Introduction
Older-adult grassroots organisations have been credited with fulfilling an essential role in enabling the group-based engagement of ageing populations (Kuokkanen Reference Kuokkanen2018; Taguchi et al. Reference Taguchi, Tadaka, Iwata and Arimoto2022). This is whether they are stand-alone voluntary organisations or larger multi-level bodies involving a network of older groups and volunteers. Such organisations can incorporate a range of functions across social, civic and cultural spheres, and serve to enhance older people’s community engagement (Music et al. Reference Music, Large, Charlebois and Mayhew2022), information access (Johnston Reference Johnston2016) and advocacy (Flores and Samuel Reference Flores and Samuel2019). Although differing in size and mission, grassroots groups have also provided informal on-the-ground leadership on major ageing agendas, including promoting active ageing and combating loneliness (Manthorpe et al. Reference Manthorpe, Harris and Mauger2016; Milsom Reference Milsom2018; Sixsmith et al. Reference Sixsmith, Horst, Simeonov and Mihailidis2022). However, in the face of rapid digital transformation, concerns have emerged about the capacity of older people’s organisations to continue to enable group-based engagement (Fischl et al. Reference Fischl, Lindelöf, Lindgren and Nilsson2020; Kropczynski et al. Reference Kropczynski, Aljallad, Elrod, Lipford and Wisniewski2021). How these organisations approach digitalisation in communication, mobilisation and engagement itself is likely to be instrumental in determining their future efficacy and relevance. Nevertheless, consideration of older-adult grassroots groups has been markedly absent from scholarly debates on digitalisation and ageing (Reuter et al. Reference Reuter, Scharf and Smeddinck2021; Xing et al. Reference Xing, Kelly, Rogerson and Waycott2023), with little understanding of their role in the evolving digital culture of ageing.
To address extant gaps in research and policy, the aim of this article is to explore the impact of the digital transformation on the capacity of membership-based older adult grassroots organisations to support group-based multifaceted engagement in later life. Reflective of what Reuter et al. (Reference Reuter, Xu, Iwarsson, Olsson and Schmidt2023) labels the conditions for later-life digital participation, the article seeks to answer the following research question: What organisational, individual and societal factors influence the efficacy and equity of digital approaches with respect to communication and mobilisation for older adult group-level engagement?
We focus on one case study organisation – Active Retirement Ireland – an Irish, national, membership-based organisation that is run by older volunteers for its members. It promotes opportunities for older adults to self-organise and engage in social, physical and cultural activities, and aims to serve as a representative voice for Ireland’s ageing population. The organisation comprises 500 local Active Retirement Associations (ARAs) and a three-level support structure. This involves older adult voluntary member-based committees that operate at local (leadership in each ARA: chair; secretary; treasurer), regional (nine regional committees; regional development officers [RDOs]) and national levels (national steering board). This is augmented by a national ARI professional secretariat (four paid positions, including CEO). The organisation uses a multi-modal approach to communication (postal; telephone; email), with local ARA secretaries being the primary information conduit between higher organisational levels and individual members.
Active Retirement Ireland provides a valuable case with international relevance for three reasons. First, with a nationwide spread of local groups and a membership of 21,500 older people, ARI offers a means of capturing a national picture of diverse practices and needs regarding communication, and digital technologies at the grassroots level. Second, ARI provides a means to gather perspectives on negotiating challenges in engagement and digitalisation from both autonomous voluntary groups in local communities (ARAs) and a national non-profit representative organisation (ARI secretariat; national board). Third, the combination of voluntary leadership roles at all levels, and several employed positions at a national level, is a structure that is shared by many groups internationally (e.g. SPF Seniorerna (Swedish Pensioners’ Association), Ældre Sagen (DaneAge Association, Denmark), Elakeliitto (Pension Association, Finland), CEMOA (Spanish Confederation of Older People’s Organisations) and Générations Mouvement (Generations Movement, France). Within the general non-profit literature, this structure has been shown to generate particular tensions amidst digitalisation (Modena et al. Reference Modena, Pinotti and Pirandello2021) – tensions which have not been examined for older people’s organisations.
Study background
The Covid-19 pandemic rendered visible the fragility of group-based engagement for older-adult organisations. In addition to social distancing measures disrupting in-person group mobilisation, the accelerated adoption of digital technologies to counter these measures combined with low levels of digital literacy and access amongst some older volunteers halted group activities in many countries (Seifert Reference Seifert2020; Seifert et al. 2021; United Nations (UN) 2020). This resulted in the exclusion and hollowing-out of grassroots organisations, and a stifled peer capacity to support individuals in the pandemic’s early stages (D’cruz and Banerjee Reference D’cruz and Banerjee2020). Although a burgeoning literature recognises older people’s diverse digital capabilities, and the various ways they engaged with technologies during the pandemic (Hvalič-Touzery et al. Reference Hvalič-Touzery, Laznik and Petrovčič2024; Wilson et al. Reference Wilson, Gates, Vijaykumar and Morgan2023; Zhao et al. Reference Zhao, Kelly, Rogerson and Waycott2022), concerns about these organisations’ deepening digital exclusion (Heponiemi et al. Reference Heponiemi, Virtanen, Kaihlanen, Kainiemi Päivikki Koponen and Koskinen2024) and their underdeveloped communications infrastructures have emerged. So too have questions about the longer-term capacity of grassroots voluntary activities to fully replenish (Principi et al. Reference Principi, Lucantoni, Quattrini, Di Rosa and Socci2022).
Studies have examined later-life digital participation as an extension of civic and leisure engagement, with a strong focus on older adult digital content creation, as individuals or as members of specific-media groups (Gallistl and Nimrod Reference Gallistl and Nimrod2020; Reuter et al. Reference Reuter, Scharf and Smeddinck2021; Tang et al. Reference Tang, Ding and Zhou2023). Notwithstanding these insights, research on how digitalisation has been integrated in the communications and mobilisation activities of general older-adult grassroots organisations is poorly developed (Reuter et al. Reference Reuter, Scharf and Smeddinck2021; Seifert Reference Seifert2020). The broader literature on civil society organisations does highlight the potential, and the risks, associated with digitalisation. Hall et al. (Reference Hall, Schmitz and Dedmon2020) found that digitalisation allowed new types of networking between organisations and their membership, facilitating faster feedback, greater mobilisation and a dispersal of power. Conversely, other studies have found that digitisation can contribute to weakened, more remote inter-group connections and passive participation (Komarčević et al. Reference Komarčević, Dimić and Čelik2017; Modena et al. Reference Modena, Pinotti and Pirandello2021). Digital transformations have also been noted to serve as disruptive change processes in organisations heavily reliant on volunteers (Jong and Ganzaroli Reference Jong and Ganzaroli2024). In such cases, it is the widespread diffusion of digital technologies across the culture of a broader social ecosystems that triggers change in an organisation’s operations and its core mission.
