It is a historic reality that populations are aging and that shifting demographics are reshaping societies and challenging institutions of higher education to consider how they can respond through new approaches to teaching, research, and community engagement (Montepare, 2019; Whitbourne & Montepare, 2017). Here, I offer the reasons why our institutions need to be more age-inclusive and information about how your campus can become part of the Age-Friendly University (AFU) movement.
As populations age, more adults are putting off retirement and continuing to work for a range of reasons - from needed income to professional advancement to personal development. Moreover, this trend is expected to continue and create opportunities for higher education. AARP’s fact-finding report on “The Future of Work@50+” found that many adults are interested in programs delivered in higher education settings to advance the skills they need to continue in their present work roles or to explore new career paths. Shifting demographics are also adding to the age-diversity of our workforce, and workers age 25 to 55 years are also looking to higher education for degree completion, advanced training, certification, and other educational needs.
Many older adults consider themselves to be lifelong learners. The success of the Osher Lifelong Learning Institutes on our campuses attests to this fact. However, advocates of lifelong learning argue that these programs can sometimes be siloed enterprises and we need a more contemporary, age-integrated approach that provides older adults with broader and more direct access to educational opportunities on our campuses.
Rippling effects of demographics are also impacting the nature of student populations as we see a reduction in the number of traditional-aged students. This reduction, coupled with the rise in older learners, will compel our institutions to make way for more age-diverse student populations who are looking for programs and educational support that meet their distinctive needs.
The benefits of educational access and lifelong engagement on health and well-being are clear, and, these benefits extend beyond the individual. Healthier older adults make for healthier communities through their engagement that serves the well-being of people of all ages. Moreover, an engaged older population can help to support the fiscal well-being of higher education by offering new opportunities for program development, increasing new enrollments, forging new partnerships, and attracting new support from funders. Additionally, older adults can support the educational mission of higher education in formal and informal roles as instructors, mentors, tutors, and teaching allies.
Age-friendly institutions have consequences beyond their campuses, especially for communities around our campuses that are exploring how they can meet the needs and interests of their aging populations. Institutions can be valuable partners in these efforts, helping communities to evaluate needs, develop strategies and programs, and implement and evaluate initiatives. On an even bigger level, more age-friendly, age-diverse, age-integrated campuses play a vital role in addressing widespread and insidious ageism, which is in part fueled by our age-segregated institutions and communities.
At the curricular level, a great need exists to expand aging education for younger students. The vast majority of students on our campuses graduate with negligible knowledge about aging. Indeed, an APA national review of psychology major outcomes found that courses in adult development and aging were offered far less often than courses on child or adolescent development. As well, concentrations in aging were rare compared to other areas represented in psychology programs (Norcross, Hailstorks, Aiken, Pfund, Stamm, & Christidis, 2016). Anecdotal evidence further suggests that students in other majors learn little if anything about aging. This simply needs to change.
We are doing a great disservice to students by not helping them gain competency around issues that can have both personal and professional consequences in their lives, no matter their major. We know that aging populations mean an increase in the demand for a workforce with training in aging. Longevity economics are also creating employment opportunities in technology, travel, entertainment, home design, fashion, urban planning, and other areas. Employers, employees, and entrepreneurs cannot function in this new market space without some knowledge about aging. This means new employment and career opportunities will arise for students who are prepared.
We are also doing a great disservice to students by not offering opportunities for them to interact with different generations of people. Many of us know from firsthand experiences that teaching and learning can be brought to new levels when age-diversity and intergenerational exchange are part of the classroom experience (Montepare & Farah, 2018). As well, academic experience with age diversity can help students better navigate future work and living spaces that are becoming more age diverse.
It is also worth noting that our campuses have become another natural environment in which we are aging in place, calling for institutions to consider how they can support the aging needs of their faculty and staff.
Last, but certainly not least, is there any D20 member who would not advocate for greater support of research on aging at our institutions? Research on aging not only creates new knowledge, but it also provides guidance on how to use this knowledge for the greater good of individuals and communities. As such, age-friendly efforts on any front are not possible without more attention to research on aging on our campuses.
In short, as Morrow-Howell and colleagues (2020) have argued that the transformation of our universities must be done for the sake of society, for younger and older people, and for the self-interest of institutions themselves. The American Council on Education (2007) questioned how institutions of higher education will adapt their programs, policies, and practices to meet the demands of aging populations. The Age-Friendly University (AFU) initiative provides a timely and pioneering answer.
The AFU initiative reflects the innovative work of an international, interdisciplinary team of educators, researchers, administrators, and community partners convened by Dublin City University (Ireland) to identify the contributions institutions can make in responding to aging populations (O’Kelly, 2015). The AFU team identified 10 guiding principles built on six pillars of institutional activity: 1) teaching and learning, 2) research and innovation, 3) lifelong learning, 4) intergenerational learning, 5) encore careers and enterprise, and 6) civic engagement. The AFU framework advocates that older adults be enabled to participate in higher educational career, cultural, and wellness activities, and that institutions extend aging education to younger students, break down age-segregation, and promote age inclusion by bringing younger and older learners together in educational exchange.
In just a few short years, the AFU network has grown to over 70 institutions worldwide. In 2020, Div. 20 joined other professional organizations such as GSA’s Academy for Gerontology in Higher Education (AGHE) in endorsing the AFU initiative. We now have the opportunity to broaden and build the movement by encouraging our institutions to join the network.
We hope you will take up our call to action! To learn more about how your institution can join the AFU network and how your campus can explore its age-inclusivity possibilities, please see Tools for Advancing Age Inclusivity in Higher Education designed by GSA and its Academy for Gerontology in Higher Education (AGHE).
About the Author
Joann M. Montepare, PhD, is the Director of the RoseMary B. Fuss Center for Research on Aging and Intergenerational Studies and Professor of Psychology at Lasell University. Her research interests focus on social and personal perceptions of age. She is the D20 President-Elect and champion of the Age-Friendly University (AFU) movement.
References
Norcross, J. C., Hailstorks, R., Aiken, L. S., Pfund, R. A., Stamm, K. E., & Christidis, P. (2016). Undergraduate study in psychology: Curriculum and assessment. American Psychologist,71(2), 89–101. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0040095
Morrow-Howell, N., Lawlor, E.F., Macias, E.S., Swinford, E., & Brandt, J., (2020) Making the case for age-diverse universities. The Gerontologist, 60(7), 1187–1193. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnz181
Montepare, J. M. (2019) Introduction to the Special Issue-Age-Friendly Universities (AFU): Principles, practices, and opportunities. Gerontology & Geriatrics Education,40(2), 139-141. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701960.2019.1591848
Montepare, J. M., & Farah, K. S. (2018). Talk of Ages: Using intergenerational classroom modules to engage older and younger learners across the curriculum. Gerontology & Geriatrics Education,39(3), 385-394. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701960.2016.1269006
O’Kelly, C. (2015). Age-Friendly University annual report. Retrieved from www.dcu.ie/sites/default/files/agefriendly/afu_annual_report_complete.pdf
Whitbourne, S. K., & Montepare, J. M. (2017). What’s holding us back? Ageism in higher education. T. Nelson (Ed.) Ageism: Stereotyping and Prejudice Against Older Persons (2nd Edition, pp. 263-290). Cambridge: MIT Press.