Keeping up with the times in Ireland: Older adults bridging the age-based digital divide together?

Abstract

In 2021, data on Internet usage for those aged 75 years and older in Ireland indicated that almost half of this cohort (46%) had never accessed the Internet. This study examines the role of informal peer learning in the digital lives of older adults in Ireland. A mixed methods case study methodology was employed. Data were collected from 100 participants by means of an online survey, followed by interviews with 12 participants who opted in from the survey. Interview data were collected and analysed using a constructivist grounded theory approach. My findings indicate that questions surrounding digital technologies were best addressed on an individual level, often from a same generation peer, whether household member, family or other relative, friend or member of one’s social environment. There was evidence of indirect reciprocity from these learning exchanges to a participant’s peers. Research into peer learning in informal social and community environments for older adults has been scarcely addressed heretofore. This research highlights that it is here that much later-life learning relating to digital skills takes place. The principles of intergenerational learning: learning with one another, learning from one another, learning about one another, offer a useful lens for future consideration of informal peer learning related to digital skills development amongst older adults.

Keywords:

• Digital literacy
• digital skills
• peer learning
• informal learning
• older adults

Introduction

The concept of the digital divide has many definitions, the most common being the difference between those who have access to and use of digital technology and those who do not (Central Statistics Office 2021). Authors including van Dijk (2019) distinguish between access to and usage of the Internet (Selwyn et al. 2003, Lee et al. 2011, Friemel 2016). Van Dijk further considers a process involving four phases of digital media adoption: motivation, physical access, digital skills and usage (2019, p. 2). Failure to adopt any or all of these by older adults contributes to the persistence of the age-based digital divide. This is a problem for 21st century Ireland (Flynn 2022). The period of the COVID-19 pandemic amplified a divide that already existed in Irish society for its older age cohorts across technologies generally. At 70% in 2021, Ireland has a high rate of basic overall digital skills for those aged 16–74 years, behind only the Netherlands and Finland at 79% and compared with a European Union (EU) average of 54% (Eurostat 2022a). However, by comparison with other EU member states, in terms of Internet usage by its older citizens, Ireland lags behind a number of countries (Iceland, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland), and until its departure from the EU, the United Kingdom. In 2021, 13% of those aged 65 to 74 years in Ireland had never accessed the Internet (Eurostat 2022b). The EU does not currently require member states to report data for the cohort aged 75 years and older.

As economy and society evolve in the 21st century, digital engagement is increasingly required for all citizens to participate in either or both. The dimensions and sub-dimensions of the composite Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) are aligned to the EU targets for the Digital Decade (European Commission 2022a). Ranked fifth overall in 2022 amongst 27 EU member states, Ireland rankings for each of the dimensions are third (human capital), sixth (connectivity), seventh (integration of digital technology) and sixth (digital public services) (European Commission 2022b). The Irish government is proud of this progress, having improved each year from tenth place ranking in 2017 (Department of Enterprise Trade and Employment 2022). In its 2022 updated National Digital Strategy, Harnessing Digital, ambitious targets are set out, aligned to the EU targets for 2030, and an ambition for Ireland to be a digital leader (Department of the Taoiseach 2022). The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens (DigComp), provides a set of five competence areas to guide the measurement of individuals’ digital skills (Vuorikari et al. 2022). These competence areas are intended to capture individuals’ levels of use across (1) Information and data literacy, (2) communication and collaboration, (3) digital content creation, (4) safety and (5) problem-solving. Proficiency levels are set out for all these areas and contribute to the measurement of digital skills amongst adults. However, since measurement of these skills does not currently take place for the cohort aged 75 years and older, it is difficult to accurately measure the size of the age-based digital divide for the adult population in Ireland.

Context of the study

Outside of family households where informal learning can take place amongst peers and across generations, non-formal modes of learning are most prevalent for digital skills development amongst older adults in Ireland. Usually offered by the government-provided adult education sector (Education and Training Boards Ireland) and non-governmental organisation (NGO) sector, instructor-led classroom-based learning is the norm. Providers of classes and courses, regardless of their content must measure interest in the topic in order to plan staffing and other resources. Since these have measurements of attendance and completion in place, they are often in receipt of EU funding, for example, through the Digital Skills for Citizens Scheme. Learners participating in this scheme must complete an online form for central records so the provider can claim their funding. Informal learning, on the other hand, may not be easily measured (Schuetze and Casey 2006) and arguably, has a wider reach and scope in terms of measurement of potential for learning (Singh 2015, p. 19) than formal and non-formal modes of learning. A challenge is that while often relevant and useful for both the individual and society, informal learning can be invisible (Villalba-García 2021).