At the individual level, there is extensive research on how digital exclusion challenges participation (Nowakowska-Grunt et al. Reference Nowakowska-Grunt, Dziadkiewicz, Olejniczak-Szuster and Starostka-Patyk2021). These exclusions stem from: health and physical factors (Wilson et al. Reference Wilson, Gates, Vijaykumar and Morgan2023); psychological barriers and low digital acceptance (Di Giacomo et al. Reference Di Giacomo, Ranieri, D’Amico, Guerra and Passafiume2019); infrastructural constraints (Glowacki et al. Reference Glowacki, Zhu, Bernhardt and Magsamen-Conrad2021); and knowledge barriers, due to insufficient digital training or support (Rolandi et al. Reference Rolandi, Sala, Colombo, Vaccaro, Guaita, Gao and Zhou2022). Moreover, while a substantial rise in internet use amongst older people was expected during the pandemic, this rise has not materialised (König and Seifert Reference König and Seifert2023), suggesting more entrenched patterns of digital disadvantage. These factors represent the intertwinement of individual-level and socio-structural lags (Loos and Ivan Reference Loos, Ivan, Gao and Zhou2023) and are likely to influence a group’s capacity to communicate and mobilise in digitised societies. However, again, such factors have not been explored for group-based engagement.
Concerns around older-adult organisations and digitalisation are not isolated from long-standing sustainability challenges confronting these sorts of groups. First, older adult organisations can struggle to retain and recruit members and volunteers due to the changing nature of retirement, competing time demands and age-related declines (Nafziger et al. Reference Nafziger, Strong and Tarlau2023; Russell, Storti et al. Reference Russell, Storti and Handy2022; Zapata Campos et al. Reference Zapata Campos, Barinaga, Kain, Oloko and Zapata2023). Second, these organisations’ ability to communicate with, and sufficiently represent, younger cohorts and diverse heterogeneous sub-groups has also been questioned (Buffel and Phillipson Reference Buffel and Phillipson2018). Third, older adult grassroots organisations can experience increased pressure from funders to professionalise (and digitalise) their voluntary remit and staffing to boost effectiveness (Cavicchi and Vagnoni Reference Cavicchi and Vagnoni2023; Russell, Skinner et al. Reference Russell, Skinner and Fowler2022; Winterton et al. Reference Winterton, Warburton, Clune and Martin2014) and enhance relevance to contemporary systems and heterogeneous populations. Even though digital transformations can influence the constitution and amelioration of such challenges (Jong and Ganzaroli Reference Jong and Ganzaroli2024), the degree of this influence on older-adult organisations is thus far unclear.
The significance of current research gaps becomes particularly evident in the context of a pervasive culture of digital participation. Engaging digitally is integral in daily life, empowering people in ways not seen previously (Reuter et al. Reference Reuter, Xu, Iwarsson, Olsson and Schmidt2023; Tacchi Reference Tacchi, Horst and Miller2020). Digital engagement has been recognised as an increasingly important means of exercising citizenship rights with respect to civil, political and social domains – domains which Marshall (Reference Marshall1963a) proposed as interdependent social citizenship pillars. Digital engagement has been framed both as another participation pillar of citizenship and as a cross-cutting enabler of participation rights in contemporary societies (European Union 2021). Such framings are particularly pertinent to older-adult organisations, given that these groups’ formal voluntary functions and informal cultures often strive to support collective multifaceted participation. Within European political agendas, digitalisation is seen as strengthening a fairer, more ‘social’ Europe. Commitments have been made to manage a just digital transition for all, with the EU Pillar on Social Rights enshrining digital rights (e.g. digital communications). However, despite the Council of Europe (2020) highlighting the widening digital divide for grassroots groups five years ago, there have been few concrete efforts to recognise grassroots groups’ needs within digital social inclusion agendas, or their potential to support a just grassroots digital transition amongst older people (Fernández-Ardèvol and Grenier Reference Fernández-Ardèvol and Grenier2024; Reuter et al. Reference Reuter, Scharf and Smeddinck2021; Valokivi et al. Reference Valokivi, Carlo, Kvist and Outila2023). This paucity of effort is problematic given that participating in life-enhancement and interest programmes (Wilson et al. Reference Wilson, Gates, Vijaykumar and Morgan2023) – like those offered by grassroots organisations – can impact older adults’ digital capability development. It is arguably more problematic given that such organisations provide the essential communicative actions of discussion, deliberation and dialogue (as stipulated by Harding Reference Harding2023) that nurture active agency practices in social and consumer spheres – particularly in the era of digitalisation.
Methodology
Approach and design
This analysis employs Marshall’s (Reference Marshall1963b) social citizenship as a conceptual frame. Marshall’s three-constituent pillars of civil, political and social rights are considered interdependent and underpinned by an equality of status. In this article, concern focuses on the equality of grassroots organisations’ opportunities to support their members’ full participation. While acknowledging the critiques of Marshall’s conception – with respect to normative, welfare-orientated views – social citizenship is employed for its theoretical flexibility in exploring later-life engagement (Higgs Reference Higgs1995; Twine Reference Twine1992). While digital engagement may function as a distinct participation pillar, digitalisation is primarily considered here as a mediator of civil, political and social equality, where digitalisation may enable greater communication/engagement (Pirhonen et al. Reference Pirhonen, Lolich, Tuominen, Jolanki and Timonen2020) and/or intensify stratification (Marshall and Katz Reference Marshall and Katz2016). The three pillars are practically understood in this analysis as social connectedness, information access/dissemination and advocacy domains.
Data is drawn from a multi-level mixed-method interdisciplinary study, which harnessed in-depth qualitative and representative quantitative techniques. The design enabled a focus on ARI’s three organisational levels and the lived experience insights of volunteers and others negotiating digitalisation and facilitating/performing engagement routines. The design also allowed for the examination of the positionality of grassroots organisations within the wider European and national context, to illuminate the intersection of broader demographic, organisational and digital transformations. Applying a multi-level and multi-stakeholder design has been noted to reveal a more comprehensive view of complex digital challenges amidst other demands (Brunetti et al. Reference Brunetti, Matt, Bonfanti, De Longhi, Pedrini and Orzes2020; Mariani et al. Reference Mariani, D’Aleo, Mortati, Rizzo, Gray, Hekkert, Forlano and Ciuccarelli2024).
