Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This critical conceptual analysis explores the key challenges associated with warm experts, such as family members and friends, in providing informal digital support in later life. We examine the challenges that stem from the dyadic relationship between warm experts and older adults, as well as the individual, social and societal characteristics of being a warm expert with limited resources to provide digital support to older adults. In conclusion, while the contribution of warm experts to digital support in later life is evident, they may lack the necessary resources to meet the heterogeneous needs of older adults from an individual standpoint. From a social perspective, the primary limitation of warm experts as providers of informal support lies in the unequal distribution of the informal digital support they offer. In societal terms, we argue that warm experts should not be seen as the sole solution to the challenges posed by digital inclusion and digital inequalities related to ageing.

Keywords

Ageing digital divide digital inclusion digital inequality digitalisation digital policy informal digital support older adult warm expert

Introduction

In her seminal work, ‘Internet Society: The Internet in Everyday Life’ (p. 99), Maria Bakardjieva (2005) defines a warm expert as ‘an Internet/computer technology expert in the professional sense, or simply in a relative sense compared with the new user’”. Bakardjieva’s fieldwork focused on the emergence of digital technologies in Canadian homes and highlighted the pivotal role of informal digital support, typically provided by family members, relatives, friends and peers, in assisting inexperienced users to adapt to the new digital technologies that were becoming a household staple at the time (Olsson and Viscovi, 2018; Sawchuk and Lafontaine, 2022). According to Bakardjieva (2005: 99), the role of warm experts was to act as mediators, with tasks that extended beyond digital problems or challenges to bridge “the technological universal and the concrete situations, needs and background of the novice users with whom he is in a close personal relationship”. In summary, the two key attributes of warm experts are their possession of the requisite knowledge to operate with a reasonable degree of success in digital society and their status as part of the users’ everyday life, sharing experiences, interests and knowledge with them (Bakardjieva, 2005). However, despite the apparent strengths of warm experts, there are also challenges associated with this concept. Therefore, in this conceptual analysis, we provide critical perspectives on this seemingly positive concept, which has mainly been applied in the context of the Global North (see Barrantes Cáceres and Cozzubo Chaparro, 2019 for Latin America), and identify the key challenges associated with the dyadic relationship between warm experts and older adults.

There are also several concepts close to the notion of warm expert that have emerged since the mid-2000s, ranging from the notion of digital navigator (Perret et al., 2023), which refers to clinical staff who help patients use digital resources. Digital navigators can also provide broader digital health support, including core smartphone skills, basic troubleshooting, app evaluation, clinical terminology and data and engagement techniques (Wisniewski et al., 2020). Other related concepts include digital buddy (Kwan et al., 2023), which alludes to young volunteers helping older adults with digital technologies in non-formal settings, technology-enabled digital coaches (Bevilacqua et al., 2020) and peer mentors or tutors (Korpela et al., 2023). There are also AI-based digital companions (Burmester et al., 2019) that provide digital support to older adults. The main difference between warm experts and non-formal support is the degree of formality of the support. While digital buddies and peer mentors are volunteers who provide digital support to older adults within a specific course or NGO, warm experts operate in intergenerational and informal contexts, addressing everyday digital challenges as they emerge. Furthermore, although the support provided by digital navigators is not limited to digital health, in organisational terms it is not informal digital support in the same sense as that provided by warm experts.

As digitalisation continues to transform the technological landscape into a more ubiquitous online environment, it could be assumed that the role of warm experts would become redundant (Taipale, 2019). In fact, the number of ‘digital immigrants’ (Loos, 2012), or age cohorts that have been born, lived and worked both before and during the emergence of the digital era, is in decline. However, paradoxically, recent research on the significance of warm experts, including problems related to using digital technologies (Chee, 2024; Choudrie et al., 2020) and learning new digital skills in later life (Blažič and Blažič, 2020; Korpela et al., 2023; Tsai et al., 2017), indicate that there is a growing demand for digital support from warm experts. One could even argue that, due to rapid digitalisation, the concept of the warm expert is experiencing a new coming or a renaissance.

A good example of this is the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic and the associated isolation and physical distancing measures, particularly for older adults, which has provided new evidence of the continuing importance of warm experts. A Canadian study shows that although a large proportion of older adults were able to use some new technologies independently, they still lacked personal support in their daily use (Sin et al., 2021). At the same time, the results of a Slovenian study (Petrovčič et al., 2023) suggest that physical separation underlines the importance of the physical proximity of warm experts. Although many older adults had more than one warm expert at their disposal, they often turned to the one who was physically closest to them.

On a broader perspective, one possible explanation for this renaissance is the domestication and mediatisation of various digital technologies, which has extended digital technologies into new areas of everyday life, both at home and in society (Sawchuk and Lafontaine, 2015). The increasing complexity of digital technologies can make it challenging for older adults and other similar groups, to keep pace with the constant change inherent to technological progress (Fortunati and Taipale, 2017). New devices, applications and software updates are introduced with great regularity, while older ones become obsolete (Hänninen et al., 2020).

Although older adults represent the fastest growing group of new Internet users, the rate of Internet use in later life has not increased as expected in developed countries (Barrantes Cáceres and Cozzubo Chaparro, 2019). This raises the question of whether it is reasonable to presume that digitalisation will eventually reach the ubiquity frequently manifested in several governmental strategies across countries. Furthermore, while ageing does not inherently preclude the use of digital technologies, it may result in certain age-related challenges to technology use, including physical impairment, cognitive problems, social inequalities and economic issues. Furthermore, the rapid pace of technological change can lead to ageist stereotypes and practices, causing older adults to feel patronised or become dependent on others. This may result in a loss of autonomy in the context of everyday activities in later life (Rosales et al., 2023).

The term digital support refers to assistance, help or guidance in terms of digital technology use (Hunsaker and Hargittai, 2018; Korpela et al., 2023; Marler and Hargittai, 2024), ranging from assistance with devices, applications and services to acquiring new digital skills. Warm experts represent a significant source of support that improves older adults’ potential to use technologies, regardless of the digital divide (Courtois and Verdegem, 2016; Kuoppamäki et al., 2022; Taipale, 2019), or a gap between those who can use digital technologies and those who cannot (see more Friemel, 2016).

Despite the indisputable benefits of warm experts, there are also limitations to the quality, extent and societal aspects of the informal digital support that need to be accounted for against other forms and sources of digital support, such as non-formal (nongovernmental stakeholders) and formal, or cold (technology experts and helpdesks) support. In this light, there is a clear contradiction inherent in the notion of warm experts: on the one hand, warm experts are the key group of people who are typically closest to older adults in terms of immediate digital support. On the other hand, it remains unclear whether they are always the best source of digital support, and if they should be at all. Hence, in this conceptual study, we ask what the key challenges are related to the notion of warm expert in terms of digital technology use in later life.