The research question this study seeks to address is:

• What is the role of informal peer learning in the digital lives of older adults?

Previous research

Informal learning

Formal and non-formal learning are structured forms of lifelong learning that are both intended and planned. Informal learning on the other hand is less structured and may take many forms described by Rogers (2014) as multiple informal learnings. Self-directed learning involves intentional and deliberate action on the part of the learner, something the learner sets out to do (Blumschein 2012). Incidental or unintentional learning occurs when the learner is engaged in some task that produces additional learning, a byproduct of some sort (Marsick and Watkins 2015). Such learning comes about from everyday experiences and is almost certainly unplanned (Rogers 2014).

Informal learning, by contrast with formal and non-formal learning may be self-directed or collective forms. The development of a theory of informal and incidental learning is attributed to Marsick and Watkins, in their 1990 text referring to the workplace and republished in 2015 (Marsick and Watkins 2015). Their review of definitions from the literature considered informal learning as arising from experience and outwith institutions. The key difference with informal learning is that it takes place without the involvement of a teacher or external curriculum (Livingstone 2006). Informal learning in everyday life (Lave 2012, 2019) occurs in a variety of ways for older adults. It may be intentional or incidental in nature, within or outwith the home, amongst family, friends, or community. It is an on-going process of learning throughout the life course. Everyday life learning is lifelong learning. Rogers noted three forces in particular that promote informal learning. First, it includes learning unconsciously as we undertake new roles; second, we learn as our context changes including the adoption of new and changing technologies; and third, both intentional and tacit learning occurs as our individual interests change over time (2014). In a digitalised society, some adults may be interested in learning about subjects through the use of digital technologies or about technologies and devices themselves. According to research on andragogy, adults prefer to learn from the perspective of solving problems rather than studying subjects systematically (Fleming 2011). It may be therefore, that informal learning is an ideal environment for problem-based learning to flourish.

In Ireland, informal learning is measured at 5-yearly intervals by the Adult Education Survey (Eurostat 2021). Last administered in 2016, the participation rate in all six learning forms in the 55–64-year-old age cohort in Ireland was 54.8%, comparable to the EU average across the 28 member states at that time. The form, learning from a family member, friend, or colleague, recorded 19.1% of participants in this age cohort, lower than the EU average of 22.8%. Results for all six forms of informal learning are included in Table 1.

Table 1. Participation rate in informal learning by learning form and age cohort 55–64 years (Eurostat 2021).

Form of learning (2016)	Ireland percentage (%)	EU percentage (%)
1 Learning from a family member, friend, or colleague	19.1	22.3
2 Learning by using printed material	30.2	33.0
3 Learning by using computers	40.9	35.2
4 Learning through television/radio/video	19.0	27.5
5 Learning by guided tours of museums, historical/natural/industrial sites	11.5	15.8
6 Learning by visiting learning centres (including libraries)	10.7	9.8
Total participation rate in informal learning	54.8	55.4

Peer learning

Peer learning as an option for digital skills development is not new. Xie (2007), in a study with data collected from 2004, found that older adults learners attending computer classes considered that exchanges amongst peers to be an effective method of learning. The study also found that learning from peers who were just a little ahead in their knowledge of computers and the Internet was both effective and enjoyable. Facilitation of the learning process using a learner-led approach is an important aspect to consider since it provides empowerment to the learner. Later, in the second decade of the 21st century, Xie found that peer learning as a collaborative, social process, might also be as important as the learning outcome itself (Xie 2011). In the last ten years, as use of mobile digital devices has become more ubiquitous, it has become more important than ever for older adults to keep up with the changes that a new smartphone or tablet device brings in order to engage in digital economy and digital society. Collaborative learning experiences were found to be a theme of informal learning amongst older adults (Sayago et al. 2013, Jin et al. 2019). Recent research found peer support amongst older adults to be an important source of learning about digital media, with people they usually already know (Hunsaker et al. 2020) including household partners (Marler and Hargittai 2024), and noting the importance of social support (Han and Nam 2021, Rasi et al. 2021).

