1 Introduction

We are facing an unprecedented global demographic change: the rapid ageing of the population in Western societies. In Europe the number of adults aged 65–79 years will increase by over 37 percent between 2010 and 2030.With life expectancy increasing dramatically, European Member States are experiencing a rising number of very old persons (those aged 80 years or above); an anticipated increase of over 57 percent between 2010 and 2030 (European Commission, COM, 2005). Similarly, the percentage of the population in the United States that is 65 and over is expected to increase from 15 in 2014 percent to 24 percent in 2060 (Colby & Ortman, 2017).

This population shift will create a major challenge for policy makers to find sufficient social and economic capital to support this segment of the population. At the same time, the increase in age segregated communities and a decrease in contact frequency between generations contribute to the prevalence of social isolation among older adults. Social isolation exacerbates the detrimental health problems that typically accompany aging, for instance increased risk of falls (Faulkner, Cauley, Zmuda, Griffin, & Nevitt, 2003), re-hospitalization (Mistry et al., 2001), cognitive decline and dementia (Fratiglioni, Paillard-Borg, & Winblad, 2004), likelihood of cardiovascular diseases (Shankar, McMunn, Banks, & Steptoe, 2011), and all-cause mortality (Steptoe, Shankar, Demakakos, & Wardle, 2013).

It is unrealistic to assume that sufficient governmental resources can be found to accommodate these rapidly growing needs. Therefore, identifying informal ways to alleviate social isolation and the related deterioration of older adults’ physical and cognitive health must be a high priority. Such initiatives have the potential to increase older adults’ quality of life and in turn reduce the pressure on medical and social welfare systems.

The European Commission has addressed the challenge of ensuring that older adults are socially included and can fully enjoy all their rights by introducing new policies on lifelong learning. Similarly, The United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development has affirmed that one of the key sustainable development aims is to promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. According to the Incheon Declaration for Education 2030, this goal is motivated by a humanistic approach to development established on the basis of human rights and dignity, social justice and inclusion (UNESCO, 2015).

Increased social cohesion is an objective in most Western societies. However, in practice issues regarding inclusion, cohesion and citizenship have typically been considered in terms of employability by most countries sharing the OECD’s economic orientation (Field 2006). In the United States and Europe, policymakers have emphasized «active aging». This paradigm holds that both individuals and societies benefit from keeping older adults engaged in work, volunteer, and family roles. Conversely, ageism and age segregation are seen as important societal and cultural barriers to the maintenance of multiple roles.

In this context, research on adult education within a social justice perspective focuses on groups marginalized due to the interplay of different personal characteristics, such as social class, gender, or ethnicity (Jackson, 2011; Wolf & Brady, 2010). We hold that age must be a critical component of social justice approaches to lifelong learning. In this article, we investigate the nature of intergenerational programs (IGPs) and their indispensable place in the research and policy-making in the sphere of adult education. Connecting the issues of social justice and lifelong learning is an innovative aspect of this article.

We begin by outlining the theoretical framework for examining policies concerning adult education, participation and social cohesion. We incorporate the literature on IGPs and their potential benefits in the context of social justice, active aging, and lifelong learning. We then report on an intervention project that applied these ideas, called Building a Community Legacy Together. We report selected findings of this case study and discuss implications and future directions for further research.

2 Theoretical and Policy Background

Over the past decade, a number of policies have been formulated to incentivise lengthier participation in the labour market and to augment the employability of older adults as a means of contributing to social inclusion (Hamblin, 2010) and promoting active aging. In the United States, legislation such as the Age Discrimination in Employment Act prevents occupational age discrimination, thus enabling older people to remain in the workforce longer than in some European nations.

Even in the context of lifelong learning, European policies have evolved in accordance with productivity criteria, equating learning to a global strategy to satisfy market requisites and to allay the repercussions of a structural rise in unemployment. The resolutions on lifelong learning adopted by the Commission of the European Communities (Commission of the European Communities, 2002) as a guiding principle for educational reforms tended to support interventions aimed at retraining relatively older workers and to keep them as long as possible active in the labour market, with a view to contribute to economic growth and social cohesion. Furthermore, when lifelong learning appeared as a focus internationally in the 1990s, the emphasis was on supporting economic performance, whether individual or societal (Boshier 1998; Field 2006). Most EU efforts to intervene in national educational affairs were closely correlated to the core EU aims as educational measures had to be justifiable as fostering the common market.

