Ageism and informal learning: Exploring care settings for older adults

Abstract

With the global trend of population aging, improving older adults’ quality of life is increasingly urgent. While longevity should align with well-being, ageism remains a significant barrier. This study explores ageism in long-term care settings and its prevalence from a learning perspective. Grounded in a conceptualization of 32 variants of ageism and social representations theory, the ways in which the manifestations of ageism and their underlying social representations shed light on the informal learning processes within these settings are explored in this study. This study employed a convergent mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative and quantitative data. Data were triangulated from participant observation, interviews, and surveys, which enabled a comprehensive view of the phenomenon. For over three months, participant observation was conducted in four institutions in Portugal that offer residential and nonresidential services for older adults, yielding 32 field notes for analysis. In addition, four interviews were conducted with participants holding management responsibilities in these institutions. To examine social representations, 386 care workers from Portugal completed a nationwide survey including free word association and socio-demographic questions. The findings suggest that the social representation of older people held by professionals, alongside certain institutional practices, constitute positive and negative manifestations of ageism. Despite being different in nature, both result in older people’s loss of autonomy, self-doubt, diminished confidence and self-reinforcing of negative stereotypes. As ageist beliefs and practices become naturalized within a long-term care culture, institutions may become a stage for learning processes that perpetuate rather than challenge ageism.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 5 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.