The Work and Family Handbook: Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives, Methods, and Approaches 0805850260, 9780805850260

Citation preview

THE WORK AND FAMIL Y HANDBOOK

Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives, Methods, and Approaches

This page intentionally left blank

THE WORK AND FAMILY HANDBOOK Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives, Methods, and Approaches

Edited by

Marcie Pitt-Catsouphes Boston College

Ellen Ernst Kossek

Michigan State University

Stephen Sweet Ithaca College

'P ~:,~~~~!~2~ppress

--

-

New York London

Senior Acquisitions Editor: Editorial Assistant: Cover Design: Full-Service Compositor: Text and Cover Printer:

Anne Dutfy Rebecca Larsen Kathryn Houghtaling Lacey TechBooks Hamilton Printing Company

This book was typeset in 10/12 pt. Times Roman, Italic, Bold, and Bold Italic, The heads were type set in Helvetiea, Helvetica Italie. Helvetica Bold. Helvetiea Bold Italic.

Copyright © 2006 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Ine. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprodueed in any form. by photostat, microform, retrieval system. or any other means, without prior written permission of the publisher.

First published by Lawrence Erlbaum Assex:iates, Ine., Publishers

10 Industrial Avenue Mahwah, New Jersey 07430 Reprinted 2008 by Psychology Press Psychology Press Taylor & Francis Group 27 Church Road Hove, East Sussex BN3 2FA

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

The work and family handbook : multi-disciplinary perspectives, methods, and approaches / edited by Marcie Pitt-Catsouphes, Ellen Ernst Kossek, Stephen Sweet. p. crn. Includes bibliographieal referenees and index. ISBN 0-8058-5025-2 (cloth : alk. paper) ISBN 0-8058-5026-0 (pbk : alk. paper) I. Work and family. 2. Work and family-United States. 3. Work and family-Researeh. L Pitt-Catsouphes, Marcie. IL Kossek, Ellen Ernst. IIT. Sweet, Stephen A. HD4904.2S,W6626

2006

306.3' 6----dc22 2005023365

Printed in the United States of America 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 I

I dedicate this book to my husband Corvis and sons Marcus and Jayme, who have always encouraged me to find meaning and joy at horne and at work. -Marcie Pitt-Catsouphes Boston, Massachusetts

I would like to dedicate this book to my grandmothers Elaine Ernst and Elinor Robinson, for whom my name is a merged hybrid. Both my grandmothers were bright, remarkable, and educated women who lived rich work and nonwork lives, given the constraints of their generation. -Ellen Ernst Kossek East Lansing, Michigan

I dedicate this book to my parents Alfred Sweet and Melissa Sweet. Aside from this sociologist, they found the energy to raise five other children, including a taxidermist, a manager, a mechanic, a bookstore owner, and a teacher. They know the challenges of bridging work and family, and I learned much from witnessing their efforts. -Stephen Sweet Ithaca, New York

This page intentionally left blank

Contents

Foreword hy Rosaheth Moss Kanter Acknowledgments Ahout the Contrihutors

xi

xv xvii

I: FAMILIES AND JOBS IN TUE 21ST CENTURY 1 Charting New Territory: Advancing Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives, 2

3

Methods, and Approaches in the Study of Work and Family Marc'ie Pitt-Catsouphes, Ellen Ernst Kossek, and Stephen Sweet Understanding Diversity of Work in the 21st Century and Its Impact on the Work-Family Area of Study Amy S, Wharton Understanding Diversity of Families in the 21st Century and Its Impact on the Work-Family Area of Study Stephen R. Marks

1

17 41

11: DISCIPLINARY APPROACUES AND TUEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

4 5

6 7

8

Introduction: The Insights Gained From Integrating Disciplines Ellen Ernst Kossek, Stephen Sweet, and Marc'ie Pitt-Catsouphes Caregiving and Wage-Earning: A Historical Perspective on Work and Family Eileen Boris and Carolyn Herhst Lewis Work-Family Policies: The United States in International Perspective Erin L. Kelly Demographic Implications for Work-Family Research Martha Farnsworth Riche Family Studies: Situating Everyday Family Life at Work, in Time, and Across Contexts Anisa M, Zvonkovic, Megan L. Nottel~ and Cheryl L. Peters The Anthropology of the Workplace and the Family Pete Richardson

67 73 99

125

141

165 vii

viii

9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16

CONTENTS

Advancing a Career Focus on Work and the Family: Insights From the Life Course Perspective Stephen Sweet and Phyllis Moen Role Theory Perspectives on Work and Family Rosalind Chait Barnett and Karen C. Gareis Experimental Social Psychology and the Study of Work and Family Francine M. Deutsch Sociological Perspectives on Families and Work: The Import of Gender, Class, and Race Naomi Gerstel and Natalia Sarkisian The Role of Economics in Work-Family Research Robert Drago and Lonnie Golden Work and Family From an Industrial/Organizational Psychology Perspective Cynthia A. Thompson. Laura L. Beauvais, and Tammy D. Allen A Legal Perspective on Family lssues at Work Mary C. Still and .Toan C. Williams Connecting Social Work Perspectives to Work-Family Research and Practice Marc'ie Pitt-Catsouphes and .Tennifer E. Swanherg

189 209

223

237 267 283 309

327

III: METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES

17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24

25 26 27

Introduction: How Diverse Methodologies Inform Understandings of Work and Family Relations Stephen Sweet, Marc'ie Pitt-Catsouphes, and Ellen Ernst Kossek Ethnography and Working Families Charles N. Darrah Video Ethnography and Ethnoarchaeological Tracking Elillor Ochs, Anthony P. Graesch, Angela Mittmann, Thomas Bradbury, and Rena Repetti Using Survey Research to Address Work-Life Issues .Tames T. Bond and Ellen Galinsky Using Focus Groups to Study Work and Family .Tanet Smithson Longitudinal Research on Work and Family Issues Ann C. Crouter and Amy E. Pirretti In the Moment: The Benefits of the Experience Sampling Method Barhara Schneider Case Studies in Work-Family Research Suzan Lewis, Maria das Dores Guerreiro, and .Tulia Brannen Both Art and Science: Employing Organizational Documentation in Workplace-Based Research Susan.T. Lamhert A Multiple Stakeholder Perspective: Implications for Measuring Work-Family Outcomes MaryAnne Hyland and Susan E . .Tackson Hierarchical Models for Work-Family and Life Course Research Raymond Swisher The Work-Family Conflict Construct: Methodological Implications Shelley M. MacDermid and Ashley HG/wy

361 367 387

411 435 451 469 489

503

527 551 567

CONTENTS

28 Using Mixed Methods in Research Related to Work and Family

ix

587

Margaret B. Neal, Leslie B. Hammel; and David L. Morgan

IV:

ADVANCING POLICY AND ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

Introduction: Cultivating Organizational Change and Advancing Public Policy Marc'ie Pitt-Catsouphes, Ellen Ernst Kossek, and Stephen Sweet 29 The Business Case: Managerial Perspectives on Work and the Family Ellen Ernst Kossek and Alyssa Friede 30 Legislatures, Agencies, Courts, and Advocates: How Laws Are Made, Interpreted, and Modified Chai Rachel Feldblum and Robin Appleberry 31 Work-Family Interventions and Experiments: Workplaces, Communities, and Society Lotte Bailyn, Ann Bookman, Mona Harrington, and Thomas A. Kochan 32 The Standards of Excellence in Work-Life Integration: From Changing Policies to Chan ging Organizations Brad Harrington and .facquelyn B . .fames 33 The Arbitration of Work and Family Confticts Benjamin W. Wolkinson and Russell Ormiston 34 Leadership in Action: A Work and Family Agenda for the Future Kathleen Christensen Author Index Subject Index

607

611

627

651

665 685 705

735 761

This page intentionally left blank

Foreword Beyond the Myth of Separate Worlds Rosabeth Moss Kanter Harvard Business Schaal

Love and work: these basic human needs are the foundation for the huge edifice of society. Yet the connections between them are still not fully understood nor managed effectively in the public realm. Interpersonal relationships and material sustenance are fundamentals of human existence. One is the realm of reproduction and human development; the other, the domain for the production of goods and services. Both are necessary, yet they are not always in synch. Taken together, loving and working use time and define temporal rhythms, provide identity and meaning, create social standing, and shape values, politics, and public policies. Prom something as simple and basic as these human drives spring complex social arrangements and institutions that locate people in time and space-the nature of families, reflected in laws as weH as personal choices; and the patterns of work, reflected in organizational policies as well as the demands of occupations. The thread that runs between work and family is carried by each individual. lt is held by everyone who splits each day between hornes and workplaces; who juggles demands of spouses, lovers, children, bosses, colleagues, or clients deciding how much attention to allocate to each; who cashes paychecks or welfare checks and makes financial plans. At the same time, the opportunities open to people to have a viable family Iife while working, or to have satisfying work while carrying out responsibilities to family members, are heavily influenced by decisions made by legislators, policy-makers, public opinion, and rule-shapers. Government is definitely in the bedroom as weIl as the boardroom, wh ether people like it or not. The topic of work and family is thus both micro and macro in scope. It has implications for individuals in their personal lives and managers or public policy-makers in their official capacities. And its study embraces every social science and nearly every professional discipline. That is a relatively recent revelation. Por a long time it was assumed that each institution took care of itself separately, and separate, specialized professions dealt with problems and pathologies of each, embedded in independent professional schools: e.g., social work for those dealing with families, MBA programs for those dealing with work. Gradually, there has been Copyright 2005 by Rosabeth Moss Kanter, used by permission. This forcword or any part thereof may not be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanica1. ur by any information storage or retrieval system without prior permission from the author.

xi

xii

FOREWORD

recognition that the boundaries are penneable, that issues spillover from one realm to the other. It is difficult to understand what is happening in the horne or to children without knowing about their parents' work situations, and it is difficult to motivate and retain employees without being attentive to the fact that their relationships outside of work affect their capacity to do their job. It's about time we finish burying what I call "the myth of separate worlds." Challenging the myth of separate worlds was important to me personally and professionally at the start of my own career, because it was one of the things that seemed to confine women and men to stereotyped roles: women as unpaid family workers, men as breadwinners too absorbed at work to have meaningful relationships with their families. As a young scholar interested in organizations and communities, and as a sociologist interested in alternative institutions, I was enticed into research dialogues ab out both the changing nature of work systems and the changing nature of family systems. It was dear then that these topics were addressed by different literatures and scholars that rarely spoke to one another. There were exceptions in outstanding researchers such as Rhona Rapoport in the U.K. and Lotte Bailyn in the U.S. who had done seminal work bringing them together, but they were few. I decided to make an attempt at integration. I wrote a review and policy statement for the Russell Sage Foundation, published in 1977 as Work and Family in the United States. The "myth of separate worlds" was under attack, but the battle had just been joined. It was dear from a reading of history that this myth arose in industrial era, corresponding to male-female role differentiation, and very convenient for large bureaucratic companies (such as the one I wrote about in Men and W(Jnlen ofthe COiporatiol1, also published in 1977) that could demand nearly all their male managers' time or get two executives for the price of one (via the corporate wife role). That was the right moment to look behind the myth. Scholars start to see things dearly at points of inftection, when challenges to institutions put institutional patterns, assumptions, and ideologies in relief. There were numerous social changes that awakened interest in the connections between work and family. The quest for equal opportunity for women, corresponding to a rise in women in the paid work force, brought family issues to forefront. The baby boom generation that began to enter the paid work force in droves in the 1970s brought a different set of values from their "organization man"/"feminine mystique" suburban parents. And work itself was beginning to change, as the industrial era was passing into a post-industrial information age with a new kind of company-one that blurred all sorts of boundaries, eventually becoming the 24/7 Internet Age-and a new kind of work, so-called "knowledge work," that is less observable, more portable, and more demanding of mental energy. Also beginning in the 1970s, there was public examination of problems in both work and family, through commissions and conferences at the highest levels of national government. America faced a productivity problem, which then turned into a competitiveness problem starting with the rise of Japanese manufacturing companies beating the U.S. on its own territory, from autos to copiers. Training and motivating workers and ensuring the quality of their work life (which sometimes also meantjust life) became urgent. Numerous changes in families were also a concern, with rise of single-parent households, dysfunctional family systems among segments of the poor, and children ill-prepared for school achievement (a problem employers grasped, as reftected in their zeal to improve public education starting with the Nation at Risk report in the 1980s). Work and family became a prominent topic of policy debates in the 1980s, especially as corporations grappled with the changes in the composition of their work force, and "human resources" replaced the traditional personnel department, signaling a shift of emphasis. But change was much slower than I thought it would be. For example, there were numerous studies,

