Why involve older people in the British Society of Gerontology Conference: was this a true exercise in inclusion or were the Conference Organising Committee succumbing to the rhetoric of involvement? On the other hand, why organise a conference about older age without representation from the sector of society that we choose to undertake research into? What were the benefits for those who attended, and did the BSG membership obtain any benefit? Should we rely upon the continued attendance of more senior members of the BSG to provide us with perspectives on the lived experience of older age or do we benefit from including older people from more diverse backgrounds? These questions remain largely unanswered. However, there is little doubt that the presence of 52 older people on Friday 8th September did impact upon the dynamics of the conference, albeit only temporarily, and over two weeks later, I am still reflecting upon the experience.

From the outset, the organising committee of the 2007 conference was committed to involving older people. The original idea was to have a couple of representatives on the committee to contribute during meetings, but over time this notion expanded to that of inviting a substantial number of older people to attend the Friday afternoon programme, and thus experience the conference first hand. A target number of 50 places were agreed, supported by a generous bursary from Help the Aged. The invitation was to attend, included a free lunch and refreshments, and access to all sessions, but individuals would need to arrange their own transportation.

A small working group was identified to take forward the task of contacting potential delegates. Gail Mountain, Mike Nolan, Amanda Clarke, Paula Smith and Lorna Warren all have substantial experience of working collaboratively with various organisations involved with older people in the city and were able to collate a comprehensive list of potential contacts. Examples of organisations approached as a result included the branches of Help the Aged, Age Concern, Alzheimer’s Society, Better Government for Older People, as well as local organisations such as Agewell Sheffield, Sheffield 50 plus, SADACCA ( an organisation for ethnic minority elders in the city), and Sheffield Elders Council.

Named individuals from each of the groups were contacted by letter and asked to disseminate some initial information among their membership. We then requested that those interested contacted a named person at the university by phone, letter or electronically. A confirmatory letter was sent to those who had come forward, and a week before the event, further information was sent. This included the programme for the afternoon with a request that delegates select the parallel sessions they might like to attend beforehand. Some drop out was expected on the day so even though there were only 50 funded places, we accepted 69 delegates; a risky strategy but one that our experience suggested was correct.

In preparation for the afternoon, some time was spent by the committee identifying and agreeing the logistics of how to integrate 50 older people into the conference in ways that did not create an “us and them” atmosphere and would also provide a stimulating, enjoyable and not overly exhausting afternoon. We also wanted to create opportunities for the older people to be able to contribute to the conference and express their views.

Practical considerations included having sufficient helpers to enable people to be escorted to the venue upon arrival at the university reception, and following this, to the various sessions, and guaranteeing sufficient seating during lunch and tea breaks (which required some careful organisation of the exhibition area). Efforts were also made to try and ensure that the sessions for that afternoon were likely to be attractive to older delegates.

We also introduced one extra event into the programme to facilitate dialogue. An alternative session was introduced, to run at the same time as the one-hour poster viewing session and prior to the final plenary speaker, Germaine Greer. This session held in a designated room with tea available was promoted as one where delegates and older people could choose to attend to exchange views of the conference in an informal atmosphere. Discussion would be guided by three main questions; have you found the afternoon interesting? If so, what was particularly interesting? And, what are your research priorities?

As anticipated, several apologies were received on the day, mainly due to illness, so out of the invited 69, there were 51 attendees. It was heartening to also receive a call during the morning from a lady who is very involved in Bradford and said that she had heard what was happening and would love to attend. A place was offered, resulting in 52 people coming to the University for the Afternoon’s Events.

One person arrived at 9am due to a misunderstanding and was able to attend the morning sessions as well. This was useful as it became evident that special consideration would need to be given in all sessions to ensure that older people would be able to hear the presentations adequately.

There were very few comments received regarding the practicalities of the afternoon and the older people appeared to integrate well into the events. There was a problem with the acoustics in some rooms and attempts were made to redress this. There were also a few comments about the food. However these observations were not restricted to the older people, with the catering being of average standard at best.

The food is not what older people prefer. They like old fashioned food like sausage rolls.

Some of the speakers in the parallel sessions mentioned being slightly challenged by trying to present to a lay audience, but this was not perceived to be a problem by them or by the older people

Some of the older people were from an academic background and clearly enjoyed being in the university environment. The plenary speakers were a high point during the afternoon.

We were both students here (in later life) and are really looking forward to hearing a lecture again.

We really pleased to be here and getting the facts.

Exchange is good.

Approximately half of the older people attended the debriefing session, with the rest choosing to go to the poster session. As expected the conversation did move on to services of importance to older people such as local authorities, health services and transport. Observations were made about the services provided to older people and experiences of being involved in consultation exercises with local service providers. The view was expressed that even if older people give their opinions, services do not always want to admit to having listened.

How to get people with power to listen and influence?

We are frequently asked to comment on plans but we’re not given any real options – consultation is tokenism.

The old age ombudsman (Tzar) should talk to older people in Sheffield

The next stage for research should be about how to do we get people in power to take notice of our ideas. From our experience they don’t listen to anything we say about social housing.

One person was particularly concerned about how to reach and get information from vulnerable older people.
People do not become apparent until they become service users. Older peoples’ organisations need funding to find these people. We need to research into older people over 80 years who live on their own.

An overall lack of dialogue with academic institutions was observed. Those that attended the discussion session were active older people who clearly wanted to get involved in services and in research.

Older people are best placed to get information from other older people.

Funding is needed for an older people’s forum worker to reach hard-to-reach people- they talk to us better than sending a questionnaire out.

Our lottery funding bid was turned down…..they see us as just a load of old wrinklies.

Would we recommend others doing this again? The answer is yes, even though as with all events there were aspects that we identified that could have been done better.
What have we learnt? Perhaps we were too paternalistic in our approach. In our planning we placed a lot of emphasis upon maintaining the safety of delegates and upon providing a controlled environment where older people would be able to discuss issues of importance to them (such as the state of services in Sheffield) but which also might be peripheral to the interests of the majority.
What are the benefits? From the perspective of one older person it was expressed thus:

Let’s give credit to Help the Aged for funding us to come to the conference for free – it’s a great opportunity to learn and we could not come if it was not for free.

From the perspectives of the BSG membership, the benefits are not as evident. One member considered that the involvement of older people had not been inclusive as there had not been sufficient involvement of those with needs arising from age and/or disability. Few other direct comments were received from other delegates and not many mainstream delegates chose to attend the discussion session.