Show Summary Details

Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE ( © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: null; date: 25 May 2020

Intergenerational Learning: A Tool for Building and Transforming Cultural Heritage

Abstract and Keywords

This chapter explores the potential of intergenerational learning (IGL) occurring in communities around the globe to contribute to cultural conservation and cultural transformation. It builds on recent developments in theory and research to explore IGL as a mechanism for building and transforming cultural heritage between children and older adults. The benefits of IGL programs for both individual and community well-being are discussed, as well as the ability of IGL projects to foster social integration and acceptance in multicultural and diverse communities. The chapter makes a strong case for the integration of IGL programs within societies, especially migrant communities, to preserve and transform cultural heritage and build intercultural communities, for the benefit of all.

Keywords: multicultural, culture, heritage, cultural transformation, intergenerational learning, cultural transmission, intercultural dialogue, young children, older adults, social cohesion

Young and Old Together

The modern world is one of mass migration, social change, and changing family structures. These changes affect the shape of societies and communities, as well as the identities and growth of individuals. In response to the ever-shifting cultural landscape, intergenerational learning projects in countries across the world have sought to bring disparate populations together, find value in cultural diversity and aging populations, and preserve the cultural heritage of individuals and communities.

This chapter reflects on the link between intergenerational learning and cultural heritage, based on the knowledge and insights of the ongoing Together Old and Young (TOY) Programme [<>], the goal of which is to promote intergenerational learning and create new possibilities for older adults and young children to learn together and benefit from each other’s company. TOY responds to three key societal concerns. The first is age segregation, in societies that often isolate age groups into same-age institutions (such as pre-schools and care homes); the second is the need for better age integration, in response to a global aging population; and the third is the need for social cohesion and solidarity in culturally diverse societies. This last point is of particular importance in multicultural societies, to encourage the conservation and expression of rich cultural backgrounds.

The TOY Programme originated in the EU-funded TOY Project (2012–14) which took place in seven countries: Ireland, Italy, Slovenia, Spain, the Netherlands, Poland, and (p. 420) Portugal. The TOY Project was unique amongst European intergenerational learning projects with its explicit focus on children in the early childhood years (0 to 8 years). In collaboration with universities, NGOs, and municipalities members of the TOY consortium researched, documented, and supported learning initiatives involving young children and older adults in Europe. The research methodology employed include case study analysis, observation, interviews, and focus groups analysis. These initiatives took place in libraries, arts and cultural centers, community gardens, pre-schools, and schools. The TOY project integrates perspectives from many disciplines, including pedagogical communities, developmental psychology, gerontology, social policy, and cultural anthropology, in order to better understand the learning relations between generations and benefits to young, old, and communities. Many of the supported initiatives tackled cultural heritage and its transmission from one generation to the next, showing also the power intergenerational learning can have in transforming and renegotiating culture and collective memories, so that new members of the community can also develop a sense of belonging.

The present chapter builds on an earlier article in which it was argued that interactions between young children and older people can develop solidarity, social cohesion, and intercultural understanding (Cortellesi and Kernan 2016). The current chapter discusses first how intergenerational programs foster cultural transmission and transformation, and the impact of this on well-being, and second how IGL processes can support the integration and social inclusion of marginalized groups in society, such as young children and older adults with a history of migration, or belonging to ethnic minorities. It explores how intergenerational learning happening in formal, non-formal, and informal spaces in communities around the globe can and does contribute to cultural conservation, but also how it initiates cultural transformation. To begin, a review will be presented of the key concepts central to the current thesis, including intergenerational learning, cultural transformation, and intangible cultural heritage.

Specifically, in this chapter, the following questions are addressed:

  1. 1. How does the maintenance, transmission, and transformation of cultural heritage affect the health and well-being of children, older adults, and communities?

  2. 2. What role does IGL have in this process?

  3. 3. How can IGL encourage social cohesion in diverse communities?

  4. 4. How does cultural transmission and transformation relate to the integration of marginalized communities in practice?

Defining Intergenerational Learning

Intergenerational learning or IGL is interpreted differently by many authors (Bottery 2016, Franz and Scheunpflug 2016). In summary, it is the oldest method of learning, (p. 421) whereby knowledge, skills, values, and norms are transmitted between generations, typically through the family (Hoff 2007), and involves learning that takes place naturally as part of day-to-day social activity. A newer model of intergenerational learning—extra-familial intergenerational learning—facilitates wider social groups outside the family to contribute to the socialization of the young, and focuses on relationships (Kaplan 2002, Newman and Hatton-Yeo 2008, Vanderbeck and Worth 2015). The working definition of IGL utilized throughout the TOY program is “Intergenerational learning involves different age groups learning together, learning from each other and learning about each other in a range of settings.”