Rather than following the lines of systematic or scoping review, this critical conceptual analysis (see Jaakkola, 2020; Reese, 2023) is based on the discussions related to the overall role, benefits and evolving characteristics of informal digital support in later life since the concept of a warm expert was first introduced by Bakardjieva in 2005. The objective of Bakardjieva’s work was to understand the role of a technology user as an active participant in the digitalising society. However, given that the concept the warm expert is more of a neologism, introduced to describe a new and emerging phenomenon at the time, rather than a distinctly theory-driven concept, this analysis draws inductively from academic debates on the significance of warm experts as providers of informal care.

Previous studies have sporadically discussed the limitations of informal digital support, often focusing on the perspective of either older adults or warm experts themselves. The novelty of this critical conceptual analysis is that it offers a more comprehensive and integrated view of the dyadic relationship between warm experts and older adults in the context of informal digital support. To work at this end, the analysis identifies and is also structured according to the individual, social and societal challenges associated with the notion of a warm expert, as they emerge from the discussions on digitalisation and ageing in the context of warm experts’ role as an intergenerational agent in a digitalising society.

In the first (1) part of the analysis, which is focused on the challenges that stem from the individual characteristics of the notion of warm expert, we investigate the idiosyncrasies of digital support provided by warm experts as inter-generational agents with limited resources. The heterogeneity of digital technology use among older adults, along with the non-linear relationship between ageing and digitalisation, can make the challenges that warm experts face even more complex.

In the second (2) part of the analysis, based on a social perspective on the key challenges regarding the notion of warm expert, we focus on the extent of support provided by warm experts and examine the question of unequal distribution of informal digital support among older adults. We propose that although informal digital support plays a key role in the lives of older adults, it may also result in inequality and even exclusion.

In the third (3) part of the analysis, building a societal perspective on warm experts, we revisit the individual and social aspects of warm experts from a digital society’s point of view and discuss the predominance of warm experts as the primary providers of digital support. Here, we argue that from a societal perspective, warm experts are not, and should not be, the only solution to the issues associated with digital inclusions and digital inequalities related to ageing. Furthermore, we argue that warm experts themselves may require digital support.

The individual benefits and challenges of informal digital support in later life

The advantages of having access to a warm expert

The first part of the conceptual analysis examines the individual characteristics of the warm experts, highlighting the benefits and challenges that arise from their personal resources in providing informal digital support, which can entail both advantages and limitations. The relationship between warm experts and their older adults is a reciprocal one, emphasising the social and shared aspects of digital technology use (Hänninen et al., 2023b; Verhaegh, 2008). According to Sawchuk and Lafontaine (2022), the expertise of warm expert is both relational and relative to the learner or person receiving support. Warm experts can also act as intermediaries between more formal, or ‘cold’, specialists and older adults receiving help, thus transcending the traditional dichotomy based on specialists or professionals and lay people (Lehtonen, 2003). Lüders and Gjevjon (2017), for instance, suggest that warm experts come with a double benefit in later life by providing older adults a host of people to communicate with online and maintaining the social network of people acting as warm experts close to them. As was previously established, taking an intermediate position allows warm experts to arbitrate between the universal features of technology, including the divergent content as well as the needs and background of the person receiving support (Bakardjieva, 2011).

Respectively, emphasising the holistic role of warm experts as providers of digital support, Rasi and Kilpeläinen (2015; see also Rasi et al., 2021) suggest, in their study on older adults living in rural villages in Finnish Lapland, that digital competence is often actually distributed competence of older dyads, such as families with three generations and the informal networks of villagers. According to Hänninen et al. (2018) the strength of informal digital support lies in the access warm experts have to the everyday lives of the older adults as well as their ability to adjust the support they provide in case the needs of the older adult unexpectedly change. In this sense, warm experts – who are more digitally advanced and use a wider range of devices, applications and services – share their more extensive ‘digital repertoires’ with older adults, thereby adding to or substituting for the digital repertoires of older adults (Hänninen et al., 2023b). Warm experts may thus be defined as intergenerational agents who provide informal support and keep on eye on the daily activities to offer help with digital technologies when needed. Tolmie et al. (2007; see also Taipale, 2019) discuss this theme in the context of digital household chores carried out by warm experts, such as purchasing, installing and configuring devices and software, as well as teaching and mentoring family members who need help. Furthermore, as Oreglia and Ling (2018) argue, warm experts are also needed to support ‘digital imagination’, a process through which digital technology users develop an understanding of the potential, limitations and even threats related to digital society. In the light of the advantages of informal digital support, the strength of warm experts lies, not only on the breath and width of their digital skills, but also in their patience, respect and ability to adapt the digital support they provide to facilitate the everyday needs of the older adult (Sawchuk and Lafontaine, 2022).

Challenges of informal digital support

Informal digital support is also a question of availability as most of the persons that take on this supportive role come from the social network of older adults. However, this kind of supportive care does not always take place without difficulties. In his study on younger family members acting as warm experts, Taipale (2019) discusses the co-existing and contradictory feelings of achievement and inadequacy described by the warm experts while providing informal digital support. This suggests that it not always as straight forward to be a warm expert in digitalising society. Concurrently, from older adults’ point of view, Colombo et al. (2018) found that the younger family members both supported and pressed the elderly to adopt new technologies. Furthermore, studies by Comunello et al. (2016; Helsper and Van Deursen, 2017) and Hänninen et al. (2023b) indicate that older adults are known to be less satisfied or to question the appropriateness of younger warm experts’ online practices. The quality and effectiveness of informal digital support is also reflected in the fact that older adults tend to rate informal support lower than young people because they do not find the support provided by warm experts is enough to turn them into self-sufficient technology users (Helsper and Van Deursen, 2017; Korpela et al., 2024). Furthermore, it has been found that older adults on occasion avoid relying on warm experts due to concerns about burdening their family members and friends (Hänninen et al., 2020; Luijkx et al., 2015).

From a pedagogical perspective, recent studies (Gallistl et al., 2020; Kärnä, 2022; Korpela et al., 2023) on learning new skills in later life indicate that warm expert may have limited understanding and time on their hand with regards to, for instance, the difficulties related to complex technological terminology and the fast pace of learning. Several studies (Courtois and Verdegem, 2016; Eynon and Helsper, 2015; Geerts et al., 2023; Taipale, 2019) suggest that, in the light of the increasing complexity of digital technologies, informal digital support cannot meet the heterogeneous needs of all older adults. Digital support also presents significant challenges in terms of data privacy and security, particularly in the context of sensitive information such as online banking and private health records. Older adults may be reluctant to share the details of their personal lives with digital service providers, who may be perceived as ‘warm experts’. While the distinction between social encouragement and pressure may be elusive, in some instances it has prompted the older adults to demonstrate to their relatives that they are still just as capable of learning and as competent as the younger members of their family (Colombo et al., 2018).

