Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Community, Work & Family is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Community, Work & Family is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Community, Work & Family is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Community, Work & Family is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Community, Work & Family is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Community, Work & Family is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Community, Work & Family is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Community, Work & Family is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper presents a profile of the comparative economic, social and demographic characteristics of people from minority ethnic groups living in England and Wales, mainly using data from the 2001 Census of Population. The paper starts by briefly discussing the question of social cohesion and material progress for minority ethnic groups, whose migration to the UK was relatively recent. The relative youth, geographical concentration and economic disadvantage of these ethnic groups are presented as key characteristics for their social inclusion and social cohesion. Contrasts between ethnic groups in demography, family composition, social structure and labour market participation are discussed, highlighting the continued disadvantage of minority ethnic groups taken as a whole relative to white people, but also the economic progress of some ethnic groups. Cet article présente une comparaison des caractéristiques économiques, sociales et démographiques de la population originaires des minorités ethniques résidant en Angleterre et au Pays de Galles, utilisant surtout des données du recensement de la population de 2001. Je commence par poser la question de la cohésion sociale et du progrès matériel pour les minorités ethniques dont la migration au Royaume Uni est relativement récente. La jeunesse, la concentration démographique et les désavantages économiques de ces groupes par rapport à la population totale sont présentés comme des caractéristiques clés pour effectuer leur inclusion et leur cohésion sociales. Les contrastes entre les groupes ethniques en matière de démographie composition familiale, structure sociale et participation au marché du travail sont exposés, en soulignant les désavantages persistants des minorités ethniques par rapport à la population blanche, mais mention est également faite des progrès économiques de certains groupes ethniques. groupes ethniques minoritaires, recensement, démographie, structure familiale, cohésion sociale, désavantage économique [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is now widely accepted that the risk of unemployment has increased with the growth of flexible working practices in the UK and other European countries. Important questions, however, are raised about the extent to which these risks are understood by individuals and families in what has been termed the 'risk society' and, if perceived, how risks are managed both in terms of responses within the workplace and the family. These questions are central at a time when welfare provision is undergoing restructuring and an increasing emphasis is being placed on the market and individualised responses. This paper explores these issues, drawing on 90 qualitative interviews with members of 50 employed households in England. The study shows that individuals and families make complex assessments of labour market risk which do not necessarily accord with more objective measures and assumptions made at a policy level, and that they are not always willing or able to protect themselves. It concludes that current labour and welfare policies, together, leave many families, particularly those in lower socio-economic groups, vulnerable to the impacts of a flexible labour market, and that these realities need to be better incorporated into the risk society thesis. Aujourd'hui il est generalement admis que les risques du chomage ont augmente avec le developpement des pratiques de l'emploi flexible au Royaume Uni et dans d'autres pays europeens. Cependant d'importantes questions sont posees pour savoir comment ces risques son compris par les individus et les familles dans ce qu'on appelle 'la societe a risque', et lorsqu'ils sont compris, comment sont-ils geres dans le cadre du travail et de la famille. Ces questions sont d'un interet primordial a un moment ou on assiste a la restructuration de l'aide sociale et ou l'accent est mis sur les reponses individuelles et celles du marche. Cet article aborde ces questions a partir de 90 entretiens qualitatifs avec les membres de 50 familles salariees en Angleterre. Les resultats de cette etude montrent que les individus et les familles font des evaluations complexes des risques du marche de l'emploi qui ne correspondent pas toujours aux mesures objectives et aux previsions emises au niveau de la politique generale, et qu'ils ne sont pas toujours disposes ou en mesure d'assurer leur propre protection. En conclusion, il apparait que les politiques actuelles de l'emploi et de la protection sociale laissent de nombreuses familles, notamment celles des groupes socio-economiques defavorises, a la merci des effets du marche de l'emploi flexible et qu'il est necessaire de mieux integrer ces realites dans la these de la societe a risque. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Community, Work & Family is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Community, Work & Family is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Community, Work & Family is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Using data from the first wave of the Millennium Cohort Study, covering a large birth cohort of children in the UK at age 8 to 12 months, this paper examines the effects of leave-taking and work hours on fathers' involvement in four specific types of activities: being the main caregiver; changing diapers; feeding the baby; and getting up during the night. We also investigate the effects of policies on fathers' leave-taking and work hours. We find that taking leave and working shorter hours are related to fathers being more involved with the baby, and that policies affect both these aspects of fathers' employment behaviour. Thus, we conclude that policies that provide parental leave or shorter work hours could increase fathers' involvement with their young children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reflects on families, ethnic communities and social capital in Great Britain. It mentions that Great Britain in the contemporary period, generally, is thought to be a multi-cultural society, manifesting a wide and rich variety of family forms, customs and traditions, and close and continuing links with extensive kinship networks and ethnology extending to, or originating in, a number of other European countries such as South and East Asia, Africa, the Caribbean and other parts of the world.

