Invisible, unrecognised and undervalued: examining stories of unpaid work performed by older adults in their local neighbourhoods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Over the past 40 years, positive ageing discourses that speak to an expectation of continued productivity have gained prominence within research and policy. Such discourses have been critiqued as placing disproportionate value on the extension of older adults' working lives, while obscuring other valuable forms of work performed by older adults. Despite the emergence of theoretical conversations about the expansion of conceptions of work, few studies have adopted an explicit focus on the work performed by older adults within their neighbourhoods. Informed by conceptions of work positioned at the intersection of critical gerontology and critical feminism, we drew upon qualitative data from a larger ethnographic study, generated from 17 participants aged 65 and older, to examine: (a) the various forms and contributions of unpaid work that older adults carry out at the neighbourhood level, and (b) the ways in which older adults' representations of this work relate to dominant notions of productivity. Specifically, each participant engaged in three types of qualitative interviews, including additional spatial and visual data generation: (a) completing a narrative interview; (b) carrying a small Global Positioning System (GPS) device to automatically log locations, completing an activity diary and a follow-up interview; and (c) participating in a go-along interview or a photo elicitation interview. Our findings highlight a range of unpaid work performed by participants in their neighbourhood, including formal volunteering, informal caring and informal civic participation. Although these forms of work were, at times, discussed by participants as enabling social inclusion, significant tensions arose from the general lack of discursive and social value assigned to them. In particular, participants described being subject to overwhelming expectations placed on older adults, and women in particular, to carry out this work, with little recognition or acknowledgement of their contributions to the neighbourhood. Taken together, our findings suggest the need not only to diversify understandings of the forms of work perceived as aligning with productive contributions to society in older age, but also to attend to the invisible work performed by older adults within their neighbourhoods. Additionally, we propose a variety of ways organisations and communities that benefit from older adults' unpaid labour may enhance accessibility, thereby reducing the work done by older adults to negotiate tensions between ableist expectations for productivity and their ageing bodies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".