There are several reasons why learning may become more difficult with age, including problems with vision and hearing, cognitive abilities and motor skills (see also Song et al., 2023). Furthermore, in cases where warm experts are not themselves older adults, there may be a lack of alignment between their daily realities and those of older adults. This could be a key factor in understanding the nuances of acquiring digital skills in later life (Barrantes Cáceres and Cozzubo Chaparro, 2019). It is also worth noting that the relationship between ageing and digitalisation is not a linear one. In fact, there is a continuum of digital technology use in later life, ranging from active and independent to more limited technology use with varying degrees of social and digital support provided by, for instance, warm experts (Hänninen et al., 2020; Loos, 2012). Non-linearity can also entail heterogeneity of digital technology use, whereby one digital device, application or service is used more frequently or fluently than others. Another factor contributing to the non-linear construction of digital technology use in later life are life transitions, such as the passing away of a spouse who has served as a warm expert, retirement and acute changes in personal health status (see also Nimrod, 2020).

Critically, the individual challenges of informal digital support differ depending on whether the focus is on the warm experts, that is, being a warm expert, or the older adults they support, that is, having a warm expert. Based on previous research, challenges for warm experts include pedagogical limitations, such as inadequate digital skills and time constraints. Even patience and understanding of the specific needs of older adults, which are generally seen as key strengths of warm experts, can sometimes prove problematic if the necessary skills and resources do not contribute to a pedagogical understanding of older adults as technology users. As a result, warm experts often engage in varying degrees of emotional labour, that is, feelings of accomplishment or inadequacy in providing both digital and social support. Thus, it can be difficult to meet the diverse needs of older adults, especially because of the increasing complexity of technology, but also because of the heterogeneous needs of older adults, which also tend to change as they age. Correspondingly, from the perspective of older adults, for instance, the intimacy of informal support can be challenging due to privacy and security issues, especially with regard to sensitive information, while on the other hand, older adults may try to avoid burdening their family members and friends by asking for digital support.

Overall, the dyadic relationship between warm experts and the older adults to whom they provide digital support is characterised by recurring conflicts and challenges, which may partly explain the contradictory characteristics and limitations of informal digital support in the context of ageing. On the one hand, warm experts provide invaluable digital support that is often readily available and sensitive to the specific needs and changing circumstances of older adults. On the other hand, they may fail to do so, for example, due to a lack of digital or pedagogical skills or time, leaving older adults without the support they need. In addition, there is a strong social element to providing and receiving informal digital support, which will be discussed in more detail in the next part of the analysis. This element may highlight intergenerational tensions and thus contribute to the overall effectiveness of informal digital support provided by warm experts.

Informal digital support as a potential source of inequality

Social and shared aspects of informal digital support

In this second part of the analysis, which focuses on the social challenges related to the notion of warm expert, we focus on the social aspects of and the unequal distribution of informal digital support from the perspective of older adults, that is, having a warm expert. Although digitalisation is a key component of active ageing in digital society, it holds an increasing risk of inequality to it (Yang and Lin, 2019). Previous studies (Petrovčič et al., 2015; Van Tilburg et al., 2002) also indicate that the size of social networks, which provide both social and digital support, typically decreases with age. Although this does not directly correlate with the amount of available support, the lack of social networks and social interaction may negatively impact the wellbeing and life satisfaction of older adults (Gow et al., 2007; Lam and Lee, 2006; Tsai et al., 2017).

Older adults are often in need of not only digital support but also social support, which may lead to proxy use even if older adults themselves would prefer to develop their own digital competences to reach a higher-level independence from others (Carenzio et al., 2021; Korpela et al., 2024; Olsson and Viscovi, 2018). This is evident in cases where non-users rely on expert help to the extent that they cannot see the point of engaging with digital technologies themselves (Dolničar et al., 2013; Hänninen et al., 2018; Korpela et al., 2024). In this light, proxy use may contribute to dependency and reliance on others, rather than developing long-term digital competencies, solving a technical problem or providing access to the public service system. Proxy use can be defined as older people relying on younger family members to manage digital tasks on their behalf (Hänninen et al., 2022), while overhelping, which is closely related to proxy use, occurs when older people opt for digital support from warm experts instead of actively acquiring new skills and knowledge (Korpela et al., 2024). Whether proxy use or overhelping is a positive or negative asset in the daily lives of older adults depends on the individual characteristics and circumstances of a given older adult and it may vary by devices, applications and services. However, as Gallistl et al. (2021) point out, while informal support is an important aspect of digital technology use in later life, it cannot fully replace formal or non-formal digital training.

Furthermore, it has been suggested that there may be an overlap between social and digital inclusion (Courtois and Verdegem, 2016; see also Helsper, 2012). As previous studies (Hargittai, 2010; Selwyn, 2004) indicate, digital inequalities frequently originate from socio-demographically underprivileged social backgrounds. Courtois and Verdegem (2016; see also McPherson et al., 2001) discuss this phenomenon in the context of ‘social homophily’, which refers to the idea that because contact between similar people takes place at a higher probability than among dissimilar people, it is plausible that digital inequalities are socially reproduced by the lack of adequate digital support. On a more positive note, mutual assistance may also become stronger with people who share similar social representations or meanings attributed to digital technologies (Barrantes Cáceres and Cozzubo Chaparro, 2019). People manage digital technologies both independently and in collaboration with other people, which in Bakardjieva’s (2005; see also Hänninen et al., 2023b; Madsen and Kræmmergaard, 2016) terms explicate how people use and learn to adopt various digital technologies within their personal network. However, as the meanings related to digital technology use vary depending on generational factors, it is not always straightforward, for instance, for the younger warm experts to relate to the everyday life needs of their grandparents.

According to Helsper and van Deursen (2017), people’s social capital creates opportunities for access to digital resources that might otherwise remain inaccessible to older adults. Hänninen et al. (2023b) describe this phenomenon in the context of social or shared aspects of individual digital repertoires and argue that older adults’ ability to use digital technologies is not solely based on the access, skills or motivation of an individual. Instead, engagement with digital technologies has distinct social aspects to it, ranging from various forms of informal digital support to proxy use. Thus, from the social point of view, sharing digital repertoires between older adults and warm experts is not possible without warm experts recognising the strengths and challenges related to older adults’ ways of engaging with digital technologies, including daily needs, physical and cognitive limitations, motivation, accessibility issues and previous experiences with digital technologies.

