The vicious circle of familism in housing and care during Covid-19 in Greece.

Dr Myrto Dagkouli Kyriakoglou is currently a post-doctoral researcher interested in the relation between housing practices, welfare state and the notion of family. Her PhD in Urban Studies at the Gran Sasso Science Institute, focused on the interconnections of family housing support with gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity and austerity in Athens, Greece during 2017. During my post-doc in the Institute for Urban Research at Malmö University I plan to explore the impact of family housing strategies on short-term rental activity in “post-crisis” Greece and Sweden as well as the gender dimension. Because of the emergence of Covid-19 related crisis I am currently investigating its impact on housing and family as well as related coping practices in Greece.

The vicious circle of familism in housing and care during Covid-19 in Greece.

COVID-19 impacts all aspects of family life and inter-generational relationships, through housing and informal systems of social care in Greece. In the centre of the political discourse is home and its association with care.

‘Stay safe’ is the wish among people both in personal and work-related communication as well as the “order” from the state officials all around the world in countries that have been affected by Covid-19. This injunction is often paired with ‘stay home’. Even in the case of states with the luck of adequate healthcare without extremes of healthcare inequality, people are strongly encouraged to stay safe at home and within their own means as long as possible. ‘Self-care’ is highlighted as a one-way street both from the government and from the people who realize that the healthcare system cannot support them efficiently. 

Care provision in Greece is mainly self-regulated by the family and the kinship network. Home was in the centre of official and informal campaigns that recommended strongly or ordered people to ‘stay home’ in order to stay safe. For achieving that according to officials’ recommendations worldwide (WHO, 2020), one should have a safe home with high hygienic standards and care support. These parameters: home and care are inevitable connected with family and especially women in the Greek situation.

The importance of the social institution of family in Southern Europe has deep historical roots (Ferrera 2010). The Greek state was always inactive in this field, promoting home-ownership and framing housing as a self-regulated need supported by favourable taxation. Housing fortunes are dependent on family welfare and people enjoy the housing solutions that each family could offer. Family members employ specific housing strategies to strengthen family welfare by collectivising problems and means, providing care services and maintaining a residential, financial and/or sentimental proximity to family members. This scheme of kinship’s proximity and reciprocal support provides security and financial relief to family members (Mantouvalou & Mavridou, 1993). The close proximity of extended family homes has always been a favoured pattern, as it facilitated intra-family care services (Allen et al., 2004; Maloutas, 2008). Familistic housing strategies include the late emancipation from the parental home, intergenerational co-residence, and residential spatial proximity to members of the same extended family.

Extended intergenerational cohabitation in Greece is a culturally accepted practice as 55% of people aged between 25-34 live with their parents (Eurostat, 2018). Extended stays or returns to the parental home can be explained by the poor performance of the labour market, the absence of welfare support for housing, the limited availability of high quality and affordable rented housing and the cultural norm of relying on the family (Serracant, 2015; Minquez, 2016). Considering the above, many Greeks are supported by a ‘cushion’ of intergenerational solidarity and family welfare (Serracant, 2015) resembling a ‘substitute for the limitations of state intervention’ (Martin, 1996, 31). 

Proximity of family and kinship households is also a practice that is connected with the activities of family welfare. One particular concept that involves housing provision and proximity is the ‘family polykatoikia (apartment building)’. It regards a detached house that is owned by a family and is extended in order to accommodate other family members, especially the oldest and youngest (Mantouvalou & Mavridou, 1993). Parents invest in this scheme (of the family polykatoikia) in order to produce more houses in their plot. They do this by adding extra floors, thus creating a construction that is many storeys high. Inside these buildings, family members live almost exclusively, meaning that a stranger may be faced with mistrust and hostility. The vicinity of family households also produces an area of support in terms of family welfare, with child or elderly care and general repairs taking place here (Allen et al., 2004).

The main care-provider in the family is the woman with her unpaid work and dedication to kin’s needs. The reciprocity of support across generations inside the ‘welfare society’ (i.e. families, extended relatives and neighbours) is assisted by women’s devotion to and work done for their families (Martin, 1996). The work conducted by women includes informal healthcare services; caring for the frail, the elderly and the young; helping with housework; shopping; and providing companionship (Vaiou, 1996) activities that were brought to the spotlight during the new crisis but still without recognising the ‘Carer’.