FOREWORD

xiii

first in Germany and then in the U.S., of the benefits to workplace productivity of flexible work hours, or "flex-time," yet companies were exceedingly slow to let go of control of the structure of the work day. Today there are numerous signs of change: a child care industry, an after-school movement, and increased benefits for working parents, among many other developments. "Work/life balance" is the new buzz-phrase. Social change is neither smooth nor uni-directional. Unexpected twists and unresolved issues make roadmaps hard to create. Gay marriage or civil unions is one political issue that surfaced in the 2004 presidential election, though many larger corporations long ago extended partner benefits to gay couples. It is also not clear that all constituencies want or need the same things. Witness various contradictory developments. On the one hand, "anti-parent" and "child-free" movements argue against special privileges for working parents; and, on the other hand, a rise in women above the age of 35 taking fertility treatments, on the other hand, to give birth at older ages when they are established in their careers and employers have been expecting them to undertake greater responsibilities at work. Similarly, many middle-class families cannot survive without two incomes, forcing both spouses to work at either marginal or dual jobs; while some educated women with affiuent husbands are abandoning paid careers for which they underwent expensive training and attained advanced degrees, in order to stay horne with their children. As with any set of complex social changes, such phenomena need to be identified, named, conceptualized, deconstructed, segmented, researched, and discussed. Policies and programs need to be evaluated, with hypotheses and frameworks that help ans wer questions about results. What are the outcomes of changes and social experiments and new arrangements? And for whom? Parents? Children? People with new life-styles? Employers? Co-workers? Managers? The economy? And how do these issues show up outside of the industrial ized world, in developing countries where people are moving beyond subsistence in small villages to become employees in a paid work force? A researcher at Harvard's School of Public Policy has argued that the best thing corporations can do to solve global health problems is to provide employment with flexible hours and child care. With so many questions, we should all be grateful that there are now many insightful academics searching for answers. In short, there is much to be learned from the scholars in this book who take the risk ofworking on the boundaries, at the intersection of two major social institutions. Some researchers look at the work-family issue from the micro perspective of individuals, some from the macro vantage point of the economy and social policy, some from an intermediate managerial perspective about how organizations can respond. All levels of analysis shed new light on dynamic relationships with significant implications for scholars and practitioners alike. Taken as a whole, this book helps us stand back and watch the unfolding process of social change. Work life and family life have both changed dramatically in recent times. Which leads, which lags? Does the design of organizations reflect changes in people 's lives, or does it propel changes by opening new possibilities or restricting opportunities? Do people compose their lives around the possibilities that their work permits, or do they push organizations to accommodate to their needs? The papers in this book push knowledge a step further. This will ultimately contribute to better conversations across the social sciences, as the economy and society are viewed together. My hope is that people and their needs will be better reflected in managerial actions and public policy, and that both working and loving will become more fulfilling as a result. People have to make a living, and they have to make a life.

xiv

FOREWORD

-Rosabeth Moss Kanter holds the Ernest L. Arbuckle Chair as Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business Schoo!. She is the author or co-author of 16 books, including her most recent book Confidence: How Winning Streaks & Losing Streaks Begin & End (Crown). She is the recipient ofnumerous honors. including 21 honorary doctoral degrees and the Academy of Management's Distinguished Career Award for Scholarly Contributions.

Acknowledgments

The preparation of this handbook reftects the vision and commitment of a large group of colleagues, family members, and friends who believe that it is important to move the workfamily field forward in a purposeful manner. As editors, we have received significant support from many individuals and institutions. We would like to thank them with sincerity and deep appreciation. It is most appropriate for us to first thank the creative and forward-thinking individuals who have served on the Editorial Board ofthe Work-Family Encyclopedia, a publication ofthe Sloan Work and Family Research Network http://www.bc.edu/bcorg/avp/wfnetwork/rft/index.html (Marcie Pitt-Catsouphes and Ellen Ernst Kossek, founding co-editors). In 2002, the members of the Editorial Board had the foresight to anticipate the need for a handbook that could capture the multi-disciplinary nature of the work-family area of study. These individuals recognized that faculty who incorporate work-family content into their courses could use a resource that would present information about the range of scholarly perspectives and the diversity of methods used by work-family academics. This handbook would not be a reality without the urging and thinking by Mark Auslander, Leslie Hammer, Jacqueline Lerner, Sharon Lobei, Patricia Raskin, Teresa Rothhausen-Vange, and Cynthia Thompson. The work-family area of study has many leading thinkers, most of whom are more than fully engaged in their own investigations, teaching, and writing. We cannot adequately express how grateful we are that 63 scholars saw the development of this handbook as a priority and devoted the time necessary to write their chapters, consider the comments and suggestions made by the reviewers, and prepare the final vers ions of their work. We introduce you to these insightful and talented individuals in the biography pages that follow. A large group of scholars also reviewed the chapters. Reviewing is often an invisible and thankless task, but essential for the quality of the product. Therefore, we would like to thank the following individuals: Marietta Baba, Rosalind Barnett, James T. Bond, Wayne Cascio, Nan Crouter, Charles Darrah, Francine M. Deutsch, Chai Feldblum, Naomi Gerstel, Lonnie Golden, Leslie Hammer, Mona Harrington, MaryAnne Hyland, Susan Jackson, Erin Kelly, Tom Kochan, Suzan Lewis, Shelley MacDermid, Stephen Marks, Margaret Neal, Cheryl Peters Barbara Schneider, Janet Smithson, Mary Still, Jennifer Swanberg, Raymond Swisher, Cynthia Thompson, Amy Wharton, Ben Wolkinson, and Carrie Yodanis. Each of our "horne-base" institutions has made it possible for this editorial team to function effectively and efficiently. Marcie Pitt-Catsouphes would like to thank Ted Gaiser, Beth Clark, and their colleagues at the Boston College Academic Technology Services. Ellen Kossek would

xv

xvi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

like to thank the School of Labor and Industrial Relations for providing research time to work on this document as partofher normal appointment. Stephen Sweet is indebted to the support of his department's administrative assistant Vikki Hammond as weil as his undergraduate student assistant Michael Proctor. We would like to thank Anne Duffy, Senior Editor at Lawrence ErJbaum Associates, and her editorial assistant Kristin Duch for providing us with timely assistance and ongoing encouragement to work on this volume. Finally, we offer our appreciation to our spouses and children, who forgave our absences while we were "off to work on the handbook." Marcie thanks her husband Corvis and sons Marcus and layme. Ellen thanks her husband Sandy and children Andrew, Sarah, Haley, and Dylan. Stephen thanks his wife lai and children Arjun and Nisha. These individuals remind us every day about wh at matters most in life.

About the Contributors

THE EDITORS

Marcie Pitt-Catsouphes is Associate Professor at the Boston College Graduate School of Social Work. Her work has been published in journals including Community, Work and Family, the ANNALS of Political and Social Science, and Nonprojit Management & Leadership. Dr. Pitt-Catsouphes is a co-principal investigator of the study, "Understanding the First Job: Nurturing Families," funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and the principal investigator of the Sloan Work and Family Research Network. Ellen Ernst Kossek (PhD Yale) is Professor at Michigan State University. She is elected to the Board of Governors of the National Academy of Management, and is a Fellow of the American Psychological Association and the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. She recently co-edited Managing Work and Life Integration: Organizational, Cultural and Individual Perspectives (LEA). A prize-winning author, she has published dozens of articles in such journals as the Academy of Management Journal, Personnel Psychology, Journal ofApplied Psychology (JAP), and Journal of Organizational Behavior (JOB). She currently serves on the editorial boards of JOB, JAP, Human Resource Management Journal, and the Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. Dr. Kossek is a co-principal investigator on an Alfred P. Sloan-funded study on managing professionals in new work forms (hup://ftex-work.lir.msu.edu/). Stephen Sweet is Assistant Professor of Sociology at Ithaca College. His studies of work and family have appeared in a variety of publications, including the New Directions in Life Course Research, Journal of Vocational BehaviO/~ .TournaI of Marriage and the Family, Innovative Higher Education, Journal ofCollege Student Development, and Community, Work and Family. Dr. Sweet is a co-principal investigator on an Alfred P. Sloan Foundation-funded project to study the effects of job insecurity on families.

THE AUTHORS

Tammy D. Allen is Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of South Florida. She received her PhD in Industrial and Organizational Psychology from the University of Tennessee. Her research interests include work and family issues, employee well-being, xvii

xviii

AB OUT THE CONTRTBUTORS

mentoring relationships, career development, and organizational citizenship behavior. She is a member of the editorial boards of Journal of Applied Psychology, Personnel Psychology, Journal ol'Vocational Behavior, Journal 01' Organizational Behm'ior, and Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. Robin Appleberry is a Teaching Fellow in the Federal Legislation Clinic at Georgetown Law, where she supervises law students providing pro bono legislative lawyering for Workplace F1exibility 2010. Robin is a graduate of Yale University (BA, 1996) and the University of California at Berkeley (JD, 2001) and will receive her LLM from Georgetown in 2005. Through her work before and after law school, Robin has sustained a deep commitment to advancing women's health, civil and human rights, and work-life balance through the law. Lotte Bailyn is the T. Wilson (1953) Professor of Management at MIT's Sloan School of Management and Co-Director of the MIT Workplace Center. Her research deals with the intersection between work and family life, and explores management systems and workplace practices meant to reconcile the demands of both. She is the author of Breaking the Mold: Women, Men, and Time in the New Corporate Worlel and co-author of Beyond Work-Family Balance: Advancing Gender Equity and Workplace Peljormance. Rosalind Chait Barnett, PhD, is Senior Scientist and Executive Director of the Community, Families & Work Pro gram at Brandeis University's Women's Studies Research Center. She has published widely on work, family, and gen der. Alone and with others, she has published over 90 artides, 20 chapters, and 7 books. Her newest book, with co-author Caryl Rivers, is Same Difference: How Gender Myths Are Hurting Our Relationships, Our Children, anel Our Johs (Basic Books, 2004). Laura L. Beauvais is Professor of Management at the University of Rhode Island in Kingston, Rhode Island. She received her PhD in Industrial/Organizational Psychology from the University of Tennessee in 1987. Her research interests include the management of work/professional/family roles among employees, self-concept-based motivation processes, moral development among business students, and organizational change. She teaches graduate and undergraduate courses in organizational behavior, organizational design and change, human resources management, leadership, and women in business. James (Terry) Bond is Vice President for Research at the Families and Work Institute, a nonprofit research organization. He has primary responsibility for the Institute's National Study of the Changing Workforce. Before joining the Families and Work Institute, he was Deputy Director of the National Center for Children in Poverty at Columbia University, founding Director of the NCJW Center for the Child, and Director of Research at the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation. Ann Bookman is Executive Director ofthe MIT Workplace Center. She is a social anthropologist who has authored publications in the areas of women's work, work and family issues, unionization, and child and family policy. Her new book, Starting in Our Own Backyards: How Working Families Can Build Community and Survive the New Economy, extends the discourse on work-family integration to indude issues of community organizations, community involvement, and civil society. Eileen Boris, an interdisciplinary historian, is the Hull Professor of Women's Studies and Director of the Center for the Study ofWomen and Social Justice at the University of California,

ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS

xix

Santa Barbara. She specializes in gender, race, labor, and the welfare state. A prize-winning author, she currently is writing a history of the long-term care workforce, called Neither Nurses , Nor Maids: Housekeepers, Health Aides, and Personal Attendants in the Home Workplace. Thomas Bradbury, Professor of Psychology at UCLA, uses observation al and longitudinal methods to study marriage and family development. He is the editor of The Psychology of Marriage (with Frank Fincham) and The Developmental Course ofMarital Dysfunction, and with Benjamin Kamey, he has twice received the Reuben Hili Award for Research and Theory from the National Council on Family Relations.

