COVERS AMENDED 2_Layout 1 08/12/2016 15:14 Page 1

Opening Preface
University of Liverpool, Vice Chancellor, Professor Janet Beer
The University of Liverpool was honoured to host the return workshop on Living with an Ageing Society.
In particular we welcomed early career researchers from all our RENKEI partners. We also appreciatedthe contributions of our colleagues from the University of Osaka, Professors Yasuyuki Gondo, Masayuki
Nakamichi and Saori Yasamoto. We hope that you enjoyed your stay in Liverpool and that you and yourdistinguished university gained useful contacts, collaborations and further involvement with our vibrantresearch community. We also welcomed colleagues from our partners in Industry who collaborated withthe workshop, Reeve Court Retirement Village and the North-West e-Health Cluster and Local EnterprisePartnership.
As participants discovered in the first workshop in Osaka last year, there was much potential for
researchers from the UK and from Japan to learn from each other. This was both in terms of the researchthat each institution involved in RENKEI is engaged with on the theme of Living with an Ageing Society,and in addition, culturally exploring the aims of RENKEI which ‘sees its purpose as forging links between
industry and higher education towards nurturing the research leaders and other human resources thatwill shape the society of the future’. The main responsibility to deliver these aims was with theparticipants themselves – we support you and wish you all the best in these endeavours! We hope thatyou found the workshop an excellent opportunity to explore collaborations and that you’ll keep in touchwith each other in the future.
The University of Liverpool is an International research leader on Ageing. We have a Research and Clinicalinterface across all three Faculties and, in our Institute for Ageing and Chronic Disease, over thirteen
research groupings. Alongside this research excellence we are acutely aware of the health inequalities
within the City and the inequalities of ageing in general in the UK and across the world. Though our work
is internationally famous it is also embedded in our local community and is actively engaged with the
Local Enterprise Partnership in order to ensure that the best of our research benefits the local populationand local enterprise. Liverpool City Council, the NHS, the Clinical Commissioning Groups and the
Universities have helped to form a partnership where the vision is 'That Liverpool in 2020 is a city region
where health and wellbeing are at the heart of our purpose, culture, planning and action’. It’s highly
appropriate, therefore, that the RENKEI Liverpool - Osaka Ageing Population Workshop engaged with thecity region and its first public University, founded for ‘advancement of learning and ennoblement of life.’
Professor Janet Beer

Aims and Objectives of the Workshop
The overall aims of RENKEI are a collaboration between the British Council, six Japanese Universities,
Kyoto, Kyushu, Nagoya, Osaka, Ritsumeikan, Tohoku and the six UK partners, the Universities of Bristol,
Leeds, Liverpool, Southampton and University College London. The RENKEI partnership aims are as
follows:
 Develop future research leaders with the skills to lead collaborations between different disciplines
and cultures including industry and government
 Facilitate the active collaborations between participants to achieve tangible outcomes Develop a sustainable network of researchers across Japan and the UK
Each of the RENKEI projects had a separate theme and the collaboration between Osaka and Liverpool on
the Ageing Society fixed on aims and objectives for the Liverpool workshop that would complement theoverall RENKEI aims. Participants would therefore have opportunities to: Investigate the current challenges of an ageing society in the UK and some of the latest concepts
being developed and implemented to meet those challenges
 Develop professional, personal and transferable skills through team projects focussed on researchand business approaches to engaging with the challenges of an ageing society Create contacts, networks and further opportunities for personal and professional and businessdevelopment Help further shape the outputs of the Osaka workshop
The objectives of the Liverpool workshop were to: Have a cross-disciplinary approach including social science, psychology, engineering, biomedical
and other subject areas that can contribute and combine to providing solutions to the challengesof an ageing society
 Provoke discussion in order to create new questions and approaches to research on the ageing
society Raise the awareness of all participants with regard to their personal and professional career
opportunities Create an enterprising outlook within participants Create awareness of cross-cultural and cross-disciplinary issues and build connections acrossdisciplines and cultures.
 Raise the awareness of participants with regard to the research opportunities that an ageing
society presents
Create the following outputs:
o Reports on projects that propose solutions to the problems of an ageing societyo Presentations of those reports to an invited audienceo The development of RENKEI alumni networks that will help to facilitate further, future
capacity building opportunities for the personnel and the institutions involved
o Provide opportunities for all participants to create personal and professional networks witha range of stakeholders involved in the workshop, both internal and externalo Provide opportunities for RENKEI member universities to develop contacts, publicity and tocommunicate their research to the public
All of these ambitious aims and objectives were met to varying extents during the course. Overall theparticipants found the Liverpool experience stimulating, enjoyable and career enhancing.