Work-package (WP) 1: European and national trends and attitudes
First, four European expert interviews (three online; one in person) were conducted with stakeholders to examine policy and innovation trends pertaining to digitalisation, grassroots groups and engagement. Interviewees comprised senior personnel from within European-level ageing and carer civil society groups, a related European Commission Directorate General and a European-wide ageing-technology innovation programme.
Second, a social media analysis investigated the prevalence, interaction and perceptions of national non-profit organisations (including ARI) within the Irish ageing voluntary sector in X (Twitter). The analysis also examined local ARAs’ presence within X. Informed by computational linguistic approaches, posts were filtered using the X application programming interface (API) in combination with specifically designed strategies, including location filtering and a manual annotation of posts. To capture data on national organisations, a list of all major organisations was used to identify their followers (22,397), from which a sample of 1,000 conversations during April 2023 were selected, and their posts (5,253) extracted. Posts’ feedback (reposts/replies/likes) were also analysed. To capture ARA data, posts were filtered by the ARA registration list, with posts and the profiles of those who posted them extracted. Users and posts were manually annotated into broad categories (users: individuals, non-profits, public institutions; post-types: social; information; political debate/opinion). Where possible, manual annotation was used to analyse the sentiment (positive, negative, neutral) in posts.
WP 2: ARI organisational context
Eleven semi-structured telephone/virtual interviews were conducted across ARI’s three leadership levels, to examine digitalisation in ARI’s communications and mobilisation in the context of ARI’s organisational structure and sustainability. Interviewees comprised three national actors (CEO; communications; voluntary national board member), four older volunteer RDO and four older volunteer local-level ARA chairs. Key topics were: (1) ARAs supporting engagement; (2) digitalisation in ARI and ARA engagement; (3) national/regional/local communication and mobilisation capacities; (4) ARI and ARA social, civic and political functions; (5) external perceptions and future directions.
WP 3: individual-level collective engagement
Two strands explored ARA members’ group-based engagement and the role of everyday technologies therein. A 69-item self-completion questionnaire was distributed to ARA members, with questions on: bio-demographic details; living conditions; ARA involvement; group-based social connectivity; information access;; digital literacy; and digital communications enablers, barriers and preferences. While most items were purposely designed, digital literacy was measured using the Digital Capital scale (Ragnedda et al. Reference Ragnedda, Ruiu and Addeo2020; ). Nine hundred surveys were distributed based on a stratified-clustered random sample. Then 150 ARAs were selected from a total 500-group national list and stratified by Ireland’s four provinces based on the proportion of ARAs within each province. The ARA secretaries were posted a survey pack including six surveys, a return envelope and a cover letter requesting survey distribution to six members. Instructions were provided to avoid distribution bias requesting consideration of gender (a 50:50 split), age (55–65 years; 66–years; 76 plus) and low, moderate and high digital proficiency. In total, 464 surveys were returned, yielding a 52% response rate. Respondents included 369 women and 83 men (12 respondents returned missing information), ranging from 55–95 years (mean age: 75 years; SD: 7.1 years), with 19 per cent living in cities, 26 per cent in towns, 53 per cent in a village/rural countryside and 2 per cent in ‘other’ locations. Also, 153 respondents provided consent for interview follow-up.
Second, in-depth interviews were conducted with 40 survey respondents, selected based on a proportional breakdown of low, moderate and high proficiency, followed by geographic location and gender (50:50). The final sample comprised 24 women and 16 men, ranging from 63–88 years old (mean: 75 years; SD: 6.1 years). Interviews explored in-depth engagement routines across social connectivity, information access and dissemination, and technology-use barriers and facilitators. The interview involved three parts. Open narration, adapted from the Biographic-Narrative Interpretative Method (Wengraf Reference Wengraf2001), captured participants’ narratives regarding engagement and technology. Rowles’ (Rowles Reference Rowles2008) adaption of Hägerstrand’s (Reference Hägerstrand1970) life-path was used as a visual/graphical means of exploring engagement, exclusion and technology-use trajectories across time. A semi-structured guide probed on a person’s narrative and covered the main survey topics, including reliance on ARAs and technology for engagement and future preferences for both. Four interviews were conducted online, 32 by telephone and 4 in person.
WP 4: analysis and triangulation
All interviews were recorded and transcribed. Each set of interviews was analysed separately, using a reflexive thematic approach (Braun and Clarke Reference Braun and Clarke2006). A preliminary coding framework was constructed based on a small number of interviews. For members’ interviews, this involved six transcripts drawn from participants of high-, medium- and low-technology proficiency. The resulting framework was then agreed and refined by one researcher while analysing the remaining interviews. The process was iterative and incorporated the identification and amalgamation of descriptive codes into themes of meaning. The emerging themes were regularly deliberated upon, and outlines with illustrative quotes supported a collaborative analysis. We used NVivo 20 to support the data analysis.
Survey data were analysed in two ways. Descriptive statistics were used to characterise individuals’ engagement across the three spheres, and their reliance on and satisfaction with digital technology for engagement, as well as to assess preferences with respect to ARI/ARA communication and future organisational development. Pearson’s chi-squared tests and Student’s t-tests were used to examine differences based on gender and digital literacy/technology use levels. All analyses were performed using Stata 15.
To support the synthesis of findings across WP strands, and across all WPs, a nested case-study integrative analysis approach was employed. While the links between work tasks and WPs helped support this approach, the research team followed a multi-level triangulation process that was guided by the aim of the analysis and its broad social citizenship conceptual understanding (Saunders et al. Reference Saunders, Currie, Virani and De Grood2022). All datasets were first analysed separately and to completion. Analyses were then drawn together comparatively, with integration being performed at the level of findings’ themes. Themes were first identified in relation to each research strand. Where there were multiple strands, the findings for each strand within a WP were then brought together and comparatively analysed (e.g. WP3 survey and interview findings), providing a separate analysis for each level. All findings were then compared across levels. Both shared and divergent themes were noted, as were the nuanced differences within themes. Periodic meetings and engagements were held with the full team, to discuss preliminary themes and emerging patterns. This helped to contextualise WP-specific findings and identify the shared and divergent themes.
Findings for this article were also presented to a sample of study participants within a Translation Forum – a deliberative-democracy-style workshop. This process helped validate the findings and sought additional contextual perspectives, thereby enriching interpretation. Forum attendees comprised 13 study participants, including from ARI’s professional secretariat and its national board (n = 3), RDOs (n = 5) and older adult interviewees (n = 5). The four-hour Forum involved preliminary findings presentations and a discussion to co-identify key messages. Participatory learning and action (PLA) techniques were used to help ensure representation of voice amongst the various participant groups.
Study limitations
There were four main limitations to this study. These included: the small number of international expert interviews; the focus on X in the social media analysis and no other applications such as Facebook (due to public access to data); and the low number of male survey respondents and the lack of ethnic diversity in the study samples (both reflecting the ARA membership).