Julia Brannen is Professor of Sociology of the Family in the Institute of Education, University of London. She has researched and written about work-family issues in Britain and Europe, including children and young people. She has a particular interest in methodology and is a co-founder and co-editor ofthe International Journal ofSocial Research Methodology: Theory and Practice. Her most recent book is Working and Caring ova the Twentieth Century. Kathleen Christensen founded and directs the Pro gram on the Workplace, Workforce and Working Families at the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation in New York City. Dr. Christen sen has published extensivelyon the changing nature of work and its relationship to the family. Her books include Continf!,ent Work: American Employment Relations in Transition, Turbulence in the American Workplace, and Women and Home-Based Work: The Unspoken Contract. She has been awarded fellowships from the Danforth Foundation, National Endowment for the Humanities, Mellon Foundation, and RockefeIler Foundation, and received the 2004 Work Life Legacy Award from the Families and Work Institute. Ann C. Crouter is Professor of Human Development and Director of the Center for Work and Family Research at the Pennsylvania State University. Her interests revolve around the connections between parents' work circumstances, family dynamics, and the development and adjustment of children and youth. She currently co-directs two longitudinal studies of dualearner families and collaborates on a large, multi-method, longitudinal study of young children growing up in rural, low-income families in Pennsylvania and North Carolina. CharIes N. Darrah is Professor of Anthropology at San lose State University. He is a cultural anthropologist whose research has focused on work, families, and technology. He is a co-founder of the Silicon Valley Cultures Project at San lose State University (www.sjsu.edu/depts/anthropology/svcp/). His 1997 book, Learning and Work: An Exploration in Industrial Ethnography, is based on fieldwork in two manufacturing plants. Darrah and his colleagues, l. A. English-Lueck and l. M. Freeman, are collaborating on a book, Busy-Bodies: Busyness and the American Dream. Francine M. Deutsch is Professor of Psychology at Mount Holyoke College. Author of Hall'ing It All: How Equally Shared Parenting Works, her research focuses on the inequities in the division of domestic labor between men and women. Her articles have been published in Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology,Journal ofFamily Issues, Social Psychology and Personality Bulletin, Sex Roles, Psycholof!,y o{Women Quarterly, and Journal of Comparatil'e Family Studies. Robert Drago is Professor of Labor Studies and Women's Studies at the Pennsylvania State University, a Professorial Fellow at the University of Melboume, moderates the work/family newsgroup on the Internet, and is a co-founder of the Take Care Net. Holding a PhD in

XX

ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS

Economics from the University of Massachusetts, he has written over 50 articles and three books. His recent research for the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation addresses biases against caregiving and work-family policies. Chai Rachel Feldblum is Professor ofLaw at Georgetown University Law Center and Director ofWorkplace Flexibility 2010, an Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Initiative. A graduate ofHarvard Law School and a law clerk to Judge Frank Coffin and Justice Harry Blackmun, Professor Feldblum was the lead lawyer responsible for negotiating the Americans with Disabilities Act. Since 1988, Professor Feldblum has been actively involved in shaping legislative and regulatory initiatives on civil rights, health care, and employment policy. Alyssa Friede is a graduate student in lndustrial/Organizational Psychology at Michigan State University. Her research is focused on the psychology of work-life balance, with a particular interest in the influence of personality, coping, and decision-making. Alyssa worked with Professors Ellen Ernst Kossek and Mary Dean Lee on an Alfred P. Sloan Foundation grant examining reduced-load work among professionals and managers. She recently completed a book chapter with Ann Marie Ryan on personality and work-life balance. Ellen Galinsky is President and Co-Founder of the Families and Work Institute. She is the author of over 25 books and reports, including Ask the Children. She has published more than 100 articles in academic journals, books, and magazines. She co-directs the most comprehensive studies of the workforce-the National Study of the Changing Workforee-and of employers, the National Study of Employers. She staffs the Conference Board's Work Life Leadership Council and directs their annual work life conference. Karen C. Gareis , PhD, is Senior Research Associate and Program Director of the Community, Families & Work Program at Brandeis University's Women's Studies Research Center. Her research interests include work-family issues, gender, and social support. She currently directs two studies for Dr. R. C. Barnett, both funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation: one on matern al work schedules and child and family well-being, and the other, on how employed parents of school-age children coordinate family schedules. Naomi Gerstel is Professor at the University of Massachusetts. She has published on the gen der gap in caregiving, racial differences in kin support, privileges embedded in the Family Medical Leave Act, a comparison of U.S. and European child care, sibling ties, and the labor unions' response to family policies. Her current ongoing research consists of two projects: one on the racialized gen der gap in care to relatives and friends, and the other, on time spent on the job. Lonnie Golden is Associate Professor of Economics and Labor Studies at Pennsylvania State University Abington College. His research focuses on the labor market, particularly working hours, work schedule ftexibility, overtime law, overwork, work-life balance, behavioral labor supply, and productivity in the jobless recovery. He has co-edited the books, Working Time: International Trends, Theory and Polie)' Perspectil'es, and Nonstandard Work: The Nature and Challenge ofChanging Employment Arrangements. Anthony P. Graesch is a doctoral candidate in the UCLA Department of Anthropology and a graduate research fellow at the UCLA Center on Everyday Lives of Families. He studies the congruency between modern-day family life and culturally construed ideals of normative family behavior as encoded in the design of Los Angeles houses. He also examines and has

ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS

xxi

published on indigenous western North American household organization and post-contact cultural change from an archaeological perspective. Maria das Dores Guerreiro is Professora in the Department of Sociology at the Instituto Superior de Ciencias do Trabalho e da Empresa (ISCTE) and a researcher at CIES. She is the editor of Sociologia, Problemas e Praticas. Her research interest areas are in family and work relations, gender, generations, sociology of the family, and social policies. She is author and co-author of several publications on these subjects. Leslie B. Hammer is Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology, Portland State University. Her forthcoming book with Margaret Neal, Working Couples Ca ring for Children and Aging Parents, is based on a national, longitudinal study funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. She has written articles and book chapters in the area of work and family, and also serves on the founding editorial board ofthe Sloan Work and Family Research Network's on-Line Work and Family Encyclopedia. Brad Harrington is the Executive Director of the Center for Work & Family (CWF) and a faculty member in Organization Studies in the Carroll School of Management at Boston College. He holds a doctorate in Human Resource Development from Boston University. Previously, Brad was an executive in organization development with Hewlett-Packard Company for 20 years. He is currently writing a book on career management and work/life integration with Professor Douglas T. Hall of Boston University. Mona Harrington, who holds degrees in political science and law from Harvard, is Program Director at the MIT Workplace Center where she chairs a project for the formation of a Massachusetts Work-Family Council. She is also a writer who examines connections between American political culture and social policy. Her latest book, Care and Equality: Inventing a New Family Politics, calls for anational conversation about new ways to connect families, care, women, and work. Ashley Harvey has a master's degree in human development and family studies from Colorado State University. She is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Child Development and Family Studies at Purdue University and is a Iicensed marriage and family therapist. Her research focus is gen der equity in dual-earner families. She is currently serving as the interview editor for the Journal of Feminist Family Therapy. MaryAnne Hyland is Assistant Professor ofHuman Resource Management at Adelphi University. Her research interests include work/life balance and flexible work arrangements. She has published her research in Journal ofApplied Psychology, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Managerial Auditing Journal, and Personnel Psychology. MaryAnne completed her PhD in human resource management at Rutgers University. Susan E. Jackson is Professor of Human Resource Management and Director of the PhD Program in Industrial Relations and Human Resources at Rutgers University. Her primary research interests include strategic human resource management, work team functioning, and workforce diversity. She is a Fellow and active member of the American Psychological Association, the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, and the Academy of Management. Jacquelyn B. James is the Director of Research at the Boston College Center for Work & Family. Dr. James received her PhD in developmental psychology at Boston University. Prior

xxii

ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS

to her present role, she was associate director of the Murray Research Center at Harvard University. Currently, she is co-authoring a book titled, Charting New Life Stage: The Third Age, about the opportunities and challenges in the early retirement years. Erin L. KeHy is Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of Minnesota and an affiliate of the university's Life Course Center and Center for Labor Policy. Her research on the development and diffusion of employers' family policies has appeared in The American Journal of Sociology. She is also interested in the consequences of workplace policies and practices for organizations, for caregivers' careers, and for workers' health and wellbeing. Thomas A. Kochan is the George M. Bunker Professor of Management at MIT's Sloan School of Management and Co-Director of the MIT Workplace Center. He has done research on a variety of topics related to industrial relations and human resource management in the public and private sec tor. Professor Kochan is a Past President of the International Industrial Relations Association and the Industrial Relations Research Association (IRRA). In 1996, he received the Heneman Career Achievement Award from the Human Resources Division of the Academy of Management. Susan J. Lambert is Associate Professor in the School of Social Service Administration at the University of Chicago. Lambert's research focuses on the "work side" of work-life issues. Her most current research ex amines the extent to which opportunities available in today's corporations triekle down to jobs at lower-organizationallevels. Her research seeks to identify the mechanisms by which employers pass variations in consumer demand onto workers to absorb, thus introducing greater instability into workers' lives. Carolyn Herbst Lewis is a doctoral student in the Department of History and the Women's Studies Program at the University of California, Santa Barbara. She has an MA in American History from Ohio University. Currently, she is completing her dissertation, "Coitus Perfectus: The Medical Construction of Heterosexuality in the Mid-Twentieth Century United States." Her writings have appeared in The Journal of the History of Sexuality and Women' s America: Refocusing the Past. Suzan Lewis is Professor of Organisational and Work-Life Psychology at Manchester Metropolitan University, U.K. Her research on work-life integration focuses on workplace practice, culture, and change and she has led many national and international research projects on these topics. Her publications include The Work Family Challenge: Rethinking Employment, and Work-Life Integration: Case Studies ofWorkplace Change. She is a founding editor ofthe international journal, Community, Work and Family. SheHey M. MacDermid is Professor in the Department of Child Development and Family Studies at Purdue University, where she also directs the Center for Families. In May 2000, she became co-director of a new Military Family Research Institute, also at Purdue. Dr. MacDermid earned an MBA in Management and a PhD in Human Development and Family Studies from The Pennsylvania State University. Her research focuses on relationships between job conditions and family life, with special interests in organizational size, adult development, and organizational policies. Stephen R. Marks is Professor of Sociology at the University of Maine. His approach to work-family balance is embedded in an interest in overall role balance. His work has alerted

ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS

xxiii

researchers to the options that people have in organizing their multiple roles as a pattern or system. He has shown that hierarchical self- and role-systems are neither inevitabJe nor necessary, and when people expand the reach oftheir role systems in an evenhanded way, there are often salutary consequences for their well-being. His interest in family diversity is rooted in the recognition that socially constructed categories--especially race, class, gender, sexual orientation, and age-may privilege some people and dis advantage others as they attempt to balance their multiple roles. Angela Mittmann is an advanced graduate student in clinical psychology at UCLA. Her research focuses on the association between workplace stress and working parents' communication patterns with family, particularly emotion-focused communication and marital communication. She is also focused on understanding individual differences that moderate such work-familyassociation. PhylIis Moen is the McKnight Presidential Chair in Sociology from the University of Minnesota. Her recent co-authored book, The Career Mystique: Cracks in the American Dream, addresses the fundamental mismatch between the ways work and retirement are organized and the realities of achanging workforce and an uncertain global economy. Dr. Moen has published widely on the topics of gender, aging, the life course, work, retirement, and social policy. She also founded the Bronfenbrenner Life Course Center at Cornell University and was lead investigator at the Cornell Careers Institute, an Alfred P. Sioan Center for the Study of Working Families. David L. Morgan is University Professor at Portland State University. He is weil known for his work on focus groups and qualitative research. More recently, he has concentrated on research designs that combine qualitative and quantitative methods, and is currently completing a book on this topic. Margaret B. Neal is Director of the Institute on Aging and Professor of Community Health, College of Urban and Public Affairs, and former director of the Survey Research Laboratory, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon. Her research interests include work-family integration and how the public and private sectors can assist employed caregivers to elders. Her latest book, co-authored with Leslie Hammer, is based on an Alfred P. Sloan Foundation-funded study involving qualitative and quantitative data and concems working, sandwiched-generation couples. Megan L. Notter is a graduate student at Oregon State University. Her research interests include domestic violence and child outcomes, intervention, program evaluation, and family policy. Elinor Ochs is Professor of Anthropology and Director of the UCLA Sloan Center on the Everyday Lives of Families. She examines language socialization and discursive practices of typical and impaired individuals across codes, situations, institutions, and communities throughout the life span. She was named MacArthur Fellow, American Academy of Arts and Sciences Fellow, Guggenheim Fellow, Lewis Henry Morgan Lecturer, and received a Helsinki University Rector's medal of Distinctive Scholarship and Honorary Doctorate from Linkoping University. Russell Ormiston is a PhD candidate at the School of Labor and Industrial Relations at Michigan State University.

