Framing the enquiry
The term intergenerational friendship is used here to refer to friendships between adults where one party in the friendship is significantly older in chronological age. Other terms used in the literature for this type of friendship are cross-age, cross-generational and age-discrepant friendships. We approach intergenerational friendship from the point of view of the older party in the intergenerational friendship.
Such is the perceived importance of friendship to the wellbeing of older people in contemporary society that organisations have emerged with the specific purpose of promoting friendship formation and maintenance. For instance, Dutch policy makers initiated a ‘friendship enrichment’ programme, focused on educating and empowering older women in ‘planning and realising goals related to friendship’ (Stevens Reference Stevens2001: 187). Befriending programmes are a common intervention, for example, Alone and Age Concern UK ‘provide companionship to isolated older people through a weekly visit to alleviate the effects of loneliness’ (Alone 2014: 4). These programmes have been associated with reduced feelings of isolation and loneliness for the older person (Andrews et al. Reference Andrews, Gavin, Begley and Brodie2003) and with ‘life-enhancing’ benefits for people in the early stages of dementia (Ward et al. Reference Ward, Howorth, Wilkinson, Campbell and Keady2012). Interventions in friendship formation for older people, including intergenerational friendship, therefore, take many forms but share the core conviction of the significance of friendship for older people.
It is puzzling then, that the recognition of the significance of intergenerational friendship formation and maintenance in policy and practice (attested to by the formation of these programmes and many others) is not reflected in the research literature. Given the salience of friendship and the growing scope for interaction between generations in an ageing world, the main questions this article addresses are: Why is there so little research on the topic of adult intergenerational friendships? How has intergenerational friendship been conceptualised to date? What does this tell us about how research frames and positions older people and their social lives?
Before directly broaching these questions, we will outline some concepts that we work with in this article, along with a discussion on the tenets and principles from the broader field of research on ageing and friendship in older age. This discussion will inform the nexus of our argument, in particular the prevalence and affirmation given to the principle of homophily in the literature on friendship. We will review the limited extant literature on intergenerational friendships. We will then interrogate the major themes and arguments of these texts and additional salient literature in an effort to seek ‘clues’ as to why the topic of intergenerational friendship has been overlooked in research.
Key concepts
The terms old, generation and friend are contested concepts in the social science literature; here we offer the definitions that we work with in this article. The age at which a person is considered old varies. ‘Old’ in the literature is used to refer to persons from the age of 40 upwards, but most commonly the demarcation is positioned at 65 years of age. Outside the family context, generation refers to ‘a common location in the historical dimension of the social process’ (Mannheim 1952, cited in Timonen and Conlon Reference Timonen and Conlon2015: 2). The term intergenerational here refers to friendships between people who belong to different societal generations.
Friendship has been conceptualised as ‘social glue’, due to its putative value in promoting social inclusion and cohesion (Pahl Reference Pahl2000). Friendship is understood to be a voluntary, informal relationship, it is not institutionalised or codified, nor is it governed by contracts, by governments or policy. Friendship is a chosen, mutual, reciprocal, enjoyable and equal personal relationship (Adams, Blieszner and De Vries Reference Adams, Blieszner and De Vries2000). Adults tend to share normative expectations in relation to friendship (Felmlee and Muraco Reference Felmlee and Muraco2009); the values of trust, respect and support are identified as central regardless of gender, sexual orientation, age or ethnicity (Galupo and Gonzalez Reference Galupo and Gonzalez2013).
Despite assertions of methodological challenges, social scientists have developed typologies of friendship patterns and styles along with insights into formation, maintenance and, to a lesser degree, termination of friendship. A small number of studies explore the ‘downside’ of friendship, for example, having ‘friends you are stuck with’ (Spencer and Pahl Reference Spencer and Pahl2006).
How friendship is socially structured has additionally garnered interest, and the influence of factors such as gender and age has been investigated. A number of researchers have approached this topic and in the following paragraphs we will review the conclusions they have drawn: commencing with the literature on older adults’ peer friendship. This body of work provides a salient platform to illuminate the perceived influence and importance of the principle of homophily (‘sameness’) in older adult friendship.