Peer learning can involve learning with one another or learning from one another, potentially both. These are two of the three principles of intergenerational learning, the third being learning about one another (Siebert and Seidel 1990, Schmidt-Hertha et al. 2014). Peer learning can take place from a young age in a formal environment, for example, a school classroom, a non-formal learning environment, amongst friends involved in organised activities (for example, scouts), or an informal environment (for example, at home amongst siblings). Learning from peers can thus extend into adulthood, at university level (Boud et al. 1999, Boud and Cohen 2014,) or through organised learning, for example through the University of the Third Age (U3A) (Formosa 2014). In a 2005 review of trends in peer learning, Topping found that peer tutoring involving specific roles, and cooperative learning involving small groups, were the two forms of peer learning most researched (2005). Less is known about peer learning that occurs informally, which may be intentional or incidental, amongst adults generally and older adults specifically, outside of formal and non-formal learning environments including the workplace. Peer learning may be considered a social process, with learnings arising from interactions between peers (Gogus 2012, Okita 2012). The learning may be reciprocal between parties, known as direct reciprocity, or indirect, where the learnings passed between two individuals are then passed on to another (Gosseries 2009).

In this paper my perspective focuses on the similarity between principles of intergenerational learning and peer learning in the context of digital skills development. Further, I believe that at a time when digital society and economy are increasingly the norm, the time is ripe for the coming-of-age of informal peer learning and the role it can play with digital skills development amongst older adults. In an Irish context, with an ageing population, the need to keep up with changing digital technologies needs to be supported more than ever, and in more ways than heretofore.

Digital skills amongst peers

Within family households that include children of school-going age, there is increased motivation to use digital technologies (Korupp and Szydlik 2005, van Dijk 2019). Less is known about motivation in households consisting of older partners in a relationship, with no other family members in residence. Marler and Hargittai (2024), in their study of 25 couples across five countries noted the convenience of seeking support from a life partner in the shared household rather than from their children. In 2015, a study of 53 older adults in the Netherlands found that in a number of cases one of the spouses in a household initiated the purchase of a digital device. In four cases this was the wife, and the husbands may not have encouraged the purchase or subsequently did not use the device, despite coming into contact with it when purchased (Luijkx et al. 2015). Another study in Canada examined the unofficial proxy role that ‘close others’, often spouses in a shared household, play in relation to online banking services (Latulipe et al. 2022). These examples indicate that informal peer learning may not feature in such households where one partner lacks motivation to develop digital skills.

In a survey by Friemel (2016), of more than 1,100 participants over the age of 65 years in Switzerland, the top three settings selected for learning how to use the Internet were home-based support by family and friends; coaching assistance from adolescents, and mentoring amongst peers. Other research reported the role of peer learning and processes of informal learning to develop digital literacy skill amongst older adults (Schmidt-Hertha and Strobel-Dümer 2014, Han and Nam 2021). Thus, in the digital age where the use of mobile devices is more ubiquitous, and technology is to be kept up with rather than learned once, there is a role for informal learning that involves peer learning and supportive learning environments. Rogoff’s community-of-learners model (1994) uses a participation theory in which she argues that all members play active roles and there is no passive role in the learning community (Rogoff 1994). In a Technology in Later Life (TILL) study examining the impacts of digital technologies on the lives of older adults in urban and rural settings in the United Kingdom and Canada, researchers recommended the creation of a peer support network to assist older adults in their use of new technologies (Marston et al. 2019). In another study of peer support for digital technologies amongst older adults, researchers found a few instances of bidirectional or mutual support that occurred between husbands and wives within a household and amongst friends outwith the household environment (Hunsaker et al. 2020). They concluded that there is potential for older adults to support their peers with digital technologies that may be more acceptable than support from other generations and suggested further investigation into how this might be achieved.

A social problem currently exists in Ireland that, for older adults who wish to participate in online activity, but have a need to develop and improve their digital skills, available options are limited to non-formal learning, usually short courses, offered by the Education and Training Boards or non-governmental organisations, for example the Hi Digital course from the Vodafone Foundation (Vodafone Ireland Foundation 2023). Such courses are excellent for beginners, those with low levels of digital literacy skills or none, since they are mostly instructor-led, take place in urban settings and tend to follow a prescribed curriculum. In addition to a rapidly ageing population, Ireland has a considerable urban-rural divide. Official data reported that in 2017, 31.4% of the Ireland population lived in a rural area, a town or village with a population of less than 1,500 (Central Statistics Office 2019) with significant areas designated as highly rural/remote along the western seaboard. This urban/rural divide also extends to 15 other European Union (EU) countries with populations living in rural areas in higher numbers than Ireland. These range from 32.2% in Bulgaria to 54.9% in Lithuania (Central Statistics Office 2019).

