. “Research on
370 intergenerational learning within families includes a range of studies that focus on
371 the transmission of beliefs and practices and the modelling of behaviors from
372 generation to generation”(Gadsden and Hall 1996, p. 1). Brătianu and Orzea
373 (2012) note that new demographic changes particularly in the Minority World
374 have led to the increasing size of the older population and that this will lead to the
375 emergence of the new extrafamilial paradigm of intergenerational learning.
376 The impacts of the aging of the population have been strongly felt in some
377 research on education and learning. Initially, in lifelong learning research on “third
378 age”learners (Dale 2001), older workers (DeLong 2004; Field and Canning 2014),
379 we can see that the early impetus had been to worry over the aging population that
380 was becoming less included and a workforce undergoing loss of experience as
381 workers began to retire in ever larger numbers. Orzea and Brătianu (2012) show
382 how we continue to worry over the effects of the retirement shock wave leading to
383 substantial knowledge losses. Rather than fixing the problem with unigenerational
384 approaches, they see intergenerational learning as a way of stemming the tide of this
385 loss and as a way of maintaining competitive advantage. Research has sought to look
386 at when and how older workers can be retained, retrained, and when and how their
387 experience can be drawn upon.
388 Across disciplines, it is only more recently that an intergenerational lens has been
389 applied to what on the face of it appeared initially to be unigenerational issues. When
390 we consider the effects of the aging population in a relational way, for example, we
391 can notice some ongoing impacts on family life which will have knock-on effects on
392 learning within the family home. Intergenerational studies have shown that an aging
393 population results in altered childcare practices and intergenerational transfers of
394 resources (Hoff 2007). Demographic changes can also lead to challenges to work-
395 force sustainability and development as a larger number of aging knowledgeable
396 workers leave organizations without opportunity to pass on their skills and experi-
397 ence. Mobile workforces and migration mean that there is less face-to-face contact
398 between younger generations and the older population but changes in digital
10 G. Mannion

399 technologies mean people have more opportunity to have social contact with a much
400 wider intergenerational cohorts of relations and friends (see Dhoest 2015). In
401 contrast, formal schooling has been critiqued as being remarkably resistant to
402 working closely with communities or linking in a sustained way with adults without
403 professional educational qualifications. In theoretical debates, commentators now
404 advance the idea that young people’s participation cannot be understood outside of a
405 consideration of place and generation (Mannion 2007). These examples show that
406 taking a multi- and intergenerational lens can help us refresh how we address what
407 might appear to be unigenerational issues.
408 2. Moving from Solely Intrafamilial to Include Extrafamilial Intergenerational Con-
409 tact for Learning
410 In the early industrial age, in Minority World economies the family decreased in
411 size and became “nuclear.”As work patterns changed, this meant fewer family
412 members were living under the same roof or nearby and concerns emerged about
413 the effects of a widening generation gap on social harmony and cohesion. In the
414 postindustrial period, some distinctive effects on intergenerational relations of the
415 changes in demographics were notable. As the population ages, we have begun to
416 notice the rise in “beanpole”family structures (Vern et al. 1995; Brannen 2003) with
417 up to four generations alive at the same time leading to a doubling of the timespan for
418 intergenerational relationships. With these changes, in fact there comes increased
419 opportunity for multigenerational relations across increased intergenerational con-
420 tact lifespans within and outside the home. As family size shrinks and the population
421 ages across the globe, we are also noticing the increasing importance of
422 multigenerational bonds within families (Bengtson 2001) and the increased potential
423 for extrafamilial relations too though this is seen as less well harnessed in practice
424 into the way society creates cohesiveness. The potential for educational response
425 here is immense but is as yet untapped.
426 Extrafamilial intergenerational relations have come to the fore in organizational
427 and business studies as a concern as a result of changes in demographics. In Europe,
428 as society ages, and the baby boomer generation (born after World War II) start to
429 retire (2015–2035), a bulging number of older workers near retirement and exit the
430 workforce. At this time, one worry is that insufficient time and energy will be spent
431 on knowledge sharing between the generations to the detriment of organizations’
432 ability to grow, prosper, and change. In economic analyses, intergenerational learn-
433 ing is seen as an imperative for survival in the world of business and organizational
434 survival. Ropes (2013) suggests that intergenerational learning is one approach to
435 combating loss of knowledge, skills, and values through older worker retirement.
436 Intergenerational learning, he argues can improve an organization’s capacity through
437 stimulating new knowledge and improving work processes.
438 Alongside changes in demographics, the changes in the actual opportunity for
439 intergenerational contact leads commentators to worry over threats to community
440 cohesion and arguments for supporting it (see Oliveira et al. 2013). Some pressures
441 on intergenerational cohesion include the increased need for “eldercare”in general
Intergenerational Education and Learning: We Are in a New Place 11

442 (with fewer people in work to “pay”for their care), the rise of childless couples
443 (leading to concerns for who might care for them as they age), the falling birth rate
444 (which leads to some communities and countries ageing faster than others), interna-
445 tional and urban-to-rural migration (leading to less contact between family members
446 of different generations). These kinds of changes mean that contemporary Minority
447 World beanpole family members are perhaps hard pressed to maintain links as their
448 family structures change and as they become more dislocated across space and time.