Older adults’ friendships
Some sources on ‘general’ adult friendship (see e.g. Allan Reference Allan1989; O'Connor Reference O'Connor1992) contain a chapter or a section specifically addressing older adult friendships: their structure, processes and characteristics. This suggests that older adult friendships are conceptualised differently to friendship at other life stages. In friendship research which focuses on older people, the benefits of friendship are lauded for promoting inclusion and increasing psychological and physical wellbeing in older people (Blieszner Reference Blieszner2014; Felmlee and Muraco Reference Felmlee and Muraco2009). Little research focuses on the ‘downsides’, with a lack of reciprocity, geographical distance and infrequent contact being identified as possible causes of strains or termination of older people's friendships (Klein Ikkink and Van Tilburg Reference Klein Ikkink and Van Tilburg1999; Moremen Reference Moremen2008). McFadden and McFadden (Reference McFadden and McFadden2011) and Harris (Reference Harris2012) argue that while dementia can place a strain on friendships, people with dementia and their friends can continue to share a supportive, mutually enjoyable, rewarding and enduring friendship. Whatever the strains, friendships in older age are more likely to fade away than to end in conflict, often being resumed due to a renewed interest or opportunity (Matthews Reference Matthews1986; Rook Reference Rook and Adams1989).
Adams and Blieszner (Reference Adams and Blieszner1989: 11) argue that ‘friendships usually involve age peers, whereas neighbour and kin relationships are often intergenerational’; ‘in addition to sharing similar current realities, older people have had similar past experiences’ (to their age peer friends); and studying older adult friendship ‘provides a unique opportunity to examine the interplay between the effects of ageing and cohort membership’. Adams and Blieszner (Reference Adams and Blieszner1989) confined their study of older adult friendship to ‘same age’ friendship, a stance that detracts from intergenerational friendship as a topic worthy of serious research attention.
Matthews (Reference Matthews1983, Reference Matthews1986) identified differing types and styles of friendship as: ‘independent’ (had a number of friends but no desire for ‘real deep down friends’), ‘discerning’ (had a small number of close friends but were reluctant to make new friends) and ‘acquisitive’ (maintained existing friendships and grasped the opportunity to make new friends). These styles have consequences in older age, for example, those adhering to the ‘discerning’ style experience social isolation as their close friends move away or die. This echoes a common concern that some older people may be constrained in friendship formation due to a lack of mobility, ill-health or being socially isolated. In other words, the inability to form (sufficient, quality) friendships emerges, we argue, as a form of ‘disability’ that older adults might be affected by. Many researchers (discussed below) dispute this premise and assert that older adults strive to overcome these perceived barriers and seek to form friendships.
Older people generally view friendship as important in their lives, actively maintaining existing friendships and showing interest in forming new friendships (Adams Reference Adams1987). In a groundbreaking 16-year longitudinal study (Jerrome and Wenger Reference Jerrome and Wenger1999), the majority of older participants demonstrated willingness to, and were seeking to, make new friends. Similarly, Jerrome (Reference Jerrome1992) observed that as their children had grown up and/or formal employment ceased, the women in her study had more time to cultivate friendships. In other words, status and structural changes enhanced the prospects of friendship formation in older age. Findings from the literature regarding the impact of marital status are somewhat contradictory. Schnettler and Wohler (Reference Schnettler and Wohler2015) argue that childless older adults cultivate a larger supportive network of friends compared to those who are parents. Wenger, Scott and Patterson (Reference Wenger, Scott and Patterson2000) purport that married women and single men who are not parents are more likely to have weaker social networks. Additional insight may be provided by Dykstra and Keizer (Reference Dykstra and Keizer2009), who found that childless men (aged 40–59) are less likely to become involved in ‘community activities’ and this can impact on their opportunities for friendship formation.