xxiv

AB OUT THE CONTRIBUTORS

Cheryl L. Peters is a PhD candidate in the Department of Human Development and Family Sciences at Oregon State University. Her research interests include intergenerational relationships, work-family issues, and retirement decisions of the baby boom generation. Amy E. Pirretti, a doctoral student in Human Development and Family Studies at Penn State, received her BA in Psychology from the University of Kansas and MS in Industrial Relations and Human Resources from Penn State. Currently, she is a research assistant on a large project that examines the development of children growing up in low-income, rural communities. This research includes a focus on parents' work circumstances and their implications for parents and children. Rena Repetti is Professor in the Department of Psychology at UCLA. She received her PhD in 1985 from Yale University. Repetti studies stress and coping processes in the family. Her work points to the dynamic interplay between an individual's efforts to cope with daily stressors and patterns of family interaction. For example, Repetti has shown how stress at work can have both a short-term and a long-term impact on the parent-child relationship. Pete Riehardson (Emory, 2002) is a postdoctoral fellow at the Center for the Ethnography of Everyday Life at the University of Michigan. He is now engaged in fieldwork centered on an auto parts plant in the Detroit area. His work experience includes time as a commercial fisherman in Alaska, bookseller, and bouncer. His interests include the fields of psychological, philosophical, and social anthropology, the anthropologies of work and nature, and western and labor histories. Martha Farnsworth Riehe is with the Center for the Study of Economy and Society, Cornell University. She served as Director of the U.S. Census Bureau between 1994 and 1998. Through Farnsworth Riche Associates, Dr. Riche consults, writes, and lectures on demographic changes and their effects on policies, programs, and products. A Fellow of the American Statistical Association, she is the author of numerous articles, papers, and publications in academic and business journals and is a frequent speaker before university, business, and policy audiences. Natalia Sarkisian is Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology, Boston College. Her PhD dissertation research at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, funded by a Social Science Research Council Dissertation Fellowship, explores the differences and similarities between Whites and Blacks in social support. She has recently published on employment and the gender gap in help to parents in the Journal of Marriage and Family and on kin support and race in the American Sociological Review. Barbara Schneider is Professor of Sociology at the University of Chicago. She co-directs, with Linda Waite, the Alfred P. Sloan Center on Parents, Children, and Work. Author of numerous books and articles, Schneider's major interests are in families, adolescents, and transitions to adulthood. Several of her books, including Ambitious Generation and Becoming Adult, use the experience sampling method. Her most re cent co-authored book is Being Together, Working Apart: Dual-Career Families and the Work-Life Balance. Janet Smithson is a research fellow in the department ofPsychology, Manchester Metropolitan University, U.K. She is project manager of an eight-country European project on transitions to parenthood in the context of changing organizations. Other research interests include youth and transitions to adulthood, experiences of insecure work and the effects on work-life choices,

ABOUT THE CONTRlBUTORS

XXV

environmental etTects of work-life choices, discourse and conversation analytic approaches to gen der, and organizational talk. Mary C. Still is a faculty fellow at the University 01' California Hastings College 01' the Law. She was an Alfred P. Sloan predoctoral fellow at the Cornell Couples & Careers Institute for five years. Still's research interests are in the areas 01' organizational change, gender in the workplace, social networks, and innovation. She has published in Social Forces, Sociological Theory, The Journal oflndustrial and Corporate Change, and Evolution and Human Behavior. Jennifer E. Swanberg, Assistant Professor at the College 01' Social Work, University of Kentucky, conducts research on the relationships between work, family and organizational effectiveness, especially among understudied populations including low-wage workers, victims of intimate partner violence, and employed informal caregivers. She has published in Work, Family and Community andNonprofit Management & Leadership, and has artieles forthcoming in Journal ofEcol1omic and Family Issues, Family Issues, andJournal ofOccupational Health Psychology. Raymond Swisher is Assistant Professor of Policy Analysis and Management at Cornell University. His current research focuses on the effects 01' social contexts on well-being across the life course. One project examines the infiuence of neighborhood poverty and violence on adolescent well-being, violence, and educational attainment. Other research examines how workplace and neighborhood contexts shape dual-earner families' efforts to manage work and family demands. Cynthia A. Thompson is Professor 01' Management in the Zicklin School of Business at Baruch College, City University 01' New York. Her research focuses on the integration of work and life and, in particular, the extent to which supportive work-family cultures atTect employee attitudes and behavior. Her work has been published in the Journal o{ Applied Psychology, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Journal of Managerial Issues, Sex Roles, and Community, Work and Family, among others. Amy S. Wharton is Professor of Sociology at Washington State University. Her research interests inelude gender inequality, work, and organizations. With Mary Blair-Loy, she is studying work-family programs in a large international financial services firm. Papers based on this research have been published in Social Forces, Work and Occupations, and Sociological Perspecrives. Wharton is also interested in the effects of organizations' "core ideologies" on their commitment to work-family policies over time. Joan C. Williams, prize-winning author and Distinguished Professor of Law at University of California, Hastings College 01' the Law, is Director of the Center for WorkLife Law and Co-Director 01' the Project on Attorney Retention. She has published more than 50 scholarly artieles and a book, Unhending Gender: Why Work and Family Conjfict and What to Do Ahout Ir. She has been widely quoted in the press, in publications as diverse as Business Week, the New York Times, Parenting Magazine, and 0. Benjamin W. Wolkinson is Professor of Labor Relations at the School of Labor and Industrial Relations at Michigan State University. He is a member ofthe National Academy of Arbitrators and serves as an arbitrator for many employers and labor unions in Michigan and Ohio. His books inelude Arab Employment in Israel: The Quest for Equal Employment Opportunity,

xxvi

ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS

Employment Law: The Workplace Rights of Employees and Employers, and Blacks, Unions and the EEOC.

Anisa M. Zvonkovic is Professor of Human Development and Family Studies at Texas Tech University. She received her MS and PhD degrees in Human Development and Family Studies frorn the Pennsylvania State University. Her research focuses on work and family issues frorn a close relationships and feminist perspective. She currently studies the personallives of workers whose jobs require extensive travel.

THE WORK AND FAMIL Y HANDBOOK

Multi-Oisciplinary Perspectives, Methods, and Approaches

This page intentionally left blank

PART I: Families and Jobs in the 21 st Century

1 Charting New Territory: Advancing Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives, Methods, and Approaches in the Study of Work and Family Marcie Pitt-Catsouphes Boston College

Ellen Ernst Kossek Michigan State University

Stephen Sweet Ithaca College

For the past 30 years, there has been a sustained surge in academic interest in work-family issues. However, despite the increase in scholarly studies about work-family relationships and the explosive growth in work-family publications, until now there has not been any single handbook that compiled the work of scholars across the disciplines and also compared and contrasted their approaches to the study of work-family phenomena. This handbook, the cu 1mination of efforts of 63 leading work and family researchers, fills that gap and offers an overview of the major insights, challenges, and opportunities present in the work-family field. But, what exactly is the "work-family" field, when did it emerge, and why? Kathleen Christensen, author of the last chapter in this handbook, has often remarked that the work-family field may be the only field of study best known by a hyphen-the hyphen that is placed between the words "work" and "family." As editors ofthis handbook, we have come to believe that the hyphen is important, because it symbolizes the field's focus on the connections between work experiences andfamily issues. These connections have been conceptualized as "relationships," "interactions," and "interface." As Rosabeth Moss Kanter cogently observes in her Foreword to this volume, if work and family are considered as "separate spheres" in policy and cultural action, our understanding of both institutions suffers.

2

PITT-CATSOUPHES, KOSSEK, AND SWEET

In general, work-family research focuses on two overarching concerns. One stream of studies primarily focuses on the different ways that work can affect the family, the other on how family responsibilities impact work. It is instructive to consider a few examples. Some researchers who have studied the ways that work impactsfamily lives have explored how job demands (and associated factors such as organizational structures, the design of work roles, and workplace cultures) affect employees and their management of family responsibilities (e.g., see Appelbaum, Berg, & Kalleberg, 2000; Bailyn & Harrington, 2004; Batt & Valcour, 2003; Berg, Kalleberg, & Appelbaum, 2003; Blair-Loy & Wharton, 2002; O'Driscoll et al.. Cooper, 2003; Viega, Baldridge, & Eddleston, 2004). Extensive research has also been devoted to the relationships between work hours, work schedules, and different aspects of well-being (e.g., Bihan & Martin, 2004; Cousins & Tang, 2004; Jacobs & Gerson, 2004; Jansen, Kant, Kristensen, & Nijhuis, 2003; Strazdins, Korda, Lim, Broom, & D' Souza, 2004; van Rijswijk, Bekker, Rutte, & Croon, 2004), with some of these studies considering wh ether time devoted to work might otherwise be devoted to family rituals (such as evening meals), carework (essential to the needs of children, spouses, aging parents), or self care (such as medical care, exercise, and stress management) (e.g., Crouter, Bumpus, Head, & McHale, 2001). It is important to note that other scholars have examined whether work can enhance individual weIl-heing andfamily life. For example, some have studied relationships between family well-being and economic compensation, whereas other scholars have studied how the intrinsic rewards of jobs and work roles shape family development, health, and well-being (for examples of such studies, see Barnett & Gareis, chapter 10 in this volume; Grzywacz & Marks, 2000; Nordenmark, 2002; Voydanoff, 2004). On the other hand, the work-family equation can also be inverted to consider the ways that families support the workplace as weil as circumstances in which family obligations distract workers from employers' priorities (Kanter, 1977 a). Some studies, for instance, have investigated how family demands and needs can impinge on labor force attachment and worker productivity (e.g., Moen & Sweet, 2003). Others have considered the family-to-work interaction from a different viewpoint-how positive aspects of family life can spill over into the workplace, thereby benefiting businesses (for examples of studies examining the family-towork interface, see Bayraktar & Salman, 2003; Creamer & Associates, 2001; Crouter, 1984; Ferber & Hoffman, 1997; Powers, 2001; Sweet & Moen, 2004). Academics in this stream of research understand that if families do not perform their roles, such as reproduction and socialization of the next generation of workers, employers and the society-at-Iarge will inevitably suffer (Kanter, Foreword, this volume). Thus, it has been the concern of work-family scholarship to juxtapose our knowledge of how workplaces operate with our understandings of how families function. The academic work conducted over the past three decades has revealed the connections between these institutions and has linked the scholarly work of what has traditionally been perceived as separate areas of study. We are presently witnessing the successes of academics' efforts to create a new field of study with a distinct body knowledge that has been developed by a multi-disciplinary community of academics. In this chapter, we offer an overview of the development of the new work-family field, its multi-disciplinary shape, and prevailing themes of inquiry. We discuss how work-family scholarship emerged during a time when there was a conftuence of demographic, economic, and cultural shifts. We note that scholarship during the early years of the work-family area of study typically reftected the confines of existing disciplinary boundaries and divisions of labor within academe. These traditional structures made it difficult for scholars to move forward with multi-disciplinary perspectives. In many respects, the current work-family field is now challenging rigid academic institutional arrangements in an effort to forge bridges between disciplinary perspectives. It is to this larger goal that this handbook is devoted.

1. CHARTING NEW TERRITORY

3

WORK-FAMIL Y ISSUES TAKE ROOT Historians persuasively argue that work-family concerns are not necessarily "new" experiences, as people have always had to coordinate their family responsibilities with their eeonomic pursuits (e.g., Eileen Boris and Carolyn Lewis's chapter 4, this volume). Indeed, academic commentary and policy discourse about work-family experiences have deep roots in different social science disciplines, suggesting that work-family challenges were also visible in early times. For example, Friedrich Engels discussed the relationships between economic arrangements and the family, paying particular attention to the ways that the new industrial order ravaged family lives and communities in Europe (Engels, 1936 [1845]). Industrialization also drew attention to work-family issues in the United States. During the transitional years when America moved from being a primarily agrarian society to an industrialized economy, some companies established employer-supported programs inc1uding child-care centers and hospitals that became part of the industrial welfare system (Brandes, 1976). By the late 19th century, the first family responsive public social policy, the Civil War Pensioners Fund, was implemented, to address the needs of widows and children left destitute in the wake of the Civil War (Skocpol, 1992). In the early 20th century, demographic shifts in America (inc1uding urbanization and immigration) coupled with progressive era philosophies, motivated scholars such as lane Addams (1999 [1912]), w. I. Thomas (1928), and W. E. B. DuBois (1998 [1899]) to chronicle how families were (or failed to be) integrated into an expanding economy. By the 1940s, central features of the New Deal addressed workplace responsibilities and government commitment to working families. Indeed, the Social Security Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act regulated workplace responsibilities in consideration of life-course factors that outlast short-term contractual relations between employers and employees. The work of many postwar scholars refteeted the culture and norms of that time, often focusing on work and family themes. At the time, many of these arguments had a conservative bent, such as TaIcott Parsons' (1942) assertion of the functionality of sexual divisions of labor, a theoretical framework that added social-seientific legitimacy to the entrenchment of the traditional husband-breadwinner, wife-homemaker middle c1ass roles of the time. Subsequently, feminist writers began to articulate critical assessments of these arrangements, which in turn advaneed work-family scholarship. For example, in her c1assic book, The Feminine Mystique (1963), Betty Friedan argued that societal acceptance of a segmented division of family caregiving and breadwinning-aligned along gen der lines-served to further entrap women and perpetuate discrimination against them. These examples iIlustrate that work-family issues have been embedded in academic, policy, and cultural debates weIl in advanee of the recognition of work-family as an area of expertise. Despite the historical evidenee of long-standing interest in work-family issues, many simultaneous transformations in the fabric of society occurred at the end of the 20th century that elevated the level and "volume" of the discourse about work and family. There were changes in the structure of families, the composition of the workforce, and the demographie characteristics of our society (see, for example, chapter 6 by Farnsworth Riche and chapter 3 by Marks, this volume). Furthermore, technological and organizational changes altered the ways that jobs were performed (e.g., see Wharton chapter 2, this volume and VaIcour & Hunter, 2005). And, significantly, the growing presence and engagement of women in key leaders hip positions within universities, business, and government helped to position work-family experiences as central concerns for research, practice, and policy-making. In the 1990s, work-family issues increasingly resonated with discussions at the workplace and debates among public policymakers. It has taken some time for cultural and structural institutions to catch up to these societal shifts, resulting in lags both in policy and programmatic responses. Observers have noted that