449 Multigenerational coresidence in the family home becoming less common or possi-
450 ble as multilocal, multigenerational families become the norm (Hoff 2007). In this
451 light, any program of intergenerational education would need to understand the
452 situated nature of its provisions.
453 Interestingly, a mixed picture emerges about the classic concern over generational
454 gaps and community cohesion. Some analysts are more hopeful than others. As
455 Bengtson (2001) summarizes, intrafamilial multigenerational relations are increas-
456 ingly diverse (through divorce and stepfamily relationships, increased longevity, and
457 increased diversity of intergenerational relationships). As the generations share
458 longer lives together, Bengtson (2001) notices the increasing importance of grand-
459 parents in childcare and overall intergenerational solidarity. Other literature reviews
460 of empirical studies of intergenerational transfers and relationships have not found
461 any substantial weakening of ties in late modern families (Nauck et al. 2009).
462 Intergenerational structures within families are changing for sure but this now
463 means intergenerational relationships outside families can and are becoming increas-
464 ingly important. As a backdrop to these statistical analyses, commentators note that
465 there is no elaborated theory of intergenerational relationships (Nauck et al. 2009)or
466 intergenerational education and learning, but this is an area that is getting some new
467 attention.
468 Like Mannion (2012, see above), Kump and Krašovec (2014) review the rise of
469 intergenerational approaches to learning and they emphasize the extrafamilial
470 aspects. They suggest intergenerational learning programs are now appearing in
471 various forms in schools, community organizations, hospitals, and beyond. Kump
472 and Krašovec (2014) note that intergenerational learning is connected to community
473 education since it involves active participation for a common good. Intergenerational
474 learning, like community education, can be social and collaborative, and be dedi-
475 cated to mutual empowerment, community renewal, intergenerational solidarity, and
476 social equity. It will often set out to advance social cohesiveness and inclusion,
477 citizenship, and generate new forms of social capital. Nonetheless, we have some
478 way to go before the policy and practice fields are adequately sensitized to the
479 benefits of extrafamilial intergenerational contact for education and learning.
480 3. Moving from the Goal of Improved Intergenerational Relations to Wider
481 Ecosocial Wellbeing in Places
482 Intergenerational learning and education remain untapped as ideas in many
483 realms for researchers and policy makers alike. As we have seen, the argument is
484 that intergenerational contacts can lead to education and learning in ways that offer
12 G. Mannion

485 scope in addressing some key social policy “wicked problems”including social
486 cohesion and inclusion. With a more place-responsive approach, intergenerational
487 education is also apt as an approach to addressing issues other than just the social.
488 Many issues are both socially relational and ecologically significant (for example,
489 the issues of climate change or the effects of desertification on migration). From the
490 analysis presented here, the main argument is that intergenerational education and
491 learning remains needs to be understood as an explicit approach to issues that are
492 themselves both ecologically and socially relational.
493 A distinctively geographical reading of intergenerational education and learning
494 can help us here. On the one hand, we see the limitations of seeing an age segregated
495 society as a problem to be solved unigenerationally and in ways that fails to take
496 account of context and place. From the perspective of the health and wellbeing of
497 humans and their inhabited locales, intergenerational contact can be seen as part of a
498 wider movement towards ecosocial wellbeing (see Mannion 2012). The rationale
499 from this perspective is that “aging population opens new opportunities for numer-
500 ous people who otherwise think and function differently, but who are united in the
501 common goal of benefiting the community and its human and natural resources”
502 (Kump and Krašovec 2014, p. 167). Attending to the need for more sustainable
503 relations between people and places has been the goal of environmental education
504 since at least the 1960s. Stapp AU7(1969, p. 34) “suggest that environmental education is
505 aimed at producing a citizenry that is knowledgeable concerning the biophysical
506 environment and its associated problems, aware of how to help solve these problems,
507 and motivated to work toward their solution.”Many in environmental education
508 indicate that intergenerational encounter can be an antidote to what some have
509 described as a sense of deplacement (Orr 1994) as inhabitants. Early environmen-
510 tally focused intergenerational education looked at how the younger learner
511 experiencing an age-segregated program might go on to influence and educate
512 their families about environmental issues (Uzzell et al. 1994).