Accessing informal digital support provided by warm expert

Access and the requisite skills to participate in digital society contribute to wellbeing in later life (Mariën and Van Audenhove, 2010; Van Dijk, 2005), whereas being excluded from digital society may pose significant individual, social and societal challenges to older adults. Older adults with larger social networks, including family and friends, are more likely to receive support to learn how to use various digital technologies as well as emotional and instrumental assistance provided by warm experts (Choi and DiNitto, 2013; Lee and Kim, 2019). Although previous studies on the relationship between digital and social support remain distinctly vague (Friemel, 2016), digital support and especially informal digital support, plays a pivotal role in both social and societal aspects of digital inequality (Courtois and Verdegem, 2016; Helsper, 2012). Korupp and Szydlik (2005), for instance, argue that receiving support from one’s family in later life contributes to the use of various digital technologies even more than economic resources. This suggests that the social and societal aspects of having access to warm experts can bestow a significant impact upon both older adults’ ability and willingness to adopt and use digital technologies. Similar emphasis can also be found on the scope of this use, that is, which devices, applications and services are associated with the informal support provided by older adults, as well as the continuity of use.

To fully appreciate the profound impact of warm experts on promoting older people’s access to digital society, it is important to differentiate between various forms of informal support, such as giving advice and guidance (Godfrey and Johnson, 2009), emotional and motivational support (Mariano et al., 2021; van Deursen et al., 2014) and proxy use (Dolničar et al., 2013; Hänninen et al., 2020; Reisdorf, 2011). Chu et al. (2009), for instance, categorises informal support provided by warm experts into direct technological support, including practical instructions, shared and supported use and infrastructure and emotional support, which often takes the form of either encouragement or social pressure (see also Hänninen et al., 2023a). Another key element to informal digital support is based on the source of the support. According to Courtois and Verdegem (2016; see also Hänninen and Taipale, 2025; Taipale, 2019), the primary sources of informal digital support are family members and friends, friends from previous workplaces and the personal motivation to engage with digital technologies.

However, access to warm experts does not guarantee access to informal digital support as warm experts themselves may lack the requisite skills to provide adequate support in technological terms. Considering that societies are both ageing and digitalising at an increasing pace, this perspective is becoming increasingly pertinent in developed countries. Consequently, certain groups of warm experts who are ageing themselves may not have adequate social and digital resources to accommodate the needs of older adults requiring assistance. From the perspective of older adults’ children, the problem lies in the triple burden they carry while looking after their own children, that is, the grandchildren of older adults, working and helping their ageing parents simultaneously. Technological complexity has also been identified as a factor contributing to the difficulty older adults and their warm experts face in managing digital technologies. Furthermore, as previously stated, the relationship between digital technology use and social inequality (see Byrne, 2005) is not necessarily a causal one as the use or non-use of digital technologies does not always result in social exclusion. Thus, as Mariën and Van Audenhove (2010) propose, it is important to determine whether the lack of participation is based on voluntary choice or lack of access or skills.

According to Sawchuk and Lafontaine (2022), the notion of warm expert may unduly emphasise the pre-existence of ‘close relationships’, thereby positioning the existence of family as a precursor to digital integration. In fact, social support indicates, by definition, one form of social inclusion, or the involvement in and attachment to networks that provide a person access to the support of others (Kuoppamäki et al., 2022). Furthermore, regarding digital divides and ageing, older adults have a unique relationship with digital inequality (Francis et al., 2019), which refers to the unequal distribution of digital skills and access to digital resources. Certain digital technologies, such as social media or digital health services, that are designed to take into account inclusion may, in fact, add to the social inequalities in later life.

As with the individual benefits and challenges associated with informal digital support, the social aspects of informal digital support also involve the dyadic perspectives of being and having a warm expert. Based on previous research, it is evident that warm experts experience difficulties regarding the emotional, technological and pedagogical aspects of their role as an intermediary between older adults and digital technologies, including the lack of overall resources discussed in line with the triple burden carried by middle-aged warm experts. Concurrently, from the perspective of older adults, the social challenges of informal digital support stem from the size of social networks, which typically diminish with age, potentially overemphasising the importance of pre-existing close relationships for digital integration and reducing the wellbeing of older adults. Following the notion of social homophily, digital inequalities may also accumulate among older adults with certain socio-demographic backgrounds, thus exacerbating social inequalities in later life.

In this light, it is important to note that technological complexity can potentially challenge both warm experts and older adults. Generational differences, particularly among younger warm experts, may make it difficult for them to relate to the daily needs and digital challenges of older adults. Consequently, the quality of informal digital support depends not only on the size of the social network, but also on the pedagogical and technological resources available to the warm expert. This suggests that the dyadic relationship between a warm expert and an older adult involves a variety of intertwined challenges that simultaneously reflect both individual and social aspects of informal digital support. This finding may also partly explain the controversy in the dyadic relationship identified in the first part of the analysis: the individual and social challenges associated with informal digital support vary depending on which side of the dyad is examined – being a warm expert or having a warm expert.

The unrecognised role of warm experts in digital society

The third part of the analysis investigates the societal implications of warm experts as the primary providers of digital support. The role of warm experts is becoming disproportionately high, albeit unrecognised and undervalued like other more often discussed forms of informal help and care in digital society (Peterie and Broom, 2024). Furthermore, despite the continuously increasing need for informal support, the prevailing perception of warm experts as a key source of digital support does not align with the realities of older adults or their warm experts. The principles of personal liberty and liberation from government intervention, which are associated with contemporary libertarianism, are not necessarily aligned with the needs and interests of older adults, who would greatly benefit from a clearly organised digitalised service society and tight-knit welfare safety nets. Bakardjieva’s (2005) original observations about the role of warm experts were made at a time when Internet technologies were just entering the home. Consequently, the transformative capacities of digital technologies had not yet been fully recognised by all. In this context, a key responsibility of warm experts was to educate their family members and friends on the benefits of new technologies and the importance of learning to use them. In the current digital age, where public and private services have largely been digitalised or are in the process of doing so, and alternative non-digital modes of service delivery are becoming increasingly rare, the role of the warm expert has undergone a significant transformation (Taipale, 2019). Warm experts still perform basic motivational and encouraging tasks, but their work has expanded to include practical and instructional support for everyday online activities and keeping up with the constant updates and new expansions of digitalisation (Geerts, 2024; Olsson and Viscovi, 2018).