A strand in the literature examines the possible function of friends as support and care providers (in lieu of adult children). This is iterated by Deindl and Brandt (Reference Deindl and Brandt2016: 1), who pose the question: ‘on which support networks can a growing number of childless older people rely?’ Intergenerational friendships are mentioned in a cursory manner in this narrow context of being useful as sources of instrumental support and care, supporting the oldest old to remain in their own homes. For example, research undertaken by Keating et al. (Reference Keating, Otfinowski, Wenger, Fast and Derksen2003) and Lapierre and Keating (Reference Lapierre and Keating2013) focus on the potential for friends and neighbours to form informal ‘care networks’. Their analysis indicates that 75 per cent of carers were younger than the older adult they cared for, in particular neighbour carers tended to be significantly younger. Nocon and Pearson (Reference Nocon and Pearson2000) noted that younger friends (who were the main carer of a frail older person) cited an element of reciprocity for past support from the care recipient. The friends/carers stated that they got satisfaction from helping, although in most cases they also reported that the carer role often put a strain on their own lives. Jerrome and Wenger (Reference Jerrome and Wenger1999) observed that their community-dwelling oldest-old (80 and over) participants demonstrated a tendency to broaden the definition and the characteristics of what constituted a ‘real friend’ by prioritising their need for instrumental support.
Allan (Reference Allan1989: 91) argues that friendships are shaped by older individuals’ ‘immediate social environment’ such as where they reside or the resources available and the ‘freedoms and constraints’ this brings. For instance, neighbours, being proximate, were considered friends regardless of gender or age. Overall, however, in common with the majority of research on older adult friendship, age peer friends remained the assumed preference, supporting the norm of homophily in friendship formation.
Homophily
The norm of homophily, the idea that ‘birds of a feather flock together’, ‘emphasises the tendency for individuals to have friends who share similarity across dimensions of ethnicity, religion, education, gender and age (Louch Reference Louch2000; Marsden Reference Marsden1988). This is in obvious contradiction to the idea of intergenerational friendship, age being a major category of social differentiation. McPearson, Smith-Lovin and Cook (Reference McPearson, Smith-Lovin and Cook2001) propose that ‘similarity breeds connection’ and hence close, durable friendships are more likely to be same-generation as they were likely to have been formed in childhood. In contrast, they go on to point out that research, for example, by Marsden (Reference Marsden1988) indicates that those aged over 60 were more likely to name their children and other younger adults as confidants, than other age groups. However, many researchers have concluded that age homophily is ubiquitous in friendship. Adams and Blieszner (Reference Adams and Blieszner1989: 11) argue that ‘age peers are likely to share similar problems, to experience similar losses, and to possess similar resources; they are compatible in status to one another’. According to Allan (Reference Allan1989), generational differences in the form of temporal perspectives and experiences make intergenerational friendship unlikely. Allan also references Blau (Reference Blau1973: 97), who stated that ‘apart from kinship itself, there is little to bring the generations together’. O'Connor (Reference O'Connor1992: 118) asserts that ‘with marriage being less stable, and with the number of children falling, peer relationships potentially become increasingly important’.
Allan (Reference Allan1989) and Spencer and Pahl (Reference Spencer and Pahl2006) claim that friendships are socially structured through societal norms and expectations (i.e. they are not simply chosen relationships). Williams and Nussbaum (Reference Williams and Nussbaum2000: 221) contend that intergenerational friendship are ‘implicitly and explicitly’ discouraged as older people are expected to ‘act their age’ with same-age friends and those in intergenerational friendship are judged to be ‘weird’ by some. Moreover, homophily is imposed as individuals are streamed into homogenous sites such as youth orchestras or active ageing societies, creating an age–youth dichotomy, with little opportunity for age integration (Dykstra and Fleischmann Reference Dykstra, Fleischmann, Asghar Zaidi, Howse, Lamura and Perek-Bialas2016a; Hagestad and Uhlenberg 2006; Uhlenberg and de Jong Gierveld Reference Uhlenberg and de Jong Gierveld2004).
In summary, the extant research on older adult friendship emphasises the significance of homophily, including similarity in age, as the central feature of these friendships. Departing from the broad focus on the literature on friendship and ageing, we will now explore how the topic of intergenerational friendship has been approached in the very limited literature that can be found specifically to address the topic.
