Who matters, for better and for worse? Personal networks in an international perspective

Jacques-Antoine Gauthier, currently visiting CRFR from the University of Lausanne, summarises the research he presented at a recent CRFR Informal Seminar.

What do we know about the conditions that favour or hamper the ways in which individuals get connected to each other in a significant way? Are personal networks influenced by life course transitions such as marriage and parenthood (or their absence)? Do they change from one country to another?  

A recently published book (Wall, Widmer, Gauthier, Česnuitytė, & Gouveia, 2018) based on a study carried out in Lithuania, Portugal and Switzerland offers some new insights on these issues by asking the question Who are the individuals who, over the past year, have been very important to you, even if you do not get along well with them? First, despite variations over time and place, the research underlines that close relationships continue to form the base of personal networks, challenging the idea of a global decline of the family through the process of individualisation.

This study shows that the closeness between individuals is the result of multiple influences. It is often built over time through co-residence, couple and intergenerational relationships. It also depends on the way cohabitation, birth outside wedlock, childlessness or same sex-marriage are socially perceived and by the place given to friendship and colleagueship. More generally, gender, generation and social class remain influential regarding how close one feels to somebody else. An additional effect may be also attributable to welfare states when considering how their singular historical, social, and normative contexts influence the construction of their citizens’ personal networks.

In Switzerland, long-term stable and wealthy living conditions are associated with liberal policies and ideologies supporting individualised behaviours. At the same time, enduring conservative forces support a rather traditional dynamic of family life and gendered division of labour. Hence, high importance is attributed to friendship and colleagueship within more traditional interdependencies associated with marriage and parenthood.

In Portugal, a long period of low welfare provision associated with a right-wing dictatorship favoured strong intergenerational solidarities and patriarchal models of the family, later thoroughly transformed by the emergence of new family forms and more gender-equal representations. As a result, personal networks are now more adaptable and differentiated. While open to friends, kin and non-kin relationships are combined in a much less exclusive way compared to the other two countries.

In Lithuania, personal networks reflect the hardship and uncertainties associated with the former Soviet occupation and its aftermath. Political instability and economic unrest lead to mass migration and day-to-day struggles, favouring new normative frames focused on pro-traditional family values and policies. Compared with Switzerland and Portugal, personal networks in Lithuania are smaller and less open to non-kin relationships. Despite their smaller size and strong kin orientation, they provide weaker emotional support, which makes them also less cohesive.

The book sheds new light on the complexity of the contexts and conditions potentially influencing the ways in which personal networks are constructed. In particular it shows that their diversity is predominantly shaped by historical and social factors on which private individuals have only a limited influence. 

Jacques-Antoine Gauthier
Universities of Lausanne and Edinburgh

 Jacques-Antoine.Gauthier@unil.ch


Reference

Wall, K., Widmer, E. D., Gauthier, J.-A., Česnuitytė, V., & Gouveia, R. (Éd.). (2018). Families and Personal Networks An International Comparative Perspective. Palgrave McMillan. 
Full text version available at: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1057%2F978-1-349-95263-2

Strength and power: autistic pupils and their parents’ experiences of support in secondary school

CRFR Associate PhD student Elizabeth Graham writes about her research exploring children with autism and their experiences of social and educational support in school.

In recent years there has been a significant driving force to teach and include autistic pupils in mainstream schools (Humphrey, 2008). Beardon (2017) asserts that it is autism and the environment that equates to the outcome. For example, surroundings can impact on the level of difficulties experienced. Therefore, the focus should be on adapting environments to better fit those with differences as opposed to encouraging autistic individuals to fit. What follows is a brief insight into autistic pupils and their parents’ experiences and expressions of strength and power when navigating an educational system that does not fit.

Strength can be defined as the emotional or mental qualities necessary in dealing with difficult or distressing situations. The young people in the study displayed great strength when dealing with distressing day to day experiences at school. Most described having no friends, being bullied and isolated, feeling anxious, unsupported, ‘horrible’, unwanted, ashamed and having their confidence knocked. Some also conveyed how they struggled with sensory issues such as noisy classrooms and how they felt claustrophobic in narrow busy corridors. Parents shared how their children would have to recover from the school day in various ways when home: crying, shutting down, and sitting under their covers to recharge. Despite this, some young people are still able to walk through the school doors most days and some even manage to uphold an excellent attendance record.

Parents also demonstrated much tenacity in fighting for their child’s experiences and intelligence to be understood and recognised, to take failing grades seriously, prompting for support to be put in place and some feeling like they have had to fight ‘every step of the way’. This includes requesting meetings with numerous people such as head teachers, deputy head teachers, pastoral heads, head of learning support. This is no mean feat when coupled with the impact of their child’s diagnosis, the level of care some provide at home, worrying about their child when at work, the heartache of hearing their children express suicidal thoughts and subsequent feelings of guilt and being a ‘failure as a parent’. They also have additional challenges of dealing with family members who don’t understand, feeling alone and unsure and sourcing external support for themselves and their children.

Power is usually thought of as the exercise of will of one social actor over others. The young people in this study exercised a degree of control by withholding information from their parents about some of their experiences at school (e.g. bullying) with the intention of stopping their parents intervening. They were also able to regulate their surroundings when home from school by shutting down and not interacting with their parents. In contrast, parents had the authority to make their children go to school, do homework, limit Xbox and Wi-Fi or reading time. Parents also had a limited ability to effect changes at school, for example, meetings, reversing changes that were implemented (e.g. having their child moved back to a seat they were comfortable with in a classroom) and ensuring their child sits exams that they know they are capable of. Whilst parents acknowledge the efforts of some teaching staff and that support for their children is restricted due to limited resources and budgets, they feel that in the education system as a whole, they and their children hold very little power. 


Elizabeth-Anne Graham is studying for her PhD at the Faculty of Social Science, University of Stirling.


References

Beardon, L. (2017) Autism and Asperger Syndrome in Adults, London: Sheldon Press.

Humphrey, N. (2008) ‘What Does ‘Inclusion’ Mean for Pupils on the Autistic Spectrum in Mainstream Schools?’ Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12(1): 23-46.

