IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/reihed/v65y2024i4d10.1007_s11162-024-09785-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Promoting Age Inclusivity in Higher Education: Campus Practices and Perceptions by Students, Faculty, and Staff

Author

Listed:
  • Susan Krauss Whitbourne

    (University of Massachusetts Boston
    University of Massachusetts Amherst)

  • Lauren Marshall Bowen

    (University of Massachusetts Boston)

  • Nina M. Silverstein

    (University of Massachusetts Boston)

  • Joann M. Montepare

    (Lasell University/Lasell Village)

  • Jeffrey E. Stokes

    (University of Massachusetts Boston)

Abstract

Population aging presents opportunities and challenges for higher education. Increasingly, age-diverse student populations are entering into or returning to postsecondary education; meanwhile, campuses are workplaces where faculty and staff are aging-in-place. Yet, age bias and discrimination continue to exist in institutions of higher education. As encouraged by the Age-Friendly University (AFU) initiative, higher education should foster age-inclusive environments. However, empirical measures are needed to document what it means to be age inclusive. To this end, the present study used the Inventory and Campus Climate Survey (ICCS; Silverstein et al., Silverstein et al., The Gerontologist 62:e48–e61, 2022), based on social-ecological theory, to assess age-inclusive practices and awareness of these practices across seven campus domains, along with personal beliefs regarding age inclusivity, as predictors of perceived age-friendliness. AFU network institutions in the U.S. (23 campuses) provided data from a total sample of 1549 faculty, 2582 staff, and 2700 students. Confirmatory Factor Analysis established the proposed structure of the Age-Friendliness and Personal Beliefs scales of the Campus Climate Survey. Model testing revealed that campus constituents, regardless of role, were largely unaware of age-friendly practices reported by campus administrators, and that the degree of fit between actual practices and constituents’ awareness of them predicted perceptions of age inclusivity. Constituents differed in their assessment of which age-friendly practices most contributed to their own sense of age inclusivity, with physical environment playing an important predictive role across all groups. The findings indicated that, even among institutions that endorse AFU principles, there is an overall disconnect between practices and perceptions that can impede the impact of age-inclusive efforts for age-diverse individuals who might benefit from them.

Suggested Citation

  • Susan Krauss Whitbourne & Lauren Marshall Bowen & Nina M. Silverstein & Joann M. Montepare & Jeffrey E. Stokes, 2024. "Promoting Age Inclusivity in Higher Education: Campus Practices and Perceptions by Students, Faculty, and Staff," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 65(4), pages 601-624, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:reihed:v:65:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s11162-024-09785-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s11162-024-09785-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11162-024-09785-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11162-024-09785-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Justyna Stypinska & Konrad Turek, 2017. "Hard and soft age discrimination: the dual nature of workplace discrimination," European Journal of Ageing, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 49-61, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Patricia Carral & Carlos-María Alcover, 2019. "Measuring Age Discrimination at Work: Spanish Adaptation and Preliminary Validation of the Nordic Age Discrimination Scale (NADS)," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-14, April.
    2. António Fragoso & Josélia Fonseca, 2022. "Combating Ageism through Adult Education and Learning," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-12, March.
    3. Lotte P. Brinkhof & Sanne de Wit & Jaap M. J. Murre & Harm J. Krugers & K. Richard Ridderinkhof, 2022. "The Subjective Experience of Ageism: The Perceived Ageism Questionnaire (PAQ)," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-21, July.
    4. Kerstin Nilsson & Emma Nilsson, 2022. "Can They Stay or Will They Go? A Cross Sectional Study of Managers’ Attitudes towards Their Senior Employees," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-19, January.
    5. Maeve O'Sullivan & Christine Cross & Jonathan Lavelle, 2021. "Good or bad jobs? Characteristics of older female part‐time work," Industrial Relations Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(5), pages 423-441, September.
    6. Liat Ayalon & Clemens Tesch-Römer, 2017. "Taking a closer look at ageism: self- and other-directed ageist attitudes and discrimination," European Journal of Ageing, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 1-4, March.
    7. Kerstin Nilsson & Emma Nilsson, 2022. "Managers’ Attitudes to Different Action Proposals in the Direction to Extended Working Life: A Cross-Sectional Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-17, February.
    8. Klaudia Przybysz & Agnieszka Stanimir & Marta Wasiak, 2021. "Subjective Assessment of Seniors on the Phenomenon of Discrimination: Analysis Against the Background of the Europe 2020 Strategy Implementation," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(Special 1), pages 810-835.
    9. Aracely Soto-Simeone & Teemu Kautonen, 2021. "Senior entrepreneurship following unemployment: a social identity theory perspective," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 15(6), pages 1683-1706, August.
    10. Livia Anastasiu & Ovidiu Gavriş & Dorin Maier, 2020. "Is Human Capital Ready for Change? A Strategic Approach Adapting Porter’s Five Forces to Human Resources," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-20, March.
    11. Grażyna Bartkowiak & Agnieszka Krugiełka & Ryszard Dachowski & Katarzyna Gałek & Paulina Kostrzewa-Demczuk, 2020. "Attitudes of Polish Entrepreneurs towards 65+ Knowledge Workers in the Context of Their Pro-Social Attitude and Organizational Citizenship Behavior," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-24, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:reihed:v:65:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s11162-024-09785-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.