From the mid-1990s, international policies started to involve social and cultural objectives; a range of programs (Socrates, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.) were launched and 1996 was designated the European Year of lifelong learning. By the turn of the new millennium, therefore, lifelong learning had become a distinctive feature of EU education policy. A new landscape was set by the Lisbon European Council (March 2000). The EU set itself “a new strategic goal for the next decade: to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world […] with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion” (CEC 2000, p.2).

Education and training systems were encouraged to adapt to “the demands of the knowledge society and to the need for an improved level and quality of employment. (ibid.)” The Lisbon agreement set a target for increasing the participation rate for older workers (aged 50 to 64) in the labor market and identified lifelong learning as making a contribution toward greater employment through improving older peoples’ skills and adaptability.

Since 2000, the ‘economic competitiveness’ orientation of international lifelong learning provided space for the EU to develop lifelong learning policies and practices which gave some space to citizenship and social cohesion, but with a predominance of vocational concerns. Examples include:

• Efficiency and Equity in European Education and Training Systems (CEC 2006a), for example, was concerned to a small degree with adult learning and aimed at improving the employment prospects of less well-qualified individuals in vocational education and training.

• Adult Learning: It is never too late to learn (CEC 2006b) posed adult learning as relevant to competitiveness, demographic change (ageing and migration), and social inclusion. It underlined that barriers to participation had to be lowered and that members had to invest more in improving quality of provision for older people and migrants.

• Key Competences for Lifelong Learning: European Reference Framework (CEC 2007) was designed to “provide a European-level reference tool for policy-makers, education providers, employers, and learners themselves to facilitate national- and European-level efforts towards commonly agreed objectives” (p. 3). To achieve this purpose, older people were encouraged to remain or return to work to transfer their skills and knowledge to other generations.

The Council Resolution on a renewed European agenda for adult learning (2011/C 372/01) considered lifelong learning and skills development as key elements to respond to the economic crisis, to address demographic ageing, and to respond to the economic and social strategy of the European Union. However, adult learning was the weakest link in developing national lifelong-learning systems in relation to targeted learning for migrants, school dropouts, and young people not involved in education, employment or training (NEETs) to promote equity, social cohesion and active citizenship during the period 2012-2014.

The 2012 European Year for Active Ageing tried to mark the political commitment to promoting rights and social inclusion of Europe’s older population and to emphasise the importance of enhancing solidarity between generations. Although the EU was committed to promoting the potential of an ageing population, the impact was limited by the fact that lifelong learning is usually conceived of as time spent in activities directed at producing goods and services, or at developing capabilities to be able to do so.

The Europe 2020 Strategy acknowledges lifelong learning and skills development as key elements in response to the current economic crisis. The crisis, in fact, has highlighted the major role which adult learning can play, by enabling adults to improve their ability to adapt to changes in the labour market and society, or by up-skilling or reskilling those affected by unemployment, restructuring and career transitions. Adult learning makes an important contribution to social inclusion, active citizenship and personal development.

Active ageing, however, does not necessarily translate into increased productivity or a prolonged working life, but rather it refers to a scenario of active participationand generativity (AUTORE). Older people constitute a strategic resource, both in terms of intergenerational and social solidarity. Faced with the lack of a systemic vision on ageing, there is a clear need for a change in public policies, institutions and individual behaviours on the same subject, addressed not only to the extension of the working life, but also the maximization of use of the potential of the elderly in all the aspects of their social life.

Specifically, solidarity and the creation of links between generations should not be considered only in financial terms (Peeters et al., 2014). The intergenerational relationship also includes an ethical dimension that characterizes social cohesion for societies, reached by guaranteeing security for all citizens, not only those able to produce a financial contribution (Walker, 2010). As Sen has asserted, one must go beyond the human capital definition, that is, the idea that people learn to become more productive in a socio-economic system (Sen, 1999). Sen’s definition of capabilities, or ability to execute actions, entails an economy built on the opportunity to act and to transform the reality on the basis of the own agency, that is, the power to express one’s own identity along a life project (Margiotta, 2013).