 

“A cup of tea and a fag”: doing family in the context of imprisonment.

We are delighted to welcome Dr Cara Jardine to the CRFR research network. Cara is a Research Associate at the University of Strathclyde. Here she reflects on her PhD research which examined what it means to be a family in the context of imprisonment, how these relationships are constructed and maintained, and how those affected by the imprisonment of a family member interact with the criminal justice system.

When a person receives a prison sentence, the impact upon their family can be profound and serious. In addition to causing considerable emotional distress, the imprisonment of a family member can disrupt housing, finances and childcare arrangements. Where the family choose to support the person in custody, this can come with significant costs as families attempt to provide the visits, phone calls, clothing and financial support that will lessen the worst pains of the prison environment. This often requires regular interaction between the family and prison itself, a process which can be confusing, time consuming and upsetting. Importantly, as many families affected by imprisonment are already experiencing poverty and social marginalisation, these additional burdens are often carried by families with few resources to spare.

Over the last ten years, families affected by imprisonment have become increasingly visible to both researchers and policy makers. This has led to a range of welcome initiatives to support families affected by imprisonment, such as designated children’s visits, homework clubs or family days. These often have children and partners at their centre, reflecting that much of this research interest to date has largely focused on nuclear models of the family. However, this contrasts starkly with the rapid changes in family life over recent decades, such as the increasing popularity of cohabitation, the legalisation of same-sex marriage, a growth of single person house-holds, rising numbers of “blended” families including children from previous relationships, and a growing recognition that friends can be an important part of family life.

Indeed, my own research with families affected by imprisonment in Scotland found that the impact of this form of punishment is felt across a wide range of relationships, including parents, siblings, nieces and nephews, step-children, and grandparents, often in highly individual ways. Rather than relying on nuclear models of the family when attempting to understand the experiences of families affected by imprisonment, it is therefore more fruitful to conceptualise family relationships as something we actively “do”.

Drawing on Janet Finch’s concept of “displaying family”, I argue that families affected by imprisonment adopt a range of individual and often highly creative ways for maintaining their relationships. These often go beyond the obvious strategies of visiting and making regular phone calls, although these are important. For example, families described establishing new routines, sharing favourite foods, maintaining old traditions or watching the same television programs as the person in custody as a means of fostering feelings of connection and closeness. These strategies also highlight the far-reaching impact of imprisonment, which can impact on the smallest and most seemingly unremarkable elements of family life, as one participant described:

   "My dad says that he really misses having a cup of tea and a fag with my mum because that is what we did every morning, because my mum and dad didn’t do big things together – like they went on holiday but they didn’t go out drinking or anything so it was just a little thing that was part of their routine…..these are just little things but they mean the world to us"

However, examples such this are remarkable, as they demonstrate that some strategies for “doing family” (such as homework clubs) are more easily recognised as such than others (a cup of tea and a fag). The status and recognition of different ways of “doing family” are influenced by class, gender and race. Where families fit most comfortably into dominant (nuclear and middle class) narratives of family life, they are more able to continue the everyday practices that support these relationships. Consequently, it is vital that the most marginalised families are sought out and included in the growing discussions surrounding families affected by imprisonment amongst both academics and policy makers. A failure to do so contributes to a perception that the criminal justice system not only punishes these families who feel that they “do the sentence too”, but that it is indifferent to their voices, needs and experiences.

---

Publication:
Cara Jardine; Constructing and Maintaining Family in The Context of Imprisonment. Br J Criminol 2017 azx005. doi: 10.1093/bjc/azx005 [open access]

Image: ©iStock.com/sebastianosecondi

Relationship-based practice with families in need

Hazel G Whitters, Senior Early Years/Child Protection Coordinator in a Glasgow Voluntary Organisation reflects on her experiences working with asylum seeking families.

===========================================================================

Jungle, asylum, war, removal, displacement, help… the daily descriptors that we are becoming used to reading in our newspapers or viewing on our televisions as we eat an evening meal.

Familiarity can breed complacency. A plan of responsive action and prioritising resources is easy to achieve from the perspective of our armchairs as we view the world through our screens. I have great respect for policy and decision-makers who examine, and respond to the current humanitarian crisis from a strategic perspective inter-mingled with personal stories of human atrocities and suffering. But at best the world is not yet ’Getting It Right for Every Child’.

It seems so much easier to be a practitioner. Traditionally, child care and education workers are used to embracing new ventures, stimulated by the challenges, sympathetic to the child’s needs regardless of the cause, and immune to the frenetic political communications. Play is our medium of interaction and care. Play is our therapy to heal the effect of adversities, and to promote achievement. Play is our world’s common language.

Government statistics tell us that in the UK 36,465 asylum applications were made in 2015-16. I always think it is useful and relevant to place statistics in a context of practice. The cause of human needs must influence the approach to intervention in current proactive response by services. Many years ago practitioners encouraged parents to forget childhood adversities and focus on the future - the premise being that out of sight = out of mind. Today, research (Whitters, 2015, 2016) has given us a greater understanding of human development, and the significant impact of historical influences upon our abilities to operate as successful individuals and effective contributors to society. A high level of human involvement in a learning environment can only be achieved if accompanied by emotional well-being. A plan which has goals, and a process to recognise success. Empowerment which is gained through decision-making for a life-plan is key for human beings to rehabilitate post-trauma.

The voluntary sector is well-placed to respond to these needs as service planning and delivery can incorporate responsive personalised care. A therapeutic approach to supporting the needs of people who are striving to create a different inner working model is essential: Healing of mind and body for people who are determined to forge a positive pathway through life, and who have decided to embrace the culture of another country as a source of support. Engaging with parents who are seeking asylum is straightforward in practice as language and cultural differences are certainly not barriers but provide focus for interaction. Our clumsy attempts to reproduce dialects prompt laughter and shared moments of partnership with parents.