Findings
To situate findings on ARI, insights on European and national trends are first presented. This is followed by ARI members’ digital profiles; ARI’s communication and mobilisation practices; communication/mobilisation challenges; communication preferences; and future sustainability and functions. Identified themes were robust across all research participants, but divergences in perspectives and nuances in emphasis within theme are noted as necessary.
European and national digital engagement trends
European stakeholder interviewees noted the opportunities and challenges that arose for older people’s organisations from the magnitude of the digital transformation. Technology’s potential to assist groups in addressing information gaps and fragmentation amidst complex networks was highlighted as particularly valuable, as the following quote from a high-level stakeholder reveals:
I think [digitalisation] will help them organise actually… because organising is not easy, eh. I mean if your… networks, it’s one-on-one relationships, and you know, and if you haven’t talked with someone for six months, you know, it becomes looser again. The technology can help… make this web more dense… I think there would be more connections, and wider connections. (European-Stakeholder-In-01)
However, stakeholders also spoke about significant challenges that have yet to be overcome. This included digital literacy, individual motivation and lack of meaningful integration of technology solutions within people’s lives. It also included how digital communication can give rise to information overload. Overall, the most frequently cited challenge related to the lack of bottom-up involvement in agenda setting and technology development, as is illustrated by the following quote:
But the problem we see is it’s essentially supply driven, okay? Rather than demand driven… which means obviously they [technologies] fall short, or give completely off-target [assistance]. So we can certainly improve that. (European-Stakeholder-In-03)
The national social media analysis indicated that while there was a reasonable presence of ageing-related national representative organisations on X, with 21,879 posts in all, the level of engagement with these groups was relatively low. Just 10 posts had more than 100 reposts, with only one having more than 1,000. Replies and likes were posted in the main by public institutions, other non-profit organisations or independent professionals. Older adults and the general population were less likely to follow these organisations, demonstrating the professional nature of exchanges. By and large, replies were overwhelmingly positive, with little disagreement. The findings suggest that this national-level interaction is characterised by a professional network that holds common interests and values. In contrast, the local ARA dataset indicated a low representation of local groups on X, with only 764 posts overall. Primarily, these posts came from third-party bodies promoting events organised by ARAs. Only ten posts received more than five reposts. Overall, the findings demonstrate how there is little direct contact between national organisations and ARAs, and older adults on X, and the professional outward-facing nature of these networks and exchanges.
ARA members’ digital engagement profile
With reference to Table 1, high rates of internet access and training completion were evident amongst surveyed ARA members and volunteers. However, internet-use frequency, digital proficiency and working-life technology exposure suggests a more diverse digital profile.
Table 1. Digital profile of ARA member survey respondents
* Notes: Digital proficiency is derived from the ability to browse the internet, the ability to check information sources on the internet, the use of communication tools, and sharing information, as measured by the Digital Capital scale (Ragnedda et al. Reference Ragnedda, Ruiu and Addeo2020).
This variation in members’ general digital technology access and experience is reflected in members’ use of and satisfaction with technology for domain-specific engagement in social connectedness, information access/dissemination and advocacy.
Seventy-five per cent of respondents used technology to support social connectivity, with 76 per cent of this group satisfied with this use. Digital proficiency significantly affected (p ≤ 0.05) technology use, where 69 per cent reported high proficiency, and 16 and 15 per cent reported intermediate and elementary levels, respectively. Some older interviewees highlighted how technologies made distance less of a barrier, whereas others spoke about engaging in online classes, and valuing a hybrid approach combining virtual and in-person interactions. Yet, most technology use for collective social connectivity centred on coordinating in-person activities. Information provided only online was a barrier to social connectivity (11 per cent), but transportation (23 per cent) and lack of relevant activities (19 per cent), money (16 per cent) and time (12 per cent) were the main barriers.
Sixty-five per cent of respondents used digital technologies for information access/dissemination, with 80 per cent of this group satisfied with this use. Again, there was a significant relationship (p ≤ 0.05) between proficiency and technology use: 75 per cent reported high digital proficiency, while only 10 per cent reported elementary levels. Examples of information accessed and shared included news and welfare entitlements. Nevertheless, 36 per cent of respondents said that information only available online was the most significant challenge to engaging in this sphere, followed by not knowing where to find information online (20 per cent). Older interviewees spoke about how the amount of online information could be overwhelming and meant, for some, an aversion to accessing online forums.
Just 19 per cent of respondents reported using digital technologies for participating in advocacy, but once again the majority (74 per cent) were satisfied with this use. Digital proficiency again had a significant association (p ≤ 0.05) with technology use (for women): 86 per cent reported high proficiency compared to just 9 per cent with elementary proficiency. Interviewees spoke about how technology was an increasingly integral part of mobilisation, particularly in relation to involving younger age groups. Digitalisation was not seen as a significant barrier to participating in advocacy, with under a tenth of respondents citing the availability of only online activities (9 per cent) and poor access to digital communications (4 per cent) as challenges. Instead, barriers related to the lack of relevant activities (24 per cent) and advocacy networks (14 per cent).
Overall, digital technology use in engagement was driven by those with high digital proficiency, masking digital divides. Across the three domains, technology was also used less for collective engagement, and in more instrumental ways.
Current communication/mobilisation practices
Participants from all ARI organisational levels highlighted the need for a flexible multifaceted communication strategy. A combination of traditional and digital modes was evident throughout ARI, even if the depth of digital communications became shallower at local levels. In particular, ARI-national participants described how they felt that digitalisation could enhance rather than replace traditional communications. Likewise, some ARA members and volunteers praised digital applications (e.g. WhatsApp) that were used within local groups, and how these applications facilitated immediate information-sharing for those who used technology. This is explained in the following quote from an ARA member:
Anything that’s coming up [for our group], we get an alert on the WhatsApp group…. And you reply, and it’s all done on the WhatsApp group and I just don’t know what we’d do without that. (ARA-Member-In-33)
The transition from a reliance only on post and telephone communications was rapid within ARI, further accelerating during Covid-19. Some ARI-national participants, such as the one quoted below, spoke about digitalisation broadening the organisation’s communications scope, and its contact with local ARAs:
We would have gone from sending out 12, 14, 20 letters a year, to sending out a handful, and supplementing that with emails. We’ve gone from not being able to contact groups by email, to predominantly relying on email to contact everybody… (ARI-National-Secretariat-In-08)
All study informants noted the importance of efforts to support the integration of digital technology in communication and mobilisation practices. National-level examples included the provision of technical assistance during large-scale online meetings, and time-bound projects where peer-to-peer training was a key component, reflecting ARI’s ethos of being an organisation run by older people. Nevertheless, and notwithstanding the ad hoc hosting of training initiatives by individual ARAs, an ARI-wide digital training programme was not provided. However, a range of voluntary informal practices were evident at local levels. Those in local leadership, such as this ARA secretary, spoke about attempting to tailor communication modes for all members’ capacities:
I have a number of people and I’ll send them a text message telling them what’s on… Now I [know] some of my friends have groups, they…meet them in person because they don’t have the skills. They don’t pick up the phone to read a text or that, so she has to go to mass to meet some of her group…so we [secretaries] all have to communicate with the wider group in a different way and we kind of if we take on the role, we tend to try to suit them and try to engage them… (ARA-Member-In-36)
Communication and mobilisation challenges
Four challenges impacted communication and mobilisation. This has implications for long-standing organisational characteristics, as well as emerging national and local gaps in digital preparedness.