Method
Search strategy
A literature search was undertaken in September 2016, using the following databases and search engines: Google/Google Scholar, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Jstor, Wiley online library, Social Sciences Index, Social Services Abstracts, Scopus, Academic Search Complete and Directory of Open Access Journals. The search terms used were: intergenerational adult friendship, cross-age friendship, older adult friendship and age-discrepant friendship. In using the ‘advanced search’ option in the databases, a search was conducted using the combined terms ‘adult friendship’/‘friendship’/‘older adults’/‘seniors’/‘younger friend’.
The search also identified some monographs or edited books that appeared relevant to the topic. A manual search of the chapter titles was carried out for each selected publication for any reference to the search words used for the online search, i.e. intergenerational, cross-age, cross-generational and age-discrepant friendships.
Search exclusion and inclusion criteria
Before commencing the search, exclusion and inclusion criteria were decided upon. All original research, both qualitative and quantitative, relating to non-kin, face-to-face, adult intergenerational friendship was included. Family are never ‘just’ friends (being governed by elaborate laws, rules and norms in all cultures) and research on family members who construe each other as friends was therefore excluded. Similarly, while we acknowledge that romantic relationships can be dynamic, with former romantic partners remaining friends or friendships evolving into romantic relationships, literature on romantic relationships was not examined under the same premise of not being ‘just’ friends. Literature reviews and systematic reviews, though of interest and referenced in other sections of this article, were excluded from the review as they were not original research papers.
Findings
Only eight articles on adult intergenerational friendship were retrieved using the search strategy. In keeping with the exclusion criteria agreed ex ante, research on family-as-friends, i.e. Kemp (Reference Kemp2005) on friendships between grandparents and grandchildren, was not reviewed further. We also excluded research on virtual and superficial associations with little or no face-to-face contact, namely Kneidinger (Reference Kneidinger2014: 18) who used an online survey of Facebook ‘friends’, or contacts, as a ‘pilot study’ to reveal experiences of older and younger users of this social network site (quotation marks as in the original paper).
Of the remaining six sources, two studies took a quantitative approach (Dykstra and Fleischmann Reference Dykstra, Fleischmann, Asghar Zaidi, Howse, Lamura and Perek-Bialas2016a; Holladay and Kerns Reference Holladay and Kerns1999). Bettini and Norton (Reference Bettini and Norton1991) took a mixed-methods approach. Three articles had adopted a qualitative approach. The qualitative studies (Matthews Reference Matthews1986; Roos Reference Roos2004; Stanley Reference Stanley2002) used face-to-face interviews to gather data, with Stanley (Reference Stanley2002) using group interviews. Roos (Reference Roos2004) used observations and reports along with interviews. Bettini and Norton (Reference Bettini and Norton1991) and Holladay and Kerns (Reference Holladay and Kerns1999) used questionnaires. In all articles, ‘young’ ranged in age from 15 to 30, and ‘old’ from 60 to 90. Dykstra and Fleishmann (Reference Dykstra, Fleischmann, Asghar Zaidi, Howse, Lamura and Perek-Bialas2016a), Roos (Reference Roos2004), Bettini and Norton (Reference Bettini and Norton1991) and Holladay and Kerns (Reference Holladay and Kerns1999) sampled people from younger and older populations using a dichotomous approach, by taking samples from both ends of the adult age spectrum. Stanley (Reference Stanley2002) used a ‘young’ sample only, and Matthews (Reference Matthews1986) used an older sample only. Stanley (Reference Stanley2002) concentrated on women (from within the lesbian community), while the other studies reviewed involved men and women as participants. These studies are now analysed in chronological order, commencing with the oldest study, to assess the framing of the topic, the methodological approaches employed and key findings generated along with an assessment on how intergenerational friendship has been approached and conceptualised.