If capability is determined by the space of possibilities open to an individual and is also constrained by personal, institutional, or environmental factors (Boyadjieva &Ilieva-Trichkova, 2017), the quality of life of older people may be concretely ameliorated. To accomplish this improvement, they must be empowered to express their formative potential, giving rise to their capabilities, abilities, attitudes and dispositions that they have not had the opportunity to develop or realise previously in life. To this end, incentives can be aimed at experiencing old age as a way of discovering new opportunities and roles, chief among which is the formation of the younger generations.

Against this background, the growth of intergenerational practice has emerged as a medium for intensifying generational proximity, developing acceptance and communication, fostering dedication to reciprocity and solidarity, and for building bridges across generations (Sanchez et al., 2008; Hatton-Yeo & Batty, 2011). According to the Grundtvig 4 network PEFETE (Pan–European Forum for the Education of The Elderly), several main strengths characterise senior citizens’ education:

1. Self-directed and experiential learning: senior citizens have a lifetime of experience to offer others and generally feel strongly involved in the education process;

2. An immense volunteer reserve: senior citizens work as volunteers in senior/youth citizens’ education;

3. Contributing to cultural heritage and human capital: senior citizens can play an important role in relation to cultural heritage.

Nevertheless, in many countries education systems have not yet started to address the emerging needs of this group of citizens, who also have enormous potential in terms of what they can contribute to the learning of future lifelong learners. Moreover, the growing numbers of retired people in Europe should be regarded as a potential source of educators and trainers for adult learning. In this sense, education represents the result of life transitions across different events, which creates an individual learning space that empowers agency and attention to the socio-cultural context.

3 One Solution: Intergenerational Programs

Intergenerational programs (IGP), which promote activities that bring together two generations for mutually rewarding purposes, are potentially an answer to the above challenges. IGPs represent the medium for the exchange of resources, knowledge, skills, attitudes and values among older and younger generations (Hatton-Yeo & Ohsako, 2000). The number and variety of programs have proliferated, as program planners in both the youth development and aging sectors have recognized that IGPs help to increase the contact between generations and have discovered benefits for both youth and older participants.

The evidence suggests that IGPs help the youth to promote positive change in attitudes toward older adults (Aday et al., 1993; Chapman & Neal, 1990; Chorn Dunham & Casadonte, 2009; Chua et al., 2013; Couper et al., 1991; Darrow et al., 1994; Dooley & Frankel, 1990; Kassab & Vance, 1999; LoSciuto et al., 1996; Meshel & Mcglynn, 2004; Proller, 1989; Taylor et al., 1999), and increase knowledge toward older adults (Kassab & Vance, 1999; LoSciuto et al., 1996; Taylor et al., 1999). In terms of social behavior, IGPs have been found to increase positive attitudes toward community service (Taylor et al., 1999), increase pro-social behavior (Kessler & Staudinger, 2007), and reduce substance use behavior (LoSciuto et al., 1996; Taylor et al., 1999).

Among older adults, IGPs appear to promote positive attitudes toward the younger generations (Aday et al., 1993; LoSciuto et al., 1996; Meshel & Mcglynn, 2004). In terms of social behavior, IGPs may to improve emotional health (Teater, 2016) and increase higher complexity of emotion regulation(Kessler & Staudinger, 2007), reduce social isolation and loneliness (Murayama et al., 2015; Teater, 2016), increase intergenerational exchange (Sakurai et al., 2016), and increase generativity (Kessler & Staudinger, 2007). For cognitive functioning, IGPs may help to improve performance on speed and word fluency (Kessler & Staudinger, 2007), and to maintain memory functioning (Newman, Karip, & Faux, 1995). In terms of personal well-being, IGP participation has been found to be related to increased self-esteem (Proller, 1989; Teater, 2016), increased psychosocial well-being (Herrmann, Sipsas-Herrmann, Stafford, & Herrmann, 2005), reduced depression (Proller, 1989), improved physical functioning (Sakurai et al., 2016) and health (Teater, 2016), and health-related quality of life (Kamei et al., 2011).