First, National, regional and local participants all raised ARI’s complex structure as a core challenge to enacting multi-modal communications. The multiple layers of ARI’s voluntary boards, committees and levels of dialogue challenged communication practices. Concerns were expressed about how gaps and bottlenecks could appear across ARI’s multi-level voluntary structure, leading to information loss. Nationally, a primary challenge concerned how information flowed downstream from the national office to local secretaries, with no direct contact with volunteer members. This is illustrated by the following quote from an ARI national volunteer:
It’s the structure of communication [that’s a challenge]. The difficulty I think is getting to our members because of gaps in that structure… We communicate with the secretary of each ARA and so how much information goes from each secretary to the membership [is the question]. (ARI-National-Volunteer-Board-In-01)
For ARA members, it was communication patchiness that was highlighted. Participants, including the one quoted below, noted that not all information received by secretaries seemed to be acted upon; some details may be lost, or decisions may be taken regarding what, and with whom, to communicate:
One of the big problems you have…is a letter comes down to the secretary and the secretary…decides not to do anything about it… So all of a sudden, the information isn’t coming through like… (ARA-Member-In-56)
However, member concerns also focused on the sometimes stilted, one-way nature of ARI information flows, where the sense of exchange and connection to ARI’s higher levels was sometimes limited.
Second, challenges regarding data security and deficits created inefficiencies at all organisational levels, inhibiting the organisation’s capacity to reach and mobilise members. Participants, particularly those in regional and local-leadership roles, noted data protection regulations and uncertainty around when members’ contact details could be used. Deficiencies in keeping information up to date were also seen as a burden within a multi-level voluntary organisation, where local memberships and leadership roles constantly change.
Third, structural barriers were identified by national, regional and local participants as constraining digital communication. In many cases, concerns focused on the lack of training, and the lack of telecommunications infrastructure where unreliable internet/mobile signals remained significant problems in underserved rural places. In other cases, participants described the lack of access to affordable technologies, especially for those on fixed incomes. This RDO describes how both challenges limit ARI’s ability to advance digital communications:
The infrastructure is a massive issue and we’ve massive pockets across the country that have weak mobile signals and practically zilch internet… The other barriers will be equipment for older people, will be again the cost of internet if people want to pursue this themselves. (ARI-National-Secretariat-In-06)
The ARI-national participants spoke about a digital-access divide, and how this inequity became more pronounced during Covid-19, when those with technology access discovered new ways to interact, while those without became increasingly isolated:
[During Covid-19] there were those out there, the ones that were in the privileged position of having the digital equipment, [for whom] it’s opened up a whole new world of possibilities. However…those who didn’t have that opportunity or that privilege… Those people are probably now at this stage more isolated than they were before the pandemic. (ARI-National-Secretariat-In-08)
Fourth, just as tailoring local communications was an important informal practice for multi-modal communication, local participants highlighted the challenge of accounting for the range of members’ digital preferences and needs. As such, secretaries sometimes struggled to appropriately convert communications, as this quote explains:
I can’t remember what I did but I sent a message out and within a matter of minutes I had two or three people sending me a text message back, ‘What the hell are you on about?’… because sometimes it’s very difficult to put over what you want to put over, you know you’ve got a big letter and you’re trying to condense that into a text…. (ARA-Member-In-0467)
There was a strong acknowledgement that the diversity of preferences and needs stemmed from a range of broader lifecourse and societal factors that again exposed inequalities of opportunities and exacerbated challenges for older members and their local ARAs. These factors reflected both ARA members’ cohort-specific and their ageing-related positionalities. Lack of exposure to digital technology during working life and lack of relational support to enable digital participation were considered by local ARA members and other informants to challenge digital engagement. However, a discriminatory disadvantage – again, strongly structural in nature – was also considered to drive challenges in catering for diverse digital preferences and needs. In this regard, many national, regional and local participants raised the lack of targeted support for older people, and the indirect and direct forms of ageism that unfairly restricted older people’s participation spheres (e.g. online ticket sales and support services) and/or excluded them altogether from technological innovation due to systemic deficits. This older woman describes how technology development processes overlook older people’s needs and preferences, prioritising those of younger users:
I think they’re (digital devices) all really developed for whizz kids… I don’t think there’s enough emphasis in trying to encourage older people to start from the beginning and gradually get into it. (ARA-Member-In-029)
Communication and mobilisation preferences
Preferences for how engagement should be communicated and mobilised were discussed in response to these challenges. Preferences were diverse and illustrative of the transitional state of ARI’s communications.
Especially amongst professional national participants, there was a preference for the increased use of digital communication tools. However, as this individual describes, while digital options may be more efficient, they were neither universally accepted nor problem-free within an organisation of older volunteers and members:
Without effective communication, I can’t carry out the role… The only options that I had in terms of communication with people were through traditional platforms… For example [in the case of one person], there was no way of maintaining effective communication with that person other than like a phone… (ARI-National-Secretariat-In-03)
Some older ARA members nevertheless appreciated the convenience of digital meetings, as this quote from an ARI local volunteer reveals:
Now there are two meetings a year which of course…took place by Zoom. The funny thing is the regional meetings were more successful over Zoom than they actually were in person. (ARI-Local-Volunteer-Chair-In-11)
However, cconnectivity issues and the desire for personal interaction meant that all national, regional and local participants noted that traditional methods like in-person meetings and phone calls must always have a role.
At the regional level, RDOs and local leadership recognised the potential for greater connection across and within regions, and the missed opportunities that resulted from current fragmentation. Where these regional engagements have already occurred, participants praised their capacity to enhance horizontal communication amongst local groups of older people, both those that have taken place in person and those that have taken place virtually.