Transition from Osaka Workshop to Liverpool
There were a number of issues to wrestle with after the first workshop in Osaka: would all theparticipants be able to make it to the second workshop? Would we need to create new teams andproduce new projects or could we stick with the same make-up of teams and ideas that had been
explored in Osaka?
In Osaka there had been some difficulties regarding the two different styles of academic argument thatthe two cultures practised and a brief description of each was offered to the participants. It was also clearthat the expectations of the workshop differed with some colleagues more comfortable with formal
academic lectures and the answering of individual questions. This resulted in participants being very wellbriefed with a widespread knowledge of ageing issues but allowed less time for the teams to fully explore
the ideas that they were forming.
The presentations at the end of the Osaka workshop were delivered to a high standard in consideration of
the highly international make-up of the participants. However, there was clearly more to explore in termsof the dynamics of the teams and their ability to transcend cultural, disciplinary and language barriers.
Discussions between colleagues in Osaka allowed the aims and objectives of the Liverpool workshop to beshared and targeted toward those challenges. Indeed, it was agreed in Osaka that a greater emphasis on
professional development would stretch and better equip the participants for their careers and theirprojects.
Regular contact with the participants was maintained through an email newsletter sent out every twomonths informing them of the development of the schedule and to consult them about the new aims andobjectives. Participants also talked to each other using social media to continue the development of theirprojects.
Some participants from the first workshop were unable to attend the second workshop. Three extra
participants were recruited and their input into the Liverpool workshop was seamless and they werequickly assimilated into the cohort. This meant that new teams and new projects could be formed andOsaka projects enhanced with new input and ideas or changed altogether. A ‘World Café’ style ideas andteam formation session was put into schedule for the first day and five themes and five teams emerged.
Some were new and some the same as Osaka but all of the teams had new ideas to add and develop. As
the final presentations showed, this session worked well and was greatly assisted by the spontaneous waythat participants got along with each other. This was evident from the first evening after arrival.

A further addition agreed in Osaka was to create a debate exploring comparative aspects of ageing across
Eastern and Western cultures. This involved participants discussing their different cultural perceptions
and practices relating to ageing and helped all participants to further understand each other’s
perspectives. The cohort consisted of many different nationalities so many different attitudes to ageing
and youth were explored and helpfully summarised.
What concerns there were from Osaka were addressed by the greater emphasis on the professional
development of the participants.

PROGRAMMETUESDAY 28TH JUNE 2016 – ARRIVALDATECONTENTLOCATION

4.00 - 6.00 PM

CHECK-IN - ARRIVAL & REGISTRATION

7.00 - 9.00 PM

https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/conferences-and-events/accommodation/vine-court/bookaroom/
Informal Welcome Buffet

VINE COURT
Residences, 35 Myrtle
Street, Liverpool
VINE COURT
1ST FLOORWEDNESDAY 29TH JUNE 2016 – DAY ONE
TIME

Suggested Content

LOCATION

9.00 - 10.30

WelcomeCPD SUITE

9.00 Introduction (Academic Director Prof. Malcolm Jackson) – Overview
9.20 Facilitators Introduction – Richard and Kate.
Welcome to new workshop members
Principles of the RENKEI workshop- Expectations – what do we want toachieve? - Workshop outputs - Facilitators and team chairs - Social
networking - Presentation finale
9.50 What we did last year – Osaka teams formulate their work and theirthoughts since the October 15 workshop

10.30 - 11.00

10.00-10.30 – Groups introduce their work – 2 minutes each with time for
feedback/questions.
BREAK

11.00 – 12.30

Provocation - Lectures
Discussion of 2 of the 4 main themes – 20 minute lectures followed by 25
minutes for questions and discussion
Prof Yasuyuki Gondo, OSAKA University – Long term trend of centenarianfunctional levels in Japan and country difference in centenarian function

12.30 – 1.30
1.30 - 2.30

2.30 - 3.00
3.00 - 5.00

Dr Masayuki Nakamichi, OSAKA University - Grandmother Hypothesis andgenerativity based on observation of Japanese monkey cohort.
LUNCH
Intervention - Professional Development Networking – Richard and Kate.
Ageing Population themed networking activities to get everyone to meet
everyone else.
BREAK - continue networking
Collaborations - Project work: Facilitated ideas session –Richard and Kate
– World cafe style

Participants create list of themes then debate them down to 4 or fivemain themes (20 minutes)
Participants use post-it notes to create as many ideas each theme as
possible (10 minutes)
Rotate to another table every 10 minutes.
After one rotation each table groups the ideas and orders them onto flip
chart paper (20 minutes)
Finally, each participant selects their favourite idea (10 minutes)

5.00 - 7.00

Free time

7.00 - DINNER

Welcome dinner- http://www.60hopestreet.com/

60 Hope Street, Hope
Street

THURSDAY 30TH JUNE 2016 – DAY TWOTIMECONTENTLOCATION

9.20-11.15

Provocation – Visit to historic Williamson Tunnels guided tour - http://
www.williamsontunnels.co.uk
Provocation - Lectures

Williamson Tunnels

11.30 – 1.00

CPD Suite

Discussion of second of the 4 main themes – 20 minute lecture followed
by 25 minutes for questions and discussion:
Saori Yasumoto, OSAKA University - Lecture on care givers opinion about
longevity

2.00 – 2.05

Susan Pickard - Blaming old age: representations of intergenerational unfairness in austerity discourses in the UK
Lunch - Victorian Afternoon Tea at VGM café http://vgm.liverpool.ac.uk/ VGM
about-us/cafe/
Intervention: Teamwork activities – briefing
CPD suite