Family welfare is both the weapon and the weakness of people in Greece against the new Covid-19 related crisis. It is a system that contains its own inequalities but when resources and capacities permit, this institution guarantees housing and care support for its members in need but on the other hand it does not allow the necessary distance between people in risk. Informal carers can, of course, be virus carriers. The way this supportive network is structured with co-dependency and proximity does not allow for people, that have to, to isolate. In the absence of housing and care provision by the welfare state, its self-regulation is a one-way that may lead to a dead-end as its structure may damage the whole effort.

Indicatively, old or people at risk live in the same house or in the same family polykatoikia with people that are still working, kids that are going to school or active in external activities (when possible within the related measures) and may bring home the virus. On the other hand, those who at risk do not suffer from loneliness as they are experiencing this tough period together with their loved ones even though they may be the ones to risk their wellbeing because of this proximity.

Even vulnerable people that do not live in proximity with their kinship network are assisted mainly by their relatives. This situation may be safer for them even if they feel lonelier. However, a support network that it is not comprised of or supported by professionals in healthcare may sometimes inadvertently put the supported person at risk. The main carers – usually the female members of the kin – are typically over-burdened by care activities that are now more demanding both inside their household but also at dependent family households. This puts family and especially women under a lot of pressure in a period with significant stress and insecurity.

Family housing and care strategies that involve cohabitation or proximity often lead to a lack of privacy and isolation. Privacy is a luxury that ‘in each civilization, as it advanced, those who could afford it chose the luxury of a withdrawing place’ (Schwartz, 1968, 743). According to this, people in Greece today do not have this luxury as housing is supported by strategies that sustain and strengthen the institution of family and its members’ interdependence. Nowadays isolation is not only a luxury but a necessity for certain population groups, ironically they are also the ones that are the most dependent on care services that are granted by the family and this seems like a vicious circle.

This new crisis is piled on top of the previous global financial crisis that stagnated the country economically and socially, shrinking the family’s resources and capacities to offer support to its members. However, the state still relies on these informal institution and functions in order to avoid the cost of welfare. For more than a decade, economic stagnation is threatening the strongest pillar of Greece’s familistic society – the main welfare provider, the family (Moreno & Mari- Klose, 2013) –removing any cost obligation from both employers and the state (Papadopoulos & Roumpakis, 2013). The future forecast is extremely worrying for Greece as it is going to be the most affected EU country financially with a downturn of around 9,7% and unemployment rising to 20% in 2020. Even during the previous period family absorbed the turbulence created by the crisis by offering housing and care solutions to its members but its deficits were coming into stagnation. For how long can family and especially women bare this heavy burden of care and housing provision and how safe is that in the new circumstances? As long as state exploits the self-regulation of the crises’ problems, there is no exit from the vicious circle but a rapid spiral path to family exhaustion. 

Author contact details:
Dr Myrto Dagkouli Kyriakoglou, Postdoctoral Researcher
Project CRUSH in Institute for Urban Research
Department of Urban Studies
Malmö University

References 

Allen, J., Barlow, J., Leal, J., Maloutas, T., & Padovani, L. (2004). Housing and Welfare in Southern Europe. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing/RICS Foundation. ISBN: 978-1-405-10307-7

EUROSTAT (2018) Bye bye parents: when do young Europeans flee the nest? https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/EDN-20180515-1

Ferrera, M. (2010). The South European Countries. In F. G. Castel, S. Leibfried, J. Lewis, & C. Pierson (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Welfare State (pp. 616-629). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1111/1478-9302.12016_65

Mantouvalou, M.; Mauridou, M. (1993). Illegal building: one way to dead end. Bulletin of Architect's Society, 7, Period B. Retrieved from: https://docplayer.gr/31082424-Aythaireti-omisi-monodrouos-se-adiexodo-maria-mantoyvaloy-maria-mayridoy.html (in Greek).