At the membership level, preferences reflected the diverse ARA digital profile. There was a reasonably even split between those respondents who chose traditional postal mail and those who chose email, with smart and SMS applications evident but less preferred (see Table 2). Older interviewees spoke about the valuable immediacy of email, but also noted that for many there remained a substantial ‘know-how’ deficit:
People don’t want to wait a week to receive a letter – they want to send an email straightaway… So, I know with our group there’s very few people that even know how to do that. So I think a lot of it is education, or getting new members in that know how to use technology. (ARA-Member-In-59)
Table 2. Preferences for how ARI should communicate with members
** Notes: The total N represents the total number of given answers by individuals. Respondents could express more than one preference.
This link to previous knowledge and education was directly evident in the survey respondent preferences. Higher levels of internet use and educational attainment were both significantly related to preferences for email (Tables 3 and 4). Moreover, being in a younger age group, and having someone to assist with technology, was also significantly associated with a preference for email (Tables 5 and 6). Finally, those who indicated that they wanted to communicate with ARI by non-digital means only (40 per cent of survey respondents) were also more likely (p ≤ 0.05) not to have used digital technology in their working life.
Table 3. Respondents’ preferred communication mode by frequency of internet use
** Notes: Differences observed in the comparisons are statistically significant at the p ≤ 0.05 level.
Table 4. Respondents’ preferred communication mode by education level
** Notes: Differences observed in the comparisons are statistically significant at the p ≤ 0.05 level.
Table 5. Preferred communication mode by age group
** Notes: Differences observed in the comparisons are statistically significant at the p ≤ 0.05 level.
Table 6. Preferred communication mode by availability of help with the use of digital technologies
** Notes: Differences observed in the comparisons are statistically significant at the p ≤ 0.05 level.
Older interviewees expressed varied attitudes towards digital communication. Apprehension about using technology stemmed in some cases from a fear of making mistakes. But others viewed online engagement as not being as fulfilling as face-to-face interactions and asserted their desire not to use digital devices, as the following quote from an ARA member demonstrates:
I don’t know [about the usefulness of technology to support ARA communication] because…a lot of those people that are in the Active Retirement with me would have these other phones that they look into Facebook and all these things…but I’ve no interest in going any further. I’m dead satisfied the way I am. (ARA-Member-In-26)
Some participants, while not enthusiastic, were accepting of what they considered technology’s increasingly inevitable presence. Others, however, had wholly embraced digital tools, viewing them as essential for communication:
I wouldn’t be able to manage without it. No way – we’d all die if we didn’t have our smartphones…if I want to pull together a committee meeting at short notice, I only do one message, and the ten of them get it, isn’t that wonderful? (ARA-Member-In-12)
Future sustainability and function
The capacity of ARI and local ARAs to drive collective multifaceted engagement amidst a digitally transforming society was also linked to concern about the organisation’s future sustainability and perceived relevance. First, for some of those participants focused on ARI’s strategic development, these concerns centred on ARI’s external presence as an older people’s voluntary organisation. National-level participants suggested that while the pandemic brought greater opportunities to promote the organisation, there remained a tendency for ARI to get lost amongst other groups, as this quote explains:
I suppose there’s more awareness of the organisation now than there was in previous years… I still wouldn’t categorise us as well-known… There’s still an awful lot of confusion among the general public around the various older people’s organisations… (ARI-National-Secretariat-In-08)
This weak presence was thought to impact the coherency of ARI’s public messaging and its capacity to leverage funding and recruit new members.
Second, concerns focused on external negative ageing-related associations regarding the demographic characteristics of ARA membership and its volunteers. These associations were again thought to dissuade new members from joining. Some suggested that ARI was perceived as catering only for older ages:
I think the ‘old’ is still there in everybody’s mind, to be honest, if they’re truthful. Because over the years, until very recently, even the image that the press, the image that our own advertising, everything was like nearly fellas on Zimmer frames… (ARI-Regional-Volunteer-RDO-In-01)
Other participants highlighted that ARI’s membership was perceived to comprise mainly women, and a population that lacked cultural and ethnic diversity. As this ARI national actor describes, these associations intersected to embed perceptions of an unresponsive and exclusionary organisation:
The website…showed the organisation in terms of the imagery as being mainly, you know, people who were quite older. I would say 70 plus, all white. I couldn’t see any diversity among the membership. And my impression was that it was quite a staid organisation, not very vibrant… (ARI-National-Secretariat-In-03)
Third, there was concern amongst participants regarding ARI’s capacity to sustain its relevance for an increasingly digitised ageing society. This was again related to ARI’s external presence, but also its ability to support older people in addressing the challenges they face. All study informants agreed that ARI’s principal purpose is, and should remain, to support social engagement. Yet, this purpose now sits amongst a range of other functions that align with a long-standing focus on older people’s agency, as demonstrated by this quote from an ARI regional volunteer.
It has now diversified into all sorts of bits and pieces, but the most important thing people want is company…and the whole objective, Active Retirement’s first ever, I suppose, slogan was ‘People doing things for themselves’. (ARI-Regional-Volunteer-RDO-In-02)
However, several participants noted that ARI’s core ethos of older-adult empowerment was often lost:
We’re an organisation that helps older people to become empowered so that they find their own solutions to issues that they face as older people… I think that gets lost. My impression, my experience has been that that is not understood by people outside the organisation. (ARI-National-Secretariat-In-03)
While there was inconsistency amongst older adult interviewees, survey respondents were clear in their desire for the organisation to extend its empowering role for later-life engagement. This was first in terms of communications regarding key areas of engagement. Seventy per cent of respondents reported that they would like ARI to send them information on advocacy issues, 76 per cent requested updates on social activities, whereas 85 per cent wanted information relevant to older people. This expanded role also referred to ARI’s engagement in these spheres. More than half of respondents (55 per cent) reported that they would like ARI to more actively support social activities, while just under half (48 per cent) hoped ARI would play an active role in supporting members’ participation in advocacy on ageing-related matters. Finally, 70 per cent of respondents stated that they would like ARI to serve as an information source for older people.
Discussion
The analysis presented in this article drew on Marshall’s (Reference Marshall1963b) social citizenship concept to explore the impact of the digital transformation on older adult grassroots organisations’ communication and mobilisation for group-based multifaceted engagement. Echoing literature on digitalisation and civil society (Hall et al. Reference Hall, Schmitz and Dedmon2020), the study demonstrated that the application of digital technologies has broadened the scope of ARI’s communications for some of its members. However, overall, the findings indicate that ARI is facing the same tensions with respect to digitally supported communications that have been found for other types of voluntary organisation (Glowacki et al. Reference Glowacki, Zhu, Bernhardt and Magsamen-Conrad2021; Jong and Ganzaroli Reference Jong and Ganzaroli2024; Reuter et al. Reference Reuter, Scharf and Smeddinck2021; Scholz et al. Reference Scholz, Bartelsman, Diefenbach, Franke, Grunwald, Helbing and Viale Pereira2018). This is also demonstrated by the large degree of consensus between European policy stakeholders, the national social media analysis and the experiences of ARI and its members. Certainly, international stakeholders and national-level participants placed greater emphasis on the potential of technology for older adult grassroots groups. Older ARI members generally held more varied, and sceptical, perspectives, with nuanced differences manifest in attitudes concerning acceptance/resistance towards digitally supported engagement. Yet, key messages regarding challenges and supporting all older people are still consistent across all participant groups.