4

PITT-CATSOUPHES, KOSSEK, AND SWEET

existing laws, employer policies, and work processes and practices often fail to meet the needs of contemporary working families (see, forexample, Kelly chapter 5; Still & Williams chapter 15, this volume), Many academics have described the discontinuities between the needs of families and today's institutional structures as being "mismatched." For example, cultural norms and expectations about the so-called ideal employee have been predicated on assumptions that workers can be available for work "on demand" and can be present at the workplace as needed. This notion of the ideal worker is based on aseparate but related assumption that employees have another adult family member at home on a full-time basis who can take care of the family caregiving and home management responsibilities. However, such taken-for-granted notions about the ideal worker do not reflect the realities of contemporary employees. As noted by several ofthe authors who have contributed to this handbook, most families are no longer structured with one full-time breadwinner and one full-time homemaker; therefore, employees with family responsibilities rarely have the f1exibility to be at the workplace for unlimited periods of time or for unscheduled hours. Although some employers and policymakers have attempted to rework workplace practices and public policies in an effort to alleviate mismatches (see Bond & Galinsky, chapter 19) in general, the incompatibilities remain (Bianchi, Casper, & King, 2005). The continued visibility of mismatches between the needs of working families and societal structures has kept the connections (and the "dis-connects") between work and family visible, and has sustained broad-based interest in work-family issues. For instance, the Wall Street Journal and other newspapers have created journalistic niches focused on work-family experiences. Following the lead of Working Mother magazine, which conducted its first annual competition to identify the 100 best companies for working mothers in 1986, a number of industry journals and community papers now sponsor competitions to identify and showcase family-friendly workplaces. Even the business-oriented radio program, "Marketplace," produced by Public Radio International, has created a work-family beat. A large number of business leaders, union officials, and organizational consultants also became engaged in different facets of the work-family agenda toward the end of the 20th century. Some companies crafted signature work/life initiatives. IBM, for example, forged into new territory with global surveys of its employees around the world (Hili, Yang, Hawkins, & Ferris, 2004). Businesses leaders also helped to establish a number of different professional groups that supported their efforts to further develop work/life policies and programs. Some of these associations, such as the Work & Family Roundtable, created membership structures comprised of company representatives, whereas other groups, such as the Alliance ofWork-Life Progress (AWLP), invited individuals from a range of stakeholder groups, inc1uding unions and consulting firms, to join. AWLP further contributed to the institutionalization of work-family initiatives at the workplace through its certificate program, which offers aseries of courses and workshops. Unions and union-supported organizations, such as the Labor Project for Working Families, were visibly active in the development of services and supports at the workplace, such as dependent care program, and provided leadership for public policy innovations (Labor Project for Working Families, 2004). Work-family issues also garnered attention in the political arena. lnterest in working families not only became embedded in the rhetoric of national elections, but also was woven into state and local political activities (see, for example, Working Families Party, 2004).

CREATING A MULTI-DISCIPLINARY FIELD OF STUDY While pundits, practitioners, advocates, and policy-makers were busy exploring different workfamily frontiers, academics also began to forge new paths leading to increasingly sophisticated understandings of work-family phenomena. By the mid-1990s, scholars' interest in

I.

CHARTING NEW TERRITORY

5

work-family issues had developed into a loosely coupled area of study. Today, a large number of academics see work-family issues as an important focal point for their teaching, research, and writing. Many who have attempted to chronicle the contemporary history of the work-family field point to the publication of Rosabeth Moss Kanter's 1977 monograph, Work and Family in the United States: A Critical Review and AgendafcYr Research and Policy, as an important marker of the beginning of concerted academic study of work-family issues in the United States. Interestingly, this publication was part ofthe Russell Sage Foundation's series, "Social Seien ce Frontiers: Occasional Publications Reviewing New Fields for Social Science Development" [emphasis added]. At the time, it was unclear whether the work-family area of study would, in fact, develop the institutionalized structures needed to identify it as a field. During the early years of the work-family area of study, it was common for scholars trained in different disciplines to focus on different aspects of work-family issues, bring different schools of thought to the framing of research questions, and adopt different methods to examine current work and family experiences. At that time, for example, psychologists would typically have read different journals than their colleagues trained in economics and each would Iikely have gone to different conferences. Even within disciplines, the etforts to move work-family research agendas forward did not proceed in any coordinated fashion. For instance, it took some time before sociologists who focused on "family sociology" regu1arly consulted the work of those who focused on "sociology of work." The divides that tended to separate academics in different disciplines created significant challenges to the work-family researchers who wanted to study phenomena that do not fit neatly within disciplinary boundaries. However, as the connections were established among the disciplines, the contours ofthe new fie1d began to take shape. Considering why work-family emerged when it did is a question appropriate for an analysis using a "sociology of knowledge" orientation, the branch of sociology that studies the social processes involved in the production ofknowledge (Jary & Jary, 1991). Sociology ofknowledge focuses attention on the cultural experiences, dynamic social interactions, and structural institutions that form the context of knowledge-building. This field examines how social contexts relate to the socially dynamic development, acquisition, and transmission of knowledge and understanding (Swidler & Arditi, 1994; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Ritzer, 1992). For the purposes of this chapter, we have used a sociology of knowledge framework to examine some of the indicators that the work-family area of study has become an scholarly field with its own structured activities, socialization processes, products, and norms that reflect a unique academic subcuIture. One sign of the emergence of the work-family field of study is work-family scholars' engagement in rituals that define them as members of a loosely coupled community (see Pitt-Catsouphes, 2005). The annual conferences of many disciplines and professionsranging from economics to management to family relations-now regularly include panels or even tracks of sessions devoted to work-family research. Over the past two decades, the number of presentations that focus on work-family issues at these conferences has increased. For instance, the Gender and Diversity in Organizations division and the Careers division of the National Academy of Management have steadily accepted more work-family research papers. ImpOliantly, organizations such as the Business and Professional Women's Foundation, the Alfred P. Sioan Foundation, and Brandeis University have sponsored multi-disciplinary work-family scholarly conferences that bring together scholars from different disciplines. The concept of membership in an academic work-family community has also been reinforced by communication networks such as the Workfam Iistserv, which was founded and continues to be coordinated by Robert Drago of the Penn State University, as weil as the Sloan Work and Family Research Network (www.bc.edu/wfnetwork).In 2005, more than 1200 individuals

6

PITT-CATSOUPHES, KOSSEK, AND SWEET

interested in work-family research were members of the Sloan Work and Family Research Network's virtual community (approximately three-fourths of whom are academics), giving them access to resources and communication that promote connections within the comrnunity. Work-family academics have also begun to develop strategies, such as approaches to teaching, designed to pass on knowledge and the "work-family research culture" to the next generation of scholars and practitioners. Many universities across the country and around the world, including the Harvard Business School and the Sloan School of Management at MIT, currently offer courses that address work-family issues. These faculty members are making conscious efforts to transmit knowledge about work-family issues to their students. Some of these academics have also created mechanisms for sharing their course syllabi and ideas for teaching activities with colleagues in the work-family academic community who are located at other universities. Web posting has become an effective way for faculty to share teaching experiences and ideas (see http://wfnetwork.bc.edu/activities.php and hup://ftex-work.lir.msu.edu/). The existence of socialization strategies like these suggests that the work-family field has become institutionalized. It is particularly important to note that literature which discusses work-family issues is now being archived as a unique category of research. During the early 1990s, some workfamily scholars lamented that it was difficult to get their manuscripts about work-family topics accepted for publication in peer-reviewed academic journals. Work-family issues are no longer perceived as being a stumbling block, and some journals even favor a manuscript's prospects for publication if it contributes to the work-family knowledge base (see analysis by Drago & Kashian, 2003). There has been a remarkable growth in the venues for, and acceptance of, scholarly research on the intersection of work and family. In recent decades, there has been steady increase in the number of work-family articles cited in four widely used academic literature databases: socioabs (a library database that includes sociology and many demography journals), econlit (a library database that includes economics and some business journals), psychinfo (a library database that includes psychology, psychiatric, and many social work journals), and historical abstracts. The number of articles depicted in Fig. 1.1 were calculated after conducting a Boolean keyword search using synonyms of the terms "work" [work(ers) or job(s)] and "family" [family(ies), parent(s), mother(s), father(s), or child(ren)] in select years. By 2000, there had been a threefold increase in the number of history articles that focused on work and family concerns, when compared to the number of these articles in 1970. In psychology there were seven times as many over the course of those three decades, and in sociology there were 12 times as many. Our database search did not identify a single work-family publication in the econlit database in 1970, but there were more than 500 in 2000. There are similar trends in the increase of work-family publications occurring across

VI

2,500 • socioabs

Q)

U 2,000

t: ce(

Ö

lIIIeconlit

1,500

[;] psychinfo

Gi 1,000 .c E ::J

Z

D historical abstracts

500 1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

Year

FIG. 1.1. Trends in journal articles that focus on work and family concerns.

I.

CHARTlNG NEW TERRITORY

7

many of the other disciplines as weil. A 2004 analysis of the Online Work-Family Literature Database maintained by the Sioan Work and Family Research Network (a database containing the citations and annotations of more than 6,500 scholarly work-family publications) found that the journals that had published the greatest number of work-family research articles entered into the database represented many different disciplines. The "top" journals included Journal of Family Issues; Work and Occupations; Community, Work & Family; Journal of Family & ECOl1omic Issues; Gender & Society; Sex Roles; Human Relations; Industrial Labor Relations; Social Forces; Monthly Labor Review; Academy ofManagement Journal; Journal of Occupational & Organizational Ps.vchology; American Journal of Sociology; and Qualitative Sociology. One notable event in the emergence of the work-family field occurred in 1994, when Suzan Lewis and Carolyn Kagan at Manchester Metropolitan University in England founded the journal Community, Work and Family. This journal was a milestone not only because it was the first (and remains the only) peer-reviewed journal devoted to work-family issues, but also because the editors created the journal to address many of the challenges that had confronted work-family scholars. From the beginning, Lewis and Kagan made an effort to bring global perspectives to the discussion of work-family issues. The authors of articles published in Commwzity, Work and Family have chronicled and analyzed the work-family experiences of people living in Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, North America, and South America. Finally, we note that a shared academic culture is beginning to develop among workfamily researchers. As part of this culture, scholars routinely test sets of commonly held assumptions and beliefs, such as assumptions about the interface between the work and family domains of life (see MacDermid & Harvey, chapter 27). In addition, academics have begun to clarify norms and expectations with regard to the rigor and quality of work-family studies. Beginning in 2000, academics beg an to collaborate with Shelley MacDermid of Purdue University, who founded the Rosabeth Moss Kanter Award for Excellence in WorkFamily Research. Each year, 30 to 40 scholars review the contents of the previous year's issues of nearly 40 peer-reviewed journals that publish work-family articles in an etlort to identify the "best of the best" research publications. These scholars are not only producing their own research, but they are also articulating standards of excellence for future studies. The etforts of work-family academics to establish a work-family field of study have not gone unnoticed by funding agencies. For 10 years, different researchers have benefited from the resources provided by corporations as weIl as private foundations. In the United States, the Alfred P. Sioan Foundation has provided noteworthy support to work-family research, including the establishment of seven university-based work-family research centers (see Christensen, chapter 34). In 2004, the National Institute on Child and Human Development (part ofthe federal National Institutes on Health in the United States) announced a new initiative that will support efforts to examine health and other outcomes associated with work-family interventions. The resources provided by funding organizations and agencies have been critical, not only to support research initiative, but also to sustain and further institutionalize the work-family field. Our hopes are that eventually this handbook will be viewed as another milestone in the "coming of age" of work-family studies as a recognized field that attempts to link rigorous, multi-disciplinary scholarship to enlightened praxis, or the professional application of scholarly knowledge. Although there are other edited books of work and family theory and scholarship that have appeared (e.g., Zedeck, 1992; Kossek & Lambert, 2005b: Bianchi, Casper, & King, 2005), to our knowledge it is the first formal handbook on work-family to be published.