The TOY approach identifies five goals of IGL specifically involving young children and older adults: (1) building and sustaining relationships; (2) enhancing social cohesion in the community; (3) facilitating older people as guardians of knowledge; (4) recognizing the roles of grandparents in young children’s lives; (5) enriching the learning processes of both children and older adults. The overarching goal, integrating all five sub-goals, is improved health and well-being of both generations and of communities in general.

Growing interest in IGL stems from both new societal concerns and opportunities, and new understandings of the processes and participation involved in education and learning. This includes the notions of lifelong and lifewide learning, combined with the need to respond positively to the growing separation of generations due to urbanization, migration, family breakdown, and an increasing spread of extended networks of families across communities and continents. At a broader level, demographic change, particularly the phenomenon of aging populations, but also expanding and shrinking populations, has been a key influence in the advocacy of many intergenerational (IG) projects.

Intergenerational Learning as a Catalyst for Heritage Conservation and Cultural Transformation

Many social science disciplines extensively explore cultural transmission because it is useful for explaining cultural stability and cultural change (Schönpflug 2009). Intergenerational cultural transmission refers to the transmission of cultural ideas (e.g. values, beliefs, knowledge, practices) from one generation to the next, and is a selective process during which the older generation (parents, grandparents, or elderly in the community) decides consciously and unconsciously which cultural ideas to transmit to the young generation (Tam 2015). The process by which intergenerational learning fosters cultural transmission varies across the globe and different enculturation regimes and social exchange systems shape these processes, putting the emphasis on some members of the family more than others, or on specific members of the community (Nsamenang 2012).

(p. 422) The understanding of “culture” presented here, and assumed through the TOY Project, is based on the cultural anthropological definition of this concept developed by Clifford Geertz: a web of meanings that are constantly transmitted, shared, transformed, and reinterpreted by a group of people over time (Geertz 1973). Anthropology has studied intergenerational transmission of material and immaterial culture and cultural heritage for decades (Mannheim 1927, cited in Pickering and Keightley 2013). Cultural transmission happens through collective memory, which develops from individuals who create their own narrations, reinterpreting, translating, negotiating, and constructing memories in and over time (Pickering and Keightley 2013).

Cultural transformation is central to the field of cultural heritage, though it is acknowledged that definitions of cultural heritage are much debated and in continuous transformation, due to the changing nature of all ideas and concepts used by people (Konsa 2013). Cultural heritage is influenced by historical, political, and social conditions, and refers to a purportedly shared past; it bears directly upon the experiences of the present and the expectations of the future (Konsa 2013, Han and Antrosio 2016). In the Oxford Handbook of Culture and Psychology, cultural transformation between generations is discussed as a form of social evolution, ensuring the survival of not only children, but also individual culture (Nsamenang 2012). In this way, cultural heritage is preserved and sometimes imagined and constructed by communities as a resource for the diverse wants and needs of members of a community.

Approaching intergenerational learning from a cultural anthropological perspective, it is crucial to consider how childhood and old age produce their own cultures and how they shape the culture of other generations (Danely 2013: 1, Hirschfeld 2002). In other words, it is necessary to recognize how each generation’s body of cultural heritage, knowledge, and related values differs from that of both earlier and later generations (Strom and Strom 2011). By doing so, it is possible to pose the following question: how is cultural heritage interpreted, transmitted, preserved, and transformed in the interaction between generations and their cultures?

Intergenerational learning is often seen as a one-directional process from the older generations to the young ones, but central to the thesis presented in this chapter is the idea that IGL is bi-directional or multidirectional. Based on the evidence from the TOY research, it is argued that cultural transmission through intergenerational learning experiences is not only vertical, oblique, and horizontal (Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman 1981), but is also influenced by children—including very young children—who transmit cultural ideas to older generations and contribute to the transformation of cultural landscapes, together with older members of their communities.

In this chapter, we demonstrate how non-familial intergenerational learning activities contribute to the preservation of cultural heritage, impacting the well-being of individuals and communities by developing shared interpretations of the past, the present, and the future. Of particular importance here is the preservation of intangible cultural heritage, which encompasses a full range of ideas, memories, languages, dances, songs, recipes, and many other elements of who we are and how we identify ourselves (p. 423) (UNESCO, 2003). It also encompasses the contemporary activities, meanings, values, and behaviors that are drawn from these to create visions of the present and the future.