Maloutas, T. (2008). Housing models and family strategies in Greece. In Carlos, M. (ed.), The Challenge of Social Policy Reform in the 21st Century: Towards Integrated Systems of Social Protection. Athens: Kritiki Publishing. Retrieved from: https://www.academia.edu/21281309/_2008_Housing_models_and_family_strategies_in_Greece_in_The_challenge_of_social_policy_reform_in_the_XXI_century_Towards_integrated_systems_of_social_protection_I.Sideris 

Martin, C. (1996). Social Welfare and the Family in Southern Europe. South European Society and Politics, 1(3), 23-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/13608749638539481

Mínguez, A. M. (2016). Economic crisis and the new housing transitions of young people in Spain. International Journal of Housing Policy, 16(2), 165-183. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616718.2015.1130604

Moreno, L. &; Marí-Klose, P. (2013). Youth, family change and welfare arrangements: is the South still so different?. European societies 15(4), 493-513. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2013.836400

Papadopoulos, T. & Roumpakis, A. (2013). Familistic welfare capitalism in crisis: social reproduction and anti-social policy in Greece. Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy, 29(3), 204-224. https://doi.org/10.1080/21699763.2013.863736

Schwartz, B. (1968). The social psychology of privacy. American Journal of Sociology, 73(6), 741-752. https://doi.org/10.1086/224567

Serracant, P. (2015). The Impact of the Economic Crisis on Youth Trajectories A Case Study from Southern Europe. Young, 23(1), 39-58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1103308814557398

Vaiou, D. (1996). Women’s work and everyday life in Southern Europe in the context of European Integration. In J. Monk; M. D. García-Ramon (Eds.), Women of the European Union. The Politics of Work and Daily Life (pp. 61-73). London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203430361

WHO (World Health Organization) (2020) Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) advice for the public. Retrieved from: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public [last accessed: 15/05/2020]

ACE Awareness, damage narratives and social justice in early years practice: personal and professional reflections

Dr Caralyn Blaisdell from the University of Strathclyde continues our discussion on the theme of resilience and how this term is being used, with specific reference to early years. 

As an experienced practitioner, researcher and lecturer specializing in early childhood education, I have had a mixed reaction to the recent push for being ACE Aware. Discussions about love, kindness and empathy are very welcome and needed. At Strathclyde, our students discuss how their settings are moving away from punitive practices, toward a deeper culture of listening to children and young people and reflecting on relationships of power. There seems to be a real interest in recognising and remedying injustice and changing practices within systems. There has been increasing discussion of children’s rights within ACE Awareness, which is also very welcome and needed in early years.

At the same time, there is a danger that ACE Awareness is reinforcing damage narratives (Tuck 2009) and deficit thinking about young children and families:

•        The (poor) child and family as a site of damage to self and society

•        Labelling—professionals telling people what they are

•        Hero worship--the valiant professional who swoops in to fix the individual

•        Oppressive structures and behaviours remain unchanged 

(Quarrell and Davis 2018)

This vision of the heroic professional is not new or revolutionary in early years—it is just more of the same. Early years education is plagued by deterministic and simplistic views of human development—for example, the belief that the pattern for our lives is set by three years old. This belief easily leads to aggressive diagnosing of difference and labelling of young children. Alternative visions for early childhood education include celebration of difference as a source of strength, anti-bias work, political action, and walking alongside children and families to dream equitable worlds into reality (RECE, 2014).

In the CRFR seminar, we heard from audience members who felt curiosity, hesitance, inspiration and anger about ACE Awareness. Calls to dismiss or even condemn those who aren’t sure about ACE Awareness, or to accuse people of not caring about children or even doing more harm to children by questioning ACEs, are profoundly unhelpful and disheartening. In early years, ACE Awareness could potentially help challenge oppressive practices, recognise children and families’ own voices about their lives, disrupt power dynamics in institutional settings, and inform political education and action. However, ACE Awareness also has the potential to reinforce damage-based thinking, paternalistic practices and professional ego. If we choose to accept ACE Awareness, we must see it as only one facet of the intellectual and moral challenges of early childhood work. We must insist on continuing to ask uncomfortable questions about who benefits from this awareness.

To view her presentation from seminar on 6 November 2018, click the link below
http://www.crfr.ac.uk/assets/Ace-Aware_Cara-Blaisdell-1.pdf

In a search for competence? Children’s participation in family law proceedings

CRFR Co-Director Professor Kay Tisdall explores why we find it so challenging to involve children and young people in decisions that affect them.

