Understanding the liminal situation of lone‐parent and blended families—A review and agenda for work–family research

IF 7.5 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS
Anneke Schaefer, Caroline Gatrell, Laura Radcliffe
{"title":"Understanding the liminal situation of lone‐parent and blended families—A review and agenda for work–family research","authors":"Anneke Schaefer, Caroline Gatrell, Laura Radcliffe","doi":"10.1111/ijmr.12388","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This review takes a transdisciplinary approach to work–family (WF) research, offering new perspectives on different family forms in the context of employment. It focuses on lone‐parents and blended families, highlighting how management research on the WF interface has been constrained by traditional definitions of ‘family’, assuming intact couple relationships. The review shows that the WF experiences of lone‐parents and blended families differ significantly from those of traditional or nuclear families. Our findings demonstrate that blended and lone‐parent families struggle with conventional WF policies based on traditional family forms. These families face four main challenges: (1) complex residential arrangements and relationships with co‐parents; (2) managing (limited) resources; (3) navigating stigma; and (4) narrow cultural scripts defining family roles. Utilizing cross‐domain identity transition theory, we question the traditional ideas at the core of current WF theory. We demonstrate that non‐traditional families occupy a ‘liminal’ WF space due to their more fluid parental, occupational and household identities compared to traditional families. We urge employers and policy makers to recognize and address the distinct WF challenges faced by lone‐parents and blended families. Employers should develop flexible working policies that accommodate complex residential arrangements and provide resources to support lone and blended family structures. Policy makers should consider revising family leave policies to be more inclusive of diverse family forms. Future research should further explore the diverse experiences of employed parents, including those from LGBTQIA+ communities, using our framework, which encourages researchers to think differently regarding existing WF theories through the consideration of our four themes.","PeriodicalId":48326,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Management Reviews","volume":"70 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Management Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12388","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This review takes a transdisciplinary approach to work–family (WF) research, offering new perspectives on different family forms in the context of employment. It focuses on lone‐parents and blended families, highlighting how management research on the WF interface has been constrained by traditional definitions of ‘family’, assuming intact couple relationships. The review shows that the WF experiences of lone‐parents and blended families differ significantly from those of traditional or nuclear families. Our findings demonstrate that blended and lone‐parent families struggle with conventional WF policies based on traditional family forms. These families face four main challenges: (1) complex residential arrangements and relationships with co‐parents; (2) managing (limited) resources; (3) navigating stigma; and (4) narrow cultural scripts defining family roles. Utilizing cross‐domain identity transition theory, we question the traditional ideas at the core of current WF theory. We demonstrate that non‐traditional families occupy a ‘liminal’ WF space due to their more fluid parental, occupational and household identities compared to traditional families. We urge employers and policy makers to recognize and address the distinct WF challenges faced by lone‐parents and blended families. Employers should develop flexible working policies that accommodate complex residential arrangements and provide resources to support lone and blended family structures. Policy makers should consider revising family leave policies to be more inclusive of diverse family forms. Future research should further explore the diverse experiences of employed parents, including those from LGBTQIA+ communities, using our framework, which encourages researchers to think differently regarding existing WF theories through the consideration of our four themes.
了解单亲家庭和混合家庭的边缘状况--工作-家庭研究回顾与议程
本综述采用跨学科的方法进行工作-家庭(WF)研究,为就业背景下的不同家庭形式提供了新的视角。它以单亲家庭和混合家庭为重点,强调了有关工作-家庭界面的管理研究如何受到传统 "家庭 "定义的限制,即假定完整的夫妻关系。综述显示,单亲家庭和混合家庭的 WF 体验与传统家庭或核心家庭的 WF 体验大相径庭。我们的研究结果表明,混合家庭和单亲家庭与基于传统家庭形式的传统 WF 政策作斗争。这些家庭面临着四大挑战:(1)复杂的居住安排以及与共同父母的关系;(2)管理(有限的)资源;(3)克服耻辱感;以及(4)定义家庭角色的狭隘文化脚本。利用跨领域身份转换理论,我们对当前 WF 理论核心的传统观点提出了质疑。我们证明,与传统家庭相比,非传统家庭的父母身份、职业身份和家庭身份更具流动性,因此他们占据了一个 "边缘 "的 WF 空间。我们敦促雇主和政策制定者认识到并解决单亲家庭和混合家庭所面临的独特的 WF 挑战。雇主应制定灵活的工作政策,以适应复杂的居住安排,并提供资源支持单亲和混合家庭结构。政策制定者应考虑修订家事假政策,使其对不同的家庭形式更具包容性。未来的研究应利用我们的框架进一步探索就业父母的不同经历,包括那些来自 LGBTQIA+ 社区的父母,该框架鼓励研究人员通过考虑我们的四个主题,对现有的 WF 理论进行不同的思考。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
14.60
自引率
7.40%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Management Reviews (IJMR) stands as the premier global review journal in Organisation and Management Studies (OMS). Its published papers aim to provide substantial conceptual contributions, acting as a strategic platform for new research directions. IJMR plays a pivotal role in influencing how OMS scholars conceptualize research in their respective fields. The journal's reviews critically assess the state of knowledge in specific fields, appraising the conceptual foundations of competing paradigms to advance current and future research in the area.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信