Cultural Heritage, IGL, and Individual and Community Well-Being

The maintenance, transmission, and transformation of cultural heritage affects health and well-being, both on an individual and community level. For the individual, cultural heritage encourages the formation of an identity and sense of self, from micro-culture sources (e.g. regional and communal) and macro-culture sources (e.g. state and transnational) (Konsa 2013). Furthermore, the sharing of culture can encourage skill development and re-engage individuals with their past. On a community level, IGL can develop a positive and integrative society, and decrease marginalization of communities or populations. As previously stated, the overarching goal of the TOY program is to improve the well-being of the old, the young, and the communities involved. The following section will illustrate how IG programs can have such an effect, first on an individual level, and then on a community level.

Developmental Well-Being

For children and young people, the ability to engage in meaningful relationships with the older generation provides access to a sustained cultural heritage. Older adults are seen as “models” of culture (Acerbi, Ghirlanda, and Enquist 2012), given that each person is born devoid of cultural identity, and acquires their personal culture across the lifespan. Thus, older generations can be “suppliers” of cultural traits. It is important to note that, as much as rich and valuable aspects of a person’s cultural identity can be shared, so too can prejudices, social hierarchies, and cultural norms that are not conducive to positive relationships and participant well-being. However, children, especially the very young, can benefit from access to the beauty, creativity, and variety of a distinct cultural heritage (Acerbi and Parisi 2006), and in turn can influence the transformation of such cultural traits in a reciprocal relationship, as theorized in the preceding section.

This two-directional partnership provides children with a feeling of autonomy and power that is not often afforded them; increased public perceptions of children as vulnerable, and an increase in risk aversive cultures in first-world countries, has limited children’s capacities to explore, direct, and lead in day-to-day life (Phillips and Tossa 2016). Leadership and autonomy are necessary skills for a positive transition into adulthood, and thus should be fostered in younger generations (Arnett 2000, Lopez and Snyder 2011). Reciprocal intergenerational relationships provide young children with the opportunity to develop these skills. For example, a neighborhood walking project (p. 424) piloted in Brisbane, Australia, and now being applied in Thailand, encouraged children to design and lead groups of adults on walks through public spaces. Children were seen to competently manage the responsibility of planning and conducting guided tours of public spaces for an adult audience, and audience members “witnessed capabilities of children that are rarely recognised” (Phillips and Tossa 2015: 26). IGL projects commonly report benefits for children’s self-confidence and personal agency (Dumbrajs 2012, Hickey and Phillips 2013). Thus, there are many benefits for the developmental well-being of young children involved in IGL projects.

For older generations, the benefits of IGL projects relate to anthropologist Jordan Lewis’s (2013) definition of aging well, which includes four elements: emotional well-being, community engagement, physical health, and spirituality. Successful aging is linked to IG contact in TOY with respect to the following dimensions: being and feeling mentally and physically active and useful; being and feeling valued; being and feeling able to contribute; having fun and bringing fun; developing self-confidence and esteem; taking care and being part of the future of their communities. Intergenerational initiatives increase feelings of self-worth for older adults (Dumbrajs 2012), as well as feelings of generativity and engagement (Andreoletti and Howard 2016). Interestingly, several projects have also highlighted the protective abilities of intergenerational interactions to encourage memory recall in older people experiencing troubles with memory loss and degrees of dementia (Nilsson and Herrman 2016).

One project funded by the Swedish Arts Council, and focusing on the revival of traditional cultural songs, utilized music and group singing as an intergenerational activity between pensioners and pre-schoolers (Nilsson and Herrman 2016). In an ongoing evaluation of the project, a multidisciplinary team discussed the importance of sensory stimulation for the vitality of aged persons, and that positive interactive experiences such as music making with young children provide a buffer for negative thoughts and feelings of pain. Additionally, hearing children’s voices and traditional cultural songs elicited remembering in older individuals, and provided an opportunity to pass on intangible cultural heritage to younger generations. Staff reported that “older people with memory loss and a limited ability to communicate verbally can suddenly start singing songs correctly” (Nilsson and Herrman 2016: 193).