I have been on a journey for the few past months, in terms of exploring the underlying reasons why we find it so challenging to involve children and young people in decisions that affect them. Involving children and young people is required by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and is frequently promoted by policy, institutional leaders and key practitioners. And yet adults find it so challenging when making decisions, particularly in formal decision-making about the child’s wellbeing.

In particular, I have been considering family law proceedings in Scotland. At least in legislation, Scottish provisions are very strong in terms of children’s rights to have their views duly considered in disputed parental responsibilities cases (technically Section 11 cases under the Children (Scotland) Act 1995). But from the evidence we have, children’s views seem to be even less considered now than they were ten years go. Why would that be?

One reason may be the pervasive nature of adult decision-makers’ views of children’s competence and capacity. If such a decision-maker considers children in general, and a child in particular, as incompetent and incapable, does that result in children’s views either not being ‘allowed in’ to the decision-making, let along being given ‘due weight’ by the decision-maker?

I went to look at the relevant literature and case law, supported by what evidence we have in Scotland about children’s views being considered in disputed parental responsibilities cases. I asked three questions: What are meant by competence and capacity? How are they used? Do the concepts enhance or detract from children’s participation rights?

While competence may be very well defined in certain professional arenas, it is not in key children’s rights resources (like the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child’s General Comment on Article 12) nor in family law literature. Competence is often mentioned – but casually, with little precision or definition. Alternative terms are used in Scottish reported case law, such as maturity. Across these sources, judging capacity remains problematic in both law and practice.

As concepts, both capacity and competence seem to be detracting rather than supporting children’s rights to participate. The concepts are being used as if competence and capacity are inherent qualities of the child, rather than something a child expresses in context and in relationships. To be honest, I am not sure if they are helpful at all, given their problematic use and historical baggage. But if these concepts are to be used, I would recommend they are subject to far more critique and precise definition. Perhaps fresh ideas from the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities might help the children’s field? The Convention has been radical about moving away from a best interests test, to emphasising the support needed to ensure people can express their legal capacity.

Then the courts system would spend less effort assessing whether a child’s views should be allowed into the proceedings and more on the information children need to participate. We would have to invest in supporting children to develop and express their views. We would have a radical form of child- inclusive proceedings, where we do not use concerns about a child’s welfare as a reason to ignore the child’s rights to participate. Instead, the focus would be to make proceedings as constructive and supportive of children as possible, perhaps requiring radical changes in what are currently adversarial and formal approaches. An opportunity for us to consider in the forthcoming family law review of the 1995 Act in Scotland?

This blog is based on a longer article recently published in the International Journal of Children’s Rights, Challenging Competency and Capacity? (2018, Vol. 26(1): 159-182). This article follows on from the earlier exploration in Tisdall, E.K.M., “Subjects with Agency: Children’s participation in family law proceedings”, Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 2016a (38(4)), 362–379 (see blog here) and has learnt from collaboration with Carine Le Borgne

See also our previous blog by Dr Aoife Daly ‘Prioritising Children’s Autonomy is Prioritising their Best Interests’


Kay Tisdall is Professor of Childhood Policy and Co-Director of the Centre for Research on Families and Relationships at the University of Edinburgh. She is Programme Director of the MSc in Childhood Studies.

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.

Family holidays: What does Growing up in Scotland research tell us?

Having a summer holiday is something many families in Scotland take for granted. GUS dissemination officer Lesley Kelly reports on the holiday habits of families with young children in Scotland  

Time spent away from the pressures of daily routines provides a much needed respite for many. But for nearly a third of families with young children, a summer holiday is unaffordable.

Research from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation finds that people in the UK agree that families with children should be able to afford one-week’s self-catering in a caravan/ family resort in the UK as part of an acceptable minimum standard of living.

The thousands of families taking part in the Growing Up Scotland study are asked ‘Do you have a holiday away from home for at least one week a year, whilst not staying with relatives at their home?’

Amongst families with children aged 6 years, two-thirds say that they have an annual holiday.

28% of families say that they would like a holiday but cannot afford it.