Previous research has linked this new and expanded role of warm experts to broader social and political developments (Geerts, 2024; Taipale, 2019). New communication technologies facilitate not only one-to-one connectivity and individual networking but also the maintenance of family ties, family solidarity and care relationships. In this way, the work of warm experts is well aligned with the objectives of many developed country governments to encourage families to take on greater responsibility for caring for their ageing members. New technologies and warm experts can be seen as the key enablers of this politics of refamilisation (Hänninen et al., 2018). Together they highlight a policy-driven transition in the intergenerational dependencies towards a more family-based care responsibility.

In a similar way to informal caregivers who are responsible for organising and fulfilling the daily needs of those they care for, with little or no compensation, warm experts are the caretakers of the digital daily errands of those in need, with little expectation of a service in return (Olsson and Viscovi, 2018; Taipale, 2019). In the absence of specific policies that seriously address and recognise the invaluable work of warm experts, their role remains precarious and unrecognised, yet vital, in the digitalisation of service societies. As with the case of traditional informal carers for the general wellbeing of older adults, the fundamental role of warm experts for the functioning of entire digital service systems has not yet been properly recognised.

As the role of informal caregivers in the digital age has evolved, the term ‘warm expert’ has come to encompass more than just positive connotations. It is becoming increasingly expected that warm experts will take responsibility for more than just specific devices, applications or services. They are also expected to take responsibility for the whole of everyday digital life. This includes older adults’ personal needs, possible limitations in using digital technologies, motivation, emotional support and the ‘digital imagination’ discussed earlier by Oreglia and Ling (2018). Older adults often feel ill at ease in this role and may lack the requisite skills and knowledge to attend to older adults’ daily needs in a respectful and safe way without, for example, compromising their privacy (Taipale, 2019).

Furthermore, providing informal support does not always allow warm experts to update their own digital skills and keep up with their own technological development. Especially if they are older adults themselves, they may also lack opportunities to upgrade their skills. Given the often complex and delicate social relationships between warm experts and ‘their’ older adults, pedagogical aspects cannot be ignored. The risk of providing too much technical support to overcome acute digital barriers without including instructional support that contributes to a real learning process is a well-documented challenge among warm experts (Geerts, 2024; Korpela et al., 2024). This means that it is not only older adults who need support and training in using different digital technologies, but also the warm experts who offer their help to their older adults. At the same time, it should be noted that the intensive and overly formal training of support experts may, in the worst case, alter the dynamics of informal support, resulting in a more technical and less personal approach.

Regardless of one’s age, we all eventually age. In practice, this means that the policy perspective advocating digital service use for all is problematic. The heterogeneity of users, along with their diverse individual and shared practices, is so extensive that even the most inclusive services can only cater to the majority, at best. Furthermore, currently, there are no digital services that are able to take into account the needs of all potentially vulnerable groups in digital society. For older adults and their warm experts, this is due on the one hand to the physical and cognitive effects of ageing, and on the other hand, to both technological and policy issues related to digital inclusion, suggesting that the efforts to ensure universal digital inclusion are, to a degree, insufficient, misguided or poorly designed. Nonetheless, to prevent social and digital inequality, policymakers throughout developed countries are promoting increased digital inclusion for all by enhancing the accessibility and usability of digital public services. As Tsai et al. (2017) suggest, to better support digital inclusion, policymakers should focus on fostering a supportive environment that encourages individuals to adapt to new technologies and learn new skills. This should be done in a way that is sensitive to the characteristics of ageing and digital society. It is also crucial for digital service providers to recognise the diversity of digital technology from a user-centric perspective and to focus on the effective design of digital public services for all (Anthopoulos et al., 2007; Hänninen, 2025; Jarke, 2021; Pajula et al., 2024).

Conclusions

In this conceptual analysis, we have critically examined the dyadic relationship of being and having a warm expert as well as the individual, social and societal challenges faced by warm experts when providing informal digital support to older adults. Based on the first part of the analysis, which focused on the individual aspects of informal digital support, we conclude that despite the many benefits of warm experts, there are also various challenges to this type of support, including limited resources, lack of time, emotional strain and difficulties in keeping up with the rapid pace of digitalisation. Older adults may also require specific pedagogical approaches to successfully adopt and use digital technologies or question the propriety of warm experts’ support. Furthermore, we argue that together with the non-linear relationship between ageing and digitalisation, the heterogeneity of digital technology use in later life may further contribute to the complexities warm experts encounter in their daily lives. Following the dyadic relationship between warm experts and their older adults, this can lead to inadequate digital support.

In the second part of the analysis, which focused on the social challenges of being a warm expert, we examined the potentially unequal elements of informal digital support. Based on this part of the analysis, we argue that although digitalisation plays a key role in the lives of older adults, due to the uneven distribution of informal digital support, it can also result in digital inequality. Despite the unquestionable input of warm experts to digital support required in later life, relying predominantly on informal support cannot cater to the heterogeneous needs of all older adults. In social terms one of the primary challenges of informal digital support is that not all older adults have access to this type of support. Furthermore, although warm experts may be regarded as a flexible form of digital support, intergenerational gaps, lack of pedagogical or digital skills and limited social networks, including warm experts, may decrease the effectiveness of informal digital support in later life. This finding may also shed new light on the controversy in the dyadic relationship discussed in the first part of the analysis. Just as technological complexity can challenge both warm experts and older adults, the individual and social difficulties associated with informal digital support also vary depending on whether they are examined from the perspective of being a warm expert or having a warm expert.

Based on the third part of the analysis, which examined the predominance of warm experts as the primary providers of digital support from a societal perspective, we conclude that neither new generations of technologically savvy older people nor the improvements in accessibility and usability make the work of warm experts unnecessary. Although warm experts play a key role in providing both digital and social support to older adults, our analysis underscores that they should not be taken for granted in policymaking. Warm experts cannot and should not be considered the only solution to the structural problems of age-related digital exclusion and inequalities. In future policy setting, it is therefore essential to provide types of digital support that are tailored to the needs of older adults, rather than relying on informal digital support. Furthermore, a societal and policy perspective of our analysis indicated the necessity for a more user-centred approach to ensure the provision of adequate digital support that is accessible to all.