Similarly, an IGL project conducted in Helsinki, Finland, focused on the reciprocal transmission of culture between old and young, and encouraged fluid and self-directed partnerships between the generations, based around shared stories, experiences, and hobbies (Dumbrajs 2012). Through the shared expression of culture with younger generations, pensioners were able to re-engage with past passions and hobbies. Sharing stories not only encouraged memory recall, but also encouraged old people to talk more, providing protective factors against the effects of aging. In summary, intergenerational activities focusing on the sharing of cultural heritage benefits both the transmission of heritage to younger generations, as well as the mental, emotional, and physical well-being of both generations.

(p. 425) Social and Community Well-Being

Influenced by the work of Bandura (1977), Smith et al (2008) proposed that because human behavior is influenced by social learning, understanding cultural transmission is key to understanding human behavior. From this framework, exposure to social groups that are often isolated from one another can have positive impacts on the perspectives and “otherness” related to those groups. In a modern society, where old and young populations are becoming steadily more separated, and often isolated to same age institutions and spaces (e.g. school or retirement home), it becomes easy to adopt misplaced conceptions about oldness or childhood. Childhood has often been identified as an age of spontaneity and immaturity, while oldness can be related to a lack of generativity. Intergenerational activities can question both these assumptions, providing young children and older people the opportunity to express and experience different selves, to be active learners at any age and to build connections instead of disjunctions (Wentzell 2013).

Elaborating on the cautionary note of the previous section, it is important to recognize that, for some intergenerational relationships, disjunctions are difficult to overcome. One intergenerational gardening and story-sharing project in Delaware, United States, reflected on the difficulties of navigating hierarchical age and gender norms of older Vietnamese males in intergenerational relationships (Yoshida, Henkin, and Lehrman 2013). The project linked migrant Vietnamese elders with first-generation American children with a migrant history, in an effort to encourage social cohesion and bi-directional learning between young and old. Despite an overarching positive impact of the project on perspectives of both cultures and generations, and increased feelings of empathy and understanding towards the other, staff and members reported a challenge in connecting with some of the elders on a deeper level. This was in large part due to a reflection of societal norms from the Vietnamese culture, which often positions male elders in the highest position in the community. Thus, some members projected this cultural norm onto the staff and volunteers, the majority of whom were young females. This had a decisive impact on the nature of the relationship, as staff reported a more unidirectional relationship, with older members taking the role of teachers, and children the role of learners.

Although there is a risk of transmitting such maladaptive traits and norms in these projects, intergenerational learning can also challenge negative views of others, by providing a platform for co-creating of a new social understanding or acceptance. The opportunity to overcome negative views about older people was a common goal of IG activities researched as part of the TOY project (TOY Project Consortium 2013b). Positive, transactional relationships between young and old can combat negative associations that children may have towards old age (including death, illness, shaking hands, retirement, forgetting). Similarly, seniors also mentioned that the stereotypical views they had about children were challenged. Mia, a 94-year-old woman from an intergenerational project in the Netherlands, which was one of the case studies in TOY, described it as follows:

(p. 426)

When you have contact with one another you become more comfortable with one another . . . the contact helps [older people] to become more tolerant of young children. There are elderly people who think young children just make a lot of noise, who find them difficult.

(TOY Project Consortium 2013c)

Both groups had to adapt to and learn how to interact with the “other,” and adapt to different personalities outside the family. Additionally, children and adults working together in meaningful exchanges learn to adapt to the perspectives of the other, reinterpreting, reimagining, and co-constructing knowledge together (TOY Project Consortium 2013a, Phillips and Tossa 2015). This process was illustrated in the aforementioned neighborhood walk project in Thailand, which cultivated adult “re-sensing, re-thinking and re-imagining of children, childhood, and space.” Adults involved in the walk spoke of “a desire to understand children and the neighbourhood differently,” reflecting the nature of exposure and interaction as a powerful tool for encouraging new perspectives and disbanding negative stereotypes (Phillips and Tossa 2015: 26).

In summary, intergenerational learning can help overcome stereotypes and at the same time fosters cultural transmission and the co-creation of original cultural landscapes, over which community members with different backgrounds can embrace a shared ownership. This process encourages a cohesive society built on an intercultural understanding and a shared sense of belonging, for the well-being of entire communities.