Matthews (Reference Matthews1986: 82) studied friendship in general, but intergenerational friendship was briefly discussed in a dedicated section on ‘age-discrepant relationships’. During biographical interviews, 63 participants aged between 60 and 80 spoke about the meanings they attached to friendship, the process of friendships over their lifecourse and how friendship styles had consequences for friendship formation in older age. Matthews (Reference Matthews1986) purports that, beyond middle age, age-peer friends constitute the majority of friendships among older people. The participants met their age-discrepant friends, who were typically aged 30 and over, through shared membership of a religious congregation or through work, for example, a teacher and former student. Some participants had formed friendships with the children of deceased age-peer friends. In instances of cross-gender intergenerational friendship, it is notable that participants avoid using the term close friend, instead employing kin terms such as ‘substitute daughter’. Matthews suggests that using a family-like description ‘desexualised’ cross-gender intergenerational friendship, making it more socially acceptable (Matthews Reference Matthews1986: 91). Overall, Matthews (Reference Matthews1986) portrays cross-gender intergenerational friendship as unusual; they are configured as ‘hidden’ or ‘disguised’ relationships, cloaked in kin-like terms. We argue that this arises because they do not conform to what friends should be like.
Bettini and Norton (Reference Bettini and Norton1991) recruited 20 undergraduate students, and 20 older people who were resident in a retirement centre. Students completed a questionnaire and the older people were interviewed using a guide which corresponded with the questions listed on the student questionnaire. The results were analysed quantitatively and qualitatively. The researchers did not specify any requirements as to what constituted a friend or any age parameters for identifying an intergenerational friend. Findings indicated that older adults had more intergenerational friends but that these friendships were largely considered less equal and more superficial. Younger adults reported that they found no great difference between same-age and age-discrepant friends. The researcher did specify, however, that the students reported very few intergenerational friendships where the older friend could be considered ‘elderly’, i.e. 60 or older. This might have been a consequence of the sampling frame used. Research conducted in the United States of America later in the 1990s by Holladay and Kerns (Reference Holladay and Kerns1999) reported similar findings, in that a proportion of older participants viewed themselves as advisors or counsellors within their intergenerational friendships.
Holladay and Kerns (Reference Holladay and Kerns1999) triangulated questionnaire research data from 63 students and an unspecified number of community-dwelling older people (the omission of this number being a major limitation). Participants ranged in age from 18 to 76 year olds. A comparartive analysis of three types of friendship (close, casual and ‘age-discrepant’ friendships) was conducted to identify similarities and differences in ten relational qualities between same-age close and same-age casual and age-discrepant close and age-discrepant casual friendships. A ten-year age difference was specified by the researchers to qualify as an age-discrepant friend. The participants reported that most of their friends in any of the categories were same-gender, most age-discrepant friends were older than the participants and lastly age-discrepant friends had a 50 per cent probability of being listed as a close friend. The findings showed that in age-discrepant casual friendships, higher levels of admiration were found than in same-age casual friends. In all other categories, namely intimacy, satisfaction, nurturance, companionship and intensity, same-age close friendships scored higher than age-discrepant friends.
Stanley's (Reference Stanley2002) study of intergenerational friendship with 16 women aged 15–25, who self-identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT), argues that intergenerational friendship is perceived as vital by many within this community as intergenerational friendships provide a historical perspective and foster a feeling of unity. The perception of intergenerational friendship as unusual may have influenced the methodology chosen by Stanley: this involved semi-structured group interviews where participants were requested to discuss hypothetical ‘cross-generational’ LGBT friendships. While the participants maintained that friendships with other LGBT women were important, half of the group were uninterested in forming intergenerational friendships. The uninterested group perceived the generation gap as insurmountable, considering that the friends would have little in common and the friendship would be unequal and hierarchical. However, others saw some value in such friendships through mentoring, and as role models. Intergenerational friendships overall were perceived as being different from same-age friendships. It is unlikely, then, that these participants would seek to form an intergenerational friendship as older people are seen to be too ‘different’ to be considered ‘friend material’. An intriguing question arises: why did the study not seek to interview people who were engaged in intergenerational friendship? Perhaps it was assumed that intergenerational friendships were non-existent or rare, and speculation was therefore necessary.
