A qualitative examination of the work–family interface: Parents of children with autism spectrum disorder

Journal of Vocational Behavior 79 (2011) 625–639

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Vocational Behavior j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / j v b

A qualitative examination of the work–family interface: Parents of children with autism spectrum disorder☆ Russell A. Matthews a,⁎, Suzanne M. Booth b, Claire F. Taylor b, Tracy Martin c a b c

Department of Psychology, Louisiana State University, 213 Audubon Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA Department of Psychology, Louisiana State University, 236 Audubon Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA Louisiana State University, USA

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 25 August 2010 Available online 1 May 2011 Keywords: Work–family conflict Work–family enhancement Autism spectrum disorder Family friendly policies Telework Boundary theory

a b s t r a c t Within the work–family literature little is known about the work–family challenges and opportunities faced by families that have one or more children with autism spectrum disorder. However, it has been consistently demonstrated that parents of children with autism spectrum disorder are at a higher risk of experiencing a host of negative outcomes. Using a qualitative design, within grounded theory, the present study sheds light on the needs, experiences, and challenges that parents of children with autism spectrum disorder face and also offers insight into ways to expand the scope of work–family research in this area. The present research provides evidence of how the family domain can greatly impact experiences and decisions made in the work domain for families with special needs. The present research adds to the small but growing literature examining the interplay between home and work life for families with special needs and demonstrates that this is an important research domain in need of additional conceptual and empirical consideration. © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

It is well established that for working adults, work and family can have profound effects upon one another (Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux, & Brinley, 2005). Researchers interested in the work–family interface have devoted decades to investigating these issues. A substantial body of research suggests that the work domain can dramatically affect aspects of the family domain such as quality of family life, marital tension, marital functioning, and anxiety and mood at home (Eby et al., 2005). In particular, the conflict that can arise from managing work and family demands (i.e., work–family conflict) has received a great deal of attention. Work–family conflict has been shown to negatively relate to family satisfaction (e.g., Ford, Heinen, & Langkamer, 2007), job satisfaction (e.g., Allen, Herst, Bruck, & Sutton, 2000), depression, anxiety disorders, mood disorders, physical health complaints, hypertension, and alcohol consumption (e.g., Frone, 2000; Frone, Yardley, & Markel, 1997; Greenhaus, Allen, & Spector, 2006). Most work–family research has been conducted on a relatively narrow population (e.g., dual-earner couples with children), but researchers are increasingly acknowledging the need to expand the focus of interest in order to advance the field (e.g., Casper, Weltman, & Kwesiga, 2007; Kossek, Baltes, & Matthews, in press; Parasuraman & Greenhaus, 2002). For example, it has been suggested that models of the work–family interface should be considered in the context of non-professionals, part-time, self-employed, and hourly workers, as well as individuals who work non-traditional shifts (e.g., Casper, Eby, Bordeaux, Lockwood, & Lambert, 2007; Grandey, Cordeiro, & Michael, 2007). It has also been suggested that a broader definition of family needs to be considered (e.g., Parasuraman & Greenhaus, 2002); in addition to dual-earner couples with children, other family structures (e.g., single-parent households, households

☆ We would like to thank Kristen Shockley and Alyssa McGonagle for their comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. We would also like to thank Tracy Martin for her assistance in coding the qualitative data. ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (R.A. Matthews), [email protected] (S.M. Booth), [email protected] (C.F. Taylor). 0001-8791/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2011.04.010

626

R.A. Matthews et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 79 (2011) 625–639