Contribution of IGL to Social Cohesion in Diverse Communities

As outlined in the previous section of this chapter, the findings of the TOY Project as well as research conducted by many scholars demonstrates that social engagement between generations is a key factor in the well-being of all, as well as a catalyst in the creation of a shared cross-generational heritage and culture. In this section, it is argued that intergenerational learning can also decrease the marginalization of young children and older people, especially those living in difficult circumstances. The TOY Project has specifically targeted groups such as migrants, refugees, and Roma communities, with the goal of making contributions to bridging the existent gap between different social groups in society.

Among the demographic and social changes already referred to in the introduction of this chapter, inequality is also a growing phenomenon across the globe and characterizes the so-called privileged Western societies (Pearson et al. 2008, Fitz 2015). The number of people who leave, or are forced to leave, their homes and countries of origin due to the impacts of increasing inequalities is growing. Societies are becoming more diverse, (p. 427) and policies to promote multiculturalism and integration are showing their limitations and are often failing (Castles 2004). In addition to inequality, social isolation plays a detrimental role in communities with a migrant (family) background, which have less capacity to network with others, and to build relationships between themselves and with institutions (Pauw 2016). Thus, in addition to changes in population demographics and the growing separation of families and ages, an increase in cultural diversity worldwide calls for the kind of multicultural cohesion that IGL programs have been shown to foster.

This underlines just how important dialogue and solidarity between generations and communities from diverse social and cultural backgrounds is, and how important it is to look for similarities instead of systematically denying or disregarding “the unknown other,” either young or old or socio-culturally different. Facilitating intergenerational learning between young and old provides a valuable way forward. How does it work in practice?

As far back as the late 1980s, intergenerational programs were considered effective interventions to decrease acculturation stress among immigrant adolescents and their parents, and to promote the transmission of local cultural values, beliefs, and practices to new migrant families (Bacallao and Smokowski 2017, Este and Van Ngo 2011, Skilton-Sylvester and Garcia 1999). Since then, many projects have utilized older generations as cultural models or mentors for young people. In Kaplan’s well-known publication for UNESCO, the author highlights several models that provide immigrant children and youth with the support of local older adults to improve their language skills and their understanding of the hosting culture (Kaplan 2002). However, it is arguable that such programs focused mainly on the assimilation and acculturation of migrant youth to the hosting culture, underestimating the role of the migrant’s cultural heritage in the construction of individual and group identities and their interaction with the new cultural environment. More recent programs and approaches to IGL in cross-cultural situations seem to be more aware of the problems of acculturation and assimilation with regards to cultural transmission and public heritage. They support the recognition of the heritage of every group involved, the conflicts that can arise, and the contribution that IGL activities can make to create a bridge between cultures and identities to build a shared sense of belonging.

An example of this approach can be found in a program where older adults filled the role of “grandparents,” for example in situations where biological grandparents had remained in the home country (Ward 2000). This concept was developed as part of the TOY project, and is referred to as “social grandparenting” (TOY 2013b). It recognizes the importance of the role of grandparents in the healthy psychosocial and affective development of children (Nicholson and Zeece 2008). When grandparents are not available, IGL programs can provide a platform for other older adults to play this role, if enough space and time is given to both young and old to develop a relationship through play, exploration, sharing of values, and transfer and transformation of knowledge and heritage.

(p. 428) This is the case in a project implemented in Sicily (Italy) in 2010, where second-generation migrant children “adopted” a grandparent from the local community and initiated an intercultural trajectory together (Redattore Sociale 2010). Three elements composed this trajectory: the joint visit to the cultural sites of the town of Termini Imerese, guided by official guides and with insights from the “adopted grandparents”; the organization of a joint play session for young and old, with games from different generations and culture; and, finally, a storytelling session during which young and old could tell their experiences, memories, feelings, and emotions. The aim of this project was to strengthen the ties between families with a migrant background and local older adults, in order to foster intercultural dialogue and build a generational alliance based on mutual solidarity and shared ownership of the local community and cultural heritage. Second-generation children with a migrant background are already engaged in a long journey to find their own position between the value demands of their country and the country of their parents and research shows that intergenerational learning activities that incorporate an intercultural approach can support their journey from an early age.

As part of the TOY project, similar intergenerational initiatives have been documented, and findings suggest that they contributed to a better understanding of the lives of families with a migrant background. Initiatives included home visits of senior volunteers to read stories to children in the Netherlands, listening to children with a migrant background about their home lives as a volunteer in a library in Italy, or working with children from play-centers with predominantly migrant (family) backgrounds in Spain (TOY Project Consortium 2013c, TOY Project Consortium 2014). Intergenerational activities can also be applied in reverse; to those members of the family “left behind” due to emigration of family members. This became the rationale for intergenerational activities, for example in Portugal, where children with and without a migrant background visit, and exchange letters with seniors in a care home for older people (TOY Project Consortium 2013c).