2.05-3.30

Intervention: Teamwork activities – Richard and facilitators

3.00-3.30

Each team will rotate through each of the 4 or 5 exercises with each teamstarting at a different exercise. Each exercise taking place in a different
room and one exercise taking place outdoors (if weather permits). Skills
development includes planning, leadership, teamwork, communication
skills, time-management, resource allocation and problem solving.
Tea and coffee on the run

3.45-5.30

Provocation – Ethical Issues – Kate

5.30

Introduction to Intercultural research ethics – group work
Close

Arrive for 6.30

Film Night at Fredericks: The Straight Story (David Lynch)

1.00 – 2.00

CPD Suite and outside

Fredericks,
Hope Street

FRIDAY 1ST JULY 2016 – DAY THREE
TIME

CONTENTLOCATION

9.00-10.30

9.00 – 9.15 Short Intro.

CPD SUITE

10.30-11.00

Collaborations - Group work, Project work, project review
BREAK

10.30
11.00 – 12.30

UK Organisational Group to join workshop and observe/network until
lunchInterventions: Achieving Impact: project management - back-casting. Richard

12.30 – 1.30

15 minute presentation then teams present their back-cast impact statements as mini presentations
LUNCH with RENKEI UK Operational Group

1.30-3.00

Collaborations - Project work

3.00-3.30

2.30 Chairs meeting - team reps feedback to the tutors on the status of
their projects
BREAK

3.30-5.30

Provocations – Debate: Exploring comparative aspects of ageing across
Eastern and Western cultures. Richard, Kate, Yasayuki and Saori.
3.30 – 3.45 Short introduction - Hofestede’s Five Cultural Dimensions –the Frankfurt Incident and RENKEI initiative.

3.40 – 5.30 Activities: Teams consider a range of cultural issue questions
affecting research on ageing (in team rooms) then feedback theirthoughts to the main plenary.
EVENING ACTIV- 5.30 Guided walking tour of the cathedral and heritage area https://
ITIES
news.liverpool.ac.uk/2011/08/16/arthur-gives-first-riba-tour/

SATURDAY 2ND JULY 2016 – DAY FOURTIME

CONTENT

9.00

Leave university – meeting point Vine Court Reception (VINE COURT Residences, 35 Myrtle Street, Liverpool)

9.30-10.00

Travel to Reeve Court Village Retirement Village, St Helens - http://
www.extracare.org.uk/locations/reeve-court-village
Provocations - OFF-SITE VISIT welcome talk from Steve Warburton

10.00 – 10.15

Tour of the village

10.15 – 12.30
12.30 – 1.30

Provocations - Groups to participate in a range of activities: Bowls, ceramics, dominoes.
LUNCH AT REEVE COURT VILLAGE RESTAURANT AND BISTRO

1.30-2.00

Leave Reeve Court travel to The World of Glass

2.00-4.30

Provocations - OFF-SITE VISIT

4.30 - 5.45

Self-tour of The World of Glass (museum) http://
www.worldofglass.com/. 3.00 – Glass blowing demonstration and film
Travel back to Vine Court Via Anfield and Goodison Park

6.00-8.00

Self-service dinner at Vine Court
Room available upstairs for team reflection and Chairs meeting - where
team reps feedback to the tutors on the status of their projects

LOCATION

Reeve Court Village, St
HelensThe World of Glass, St
HelensVine Court
1st floor

SUNDAY 3RD JULY 2016 – DAY FIVETIME

CONTENT

8.30 – 10.00

Participants Research Showcase – Viva preparation for final year PhD Stu- Vine Court
dents (Juliet).
1st floor
Collaborations - Team preparations for final day
Vine Court
1st floor
OFF-SITE VISITS - OPTION OF FREETIME/GROUP EXPLORATIONS! Alternatives from the following:

10.00 – 12.00
12.00 - 5.00

Magical Mystery Tour bus; Beatles Story; Albert Dock Ferry (River Cruiseand Beatles experience); (bus and ferry); (bus, ferry, cathedrals); Museums and Galleries and Sightseeing bus (city explorer); Sudley House –high tea – Penny Lane, Sefton ParkEVENING

FREE TIMELOCATIONMONDAY 4TH JULY 2016 – DAY SIX
TIMEContent

LOCATION

9.00-10.30

Brief Introduction to final day. RH/KB

CPDIntervention: Presentation Skills: INTRO – Interest – Need – Title – Range Objective to develop first minutes of presentations and give structure.
Collaborations - Team presentation preparations
10.30-11.00

BREAK

11.00 – 12.30

Collaborations - Team presentation preparations - includes Chairs meetingat 11.30
LUNCH

12.30 – 1.30
1.30-2.30
2.30 -2.45

Collaborations – Team Presentation preparation - Team hand-outs due
2.30
Participants transfer to the William Duncan Building

2.45 - 3.30

Break and final preparations.

3.00-5.00

Finale: Team presentations – 20 minutes each – maximum 15 minutepresentation – 5 minutes for questions
Judges drawn from contributors in the week: Andrew Rose, Graham
Smith, Malcolm Jackson, Rosemary Kay and Anthony Hollander.