with adult dependent care responsibilities, extended family/multi-generational households, households with no children) need to be incorporated into our overall program of research. To this end, in the present study we examine a population that has received only limited attention within the work–family literature: working parents of children with special needs (e.g., Brennan, Rosenzweig, Ogilvie, Wuest, & Shindo, 2007; George, Vickers, Wilkes, & Barton, 2008). By definition, children with “special needs” are those with some form of disability, such as developmental disabilities, hearing impairments, speech or language impairments, visual impairments, serious emotional disturbance, orthopedic impairments, traumatic brain injury, other health impairments or specific learning disabilities (U.S. Department of Education., 2004). The lack of attention within the work–family literature given to families with special needs is somewhat surprising given their prevalence (Parish, 2006; Warfield, 2005). Data from the 2005–2006 National Survey of Children with Special Health Care Needs suggests that approximately 22% of households with children (ages 0–17) had one or more child present with a disability. Within the work–family literature, the few studies that have examined working parents of children with special needs have consistently noted that the interaction between everyday job demands and the chronic demands of these parents' home-life can significantly exacerbate one another (e.g., George et al., 2008). One way to conceptualize this past body of research is through conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989). Conservation of resources theorists argues that individuals strive to obtain, build, and protect their resources (i.e., objects, personal characteristics, conditions, and energies). As noted by Grandey and Cropanzano (1999), conditions (e.g., marital status), personal characteristics (e.g., self-esteem), and energies (e.g., flexible work schedules) are resources that are particularly relevant to the examination of the work–family interface. However, past research has repeatedly demonstrated that working parents of children with special needs have greater demands placed on their resources, function under greater threats to existing resources, and have significantly fewer opportunities to replenish expended resources (e.g., Al-Yagon & Cinamon, 2008; Brennan et al., 2007; George et al., 2008; Warfield, 2005) relative to other working adults. In the present study we focus on one type of special need, autistic spectrum disorder (ASD). Parents of children with ASD were selected as the population of interest because, as will be discussed shortly, past research has demonstrated that these individuals are at a higher risk of experiencing a host of negative outcomes given the elevated levels of stress associated with raising one or more children with ASD, even when compared to parents of children with other chronic disorders. Nevertheless, this unique population of families has yet to be systematically studied from a work–family perspective. As such, we first provide a brief introduction and definition of ASD. We next review past research concerning parents of children with ASD, paying particular attention to the stress these parents are known to experience. We then more specifically consider the work–family challenges these parents must contend with in their everyday lives. Finally, we introduce the six research questions that guided the present research. The primary goal of this project is to develop a better understanding of the challenges and opportunities faced by working parents of children with ASD. In doing so, we intend to translate this improved understanding into actionable recommendations to guide future research and to help develop policies, programs, and procedures that can be used to help support these parents as well as the children under their care.

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) As defined within the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (American Psychiatric Association, 2000), ASD is considered a pervasive developmental disorder, characterized by severe, pervasive deficits in communication and social skills, as well as repetitive behaviors (also called stereotyped behaviors), or restricted interests. The Rice (2009) estimates the ASD prevalence rate in United States to be 1 in every 110 children; based on available data, the CDC estimates there has been a 57% increase in prevalence from 2002 to 2006. The disorder is found in all racial and ethnic groups, as well as across the socioeconomic continuum, however, on average, ASD is four to five times more likely to occur in boys than girls (Rice, 2007). Although the epidemiology of ASD is still open to debate, a variety of potential causes have been suggested for the observed increase in prevalence rates, resulting in considerable discourse about which are most likely (Wing & Potter, 2002). Factors that have been put forth to help explain the increasing prevalence rate include changes in diagnostic criteria, definitional changes, changes in methods for calculating prevalence rates, recognition of the co-morbid nature of autism (i.e., with intellectual disabilities), increased parental awareness of autism, and possible correction of the under-diagnosis of girls with autism (cf., Posserud, Lundervold, Lie, & Gillberg, 2010; Waterhouse, 2008; Williams, Mellis, & Peat, 2005; Wing & Potter, 2002). Given the relatively high prevalence rates of ASD, it is important to consider the staggering economic costs associated with care for individuals with ASD. It is estimated that each person diagnosed with ASD accrues an estimated $3.2 million in societal costs throughout his/her life, with much of these costs (~$1.05 million) accrued in childhood (Ganz, 2007). In addition to medical and education costs, a great proportion of the estimated costs are accounted for by the lost economic productivity of parents of children with ASD. Moreover, ASD is costly to employers because of employer-based health insurance. Shimabukuro, Grosse, and Rice (2008)) determined that, on average, medical expenditures for children and adolescents with ASD were between $4110 and $6200 greater than those for children without an ASD diagnosis. Thus, as noted by Leslie and Martin (2007), given increasing prevalence rates, practitioners trending towards earlier identification (i.e., before age 3), and more proactive treatments, the economic burden on employer-based healthcare insurance is likely to increase dramatically in coming years.