Intergenerational programs that aim to promote cross-generational interaction within migrant families and communities offer another perspective in this discussion. These programs allow immigrant and refugee elders to transmit their cultural heritage and experiences to younger generations and help them maintain a sense of purpose through sharing their cultural knowledge. A project supported by the Temple University Intergenerational Centre in the United States—already mentioned in the previous section of this chapter—shows how intergenerational activities can have a positive impact in promoting understanding and solving generational conflicts between Mexican–American or Vietnamese children and their grandparents, who are concerned about the acculturation of their grandchildren (Yoshida, Henkin, and Lehrman 2013), although not without challenges.

In the European context, the TOY Project has been reconceptualized as TOY for Inclusion1 to specifically work with children of Roma background who are often victims to double discrimination: as an ethnic minority and as children. To date there has been little research on the convergence of the principles shared by age-friendly, (p. 429) child-friendly, and intercultural cities and communities (Biggs and Carr. 2015), three well-known but separate initiatives promoted to respectively tackle age-segregation and ageism (WHO2), accessibility of urban spaces to children (UNICEF3), and intercultural contact in urban spaces (Council of Europe4). The TOY for Inclusion project attempts to address this gap in the literature and aims to improve the transition experience of Roma children to schools by offering an innovative response to discrimination of Romani communities by creating non-segregated multigenerational play spaces in six European countries.

These spaces will be located in areas which are reachable for both Roma and non-Roma families, and will be designed and run by local committees composed by representatives of both communities, school and pre-school teachers, and local authorities. Along with activities aimed to help children develop necessary skills and knowledge for formal education, these spaces will organize play-focused intergenerational activities involving older people with and without a Roma background. As mentioned in the previous section, research has demonstrated that intergenerational activities challenge stereotypes and all involved experience the values of solidarity, respect, and acceptance of the “other” (Jourova 2016). It is expected that discrimination against the very young and older adults as well as against Roma children and their families will be challenged, while cultural heritage of Roma communities will be shared, appreciated, and recognized as an important contribution to the present and future of our European societies. TOY for Inclusion is an ongoing project, however, based on the reactions of participants, as well as practitioners and policy makers, this approach could be an effective tool for tackling social exclusion and isolation amongst children and families with a minority background in other contexts.


The aim of this chapter was to examine the contribution that intergenerational learning makes to the transmission and co-construction of cultural heritage, through re-imaging and re-interpreting spaces, experiences, and memories, and the contribution of this process to the well-being and social cohesion of young and old in diverse societies. With the growth of voluntary and involuntary migration comes an increased risk for social isolation, which can be responded to by supporting intercultural dialogue and cross-cultural contact. In this chapter, through a synthesis of previous research, it is argued that intergenerational learning can be a powerful tool to this end. It can also be a tool for responding to the potential loss of the ability to transmit intangible cultural heritage, both within and across communities, including memories, language, and song from one generation to the next.

Although the path to a cohesive and inclusive multicultural society may not be smooth, IGL paradigms provide a platform for the creation of bi-directional learning (p. 430) relationships between young and old, fostering intergenerational solidarity. The process highlights the value of older adults as cultural models, but also the importance of input from very young children, who transmit cultural ideas to older generations and contribute to the joint transformation of cultural landscapes. By bringing young children and older people together to explore memories, experiences, and traditions, cultural heritage lives in the present and is constantly re-imagined and made relevant to diverse and fast-changing societies. Thus, in response to societal concerns for age integration, aging populations, and multicultural communities, intergenerational processes that foster transmission and co-creation of cultural heritage should be embedded into public heritage preservation policies and programs, as well as in social, educational, and urban policies.