An implication of these data is that for some older adults residing in rural locations, it may not be practical or possible to attend a non-formal class in an urban environment, and so the need for alternative options to support the development and maintenance of their digital skills should be explored. The research gap that this paper addresses suggests a role for informal learning amongst peers, within and outwith households that may result in both intentional and incidental outcomes for personal levels of digital literacy.

Method

Data for this paper were collected in the summer of 2021 as part of my PhD research study that explored the digital experiences of older adults in Ireland (Flynn 2023), an area that has been heretofore under-researched. It was exploratory research that sought to identify the boundaries for future research studies in the area of digital skills development amongst older adults. A case study approach was employed that utilised a bounded system consisting of two units of analysis, the group of onliners and the group of offliners. These terms are used by Friemel (2016) and Seifert and Schelling (2016) to describe those who use the Internet (onliners) and those who do not (offliners). In this paper that deals with one of the bounded cases, that of onliners, a case study approach remains appropriate since in case study research two elements are key. First, the unit of analysis, the focus of what is trying to be understood (Tight 2017), in this study the experiences of the onliners. Second, the concept of a bounded system, that is described and analysed in-depth (Denscombe 2010; Merriam and Tisdell 2016), also in this study the experiences of the onliners.

Purposive sampling (Morse 2004) of onliners was planned through: (1) groups and associations in Ireland with older adults amongst its members, and (2) community groups in Cork city and county that I interact with as part of my volunteering activity. A participant information sheet was distributed through direct and indirect channels to administrators of these groups in July 2021. The information sheet included a link to an informed consent form, followed by a Qualtrics survey with a mixture of questions to initially explore participant digital experiences that may have been shaped by the COVID-19 pandemic. It was hoped that 50–100 participants would be recruited to complete the survey. At the end of the survey, participants were invited to an optional follow-up direct interview to further explore themes arising from the initial survey data. It was hoped that potentially 12 onliner participants would complete direct interviews through any of the following communications media: online video or audio, telephone, or in-person subject to public health guidance around the COVID-19 pandemic. Previous empirical research undertaken of digital habits amongst older adults has ranged in age from 45 years upwards, for example (Hunsaker and Hargittai 2018). Given the timeframe involved to collect all data, part of the survey and interview data collection occurred in parallel. I collected survey data from older adults in the age groups 55–64 years, 65–74 years and ages 75 years and older, a range I considered appropriate for my focus on intergenerational learning. All data collected from the survey participants were collated directly in the online survey software, Qualtrics, licenced by Lancaster University. This included baseline demographic data, participation in and motivation for lifelong learning, both classroom-based and online. Responses to questions around digital skills and confidence, support for digital skills and quality of life self-assessment were exported to Microsoft Excel for further analysis. It should be noted that quality of life self-assessment was not included in the data analysis for this paper since it had no relevance to the research question of interest.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted to extend the survey data further, and for the purposes of this paper, data were collected from 12 older adults in the two age cohorts 65–74 years and 75 years and older. A thirteenth interview was conducted with a participant in the age cohort 55–64 years and omitted from the data analysis. A potential weakness of the design of the interview data collection process surrounded the parallel timing of survey and interview data collection. The first 12 invitations to interview were accepted and scheduled with participants while the survey remained open. Thus, a further 33 expressions of interest to interview were not considered and potentially, an opportunity to collect additional data was lost. From a demographic perspective, the number of potential participants not selected for interview in each age cohort was three in the 75 years and older cohort, nine in the 65–74 age cohort, with the remaining 21 in the age cohort 55–64 years. Since the first 12 interviewees involved five from the 75 years and older cohort, and seven in the 65–74 age cohort, I felt I had a representative sample, balanced in terms of age cohort.