R.A. Matthews et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 79 (2011) 625–639

627

Parents of children with ASD and the negative symptoms they experience Within the ASD literature, a relatively small but growing body of research has sought to examine issues related to family dynamics as well as issues associated with providing care to children with ASD. Understanding these family dynamics is an important aspect of transitioning from “expert-driven” or provider-based models of ASD treatments to more family-centered models, which emphasize a “collaborative team approach” and recognize the impact the larger family system (e.g., parents, siblings, grandparents) can have on the success in caring for a child with ASD (Scheuermann, Webber, Boutot, & Goodwin, 2007, p. S120). The family dynamics stream of research has established that stress is a significant concern among families where ASD is present. Parents of children with ASD not only report increased levels of stress compared to parents of children without disabilities, but also report more stress compared to parents of children with some other type of disability or chronic illnesses (e.g., Bouma & Schweitzer, 1990; Dumas, Wolf, Fisman, & Culligan, 1991; Gray, 1994, 2002; Koegel et al., 1992; Montes & Halterman, 2008; Olsson & Hwang, 2001; Rao & Beidel, 2009; Schieve et al., 2007). Additionally, behavioral problems observed in children with ASD have been linked not only to parental stress but also to parental depression (e.g., Hastings, 2003; Hastings et al., 2005), decreased family cohesion, somatic complaints, and parental burnout (e.g., Altiere & Kluge, 2008; Carter, Martínez-Pedraza, & Gray, 2009; Rao & Beidel, 2009). A variety of factors have been linked to the negative affective and physiological outcomes experienced by parents, such as challenges in communicating with a child with ASD, self-care difficulties experienced by many children with ASD, and feelings of social isolation commonly experienced by caregivers (e.g., Hastings, Daley, Burns, & Beck, 2006; Hastings et al., 2005; Shieve et al., 2007). Thus, parents of children with ASD experience heightened levels of stress, with many potential causes of stress originating at home (i.e., factors associated with raising a child with ASD). However, the majority of previous of research has failed to account for how the family system is often significantly influenced by other external systems, such as paid employment. Furthermore, the issue of how stress in the family domain may impact other domains, like paid employment, is also poorly addressed in the literature. With these issues in mind, the focus of our study was to better understand work–family interactions among parents of children with ASD. Present study: work–family challenges and parents of children with ASD Considerable work has been conducted within the work–family literature to identify antecedents (e.g., domain centrality, social support, schedule flexibility, role conflict, role ambiguity, distress) and consequences of work–family interactions (e.g., domain satisfaction, organizational commitment, psychological strain, burnout, depression, somatic/physical symptoms; Allen et al., 2000; Byron, 2005; Ford et al., 2007; Michel, Mitchelson, Kotrba, LeBreton, & Baltes, 2009). Although many of these same relationships are likely to hold for parents of children with ASD, focusing solely on these constructs (as might be done in a quantitative design) may blind us to the larger pattern of experiences these parents might encounter. For this reason, in the present study we utilized a more holistic, open-ended qualitative design that was guided by six inter-related research questions using grounded theory as our analytical approach (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The questions are presented in Table 1 and are discussed in more detail in the following sections. Although these six research questions were not developed to test a specific work–family theory, results from the research questions are considered in light of various work–family theories as part of our discussion of results. Spillover effects between work and family Drawing on a variety of theoretical models, including role theory (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964), ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1977), conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989), and boundary theory (Ashforth, Kreiner, & Fugate, 2000), it is generally accepted that the work domain can influence the family domain and the family domain can influence the work domain; work and family have bi-directional effects upon one another (Bellavia & Frone, 2005). Moreover, these interactions can be positive or negative. Work–family enrichment refers to the positive interactions that can occur when participation in one domain enhances participation in another domain (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Grzywacz & Bass, 2003). On the negative side, work–family conflict can occur when the demands of functioning in the two domains of work and family are incompatible in some respect (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Past research suggests that between a quarter and a half of working adults (25–54 years of age, working 20 or

Table 1 Research questions used to guide the qualitative data collection. RQ1 RQ2 RQ3 RQ4 RQ5

How does having a child with ASD affect the parent's work-life? How does working while trying to care for a child with ASD affect the parent's ability to meet the demands of having a child with ASD? How does having a child with ASD affect the parent's relationship with their spouse/significant other as well as other family members? Do parents of children with ASD feel like those demands have affected their own personal health? Do parents of children with ASD feel their employer has in place policies, procedures, or benefits that they can use to help better cope with/manage the challenges they face caring for a child with autism? RQ6 What do parents of children with ASD feel their employer could do to help them better cope with/manage the challenges they face caring for a child with ASD?