A further 6% say that they do not need or want a holiday at the moment.

Not surprisingly, families in the highest income groups are more likely to say that they have an annual holiday.

89% of families in the top income group (with a household income of greater than £37,500) say that they have a holiday, compared with 35% of families in the lowest income group.

Half of families living in the most deprived areas manage a holiday, compared with 82% of families living in the most affluent areas of Scotland.

72% of couple families have an annual holiday, compared with 43% of lone parent families. Three quarters of children born to mothers in their thirties have a holiday, compared with less than half (44%) of children born to mothers under 20.

Not everyone wants a family summer holiday. But low incomes means many families don’t get the choice.

Lesley Kelly is dissemination officer with Growing up in Scotland www.growingupinscotland.org.uk

'I felt so guilty': emotion and mothers’ experiences of caring for their young children

Guilty, frazzled, tired and upset. How does it feel to be a mother caring for her baby in the first days and weeks, and then months and years, of her baby’s life?

In the last decade, the policy context of health visiting practice has shifted the focus of health work with new parents from working with all families to working with those who it is felt are the most vulnerable.  This, however, poses a tricky dilemma as we try to understand what vulnerability is, and, how it is experienced by different parents.  

Caroline King, in a seminar on 15 May, as part of CRFR’s emotions series, will consider what the study of emotion can tell us about mothers’ experiences of caring for their children. She will explore the accounts of 20 mothers who took part in her PhD study.  She will also draw on her own experience as a mother and consider whether at times she was vulnerable after the birth of her children.  In doing so, she will consider the role of emotion and emotion work in both uncovering and covering the tracks of vulnerability.  Can vulnerability, she will ask, be experienced by any mother?   If so, what role do personal resources play, for example, a mother’s education or income, in how we frame, manage and categorise vulnerability?

In her analysis Caroline will consider the particular role of class in opening up and closing down what is recognised as vulnerability and the implications of this for mothers and their children.

An introduction to the topic of vulnerability in the contexts of mothering and health visiting practices can be found by viewing a short film made in collaboration with artist Rosie Gibson (previously CRFR artist in residence), and based on Caroline’s PhD findings,  https://vimeo.com/62327287.

This experimental piece considers issues around framing and managing vulnerability.  It draws on the narratives of mothers and health visitors to consider the most dominant ways in which vulnerability is couched through professional practice. In doing so, it aims to open up discussion about what it means to be vulnerable and the ways in which meaningful support can be provided.

To book a place at the seminar at CRFR in Edinburgh email Brenda Saetta. Places are funded and free to delegate but numbers are limited.

Savile: A Panic For Our Times?

CRFR publishes this guest post from Mark Smith, Viv Cree and Gary Clapton on the first seminar in the 'Moral Panics' series:

Last summer when three colleagues in Social Work, each with interests in different child abuse ‘scares’ got together the collaboration resulted in three journal articles.  Each of the ‘scares’ we wrote about shared a common feature. The subject matters had become the subject of moral evaluation. Once a subject is so moralized, responses to it can lose any sense of proportion. Given the right (or wrong) set of individuals and circumstances a panic can ensue.

The notion of moral panic seemed to offer a useful analytic lens through which to consider our interests. The term is not a new one; it came to prominence in 1972 with the publication of Stan Cohen’s Folk Devils and Moral Panics. In the book, Cohen analysed reactions to outbreaks of fighting among mods and rockers on Brighton Beach during the 1960s. A number of prominent academics subsequently applied the concept of moral panic to other social scares and anxieties.

There were indications of interest in our work from other academics at Edinburgh and elsewhere in the UK, so we made a bid to the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) to hold a seminar series entitled ‘Revisiting moral panics: a critical examination of 21^st century social issues and anxieties’. The bid was led by Professor Viviene Cree at the University of Edinburgh and involved six Higher Education Institutes, nine academic disciplines and sixteen academic staff drawn from the four countries of the UK.  We received support from the ESRC for three seminars: ‘Moral panics and the family’, ‘Moral panics with children and youth’ and ‘Moral panics and the state’.