8

PITT-CATSOUPHES, KOSSEK, AND SWEET

ANAL YTIC REFLECTIONS OF THE WORK-FAMIL Y HANDBOOK When we stepped forward to coordinate the development of a handbook that could be widely used by work-family scholars and their students, we realized that it would be particularly important to position the disciplinary mosaic that has contributed to the richness and the rigor of the work-family area of study. By doing so, we hoped to craft a volume that discussed the focus and the unique characteristics of diverse types of scholarship that have contributed to the work-family field. Collectively, the chapters in this Handbook address four fundamental work-family questions:

• How do academics discuss key work and family constructs? • Wh at conceptual frameworks do different disciplines use to ex amine work-family experiences and how do these frameworks shape the types of questions asked about work-family connections? • What methodological approaches do researchers use to document and test linkages between work and family? • How can scholarly inquiry contribute to social change at the workplace and in public policies that enhances individuals' work and family !ives?

Reading "across the chapters," it is possible to triangulate information that can be used to ans wer these questions. We summarize some of our observations below. Key Work-Family COllstructs: For some time, the work-family field has stumbled over basic language about key constructs that anchor the work-family field. It is appropriate to begin our analytic commentary with a note about the considerable controversy with regard to the use of the term "work-family." Two primary concerns have been voiced. Some work-family leaders contend that the word "family" in the term "work-family" continues to conjure up images of an ideal-type family that consists of a married couple family with a stay-at-home mother and a breadwinner father who have dependent children. As many of the authors in this volume discuss, this ideal-type is not consistent with the diversity of family structures that exist. Therefore, the use of the term "work-family" may have the unintended consequence of giving inadequate acknowledgment of-and research attention to-the experiences of different types of families. Other scholars, as weH as a majority of workplace practitioners, also feel that the field should broadly consider all the work and the nonwork domains oflife, notjust work and family. For instance, many people are highly involved in community !ife or religious activities. In an effort to consider people's experiences from a "whoie life" perspective and to define the field as being interested in the experiences of working people who may not perceive themselves as being part of a family (or at least part of a family that resembles a two-parent/single earner family), some have adopted the term "work/life" for the field. These advocates suggest that the work/life term is more inclusive and would be relevant to the experiences of diverse working people, such as single people or gay/lesbian couples (see Marks, chapter 3). Of course, the term work/!ife has its !imitations as weil. Work is, obviously, part of !ife so the juxtaposition of work and life may suggest an artificial separation. Furthermore, the scope of the construct of "life" is so broad that, for the purposes of research, it loses analytic sharpness. Having made adecision to focus on the intersection of two of life's domains-work and family-we have, therefore, used the term "work-family" for this handbook. We are pleased that many of the authors who have contributed to this volume carefully remind readers that the referent "family" is meant to suggest diverse family forms.

I.

CHARTING NEW TERRITORY

9

Readers will also find many of the chapters in this book use the concept of "work-family balance," an almost taken-for-granted metaphor. Some have interpreted the concept to mean that "balance" results from spending "roughly equal" or "enough" time at work and at horne. By implication, being "out-of-balance" implies that "too much" time spent on one ofthese sets of responsibilities would co me at the expense of being able to fulfill the other set. There is evidence, some of which is discussed by authors who have contributed to this handbook, that does demonstrate that there can be a zero-sum aspect to the way we spend our time. But, other chapters offer important critiques of this metaphor. For instance, Rosalind Barnett and Karen Gareis (chapter 10) show that work and family roles are not necessarily in competition and that, on the whole, the addition of paid work roles enhances women's lives. Importantly, Charles Darrah (chapter 17) informs us that working couples seldom think of their lives in terms of being able to "balance things"; rather, they view their daily lives as being forever fractionalized by competing tasks that constitute the "busyness" of life. Given these ditlerent perspectives, it is not surprising that there has been significant scholarly discussion about the appropriate term for the positive outcomes associated with work-family interface. While some researchers continue to use the term "work-family balance," others have opted for "work-family or work/life integration," and yet others have begun to use the term "harmonization" (Rapoport, Bailyn, Fletcher, & Pruit, 2002; Bailyn & Harrington, 2004; Kossek & Lambert, 2005a, b; Lewis & Cooper, 2005). Scholars have long been aware that the definition of core concepts guides the development of their studies and shapes the nature of their research questions, sometimes in unanticipated ways. For example, the authors of many of the chapters included in this handbook discuss 'jobs" and "job demands" as tasks performed by individual workers for specified durations. In contrast, Stephen Sweet and Phyllis Moen (chapter 9) ask readers to adopt the concept "career pathways" and to consider how the entries into jobs (and exits from them) are shaped by decisions made at earlier points in the Iife course. Thus, their focus is less on jobs than on the forces that shape the development of individuals into the types of people who can (or cannot) hold these jobs. In summary, the lack of consensus about work-family has introduced many challenges, but it has also spurred the further development of theory and measures. Work-Family Frameworks: The side-by-side positioning of the chapters in this volume not only facilitates comparisons between the chapters, but it also helps readers to focus on the divergences and convergences in the conceptual frameworks adopted by scholars trained in ditlerent disciplines. As editors, we knew at the outset that no single prevailing perspective adequately responds to all of the diverse research questions which have been posed about the root causes, the specitic nature, and range of outcomes connected to work-family experiences. The answers to these questions, in large part, depend on how the issue is framed. Therefore, in a purposeful manner, we invited authors with a range of disciplinary orientations to contribute chapters to this handbook so that it could archive accumulated knowledge. But, more important, our hopes were to juxtapose ditlerent scholarly orientations to reveal the strengths and limitations of ditlerent intellectual traditions. We want to explicitly acknowledge there can be as much diversity within each discipline as there is between disciplines. For example, this handbook includes several chapters prepared by psychologists, including one with expertise in experimental psychology (see Deutsch, chapter 11), one in developmental and c1inical psychology (see Barnett & Gareis, chapter 10), and several in industrial organizational psychology (see Thompson, Beauvais, & Allen, chapter 14 and Kossek & Friede, chapter 29). Even though these authors share some common areas of disciplinary training, they have used different frameworks to explore different types of research questions. Furthermore, many social sciences and professional schools-including sociology, economics, and social work-embrace both the "macro" and the "micro." Within each

10

PITT-CATSOUPHES, KOSSEK, AND SWEET

discipline, the macro and micro perspectives typically reftect very different theoretical foundations (see discussion in Pitt-Catsouphes & Swanberg, chapter 16), For illustrative purposes, it may be useful to compare the frameworks typically adopted by scholars from two different disciplines: history and anthropology, Historians who conduct work-family research typically examine archiv al information to gain new insights about the patterns, trends, and interpretations of work-family experiences by different groups of people living in designated areas during specific, past time periods (see Boris & Lewis, chapter 4), Their perspectives not only introduce us to some of the work-family experiences of previous generations, but their findings can also facilitate a better understanding of today's situations as they are contextuaJized in the specific social, economic, and political circumstances of our time, Although the work of historians can intersect with those anthropologists who focus on past as weIl as current cultures, anthropologists often conduct in-person observations of unfolding practices and rituals in which individuals and families engage (at horne or at work) to gain a deep understanding of the interpretation and the enactment of belief systems, values, and expectations (see Richardson, chapter 8; Darrah, chapter 17, and Ochs, Graesch, Mittman, Bradbury, & Repetti, chapter 18), We hope that our readers will begin to make comparisons such as these between the chapters of this handbook so that the important different types of contributions of the disciplines become more salient Interestingly, our analytic reading of the chapters uncovered as much common ground among the disciplines as differences, We would like to bring some of these to your attention as weIL The concern of human development is sufficiently compelling that academics from many different disciplines adopt aspects of the life course perspective, As explained by sociologists Sweet & Moen (chapter 9), the Jife course perspective positions the experiences associated with life stages in different contexts: in the life of the person, in the life of the family, and in historical time. Child and family studies scholars as weil as developmental psychologists are also often interested in studying the experiences of family members at different life stages, paying particular attention to the effect of a range of work factors on the family relationships and outcomes as experienced by different types of families (see Zvonkovic, Notter, & Peters, chapter 7). Many work-family researchers use frameworks that place work-family experiences in different social contexts. Although there are many disciplinary variants of theories about social contexts, several of them echo a social ecology or person-in-environment point of view (see Pitt-Catsouphes & Swanberg, chapter 16). Industrial organizational psychologists and other organizational studies researchers often consider how the "employee" as a "person" responds to the workplace "environment" The person-in-environment framework is often adapted to examine the formal and informal aspects of the workplace environment and the impact on employees' work-family experiences (see Thompson, Beauvais, & Allen, chapter 14 as weIl as Bond & Galinsky, chapter 19). The person-in-environment framework also helps to inform the work of economists, for example, who focus on resources (such as money and time) that individuals and families access in different environments, including at the workplace, at horne, and in the community (see Drago & Golden, chapter 13). Finally, academics who focus on the macro societal context draw attention to the impact of institutional and societal changes-such as the rise of capitalism-on work-family issues (see Wharton, chapter 2). Another common thread, which follows the lead of demographers, is that academics trained in virtually every discipline ground their studies in the demographies that are related to work opportunities and/or family structures (e.g., see Farnsworth Riche, chapter 6; Wharton, chapter 2; and Marks, chapter 3). Demographers focus specific attention to the study of the characteristics of populations and often identify trends and changes in those characteristics over time. The simple observation that the composition of society is changing in terms of age, fertility, and

I.

CHARTlNG NEW TERRITORY

11

geographic location opens vistas of questions that span disciplinary boundaries. A very quick scan 01' work-family literature will demonstrate the impact that changing demographics have had on the field. Finally, we observed that aU the authors in this volume shared in common a pragmatic focus, and they oriented their questions and analyses to issues that are of critical importance to the functioning of workplaces and families. However, there is significant variation in the outcomes of interest to scholars from different disciplines. Those affiliated with organizational studies and management, for example, usually focus attention on outcomes that are related (directly or indirectly) to the bottom line and to business etTectiveness (see Hyland & Jackson, chapter 25; Kossek & Friede, chapter 29; Harrington & James, chapter 32). As one would expect, scholars in the area of child and family studies are particularly interested in the quality 01' relationships and developmental outcomes of work -family situations (see Z vonkovic, N otter, & Peters, chapter 7). An important development in the field is the presence 01' academics who are interested in both organizational and work-family outcomes; this is at the heart of the "dual agenda" articulated by Bailyn, Bookman, Harrington, and Kochan (chapter 31). Methods: As evidenced by the chapters in this handbook, the work-family field is not only multi-disciplinary; it is also multi-methodological. In fact, one 01' the beneficial outcomes 01' the multi-disciplinarity 01' the work-family field is that researchers have begun to share their methodological expertise. We have not been able to locate any academic literature published to date that discusses the range 01' methodologies used by researchers in the work-family field. Therefore, it is important to note that work-family researchers have begun to "experiment" with a number of different methods. For instance, sociologists and psychologists are as likely as economists and demographers to engage in time diary studies (see Schneider, chapter 22). Researchers in such diverse areas as organizational studies, policy studies, and child and family studies have used focus groups as a way to develop a deep understanding ofpeople's experiences and their interpretations 01' those experiences (see Smithson, chapter 20). Those trained in disciplines such as sociology and professional fields such as social work and management have found that case studies can help them to explore the relationships between work-family experiences as they unfold in difTerent social contexts (see Lewis, das Dores Guerreiro, & Brannen, chapter 23). Academics from virtually every social science discipline have begun to explore new analytic techniques, such as hierarchal linear modeling (HLM), to consider the relationships between work-family experiences at different analytic levels, such as individual experiences as they are "nested" in family experiences (see Swisher, chapter 26). Due to the intensive nature of longitudinal research, a smaller proportion of work-family studies have been designed to gather information over long periods of time; however, researchers from several disciplines and fie\ds, inc1uding child and family studies, psychology, and sociology, have used longitudinal studies to understand the trajectories and changing dynamics of work and family over time (see Crouter & Pirretti, chapter 21). Although historians such as Boris and Lewis (chapter 4) have perfected research strategies that identify and then analyze archival information, this approach to data collection and data interpretation has been adopted by other disciplines and fields inc1uding policy studies, management, and social work (see Lambert, chapter 24). The movement toward a sharing of methodological approaches across disciplines is evident in the increasing numbers of studies that have adopted mixed methods for gathering information about work-family experiences (see Neale, Hammer, & Morgan, chapter 28). It is perhaps to be expected that academics from different disciplines are also beginning to conduct secondary analyses of the same datasets, such as the National the Changing Workforce (Bond & Galinsky, chapter 19). Toward Change: Our analysis of this fourth component of the work-family field brings us back to our discussion of some of the societal changes that precipitated interest in workfamily issues in the first place. Among work-family researchers, there is a widely shared