The need to address the preferences of a heterogenous older adult grassroots membership, and the difficulties in doing so in a voluntary organisation, illustrates the transitional nature of communications for these groups. It also illustrates what research has noted for other kinds of voluntary organisation as the transitional flux between traditional and digital modes (Bryant et al. Reference Bryant, Holloway, Lough and Willitts-King2022; Pirhonen et al. Reference Pirhonen, Lolich, Tuominen, Jolanki and Timonen2020). Overall, the rate of adoption of internet-based technologies has been reasonably strong amongst ARI’s members and volunteers, particularly given the low levels of uptake and digital literacy sometimes reported for older adults (Coelho Reference Coelho2024; Flynn Reference Flynn2024; McCosker et al. Reference McCosker, Critchley, Walshe, Tucker and Suchowerska2023), but it is also comparable to other jurisdictions (Reuter et al. Reference Reuter, Xu, Iwarsson, Olsson and Schmidt2023). Nevertheless, this adoption conceals a narrow use and strong patterns of inequality. While Covid-19 has had a catalysing effect on adoption for some, communication preferences remain diverse, with sizeable proportions of older people relying heavily on traditional modes. Mirroring previously noted barriers for older individuals’ engagement (Nowakowska-Grunt et al. Reference Nowakowska-Grunt, Dziadkiewicz, Olejniczak-Szuster and Starostka-Patyk2021; Wilson et al. Reference Wilson, Gates, Vijaykumar and Morgan2023), we found that use and preferences were influenced by digital proficiency, education, age, social support and working-life experience. Additionally, and again like other studies (Loos and Ivan Reference Loos, Ivan, Gao and Zhou2023; Modena et al. Reference Modena, Pinotti and Pirandello2021), this research identified risks of exclusion stemming from structural issues regarding training, infrastructure and barriers linked to ageism and discrimination.
The research also indicates, however, that some tensions facing ARI stem from long-standing characteristics of individual groups, and the overall organisation’s multi-level voluntary structure. These tensions are in some ways independent of the impact of a digitising society. Complex and layered environments within voluntary organisations have been found to stretch the efficacy of most communication systems (Jong and Ganzaroli Reference Jong and Ganzaroli2024; Komarčević et al. Reference Komarčević, Dimić and Čelik2017). In the case of ARI, communications are not just multi-level but in effect nested and clustered, where information flows downwards from national to regional levels, and then branches to local levels. This means a critical reliance on voluntary secretaries, but with little connection to individual members. These sorts of communication flows are not unique to ARI and are representative of the sorts of umbrella configuration that overarch many ageing grassroots groups and networks. As found in civil society research on similar structures (Kolotouchkina et al. Reference Kolotouchkina, Viñarás-Abad and Mañas-Viniegra2023; Piccolo Reference Piccolo2024), organisational challenges combined with specific issues regarding older volunteers’ and members’ digital access, literacy and adoption to disrupt the potential positive qualities of a digital transformation. Under these circumstances, the pressures of digitalisation have been shown to further fragment information flows (Kueng Reference Kueng2020; Viale Pereira et al. Reference Viale Pereira, Estevez, Cardona, Chesñevar, Collazzo-Yelpo, Cunha, Diniz, Ferraresi, Fischer, Cardinelle Oliveira Garcia and Joia2020), compounding the difficulties in sustaining voluntary efforts to establish and sustain digital infrastructures and digital literacy training. Challenges regarding communication are also couched within questions around the coherency of ARI’s external messaging for promoting and mobilising collective engagement. The findings demonstrate a need, an opportunity and a preference amongst members and volunteers to address these different sets of challenges to secure ARI’s future as a representative organisation, and a collection of grassroots groups for older people in Ireland.
It is apparent that ARI as a voluntary older adult organisation is largely left to address these challenges on its own – this is likely to reflect the general absence of these groups from digital inclusion agendas across Europe, and the general dearth of attention given to digitalisation and ageing in national and international policy. It is notable that, regardless of any organisational complexities, the most significant challenges for ARI to negotiate are systemic and heavily structural in nature. Exclusion from agenda-setting and technology development, telecommunication infrastructural deficits and the inaccessibility of digital technology and training are prominent across Ireland’s digital landscape but are also well-established within the international literature (Fischer et al. Reference Fischer, Peine and Östlund2020; Lee and Coughlin Reference Lee and Coughlin2015; Seifert Reference Seifert2020). As they did within this study, these challenges are likely to impinge the efforts of both representative organisations and local-level grassroots groups alike in their attempts to leverage equity for older people within a digital transition. Such circumstances of older adult organisations cannot be divorced from the discourses and patterns surrounding ageing and digital markets, where the developer-led, health care-focused views of passive older adult technology users have been found to dominate (Fischer et al. Reference Fischer, Peine and Östlund2020; Lipp and Peine Reference Lipp and Peine2024), neglecting assets- and equity-based understandings of older people’s technology and non-technology needs as full participants in digitalising societies (Loos and Ivan Reference Loos, Ivan, Gao and Zhou2023; Wilson et al. Reference Wilson, Gates, Vijaykumar and Morgan2023). But nor can they be divorced from what has been characterised in many countries, as the under-funded, under-prioritised and under-staffed grassroots sector involving older people and older volunteers. It is the intersection of these market and grassroots positionalities, and the potential for shared drivers based on normative, narrow values of contribution and production, that are likely to separate the fortunes of older adult groups from other organisations negotiating a digital transformation. Given the membership pool of these kinds of organisation, and their role in supporting older people’s voices as societies digitalise, the lack of support from public institutions and indeed private bodies seems significantly short-sighted.