628

R.A. Matthews et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 79 (2011) 625–639

more hours a week) experience some form of work-to-family conflict (Bellavia & Frone, 2005). Prevalence data for family-to-work conflict is much lower; estimates place it between approximately 10% and 14%. Frone (2003) suggests that work-to-family conflict may be more common than family-to-work conflict in that an asymmetry exists between work and family roles that favors work. Drawing on boundary theory (Ashforth et al., 2000), it is possible that this asymmetry is a function of how individuals segment or integrate their work and family lives; people seek to protect work more than they do for the the family domain (Bulger, Matthews, & Hoffman, 2007). Given the demands faced by parents of children with ASD, it might be predicted that work–family conflict is more prevalent than work–family enrichment. Indeed, past research examining the work–family interface of parents of children with special needs has demonstrated that these parents do experience more work–family conflict than parents of typically developing children. Specifically, Al-Yagon and Cinamon (2008) demonstrated that parents of children with learning disabilities demonstrated more family-to-work conflict than did parents of normally developing children. Of interest though, Al-Yagon and Cinamon also found that parents of children with learning disabilities also reported more work-to-family facilitation. The finding that the work domain may facilitate these parents functioning in the family domain can be grounded in conservation of resources theory. As has been suggested in past qualitative studies (e.g., Einam & Cuskelly, 2002; George et al., 2008), parents who have children with disabilities often view the work domain as a place where they can “escape” and recuperate, or as a place to replenish resources. However, these issues have not been explored for working parents of children with ASD. As such, the first two research questions allowed for the examination of the degree to which parents of children with ASD experience work–family conflict and enrichment. Research Question 1: How does having a child with ASD affect the parent's work-life? Research Question 2: How does working while trying to care for a child with ASD affect the parent's ability to meet the demands of having a child with ASD? Well-being consequences of work–family interactions Researchers have consistently found that work–family conflict is negatively related to affective outcomes that are thought to serve as indicators of subjective well-being, including domain satisfaction (e.g., Ford et al., 2007) and interpersonal relationship satisfaction (e.g., Michel et al., 2009). Additionally, work–family scholars have also demonstrated that the ways in which individuals manage their work and family lives can have a profound impact on physical health (e.g., Allen & Armstrong, 2006; van Steenbergen & Ellemers, 2009). However, it is not known the degree to which these mechanisms are mirrored in a population like working parents of children with ASD. Research by Brennan et al. (2007) suggests that working parents of children with disabilities who perceived greater fit between work and family report fewer job and parental concerns (indicators of psychological well-being). Thus, although we expect many of these themes to be observed within our data, we were particularly interested in determining if any of these issues are particularly salient for parents of children with ASD. We were also interested in identifying potential unique issues experienced by these parents. Thus, the next two research questions guiding this study focus on perceptions of well-being, concentrating primarily on experiences within the family domain (the focal domain of interest). Research Question 3: How does having a child with ASD affect the parent's relationship with their spouse/significant other as well as other family members? Research Question 4: Do parents of children with ASD feel like those demands have affected their own personal health? Organizational support for work–family issues Some organizations, in an attempt to help employees minimize conflicts that arise when trying to manage work and family demands, offer what are frequently referred to as family-friendly programs (Allen, 2001; Grover & Crooker, 1995; Shockley & Allen, 2007). The examination of family-friendly policies and employee perceptions of these policies are two areas of research that have received increasing attention over the past two decades (Kossek et al., in press). Among the features of family-friendly programs are job designs that offer flexibility in where work is carried out (telework) and when work is carried out (flextime). It has been argued that telework and flexible schedules can be used as strategies for managing the conflicts that arise between work and family as well as to minimize the strains associated with those conflicts (Adams & Jex, 1999; Golden, 2001; Goldenhar, 2003). In the present study, we focused on the degree to which parents of children with ASD feel that programs such as telework and flextime, as well as other potentially more specialized programs, are available to them and to what degree they take advantage of such programs. A related concept is that of family-supportive organizational perceptions, which is defined as the degree to which individuals perceive that their organization maintains a climate and provides resources that facilitate the management of work–family demands. Past research has demonstrated that in line with social support resource theory (Hobfoll, Freedy, Lane, & Geller, 1990), that family-supportive organizational perceptions are negatively related to experiences of work–family conflict (e.g., Lapierre et al., 2008; Shockley & Allen, 2007). Given that past research on parents of children with disabilities shows that these parents may be more inclined to search out family-friendly workplaces (e.g., Rosenzweig, Brennan, & Ogilvie, 2002) the role of family-supportive organization perceptions may be particularly important when considering how these parents manage their excessive work–family