Organised intervention overcame structural segregation and enabled intergenerational friendship in the study by Roos (Reference Roos2004), of a befriending programme involving retirement home residents and volunteer student visitors. Roos (Reference Roos2004) conducted qualitative research over a two-year period on the befriending programme involving institutionalised older people (aged between 53 and 98) from two retirement homes that had been assigned 40 volunteer student visitors as part of the programme. The research methods comprised qualitative interviews with the residents and students, students’ self-reflective reports and observation. The findings indicated that intergenerational friendship evolved over the half-hour visiting sessions and had positive emotional benefits for the friends, such as caring for each other, having fun and enjoying their time together. Some volunteers used kin terms such as ‘Uncle’ when referring to their older friend. Again, in common with participants in Matthews (Reference Matthews1986), the cloaking of intergenerational friendship in kin-terms seems intended to ‘legitimise’ the close friendship formed. Roos (Reference Roos2004) argues that the participants viewed the friendship as meaningful and enjoyable, and outlined instances of visiting outside the programme and of the older friend meeting the younger friend's immediate family.
In contrast to the overall impression arising from the literature above, that intergenerational friendship is rare and ‘organised’ (though interventions, clubs and so on), our literature search identified a singular quantitative study that reveals that intergenerational relationships are in fact quite common. Dykstra and Fleischmann (Reference Dykstra, Fleischmann, Asghar Zaidi, Howse, Lamura and Perek-Bialas2016a, Reference Dykstra and Fleischmann2016b) analysed data from the 2008 European Social Survey, with a sample from 25 European countries, of 8,716 ‘young’ respondents in the 18–30 age group and 6,512 ‘old’ respondents in the 70–90 age group. A significant number of respondents reported being engaged in two or more ‘cross-age’ friendships. In all countries, the proportion of people reporting cross-age friendships was higher among the older (30.6%) than among the younger people (18.1%). This was highest in Finland at 50 per cent, followed by Ireland (43.5%), Sweden (46.2%), the United Kingdom (38.5%) and Germany (39.8%), and lowest in Lithuania at 4 per cent. Younger people in Ireland reported the highest proportion of cross-age friendships at 36 per cent. Dykstra and Fleischmann's (Reference Dykstra, Fleischmann, Asghar Zaidi, Howse, Lamura and Perek-Bialas2016a) analysis additionally suggested that the most common conduits to intergenerational friendship formation were ‘other-age’ family household members and monthly attendance at religious services. The researchers conjecture that a lack of additional integrative meeting sites is likely a result of ‘productive ageing’ rhetoric and policy adopted by society, with older individuals occupying ‘age-homogeneous ghettos’, such as active retirement groups, thus limiting interaction with younger individuals (Dykstra and Fleischmann Reference Dykstra, Fleischmann, Asghar Zaidi, Howse, Lamura and Perek-Bialas2016a: 8).
Dykstra and Fleischmann (Reference Dykstra, Fleischmann, Asghar Zaidi, Howse, Lamura and Perek-Bialas2016a, Reference Dykstra and Fleischmann2016b) confirm their hypothesis, that people with cross-age friendships are less disposed to be ageist. They also outline other benefits of age integration such as fostering the exchange of material and informational support, e.g. technology use, along with shared experiences about ways of living or thinking or being (see also Hagestad and Uhlenberg Reference Hagestad and Uhlenberg2005; Uhlenberg and de Jong Gierveld Reference Uhlenberg and de Jong Gierveld2004). This is argued to be vital in preventing marginalisation of older people (Butler Reference Butler1969).
Why the paucity of research on intergenerational friendship?
In the remainder of this article, we address the question of why there is so little research on intergenerational friendship. This question is posed against the backdrop of extensive research on friendship, including age-peer friendship among older adults which we have reviewed in the earlier part of this article. We use the literature and research reviewed to direct us to additional relevant scholarship and also to give impetus to marshalling some ‘clues’ that may help to account for the paucity of research on intergenerational friendship.