Interactive guidance, in the form of supported play with parents and children, creates a learning environment for families which provides ample opportunity for the promotion of mental and physical good health for children and parents. Experience has shown me that human beings can identify positive aspects from childhood and adulthood. A young teenage mum, who spent time in the infamous jungle at Calais, told me of the community spirit which enabled her to walk tall and view the world with dignity. She talked about the creation of an athletic club in the camp which enabled her to demonstrate physical prowess, and to shine amidst the mud and misery. The resilience of human beings is legendary…

Politicians, strategic planners – good luck. Practitioners - continue what you do best - relationship-based practice with families in need – innovative intervention which helps us to learn and improve alongside families who are embracing life from a different perspective.

===========================================================================

Hazel G Whitters has worked in child protection for over 30 years and was awarded her PhD from the University of Strathclyde in 2015. Her thesis 'Perceptions of the influences upon the parent-professional relationship in a context of early intervention and child protection' is available online from the British Library
http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.655502

Whitters, H. G., (2016) The Parent-Professional Relationship in Child Protection. A WithScotland Briefing. pdf: withscotland.org/download/the-parent-professional-relationship-in-child-protection

Getting evidence into action: how can we understand what we already know?

Our Co-director, Dr Sarah Morton writes about the processes involved in setting up an Evidence Bank to support public and voluntary sector partners in accessing existing research evidence to help to inform decision making.

At the Centre for Research on Families and Relationships we have always valued working closely with non-academic partners. At the end of one particular research partnership with national family organisations (Cool with Change) we started a conversation about what other research the partnership might do together. Many of the topics our partners were interested in were areas where there was already a lot of research, but it was very difficult for these non-academic agencies to get a sense of what that research was. So we set out together to develop ways to make existing research more useful.

We explain the reviewing process we developed to address that issue in an article just published by the journal Evidence and Policy (Evidence synthesis for knowledge exchange: balancing responsiveness and quality in providing evidence for policy and practice). The process focussed on making sure that evidence was useful, timely and relevant, and could be put into action by people working in children and family services.

Why is evidence reviewing important?

Often people need to understand what we already know from research in order to develop services. Traditional systematic reviewing is time consuming and often doesn’t offer very accessible summaries. Our evidence bank process sought to address these issues.

What kinds of topics were reviewed?

We developed a range of ways of interrogating what partners wanted to know from research in order to define review topics. This involved visiting and revisiting questions like:

• What is the general topic area you are interested in? 
• What is the issue or problem you are trying to address? 
• What do you want to know about this issue? 

But we also explored the potential uses of the evidence through questions like:

• What do you plan to do with the data/report? 
• Who will the data/report be relevant to within and out with your organisation? 
• What difference do you hope that using the data/report will make?

In addition to spending time exploring what people wanted, we also created a scoping stage, where we would look at the literature in general terms, get a sense of its size and scope, and return back to a discussion of what the specific focus should be.

Through the process we looked at: Parenting Teenagers; Transitions to Primary school; How families have changed; and other topics.

What was different about the reviews?

As well as being tailored very specifically to real world practice issues, the reviews have a number of distinctive features:

• They explain how the topic review fits in with the wider literature and which subjects and disciplines it comes from, to give a sense of the ‘evidence landscape’ in which it sits.
• The scoping and final reports are peer reviewed by an academic and a user reviewer who has practical experience and knowledge of the field.
• The reports are edited by a knowledge exchange expert, written in plain language with a short summary. 
• Reviews contain ‘talking points’ that focus on the practical implications of the evidence presented, and aim to move thinking away from the idea that research can tell you what to do, towards the idea that research provides a framework to help decision-making. 
• They are conducted in a shorter time frame with involvement from partners throughout.

How have the reviews been used?

We worked closely with partners to explore how to make the reviews useful. We tried and tested a number of approaches, from large forums, communities of practice, and linking with improvement approaches. They have led to some specific actions, for example:

• In West Lothian a review of transitions to primary school was used to test and embed new approaches to supporting children and families.
• One of the partners from the About Families programme used the evidence to develop new ways of including parents in the design and delivery of services. 
• In What Works Scotland a review of partnership working has been used by local authorities to reflect on and improve the effectiveness of partnerships for public service delivery.

What next?

The Evidence Bank review process has been taken into What Works Scotland and is being used there for a number of reviews. 

Families, intimacy and social inequalities

David Morgan is an expert in the sociology of the family. He is Emeritus Professor at the Morgan Centre, University of Manchester. Here, Professor Morgan explains some of the issues he will address in his keynote presentation ‘Family and Intimate Practices and Social Inequalities’ at our 5th International Conference: Unequal Families and Relationships.

Many sociologists have examined the links between families and inequalities. For example John Goldthorpe describes the “the inherent ‘stickiness’ between the class positions of parents and their children”[i]. This can be seen as a call for the close examination of what happens within families when discussing the persistence of social inequalities. This should include examination of those at the higher levels of the class system, as Goldthorpe argues “more advantaged families now use their economic, cultural and social edge to ensure their children stay at the top of the social class ladder”[ii].

In my presentation at the CRFR international conference I will re-consider some aspects of families, including inheritance (especially of wealth), housing, how families accumulate and use their social capital (like networks, knowledge and other resources) and how these practices are seen to be normal and natural in society. While I focus on family practices this type of analysis can be extended to include personal communities and the wider networks of friends and acquaintances.

Much of this is not exactly new and much of the material is readily available. What is required is a recognition that everyday family practices can, using a different pair of spectacles, also be seen as class practices. 

===============

Professor Morgan is a keynote speaker at our 5th International Conference: Unequal Families & Relationships. You can read a brief introduction to his presentation 'Family and Intimate Practices and Social Inequalities' here.

You can follow live tweets from the conference using the hashtag #CRFR2016 on Twitter.

[i] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/13/decades-of-educational-reform-no-social-mobility
 [ii] http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2016-03-14-decades-educational-expansion-had-little-effect-social-mobility

Unequal families and relationships

Next week we shall be hosting our 5th International Conference in Edinburgh; on Monday we shall welcome over 200 delegates from 31 countries. 

Here, CRFR co-director Dr Jeni Harden introduces the conference and next week some of our keynote speakers will be posting to our blog. For those who are unable to join us, you can follow the conversations on twitter using the hashtag #CRFR2016.

 We chose inequality as the theme for our 5th conference, reflected in our conference name ‘Unequal Families and Relationships’. Inequalities and social divisions are created, reflected, reinforced and sometimes subverted within families and personal relationships. We received a fantastic response to the call for papers, which has allowed us to produce a very interesting programme for the three days.