12

PITT-CATSOUPHES. KOSSEK. AND SWEET

belief that additional change is possible that could enhance the well-being of working families. Several of the authors who have written chapters for this handbook discuss the equity and social justice implications of specific work-family circumstances. Sociologists, for instance, have contributed extensively to understanding how inequalities may shape and have differential impact on working people at horne and at work. Some sociologists have also begun to ex amine how simultaneous membership in different social groups, such as gender, race and class, can affect work-family experiences (see Gerstel & Sarkisian, chapter 12). Economists interested in equity explore the differential access that individuals and groups have to a range of resources and opportunities and the consequences of these differences (see Drago & Golden, chapter 13). And values related to social justice are at the core of analytic frameworks adopted by social workers who pay particular attention to the differences in opportunities as well as wellbeing of specific population groups (see Lambert, chapter 24; Pitt-Catsouphes & Swanberg, chapter 16). Given the proclivities of work-family researchers to remain vigilant for change opportunities, it is not surprising that scholars have examined the possibilities for change at the workplace as weIl as in society-at-Iarge. Academics such as Harrington and James (chapter 32), Kossek and Friede (chapter 29), and Bailyn, Bookman, Harrington, and Kochan (chapter 31) not only discuss avision for change but also detail strategies that can facilitate positive action. Other academics who study law, analyze policies, and examine workplace practices have provided insight about options for changes in public policy (see Still & Williams, chapter 15; Feldblum & Appleberry, chapter 30; Wolkinson & Ormiston, chapter 33). In some ways, our analysis across the chapters has co me full circle. While noting some ofthe differences voiced by the authors, we are impressed to see that there is also a remarkable overlap in the literatures cited in each chapter, the concepts used, and issues addressed. This supports our contention that the work-family field has developed into a multi-disciplinary endeavor. We wish to echo the observations ofThompson, Beauvais, and Allen about the extent of overlap between those in their field, industrial organizational psychology, and other disciplines. In chapter 14 they state, "Work-family research by IIO psychologists also overlaps with research by sociologists, developmental psychologist, social psychologists, anthropologists, economists, and social workers, as can be seen in the diversity of authors in this handbook." As the field further develops, scholars will need to be even more cognizant of, and willing to consider, the insights offered by various perspectives. Similarly, we will need to become more familiar with and use a greater variety of methodologies to gain new knowledge and understanding.

THE WORK-FAMIL Y HANDBOOK: A RESOURCE FOR THE WORK-FAMIL Y FIELD Being aware of the extent of scholarly interest in work-family issues, we decided to develop a handbook that could serve as a resource for researchers, teachers, and students who are interested in multi-disciplinary perspectives of a diverse range of work-family issues and experiences. It has been a gratifying experience to have engaged so many ofthe leading workfamily experts in this effort to publish the first Work-Family Handbook. In its entirety, this handbook offers readers a broad overview of important components of the state of knowledge in the work-family field. The idea for creating this handbook emerged from a group of scholars who were members of the Editorial Board of the Work-Family Encyclopedia, a peer-reviewed collection of scholarly literature overview articles prepared for faculty and students interested in the workfamily area of study (http://wfnetwork.bc.edu/encyclopedia.php?mode=nav). The Editorial

I.

CHARTING NEW TERRITORY

13

Board was aware that a number of edited work-family volumes had already been published Ce.g., Goldsmith, 1989; Zedeck, 1992; Frediksen-Goldsen & Scharlach, 2000; Kossek & Lambert, 2005a; Bianchi, Casper, & King, 2005). However, no single publication discussed the diverse nature of experiences people have at horne and at work, analyzed the work-family area of study horn diflerent disciplinary points of view, compared and contrasted different methodological approaches that have been used to build the work-family knowledge base, and linked research to work and family policy and to practice. We have organized the handbook into four sections that reftect these goals for this volume. We devoted Section I to critical discussions about the diversity of working families and different types of work situations that are present in the new economy of the 21 st century. As editors, we felt that it was essential to include chapters at the very beginning of the handbook that could help our readers carefully examine and raise questions about statements made about "average" work-family phenomena. We recognize that popular culture and mainstream media tend to focus on "central tendencies" (such as "average" work hours) and on the experiences of families who seem to resemble a particular family archetype. Simply put, the collective contributions represented in this volume suggest that it is problematic to propose any workfamily initiative, to study, or to advocate for the typical family. This fundamental observation is critical to the framing of research questions, the structuring of study designs, and to the dissemination of information to leaders at the workplace and in public policy arenas. In Seetion T, titled "Families and Jobs in the 21 st Century," readers will find articles that address two important issues, changes in work and the workforce and changes in families, which are related to significant societal changes as weIl as to the development of the workfamily field. In "Understanding Diversity of Work in the 21 st Century and Its Impact on the Work-Family Area of Study," Amy S. Wharton provides a window into several dimensions of diversity at the workplace. Throughout the chapter, Wharton encourages us to think carefully about the operational definitions of two constructs: "work" and "diversity." Reftecting sociological perspectives of stratification, Wharton focuses on three diversity variables: gender, race, and class. This provocative chapter considers some of the factors that affect diversity in the workplace, including underlying ideologies that shape our ideas about "who" should be at the workplace and wh at should they do, characteristics of jobs themselves, and even geography. Wharton deepens our understanding of diversity in several important ways. For example, rather than considering gender, race, and dass as if they were mutually exdusive categories, Wharton 's disCllssion explores the diversity within each of these categories of diversity, such as gender within race. This chapter also offers insights about the limitations of our understanding about diversity and work-family. As Wharton notes, although there is abundant literature about workforce diversity, there is surprisingly Iittle literature about the work-family experiences of diverse employees groups. Her comments about "the relative invisibility of family status and relation in studies of workplace diversity-with the exception of those focused on gen der and women" suggest that this is a fertile area for new research. Stephen Marks' s "U nderstanding Diversity of Families in the 21 st Century and Tts Ir.1pact on the Work-Family Area of Study" grounds us in diversity embedded in the "family" side of the "work-family" discussion. Marks opens his discussion with an anecdote that effectively challenges assumptions about the meanings we attach to the word "diversity." He continues this theme in the chapter as he ponders the meaning and interpretation of the notion of "the average family." Marks considers numerous dimensions offamily diversity, including household composition, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, age, gender, immigrant status, and income. Although he carefully points out "master trends" related to the diversity of American families, Marks also focuses our attention on some of the less visible aspects of diversity and links the hierarchies of diversity, such as class and age, with privileges and disadvantages. Marks also devotes several seetions of his chapter to an examination of the diversity within particular

14

PITT-CATSOUPHES, KOSSEK. AND SWEET

family groups. For example, he considers the implications of social class among gay/lesbian families and presents an argument for understanding the dass privilege among more highly educated gay/lesbian parents who tend to have more access to family-friendly policies and pro grams than other workers may. Finally, Marks opens an important line of inquiry about the relationships between family diversity and discrimination. He questions, "to what extent does occupational discrimination erode a person's sense of work-family balance?" This chapter presents a compelling case for the need to update our research questions, analyses, and interpretations of family diversity so that we capture the nuances which texture the experiences of working families. Section II introduces readers to a variety of perspectives that have been applied to the study of work and the family. We designed this section to support ongoing efforts within the academy to foster multi-disciplinary perspectives about work and the family and to facilitate a deeper understanding of these different points of view. Readers will find contributions by a demographer, family studies scholars, anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists, organizational analysts, legal scholars, and scholars of social work. Each of these perspectives reflects different intellectual schools of thought; however, the authors of these chapters iIlustrate how many academics are actively attempting to connect their perspectives to those of other fields. As editors of this handbook, we believe that the very nature of work-family research necessitates making this bridge across disciplines. We have induded descriptive summaries of each of these chapters in the Introduction to Section 11. Section I1I, "Methodological Approaches," provides overviews of some of the dominant methods used by work-family social scientists and highlights how researchers have used these methods to ex amine the connections between the family and the workplace. These chapters give readers a sense of the challenges as weIl as the rewards of studying families and jobs through ethnographies, videographies, surveys, focus groups, longitudinal studies, experience sampling methods, case studies, organizational archives, and the use of analytic approaches such as hierarchical linear modeling. It is our hope that researchers will be able to appreciate the strengths of each methodology and will consider strategically using different methods to create a more complete assessment of work and family experiences. The Introduction to Section III offers readers additional information about each chapter in this section. Finally, the chapters in Section IV discuss alternatives for advancing future policy and organizational change based on scholarship. As discussed in many of the chapters in this handbook, current job structures, career ladders, and governmental/legal policies are mismatched with respect to the needs of contemporary working families or their employers (see comments by Christensen in chapter 34). The chapters in Section IV focus on different approaches for making effective arguments or cases for institutional change, such as presenting different rationales or business cases for organizational reform, considering opportunities for legislative and regulator reform, partnering with business leaders to articulate standards for quality work-life initiatives, collaborating with groups at the workplace to introduce innovative interventions, and negotiating equitable resolutions in employer and family conflicts. The Sloan Foundation Program Officer, Kathleen Christensen, offers a conduding chapter in which she discusses the opportunities and constraints of multi-disciplinary perspectives. She suggests that the future successes of the work-family research community will, in part, reflect the extent to which scholars, practitioners, and poIicymakers can transcend traditional boundaries and work collaboratively to articulate an agenda for the advancement of the work and family field. We believe that scholars have an important and unique role in the efforts that will be made to address the work-family concerns of today and tomorrow. Recognizing that work-family studies now constitute a distinct academic field, we hope that this handbook is a useful resource to academics and their students.

1.

CHARTING NEW TERRITORY

15

REFERENCES Addams, J. (1999 [1912J). Twenty years at Hull-Hollse. New York: Signet Classics. Appelbaum, E., Berg, P., & Kalleberg, A. (2000). Balancing workand family: Effects ofhigh performance work systems and high-commitment workplaces. In E. Appelbaum (Ed.), Balancing acts: Easing the hurden & illlpmving the optiollsfor H'orkingful11ilies (pp. 115-124). Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute. Bailyn, L., & Harrington, M. (2004). Redesigning work for work-family integration. COlllll1unity, Work & Family, 7(2), 197-202. Batt, R., & Valcour, P. M. (2003). Human resource practices as predictors of work-family outcomes and employee turnover. [ndustriul Relations, 42(2), 189-220. Bayraktar, M., & Salman, M. (2003). Thc impact of family life on work efficiency: A study of employed women from different occupational statuses in a metropolitan area in Turkey. International Journal of ConsulIler Studies, 27( I), 80-86. Berg, P., Kalleberg, A., & Appelbaum, E. (2003). Balancing work and family: The role of high-commitment environments. Industrial Relations, 42(2), 168-188. Bianchi, S., CaspeL L., & King, R. (Eds.). (2005). Workforce/H'orkplaee mismatch? Work, .f(lll1ily, health, and weil beillg. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bihan, B. L., & Martin, C. (2004). Atypical working hours: Consequences for childcare arrangements. SOclal Poliey & Administration, 38(6), 565-590. Blair-Loy, M. & Wharton, A. (2002). Employees' use 01' work-family policies and the workplace social contexl. Social Fore'es, 80(3), 813-845. Brandes, S. D. (1976). Al1lerican H'el/äre capilalislIl, /889-/940. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Cousins, c., & Tang, N. (2004). Working time and work and family conflict in the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK. Work, Employment & Societ\; 18(3),531-549. Creamer, E., & Associates. (2001). Working equal: Academic couples us collaborators. New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Crouter, A. (November 1984). SpillllVer from family to work: Thc neglected side ofthe work-family interface. Human Relations, 37(6),425-442. Crouter. A" Bumplls, M., Head, M., & McHale, S. (200 I). Implications of overwork and overload for the qllality of men's family relationships. Journal of Marrillge (md Fall7ily, 63(2),404-416. DiMaggio, D., & Powell, W. (I 9X3). The iron cage rcvisited. Americal1 Sociological Rel'iew, 48, 147-160. Drago, R" & Kashian, R. (2003). Mapping thc terrain of work/family journals. Journal 01' Fami/y IsslIes, 24(4), 488-512. DlIBois, W. E. B. (1998 [1899]). The Philadelphia Negro: A social slud)'. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Engels, F. (1936 [1845 J). The cOl1dition oflhe ll'orking-class in Englal1d in 1844. New York: Allen & Unwin. Ferber, M" & Hotfman, E. S. (1997). Are acadcmic partners at a disadvantage" In M. Ferber & J. W. Loeb (Eds.), Amdemic cOllples: Problems ond pmmises. Chicago: University of !11inois Press. Frediksen-Goldsen, K., & Scharlach, A. (Eds.). (2000). Families and work: New directiol1s in the nventy~firsl centur)'. New York: Oxford University Press. Friedan, B. (1963). Thefeminil1e mystique. New York: Norton. Goldsmith, E. (1989). Work and/älllily: Theory research and applicotiolls. Thousand Oab., CA: Sage. Greenhaus, J. H. (1988). The intersection ofwork and family roles: Individual, interpersonal and organizational issues. In E. Goldsmith (Ed.), Work andfamil)': Theorv, research and appliealions (pp. 23-44). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Grzywacz, J., & Marks. N. (2000). Reconceptllalizing thc work-family interface: An ecological perspective on the correlates 01' positive and negative spillover bctwecn work and family. Journal oj'Occllpatio17ul Heulth Psychology, 5(1),111-126. Hili, J. E" Yang, c., Hawkins, A. J., & Ferris, M. (2004). A cross-cultural test of the work-family interface in 48 countries. Journal of Marriage ami Fllmil.", 66(5), 1300-1316. Jacobs, J" & Gerson, K. (2004). The time divide: Work, .!(m1ily (md genrler inequality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Jansen, N., KanL 1., Kristensen, L & Nijhllis, F. (2003). Antecedents and consequences of work-family conflicl: A prospective co hort stucly. Journal ofOccupational and Environlllental Medicine, 45(5), 479-491. Jary, D., & Jary, J. (1991). The HarperCollins soci%gy dictionarv. New York: HarperCollins. Kanter. R. (1977a). Work and/illllÜY in the Uniled States: A aitieul rn'iew ami agenda.!i)r research (lI1d poliey. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Kanter, R. (1977b). Men and lVOlllen ofthe c0/7)Omtion. New York: Basic Books. Kossek, E., & Lambert, S. (2005a). Introduction. "Work-family scholarship": Voice and context. In E. Kossek and S. Lambert (Eds.), Work and life integration: orgalli~atiollal, cultural, and individual Perspect;ves (pp. i-xx). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrcnce Erlbaum Associates.