The first seminar was held in Edinburgh on Friday 23 November and attended by 70 people. Stan Cohen was too ill to attend the seminar but sent his best wishes. In his absence we attracted the next wave of moral panic scholars, Erich Goode and Nachman Ben-Yehuda who together wrote the book, Moral Panics: The social construction of deviance and Chas Critcher, who was one of a group of sociologists to use the concept in relation to law and order and subsequently the media. The field of international experts was completed by Angela McRobbie, Professor of Communications at Goldsmiths University.

Little did we know when we applied to hold the seminar series that the first of them would coincide with the UK being engulfed in a moral panic over the Jimmy Savile affair.  The Savile affair highlights a number of features of moral panics. It would seem to have some obvious basis in behavior that should not have been considered acceptable at any point in time. So, it’s not that there is nothing behind this or any other panic; there invariably is. It is just that the initial and legitimate kernel of concern gets blown out of proportion. In the Savile case, are there really suspects and fellow perpetrators in every town and hamlet? How much of what is written is exaggerated?  In such a febrile climate people can make claims for all sorts of reasons. They are not all true.  We are thus faced with questions as to whose claim is justified?  Who must be heard?  Who are we not listening to? The resultant heat of the moral panic distorts debate, making it hard to offer alternative points of view. The resolve of the police to get to the bottom of all that went on is unlikely to shed any real light on what did and, moreover, will create its own injustices as innocent people become caught up in their investigations.

In times of panic, denial is just as likely a consequence as over-statement and disbelief. The dust of moral panic often has to settle before facts can begin to get in the way. However, another of the effects of a moral panic is that it leads us to take some things too seriously and others not seriously enough.  Does the preoccupation with Savile’s wrong-doings prevent us engaging with the prospect of increasing child and family impoverishment as a result of so-called reforms to welfare?   Discuss.

If you want to engage in the debate join us at our subsequent seminars in Bath in May 2013 and Cardiff in November 2013.

Mark Smith, Viv Cree and Gary Clapton

Informing the Parenting Strategy

CRFR recently facilitated a meeting at the Scottish Government to help inform the development of the Parenting Strategy.

Through conversations with Scottish Government staff we saw an opportunity to highlight research from our Associate Director, Professor Claire Wallace of Aberdeen University and Associate Researcher Dr Jeni Harden, which we felt made an important contribution to our knowledge on parenting in Scotland. Professor Lynn Jamieson, a co-Director at CRFR also presented findings from Growing Up in Scotland, the national longitudinal study of children's experiences from across the country.

Prof Claire Wallace, University of Aberdeen

Work-Care Synergies Project

This project has provided a comparative analysis of parenting in Europe, looking at the quality of life for parents in different European countries and the strategies adopted by parents in managing work and care in different national contexts. The team has also developed a typology based on a policy analysis of work and care for families with young children in different European counties. The research ran from 2010-2011.

The project found that parenting policy varied across Europe. There was convergence in the progress of women's rights but women still do the majority of domestic chores. Men are contributing more, but the general trend across all countries was that men are more involved in childcare, not domestic chores. This results in a lot of pressure on women to manage professionally while also taking primary responsibility for the upkeep of the household and childcare. The project identified barriers facing men in getting time off work to look after children: both in terms of paternity policies and with colleagues not taking them seriously after taking the decision to focus more on parenting. There were five strategies that working families use to help with childcare that there shared by all countries included in the research: using flexible working arrangements where available, taking on shift work to share responsibility between both parents, relying on formal care and using informal care support from grandparents and others where possible.

For more information please contact Claire at claire.wallace@abdn.ac.uk

Dr Jeni Harden, University of Edinburgh

Work and Family Lives: The changing experiences of ‘young families’

This project explored how families achieve a work life balance over time, drawing on the changing experiences and perceptions of families with primary school-aged children. Both parents and children were involved in the research, providing their different perspectives, as well as exploring the processes of negotiation between parents and children in addressing issues raised. The project is a qualitative longitudinal study with fourteen families in Scotland, conducted between 2007 and 2010.

