TY - JOUR
T1 - In the eye of the beholder
T2 - The impact of intergenerational programs from the perspectives of their different stakeholders
AU - Cohen-Mansfield, Jiska
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
PY - 2021/11/1
Y1 - 2021/11/1
N2 - Since most evaluations of intergenerational programs (IGPs) focus on the perspective of a single stakeholder group concerning the benefit for themselves, we compared perceptions of multiple stakeholders: older adults, younger adults, and IGP organizers concerning the impact of IGPs on older and young participants. Using a mixed-methods approach, we collected data from thirteen community-based IGPs. The quantitative analyses included a comparison of the different stakeholder groups via ANOVAs and chi-square analyses. In order to identify the reasons for different attribution ratings among stakeholders, we conducted a qualitative analysis of the stakeholders’ comments and responses to open-ended questions using a thematic analysis approach. Overall, participants rated benefits to themselves lower than attributed to them by their counterparts. Differences in ratings may be explained by differences in expectations and needs, cognitive dissonance, as well as a lack of awareness about other participants’ experiences. Given the discrepancies in perception of impact, it is vital to seek input from all stakeholders in order to understand their respective needs and expectations, construct a balanced evaluation, and improve IGP processes and outcomes. Studying a single stakeholder group for project evaluation is likely to provide only one perspective, whereas including all points of view provides a more complete picture.
AB - Since most evaluations of intergenerational programs (IGPs) focus on the perspective of a single stakeholder group concerning the benefit for themselves, we compared perceptions of multiple stakeholders: older adults, younger adults, and IGP organizers concerning the impact of IGPs on older and young participants. Using a mixed-methods approach, we collected data from thirteen community-based IGPs. The quantitative analyses included a comparison of the different stakeholder groups via ANOVAs and chi-square analyses. In order to identify the reasons for different attribution ratings among stakeholders, we conducted a qualitative analysis of the stakeholders’ comments and responses to open-ended questions using a thematic analysis approach. Overall, participants rated benefits to themselves lower than attributed to them by their counterparts. Differences in ratings may be explained by differences in expectations and needs, cognitive dissonance, as well as a lack of awareness about other participants’ experiences. Given the discrepancies in perception of impact, it is vital to seek input from all stakeholders in order to understand their respective needs and expectations, construct a balanced evaluation, and improve IGP processes and outcomes. Studying a single stakeholder group for project evaluation is likely to provide only one perspective, whereas including all points of view provides a more complete picture.
KW - Intergenerational programs
KW - Older adults
KW - Social contacts
KW - Stereotyping and bias
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85118863994&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3390/ijerph182211916
DO - 10.3390/ijerph182211916
M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontojournal.article???
C2 - 34831670
AN - SCOPUS:85118863994
SN - 1661-7827
VL - 18
JO - International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
JF - International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
IS - 22
M1 - 11916
ER -