In the paper sessions we will address some key questions: How are social divisions and inequalities experienced within the context of families and personal relationships? How do inequalities of gender, social class, ethnicity, sexuality, disability and generation, intersect within and between families, households or friendship groups? How are families and relationships implicated in sexism, racism and bigotry, as well as political resistance to injustice and encouragement of inclusiveness, fairness and equality? What comparisons can we draw between the global north and global south?

We are also very pleased to have keynote speakers who are leaders in the field of families and relationships. Julia Brannen; Kyung Sup Chang; Kathleen Gerson; Lynn Jamieson; David Morgan; Peter Moss.

We are introducing a couple of new things to the conference this time – Skills Taster sessions providing a brief introduction to a range of methods used in researching with children and families and the Evelyn Gillan Research Impact Prize for families and relationships research that has influenced the lives of children, families, or households. The prize, supported by the Scottish Government is in memory of our late colleague Evelyn Gillan (1959-2015).

We hope that everyone attending the conference will have an enjoyable and inspiring time. Remember to join the conversation on twitter #CRFR2016.

The affordances of digital technologies in children’s lives

This post is reposted with kind permission from its author Professor David McGillivray, Chair in Event and Digital Cultures, The University of the West of Scotland. The original post can be read on  David's blog.

[Last Thursday] I had the pleasure of attending a really interesting seminar titled, Children and Digital Technology, one of three events being hosted by the Centre for Research on Families and Relationships (CRFR) Digital Families across the Lifecourse. How technology mediates relationships within families and impacts on experiences of childhood (and what that now means) was the focus of the day’s discussions. We had presentations from Dr Joanne Westwood on the state of play for digital technologies and their social implications; from Prof Christine Stephen of University of Stirling on Digital Childhood and early years and from Dr Natalia Kucirkova of the Open University on Digital Childhood: Myths and Realities. There was also a healthy turnout from local authorities, government and third sector organisations impacted by the digital ‘turn’, including respectme, Parenting across Scotland and the Wheatley Group amongst others.

Some thoughts I took away from the event about the impact of digital technology on the experiences of young people, at home and in educational settings:

1. We don’t know as much as we ‘think’ we know. In other words, there are lots of myths and moral panics out there, especially around the ‘risks’ associated with children and young people being online for ‘excessive’ amounts of time.
2. Codes of conduct, regulatory frameworks and rules exist within and across online communities but they’re not always explicit. However, these more implicit codes are understood and followed by confident users of these platforms (and misunderstood by digital visitors!)
3. Yet, there remain a lot of young people who are not as digitally literate as we might presume, meaning that there is an even greater need for issues pertaining to privacy, ownership, rights, the provenance of knowledge online etc that needs to become more effectively part of the educational arena.
4. Crucially, for point 3, there needs to be a focus on the ‘affordances’ of digital technologies with an emphasis on , pedagogy, practice and literacies as opposed to ‘technology’ as and in itself. To emphasise the functionality of particular technologies is to miss their associated cultural practices.
5. We need to know more about what people are doing when they inhabit digital spaces and not just how long they’re spending there. Quantifying use is important (see the recent children’s media use stats from Ofcom) but only tells us part of the story. As researchers (and practitioners) we need to know more about what people are doing in digital space, who is doing it (and who is absent) and how these practices might impact on our understandings of whether participating in digital cultures is a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ thing.
6. Relatedly, we need to know more about whether participation and production in the ‘creation’ of digital artefacts is part of positive learning experiences, for children and young people and, if so, how are these more active digital making experiences being facilitated in the home, at school and beyond?

There were many other takeaways from the session and I’d recommend you try to get along to the follow up seminars in February and later in 2016. There’s so much to unpack in this digital space, as a parent, teacher or researcher. I’ll leave you with a provocation from Christine Stephen:

absence of a screen is now becoming a barrier to learning

-----

The Digital Families Across the Lifecourse project aims to bring together parenting organisations, practitioners and researchers to share what we have already learned about technology and family life, and to discuss the main issues facing families in Scotland today. The project is a collaboration between CRFR and Parenting Across Scotland and is funded by the Scottish Universities Insight Institute.

The project's second event will take place on 26 February 2016. Details will be available soon; please bookmark the project's page on the CRFR website or subscribe to receive notifications of events on our Facebook page.

The brain, the family and the state

Does it help if parents receive advice on how to raise their children?

Or does it make them more confused, trying to find their way through all the information?

These are some of the questions being asked in a CRFR project looking at how ideas from brain sciences are being used in policies relating to parenting and family life. The child’s brain has come to be a hot topic, and whether or not parents are aware of the origins of the advice they receive, brain science is being increasingly used to shape professional practice: from the content of parenting courses, to initiatives to encourage singing and reading with your baby, through to legislation targeting children and families.

Many parents may be able to recall, for example, advice given on the importance of cuddling their children – which stems from evidence that affection aids the development of infant’s brains. What once were perhaps seen as ‘soft’ topics are now being backed up by what is often seen as ‘hard’ science. Brain science is, today, playing an important role in reshaping the relationship between parents and the state.

We have almost completed the first part of our project, looking at how brain science is used in policy and how this relates to any changes in policy priorities and aims. We have also interviewed a number of very engaged and enthused policy-makers, who are involved in different ways in making ‘Scotland the best place to grow up’. One finding is that, whilst the brain sciences seem to have clearly played a role in policies for parenting and care, they are at the same time talked about very tentatively – policymakers are keen to highlight what they don’t know (yet), as well as what they feel certain of.

But what about parents? We are now interested in hearing what advice parents receive on parenting, and what they think about the role of brain science in this advice. Do they value it, do they use it, or do they ignore it? Upcoming interviews with families will help to shed light on how parents view these policy-backed messages, and the impact this type of advice has on their own parenting approaches.

If you are interested in learning more about this project please contact Tineke Broer (tineke.broer@ed.ac.uk). If you are a parent/carer of a child from 0-3 and would like to be interviewed for this project, please also get in touch.