513 More recent studies of intergenerational forms of environmental education
514 research have found empirical evidence that participants from all generations can
515 benefit through learning via intergenerational encounters, reciprocal inputs and out-
516 comes, and mutual engagement in places. Intrafamilial intergenerational learning is
517 coming under the research spotlight (Jessel 2009). New “material geographies”look
518 at how artifacts, green cultures, and participatory citizenship inform research on the
519 political ecology of household and everyday sustainability (Gorman-Murray and
520 Lane 2012). In the home, relations and learning between generations are seen as key
521 to green lifestyle growth. Bowers (2009) has argued for some time that younger and
522 older people need more interact to pass on and sustain what he calls the “cultural
523 commons”or the “activities, knowledge, skills, and patterns of mutual support that
524 do not rely on a monetized economy”(Bowers 2009, p. 196). He suggests that it is in
525 the local cultural commons that we learn alternatives to the consumer dependent
526 lifestyle that he sees as undermining community and degrading the Earth’s natural
527 systems. There are inevitable tensions and debates about what kinds of knowledge
528 gets passed on to whom and to what ends; not all intergenerational learning will
Intergenerational Education and Learning: We Are in a New Place 13

529 support improved human and ecological wellbeing to the same extent and some may
530 degrade it.
531 Other evidence too supports the view that intrafamilial intergenerational learning
532 will likely be insufficient to address larger social and ecological challenges. Payne’s
533 (2010) study of “green”families looked to find out if the intimate space of family life
534 could provide an effective form of environmental education. Payne noted, however,
535 that even though values, practices, and dispositions to being green were being passed
536 on between the generations that the members of these families appeared to be
537 swimming subversively against the tide of wider formidable pressures of consumer
538 culture. Collins (2015) rightly notes that we should not expect the youth of today to
539 tackle the challenges of sustainability alone. Within the family but also, critically,
540 outside of it, she argues, we should help engage adults and young people separately
541 and together since there are likely to be exchanges in both directions. However, there
542 are a few nationally supported programs of education emerging that securely build
543 on this realization. Exceptions in research include Mannion and Adey’s(2011) study
544 of a school-linked community garden and Peterat and Mayer-Smith’s(2006)
545 intergenerational farm study and Gilbert and Mannion’s(2014) study of the role of
546 stories in connecting people of all ages with their local natural and cultural heritage.
547 Through taking a geographical and environmental reading, these three studies all
548 argue for the potential for intergenerational practice and education to address
549 ecosocial wellbeing within and through improved intergenerational contact and
550 relations. Mannion (2012) and Krašovec and Kump (2010) recommend we begin
551 to “think differently”about social and environmental policy since the improvement
552 of welfare in the community and the sustainability of its human and natural resources
553 are in fact joint goals. One might say that all place-based education can have an
554 intergenerational practice dimension and vice versa.
555 4 Schools as Places of Intergenerational Learning?
556 There are numerous research-informed benefits to taking an intergenerational
557 approach to formal schooling. The possible advantages of creating an
558 intergenerational dimension of formal schooling would accrue to pupils, the older
559 participants, their relations among them, and the wider community too. Whether it be
560 gardening, literacy, computer learning, or local history projects, intergenerational
561 school-linked projects of many kinds, all show the linked nature in which they can
562 improve outcomes for pupils, engage learners in settings beyond classrooms, and
563 improve interage community involvement. The evidence on community gardening
564 projects, for example, shows enhancements in academic learning for pupils (Wil-
565 liams and Dixon 2013), while other research has shown that relations among the
566 teachers, pupils, parents, and wider community are enhanced (Mayer-Smith
567 et al. 2009). Mannion et al. (2010) exemplify this linked synergy in their analysis
568 of place-based intergenerational projects. They showed that the way in which
569 meanings were generated within the curriculum making processes were changed
14 G. Mannion

570 through taking an intergenerational and place-responsive approach. They summa-
571 rized what happened in one school thus:
572 There was a realisation that there was an untapped potential in community people, visiting
573 facilitators and pupils. Teachers could see new possibilities within new curriculum framings
574 for connecting coursework to these approaches in ways that could meet teaching and
575 learning outcome imperatives in locally specific ways. Pupils noted that community mem-
576 bers brought new authentic, situated, perspectives and had locally valuable knowledge
577 bases. We found that intergenerational place-based learning was quite materially-focused,
578 hands-on, sensory in nature and engendered opportunities for encounters with living and
579 changing places inhabited by people, now, in the past and to be inhabited differently in the
580 future. The activities allowed pupils to be connected with local places in new ways through
581 encounters with living things (domesticated animals as well as wildlife) and non-living
582 things (eg water in the burn, archaeology). These experiences brought many pupils to reflect
583 on how they live now and how they might live in new ways in a place (Mannion et al. 2010,
584 p. 32).
