This was my first time attending a BSG meeting. What a wonderful experience it was, intellectually and culturally. It was so different than my experiences at the Gerontological Society of America (GSA) meetings, which I attend on a regular basis. The GSA is large, very spread out, and quite impersonal. Shared meals happen only when you plan ahead, or are lucky enough to run into someone you want to spend time with. So often, neither happens. It’s quite possible to attend a GSA meeting and completely miss the people you would most like to see. So, one of the things I enjoyed most about the BSG meetings was the sense of community and the intimacy of the whole experience. The communal meals, the dorm room accommodations, all created the feel of really being part of a group. What a wonderful sense of community, a nice departure from the meetings I am accustomed to.

This sense of community and intimacy permeated the paper sessions as well. The level of engagement, from both presenters and audience, the lack of pretense, the earnestness with which issues were addressed, led to real integration between the world of ideas and the world as lived day to day. What was most striking was the depth of discussions and how effectively the papers complemented each other, adding to the depth of the topics. This of course is a real testimony to the organizers. In my experience it’s actually quite unusual to have a real good debate in a setting with multiple papers, short timelines and a range of interests. So nicely done!

While there were many very interesting papers, I was particularly interested in the ones addressing some of the methodological issues related to research with older adults. These presentations reflected some of the finest thinking I have been exposed to and covered a range of perspectives. The topics were addressed with depth and sensitivity, acknowledging the role of the researcher, the complexity of working with older adults and the intersection of methodological and ethical questions. One of the aspects of these discussions that I enjoyed the most was the clear reflection of the long and respectable tradition in the UK acknowledging the political issues embedded in the methodological issues, and grappling with the consequences. This recognition avoids what we see all too often on the other side of the pond, what C. Wright Mills labeled ‘methodological fetishism’ in the 1950s.

The evening with Tony Benn was simply marvelous: provocative and entertaining. What a treasure that was! I take to heart his comment about academics’ generally not investing in the worlds they study, keeping a safe distance. That has come back to me many times and will no doubt have an impact on decisions I make in the future.

One more thing that I think is important to mention. I feel very strongly that Americans, academics included, are far too isolated and inward looking. Our scholarship does not always incorporate what is going on around the world. This is to our great disadvantage as we miss what would likely enhance the quality of our work and what would certainly enhance the relevance of our work. I am often frustrated to learn that I missed a wonderful paper by someone overseas because my literature search did not capture it; again, to our disadvantage. Hopefully attending meetings like the BSG will diminish this gap, at least for one researcher. Thank you for a wonderful conference. I plan to return to Bristol next year.