William Duncan
Building

The judges will evaluate the presentations using five primary criteria, eachof equal weight:
Identification of Research, Social or Environmental Problem affecting theAgeing Society
Originality and Uniqueness of the Proposed Innovation, Business or
Research Project
Economic/Social/Environmental Impact Potential
Business Model/Financial Sustainability
Presentation Quality

5.30 – 6.00

Suggested Prizes for: Best presentation/slides - Best ideas/innovations –best research – best teamwork – best finance/planning – best
Interdisciplinary project - Best overall.
Participants tour of the William Duncan Building (while judges
deliberate).
Prize Giving

6.00-9.00

FAREWELL PARTY

5.00 – 5.30

Buffet and drinks

William Duncan
Building
William Duncan
Building
First floor break out
area

TUESDAY 5TH JULY – DEPARTURE
9.30 AMCHECK OUT OF ACCOMMODATION

VINE COURT

9.30-12.00

FACILITATORS AVAILABLE

VINE COURT (SOCIALSPACE)

Long term trend of centenarian functional
levels in Japan and country difference incentenarian function
Yasuyuki Gondo, Osaka University

One of the most striking features of modern society is the steady increase in life expectancy,
accompanied by the rapid growth of the oldest old population, defined as those 85 years orolder. Although extension of life expectancy is considered to be one of the major achievementsof civilization in developed countries, the current demographic change has raised a new concernof how best to live a very long life, because the oldest old are vulnerable to age-related
disabilities and functional limitation, and are at a high risk not to accomplish successful aging.



Maintaining health and functional ability may not be the only way to ensure successful aging, atleast in a psychological aspect. Recent studies have offered new evidence suggesting that there isa paradoxical relationship between physical health and psychological well-being in centenarians
and the oldest-old. Understanding factors behind this paradoxical relationship would be
important to all developed countries who are expected to have larger oldest old populations innear future.

Ageing and Grandmother Hypothesis inJapanese Monkeys
Masayuki NAKAMICHI (Graduate School of Human Sciences, Osaka University)
Unlike most non-human mammal species, human females experience an exceptionally long postreproductive period. To provide an evolutionary reason for the survival of post-reproductive human
females, the Grandmother Hypothesis was proposed: Post-reproductive women encourage theirdaughters’ reproductive success by helping to take care of their offspring. Following this hypothesis,
we expect that women, who have mothers to assist them to raise children, tend to give birth more
frequently than those without their mothers. In addition, infants who have grandmothers are more
likely to survive than those without grandmothers. In fact, some studies support Grandmother
Hypothesis for humans.
While male Japanese monkeys leave their natal group upon maturity, female monkeys remain with
their natal group throughout their lives; therefore, they live not only with their daughters but alsowith their grandchildren. Some female Japanese monkeys survive for a few or more years after losing
post-reproductive abilities. Demographic analyses indicate that the presence of grandmothers could
promote both the birth and the survival of grandchildren among Japanese monkeys. Moreover,observations on post-reproductive grandmother Japanese monkeys proposed the fact that they
provide appropriate support for the survival of their infant grandchildren instead of mothers (i.e., theiradult daughters). These findings from Japanese monkeys support the Grandmother Hypothesis.

Grandmother

Human ヒ ト
Chimpanzee
チンパンジー
Gibbonテナガザル(Long-armed ape)

A 24-year-old grandmotherprovided essential care for thesurvival of her 2-month-old for atleast 6 days during which themother had temporarily disappeared
from the group.

Macaque
マカク(Japanesemonkey etc.)

Repr oduct ive
per iod

0 th
Bir

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Ag e in year s
Baby
赤ん坊

Juvenile
子ども

Young

ワカモノ
adult

Adult なおと(Hawkes et al., PNAS 1998: 95: 1336-1339)(Nakamichi et al., 2010)

Grandmother

MotherGranddaughter

When a mother gave birth in two successive years, the 1year old daughter was not able to suckle.
A grandmother permitted the granddaughter tosuckle and gave appropriate maternal behaviors to her.
(Nakamichi et al., 2010)18

Giving and Receiving Care in Longevity
Society: Children of Centenarians in Japan
Saori Yasumoto (Office of International Exchange, Osaka University)
In Japan, where the life expectancy is very high, taking care of one’s old parents is considered as animportant role. Yet, how personal experience influences on ideas regarding longevity is lessunderstood. Within an ongoing large centenarian study in Japan, I conducted face-to-face interviews
with 34 adult children, who take care of their centenarian parents, to understand: (1) How do childrenof centenarians construct the meaning of ageing through the interaction with their parents? (2) How
do children of centenarians approach the process of ageing? Qualitative data analysis indicated thatthe centenarians’ children tend to say that they do not want to live longer because they see ageing is
the process of losing things. For example, children of centenarians perceive that people lose control
over one’s life, purpose to live, social status and dignity as they age. However, it does not meanchildren of centenarians are pessimistic about their own ageing process; instead, they take an
initiative to design their own ageing process. The findings allude to the importance of providing
options of elderly care so that society can meet the needs of diverse backgrounds in a super ageing
society.