Supporting Dads in the context of gender inequality

Sarah Morton, CRFR Co-Director, and Gil Viry, CRFR Associate Researcher and Chancellor's Fellow in Sociology at University of Edinburgh

There is a lot of recent interest in supporting dads. However, this focus on just one gender of parents poses some interesting questions and challenges in the context of ongoing gender inequality.

Dads often feel that general parenting services, like parent and toddlers, or parenting classes are not aimed at them and may feel excluded from these services. But young mums, older mums, women from ethnic minorities, same-sex mothers or women with disabilities might also feel that services are not ‘for them’. This is not only about gender.

Dads are getting more involved in family responsibilities than in the past – that’s a great step forward, but it’s not yet a revolution (see Giddeon Burrows blog). In most households (though not all), women continue to do the vast majority of childcare and housework. In particular, women fit their employment around the perceived needs of their husband and children more often than do men. This is one main reason why women account for 75% of part-time workers in Scotland.[i]

Because of this, it is likely that early years services, like parent and toddler groups will have more women than men using them. Services focus on those who need them, and the vast majority of those caring for young children on a day to day basis are women. Of course services should, where appropriate, make particular efforts to include all kinds of parents.

Whilst men are getting more involved with kids at home, they tend to focus on the fun things, and less on the hard work of caring, feeding, cleaning, doing the washing and ensuring children eat healthily and get enough sleep[ii].

Men face discrimination at work when asking for parental leave because we perpetuate the ‘father as breadwinner’ model. We need to tackle this, but not in isolation. Women still struggle to get their basic rights at work when pregnant, including not getting sacked, and face a barrage of assumptions and obstacles in their role as parents. Employed women are overrepresented among clerical workers, personal service workers (including care) and sales staff. This perpetuates gender stereotypes that caring and serving others (also within the home) are female tasks. All these issues are interrelated so that that they need to be addressed together.

Good parenting matters, but also good co-parenting – that is how parents coordinate and cooperate in their parenting roles – that benefits children’s wellbeing. Mutual support and good communication between both parents is likely to create a supportive environment within the whole family. High-quality co-parenting is also fundamental in the event of a separation or divorce. Fathers who were significantly committed to their co-parenting role before the separation are more likely to stay actively engaged in their children’s lives after the separation. In this situation, mothers are also more likely to trust and promote fathers having frequent contact with their children.

In most families, it is desirable that fathers are involved with their families and children, but it is also important to acknowledge that a number of fathers are destructive, abusive and violent forces in family life. In these situations, fathers often do more harm than good for children’s wellbeing.

What does the evidence say?

Evidence shows children need at least one loving and attentive parent. Having two parents helps to share this difficult and time-consuming task, but there is no clear evidence that the gender of either of these matters to children's outcomes[iii].

However the broader evidence on parenting is unclear about gender. Most research on parents focuses on mothers by default rather than intention as mothers as the main carers are usually more available to researchers to provide details of family life[iv] When research does look at fathers there is often no comparable data on mothers, so it is hard to identify a 'father' effect.

For separated families we know that good relationships both between parents and between fathers and children (in particular high support, responsive fathering and non-coercive control) are fundamental to children's wellbeing[v]. Some children regret not being in touch with absent fathers, other children feel coerced into continuing contact with fathers who are causing them distress (see Morrison, 2009).

In any case, tackling gender inequality within the home and at the workplace requires actions and changes from both genders.

Initiatives for just one gender of parent

What are we trying to achieve in developing and funding work aimed specifically at dads or mums? Do we want to get men more involved with their children? Or are we interested in getting men to play a full role in family life and share half of the homecare tasks enabling women to achieve greater equality in public life? Or is the aim that any parent should feel supported and enabled in their role regardless of gender?

If we are offering services to solely dads or mums, we need to be careful that they do not reinforce gender stereotypes and perpetuate gender inequalities. The following questions may act as a guide:

• Why are we offering services to a specific gender, rather than parents? Are there specific barriers we seek to overcome? For example, antenatal services must focus on women, or support for absent parents should be thinking mainly about dads.
• What is the aim of the gender specific service? Is it addressing inequalities issues or perpetuating them? For example, do services for mums emphasise attachment, whilst those for dads emphasise having fun with their kids? To tackle inequalities do services for men need to emphasise their role within the home, whilst those for women help them find employment?
• Are services for dads ensuring that they are not aiding coercive and violent fathers to continue to control their partners post separation, or enabling contact that children do not want?
• Are all parenting services building on the evidence that strong relationships between parents is a key factor in children's outcomes, rather than focusing separately on mums or dads relationships with their children?
• When we deliver gender-specific services for parents, do we avoid gender stereotyping? Are gender specific groups and organisations careful about the language they use to talk about men and women to avoid reaffirming gender-based assumptions (like men are not skilful at childcare, or women are naturally more caring?)
• Are we careful when talking about gender-specific parenting not to offend and upset children who have different family structures due to bereavement, separation, adoption, assisted conception or lone parenthood or same sex parenting?

If we want to move to a world where mothers and fathers are enabled to do the best for their children and families, gender-specific services need address inequalities. In imagining a Scotland that is the best place in the world to grow up, shouldn't any parent get the support they need to fulfil their role to the best of their ability regardless of gender, age, ethnicity or social background?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[i] http://www.closethegap.org.uk/content/gap-statistics/
[ii] Growing Up in Scotland 2008 Chapter 7 'Parenting Styles and Parenting Responsibilities' in: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/212225/0056476.pdf
[iii] Bromley (2009) Growing up in Scotland: the impact of children’s early activities on cognitive development. Edinburgh Scottish Government
[iv] http://aboutfamilies.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/aboutfamilies_gaps-in-research-all-topics.pdf
[v] Mooney, A Oliver C and Smith M (2009) Impact of Family Breakdown on Children’s Well-being. London DCSF

Safe and Sound

CRFR has completed an evaluation of a project delivered by Shelter and Relationships Scotland aimed at supporting young runaways. The results of the evaluation of Safe and Sound are being launched at an event in Dundee today by Aileen Campbell, Minister for children and young people 

The evaluation was conducted by Sarah Morton, Linda McKie and Christina McMellon. 