R.A. Matthews et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 79 (2011) 625–639

629

demands. Thus, in our last two research questions we examine how parents of children with ASD function within their work environments, and their perceptions of their employers in terms of supportiveness of dealing with family-related demands. Research Question 5: Do parents of children with ASD feel their employer has in place policies, procedures, or benefits that they can use to help better cope with/manage the challenges they face caring for a child with autism? Research Question 6: What do parents of children with ASD feel their employer could do to help them better cope with/manage the challenges they face caring for a child with ASD? Method Participants Participants included 112 parents of children with ASD. The sample was predominantly female (82.1%), and 79.5% of the sample reported they were married or living with their partner. Participants had between one and four children diagnosed with ASD living with them (M = 1.09, SD = .37). The average age of children with autism was 9.2 years (SD = 5.22). The average age of parents was 40.4 years (SD = 7.5). Participants reported working on average 37.0 hours per week (SD = 12.5). Over half the sample (59.8%) reported working in managerial, professional, and related occupations, another 19.6% reported working in sales and office occupations and 11.6% reported working in service occupations. Procedure A convenience sampling approach was used; participants were recruited through several web-based social networking and social support websites. A request for participation in a short, online survey was posted on autism focused discussion boards within these websites. Potential respondents were informed that the study was anonymous and that they needed to be working at least part-time to participate. There was no incentive to participate. Participants were asked to click on the link provided in the request and complete a short survey on their experiences as a working adult raising at least one child with ASD. Open-ended response boxes were provided for participants to provide their answer in, and there was no word/character limit set for responses. Measures The survey included the six research questions presented in Table 1 in an open-ended response format. Participants also provided descriptive information about their child(ren) with ASD (i.e., age, diagnosis), as well as about themselves (i.e., age, gender, employment status). Coding of qualitative responses An “open coding” approach within grounded theory was used to guide the coding of the qualitative responses. Open coding emphasizes the identification, naming, categorizing, and describing phenomena found in the text (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The goal is to identify the more general categories that the textual comments refer to. Consistent with open coding, both abstract and concrete categories were generated. The data coding process involved three independent coders (two graduate students and one undergraduate student) trained in grounded theory principles. The three coders began by independently reading the transcripts (i.e., reading all six questions across participants). The coders then wrote brief notes (i.e., memos) based on their reading and holistic understanding of individual respondents. Next, the coders were instructed to read the transcripts, focusing on each of the six questions one at a time. Again, the coders made brief notes (i.e., memos) based on their readings. After completion of these first two reviews of the transcripts, the coders met to collectively discuss their perceptions of the responses provided by participants. As part of this collective discussion, the coders developed a coding scheme for each of the open-ended questions; the coders were instructed to develop a comprehensive scheme that incorporated their collective understanding of the nature of responses provided. This process was guided by the lead graduate student who had received training in both work–family research as well as preliminary training in autism specific applied behavior analysis research methodologies. To ensure the adequacy and appropriateness of the coding scheme developed, and to minimize discrepancies during the coding process, the three coders then independently coded responses provided by a subset of fifteen randomly chosen participants (each coder analyzed the same fifteen respondents) using the initial coding scheme. Next, the three coders met to discuss the results of their initial coding efforts. Based on this meeting, the coders developed a revised coding scheme to account for discrepancies across the codes they applied. The coders then independently applied the revised coding scheme to the qualitative data. As an additional check on the appropriateness of the revised coding scheme, approximately halfway through the coding process the three coders met briefly to discuss the revised coding; the coders agreed the revised coding scheme was adequate and did not suffer from any significant deficiencies in terms of being able to accurately represent and code responses provided by respondents. Codes developed and applied as part of the revised coding schemes are reported in Tables 2–4; between six and sixteen codes were developed for each research question, respectively.