Blaming old age: representations on
intergenerational unfairness inausterity discourses in the UK
Susan Pickard (Sociology, Social Policy and Criminology, University of Liverpool)

Generational warfare discourses are prominent in the UK media linked with austerity politics.
 this is but the latest form taken by the 'burden of old age' discourse which has a long history andcontinuity over time this discourse emerges from the 'age system' which is a structure that intersects with otherregulative and stratifying systems to introduce and maintain structural inequalities
 we consider ways of re-imagining the age system to construct more positive age relations andmeanings of old age in particular, drawing inspiration from JapanRENKEI Ethics Workshop
Kate M Bennett (Dept of Psychological Sciences, University of Liverpool)
Learning Outcomes: understand ethical issues in a broad context; understand ethical issues related toresearch and practice; understand research integrity; be familiar with different ethical research codes;
able to critically discuss ethical challenges in research.
Topics Covered:
1. Philosophical Ethics - Moral principles give rise to ethics but morality should not be confused withconservatism
What ethical system do we adopt?
Consequentialism - the outcome dictates if an act was moral; not happiness for people per se e.g.
cold conclusion that something is best even if it does not make people happy
Deontology - the act itself must be good or bad the outcome is inconsequential (see Figure 1)
2. What Codes form the basis of ethics in UK and Japan? Nuremberg code (1947); Declaration of
Helsinki 1964 (6 sets of revisions); Ethical rules for human testing.
They are a mixture of consequentialist and deontological ethics
3. Rest’s 4 Component Model (1982) (see Figure 2)
4. Comparison of UK and Japanese research codes (see Figure 3)
5. Research Integrity: Plagiarism; Collusion; Fabrication.

Singapore Statement on Research Integrity: Principles: Honesty; Accountability; Professional courtesy
and fairness; Good stewardship http://www.singaporestatement.org

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Team Work Activities(Day 2—Thursday 30th June 2016)
Sheep and Shepherd
Learning outcomes…. This exercise encouraged teams to recognise the need to plan all aspects of atask, and the importance of co-ordination, effective communication and trust.
Summary of task
One member of the team was nominated shepherd. Communicating only by means of a whistle, theshepherd had to guide a flock of sheep (the rest of the team) into a pen. The sheep were mute andblindfolded. There was a limited amount of planning time, after which the team remained in silence.

Electric Maze
Learning outcomes include… Co-ordination, reliance on others as a strength rather
than a weakness, resource allocation, effective communication.
Summary of task
The team had to find the one safe route across a 10 x 6 grid andget all its members across it. All but a few of the squares were
‘electrified’ and could not be safely stepped on. The participants were not allowed tomake notes or mark the grid, and had to pass through the grid one at a time. Anyone
who stepped on an ‘electrified’ square was sent back to the start of the grid.
Perfect Square
Learning outcomes include… Planning and control, communication, resource allocation, problem
solving, modelling and practise.
Summary of task
The team had to create the largest possible perfect square from a length of rope, with all teammembers blindfold.
Human Knot
Starting in a circle, participants connected hands with two other people in the group to form thehuman knot. As a team they had to then try to unravel the ‘human knot’ by untangling themselves
into another circle without breaking the chain of hands.
Moonwalk
Learning outcomes…. This exercise focused on teambuilding and communication skills, in particular:
 verbal/non-verbal communication
 trust/co-operation/support
 co-ordination/leadership problem solving
 planning and time management
Summary of task
The team was a crew of astronauts on the moon. They had been sheltering from an electrical storm
which had left a layer of radioactive dust on the ground between them and their spaceship, which was
20 metres away. They were running short of oxygen and must return to the ship as quickly as possible
without treading on the contaminated ground.
They had a set of transportation equipment [two hula hoops and a plank] on which they could safely
stand. Each team member had an oxygen supply [a tennis ball] which they kept in place [under theirchin]. As a safety precaution, the team members were tied together [by elastic, by the ankles].

Off Site Visits
Day 1—Wednesday 29th June
60 Hope Street, Hope Street—Formal dinner with Vice Chancellor, Janet BeerDay 2— Thursday 30th June
Williamson Tunnels

Victoria Gallery & Museum (VGM) - Afternoon Tea

Off Site Visits
Day 2— Thursday 30th June
Fredericks, Hope Street —Film nightDay 4—Saturday 2nd July
Reeves Court Retirement Village

Off Site Visits
Day 4—Saturday 2nd July
Reeves Court Retirement Village

World of GlassOff Site Visits
Day 4—Saturday 2nd July
Dream—On the return journey back to Liverpool, participants had an opportunity tovisit Dream built on the site of the old Sutton Manor Colliery coal mine which featured
in Channel 4’s television programme ‘The Big Art Project’.