Here Sarah Morton highlights some of the key findings:

Working on this evaluation of a service that supports young people at risk of homelessness has been an interesting and rewarding experience. I have rarely been involved in evaluating a project which is so warmly endorsed by those using it, both young people and parents, as well as referral agencies and partners. In the report being launched today we set out the successes and challenges that Safe and Sound faces. In this blog I wanted to highlight a particular part of the evaluation involving young people.

We were using an evaluation approach called contribution analysis to understand how and why the project worked and for whom. As well as interviewing young people, their parents (separately), their support worker, mediator and referral agencies (31 interviews in total), we asked a small group of young people to work as ‘consultants’ to the evaluation. Their role was to meet with us near the start of the evaluation to help develop a picture of how the project worked, and associated risks and assumptions. We had already conducted a workshop with staff to explore these issues  - we wanted to sense-check this with young service-users as this would form the basis of our interview questions.

One of the highlights of the work for me was when Christina and I met with these young consultants to get their views on how the project worked, and why.

We used a sticky wall, coloured pens and paper, kept a regular supply of snacks and drinks, and through a mixture of asking the consultants to write their own comments, and scribing for them we explored these questions:

·       Is “Safe and Sound” good at making sure that people who need the project know about it?

·       How does “Safe and Sound” treat young people and families when they come to the project?

·       What does “Safe and Sound” want young people and families to do differently?

·       What does “Safe and Sound” want young people and families to learn?

·       What difference does “Safe and Sound” make for young people and families?

The framework facilitated a fascinating and wide ranging discussion, where our young consultants could talk about the project, and have control over the extent to which they revealed anything about their own personal circumstances. We made it clear that we were not interviewing them, but consulting them on how the project worked, so we wanted their opinions – if they wanted to share any personal details we agreed these would stay within the room.

I think the overwhelming message I took away from the discussion was that if you are a teenager who has ended up on the streets, or feeling you need to get away from home, it is because everyone has failed you – you are totally alone without a single person to stand up for you. The young people describe how hurt they felt when services that they had turned to for support sent them on their way because of their age. Some of them described some of the highly risky situations they had encountered on the streets, or in their own homes. They all described how the Safe and Sound project workers had filled that void and been someone to stand up for them when no-one else would. That act of getting alongside young people when they were so down and vulnerable was the thing that had started to turn their lives around.

So the Safe and sound project is demonstrating success at helping young people reach safer destinations. But for me it is the softer outcomes that are more profound. Young people identified the following positive outcomes:

·       Project workers had stood up for them, restored their trust in people, had cared when they had stopped caring about themselves

·       They had gained confidence about travelling alone, clothes, appearance and being happier “in their own skin”.

·       They had made friends with other young people in the project, felt less shy and less depressed.

The young consultants also wanted many more people to know about the support on offer through Safe and Sound. Some wished it had been around when they were younger to prevent the worst crises they had faced. Others thought that there were many more young people, at college and in schools, who should know about the project so they could access it when needed. One young service user gave us a specific instruction about reporting on this evaluation:

“You know, this project is, like, literally so amazing. You know they could have saved my life to be honest. So I don't think they get the recognition and the, I don't know, the respect or the rewards that they should. So that's what you people writing the report need to heed.” (Rebecca – a young service user)

We made a short film to provide feedback to all of the young people who had helped with the evaluation, either as interviewees or consultants.
Read the full evaluation report here

Auditor, researcher and critical friend: Includem’s practice champion

Includem presented its practice champion model at CRFR’s So What? Measuring impact in services for children and young people, 22 October, 2013. Conference presentations are online. 

Keir McKechnie is a practice champion at Scottish charity Includem. He has a practise background supporting vulnerable young people and adults and reflects on his new role as an internal auditor and research-use champion.

Includem provides intensive support to some of the most vulnerable and chaotic young people in Scotland. Our first principle is that no young person is beyond help.

My history with Includem is rooted in front line practice; I started as a project worker, became a senior project worker, team manager, and finally, practice champion.

As practice champion, I explore and audit Includem’s work, and monitor our model of intervention. I feed my findings back into the organisation to develop our practice - through in-depth reviews, training, and practice support.  In addition to internal evaluation and assessment, I connect our practice to research.

It’s been a challenging journey from front line worker to practice champion, and I’ve learned a lot along the way. My background as a practitioner has been immensely helpful; it means that I understand the contradictions and pressures of being a front line worker. It allows me to marry up the pressures of the job with realistic expectations, and, whilst meeting standards, achievable goals.

It provides me with a useful perspective on issues which, as practice champion, I need to address. Crisis work is a case in point; for practitioners, this can be incredibly busy and can become task-driven.  It’s important to provide staff with the space and time to develop reflective, quality practice, to examine what they’ve done, and how and why they’ve done it.

So far, I have written two significant reports; one on our helpline, and another on our work with families. I also investigate our complaints - all of which gives me an opportunity to listen to young people, families, and other agencies; a chance to talk about how we improve our services.

What’s really innovative about the role for me is the opportunity to talk directly to young people and families, and to get their views on the service. Feedback from young people and families goes directly back into practice training and development.

As part of my latest review into our families work, I interviewed families to get their impressions of our work with them. This proved invaluable, corroborating the findings from our written and recorded evidence.  First hand feedback illustrated the importance of meaningful relationships to families; of practical support; of crisis support, trust and a listening ear. The findings of this review will be filtered throughout the organisation via direct feedback, training, and an ongoing review process.

Another exciting element of the job is the chance to implement improvements on the ground as we go along. During the review of our 24-hour helpline, it emerged that staff were dealing with very difficult cases of self-harm and suicidal thoughts in young people. I was able to respond directly to their need for support, delivering training and devising new policies with them on how to manage crises on the helpline. We now have a regular and consistent training programme in place as a result.

An important part of my role is to connect practice to research. In my review of our work with families, evidence-based approaches were tested directly on families, and then evaluated for their efficacy. As a result of the helpline review, we used the evidence base to create practice models for suicide prevention.

It can be a challenge to work in this semi-external capacity. My role is to dig deeply into our practice, and find out exactly what we do; then to “cascade” the lessons learnt back through the whole organisation.
At its heart, this role is about the young people with whom we work; constantly improving our systems, so that we can improve their outcomes.