The first ‘clue’ to the paucity of research on intergenerational friendship may be found in what Wenger (Reference Wenger, Gubrium and Holstein2002: 276) describes as a ‘negative self-image’, which has contributed to older people being viewed as different to other age groups. She asserts that most research interviews conducted with older people are centred on care needs and subsequent service supports – what we call ‘deficit framing’. Taking a ‘problem orientation’ in research on older people may contribute to the stereotyping of older people as ‘vulnerable, dependent and in ill health’ (Wenger Reference Wenger, Gubrium and Holstein2002: 276–7). Twigg and Martin (Reference Twigg and Martin2014) concur and point to the dominance of medical and social welfare perspectives, and the theme of frailty, in ageing research. Gubrium and Holstein (Reference Gubrium and Holstein2003) argue that stereotyping of older adults persists despite the fact that there are numerous ways older individuals give meaning to, and experience being old. They posit that older age is construed as an opposite to younger or middle age, being a different stage of life with contrasting characteristics. These general observations on how ageing and older age are framed in both research and wider societal attitudes offer valuable insights into why so little is known about intergenerational friendship.
The perception of difference is reflected in the friendship literature and provides a second clue in accounting for the lacuna in research on intergenerational friendship. The principle of homophily underpins the assumption in much of the literature that insurmountable differences make it unlikely that the young and old would choose an intergenerational friend, as their preference is for ‘someone like them’, i.e. of the same age or of the same societal generation. Intergenerational friendships defy and transcend this dichotomy as the friends are of differing generations, yet ignore or challenge these constraints and choose each other.
Third, older adults, in the context of (research on) intergenerational relationships, continue to be conceptually confined to relationships that are based on normatively or legally regulated transfers of time and money. In other words, older adults are studied as sources of, or recipients of, help, care and support such as child care, elder care, inheritance and so on; even some of the friendship literature is framed through care provision. However, the concept of older adults being parties to intergenerational relationships that are non-kin, chosen and based on mutual enjoyment alone, remains largely unexamined.
Discussion and conclusion
This article commenced by asking why there is a paucity of literature on intergenerational friendship. Is it because older adults are reluctant to make ‘new’ friends? No, the literature attests to the willingness of older adults to form new friendships. Is it because intergenerational friendships do not exist? No, Dykstra and Fleishmann (Reference Dykstra, Fleischmann, Asghar Zaidi, Howse, Lamura and Perek-Bialas2016a, Reference Dykstra and Fleischmann2016b) have shown that intergenerational friendship is prevalent, despite the literature attesting to intergenerational friendship being normatively (homophily), culturally (perception) and structurally (segregation) discouraged. Is it because intergenerational friendship is too elusive a concept to be pinned down? Again no, research has alluded to and focused on the topic and a small body of work exists.
We argue that intergenerational friendship has remained marginal in the literature because the notion of older people associating with younger people through friendship is anathema to how ageing and older people are commonly viewed and framed in contemporary societies and, as our analysis here has shown, in research. The current state of knowledge (or lack of knowledge) pertaining to intergenerational friendship is indicative of the ageist assumption that older people are not suited to, or capable of, intergenerational relationships that are voluntary, chosen and mutually enjoyable, that is, in the form of friendship.
We posit that intergenerational friendship is under-researched because it is not regulated and framed in the same way the ‘more studied’ aspects of older adults’ lives are, for example, older people as recipients of care or as parents and grandparents; and because such regulation and framing in turn reflects, and perpetuates, ideas of what older adults are like: useful for younger family/societal generations; or a drain on them; but rarely of interest in themselves, as human beings relating to much younger non-relatives, outside their normative and legal framing as family members and recipients of care.
To conclude, intergenerational friendship, while a personal relationship, is shaped by social forces in the form of norms and expectations pertaining to how older adults are viewed by others and by themselves. We argue that the social separation of older people from younger people, productive ageing policy and rhetoric all converge to constrain intergenerational friendship formation. We further argue that investigations of intergenerational friendship can contribute to the project of transforming images, models and discourses of ageing and older people that seem to constrain and delimit both research and social relations. A new study on intergenerational friendship is under way by the lead author that is, arguably for the first time, taking an in-depth look at the experience, meaning and significance of intergenerational friendship for older adults in Ireland. The study is funded by the Irish Research Council and uses the Grounded Theory method of inquiry, and we look forward to reporting on its findings in order to start filling in a lacuna that has remained in the literature for too long.
Acknowledgement
This research is funded by the Irish Research Council Postgraduate Scholarship Scheme (GOIPG/2016/525). The sponsor played no part in the design, execution, analysis and interpretation of data, or writing of the study.