Participants also got to see, albeit from the coach, the home of Liverpool’s two famous
football teams:
Anfield Football Groundhome of Liverpool Football Club

Goodison Park
home of Everton Football Club

Group Presentations
Group Members: Hiroko YAMASHINA, Tatiana Sanches, Di Li, Alireza Abouhossein
Title: Smart Toilet
Summary of our presentation:
Societies are aging. Independence is a key factor to ensure the elderly are happy and have quality oflife. Our group felt that independent living can be promoted in future cities by increasing the numberof public toilets. We drew up a four year plan to increase the number of so-called 'smart toilets' acrossthe future city. Our plan suggested these spaces can be a source of income within four years ofconstruction, will help the elderly have a comfortable transition from sit-to-stand and to the pot, andremain hygienic through the use of advanced technology.
————————————Group Members: Giovanni Sala, Yuko Kurushima, Yukiko Tateyama, Zombor Koszegi

Title: Extended working life
The presentation was about old people getting back to work. The idea was that old people benefit
from working in terms of overall wellbeing.
————————————-Group Members: Dulce K. Rodriguez, Jing Li, Takeshi Nakagawa, Sae Shindo
Title: Death Education
Our presentation was about preparing people for end of life. You can view this here: https://www.powtoon.com/c/bz2rdW0mNbm/1/m

Group Presentations
Group Members: Juliet, Laura, Marian, Alison
Title: Intergenerational Relationships through Food
Objective:
To explore the relationship between traditional and contemporary food practices as a medium
for promoting intergenerational transfer of knowledge to foster community.
Impact:Two pronged approach: Literature review publication, experimental research study.
Create:
Review that discusses the effects of intergenerational transfer of knowledge.
A model to evaluate whether promoting intergeneration communication about food practices
has on shokuiku.
Outcome measures:
Sustained engagement, mental and emotional well-being, social connectedness, food literacy –buzz words.
Communicate:
Local governments, food producers, health and education providers, citizens.
Young people benefit from knowledge transfer.
Older people benefit from transferring knowledge and a sense of purpose by being involved insuch a scheme.
——————————————————
Group Members: Eri Kiyoshige, Sanmei Chen, Rie Ogaswara, Michael Stevens
Title: Activate Su-pa GG: Promoting Social Participation via Learning and Helping for Improved Health
Outcomes
We proposed an industry, government and academic partnership to leverage the upcoming interest in
the Tokyo Olympics to develop a program to prevent age-related declines in quality of life andincreased medical costs by promoting learning and social participation. Specifically, elderly would act
as foreign language-specific travel information guides in public spaces. Participants will receive basic
greetings level training in a specific language and be paired with a Pepper robot to use for moreadvanced questions onsite.

List of ParticipantsName: Alison Burrows
University: University of Bristol
Current position and year of study: Post-doctoral researcher
Discipline: Inclusive Design

Name: Dulce K. Rodriguez
University: University of Bristol
Current position and year of study: 2nd year PhD
Discipline: Education

Name: Zsombor Koszegi
University: University of Bristol
Current position and year of study: Postdoctoral Research AssistantDiscipline: Neuroscience

Name: Laura Soulsby
University: University of Liverpool
Current position and year of study: Lecturer
Discipline: Psychology

Name: Juliet McClymont
University: University of Liverpool
Current position and year of study: Final Year PhD student
Discipline: Evolutionary Morphology and Biomechanics

List of ParticipantsName: Giovanni Sala
University: University of Liverpool
Current position and year of study: 2nd year PhD

Name: Di Li
University: University of Liverpool
Current position and year of study:
4th year PhD student (due to graduate soon) and honorary research associate(open end research staff)
Discipline: PhD in Engineering / Architecture

Name: Michael Stevens
University: University of Liverpool
Current position and year of study: 1st year Postdoc
Discipline: PhD in Computer Science with a specialty in computational biology
and machine learning

Name: Tatiana Sanches
University: University of Southampton
Current position and year of study: 2nd year PhD student

Name: Alireza Abouhossein
University: University of Leeds
Current position and year of study: Post-Doctoral Fellow
Discipline: Design, Robotics & Optimisation

List of ParticipantsName: :Yukiko Tateyama
University: Kyoto University
Current position and year of study: 2nd Year PhD Student

Name: Sanmei Chen
University: Kyushu University
Current position and year of study: Research AssistantDiscipline: Exercise Epidemiology

Name: Sae Shindo
University: Nagoya University
Current position and year of study: 2nd Year Masters Student
Discipline: Nursing

Name: Yuko Kurushima
University: Osaka University
Current position and year of study: Postdoctoral Fellow
Discipline: Dental

Name: Eri Kiyoshige
University: Osaka University
Current position and year of study: 2nd year Master’s student
Discipline: Medicine

List of ParticipantsName: Marina Kozono
University: Osaka University
Current position and year of study: 3rd year PhD student

Name: Jing Li
University: Osaka University
Current position and year of study: 1st year master student
Discipline: Bachelor's degree of Japanese literature from Sichuan University

Name: Rie Ogasawara
University: Osaka University
Current position and year of study: 3rd Year PhD Student
Discipline: Master in Human Sciences (Japan)

Name: Hiroko YAMASHINA
University: Nagoya University
Current position and year of study: Assistant Professor
Discipline: Ph.D. in Medicine (Global Health, Socio-medical Epidemiology)