A number of concepts were considered at the outset as having potential to underpin the research for example, lifelong learning, intergenerational learning and social capital; however, from the interview analysis and development of memos, none had developed as a dominant analytic framework. As the early interviews progressed, I determined that constructivist grounded theory (CGT), with abductive reasoning, and aligned to the principles of pragmatism, was more suitable to the collecting of interview data and as an overall analytical approach. An abductive approach involves looking at the data using a different format, for example, moving from a computer to paper, to make sense of the data and test the concepts derived from the inductive approach (Gorra 2019). I combined use of the qualitative data analysis software package, NVivo, with printed copies of memos and codes, highlighter pens and coloured post-it notes, to help make sense of the interview data. Researchers describe abduction as both logical and innovative as a means of inferencing. Reichertz (Reichertz 2019) considers abduction to be a method to facilitate new discoveries by researchers in a logical and orderly manner. Further, surprise and serendipity are elements associated with abduction (Bryant and Charmaz 2007, 2019, Bryant 2017). As the interview data analysis progressed, I became aware of a serendipitous finding from many interviews (that of informal peer learning) that I had not considered when initially developing my thesis research questions, in turn leading to the development of this paper.

The ethics application for this study was coordinated by the PhD research supervisor and submitted to Lancaster University Department of Educational Research ethics committee on 13 May 2021. Since the study was considered to be low risk, initial review was undertaken by first and second supervisors who granted approval, thus enabling the study to proceed. An approval number was not provided.

Results

Survey participants

Twenty-one of the 26 counties of Ireland were represented by 103 participants with 3 further participants residing outside of Ireland. Six participants indicated their age was not in the range 55 years or older or did not select an age range. The survey ended for these 6 participants leaving 100 who continued with the survey. Characteristics of the 100 participants with regard to gender, age cohort, household status and education level are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Characteristics of survey participants.

Attribute data of 100 survey responses	Age 55–64 years	Age 65–74 years	Age 75 years and older	Total responses
Female	29	29	6	64
Male	18	10	8	36
Lives alone	6	11	2	19
Lives with one other	18	25	8	51
Lives with more than one other	21	2	3	26
Educated to doctorate level	6	0	1	7
Educated to postgraduate level	15	8	1	24
Educated to Bachelor’s degree level or professional qualification	17	9	3	29
Further education certificate or apprenticeship	2	5	3	10
Secondary education – senior cycle	3	10	1	14
Secondary education – junior cycle	2	5	3	10
Primary education	0	1	1	2

With regard to formal education, the question asked for the highest level completed full-time or part-time, as distinct from the level at which they completed full-time education. The response options were aligned to those used by the Central Statistics Office (CSO) for national census data collection.

In terms of the ages of the other members of the household (total number 101), over one-third (34) were aged 55–69 years followed by 25 in the age group 70–84 years. This was expected, based on the 66 participants who indicated that they lived with a partner or spouse. The remaining age ranges of household members in descending order were 16–24 years with 15 in number, a further 12 in the age group 25–39 years, and 9 aged 40–54 years. These data indicate potential opportunity for learning to take place amongst peers and across generations, both adjacent and non-adjacent.

Digital skills and confidence

Participants were asked to rate twelve statements on a 5-point Likert scale from ‘Strongly agree’ to ‘Strongly disagree’. Between 86 and 89 participants responded to each statement and Table 3 presents an overview of participants’ digital skills and confidence self-assessment by age cohort.

Table 3. Digital skills and confidence self-assessment.