Acerbi, Alberto, Stefano Ghirlanda, and Magnus Enquist. 2012. “Old and Young Individuals’ Role in Cultural Change.” Jasss 15(4): 1.Find this resource:

    Acerbi, Alberto, and Domenico Parisi. 2006. “Cultural Transmission between and within Generations.” Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 9(1). <>.Find this resource:

      Andreoletti, Carrie, and Jessica L. Howard. 2016. “Bridging the Generation Gap: Intergenerational Service-Learning Benefits Young and Old.” Gerontology & Geriatrics Education 23: 1–15.Find this resource:

        Arnett, Jeffrey Jensen. 2000. “Emerging Adulthood: A Theory of Development from the Late Teens through the Twenties.” American Psychologist 55(5): 469–480.Find this resource:

          Bacallao, Martica, and Paul Richard Smokowski. 2017. “Promoting Biculturalism in Order to Prevent Behavioral and Mental Health Problems in Immigrant Families,” in The Oxford Handbook of Acculturation and Health, ed. Seth J. Schwartz and Jennifer Unger. New York: Oxford University Press, 433–448. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190215217.013.22.Find this resource:

            Bandura, Albert. 1977. Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs and London: Prentice-Hall.Find this resource:

              Biggs, Simon, and Ashley Carr. 2015. “Age- and Child-Friendly Cities and the Promise of Intergenerational Space.” Journal of Social Work Practice 29(1): 99–112. DOI: 10.1080/02650533.2014.993942.Find this resource:

                Bottery, Mike. 2016. “The Future of Intergenerational Learning: Redefining the Focus?” Studia Paedagogica 21(2): 9–24.Find this resource:

                  Castles, Stephen. 2004. “Why Migration Policies Fail.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 27(2): 205–227.Find this resource:

                    Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi Luca, and Feldman, Marcus. 1981. Cultural Transmission and Evolution: A Quantitative Approach. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Find this resource:

                      (p. 431) Cortellesi, Giulia, and Margaret Kernan. 2016. “Together Old and Young: How Informal Contact between Young Children and Older People can Lead to Intergenerational Solidarity.” Studia Paedagogica 21(2): 101–116.Find this resource:

                        Danely, Jason. 2013. “Aging: Integration.” Cultural Anthropology, October 28: <> [accessed April 28, 2017].

                        Dumbrajs, Sivbritt. 2012. “Intergenerational Cultural Transmission.” Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences 47: 109–113.Find this resource:

                          Este, David, and Hieu Van Ngo. 2011. “A Resilience Framework to Examine Immigrant and Refugee Children and Youth in Canada,” in Immigrant Children: Change, Adaptation, and Cultural Transformation, ed. Susan S. Chuang and Robert P. Moreno. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Find this resource:

                            Fitz, Nicholas. 2015. “Economic Inequality: It’s Far Worse Than You Think. The Great Divide between our Beliefs, our Ideals, and Reality.” Scientific American, March 31: <> [accessed April 5, 2017].

                            Franz, Julia, and Annette Scheunpflug. 2016. “A Systematic Perspective on Intergenerational Learning: Theoretical and Empirical Findings 1.” Studia Paedagogica 21(2): 25–41.Find this resource:

                              Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic.Find this resource:

                                Han, Sallie, and Antrosio Jason. 2016. “The Editor’s Note: Cultural Heritage.” Open Anthropology 4(1): < ItemNumber=13443> [accessed April 7, 2017].

                                Hickey, Andrew, and Louise Phillips. 2013. “New Kids on the Block: Young People, the City and Public Pedagogies.” Global Studies of Childhood 3(2): 115–128.Find this resource:

                                  Hirschfeld, Lawrence A. 2002. “Why Don’t Anthropologists Like Children?” American Anthropologist 104(2): 611–627. DOI: 10.1525/aa.2002.104.2.611.Find this resource:

                                    Hoff, Andreas. 2007. “Intergenerational Learning as an Adaptation Strategy in Aging Knowledge Societies,” in Education, Employment, Europe, ed. European Commission. Warsaw: National Contact Point for Research Programmes of the European Union, 126–129.Find this resource:

                                      Jourova, Vera. 2016. “Progress Made by EU Member States in Roma Integration.” European Commission: < en.pdf>.Find this resource:

                                        Kaplan, Matthew. 2002. “Intergenerational Programs in Schools: Considerations of Form and Function.” International Review of Education 48(5): 305–334.Find this resource:

                                          Konsa, Kurmo. 2013. “Heritage as a Socio-Cultural Construct: Problems of Definition.” Baltic Journal of Art History 6: 123–149. DOI: 10.12697/BJAH.2013.6.05.Find this resource:

                                            Lewis, Jordan. 2013. “Aging: Translation.” Cultural Anthropology, October 16: <> [accessed April 16, 2017].