Participant Evaluation
The Liverpool workshop sought to make changes based on the feedback of participants from the Osaka
workshop and to a large extent these changes worked well. However, interestingly, while the feedback
from the Liverpool workshop was overall very positive, the views of some participants suggested that thebalance between formal lectures and teamwork activity was difficult to get exactly right for allparticipants:
It was a good workshop, but I would have liked more lectures and activities. While the Osaka
workshop seemed too full on at the time, when I compare the two now I feel the Osaka one had
the right amount of learning and social activities and the Liverpool one felt somewhat lacking inthat respect. Facilitation for interdisciplinary collaborations was well managed.
Perhaps the learning objectives for the workshop were connected in relation to the outputs. When one
participant asked of the ‘general impressions of the workshop’ they wrote, ‘Interesting but couldn't
understand expected outcomes from organisers.’ It is possible therefore that having moderate but
different changes to the objectives made things less clear. In general however, when asked ‘which part of
the workshop they found most useful’ the participants found the teamworking, group work andcollaborative activities the most rewarding:
I did like that we had more time to work in teams. I believe that to construct links between
participants is important to build friendship and trust.
I benefited the most from the group work, because the team drew on each other’s expertise andthat made it a true learning experience. At the end of each group work session, I felt excited by the
project and motivated to pursue the collaboration in the long-term.
How to share ideas and progress discussion. It's [a] precious experience and knowledge to learn. I
can't experience in Japan.

I did like that we had more time to work in teams. I believe that to construct links between
participants is important to build friendship and trust.
This was then reflected in the skills that they felt they had developed where seven of the elevenrespondents mentioned teamwork and collaboration skills. In going on to develop those skills theycommented: As [a] researcher I learned how to work with other researchers that have different cultural
backgrounds than mine. Another commented: I hope we can conduct international collaboration research
focused on differences between countries for ageing using the ideas and skills from this workshop in the
future.

Roughly half of the respondents responded very positively when asked if the ‘workshop had changed
their mind-set’. This was reflected both in terms of the process of the workshop itself and in terms of thesubject matter:[Y]es. I am so impress[ed] about how much I learned about how to collaborate with researchers
who have different cultural background. I thought this was obvious but it is not, it requires practiceand patience.

Some interesting issues arise from the question: ‘In order to realise your team’s ideas, what do you
think you will need?’ Some responses seemed concerned with the workshop itself rather than future
research collaboration: ‘We need [a] facilitator in each group!’ Other voices echoed the overall
recognition that collaborative, International research activity is far from easy. Team members needed:
A clear goal and good communication.
Need to be patient and cooperative. English speaking skills and good communication skills arefundamental but also I found that strong research mind and passion for the given topic"Ageing" are more important to convince others of my expertise, its importance and ideas.

Another participant wanted ‘Time, which is not a small thing given that we are all very busy with ourown research.’ While another needed: ‘Patience and carefulness to listen.’
When asked ‘How are you going to share your experience and the outcome of the workshop to wider
audiences?’ the respondents spoke generally about opportunities to disseminate their experience:
This experience will be beneficial to deepen my academic research. Also I would like to sharewhat we learned in this workshop to the colleagues through the seminar.
I will share my experience in my lab and encourage younger students not to miss this kind ofopportunities.
To my university I submitted reports. It's difficult to share because there is no opportunity to doso but I will share with colleagues
Using social network system is effective....
This is something I am currently working on, I had couple of innovative ideas that I am testingnow.
No idea so far, but I posted what I have done through this workshop on SNS and shared theinformation unofficially.
Suggestions on how to ‘improve this event in the future’ brought up some frustrations for a few
participants. One participant in particular had issues with the organisation:
1. There was too much time in the program without organised events where we were left toour own devices. More structured activities would be more desirable.
2. The amount of food provided was often not enough for the number of people, and the quality
was sometimes poor (e.g. rotten bananas.)
3. The organisers from Liverpool were dismissive of new ideas that were counter [to] their own
views and wouldn’t allow participants to express themselves freely and that had impact on theconfidence of the group members. This clearly shouldn’t happen in an interdisciplinary
workshop which ought to allow participants to share their experiences and help to build theirconfidence with new knowledge rather than the opposite.

The organisers had incorporated the Osaka feedback into the Liverpool programme and created freetime alongside greater flexibility and more self-direction with regard to team outputs. However,sometimes this appeared as a lack of direction on the part of the organisers. Respondents mentioned
the need for more facilitation: ‘Facilitators or [a] professional will be needed [for] each group.’ Clearly
the balance between participant autonomy and facilitator direction was difficult to balance:
I'm afraid that some of sessions were not well-considered and prepared. But most of thesessions were very interesting. Exploring culture at least for one day should be scheduled.
Expected goals and outcomes should have been "CLEARLY" stated by the organizers at the
beginning not by participants.
[K]eeping designing activities that involve teamwork between participants. To clarify as muchas possible about what is expected from participants, from their teamwork.
The purpose of our project is very vague, so I think it is better to focus on narrow targets tohave a group discussion
The aims and objectives of the workshop were shared with all of the participants that had been in
Osaka in the several months leading up to the Liverpool workshop. There were differing levels of
expectations depending on the academic status of the participants concerned. One had a usefulsuggestion with regard to facilitating more direct academic outputs and suggesting sessions on
research writing and funding:
Future events should have a clearly defined output and the workshop should support theparticipants in achieving this goal. Since this workshop was meant to build on the work done in
Osaka, the scope could have been more ambitious (e.g. to produce an outline for a paper, grantapplication, funding bid for a startup, etc.) and the workshop could have had practical lectures
about how to achieve this. To be honest, I have seen more done in less time and with similarinterdisciplinary groups.