Discussion and directions for future research

While the concept of warm expert recognises the individual and social characteristics of informal digital support, it bestows less emphasis on the societal implications of this type of support. One explanation for this can be found in the practical origins of the concept, which emanate from Bakardjieva’s (2005) empirical observations on the individual and social aspects of the concept. Furthermore, the advent of digitalisation has led to a significant increase in the importance of informal digital support, rendering warm experts one of the most prominent intergenerational agents of contemporary digital society. In this sense, informal digital support can be considered a form of care in a digital society (Taipale et al., 2025), as it encourages participation and fosters intergenerational connections, while enabling older adults to meet the challenges of digitalisation. However, as Elers et al. (2018) observe, informal support is often overlooked, despite its crucial role in the wellbeing and ageing in place of older adults. Warm experts are not always particularly effective at providing support. Nevertheless, they are the people most likely to be there, ‘among us’, ready to offer a helping hand when market principles and public safety nets fail to provide sufficient help and care.

In the mid-2000s, the digital landscape was markedly different from contemporary digital society. The digital devices, applications, services and networks that have now become an integral part of everyday life were largely yet to emerge. It is therefore unsurprising that the role of the warm expert, despite its core significance of helping older adults, has undergone changes in line with technological development. Furthermore, as all countries in the world are ageing in terms of both size and the proportion of older adults in the population (WHO, 2019), a considerable number of warm experts are also ageing. Consequently, in the future, it may be even more challenging for warm experts to make their ends meet while managing digital technologies and providing digital support for their family members.

Considering the directions for future research, this analysis has focused on the informal digital support provided by warm experts as intergenerational agents. However, further insight is required on other potentially vulnerable groups, such as those with low income, disabilities or a migrant background, to gain a comprehensive understanding of the challenges related to informal digital support. In light of ‘social homophily’ (Courtois and Verdegem, 2016) discussed earlier, it is also important to address not only the uneven distribution of digital support but also the unbalanced diffusion of the benefits related to this kind of support. One potential solution would be to enhance the accessibility of all forms of digital support. This is necessary not only considering the heterogeneity of older adults as digital technology users but also because of the heterogeneity of technology itself. Some technical issues may be more effectively addressed in the immediate presence of a warm expert while others are more convenient to tackle by contacting a help desk or attending a designated course. Finally, we call for a more detailed analysis of the political economy of warm experts. While the wider societal and economic significance of warm experts is undeniable in everyday life, the value of their work for the national economy and the functioning of digital societies warrants more attention.

Furthermore, in order to gain a deeper understanding of the individual, social and societal implications associated with the concept of the warm expert, the contexts in which warm experts generally enhance digital engagement and those in which there are notable limitations to their effectiveness should be further explored. This is necessary to ascertain the strengths and changing contours of the multiple forms of digital support in various contexts and in consideration of the heterogeneity and non-linearity of digital technology utilisation in later life. Considering the politicisation of the notion of the warm expert, it is similarly crucial to delineate the support requirements of those who provide informal digital support to older adults and other vulnerable societal groups, with a view to identifying strategies for enhancing this invaluable support.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Co-pilot and DeepL Translate software were employed to refine the language of the study.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The study was supported by the Strategic Research Council at the Academy of Finland (grants 327145, 352501, 352505 and 327149 for the DigiIN Project) and the Academy of Finland (grants 312367 and 336671 for the Centre of Excellence for Research on Ageing and Care), and it was conducted in partnership with the Aging in Data project (SSHRC Partnership Grant).

ORCID iDs

Riitta Hänninen

Sakari Taipale

Author biographies

Riitta Hänninen, PhD, is an Adjunct Professor and Senior Researcher at the Centre of Excellence in Research on Aging and Care in the Department of Social Sciences and Philosophy at the University of Jyväskylä. Her research focuses on ageing, digitalization, digital inclusion, and digital ethnography. Dr Hänninen’s previous work has been published in several peer-reviewed anthologies and journals such as New Media & Society; Information, Communication & Society; and Media and Communication.

Sakari Taipale is Professor of Social and Public Policy at the University of Jyväskylä, Finland, and the head of New Technologies, Ageing and Care research group at the Centre of Excellence in Research on Ageing and Care (CoE AgeCare). He is author/editor of the books Intergenerational Connections in Digital Families, Digital Technologies and Generational Identity: ICT Usage Across the Life Course, and Social Robots from a Human Perspective.

References

Anthopoulos

Siozos

Tsoukalas

(2007) Applying participatory design and collaboration in digital public services for discovering and re-designing e-Government services. Government Information Quarterly 24(2): 353–376.

Bakardjieva

(2005) Internet Society: The Internet in Everyday Life. London: Sage.

Bakardjieva

(2011) The Internet in everyday life: exploring the tenets and contributions of diverse approaches. In: Consalvo

Ess

(eds) The Handbook of Internet Studies. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 59–82.

Barrantes Cáceres

Cozzubo Chaparro

(2019) Age for learning, age for teaching: the role of inter-generational, intra-household learning in Internet use by older adults in Latin America. Information, Communication & Society 22(2): 250–266.

Bevilacqua

Casaccia

Cortellessa

, et al. (2020) Coaching through technology: a systematic review into efficacy and effectiveness for the ageing population. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17(16): 5930.

Blažič

(2020) Overcoming the digital divide with a modern approach to learning digital skills for the elderly adults. Education and Information Technologies 25: 259–279.

Burmester

Zeiner

Schippert

, et al. (2019) Creating positive experiences with digital companions. In: Extended abstracts of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Glasgow, 2 May, pp. 1–6. ACM.

Byrne

(2005) Social Exclusion. Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill Education.

Carenzio

Ferrari

Rasi

(2021) Older people’s media repertoires, digital competences and media literacies: a case study from Italy. Education Sciences 11(10): 584.

10.

Chee

(2024) Age-related digital disparities, functional limitations, and social isolation: unraveling the grey digital divide between baby boomers and the silent generation in senior living facilities. Aging & Mental Health 28(4): 621–632.

11.

Choi

DiNitto

(2013) Internet use among older adults: association with health needs, psychological capital, and social capital. Journal of Medical Internet Research 15: e97.

12.

Choudrie

Pheeraphuttranghkoon

Davari

(2020) The digital divide and older adult population adoption, use and diffusion of mobile phones: a quantitative study. Information Systems Frontiers 22: 673–695.

13.

Chu

Huber

Mastel-Smith

, et al. (2009) ‘Partnering with seniors for better health’: computer use and internet health information retrieval among older adults in a low socioeconomic community. Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) 97(1): 12–20.

14.

Colombo

Aroldi

Carlo

(2018) ‘I use it correctly!’: the use of ICTs among Italian grandmothers in a generational perspective. Human Technology 14(3): 343–365.

15.

Comunello

Fernández Ardèvol

Mulargia

, et al. (2016) Women, youth and everything else: age-based and gendered stereotypes in relation to digital technology among elderly Italian mobile phone users. Media, Culture & Society 39: 798–815.