The research suggests that a four-fold task lies ahead for the future if an equality of status principle is to underpin, as Marshall’s (Reference Marshall1963b) thesis indicates, participation and rights within digital ageing societies. This task has particular relevance to organisations who are volunteer reliant and volunteer led, given challenges regarding sustaining digital infrastructures and capacity building. First, to ensure the equitable engagement of older people in a supported digital transition (Hernandez and Roberts Reference Hernandez and Roberts2018), a significant investment in building digital communications capacity within older adult grassroots organisations is needed. A substantial mobilisation of state supports must take place to facilitate and sustain this, including the development of digital ageing strategies, public funding and public-led incentivisation of private investment in this space. For ARI, and voluntary organisations with a similar multi-scale structure, efforts to build communication capacity need to take place across the multiple levels of the organisation to a scale that is proportionate to its size. It would be logical that this investment for national-level organisations would include an expanded professional staff that allows for the development of topic-focused communication and mobilisation portfolios. At regional and local levels, state investment must take place through the provision of accessible and practicable training and development (Damant et al. Reference Damant, Knapp, Freddolino and Lombard2017; Passey et al. Reference Passey, Shonfeld, Appleby, Judge, Saito and Smits2018).
Second, there remains a need for ARI, like similar organisations elsewhere, to build awareness of its ethos, its openness to building a heterogeneous membership and its evolving remit, both as a national representative organisation and as a set of local groups. This is in terms of ARI’s external profile amongst professional stakeholders, the public and potential members, and in terms of its messaging to its own volunteers and members. As Jong and Ganzaroli (Reference Jong and Ganzaroli2024) note, these are the sorts of internal and external marketing efforts that can be required to support a digital transformation in non-profit organisations. The social media analysis demonstrated not only a weak footprint within a major digital public sphere but that this weak presence is a general characteristic of the digital engagement of many ageing-related organisations. Such patterns indicate that considerable work is required to address what may be a digital communications vacuum with respect to ageing and these platforms in Ireland. Similar findings have been noted in other international settings (e.g. Pankova and Kasperovich Reference Pankova and Kasperovich2021).
Third, it is difficult to ignore the impact of complex organisational structures on the effectiveness and inclusiveness of communications. Specific to this research, the findings suggest that ARI’s internal communications should be expanded in all directions. This, in the first instance, relates to the need to enhance the reciprocal flows of information up and down the organisation. The pressures on local secretaries to serve as ‘information brokers’ for the less digitally inclined members point to the need to increase direct contact with local members, and to ensure that responsibility for communication rests with more than just one individual volunteer. Such structures are always likely to maintain undue burden, information bottlenecks and lags (Viale Pereira et al. Reference Viale Pereira, Estevez, Cardona, Chesñevar, Collazzo-Yelpo, Cunha, Diniz, Ferraresi, Fischer, Cardinelle Oliveira Garcia and Joia2020). However, to avoid further risk of fragmentation, these changes require buy-in and a desire for transformation across all levels of the organisation, and most importantly within local grassroots voluntary groups.
Fourth, and perhaps most critically, although recognising the potential efficiencies of digitalisation, access to communication modes for older people must always be ensured (Robbins et al. Reference Robbins, DiClemente, Baig, Johnson, Chou and Van den Bulck2023). The digital profile and preferences for ARI’s members assert that both traditional and digital modes need to be supported. It was very clear that volunteers were in many instances working to implement informal, person-centred multi-modal translation strategies of their own. Exploring how to provide more direct assistance for these kinds of volunteer ‘information brokers’ is likely to be important for all organisations’ work to support sustainable participation, digital or otherwise. In time, the balance in preferences within any such groups may shift towards digital options. Nonetheless, maintaining equal access to communications and to mobilisation strategies should always be central. There is a need to be vigilant that evolving strategies across older peoples’ grassroots organisations are respectful of all members’ preferences, comfort levels and proficiencies.
Conclusion
If sufficiently supported, there is an opportunity for ARI and similar organisations to strengthen and expand their role in empowering and representing older people amidst the digitalisation and demographic transitions. In the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, and a legacy of paternalistic associations regarding vulnerability and ageing (Eilenberger et al. Reference Eilenberger, Halsema and Schuitmaker2022; Verbruggen et al. Reference Verbruggen, Howell and Simmons2020), there is a particular need to develop more coordinated, coherent efforts. This is in terms of general communication and dissemination of information that matters to older people, but it is also in terms of voluntary organisations’ capacity to truly represent and empower the voices of ageing populations. These groups and their voluntary leadership are key in affirming the positive image of older people’s engagement and their capacity to adapt when needed and when in line with their own preferences. This points to a more assets-based, capability-orientated approach towards equipping ageing societies for an equitable digital transition – one that should be supported through state-level leadership and resourcing.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge Dr Bernard McDonald’s contribution to the research which is presented in this article; he conducted the interviews with Active Retirement Ireland members (Work Package 2).
Author contributions
BC helped design and conduct the Translation Forums in the study and worked with colleagues to analyse the outcomes of this. She worked with colleagues to triangulate data from all preceding research strands. BC co-wrote the Introduction and Discussion sections. KW was co-principal investigator on the study, in charge of designing and implementing all aspects of it. Specifically, he consulted with other team members in all aspects of data collection, conducted the stakeholder interviews, fed into analysis of all strands, and co-led the Translation Forums. KW co-wrote the Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion sections. MON was responsible for much of the data collection and analysis in the study. She conducted the ARA interviews, was responsible for the distribution and collection of the ARA surveys, and co-led the Translation Forums. She analysed the ARI interviews and triangulated data from all research strands until the Translation Forums. MON co-wrote the Methods and Results sections. AP co-designed the survey and led its analysis. She wrote up the Results sections which relate to the survey data. CV was co-principal investigator on the study, along with KW in charge of the overall design of the study. He had specific responsibility for designing and implementing the social media analysis. He contributed to analysis of all strands of the study. EM was responsible for designing and delivering the social media analysis which is presented in this article. He was responsible for contributing to the writing of the Methods and Results sections. All co-authors approved the final version of this article.
Financial support
The research upon which this article was based was funded by the Irish Research Council’s Coalesce (Collaborative Alliances for Societal Challenges) scheme (grant code: COALESCE/2021/63). This financial sponsor did not play any role in the design, execution, analysis or interpretation of the data, or in the writing of the study.
Competing interests
The authors declare none.
Ethical standards
Ethics approval was granted for the study upon which this article is based by the University of Galway’s Research Ethics Committee (reference number 2022.11.026). In addition, the research was conducted according to key broad ethical standards for research with human participants as set out in policies and declarations such as the Nuremberg Code, the Helsinki Declaration and the Belmont Report (European Commission 2021). Regarding the specific ethical considerations in this study, as it involved human participants, all participants consented to participate, with ongoing consent practised. Some topics for discussion had the potential to cause distress, so plans were made to mitigate risk through the development (and deployment where necessary) of a detailed multi-step distress protocol. Participants’ anonymity was guaranteed using codes instead of names, and no other identifying information has been or will be used in project outputs.
Open access