Read more about Includem http://www.includem.org/

CRFR's International Conference

Book now for the CRFR International Conference: Researching families and relationships: innovations in methods, theory and policy relevance

10-12 June, John MacIntyre Conference Centre, Edinburgh #crfr2013

International speakers from 25 countries including Norway, Finland, the US, Malaysia, Portugal, France, and Israel:

• Exploring key topics such as domestic abuse, early years, climate change, kinship care
• Unrivalled international networking opportunity for researchers interested in families and relationships
• Innovative research methods and approaches including visual methods, digital and social media
• Addressing ethical issues and covering sensitive topics

http://crfrinternationalconference.wordpress.com/ 
1 day, 2 day and 3 day rates available, including drinks reception and conference dinner

International keynote speakers will talk about child poverty, migration and globalisation; connectedness and kinship; and international development:

• Professor Jo Boyden from Young Lives;
• Professor Jennifer Mason, Manchester University
• Professor Rhacel Parreñas, University of South Carolina
• Glowen Kyei Mensah Participatory Development Associates, Ghana
• And CRFR’s Professor Lynn Jamieson

CRFR’s 3-day gathering of international academics working in the area of families and relationships is held every three years – don’t wait till 2016, book your place today!

Day one: Glowen Kyei Mensah on ‘Listening to the voices of children’ and choose from 41 papers on:
• Changing families and relationships
• Networks and mobility
• Elective relationships
• Time and generations
• The longitudinal lens
• Addressing issues of inequality m
• Resettling families
• The development of visual methods
• Post separation families and emotions
• Families and climate change
• Researching sensitive topics
• Addressing policy challenges
Then network and relax at the drinks reception

Day two: Rhacel Parrenas on Gendered intimacies in transnational life and choose from 43 papers on:
• Transnational families
• Kinship care
• Relexivity and Ethnography
• Researching majority/minority worlds
• The impact of the digital age
• Researching multiple family perspectives
• Mothers and inequalities
• Challenges in the early years
• Addressing issues of inequality
• Participative approaches
• Families food and eating
• Perspectives on families and domestic abuse’

Jo Boyden on what international comparative longitudinal research contribute to researching, understanding and changing childhood poverty in developing countries?

Then network and relax at the conference dinner

Day Three: choose from 19 papers on Families relationships and global issues
• Resettling families
• Networks and personal communities
• Learning from evaluation
• Families, relationships and global issues
• Mixed method approaches

Jennifer Mason talks about Sensations, atmospheres and resemblances: ‘tuning in’ differently to families and relationships.

A panel discussion is joined by Graham Allen, Keele University
Then book a masterclass with Jennifer Mason on ‘Facet Methodology’ principles and practice

Follow us on twitter @crfrtweet #crfr2013 Book online today http://crfrinternationalconference.wordpress.com

Did London 2012 ‘inspire a generation’?

‘Legacy’ is the word in the world of mega-sport event bidding, planning and marketing. Creating a sporting and/or physical activity legacy is an increasingly popular promise that hosts are willing to make. ‘Inspire a generation’ was the slogan of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. It was a tagline to a Games that committed to a sporting and physical activity legacy for children and young people in the UK.

The Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games is promising similar outcomes – “inspiring Scots to be more physically active” and children and young people are key targets (see for example today's press: 'Stars hail focus on children at 2014 Games)

This is an ambitious – and some would say naïve – promise. Repeated evaluations and appraisals of mega-events demonstrate no or, at best, very limited impact on physical activity. Yet it remains a key aspiration with sports programmes and initiatives developed by organising bodies to ‘inspire’. Much focus is on provision and infrastructure in these plans: having the right structures in place to engage young people, whether that is community facilities like Scotland’s community sports hubs or school sport structures like Active Schools to support participation.

Very little – if any – attention is paid to the informal, intimate, everyday processes of family and peer relationships that encourage or discourage participation. It seems likely that the key to participation with any longevity or enthusiasm lies within these networks of relationships rather than within a one-off observation of world-beating athletic achievement through the medium of TV.

A few months after London 2012, I received funding from the Carnegie Trust and Moray House School of Education to examine these processes in an exploratory study with young people in the North West of England and in an inner city area of Scotland. I was keen not to deny the potential for sport experienced through television to produce an emotional response – having sat through Mo Farah’s Olympic gold moments with tears in my eyes. I also recognised that sport is often watched collectively with family and friends and so was likely to form part of the relational context of how young people consumed, perceived and responded to the Games.

So, what have I discovered so far, eight months after the Games and four months after starting fieldwork? Certainly the 23 young people in the study group have a strong recollection of the Games, even if they were not really interested in sport at the outset.

Most recalled key (mostly British) successes and many commented on how they watched events with their family and friends. They talked about their families’ general enthusiasm for the Games and sport and physical activity and related this to their own activities.

The ‘sportier’ young people were those who waxed most lyrically about the Olympics and they seemed to emanate from ‘sportier’ or more physically active families.

The challenge in analysis is to mine the data for how everyday practice (watching TV with family members or friends) interacted with the legacy message of ‘inspiration’ and what effect, if any, this had on perception, intention or sporting action in young peoples’ lives. Was the ‘inspire a generation’ slogan just that or is there something more substantial in there than just blanket social marketing and a hashtag?

Find out more about this research on 7 May at the Centre for Research on Families and Relationships informal seminar. Places are funded and free to participants but there are limited places. Book now

Liz is speaking at CRFR's 3-day International Conference during the Time and Generations session on Day 1, 10 June, Edinburgh

Liz Such is a lecturer in leisure and sport policy at the University of Edinburgh. She has worked in the field of policy research inside and outside the UK government for over ten years and is currently a Beltane Parliamentary Engagement Fellow at the Scottish Parliament on a ‘sit less and walk more’ project.
Liz.such@ed.ac.uk Follow Liz on Twitter: @lizzysuch

Grandparents to the rescue…?!

The high and rising cost of professional childcare has been in the news recently, but there has been little mention of grandparents, who provide a substantial proportion of the child-care needed by young families.