This respondent also went on to question the ‘Dragon’s Den’ style presentation at the end of theworkshop:
Regarding the group work competition, either don't have a competition or don't give every
team a prize - giving each team a prize was patronising and underrated the merit of the actual
winning team.
The use of the open platform Padlet for participants before the workshop and the information in theparticipants pack regarding local amenities and attractions seems to have not come up to expectations
for this participant:Free time is appreciated but not easy to manage if you are in an unfamiliar city and/or foreigncountry, so there should be more detailed and practical information about options (e.g.
recommended restaurants, bars, attractions, and how to get there). I really think it would be
useful to set up a social media platform (e.g. Facebook page) that people could join if theywanted to, to stay in touch, share interesting articles, make plans for social and other activities
during as well as after the workshops.

The diverse, International and multi-disciplinary make-up of the cohort produced an interesting,
dynamic and unique experience for participants and facilitators combined. In order that more
complete evaluation is achieved the organisers recommend that RENKEI ensures that feedback forms
are filled in immediately at the end of each workshop or RENKEI event rather than use an online toolsome distance in time from the event itself. This would ensure that all the participants engaged withfeedback rather than the half that have submitted for the Living with an Ageing Society workshop. The
issue with such incomplete feedback is that it is difficult to know if the diverse experiences recorded
are reflected across all participants or whether those that have very definite opinions either positiveor negative are the ones that are motivated to respond.
Having said that, Living with an Ageing Society in both Osaka and Liverpool has been, overall, a highly
successful venture for the participants’ perspectives. The pie charts are overwhelmingly positive andindicate that the experience has, if not changed lives, then at least broadened their outlook andincreased their personal and professional confidence:

As would be expected of critically minded researchers the detailed feedback will provide useful
information for future RENKEI workshop organisers both in terms of setting and then meeting the
expectations of the participants. To the detailed eye there is evidence in the evaluation statements ofthe cultural discontinuity between Japanese based participants and those based in the UK. However,the facilitators anecdotally noted how all participants had ‘moved’ and stretched themselves over thecourse of the two workshops. This resulted in a greater understanding and appreciation of thedifferent cultural and organisation approaches to research, the ageing society in general and thefuture roles of researchers in a globalised economy. Their own personal goals and expectations havebeen broadened by the experience and they have had opportunities to learn deeply about themselves
and their place in the world as professional researchers.

Opening Preface
University of Liverpool, Vice Chancellor, Professor Janet Beer
could be made to ﬁt more comfortably with the overall aims of the subject and the facilitators. Even
inherent experience of mixing Japanese and UK based researchers naturally brings a much valued and

RENKEI “Living with an Ageing Society” Organising Team:

Richard Hinchcliﬀe

J McClymont
Tom West

Sharon Galvin

Juliet McClymont

The University of Liverpool was honoured to host the return workshop on Living with an Ageing Society.
In particular we welcomed early career researchers from all our RENKEI partners. We also appreciatedthe contributions of our colleagues from the University of Osaka, Professors Yasuyuki Gondo, Masayuki
Nakamichi and Saori Yasamoto. We hope that you enjoyed your stay in Liverpool and that you and yourdistinguished university gained useful contacts, collaborations and further involvement with our vibrantresearch community. We also welcomed colleagues from our partners in Industry who collaborated withthe workshop, Reeve Court Retirement Village and the North-West e-Health Cluster and Local EnterprisePartnership.
As participants discovered in the ﬁrst workshop in Osaka last year, there was much potential for
researchers from the UK and from Japan to learn from each other. This was both in terms of the researchthat each institution involved in RENKEI is engaged with on the theme of Living with an Ageing Society,and in addition, culturally exploring the aims of RENKEI which ‘sees its purpose as forging links between
industry and higher education towards nurturing the research leaders and other human resources thatwill shape the society of the future’. The main responsibility to deliver these aims was with theparticipants themselves – we support you and wish you all the best in these endeavours! We hope thatyou found the workshop an excellent opportunity to explore collaborations and that you’ll keep in touchwith each other in the future.
The University of Liverpool is an International research leader on Ageing. We have a Research and Clinicalinterface across all three Faculties and, in our Institute for Ageing and Chronic Disease, over thirteen
research groupings. Alongside this research excellence we are acutely aware of the health inequalities
within the City and the inequalities of ageing in general in the UK and across the world. Though our work
is internationally famous it is also embedded in our local community and is actively engaged with the
Local Enterprise Partnership in order to ensure that the best of our research beneﬁts the local populationand local enterprise. Liverpool City Council, the NHS, the Clinical Commissioning Groups and the
Universities have helped to form a partnership where the vision is 'That Liverpool in 2020 is a city region
where health and wellbeing are at the heart of our purpose, culture, planning and action’. It’s highly
appropriate, therefore, that the RENKEI Liverpool - Osaka Ageing Population Workshop engaged with thecity region and its ﬁrst public University, founded for ‘advancement of learning and ennoblement of life.’
Professor Janet Beer

COVERS AMENDED 2_Layout 1 08/12/2016 15:14 Page 2