Intergenerational Practice: Mentoring and social capital for twenty-first century communities of practice

Aiming to elucidate the relationship between social capital and intergenerational practice within mentoring, this article presents data from a case study of the School Volunteer Program in Western Australia. Drawing on situated learning theory and the concept of community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998; Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002), the discussion examines benefits and limitations of intergenerational practice. Results acknowledge the potential for intergenerational practice to build social capital for both mentees and mentors. However, further research is required to examine mentoring in school-based communities of practice where complex issues of power (see Bourdieu, 1985) may empower or restrict student voices. LES PRATIqUES INTERGéNéRATIONNELLES : MENTORAT ET CAPITAL SOCIAL POUR LES COMMUNAUTéS DE PRATIqUE DU 21E SIèCLE RÉSUMÉ. Avec pour objectif de clarifier les relations existant entre le capital social et les pratiques intergénérationnelles lors de mentorat, cet article présente les données tirées d’une étude de cas pilotée par le School Volunteer Program en Australie occidentale. S’inspirant de la théorie d’apprentissage situationnel et du concept de communauté de pratique (Lave et Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998; Wenger, McDermott et Snyder, 2002), les auteurs font l’examen des bénéfices et des limites des pratiques intergénérationnelles. Les résultats reconnaissent le potentiel des pratiques intergénérationnelles comme générateur de capital social à la fois pour les protégés et les mentors. Cependant, les auteurs suggèrent que de plus amples recherches soient effectuées pour analyser le mentorat dans le cadre de communautés de pratique en milieu scolaire où des problématiques complexes de pouvoir (voir Bourdieu, 1985) peuvent favoriser ou restreindre les voix étudiantes. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND In the twenty-first century, globalization, technology and urbanization have shifted many cultural and belief systems across the world, causing tension and widening the need for social cohesion (Hatton-Yeo, 2000). As numerous social factors such as increased life-expectancy and changing family structures are associated with a deepening disconnection between generations, calls within the Western world have multiplied for developing intergenerational practice Wendy Marie Cumming-Potvin & Judith MacCallum 306 REVUE DES SCIENCES DE L’ÉDUCATION DE McGILL • VOL. 45 NO 2 PRINTEMPS 2010 involving collaborative engagement of young people and older adults (Bernard & Ellis, 2004; Springate, Atkinson, & Martin, 2008). While younger and older generations are perceived as increasingly excluded in communities characterized by decreasing levels of cohesion, intergenerational practice has flourished as a practical solution to build social capital across Europe, the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States of America (USA). The term social capital has been deemed controversial and ambiguous in its origins, definitions and applications (Falk & Kilpatrick, 2000; Portes, 1998). Definitions of social capital in general revolve around resources and access to these resources. Portes argued that empirical literature has increasingly defined social capital as actors’ ability to secure benefits for themselves and others from memberships in social networks or other structures (see also Chase & Nording Christensen, 2008; Lesser & Prusak, 2000). Bourdieu’s 1985 definition of social capital focuses on issues of power in relation to resources or potential resources in networks of relationships and mutual recognition. According to Portes, Coleman’s work (1988, 1990) also provided useful descriptions of diverse and contradictory processes related to social capital, such as nuances involved in receiving resources, which may be defined as gifts, from the recipient’s perspective. DeFilippis (2001) argued that contemporary interest in social capital for community development, which is based on Putnam’s work (1995, 1996, 2000), highlights positive effects of social capital in civil society, and should be revisited to better understand controversial issues of power in the production of communities. In the context of intergenerational practice, social capital has been typically described as the resources of networks, norms or shared values to which individuals have access as community members (Balatti & Falk, 2002; Kerka, 2003). To develop communities that value all citizens’ contributions, considerable support has been given to a holistic perspective of intergenerational practice. In the UK, The Strategy for Older People in Wales: A Strategy for Intergenerational Practice in Wales (Welsh Assembly Government, 2008) aims to embed intergenerational practice in an integrated approach whereby communities, citizens and government ensure that younger and older people are an integral part of society. Similarly, a Background Paper for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Pain, 2005) argues that because younger and older people are vital to sustainable communities, governments at all levels must tackle age discrimination and actively engage older and young people in community planning. With increasing interest in intergenerational programs over the past decade in the USA, there have been calls to create policy responding to the needs of younger and older people and reflecting the interdependency of both groups (Calhoun, Kingson & Newman, 1997). More recently, USA government agencies established policies calling for intergenerational approaches to implement services for children, youth, older people, families and communities (Kaplan, Larkin & Hatton-Yeo, 2009).