At the simplest level, rising costs of childcare mean more children living in poverty. In March this year, Save the Children expressed concern that 3.5 million children in the UK are living in poverty, the majority of them in working households. Commenting on the recent welfare reforms in the UK (‘Universal Credit’), Save the Children pointed out that these would hit poorer working mothers hardest, whereas evidence from abroad suggests that enabling mothers to work reduces child poverty.

In reaction to the recent media focus on childcare costs, many commentators have noted that excessive increases in costs can mean the second income in two-income families is almost entirely spent on childcare, so that there is scant financial incentive to continue that employment. However, dropping out of employment during children’s early years can have enduring impacts, in terms of lost skills and/or failure to progress in a career structure, resulting in lower income and job satisfaction when resuming work. And of course it is most often women, as mothers, who are the ‘second’ workers. This scenario reinforces gender inequality in earnings in later life.

The Growing Up in Scotland (GUS) survey has been following the lives of thousands of children right across Scotland from infancy through to, currently, the end of primary school, but further sweeps of data collection are planned, up to teens. A recent GUS report looked at the role of grandparents in the lives of young families when the children were aged 6 years old, in 2010/11.

The report found that virtually all GUS children had at least one grandparent (99%), and 87% had at least one grandparent living nearby (within 20-30 minute drive). GUS has found that grandparents are a key source of regular informal childcare for parents throughout children’s early years, and that when children started school, reliance on grandparents increased markedly, to 67% among parents who used any childcare. Starting school, with the ensuing see-saw need for childcare depending on whether it is term time or holidays, poses a challenge for families, so this is a stage where grandparents can most support working parents by providing ‘flexible’ childcare. This generally requires grandparents to be not fully employed and, one would expect, to live reasonably close by.

One finding of the survey was that children in the highest income households were more likely to have no local grandparents (22%) than children in the lowest income households (8%). Nevertheless, in term-time, the proportion of children receiving ‘some hours’ of weekly grandparent care is highest among higher income groups, ranging from 43% in the highest income group to 24% in the lowest income group. And in the school holidays, receipt of childcare from a grandparent for more than 14 hours a week shows a similar pattern, ranging from 23% in the highest income group to 11% in the lowest. So, higher income families seem to be able to make more use of grandparent care, even when they are less likely be living ‘locally’. Perhaps is it to do with age (given that grandparents of children in higher incomes group tend to be older), and whether still employed. In this regard, the recent removal of compulsory retirement ages, and the prevailing economic situation and its impact on pensions, might mean that in subsequent survey sweeps it will be found that fewer families are benefiting from grandparent care, further exacerbating the adverse impacts of rising childcare costs.

Grandparents play an important and multi-faceted role in children’s lives, and in addition they are an invaluable childcare resource for parents, especially when children start school and flexible care is needed. It could be argued that this role is becoming more important with recent changes in welfare, and ever-increasing childcare costs, but clearly, working families will face challenges if more grandparents tend to continue in fulltime employment until older ages.

Pamela Warner, CRFR

Read the full GUS report at: Jamieson, L., Warner, P., and Bradshaw, P. (2012). Growing Up in Scotland: The involvement of grandparents in children's lives, Edinburgh: Scottish Government.

In addition to being a Co-Director at CRFR, Pam is Reader in Medical Statistics and is a member of staff at the University's Centre for Population Health Sciences (CPHS) teaching on their Master in Public Health.

Contested Cohabitation Rights

Following recent debates on inheritance rights for cohabiting couples, we welcome this guest blog from Samantha Callan and Linda McKie, authors of Understanding Families: a Global Introduction:

"One of the aims of our recently published book, Understanding Families: a Global Introduction, was to introduce readers to many of the academic and popular debates that swirl around the subject of family life in the twenty-first century. Chapter Five considered the diversity of couple relationships accorded social legitimacy in many minority world contexts – yet attitudes remain complex and contested. We explained how marriage has become deinstitutionalised: less governed by the social norms that provide a framework for behaviour, and increasingly concerned with the quality of the relationship.

The US demographer Andrew Cherlin points out, somewhat paradoxically, that in many countries there is a contrary trend of relationships such as cohabitation becoming more institutionalized. In the United States, states are taking steps towards granting cohabiting couples married couples’ rights and responsibilities. Canada has erased legal distinctions between marrieds and unmarrieds (heterosexual or same-sex) who have lived together for more than a year and French Civil Solidarity Pacts give registered couples most of the rights and responsibilities of those who have wed after three years of the pact being signed.

This trend towards institutionalising relationships which are considered to be, intrinsically, more informal continues to excite heated discussion. Last month the United Kingdom House of Lords debated a Private Members Bill on the subject of inheritance rights for cohabitants in cases of intestacy (where someone dies without leaving a will). Lord Lester of Herne Hill, a respected law reformer, proposed in the Bill that a surviving cohabitant would automatically be entitled to the same share that a bereaved spouse would receive if they and the deceased had had a child together and had lived in the same household as if they were married or in a civil partnership for two years; if the relationship was childless the qualifying period would be five years.

Protagonists on both sides claimed the moral high ground of preserving choice in making their arguments: Lord Lester stated that a decision not to get married should not lead to legal disadvantage while Baroness Deech passionately defended citizens’ rights not to be governed by the law if they had decided against or simply not made the explicit commitment of marriage. Among other sources she quoted extensively and perhaps counter-intuitively from Guardian blogs on the subject. The most humorous paragraph in the debate undoubtedly being, “They move the goalposts so that despite not being married, you can still get your wallet nicked.”

The Hansard transcript does better justice to the complexity of the surrounding arguments but does not make the outcome of the debate explicit. Although the Government Minister did not oppose the continuing passage of the Bill into the Committee Stage, the ‘strong reservations’ he expressed on its behalf mean that it will languish in the procedural doldrums and get nowhere. Many issues of family law meet the same fate in the UK and other Parliaments, precisely because of their personal and contested nature. Many (but not all) judges, legal practitioners and media commentators clamour for the certainty of black letter law. But it is precisely the lack of a clear public consensus that makes this particularly dangerous territory for politicians in many jurisdictions to stray into – and likely to remain so."