This paper examines how Caribbean young people utilize community and family networks to re-affirm notions of cultural, ethnic and family belonging. At a community level, this occurs through Caribbean young people's participation in black-led institutions and agencies within their local communities and neighbourhoods. At a family level, the young people are involved in kinship activities and practices that develop and maintain social networks at localized and transnational levels. Bonding social capital operates as a valuable social resource, which embeds the young people within their family and community networks. It also provides a platform from which they can bridge, and access relationships and resources, across diverse ethnic groups. The analysis shows that these young people's desire for kinship and cultural belonging must be understood within the wider context of social exclusion and disadvantage in British society. However, there are some negative consequences associated with bonding social capital for the individual, family and society. The discussion is based on qualitative interviews with 30 second and third generation Caribbean young people (age between 16 and 30 years old), and their views concerning family and community in ethnic identity formation. Cet article examine la manière dont les jeunes d'origine caribéenne utilisent les réseaux de famille et de communauté pour ré affirmer des concepts d'appartenance culturelle, ethnique et familiale. Au niveau de la communauté ceci se fait à travers la participation des jeunes aux institutions et organismes dirigés par des Noirs à l'intérieur de leur communauté locale et son voisinage. Au niveau de la famille, les jeunes sont impliqués dans des activités et des pratiques de parenté qui développent et maintiennent en vie des réseaux sociaux au niveau local et transnational. La formation de liens affectifs en tant que capital social constitue une ressource sociale appréciable qui incorpore les jeunes dans les réseaux de famille et de communauté. Ceci fournit également une plateforme d'où ils accèdent à des relations et des ressources à travers divers groupes ethniques. L'analyse démontre que le désir d'appartenance culturelle et familiale pour ces jeunes doit être compris dans le contexte plus large de l'exclusion sociale et la discrimination dans la société britannique. Cependant il existe quelques conséquences négatives associées à la formation de liens affectifs en tant que capital social pour l'individu, la famille et la société. Cette discussion est fondée sur des entretiens de qualité avec une trentaine de jeunes du deuxième et troisième génération d'origine caribéenne (âgés entre 16–30 ans), qui expriment leurs idées en ce qui concernent la famille et la communauté dans la formation d'identité ethnique. Caribéen, famille, communauté, formation de liens affectifs en tant que capital social, identité, ethnique, jeunes [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Community, Work & Family is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Currently, public notions of community, work and family are enmeshing with concepts of citizenship to reconstruct various contexts and foundations for welfare reform in the UK. More specifically, paid work has become central to notions of ‘good’ citizenship, ‘good’ parenting and ‘strong’ communities within debates about welfare reform. This has the effect of re-defining parenting as a non-working activity. Consequently, single mothers who claim welfare benefits are in danger of being positioned as ‘partial’ citizens and their daily practices of citizenship which lie outside of those recognised by the state, rendered invisible. Conversely, in this paper, I will exemplify the ways in which the members of a national single parent organisation are constructing their own relationships between community, work and family and through this process are engaging in building citizenship practices (in local, national and international arenas). Conceptos de comunidad, trabajo y familia enlazan con conceptos de ciudadania para (re)construir varios contextos y fundamentos de reformas de asistencia social en el Reino Unido. Específicaments, en los debates de reformas de asistencia social, el trabajo pagado se ha puesto al centro de nociones de ‘buena’ ciudadanía, ‘buena’ crianza de los hijos y comunidades ‘fuertes’. Ha ofrecido como resultado la redefinición de la crianza de los hijos como actividad no laboral. Por consiguiente, las madres solteras que reclaman prestaciones sociales corren el peligro de verse posicionadas como ciudadanas ‘parciales’, y de hacerse invisible sus prácticas diarias de ciudadanía, que quedan fuera de las reconocidas por el estado. A la inversa, en este artículo, enfocado en los socios de una organización nacional de padres solteros, ejemplificaré como recontruyen sus propias relaciones entre comunidad, trabajo y familia, y como, por medio de este proceso, se ocupan de contruir prácticas de ciudadanía (a nivel local, nacional e internacional). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hidden economy working amongst unemployed people can be defined in terms of working for financial gain without declaration for tax purposes while also claiming social welfare benefits. The extent, nature, and experience of hidden economy working among the unemployed in Britain is, as yet, little understood. As part of an in-depth interview study of 44 long-term unemployed men, 17 of the men talked about their experiences of working in the hidden economy. This paper reports on the extent, nature and experience of hidden economy working amongst these long-term unemployed men, and the meaning of such work to them, their families and local community. The complex matrix of feelings (including guilt, anxiety and pleasure), combined with the financial gains, fear of losing welfare benefit and the ability to practise work-related skills contributed to creating a lifeworld for these men which had implications for their experience of family and community life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, we considered women's experiences of undertaking Higher Education (HE) study (Foundation Degree in Early Years (EY)) drawing on research based in the North of England, UK. The study, informed by a social constructionist approach, explored 10 women's experiences of work–life balance (WLB) and well-being alongside HE study through semi-structured interviews. A focus group explored women's personal perceptions of WLB and well-being. The findings were analysed thematically and we argue that the formation of a third sphere of commitment (HE study) disrupted WLB and created some disequilibrium, which impacted upon the women's well-being. The women underwent a transformative process as initial academic inexperience and lack of belonging in University was replaced by confidence and student identity. This transformation was made possible through personal adaptations, diverse strategies and motivation that indicated individual and collective resilience. One noticeable strategy involved the overlapping of commitment spheres, including HE study taking place at home. While being challenging to manage, this contributed to an important cultural shift as study became normal for households, creating the 'learning family'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study uses the British Household Panel Survey to assess how working conditions affect union dissolution, distinguishing between cohabiting and married couples. While previous studies focus on labour income and measures related to working time, we address three new working conditions of the 24/7 economy, namely temporary employment, promotion opportunities, and job responsibility. We find important differences between married and cohabiting couples. In general, married partners have stronger relationship commitments, but they also tend to be more specialized, have greater job security, higher income, and lack of job responsibility, all of which appear to protect the marriage union. In contrast, those in cohabiting unions are more susceptible to demanding working conditions when these are experienced by both partners. Part-time employment and irregular work schedules put cohabitation at risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Community, Work & Family is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article provides an examination of the contradictory conceptions of community and the misrepresentation of economic migration which have informed the UK Labour government's ‘modernisation’ of immigration and asylum policy. It does so by providing an outline of the provisions of the 1999 UK Immigration and Asylum Act—in particular the new support system for asylum seekers—and by examining the thinking which informs and justifies the legislation. It argues that UK immigration and asylum policy has continued to draw on notions of community which, in an unacknowledged way, relate to the categories of nation and ‘race’. It also argues that asylum policy is built on an ideological construction of the ‘economic migrant’ which is wholly misleading and lacks any serious evidential support. The article concludes that there is a continued, although unacknowledged, adherence to a version of British nationalism based on an ‘imagined community’ of nation which has long racialised particular groups of migrants and their descendants. The result is to maintain and modernise the racism of UK immigration controls. Este artículo ofrece una examen de los conceptos contradictorios de comunidad y de la tergiversación de la migración por razones económicas que han informado la modernización de la política del gobierno laborista del Reino Unido en cuanto a inmigración y asilo. Facilita el examen por un resumen de las disposiciones de la ley 1999 UK Immigration and Asylum Act—en particular el nuevo sistema de apoyo para los que buscan asilo—y por un examen del pensar que informa y justifica la legislación. Sostiene que la política del Reino Unido en materia de inmigración y asilo sigue haciendo uso de nociones de comunidad que, de una manera no reconocida, están relacionadas con categorías de nación y raza. También sostiene que la política en cuanto a asilo se basa en una construcción ideológica del ‘migrante por razones económicas’ que es a la vez engañosa y falta de pruebas serias. El artículo concluye que existe una adhesión continua, pero no reconida, a una versión de británico que se basa en una ‘comunidad imaginada’ de nación que por mucho tiempo ha discriminado por raza a ciertos grupos de migrantes y a sus descendientes. El resultado es el mantener y modernizar el racismo del control de immigración del Reino Unido. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the link between women and domestic responsibility. It presents samples of couples who tried to share housework in Great Britain, during the early 1990s. The article also discusses the conceptualization of a wider definition of domestic responsibility and of community. An argument saying that the community is more than a social institution, but an institutional arena in which families, inter-household relations, social networks, and community activities occur, is also presented.

Copyright of Community, Work & Family is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Community, Work & Family is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Community, Work & Family is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Community, Work & Family is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Community, Work & Family is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Community, Work & Family is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Community, Work & Family is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Academics, policy makers, and practitioners are slow to listen to the needs and experiences of poor people, even about their experiences of poverty [P. Beresford & S. Croft (1995) It's our problem too! Challenging the exclusion of poor people from poverty discourse. Critical Social Policy Issue, 44/45, 75-95]. Angela is a young middle-aged British woman who has survived numerous traumatic personal, family and social experiences. She has read copies of this journal and is convinced that discussions between academics, professionals, policy makers and poor people will lead to better mutual understanding, a view reflected in a recent multinational project [ATD Fourth World (1999) Introducing the knowledge of people living in poverty into an academic environment: Synopsis. London: ATD Fourth World UK]. Through discussions with one of the editors, Angela has contributed this account which highlights the emotional aspects of being at the receiving end of public services as well as of becoming active in a community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Community, Work & Family is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article reflects on issues related to job security and fulfillment in Great Britain. It discusses how changes in the patterns of employment resulted to work insecurity, which led to the creation of trade unions among the working population that aims to ensure security of employment. It also discusses several factors that contributed to employment insecurity, which include corporate decision making practices, government policies, and the lack of importance given by companies to the value of human resources. With this, the author contends that there is an urgent need for a serious debate to address the problem, considering that secure and fulfilling work is the most important public concern as it put communities and families at stake.