16.

Courtois

Verdegem

(2016) With a little help from my friends: an analysis of the role of social support in digital inequalities. New Media & Society 18(8): 1508–1527.

17.

Dolničar

Hrast

Vehovar

, et al. (2013) Digital inequality and intergenerational solidarity: the role of social support in proxy internet use. AoIR Selected Papers of Internet Research 3: 1–4.

18.

Elers

Hunter

Whiddett

, et al. (2018) User requirements for technology to assist aging in place: qualitative study of older people and their informal support networks. JMIR mHealth and uHealth 6(6): e10741.

19.

Eynon

Helsper

(2015) Family dynamics and internet use in Britain: what role do children play in adults’ engagement with the internet? Information, Communication & Society 18(2): 156–171.

20.

Fortunati

Taipale

(2017) Mobilities and the network of personal technologies: refining the understanding of mobility structure. Telematics and Informatics 34(2): 560–568.

21.

Francis

Ball

Kadylak

, et al. (2019) Aging in the digital age: conceptualizing technology adoption and digital inequalities. In: Barbosa Neves

Vetere

(eds) Ageing and Digital Technology: Designing and Evaluating Emerging Technologies for Older Adults. Cham: Springer, pp. 35–49.

22.

Friemel

(2016) The digital divide has grown old: determinants of a digital divide among seniors. New Media & Society 18(2): 313–331.

23.

Gallistl

Rohner

Hengl

, et al. (2021) Doing digital exclusion–technology practices of older internet non-users. Journal of Aging Studies 59: 100973.

24.

Gallistl

Rohner

Seifert

, et al. (2020) Configuring the older non-user: between research, policy and practice of digital exclusion. Social Inclusion 8(2): 233–243.

25.

Geerts

(2024) Balancing acts: a study on how older adults experience the digital shift. PhD Thesis, Vrije Universiteit Brussell.

26.

Geerts

Schirmer

Vercruyssen

, et al. (2023) Bridging the ‘instruction gap’: how ICT instructors help older adults with the acquisition of digital skills. International Journal of Lifelong Education 42(2): 195–207.

27.

Godfrey

Johnson

(2009) Digital circles of support: meeting the information needs of older people. Computers in Human Behavior 25(3): 633–642.

28.

Gow

Pattie

Whiteman

, et al. (2007) Social support and successful aging: investigating the relationships between lifetime cognitive change and life satisfaction. Journal of Individual Differences 28: 103–115.

29.

Hänninen

Taipale

Luostari

(2020) Exploring heterogeneous ICT use among older adults–the warm experts’ perspective. New Media & Society 23: 1584–1601.

30.

Hänninen

(2025) Revisiting digital participation as a prerequisite of digital inclusion in later life. The Information Society 1(4): 256–268.

31.

Hänninen

Taipale

(2025) Exploring the key elements of digital repertoire–the meaning of new technology in later life. In: Hänninen

Taipale

Haapio-Kirk

(eds) Digital Repertoires–Embedded and Everyday Technologies in Later Life. London: UCL Press, pp. 43–62.

32.

Hänninen

Korpela

Pajula

(2023a) The paradoxes and pragmatics of digital leisure in later life. Leisure Studies 44(1): 65–78.

33.

Hänninen

Korpela

Pajula

, et al. (2022) Tuetun käytön merkitys informaalissa oppimisessa. In: Kärnä

Rasi

Vuojärvi

, et al (eds) Ikääntyvät digiyhteiskunnassa: elinikäisen oppimisen mahdollisuudet. Helsinki: Gaudeamus, pp. 124–149.

34.

Hänninen

Pajula

Korpela

, et al. (2023b) Individual and shared digital repertoires–older adults managing digital services. Information, Communication & Society 26(3): 568–583.

35.

Hänninen

Taipale

Korhonen

(2018) Refamilisation in the broadband society: the effects of ICTs on family solidarity in Finland. Journal of Family Studies 27(5): 1–17.

36.

Hargittai

(2010) Digital na(t)ives? variation in Internet skills and uses among members of the ‘net generation’. Sociological Inquiry 80: 92–113.

37.

Helsper

(2012) A corresponding fields model for the links between social and digital exclusion. Communication Theory 22: 403–426.

38.

Helsper

Van Deursen

(2017) Do the rich get digitally richer? quantity and quality of support for digital engagement. Information, Communication & Society 20(5): 700–714.

39.

Hunsaker

Hargittai

(2018) A review of Internet use among older adults. New Media & Society 20(10): 3937–3954.

40.

Jaakkola

(2020) Designing conceptual articles: four approaches. AMS Review 10: 18–26.

41.

Jarke

(2021) Co-creating Digital Public Services for an Ageing Society: Evidence for User-Centric Design. Cham: Springer Nature.

42.

Kärnä

(2022) Vertaisopastustyylit ja oppimisteoreettiset piirteet. In: Kärnä

Rasi

Vuojärvi

, et al (eds) Ikääntyvät digiyhteiskunnassa: elinikäisen oppimisen mahdollisuudet. Helsinki: Gaudeamus, pp. 165–188.

43.

Korpela

Pajula

Hänninen

(2023) Older adults learning digital skills together: peer tutors’ perspectives on non-formal digital support. Media and Communication 11(3): 53–62.

44.

Korpela

Pajula

Hänninen

(2024) Investigating the multifaceted role of warm experts in enhancing and hindering older adults’ digital skills in Finland. International Journal of Lifelong Education 43: 509–522.

45.

Korupp

Szydlik

(2005) Causes and trends of the digital divide. European Sociological Review 21: 409–442.

46.

Kuoppamäki

Hänninen

Taipale

(2022) Enhancing older adults’ digital inclusion through social support: a qualitative interview study. In: Tsatsou

(ed.) Vulnerable People and Digital Inclusion: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 211–230.

47.

Kwan

Lai

, et al. (2023) The effects of Digital Buddy programme on older adults’ mental well-being: study protocol for a multi-centre, cluster randomized controlled trial. Trials 24(1): 95.

48.

Lam

Lee

(2006) Digital inclusiveness–longitudinal study of Internet adoption by older adults. Journal of Management Information Systems 22: 177–206.

49.

Lee

OEK

Kim

(2019) Bridging the digital divide for older adults via intergenerational mentor-up. Research on Social Work Practice 29(7): 786–795.

50.

Lehtonen

(2003) The domestication of new technologies as a set of trials. Journal of Consumer Culture 3(3): 363–385.

51.

Loos

(2012) Senior citizens: digital immigrants in their own country? Observatorio (OBS*) Journal 6(1): 1–23.

