Narratives in intergenerational communication: Collaborating with the other

Kiełkiewicz‐Janowiak, Agnieszka

doi:10.1515/psicl-2012-0004

Cited by 2 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies made use of three storytelling media: oral, written, and digital, most often in combination. Almost all studies (24 out of 26 or 92.3%) primarily utilized oral storytelling (Anderson et al 2016;Anstadt 2009;Bartlett 2005 Eight studies (30.8%) employed reminiscence (Anderson et al 2016;Anstadt 2009;Bartlett 2005;DeSouza 2007;Chonody and Wang 2013;Flottemesch 2013;Gaggioli et al 2014;Kiełkiewicz-Janowiak 2012), while another eight (30.8%) utilized storytelling approaches not described by traditional life review or reminiscence methods, including theatre and drama (Anderson et al 2016;Thomson 2009), scrapbooks and boxed artifacts (Davis et al 2008), fictional storytelling and character development (Stanton and Tench 2003), memoirs (Zucchero 2010), interviews (Chonody and Wang 2013), community-foci stories (Fletcher and Mullett 2016), and metaphors (Nussbaum and Bettini 1994).…”

Section: Study Design and Methods A) Storytelling Mediamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sixteen of 26 studies (61.5%) reported the age of older participants (Anderson et al 2016;Bartlett 2005;Chippendale and Boltz 2015;Chonody and Wang 2013;Davis 2011;Davis et al 2008;DeSouza 2007;Hewson, Danbrook, and Sieppert 2015;Kiełkiewicz-Janowiak 2012;Loe 2013;Pasupathi, Henry, and Carstensen 2002;Sehrawat et al 2017;Stanton and Tench 2003;Tabuchi and Miura 2015;Tabuchi and Miura 2016;Zucchero 2010). Ages ranged from 50 years old (Stanton and Tench 2003) to 89 years old (Davis et al 2008).…”

Section: Participant Profiles A) Participant Demographics By Age Cohortmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Eleven studies (42.3%) reported the age range of younger participants (Anderson et al 2016;Bartlett 2005;Davis et al 2008;DeSouza 2007;Fletcher and Mullett 2016;Kiełkiewicz-Janowiak 2012;Loe 2013;Pasupathi, Henry, and Carstensen 2002;Sehrawat et al 2017;Stanton and Tench 2003;Tabuchi and Miura 2015). Ages ranged from three years old (Stanton and Tench 2003) to 62 years old (Anderson et al 2016).…”

Section: Participant Profiles A) Participant Demographics By Age Cohortmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…beliefs, [and] values" (Lyons et al 2019, 3). In Euro-American demography, recognized cohorts include the Silent Generation (1928-1945), Baby Boomers (1946-1964, Generation X (1965-1980), Millennials (1981-1996), and Generation Z (1997-2012 (Dimock 2019). In tune with outcomes associated with intergenerational initiatives defined more broadly-including enhanced social cohesion across generations, positive health outcomes, and reduced ageism (DeSouza 2007;Stanton and Tench 2003)-IGS initiatives have been found to benefit older participants by improving health and wellbeing (Whitehouse and George 2009), increasing community involvement (Stanton and Tench 2003), and reducing isolation (Zucchero 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite such promise, however, deficient or undertheorized intergenerational interventions may facilitate misunderstanding and miscommunication between participants by perpetuating ageist stereotypes and beliefs (Kiełkiewicz-Janowiak 2012). Moreover, researchers, program coordinators, and policymakers face key implementation challenges including vastly heterogeneous intergenerational research purposes, methods, settings, target populations, outcomes, and study designs (Martins et al 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

What is Intergenerational Storytelling? Defining the Critical Issues for Aging Research in the Humanities

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intergenerational storytelling (IGS) has recently emerged as an arts- and humanities-focused approach to aging research. Despite growing appeal and applications, however, IGS methods, practices, and foundational concepts remain indistinct. In response to such heterogeneity, our objective was to comprehensively describe the state of IGS in aging research and assess the critical (e.g., conceptual, ethical, and social justice) issues raised by its current practice. Six databases (PsycINFO, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, AgeLine, and Sociological Abstracts) were searched using search terms relating to age, intergenerational, story, and storytelling. Peer-reviewed, English-language studies conducted with participants residing in non-clinical settings were included. One thousand one hundred six (1106) studies were initially retrieved; 70 underwent full review, and 26 fulfilled all inclusion criteria. Most studies characterized IGS as a practice involving older adults (> 50 years old) and conventionally-aged postsecondary/college students (17–19 years old). Typical methodologies included oral and, in more recent literature, digital storytelling. Critical issues included inconsistently reported participant data, vast variations in study design and methods, undefined key concepts, including younger vs. older cohorts, generation, storytelling, and whether IGS comprised an intentional research method or a retrospective outcome. While IGS holds promise as an emerging field of arts- and humanities-based aging research, current limitations include a lack of shared data profiles and comparable study designs, limited cross-cultural representation, and insufficiently intersectional analysis of widespread IGS practices. To encourage more robust standards for future study design, data collection, and researcher reflexivity, we propose seven evidence-based recommendations for evolving IGS as a humanities-based approach to research in aging and intergenerational relations.

show abstract