16

PITT-CATSOUPHES, KOSSEK, AND SWEET

Kossek, E .. & Lambert S. (2005b). Work alld lire il1legration: Org{/ni~.atiollal, cultural, ami individual perspectives, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Labor Project for Working Families. (2004). http://www,laborproject.org/. Lewis, S., & Cooper. C. (2005). Work-life integmtion: Case studies oforgani~atiollal change. Chichester. UK: Wiley, Moen, P.. & Sweet, S. (2003). Time cJocks: Couples' work ho ur strategies. In P. Moen (Ed.), /t's ab(!lIt time: Career strains, strategie.I·, and successes (pp. 17-34). Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Nordenmark, M. (2002). Multiple social roJes-a resourcc or a burden: Is it possible for men and women to combine work with family life in a satisfactory way" GendeI: ll' economic dogma is destroying American prosperity. New York: Thunder's Mouth Press. Florida. R. L. (2002). The risc olthe creatil'e e/ass: And how it's transforming work, leislIre, community and evcryday Iile. New York: Basic Books. Foley, D. H. (1989). Does the working c\ass have a culture in the anthropological sense? Cultllral anthropology, 4(May).136-159. Fortes, M. (1987). Religion, moralitv, and the person: Essays on Tallensi religion. Cambridge, England; New York: Cambridge University Press. Frankenberg, R. (1982). Custom alld conflict in British society. Manchester Atlantic Highlands. NJ: Manchester University Press. Distributed in the USA by Humanities Press. Franklin, S., & McKinnon, S. (2001). Relative mlues: Reconjiguring kinship studies. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Freeman, C. (2000). High tech alld high hecls in the glohal e('onomy: Womcn, work. and pink-collar identities inthe Carihhean. Durham. NC: Duke Universily Press. Freud. S. (1975 rl922 J).GroIiP ps)'chology and the analysis of the ego. New York: Norton. Gabriel, Y. (1998). Psychoanalytic contributions to the ,tudy of the emotional life of organizations. Administration (md Society. 30(3),291-315. Gamst. F. C. (1980). The hoghead: An industrial ethnology ol the locomotive engineer. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Gatewood. J. B. (1985). Actions speak louder than words. In J. W. D. Dougherty (Ed.). Directions in cognitive lInthropology. University of TIIinois Press (pp.-) Geertz, C. (1973). The il1lerpretation ol cultl/res: Seleeted essays. New York: Basic Books. Goffman. E. (1964). The neglected situation. ilmerican Anthropologist, 66(6), 133-136. Goldschmidt, W. (1947). As roll sow. New York: Harcourt Brace. Gouldner, A. W. (1954). Palterns oj'indllstrial hureaucracy. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Gouldner, A. W. (1965). Wildeat strike: A studv in >l'orker-management relationships. New York: Harper & Row. Graham. L. (1993). Inside a Japanese transplant: A critical perspective. Work and Occupations, 20,147-173. Graham. L. (1995). On the line at Suharu-Isu:u: The Japanese model aml the American >l'orker. lthaca, NY: ILR Press. Gregory. K. L. (1983). Native view paradigms: Multiple cultures and culture confticts in organizations. Administrative Sciem'e Quartal\', 28(3), 359-376. Grenier. G. J. (1988).lnhumall relations. Quality eire/es {md anti-unionism in American industry. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

186

RICHARDSON

Hakken, D, (1999), Cl'borgs @ cyherspoce:',' An I'lhnographer looks to Ihe ji/illre, New York: Routledge. Hakken, D., & Andrews, B. (1993). COlJlpllting II/Ylhs, dos.\ rl'olilil',l: An elhnograph,\' of' techllology and \\'orking people in Sheffield. EnglalleI. Boulder, CD: Westview, Halle, D, (1984). Americo's working II/on, Work, l1ome, ond polilin oll/ong hllle-collar propeny OH'ners, Chieago: University of Chicago Press. Hamada, T., & Sibley, W, E, (1994). Anthro/)ologiml pCl'speui\'c,\ on orgonicoti/lnol cllltlire. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of Ameriea, Handelman, D. (1976). Re-thinking "banana time": SYlllbolie integration in a work setting. Urholl Lij'e. 4(4), 433447. Harper. D, A, (1987). Working knowledge: Ski II ond commllliitl' in 0 smoll shop, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Herbert. C. (1991). Culture ond onomie: Elhnographie ill/agination in Ihe ninetcenth centIIr)'. Chicago: University of Chieago Press, Hochschild, A. R. (1997). The time hind: When \mrk hecomes I/OII/e ({nd IlI))ne hemme.\' \l'ork (I st ed,). New York: Metropolitan Books, Jacoby, S. M, (1997). Modem manon: Welf.936-945. Ahmeduzzaman. M .. & Roopnarine, J. (1992). Sociodemographic factors. functioning style, social support. and fathers' involvement with preschoolcrs in African-American families . .10111'1101 of Marriagc allel/he Family, 54, 699-707.

258

GERSTEL ANO SARKISIAN

Aldous, J" Klaus, E., & Klein, O. M. (19gS). The understanding heart: Aging parents and their favorite children. Child De\'elopment, 56, 303-316. Almaguer, T. (1994). Racial jelliit lil1e.\: The hislori Did you feel in control ofthe situation? rtiij;;thi!·~~i~~:iJ.:t~:~oJ()~·~Ij;OOe~or·to.

aet?

0 0 0

'NohtAll 'NohtAll 1

2

1 I

Z.

'NohtAll

0 0

1 1 1

.2

3 3 3 3 3 3

0

2

2 2

Did you have the abilities to deal with the situation? w.liS·iie··~~1;i:V~•.~~~'tt&Ylln? Were others expecting a lot from you?

0

1

2

3

0 0

2

~.

:;

2

2

W~~ytilii·JU~tfdi..qJ:l;l~!.I.t:y~w~jj:dQing1

0

2

2

Did vou wish vou were doing something else? I)iiji.öut~~·.jij~aliriijtloilri;elf!

0 0

2

t

FIG. 22.1. The Experience Sampling Method (ESM) form.

2

t

3

3 3 3

22.

473

IN THE MOMENT: THE EXPERIENCE SAMPLING METHOD

How did you feel as you were beeped?{F()re\'~!Y_PlliL()L()pp()~it~s., pl~lI~~ _(;i_r(;I ~()IllY_()Ilt:_~1ot

~PM

teen

i!

'a:"

...

0

'"a: '"

0 u

'"

-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2 TIME

FIG_ 22.2_ Experience Sampling Method (ESM) reports of individual enjoyment (scaled as a z score relative to a personal mean) in an evening after work for mother, father, and adolescent.

includes place and activity codes, it is possible to determine what activities the family members were engaged in during each emotional state. Using the place and activity codes, at 4:56 P.M., the teenager was in the family room watehing television, the mother was in the horne office writing and helping another child in the family, and the father was in the kitchen cooking while talking to the teenager watehing television. The mother reports that writing was her primary activity while helping her child was secondary; the father indicated that cooking was his primary activity and talking was secondary. With the "who with" item, we are also able to learn that the father was talking with the teenager, who at the same time was watehing television. The teenager, however, did not indicate that he was talking to his father. At 5:53 P.M. the father continues cooking, but the mother has moved into the family room and is talking with the children. The teenager is engaged in general cleaning, which may account for his sharp decrease in enjoyment. By 7: 11 P.M., the father has moved into the horne office and is on the Internet engaged in job-related work. This decline in enjoyment while working at horne is fairly consistent across mothers and fathers. Overall. when a mother or father is engaged in job-related work at horne, he or she does not reap the same positive affective and cognitive benefits found when engaged in tasks at work (Schneider & Waite, 2005). By 7:00 P.M., the mother is now in the kitchen doing the dishes, and her enjoyment has clearly dropped from 5:53 P.M. when she was talking with her children. This is also fairly consistent with other trends in the 500 Family Study; that is, housework is a task disliked by aB family members, and mood tends to be positive only when the whole family is involved in the task (Lee, 2005). The teenager is in the bathroom taking care of personal grooming, which may account for an increase in enjoyment. At the time of the last beep, both mother and father are in their bedroom wate hing a drama on television, and the teenager has returned to the living mom and is also watehing television.

22.

IN THE MOMENT: THE EXPERIENCE SAMPLING METHOD

479

0.5

I

o 7:30AM

11:32 AM

2;37

P~

3 ;14 PM

6:38 PM

6:38 PM

9:09 PM

ii c: o

i!!

8.

.!! -0.5

z"

!!

dad

~

mom

> Cl. Cl.

~ a:

-1

...a:~ o ~

'" -1.5 -2 TIME

FIG.22.3. Experience Sampling Method (ESM) reports of individual happiness (scaled as a zscore relative to a personal mean) for a couple with similar levels of happiness throughout a regular day.

COMPARING COUPLES USING THE ESM One advantage of using the ESM in a family is the ability to analyze triads, dyads, and individuals and examine different types of families. In the 500 Family Study, there are approximately 235 couples with children who have ESM measures that can be analyzed as triads or dyads. What is perhaps somewhat surprising is that many family and couple studies fail to extract information from all family members at the same time. A notable exception is the excellent work by Larson and Richards (1994), who have examined the emotional spillovers and crossovers among fathers, mothers, and children in the same family. Studying couples can provide extraordinarily rich insights into the constancy and dissonance of emotion to similar situations, thus allowing a more penetrating look into issues of gender and the division of household labor. In the next example, Figs. 22.3 and 22.4 show for the same couple over the course of a day two emotional states--one positive (happiness) and one negative (frustration). Wh at is most interesting is how similar their positive and negative emotional patterns are regardless of the activities in which they are engaged. In examining the emotional worlds of couples, Koh (2005) found that they appear to be more similar than when comparisons are made at the individual level, suggesting aselection effect; that is, people who are similar in emotional makeup te nd to marry each other. Alternatively, over many years of sharing life together, spouses may beC()me more alike in the emotional experiences. In this example, when the beeping begins at 7:30 A.M., Dad is engaged in general cleaning and Mom is in the bathroom. At ll :30 A.M., Dad is at work talking over business matters with his coworker and Mom is at home talking in her office. These experiences for both the mother and father are reported as enjoyable and low on frustration. These patterns are also evident at 2:37 P.M., when Dad is in the mailroom faxing a document and Mom is at horne preparing for a meeting. Forty-five minutes JeHer, Mom is continuing to prepare for her meeting and Dad is

480

SCHNEIDER 3

2.5

i

I S

2

1.5

1

I

·1

_

0.5

i Cl

...

dad

mom

11:

I...

o

7:30AM

11:32 AM

2:37 Pli

3:14PM

6:38 PM

el!7 PM

9:09 PM

-

Conforming Individual

5 -

Sell-Directed Individual

4 -

w

2

1-

0 Horne

Woll