The project identified a number of themes relating to parental responsibility that impact on families ability to achieve a work-life balance:

• Parents faced competing demands on their time relating to their responsibilities as parents and employees. This is experienced through the difficulties of synchronising work and family life and results in a sense of harriedness, of feeling constantly busy, tired and stressed. Parents expressed feelings of guilt and anxiety about not being able to give 100% to either work or family.
• Challenges of keeping clear boundaries between work and home, particularly when parents are working from home or 'catching up' on work at home.
• Children do support parents by complying with routines, helping with chores, looking after themselves and younger siblings.
• Negotiating changes in responsibility for children as they get older, particularly when they move to secondary school
• Helping children to understand work as part of everyday life is often justified by financial gains.

For more information please contact Jeni at jeni.harden@ed.ac.uk


Growing Up in Scotland

Growing Up in Scotland is a major longitudinal research study following the lives of over 10,000 children across Scotland from infancy through to the teenage years. Parenting is one of a number of topics covered in the study, with the data able to tell us how parents in Scotland are parenting, what factors influence parenting and parenting practices, and how parenting affects childrens' outcomes. Some of the findings include:

• The support provided by grandparents should not be underestimated, with many grandparents involved in childcare or babysitting on a regular basis.
• Social support networks are very important in the lives of families with young children.
  
• Most mothers have contact with professionals, although young mothers, particularly lone mothers in low income groups are most wary of asking for help from professionals.
  
• Early parenting approaches and experiences have an impact on social, emotional and behavioural development at age 5.
• Children living in low-income households are doing home-learning activities like reading and singing less frequently, which impacts on cognitive development. They are also less likely to visit places like farms and museums.
  

For more information go to: www.growingupinscotland.org.uk

The National Parenting Strategy aims to highlight the value and importance of parenting, recognising the wide range of influences on growing children - mums, dads, grandparents and the wider family, foster, kinship and adoptive parents. The Government has asked partner organisations to engage with parents and others with a parenting role across Scotland, seeking their views of what would help them to be the best parents they can be for their children. They will then gather views from practitioners through the consultation on the Children's Services Bill, with a view to publishing the strategy later in 2012.

For more information please contact Clare.Collin@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

Making work-life balance work for all

It is inspiring and entertaining to hear men like Nigel Marsh address the issues of work-life balance as he does in his TED talk " How to make work-life balance work" broadcast this February. He points to the importance of day to day relationships and making small changes in how we spend our time with loved ones as the key to changing work-life balance. But the research evidence reminds us that not everybody’s lives allow the degree of power and control he can take for granted. CRFR's work on work-life balance for people on low incomes paints a picture of rather different, probably more difficult and certainly more restricted choices.
I welcome Nigel Marsh’s assertion that commercial companies should not be in charge of addressing work-life balance because they are designed to “get as much out of you as they can”. International comparisons suggests that the statutory requirements set by the state can make significant differences to the likelihood of people taking leave to spend time with their family. In our study of low-waged mothers working in the food retail sector (Working and Caring), work-life balance was achieved through choosing to work part time, accepting the struggle of reduced income, and through mutual support amongst women workers who helped each other out by swapping shifts in times of crisis, like a child being ill. Those with somewhat better paid albeit still low income jobs with supervisory responsibility found these kinds of crises much harder to deal with – they were the ones relying on the company’s work-life balance policies for support.

Nigel emphasises his role as a father but Lynn Jamieson reflected that work-life balance and making time for friends and family is an issue for all workers not just for those with children. In a briefing (Work-Life Balance Across the Lifecourse RB21 2005) based on our 2004 international conference on this topic, she also concluded that inequalities of gender, class, and ethnicity affect ways in which work-life issues will be experienced, and the ability to balance the demands of work with other needs. It is great to hear well-paid men like Nigel Marsh tackle the issues, but his experiences and recommendations may not translate to people in different circumstances.

In the end how we experience work-life balance is dependent on a mixture of state polices, individual circumstances and cultural factors. Our individual place in relation to these will be defined by how we relate to these norms and assumptions particularly in relation to gender roles and how men and women play their part in household, family and friendship responsibilities.

Written by Sarah Morton and Lynn Jamieson based on CRFR research:

Work Life Balance in Scottish Food Retail Companies full report (pdf)

Working and Caring Summary (pdf)

Work Life Balance Across the Lifecourse Research Briefing 21 2005 (pdf)

Caringscapes Research Briefing 13 2004 (pdf)

Image (c) iwishiwillican.com