585 As the case of intergenerational school-linked gardening shows us, the outcomes
586 for pupil learning, community cohesion, and other impacts can be intimately
587 connected. To date, these interlinked synergies have not always been captured
588 since research often focuses on one or other of the participating generations or one
589 or other of the different kinds of outcomes. Since inputs, outcomes and effects are
590 more likely reciprocal when schools move to engage with curriculum making in an
591 intergenerational way, there is a need for research to inform when and how schools
592 might be supported to take such an approach across the different spheres of school
593 life: in class teaching, in the extended curriculum, in governance groups, and
594 beyond. The experiments in full-blown intergenerational schools in practice are at
595 an early stage of development but are showing signs of positive impact
596 (Intergenerational Schools 2014). Mannion et al. (2010) noted how in one secondary
597 taking an intergenerational turn was a big step change for a traditionally organized
598 school. Krašovec and Kump (2010) warn that the participation of the older adult in
599 schooling will work better if they receive adequate training for taking up these roles
600 (as volunteers or otherwise). School leaders that understand these issues and are
601 encouraged through policy and inspection and monitoring regimes will be more
602 likely to experiment with a more coconstructive approach to curriculum making with
603 parents, community members within local places. Further policy shifts and supports
604 are, therefore, needed before teachers will readily harness outside agencies of other
605 generations to be found in community groups but as contexts for learning beyond
606 classrooms are becoming more expected as the norm, intergenerational practice
607 seems set to feed more directly into the core business of school-based learning.
608 For the moment, however, we have still some way to go before we can say
609 intergenerational education can take a firm hold in formal school systems.
Intergenerational Education and Learning: We Are in a New Place 15

610 5 Toward Place- and Generation-Responsive Curriculum
611 Making
612 Taken together, the evidence from diverse disciplines is strongly in support of the
613 view that intergenerational approaches to learning and education are needed, viable,
614 and worthwhile. While early literature sought to describe intergenerational practices
615 and record effects, new theories of intergenerational education are now finding
616 expression in research (Mannion 2012). Theory can be employed to express how
617 learning occurs through intergenerational contact and what the purposes of such
618 learning might be. Some advances on setting out a theory of intergenerational
619 education have been made; some rest on links between theories of learning and
620 theories of place and how these connect to address intergenerational concerns.
621 Geographical and philosophical theories of place can help us here.
622 Mannion and Adey (2011) note that any learning curricula are made within the
623 process of the production of relations between adults and children alongside place
624 change processes. For Mannion and Gilbert (2015), the links between
625 intergenerational practice and place are understood within a relational ontology
626 where materials, places, practices, and people are intermeshed. It is the idea of the
627 “eventfulness”of all the tangible elements of a place (Casey 1998) that makes
628 learning possible. It is our embodied experience and responsiveness to differences
629 found in places and the way places act back upon us reciprocally that results in
630 emergent learning. For Casey, places are events emplacing things in complex ways
631 with diverse effects. “It is an issue of experiencing a place differently, experiencing
632 its eventfulness otherwise”(Casey 1998, p. 337). Mannion and Gilbert (2015) build
633 on that fluid and relational view of place to suggest intergenerational learning
634 occurs when people of more than one generation respond to generational differences
635 found within a given place. Mannion and Gilbert (2015) thus bring together various
636 strands of intergenerational theory (Vanderbeck 2007; Mannion 2012), other theo-
637 ries of place (Casey 1993), place-based learning (Somerville 2010), and embodied
638 experience (Grosz 2005) to derive two premises for intergenerational education:
639 (a) The first is that people from different generations and places are reciprocally
640 enmeshed and coemergent.
641 (b) The second is that people from different generations learn from each other
642 through making embodied responses to differences found in places.
643 Mannion (2012) builds on these premises to argue that intergenerational peda-
644 gogies should encourage learners to be responsive not only to intergenerational
645 differences but also to the differences found in the situated places they seek to
646 inhabit. Within a relational ontological view, participating generations need to be
647 responsive to each other and to a changing and contingent environment in which we
648 are enmeshed.
649 Given the many threats to knowledge formation, social cohesion, and the sus-
650 tainability of the Earth, environmental education provides a framing for
651 intergenerational education and vice versa. Place-based education and
16 G. Mannion

652 intergenerational education can be seen as two sides of the same process. This work
653 will involve educators, learners, and their collaborators in actively seeking out place-
654 based intergenerational differences. Mannion (2012) and Ross and Mannion (2012)
655 suggest working in nonrepresentational ways to do this. Nonrepresentational theory,
656 they suggest, invites us to employ more experimental approaches to understanding,
657 imparting, and documenting the world and our lived experiences of
658 it. Nonrepresentational approaches build on an ontology of becoming where people,
659 plants, animals, and materials are not static but changing in relation. Because of this,
660 we can never adequately represent in research or education. Many forms of research
661 and curriculum making are seen as being too extractive and reductive of experience
662 and in various ways fail to capture the material, embodied, affective richness of
663 everyday life (Jones 2008). Instead, nonrepresentational approaches seek to invent,
664 perform, and create new relations. In a nonrepresentational place- and generation-
665 responsive curriculum, differences are to be found in our relations with place and
666 with others through our embodied activities within families, in the public sphere, in
667 schools or colleges, and in organizations. But reciprocally responding to differences
668 found among people-in-place will generate a starting point for a viable
669 intergenerational curriculum. Put simply, response making comprises how we
670 grow and change as a person and this, in part, happens through intergenerational
671 relations within our lived experiences of an ever-changing place (Mannion 2012).
672 Place-responsive forms of intergenerational education may therefore be critical for
673 the creation of more inclusive, sustainable forms of ecosocial flourishing.
674 6 Conclusion
675 Employing an interdisciplinary approach, this chapter has explored the history,
676 definitions, and theorizations of intergenerational education and learning. The chap-
677 ter shows how interdisciplinary understandings of intergenerational practice and
678 learning and its sociomaterial context can help us notice three shifts required to
679 tap into its potential to address ecosocial wellbeing. The relatively unconnected
680 fields of inquiry (health, geography, economics, sociology, gerontology, and educa-
681 tion) have thus far noticed that the concern over the aging population has initially
682 sought to address issues that are distinctively pertinent to the older adult population
683 themselves: their health, economic transfer, their employability and presence at
684 work, and the need to keep learning, socially included and active. But, as the chapter
685 has shown, these fields have each moved toward a more relational view albeit in
686 diverse ways. In the end, each discipline realizes that unigenerational fixes are not
687 seen as effective as intergenerational ones. Reciprocal outcomes for all participants
688 in multigenerational contact are also seen as relevant. Extrafamilial intergenerational
689 encounters offer untapped potential to address more than the sustainability of
690 business and the drain of older generations as they retire. Looking to address solely
691 the needs of older adults –through initiatives around active aging or the university of
692 the third age –also misses the potential for more engaged reciprocal forms of
Intergenerational Education and Learning: We Are in a New Place 17

693 learning across all ages and generations. Similarly, looking to address children’s
694 needs to participate without addressing intergenerational dimensions will be remiss.
695 Looking at intergenerational contacts, contracts, and encounters as potential
696 learning experiences leads to the recognition of a stronger contemporary need to
697 reorient public institutions (schools and beyond) to allow for greater opportunities
698 for formal, nonformal, and informal intergenerational education and learning. A
699 consideration of the purposes of intergenerational education indicates the scope for
700 addressing wider ecological and social ills within formal, nonformal, and informal
701 learning. This means that intergenerational practice and learning should be a growth
702 area within all kinds and places of education since many of these could be vital to the
703 creation of more inclusive, cohesive, and sustainable ways of life. There are many
704 yet-to-be-imagined forms of intergenerational encounter and education. These have
705 the potential to make the shared ecosocial sphere life enhancing for all. If we are to
706 use education to address contemporary concerns, we must start by enabling partic-
707 ipants from all generations to be more reciprocally responsive to each other and to
708 the places they collectively inhabit.
709 AU8References
710 Alanen, L., & Mayall, B. (2001). Conceptualizing child-adult relations. London: Psychology Press.
711 Albertini, M., & Kohli, M. (2012). The generational contract in the family: An analysis of transfer AU9
712 regimes in Europe. European Sociological Review.
713 Andershed, B. (2006). Relatives in end-of-life-care. Part 1: A systematic review of the literature
714 from the five last years, January 1999-February 2004. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 15,
715 1158–1169.
716 Atchley, R. C. (1980). The social forces in later life: An introduction to social gerontology.AU10
717 Wadsworth Publishing Company.
718 Bengtson, V. L. (2001). Beyond the nuclear family: The increasing importance of multigenerational
719 bonds. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(1), 1–16.
720 Beth Johnson Foundation. (2011). A guide to intergenerational practice. Stoke-on-Trent: Beth
721 Johnson Foundation. Downloaded April 2016: http://www.emil-network.eu/wp/wp-content/
722 uploads/Publication-A-Guide-to-Intergenerational-Practice-Beth-Johnson-Foundation.pdf
723 Bowers, C. (2009). Educating for a revitalization of the cultural commons. Canadian Journal of
724 Environmental Education, 14(1), 196–200.
725 Brannen, J. (2003). Towards a typology of intergenerational relations: Continuities and change in
726 families. Sociological Research Online,8(2). Downloaded April 2016: http://www.
727 socresonline.org.uk/8/2/brannen.html
728 Brannen, J., Moss, P., & Mooney, A. (2004). Working and caring over the twentieth century:
729 Change and continuity in four generation families. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
730 Brannen, J., Parutis, V., Mooney, A., & Wigfall, V. (2011). Fathers and intergenerational transmis-
731 sion in social context. Ethics and Education, 6(2), 155–171.
732 Brannen, J., Mooney, A., & Wigfall, V. (2013). Fatherhood across the generations: Case studies of
733 Polish, Irish and white British men. In E. Oinonen & K. Repo (Eds.), Women, men and children
734 in families). Tampere: Tampere University Press.
735 Brătianu, C., & Orzea, I. (2012). Intergenerational learning as an entropy driven process. Manage-
736 ment & Marketing, 7(4), 603–612.
737 Brown, R., & Ohsako, T. (2003). A study of intergenerational learning programmes for schools
738 promoting international education in developing countries through the International Baccalau-
739 reate Diploma Programme. Journal of Research in International Education, 2(2), 151–165.
18 G. Mannion

740 Casey, E. (1993). Getting back into place: Toward a new understanding of the place-world.
741 Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
742 Casey, E. (1998). The fate of place: A philosophical history. London: University of California Press.
743 Collins, R. (2015). Keeping it in the family? Re-focusing household sustainability. Geoforum, 60,
744 22–32.
745 Corcoran, P. B., & Hollingshead, B. P. (Eds.). (2014). Intergenerational learning and transforma-
746 tive leadership for sustainable futures. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.
747 Dale, L. (2001). Learning in the third age. In D. Aspin, J. Chapman, M. Hatton, & Y. Sawano (Eds.),
748 International handbook of lifelong learning (pp. 777–798). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer.
749 Davis, A. (2012). Modern motherhood: Women and family in England 1945–2000. Manchester:
750 Manchester University Press.
751 DeLong, D. W. (2004). Lost knowledge: Confronting the threat of an aging workforce. Oxford:
752 Oxford University Press.
753 Dhoest, A. (2015). Connections that matter: The relative importance of ethnic-cultural origin, age
754 and generation in media uses among diasporic youth in Belgium. Journal of Children and
755 Media, 9(3), 277–293.
756 European Network for Intergenerational Learning. (2012). European network for intergenerational
757 learning report on intergenerational learning and volunteering. EU Education and Culture
758 DG. Downloaded April 2016: http://www.enilnet.eu/Report_on_Intergenerational_Learning_
759 and_Volunteering.pdf
760 Field, J., & Canning, R. (2014). Lifelong learning and employers: Reskilling older workers. In
761 S. Harper & K. Hamblin (Eds.), International handbook on ageing and public policy
762 (pp. 463–473). London: Edward Elgar Publishing.
763 Fielding, M. (1999). Radical collegiality: Affirming teaching as an inclusive professional practice.
764 Australian Educational Researcher, 26(2), 1–34.
765 Gadsden, V. L., & Hall, M. (1996). Intergenerational learning: A review of the literature, LRFP-96-
766 07. National Center on Fathers and Families, University of Pennsylvania.
767 Gilbert, J., & Mannion, G. (2014). Stories in the Land: In the tracks of the Highland drovers. AU11
768 Scottish Local History, Spring(88), 32–41.
769 Gorman-Murray, A., & Lane, R. (Eds.). (2012). Material geographies of household sustainability.
770 Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
771 Granville, G., & Ellis, S. W. (1999). Developing theory into practice: Researching intergenerational
772 exchange. Education and Ageing, 3, 231–248.
773 Gregory, E. (2001). Sisters and brothers as language and literacy teachers: Synergy between siblings
774 playing and working together. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 1(3), 301–322.
775 Grosz, E. (2005). Time travels: Feminism, nature, power. Durham: Duke University Press.
776 Hatton-Yeo, A. (2006). Intergenerational practice: Active participation across the generations.
777 Stoke-on-Trent: Beth Johnson Foundation.
778 Hoff, A. (2007). Patterns of intergenerational support in grandparent-grandchild and parent–child
779 relationships in Germany. Ageing and Society, 27(05), 643–665.
780 Hooyman, N. R., & Kiyak, H. A. (2008). Social gerontology: A multidisciplinary perspective.
781 Pearson Education.
782 Intergenerational Schools. (2014). Annual report 2013–2104. Ohio: The Intergenerational Schools.
783 Downloaded April 2016: http://www.tisonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/The-
784 Intergenerational-Schools-2013-2014-Annual-Report.pdf
785 Jarrott, S. E., Gigliotti, C. M., & Smock, S. A. (2006). Where do we stand? Testing the foundation
786 of a shared site intergenerational programme. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 4(2),
787 73–92.
788 Jessel, J. (2009). Family structures and intergenerational transfers of learning: Changes and
789 challenges. Beyond Current Horizons. On-line, Retrieved 22 Jan 2016 from: http://www.
790 beyondcurrenthorizons.org.uk
791 Jones, O. (2008). ‘True geography [ ] quickly forgotten, giving away to an adult-imagined
792 universe’. Approaching the otherness of childhood. Children’s Geographies, 6(2), 195–212.
Intergenerational Education and Learning: We Are in a New Place 19

793 Kaplan, M. (2004). Toward an intergenerational way of life. Journal of Family & Consumer
794 Sciences, 96(2), 5–9.
795 Kenner, C., Ruby, M., Jessel, J., Gregory, E., & Arju, T. (2007). Intergenerational learning between
796 children and grandparents in East London. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 5(3),
797 219–243.
798 Kohli, M., & Künemund, H. (2003). Intergenerational transfers in the family: What motivates AU12
799 giving. In Global aging and challenges to families (pp. 123–142).