                                            Lopez, Shane J., and C.R. Snyder, eds. 2011. The Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology. 2nd edn. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195187243.001.0001.Find this resource:

                                              Newman, Sally, and Alan Hatton-Yeo. 2008. “Intergenerational Learning and the Contributions of Older People.” Ageing Horizons 8: 31–39.Find this resource:

                                                Nicholson, Laurie, and Pauline D. Zeece. 2008. “Grandparents in the Lives of Young Children,” in Enduring Bonds, ed. Mary Renck Jalongo. New York: Springer, 129–144.Find this resource:

                                                  Nilsson, Lena A., and Margaretha Herrman. 2016. “Intergenerational Learning—Children Singing Along with Older People: Possibilities and Complications in a Project Context.” Advances In Social Sciences Research 3(1): 187–200.Find this resource:

                                                    (p. 432) Nsamenang, A. Bame. 2012. “The Intergenerational Continuity of Values,” in The Oxford Handbook of Culture and Psychology, ed. Jaan Valsiner. New York: Oxford University Press, 767–781. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396430.013.0037.Find this resource:

                                                      Pauw, Leo. 2016. “De vreedzame wijk (The peaceful neighborhood). Een praktische gids voor een samenhangend opvoedklimaat in de wijk.” Uitgeverij SWP, Amsterdam.Find this resource:

                                                        Pearson, M. et al. “Growing Unequal? Income Distribution and Poverty in OECD Countries.” OECD Publishing, October 2008.Find this resource:

                                                          Phillips, Louise G., and Wajuppa Tossa. 2016. “Intergenerational and Intercultural Civic Learning through Storied Child-Led Walks of Chiang Mai.” Geographical Research 55(1): 18–28.Find this resource:

                                                            Pickering, Michael, and Emily Keightley. 2013. “Communities of Memory and the Problem of Transmission.” European Journal of Cultural Studies 16(1): 115–131.Find this resource:

                                                              Redattore Sociale. 2010. “Palermo, i bambini immigrati ‘adottano’ un nonno.” < immigrati-adottano-un-nonno>.

                                                              Schönpflug, Ute. 2009. “Theory and Research in Cultural Transmission: A Short History,” in Cultural Transmission, ed. Ute Schönpflug. New York: Cambridge University Press, 9–30.Find this resource:

                                                                Skilton-Sylvester, Ellen, and Alejandro Garcia. 1999. “Intergenerational Programs to Address the Challenge of Immigration.” Generations 22(4): 58–63.Find this resource:

                                                                  Smith, Kenny, et al. 2008. “Introduction: Cultural Transmission and the Evolution of Human Behaviour.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 363(1509): 3469–3476.Find this resource:

                                                                    Strom, Paris, and Robert Strom. 2011. “A Paradigm for Intergenerational Learning,” in The Oxford Handbook of Lifelong Learning, ed. Manuel London. New York: Oxford University Press, 133–146. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195390483.013.0049.Find this resource:

                                                                      Tam, Kim-Pong. 2015. “Understanding Intergenerational Cultural Transmission through the Role of Perceived Norms.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 46(10): 1260–1266.Find this resource:

                                                                        TOY Project Consortium. 2013a. Intergenerational Learning Involving Young Children and Older People. Leiden: The TOY Project. <> [accessed March 12, 2017].Find this resource:

                                                                          TOY Project Consortium. 2013b. Reweaving the Tapestry of the Generations: An Intergenerational Learning Tour through Europe. Leiden: The TOY Project. <> [accessed March 29, 2017].Find this resource:

                                                                            TOY Project Consortium (2013c). Case Studies. <> [accessed April 10, 2017].

                                                                            TOY Project Consortium (2014). TOY in Action. <> [accessed May 5, 2017].

                                                                            UNESCO. 2003. Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. <> [accessed June 30, 2017].

                                                                            Vanderbeck, Robert M., and Nancy Worth. 2015. Intergenerational Space. London: Routledge.Find this resource:

                                                                              Ward, Christopher R. 2000. “The Intergenerational Field Needs More Ethnographic Research,” in Intergenerational Programs: Understanding What We Have Created, ed. V. Kuehne. New York: Routledge, 6–23.Find this resource:

                                                                                Wentzell, Emily A. 2013. “Aging: Provocation” Cultural Anthropology. <> [accessed March 12, 2017].

                                                                                Yoshida, Hitomi, Nancy Henkin, and Patience Lehrman. 2013. Strengthening Intergenerational Bonds in Immigrant and Refugee Communities. Philadelphia: The Intergenerational Center, Temple University.Find this resource: