Who is using flexible work arrangements among couples? A longitudinal analysis of the disparities between gender, parenthood, and occupations

IF 3.5 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIOLOGY Social Science Research Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-16 DOI:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2025.103144
Senhu Wang , Cheng Cheng
{"title":"Who is using flexible work arrangements among couples? A longitudinal analysis of the disparities between gender, parenthood, and occupations","authors":"Senhu Wang ,&nbsp;Cheng Cheng","doi":"10.1016/j.ssresearch.2025.103144","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The rise of flexible work arrangements (FWAs) holds promise for advancing gender equality by enabling both men and women to better manage work and family. However, this expectation hinges on the actual utilization of FWAs by both genders in response to family needs. Drawing on longitudinal dyadic data from the UK (2010–2022), this study examines the disparities in the use of FWAs among couples by gender, parenthood, and occupation. We find that wives' use of all types of FWAs significantly increases after parenthood, whereas husbands' use remains unchanged. Moreover, mothers' use of FWAs varies by occupation and the type of FWAs. While traditional FWAs (e.g., reduced hours arrangements) are widely used by mothers regardless of their occupations, mothers from professional occupations are more likely to use novel FWAs (e.g., flexible schedule and teleworking arrangements) than those from non-professional occupations. The workplace gender inequalities are thus likely to continue in the FWA era, albeit in more subtle and nuanced forms that vary according to the types of FWAs and occupations involved.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48338,"journal":{"name":"Social Science Research","volume":"127 ","pages":"Article 103144"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Science Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X25000055","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The rise of flexible work arrangements (FWAs) holds promise for advancing gender equality by enabling both men and women to better manage work and family. However, this expectation hinges on the actual utilization of FWAs by both genders in response to family needs. Drawing on longitudinal dyadic data from the UK (2010–2022), this study examines the disparities in the use of FWAs among couples by gender, parenthood, and occupation. We find that wives' use of all types of FWAs significantly increases after parenthood, whereas husbands' use remains unchanged. Moreover, mothers' use of FWAs varies by occupation and the type of FWAs. While traditional FWAs (e.g., reduced hours arrangements) are widely used by mothers regardless of their occupations, mothers from professional occupations are more likely to use novel FWAs (e.g., flexible schedule and teleworking arrangements) than those from non-professional occupations. The workplace gender inequalities are thus likely to continue in the FWA era, albeit in more subtle and nuanced forms that vary according to the types of FWAs and occupations involved.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
夫妻中谁在使用弹性工作安排?性别、父母身份和职业之间差异的纵向分析
灵活工作安排(FWAs)的兴起使男性和女性都能更好地管理工作和家庭,从而有望促进性别平等。但是,这一期望取决于男女为满足家庭需要而实际利用家庭福利。利用英国(2010-2022)的纵向二元数据,本研究考察了性别、父母身份和职业在夫妻使用FWAs方面的差异。我们发现,妻子在生育后使用所有类型的FWAs显著增加,而丈夫的使用保持不变。此外,母亲使用FWAs的情况因职业和FWAs类型而异。尽管传统的家庭主妇(例如,减少工作时间的安排)被各种职业的母亲广泛使用,但专业职业的母亲比非专业职业的母亲更有可能使用新型的家庭主妇(例如,灵活的时间安排和远程工作安排)。因此,工作场所的性别不平等很可能在FWA时代继续存在,尽管形式更加微妙,根据FWA的类型和所涉及的职业而有所不同。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
4.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
65 days
期刊介绍: Social Science Research publishes papers devoted to quantitative social science research and methodology. The journal features articles that illustrate the use of quantitative methods in the empirical solution of substantive problems, and emphasizes those concerned with issues or methods that cut across traditional disciplinary lines. Special attention is given to methods that have been used by only one particular social science discipline, but that may have application to a broader range of areas.
期刊最新文献
Removal notice to “Social welfare expansion and political support during economic slowdown: A panel data analysis of China, 2010–2018” [Soc. Sci. Res. 125 (2025) 103112] When do educational expectations motivate effort? Expectation-opportunity alignment and study time across 27 countries Job loss and births. A couple-level study of Norwegian plant closures Socioeconomic divides in curricular pathways: Unpacking decision-making mechanisms and peer effects Answering the call: How changes to the salience of job characteristics affect college students’ decisions
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1