800 Krašovec, S. J., & Kump, S. (2010). The concept of intergenerational education and learning. In
801 N. Ličen & J. Gubalov (Eds.), Intergenerational learning and education in later life
802 (pp. 15–26). Ljubljana: University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Arts.
803 Kump, S., & Krašovec, S. J. (2014). Intergenerational learning in different contexts. In B. Schmidt-
804 Hertha, S. J. Krasovec, & M. Formosa (Eds.), Learning across generations in Europe
805 (pp. 167–177). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
806 Mannheim, K. (1952). The problem of generations. In P. Kecskemeti (Ed.), Essays on the sociology
807 of knowledge (pp. 276–323). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
808 Mannion, G. (2007). Going spatial, going relational: Why ‘listening to children’and children’s
809 participation needs reframing. Discourse, 28(3), 405–420.
810 Mannion, G. (2012). Intergenerational education: the significance of reciprocity and place. Journal
811 of Intergenerational Relationships, 10(4), 386–399.
812 Mannion, G., & Adey, C. (2011). Place-based Education is an intergenerational Practice. Children,
813 Youth Environments (Special Issue on Place-based Education), 21(1), 35–58.
814 Mannion, G., & Gilbert, J. (2015). Place-responsive intergenerational education. In R. Vanderbeck
815 & N. Worth (Eds.), Intergenerational space (pp. 228–241). London: Routledge.
816 Mannion, G., Adey, C., & Lynch, J. (2010). Intergenerational place-based education: Where
817 schools, communities, and nature meet. Stirling: University of Stirling for Scottish Centre for
818 Intergenerational Practice. Downloaded April 2016 from: http://generationsworkingtogether.]
819 org/resources/intergenerational-place-based-education-where-schools-communities-and-nature-meet
820 Mayer-Smith, J., Bartosh, O., & Peterat, L. (2009). Cultivating and reflecting on intergenerational
821 environmental education on the farm. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 14(1),
822 107–121.
823 Nauck, B., Steinbach, T., & Steinbach, A. (2009). Intergenerational relationships. Working Paper,
824 No. 116. German council for social and economic data. Downloaded April 2016 at: www.
825 ratswd.de
826 Oliveira, A. L. (Ed.). Promoting conscious and active learning and ageing. Coimbra University AU13
827 Press.
828 Oliveira, A. L., Coimbra Vieira, M., Pedroso De Lima, M., Alcoforado, L., Mairos Ferreira, S., &
829 Ferreira, J. A. (Eds.). (2013). Promoting conscious and active learning and aging: How to face
830 current and future challenges? Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra.
831 Orr, D. W. (1994). Earth in mind: On education, environment, and the human prospect.
832 Washington, DC: Island Press.
833 Orzea, I., & Brătianu, C. (2012). Intergenerational learning in ageing societies. In F. Chapparo
834 (Ed.), Proceedings of the 9th international conference on intellectual capital, knowledge
835 management and organizational learning (pp.193–200). Bogota 18–19 Oct 2012. Reading:
836 Academic Publishing International.
837 Payne, P. G. (2010). Moral spaces, the struggle for an intergenerational environmental ethics and the
838 social ecology of families: An “other”form of environmental education. Environmental Edu-
839 cation Research, 16(2), 209–231.
840 Percy-Smith, B., & Thomas, N. (Eds.). (2010). A handbook of children and young people’s
841 participation. London: Routledge.
842 Peterat, L., & Mayer-Smith, J. (2006). Farm friends: Exploring intergenerational environmental
843 learning. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 4(1), 107–116.
844 Prout, A., & James, A. (1990). A new paradigm for the sociology of childhood? Provenance,
845 promise and problems. In A. James & A. Prout (Eds.), Constructing and reconstructing
20 G. Mannion

846 childhood: contemporary issues in the sociological study of childhood (pp. 7–33). London: The
847 Falmer Press.
848 Punch, S., & Tisdall, K. (Eds.). (2014). Children and young people’s relationships: Learning across
849 majority and minority worlds. London: Routledge.
850 Qvortrup, J. (1994). Childhood matters: An introduction. In J. Qvortrup, M. Bardy, G. Sgritta, &
851 H. Wintersberger (Eds.), Childhood matters: Social theory, practice and politics (pp. 1–24).
852 Avebury: Aldershot.
853 Ropes, D. (2013). Intergenerational learning in organizations. European Journal of Training and
854 Development, 37(8), 713–727.
855 Ross, H., & Mannion, G. (2012). Curriculum making as the enactment of dwelling in places.
856 Studies in Philosophy and Education, 31(3), 303–313.
857 Sánchez, M., Butts, D. M., Hatton-Yeo, A., Henkin, N. A., Jarrott, S. E., Kaplan, M., Martínez, A.,
858 Newman, S., Pinazo, S., Sáez, J., & Weintraub, A. P. C. (2007). Intergenerational programmes:
859 Towards a society for all ages. Social Studies Collection No. 23. Barcelona: The “la Caixa”
860 Foundation. Retrieved May, 1, 2016, from http://www.fundacionlacaixa.com/StaticFiles/
861 StaticFiles/b1d9d404d98e6110VgnVCM1000000e8cf10aRCRD/es/Llibre23_en.pdf
862 Somerville, M. (2010). A place pedagogy for ‘global contemporaneity’.Educational Philosophy
863 and Theory, 42(3), 326–344.
