‘Sorry, we’re closed’: a fuzzy-set ideal-type analysis of pandemic childcare-policy responses in 28 European countries

IF 2 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE European Journal of Politics and Gender Pub Date : 2023-05-12 DOI:10.1332/251510821x16812994360871
Ivana Dobrotić, S. Blum
{"title":"‘Sorry, we’re closed’: a fuzzy-set ideal-type analysis of pandemic childcare-policy responses in 28 European countries","authors":"Ivana Dobrotić, S. Blum","doi":"10.1332/251510821x16812994360871","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Based on an original data set of early childhood education and care/school closures and reopenings, this article presents a fuzzy-set ideal-type analysis of pandemic childcare-policy responses in 28 European countries and explores the complex empirical variety of these policies across Europe. The analysis shows that European countries cluster into five models, comprising not only the opposite poles of strict closures (public-health approach) or absence of closures (high-risk approach) but also more ‘mixed’ approaches prioritising early childhood education and care/schools’ educational (educational approach) or work–care functions (lenient work–care approach or strict work–care approach). A few countries’ poor fit within these approaches indicates struggles in balancing different, often contradictory, policy goals during COVID-19. The findings reflect how (continued) provision of early childhood education and care/schools became a highly contested issue, especially as the pandemic evolved and public-health concerns were increasingly weighted against the implications for work–care balance and educational outcomes.","PeriodicalId":36315,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Politics and Gender","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Politics and Gender","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/251510821x16812994360871","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Based on an original data set of early childhood education and care/school closures and reopenings, this article presents a fuzzy-set ideal-type analysis of pandemic childcare-policy responses in 28 European countries and explores the complex empirical variety of these policies across Europe. The analysis shows that European countries cluster into five models, comprising not only the opposite poles of strict closures (public-health approach) or absence of closures (high-risk approach) but also more ‘mixed’ approaches prioritising early childhood education and care/schools’ educational (educational approach) or work–care functions (lenient work–care approach or strict work–care approach). A few countries’ poor fit within these approaches indicates struggles in balancing different, often contradictory, policy goals during COVID-19. The findings reflect how (continued) provision of early childhood education and care/schools became a highly contested issue, especially as the pandemic evolved and public-health concerns were increasingly weighted against the implications for work–care balance and educational outcomes.
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
“对不起,我们关门了”:对28个欧洲国家流行病儿童保育政策反应的模糊集理想型分析
基于早期儿童教育和保育/学校关闭和重新开放的原始数据集,本文对28个欧洲国家的流行病儿童保育政策对策进行了模糊集理想型分析,并探讨了整个欧洲这些政策的复杂经验差异。分析表明,欧洲国家分为五种模式,不仅包括严格关闭(公共卫生方法)或不关闭(高风险方法)的对立面,还包括更加“混合”的方法,优先考虑幼儿教育和照顾/学校的教育(教育方法)或工作照顾功能(宽松的工作照顾方法或严格的工作照顾方法)。少数国家不适合这些方法表明,在2019冠状病毒病期间,在平衡不同的、往往相互矛盾的政策目标方面存在困难。调查结果反映了幼儿教育和保育/学校的(持续)提供如何成为一个备受争议的问题,特别是随着疫情的发展,公共卫生问题日益受到工作-护理平衡和教育成果影响的影响。
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
European Journal of Politics and Gender
European Journal of Politics and Gender Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
9.50%
发文量
38
期刊最新文献
Translating difference: whiteness, racialisation and queer migration in Berlin Shifting equality from the margins: the Common European Asylum System and the making of trans rights in the European Union Translation as a cultural tool for mediating conflict in queer and feminist grassroots democratic coalitions in Denmark, Germany and Sweden Women’s issues, critical actors and the media: substantive representation of women and gendered media coverage in South Korea How anti-gender and gendered imagery translate the Great Replacement conspiracy theory in online far-right platforms
×
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学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
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