52.

Lüders

Gjevjon

(2017) Being old in an always-on culture: older people’s perceptions and experiences of online communication. The Information Society 33(2): 64–75.

53.

Luijkx

Peek

Wouters

(2015) ‘Grandma, you should do it–it’s cool’ older adults and the role of family members in their acceptance of technology. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 12(12): 15470–15485.

54.

McPherson

Smith- Lovin

Cook

(2001) Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology 27: 415–444.

55.

Madsen

CØ

Kræmmergaard

(2016) Warm experts in the age of mandatory e-government: interaction among Danish single parents regarding online application for public benefits. Electronic Journal of e-Government 14(1): 87.

56.

Mariano

Marques

Ramos

, et al. (2021) Internet use by middle-aged and older adults: longitudinal relationships with functional ability, social support, and self-perceptions of aging. Psychology and Aging 36(8): 983.

57.

Mariën

Van Audenhove

(2010) Embedding e-inclusion initiatives in people’s daily reality: the role of social networks in tackling the digital divide. In Digitas conference, Sibiu, 22 June.

58.

Marler

Hargittai

(2024) Division of digital labor: partner support for technology use among older adults. New Media & Society 26(2): 978994.

59.

Nimrod

(2020) Aging well in the digital age: technology in processes of selective optimization with compensation. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B 75(9): 2008–2017.

60.

Olsson

Viscovi

(2018) Warm experts for elderly users: who are they and what they do? Human Technology 14: 324–342.

61.

Oreglia

Ling

(2018) Popular digital imagination: grass-root conceptualization of the mobile phone in the global south. Journal of Communication 68(3): 570–589.

62.

Pajula

Hänninen

Korpela

, et al. (2024) Exploring stakeholder perspectives on user involvement in designing digital public services for older adults. First Monday 29(2).

63.

Perret

Alon

Carpenter-Song

, et al. (2023) Standardising the role of a digital navigator in behavioural health: a systematic review. The Lancet Digital Health 5(12): e925–e932.

64.

Peterie

Broom

(2024) Conceptualising care: critical perspectives on informal care and inequality. Social Theory & Health 22(1): 53–70.

65.

Petrovčič

Fortunati

Vehovar

, et al. (2015) Mobile phone communication in social support networks of older adults in Slovenia. Telematics and Informatics 32(4): 642–655.

66.

Petrovčič

Hvalič Touzery

Reisdorf

, et al. (2023) A holistic understanding of the factors that shape older adults’ engagement in use-by-proxy: a focus group study. In IAMCR2023, Lyon, 9–13 July.

67.

Rasi

Kilpeläinen

(2015) The digital competences and agency of older people living in rural villages in Finnish Lapland. Seminar.net 2: 149–160.

68.

Rasi

Lindberg

Airola

(2021) Older service users’ experiences of learning to use eHealth applications in sparsely populated healthcare settings in Northern Sweden and Finland. Educational Gerontology 47(1): 25–35.

69.

Reese

(2023) Writing the conceptual article: a practical guide. Digital Journalism 11(7): 1195–1210.

70.

Reisdorf

(2011) Non-adoption of the internet in Great Britain and Sweden: a cross-national comparison. Information, Communication & Society 14(3): 400–420.

71.

Rosales

Svensson

Fernández-Ardèvol

(2023) Digital ageism in data societies. In: Rosales

Fernández-Ardèvol

Svensson

(eds) Digital Ageism: How It Operates and Approaches to Tackling It. London: Routledge, pp. 1–17.

72.

Sawchuk

Lafontaine

(2015) Precarious ageing: questioning access, creating interACTion. In: da Silva

Alves

(eds) TEM 2015: Proceedings of the technology & emerging media track–annual conference of the Canadian Communication Association, Ottawa, ON, Canada.

73.

Sawchuk

Lafontaine

(2022) Tech mentors, warm experts and digital care work: pandemic lessons from a remote digital literacy training program for older adults. In International conference on human-computer interaction, pp. 411–431. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

74.

Selwyn

(2004) Reconsidering political and popular understandings of the digital divide. New Media & Society 6(3): 341–362.

75.

Sin

Berger

Kim

, et al. (2021) Digital social interaction in older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5(CSCW2): 1–20.

76.

Song

Fan

Seo

(2023) Physical and cognitive function to explain the quality of life among older adults with cognitive impairment: exploring cognitive function as a mediator. BMC Psychology 11(1): 51.

77.

Taipale

(2019) Intergenerational Connections in Digital Families. London: Springer.

78.

Taipale

Hänninen

Haapio-Kirk

(2025) Introduction: older adults navigating digital technologies. In: Hänninen

Taipale

Haapio-Kirk

(eds) Digital Repertoires–Embedded and Everyday Technologies in Later Life. London: UCL Press, 3–19, pp. 3–19.

79.

Tolmie

Crabtree

Rodden

, et al. (2007) Making the home network at home: digital housekeeping. In: Bannon

Wagner

Gutwin

, et al. (eds) ECSCW 2007, Limerick, pp. 331–350. London: Springer.

80.

Tsai

HYS

Shillair

Cotten

(2017) Social support and ‘playing around’ an examination of how older adults acquire digital literacy with tablet computers. Journal of Applied Gerontology 36(1): 29–55.

81.

Van Dijk

JAGM

(2005) The Deepening Divide. Inequality in the Information Society. London: Sage.

82.

Van Tilburg

Groenou

Broese

(2002) Network and health changes among older Dutch adults. Journal of Social Issues 58(4): 697–713.

83.

Verhaegh

(2008) From ‘simple customer’ to ‘warm user’ or, who cares about connections in community innovations? Innovating for and by Users 133.

84.

Wisniewski

Gorrindo

Rauseo-Ricupero

, et al. (2020) The role of digital navigators in promoting clinical care and technology integration into practice. Digital Biomarkers 4(1): 119.

85.

WHO (2019) World population ageing. Available at: https://platform.who.int/data/maternal-newborn-child-adolescent-ageing/ageing-data/ageing—demographics

86.

Yang

Lin

(2019) Digital aging as an essential component of active aging: a literature review. International Journal of Liberal Arts and Social Science 7(4): 113–132.

Warm experts among us: Conceptualising the challenges of informal digital support for older adults

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

The individual benefits and challenges of informal digital support in later life

The advantages of having access to a warm expert

Challenges of informal digital support

Informal digital support as a potential source of inequality

Social and shared aspects of informal digital support

Accessing informal digital support provided by warm expert

The unrecognised role of warm experts in digital society

Conclusions

Discussion and directions for future research

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Funding

ORCID iDs

Author biographies

References