Statement	Age 55–64 years (n = 47)	Age 65–74 years (n = 39)	Age 75 years and older (n = 14)	Total responses (n-100)
1. I need help with setting up my device.	39 Responses	37 Responses	13 Responses	89 Responses
Strongly agree	4	5	6	15
Somewhat agree	7	10	2	19
Neither agree nor disagree	0	2	0	2
Somewhat disagree	5	4	2	11
Strongly disagree	23	16	3	42
2. I can make phone calls and video calls online.	39 Responses	34 Responses	13 Responses	86 Responses
Strongly agree	35	24	7	66
Somewhat agree	2	2	4	8
Neither agree nor disagree	2	1	0	3
Somewhat disagree	0	4	2	6
Strongly disagree	0	3	0	3
3. I can communicate with family and friends using email.	38 Responses	36 Responses	13 Responses	87 Responses
Strongly agree	35	31	11	77
Somewhat agree	3	2	1	6
Neither agree nor disagree	0	0	0	0
Somewhat disagree	0	0	0	0
Strongly disagree	0	3	1	4
4. I can communicate with family and friends using messaging Apps.	37 Responses	33 responses	10 Responses	88 Responses
Strongly agree	37	27	8	72
Somewhat agree	2	4	2	8
Neither agree nor disagree	0	0	2	2
Somewhat disagree	0	5	0	5
Strongly disagree	0	0	1	1
5. I know how to access the Internet.	39 Responses	37 Responses	12 Responses	88 Responses
Strongly agree	38	28	11	77
Somewhat agree	1	6	1	8
Neither agree nor disagree	0	0	0	0
Somewhat disagree	0	1	0	1
Strongly disagree	0	2	0	2
6. I can download an App.	39 Responses	37 Responses	13 Responses	89 Responses
Strongly agree	36	26	8	70
Somewhat agree	2	5	1	8
Neither agree nor disagree	0	2	1	3
Somewhat disagree	1	2	1	4
Strongly disagree	0	2	2	4
7. I understand how to keep myself safe online.	39 Responses	36 Responses	13 Responses	88 Responses
Strongly agree	28	19	5	52
Somewhat agree	7	8	6	21
Neither agree nor disagree	3	1	1	5
Somewhat disagree	1	2	1	4
Strongly disagree	0	6	0	6
8. I use my digital device frequently.	39 Responses	36 Responses	13 Responses	88 Responses
Strongly agree	36	29	9	74
Somewhat agree	2	4	3	9
Neither agree nor disagree	1	0	1	2
Somewhat disagree	0	0	0	0
Strongly disagree	0	3	0	3
9. I am confident using my device.	39 Responses	36 Responses	13 Responses	88 Responses
Strongly agree	35	21	7	63
Somewhat agree	3	8	4	15
Neither agree nor disagree	1	2	1	4
Somewhat disagree	0	2	1	3
Strongly disagree	0	3	0	3
10. I am confident I know what to do if I get stuck.	38 Responses	35 Responses	13 Responses	86 Responses
Strongly agree	24	11	1	36
Somewhat agree	7	12	6	25
Neither agree nor disagree	3	3	2	8
Somewhat disagree	4	2	4	10
Strongly disagree	0	7	0	7
11. I worry I might break it.	39 Responses	36 Responses	13 Responses	88 Responses
Strongly agree	1	0	2	3
Somewhat agree	1	2	1	4
Neither agree nor disagree	4	2	2	8
Somewhat disagree	5	7	2	14
Strongly disagree	28	25	6	59
12. I am confident I can find what I need when using my device.	39 Responses	37 Responses	13 Responses	89 Responses
Strongly agree	32	23	5	60
Somewhat agree	5	7	4	16
Neither agree nor disagree	2	2	2	6
Somewhat disagree	0	4	2	6
Strongly disagree	0	1	0	1

Interview participants

Table 4 presents characteristics of the 12 interview participants, all of whom had completed the online survey, split evenly amongst the two age cohorts, 65–74 years, and 75 years and older. I used participants’ survey responses as reference in order to explore some of their responses in more depth relevant to the interview guide.

Table 4. Characteristics of interview participants.

Participant ID	Age range	Gender	Highest education level	Household status
Bridget	65–74	Female	Secondary – junior cycle	Lives with spouse
Patrick	75+	Male	Postgraduate	Lives with spouse and two adult children
James	75+	Male	Bachelor’s degree	Lives with more than one other (including spouse)
Michael	75+	Male	Primary level	Lives alone
Margaret	65–74	Female	Bachelor’s degree	Lives alone
Ellen	75+	Female	Secondary – junior cycle	Lives with spouse
Catherine	65–74	Female	Bachelor’s degree	Lives with spouse
Elizabeth	75+	Female	Bachelor’s degree	Lives with spouse
Sarah	65–74	Female	Secondary – senior cycle	Lives with spouse (and adult son at the time of interview owing to COVID-19)
Jane	65–74	Female	Secondary – senior cycle	Lives with spouse
Johanna	65–74	Female	Further education certificate	Lives alone
Norah	75+	Female	Secondary – junior cycle	Lives alone

Peer learning exchanges within households

Amongst the 12 interview participants who lived in a household with a spouse, five females reported being the digital person in the household, since their spouses had little or no motivation to engage in any online activity, whether for social or economic purposes. Two of the five would locate information online that their spouses were interested in; as Sarah commented of her spouse who regularly asks her: ‘will you get me into such a thing and such a thing?’ Both he and Bridget’s spouses are then able to repeat these steps for themselves since it is often the same few websites that they return to. In this scenario, the participants are warm experts for their spouses, a term coined by Bakardjieva (2005, p. 99), to describe one who is more knowledgeable than another with regard to Internet or computer use. The three other participants, by contrast, might be considered unofficial proxy users for their spouses when the need arises, generally taking care of all the household’s digital needs, managing utilities, booking travel, insurance and banking. All three agreed that this was not necessarily by choice, and they came to the digital role reluctantly, as Elizabeth continued: ‘it hasn’t been easy, but I’ve had to overcome it because [HUSBAND] wouldn’t, and so there have been benefits because I’m now coping with running the house and other things’.

