Full-time hours, part-time work: questioning the sufficiency of working hours as a measure of employment status

IF 1.9 Q2 SOCIOLOGY
Clare Stovell, J. Besamusca
{"title":"Full-time hours, part-time work: questioning the sufficiency of working hours as a measure of employment status","authors":"Clare Stovell, J. Besamusca","doi":"10.1080/13668803.2021.1991888","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Although distinctions between full-time and part-time work are vital for understanding inequalities at work and home, consensus and critical reflection are lacking in how employment status should be defined. Full-time and part-time work are often represented as a binary split between those working under or over a specific number of hours. However, this paper, using exploratory mixed methods, evidences problems with assumptions based on working-hour thresholds and highlights the importance of workplace culture and household contexts. Using the UK Labour Force Survey we reveal ambiguities in the reporting of employment status for 12% of workers when comparing definitions based on number of working days, working hours and self-assessment. Ambiguities are particularly prevalent among working mothers with almost a third, who would be regarded as working full-time using hour-based measures, classified as ambiguous according to the measures used here. In-depth interviews with parents who self-classify as part-time workers, despite working over 35 hours a week, reveal mechanisms behind ambiguity within this group linked to organisational norms, previous working hours and divisions of household labour. The paper therefore argues workplace and household contexts are crucial to understanding employment status and recommends this should be taken into account in new multidimensional measures.","PeriodicalId":47218,"journal":{"name":"Community Work & Family","volume":"69 1","pages":"63 - 83"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Community Work & Family","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2021.1991888","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

ABSTRACT Although distinctions between full-time and part-time work are vital for understanding inequalities at work and home, consensus and critical reflection are lacking in how employment status should be defined. Full-time and part-time work are often represented as a binary split between those working under or over a specific number of hours. However, this paper, using exploratory mixed methods, evidences problems with assumptions based on working-hour thresholds and highlights the importance of workplace culture and household contexts. Using the UK Labour Force Survey we reveal ambiguities in the reporting of employment status for 12% of workers when comparing definitions based on number of working days, working hours and self-assessment. Ambiguities are particularly prevalent among working mothers with almost a third, who would be regarded as working full-time using hour-based measures, classified as ambiguous according to the measures used here. In-depth interviews with parents who self-classify as part-time workers, despite working over 35 hours a week, reveal mechanisms behind ambiguity within this group linked to organisational norms, previous working hours and divisions of household labour. The paper therefore argues workplace and household contexts are crucial to understanding employment status and recommends this should be taken into account in new multidimensional measures.
全职工作时间,兼职工作:质疑工作时间作为衡量就业状况的充分性
虽然全职和兼职工作之间的区别对于理解工作和家庭中的不平等至关重要,但在如何定义就业状态方面缺乏共识和批判性反思。全职工作和兼职工作通常表现为工作时间少于或超过特定时间的人之间的二元分裂。然而,本文使用探索性混合方法,证明了基于工作时间阈值的假设存在问题,并强调了工作场所文化和家庭背景的重要性。利用英国劳动力调查,我们在比较基于工作日数、工作时间和自我评估的定义时,揭示了12%工人就业状况报告中的模糊性。歧义在职业母亲中尤其普遍,几乎有三分之一的母亲按照以小时为基础的衡量标准被视为全职工作,根据本文使用的衡量标准,她们被归类为歧义。对那些自认为是兼职工人的父母进行了深入采访,尽管他们每周工作超过35小时,揭示了这一群体内部模糊背后的机制,这种模糊与组织规范、以前的工作时间和家庭劳动分工有关。因此,该论文认为,工作场所和家庭环境对于了解就业状况至关重要,并建议在新的多维措施中考虑到这一点。
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
5.10
自引率
4.30%
发文量
32
×
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