4 an opportunity to test the value of the World Cafe´ format as a method for future research. 5. Methods This study was determined to be an exempt study by the University of Washington Human Subjects Division. The method employed for this study involved a melding of the World Cafe´ format as the structure of the study with a focus group format as the process that informed data collection in the study. Qualitative methodology was then used for data analysis. The data collection procedures diﬀered from traditional focus groups in some signiﬁcant ways. First, groups formed, discussed, and reformed with diﬀerent participants for each of the three main questions that were posed at the forum. Second, instead of the more customary audio or video taping of the groups, each table was covered with paper on which participants wrote and/or drew as they discussed the topic at hand. These notes and doodles became the transcript along with notes taken by each table leader. This is consistent with narrative analysis in which both spoken and written words are used in meaning making [22]. Finally, groups were given great latitude as to how they addressed the discussion topic for their table. Some groups created action plans, and others were more reﬂective. The discussion leaders at each table helped to keep the group on topic and were careful not to inject their opinions into the group discussion. The setting for the study was a community forum for those over 40 years of age living within the school district boundaries of a suburban community in Western Wash- ington with a population of approximately 37.000, whose residents are predominately Caucasian (87%). Approxi- mately 32% are ages 45 and over [27]. The forum included refreshments, and people were invited to sit at one of several round tables covered with paper for writing thoughts as they occurred to the participants. The conversation at each table began with the posing of one of three questions, with ample time allowed for each table group to discuss, strategize, and imagine a preferred future in an elder-friendly community. The three questions were as follows (1) What does it mean to you to be socially connected? (2) How can our city help with life transitions that would keep you in this community? (3) What do I have to oﬀer my community? These three questions were developed through consensus by the city level committee charged with examining issues and processes that enhance an age-friendly community. The questions were designed to determine how people deﬁne and make meaning of being socially connected, to identify aspects of community life that would reinforce continuity with the community versus relocation to another community after retirement, and to ask participants to think about their own value to the community, thereby initiating thought around the idea of social reciprocity. Conversation was not limited to only the question at hand, and participants were invited to speak, draw, and write about the broader topic throughout the session. At set times, participants were asked to move to a diﬀerent table, to be with a diﬀerent group of people, and to consider a diﬀerent question, until all three main Journal of Aging Research questions were answered by most of the participants. One member from each table stayed behind during the rotation in order to serve as an ambassador for the previous members, thus assisting in continuity of conversation. A goal was to allow participants to engage creatively as they tackled the questions together. So, rather than gather individual feedback, table leaders encouraged participants to converse with each other and to spend time thinking together about potential solutions to dilemmas as they were raised by group members. Once the group session was completed, participants were invited to gather into a large group to debrief and discuss the most important topics from the perspectives of the participants. This conversation was also guided, and notes were recorded. 5.1. Sample. A purposive sample of people over age 40 was recruited through newspaper ads and invitations from the city Parks and Recreation Department and through the Aging in Place Committee (AIP) membership. Membership lists from the Senior Activity Center and local faith commu- nities also served as sources for potential participants. The invitation requested community members to participate in a community forum to discuss how to create, promote, and maintain a more elder-friendly community. Ultimately, 23 individuals participated in the community forum and ranged in age from midforties to late eighties. Participants therefore represented both those who might be identiﬁed as baby boomers as well as those who are currently retired and may be deﬁned more traditionally as older adults. We did not col- lect speciﬁc data on age, but some participants oﬀered their age as part of the conversations. The majority of participants were female and Caucasian. Since this was originally con- ceived by the AIP committee as a community forum and not a research project, no additional sociodemographic data were collected on socioeconomic status, education, or other typi- cal variables associated with creating a demographic proﬁle. 5.2. Data Analysis. Following the World Cafe´ community forum, researchers were asked to analyze the data from the event in order for the AIP committee to present ﬁndings and make recommendations to city government oﬃcials. No identifying information about participants was included with the data provided for analysis. Using an approach con- sistent with grounded theory [28], the researchers analyzed the data for common categories and themes. First, they met together and carefully reviewed the data from each of the questions. They used an open coding process for notes of verbal exchanges, drawings and notes from participants, and memos from group leaders. The few illegible writings and unrecognizable doodles were dismissed from the analysis process. As categories began to emerge, coding became more selective until three main themes were identiﬁed. Through- out analysis, the researchers engaged in conversation about meanings and interpretations, until they were satisﬁed they had a clear understanding of the data. In order to conﬁrm that trustworthiness of the data was maintained, once the themes were identiﬁed, the AIP committee reviewed the ﬁnd- ings and then invited all of the original forum participants to attend a focus group to discuss the ﬁndings. The focus