Some participants interviewed who shared a household with a spouse or partner referred to learning something about technology from that person within the household environment. Given the age profile of the interview participants and their partners, this fits the parameters of a peer learning exchange. It may not always be successful, as indicated by this husband-and-wife dialogue:

Well, I learn from my wife. How to use an iPad I suppose and help me with a mobile phone. To do text messages. And we had quite a few arguments over them. A very impatient individual. How do I put it? I haven’t got the patience with her. And she hasn’t got the patience for teaching anybody (John).

I’d be trying to get things across, but they don’t sink into some people’s heads and I kind of lose my patience then. If he has any problems he’ll come to me or he’ll ask me to look it up (Bridget).

Other participants commented that their partners were not interested in technology and therefore the onus was on the participant to deal with necessary digital communications and interactions. Ellen commented about her husband and the new smart TV: ‘So, I took it home and I set it up and I’m reasonably practical. [HUSBAND] is totally useless on this sort of thing’. Her husband is an artist. Elizabeth’s husband is also a creative type who has no time for technology, as she explains:

I do everything for my husband. He’s not afraid of doing new things. He’s built a boat that he takes out on the water and sails. Well, it’s not a sailing boat, it’s a little motorboat that he fishes from and he built it from absolutely scratch, so it isn’t as though he’s given up on things, but he will not go near the computer or his phone.

In these two examples, the participants’ partners have no interest in technology and are not limited by this since there is one household member who can manage their requirements. In a sense, they have chosen not to engage in the digital world and are not negatively impacted by this choice since they are not alone in their household.

Peer learning exchanges outwith households

Outside of the household, survey data indicated that seven of the 12 onliner interview participants had non-family members to support them with their use of digital devices as necessary. Participants spoke of helping their peers, either informally (friends, family) or through a non-formal programme of learning, rather than receiving assistance. Catherine has the time to help out her friends but their devices are different from hers and so she cannot:

Another point, I’ve got two friends about my age group who might be not as good as me with certain stuff. But they both got iPhones from their daughters or some family members. Anyhow, I can’t help them and that’s frustrating for me I’m so used to the Samsung. I don’t know [the iPhone]. And I think they’re at a loss because I’d be more around than their families are a lot of the time.

Michael recalled a friend who has a mobile telephone but doesn’t know how to read text messages, or any interest in learning despite his offers to show her. If he meets her on the street she asks him ‘would you have a look at that? See what that is?’ While initially unwilling to adopt technology, Michael reported subsequent progress:

And she’s younger than me. She’s 69 now, I think. I said ‘[NAME], I can’t understand it’. She’s a retired nurse as well, not that she’s an uneducated person, you know. I said, ‘I can’t get it into my head that you would not want to be able to communicate’. ‘I have a mobile phone, that’ll do me’, she responds. This is the new way if you want to attend meetings. She’s been coming to my house now to attend some meetings here because she’s very involved with [CHARITY NAME] and there’s stuff online. Well then, I got to set it up and then when she was doing it she was comfortable.

Informal, intentional and incidental learning

Interview participants in this study reported learning interesting things about their digital devices that came about unexpectedly. For example, Bridget was being assisted by a peer generation family member to use the Files feature on her iPad. In the process of creating the document, she noted that the tutor, a cousin, was writing the date in numbers by swiping down on the relevant keys. So, to enter the date 17/08/2021 she swiped down on the letters qubpiwpwq. This was a complete surprise and something Bridget was unaware of, despite being an iPad user for many years. As far as she was concerned, this was a very useful discovery that came about incidentally rather than intentionally, albeit in a social environment. Outside of the home, with friends or in community and social settings, interview participants shared their experiences of learning from one another, intentionally and incidentally. Others, by contrast, did not have these supports in place, and some experienced frustration at trying to solve issues with technology on their own.