864 Stapp, W. B. (1969). The concept of environmental education. Environmental Education, 1(1),
865 30–31.
866 Strom, R. D., & Strom, P. S. (2016). Grandparent education and intergenerational assessment of
867 learning. Educational Gerontology, 42(1), 25–36.
868 Sylvain, D., & Tremmel, J. (Eds.). (2010). Générations equitables. Paris: Connaissances et Savoirs.
869 Taft, J. (2014). “Adults talk too much”: Intergenerational dialogue and power in the Peruvian
870 movement of working children. Childhood, 22(4), 460–473.
871 Thomson, R. (2014). Generational research: Between historical and sociological imaginations.
872 International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 17(2), 147–156.
873 Tisdall, K. M., & Punch, S. (2012). Not so ‘new’? Looking critically at childhood studies.
874 Children’s Geographies, 10(3), 249–264.
875 Tremmel, J. (2010). Intergenerational justice –Scope and limits. Intergenerational Justice Review,
876 1,28–29. The Foundation for the Rights of Future Generations (FRFG) Uberursel.
877 United Nations. (2007). Intergenerational solidarity: Strengthening economic and social ties.
878 New York: United Nations, Social Policy and social Development Division.
879 Uzzell, D., Davallon, J., Fontes, P. J., Gottesdiener, H., Jensen, B. B., Kofoed, J., Uhrenholdt, G., &
880 Vognsen, C. (1994). Children as catalysts of environmental change: Report of an investigation
881 on environmental education. Final report. Brussels: European Commission.
882 Vanderbeck, R. M. (2007). Intergenerational geographies: Age relations, segregation, and
883 re-engagements. Geography Compass, 1(2), 200–221.
884 Vanderbeck, R., & Worth, N. (2015). Intergenerational space. London: Routledge.
885 VanderVen, K. (2004). Intergenerational theory in society: Building on the past, questions for the
886 future. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 2(3–4), 75–94.
887 Vern, L., Bengtson, V. L., Warner Schaie, K., & Burton, L. M. (Eds.). (1995). Adult
intergenerational relations: Effects of societal change. New York: Springer.
Williams, D. R., & Dixon, P. S. (2013). Impact of garden-based learning on academic outcomes in
schools synthesis of research between 1990 and 2010. Review of Educational Research, 83(2),
211–235.
Wyness, M. (2013). Children’s participation and intergenerational dialogue: Bringing adults back
into the analysis. Childhood, 20(4), 429–442.
Intergenerational Education and Learning: We Are in a New Place 21

Index Terms:
Baby boomers 4
Beanpole family structures 11
Children’s participation programmes 9
Cohesion 11
Cohort based approach 4
Cultural commons 13
Eco-social wellbeing 12–14
European Network for Intergenerational Learning (ENIL) 6
Extra-familial intergenerational relations 11–12
Formal school systems 14–15
Generation 4–5
Geographically-oriented perspectives, intergenerational education 6
Inclusive and reciprocal process 5
Intergenerational practice 5–6
Intra-familial multigenerational relations 12
National and international governmental policy 6
Non-representational theory 17
Place-based intergenerational differences 17
Place-based learning 15
Radical collegiality 9
Sociological studies of family life 10
Sociology of childhood 9
Uni-generational focus 8

Author Queries
Query Refs.: 5-1 322255_0_En
Query Refs. Details Required Author's response
AU1 Please check if your affiliation(s) and,
if applicable, that/those of your co-
author(s) are correct and complete.
AU2 Suggested keywords are taken from
the index terms. Please confirm if this
is fine.
AU3 Please provide details for VanderVen
(1999) in the reference list.
AU4 Please check the edit to the sentence
"In formal, nonformal..." is fine.
AU5 Taft (2015) has been changed to Taft
(2014) as per the reference list. Please
check if okay.
AU6 Please provide chapter title for Punch.
AU7 Stapp et al. (1969) has been changed
to Stapp (1969) as per the reference
list. Please check if okay.
AU8 Please cite Oliveira in text.
AU9 Please provide volume number and
page range for Albertini and Kohli
(2012).
AU10 Please provide publisher location for
Atchley (1980), Gadsden and Hall
(1996), Gorman-Murray and Lane
(2012), Hooyman and Kiyak (2008).
AU11 Please provide volume number for
Gilbert and Mannion (2014).
AU12 Please provide publisher name and
location for Kohli and Künemund
(2003).
AU13 Please provide year and publisher
location for Oliveira.
Note:
If you are using material from other works please make sure that you have obtained the necessary
permission from the copyright holders and that references to the original publications are included.