In increasingly digitized societies, older populations tend to be disregarded, and therefore excluded, in a significant number of research designs. As we live in datafied contexts, it is important to understand how quantitative research, and the data they produce, shape the way researchers and citizens understand the world.
Age, like gender, ethnicity, or class, is a dimension of social structure and ‘involves differential treatment’ (Brah & Phoenix 2004, 81) –sometimes discriminatory. Age serves as a social organizing principle; different age groups gain identities and power in relation to one another, and age relations intersect with other power relations (Calasanti & Slevin 2006). Therefore, it is relevant to look at the politics of data (Koro-Ljungberg, MacLure & Ulmer, 2017) to understand given strands of age-based discrimination –or ageism.
I discuss how older people are represented and disregarded when it comes to statistics on digitization, and the particular challenges those (mis-)representations bring about in the analysis of digital practices in different stages of olderhood.
I analyze the data from two different sources published regularly. On the one hand, official statistics by Eurostat (https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat), the body responsible for providing statistical information to the institutions and policymakers of the European Union (EU). On the other hand, the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE, www.share-project.org). Led by academic institutions and supported by the EU, SHARE is a longitudinal study on health, socio-economic status, and social and family networks. It is considered to provide the most descriptive analysis of the European older population.
Results show that Eurostat stops producing EU-aggregated data on digital practices at the age of 74. Policymakers are thus blind both in terms of the definition and evaluation of digital policies targeting older adults, such as those related to ‘active ageing’ and ‘successful ageing.’ SHARE could overcome such limitations as it has no upper threshold on age. However, it has limited interest in digitization and only includes one primary variable that accounts for use and non-use of the Internet in the previous week. Therefore, it does not focus on the rich nuances of digital practices during different stages of old age.
It can be concluded that, compared to other younger age groups, the information about the digital practices of the older population is unnecessarily limited. We can either look to statistics interested in digitization or to statistics interested in ageing. What is missing is data that brings together these two areas. Such lack of (rich) data not only harms the possibility of making informed decisions concerning older people but reinforces stereotypical ideas on the lack of interest or ability to deal with digitization at old age.