Discussion and limitations

The findings from the data collected from older adults in this study indicate that the majority of survey participants considered themselves to be generally skilled and confident in their use of digital technologies and devices (Table 3). This was explored further at interview where participants provided more details as to reasons for their selection of Likert scale options for the statements presented to them in the survey instrument. Some participants reported being early adopters of technology. Others appreciated the benefits technology brings to their lives and they try to keep their knowledge and skills updated, a process of lifelong learning, from cradle to grave, consistent with the intent of early policies (European Commission 2001, UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning 2015, Rubenson 2019).

Learning exchanges within the same generation were the means by which a number of household members in this study learnt about and gained assistance with their digital devices. If a problem was not solved in this manner, then the next option was to seek assistance from adult family members sharing the same household, followed by adult family members living outside the household, usually from an adjacent generation. These findings support and add to previous research by Luijkx et al. (2015) and Friemel (2016). While little research into life partner support for digital technologies specifically has been conducted heretofore, this study supports the finding by Marler and Hargittai (2024), that older adults prefer to seek support from such life partners regarding digital technologies rather than adult sons and daughters. The interview data indicate that there is opportunity for more peer digital skills learning exchanges outwith the household, informally amongst friends, and non-formally through for example, community and volunteering programmes.

Peer learning and the principles of intergenerational learning

Table 5 depicts the concepts central to IGL and aims to show close alignment with peer learning in life-wide learning contexts, and that two forms of IGL (learning with one another and learning from one another) are also applicable to peer learning, a view heretofore under-researched.

Table 5. Comparison of IGL and peer learning elements.

Life-wide learning contexts		Intergenerational learning	Peer learning
Formal learning		✓	✓
Non-formal learning		✓	✓
Informal learning	Intentional learning Incidental learning	✓	✓
Forms of intergenerational learning		Intergenerational learning	Peer learning
Learning with one another		✓	✓
Learning from one another		✓	✓
Learning about one another (one another’s generation)		✓	X

In modern society where the use of digital devices are prevalent, and ever-changing, there may be untapped potential to facilitate informal peer learning for the purpose of digital skills development amongst older adults.

Limitations

Twelve interview participants in this study self-identified as onliners and initially completed the online survey instrument. I used the binary categorisation of onliner/offliner by Seifert and Schelling to denote Internet use or non-use (Seifert and Schelling 2016, 2018). Four of a further eight participants in the original study who self-identified as offliners had some experience of online activity that became apparent through the interview process. I categorised these simply as midliners, a notional midpoint on a continuum of digital literacy. Other options such as described by the Pew Internet and American Life Project presented a spectrum of users and non-users (Lenhart et al. 2003) or Selwyn’s three levels of distinction (Selwyn 2006) might have been considered. However, the focus of this paper is on those participants who identified as onliners and considered themselves overall to be skilled and confident in their use of digital devices and therefore Seifert and Schelling’s categorisation was deemed most appropriate. Another limitation of the study was the size of the interview sample and future research might consider a larger sample of interview participants.

Conclusion

Digital skills in everyday life learning

Using data collected for a PhD research study, this paper set out to answer the question, what is the role of informal peer learning in the digital lives of older adults in Ireland? Participants in this study wishing to develop their digital skills often did so through informal peer learning and preferred this over more formal learning environments since it specifically addressed their particular need. There is also a social aspect of putting heads together with coffee over a digital device rather than sitting in a classroom of learners with different types of devices and differing needs. This study has shown that informal peer learning satisfies at least two of the three forms of IGL: learning with one another, learning from one another, and learning about one another. By applying the principles of IGL to peer learning it extends the work of IGL researchers, notably Ann-Kristin Böstrom (Boström 2003, 2014, Boström and Schmidt-Hertha 2017), Bernhard Schmidt-Hertha (Schmidt-Hertha et al. 2014, Schmidt-Hertha and Strobel-Dümer 2014); also the writings on intergenerational practice of Alan Hatton-Yeo (Hatton-Yeo and Ohsako 2000, Hatton-Yeo 2010, 2015) and Sally Newman (Newman and Hatton-Yeo 2008, Newman 2014). Given its focus outside the realms of the workplace and education institutions, the paper adds to the literature on informal learning by Victoria Marsick and Karen Watkins (Marsick and Watkins 2001, 2015) as well as peer learning research by Keith Topping (Topping 2005). The study indicates that in relation to digital skills development amongst older adults, the time has arrived for more informal peer learning opportunities to help bridge the age-based digital divide in Ireland.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in the Lancaster University research database at https://doi.org/10.17635/lancaster/researchdata/624.