Thus, intergenerational programs build on the positive resources that different generations have to offer each other and are an effective way to address such key priorities as building active communities, promoting citizenship, regenerating social bonding and addressing inequality. The concept of intergenerational learning, however, has not been well-integrated into theory and research on intergenerational programs, or at policy and practice levels. A number of barriers have been identified to justify this gap such as a lack of understanding what IGPs are, a lack of an evidence base concerning the results of IGPs at the community level, a lack of cooperative thinking between different government institutions, and a lack of available funding for IGPs (Melville & Bernard, 2011). This situation leads to policies and activities focusing on a one-way transmission of skills, values, and attitudes from one generation to another. Indeed, intergenerational learning appears to be, in most countries and at the European level, a policy driven concept rather than a bottom-up process that was later taken into policy.

To date, most efforts to promote intergenerational learning are publicly funded. For this reason, they rarely become sustained programs of an organisation and often have a very short lifetime without the possibility of sustaining significant impact. To address these issues, Cornell University in the United States designed a program to create environments for co-learning between older people and youth, focusing on the transmission of practical advice from elders to young people. This program was adapted and implemented in Italy, allowing for validation of the model in two different cultural and social settings.

4 Building a Community Legacy Together: A Case Study in Empowering Intergenerational Learning

5 Conclusion

In conclusion, we return to the policy level and place the BCLT experience in the larger social context. There is concern that investments in continuous education will revolve around schemas that aim to qualify the “working citizen” rather than the “democratic citizen.” If such is the case, then increased opportunities for learning in older ages may be restricted to the creation of opportunities and modalities that make the older people economically useful, rather than in the expansion of the formative co-construction of knowledge, which is fostered in programs like BCLT.

For a smart, sustainable and inclusive growth towards the Europe 2020 strategy, we need to encourage policies and actions that promote intergenerational learning as a key component of active ageing. Policy makers must re-think lifelong learning in a broader, more humanistic perspective, involving the creation of a novel cultural spaces in which new meanings in education are constructed, without the limits of the dominant market discourse. An important task for the 21st century will be to find a role for the older generation to play. In this effort, societies should make use of the opportunities provided by intergenerational learning to contribute to social cohesion, solidarity, and active ageing, while also promoting economic growth.

We therefore need to rise to a challenge which is not only economic in nature, but is even more one of planning and culture: the redesign of a new welfare system geared not so much towards redefining the thresholds for entering and exiting the labour market, or towards delineating strategies to reintegrate mature workers, but to design lifelong educational policies. These policies should provide incentives to older people to remain active, to contribute to society through intergenerational mentoring, and to allow them the freedom to choose how to spend their time in old age.

To embrace and sustain the new projects of living for older people, it is necessary to radically rethink the current policy framework, giving a value and a sense of purpose to free time, fostering the creation of new belongings, and offering opportunities for personal and social growth. It is also necessary to pinpoint effective strategies for intergenerational learning projects that can help facilitate the implementation of policy and reduce the leaking of funds towards projects that use Intergenerational Learning as a way for accessing resources.

We argue that it is critically important to establish a clear policy definition for intergenerational learning that is accepted across countries and to place intergenerational learning at the core of policies designed to facilitate the achievement of the objectives of the strategic framework (ET2020) for European cooperation in education and training. Furthermore, it is necessary to ensure a long-term strategic approach that promotes the links between intergenerational learning, social solidarity, active ageing and economic competitiveness. The dramatic increase in the human lifespan provides a unique opportunity for societies, if the state’s social welfare system is more fully geared towards a schematic framework that is increasingly intergenerational. In so doing, societies can contribute to the reconstruction of reciprocity between generations and re-qualifying the different forms of human cohabitation, as well as the quality of life itself. The evidence we have provided regarding the BCLT program suggests that local efforts can contribute to this major goal and should be widely promoted.