630

R.A. Matthews et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 79 (2011) 625–639

Table 2 Content themes and response percentage for research questions 1 and 2. Percentage RQ 1: How does having a child with ASD affect the parent's work-life? Prioritizing family over work Reduced quality of work or less time spent on work activities Decreased work hours Have had to frequently “flex” work schedule to meet family demands Use telecommuting to manage work–family demands Sought out a more flexible work schedule Experienced dramatic changes to employment status Turned down promotion opportunities or taken a demotion Degradation of social relationships at work Experiences non-voluntary turnover Temporarily left the workforce No significant effect/change Received fewer promotions Use work as an escape from family demands Unable to complete desired or needed level of training Increased hours worked to financially support family

51.7% 38.4% 22.3% 22.3% 17.9% 17.9% 11.6% 9.8% 8.9% 7.1% 7.1% 7.1% 5.4% 4.5% 4.5% 2.7%

RQ2: How does working while trying to care for a child with ASD affect the parent's ability to meet the demands of having a child with ASD? No effect Reduced time and energy to spend with child Reduced ability to utilize other opportunities/resources Working to support the child's needs Inability to meet care demands Work enhanced family life Has resulted in an irregular schedule at home

45.5% 34.8% 19.6% 18.8% 15.2% 4.2% 3.6%

After each coder independently coded all responses, the coders met to discuss the results of the coding process. Although specific data were not tracked, generally the coders had a very high degree of agreement for all identified statements. In instances where there was no 100% agreement on the application of codes across the three coders, the coders discussed the statement and the rationale for applying (or not applying) the code in question. As such, discrepancies were discussed until complete consensus was achieved regarding the application of specific codes to the statements in questions. Consistent with an open coding approach, multiple codes could be applied to a single statement provided by a participant for any given question. Thus, for the different themes identified within a given question, percentages with which each code was endorsed may add to more than 100%. In turn, based on this more detailed response coding process of the qualitative statements, we sought to identify broader themes within the different research questions. These broader categorizations are intended to provide a more coherent representation of the nature of responses provided by participants for each research question. Of particular interest was if any of these broader themes coincided or complemented existing work–family theories. Put another way, where possible, once subthemes were identified during the coding process, we applied relevant work–family theories (e.g., boundary theory, conservation of resources theory, social support resources theory) as lens through which to view and collapse the specific qualitative codes into broader categories.

Table 3 Content themes and response percentage for research questions 3 and 4. Percentage RQ3: How does having a child with ASD affect the parent's relationship with their spouse/significant other as well as other family members? Strained relationships within the family Perceived increased emotional support from family members Perceive to have less time for family members Emotionally isolated from family members Closer ties with family members Feel physically cut-off from family Divorced/Separated

61.8% 60.0% 43.6% 39.1% 25.5% 16.4% 14.3%

RQ4: Do parents of children with ASD feel like those demands have affected their own personal health? Psychological issue Physiological issues No adverse impact Neglect for self/health Magnification of existing conditions Improved health

58.9% 40.2% 25.9% 25.0% 8.9% 8.0%

R.A. Matthews et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 79 (2011) 625–639

631

Table 4 Content themes and response percentage for research questions 5 and 6. Percentage RQ5: Do parents of children with ASD feel their employer has in place policies, procedures, or benefits that they can use to help better cope with/manage the challenges they face caring for a child with autism? None 42.9% Insurance/health benefits 32.1% Flexible work hours and schedules 22.3% “EAP” (Employee Assistance Programs)/support groups 9.8% Supportive management 9.8% Ability to use comp time at own discretion 8.0% Self-employed 7.1% Bring child to work 3.6% RQ6: What do parents of children with ASD feel their employer could do to help them better cope with/manage the challenges they face caring for a child with ASD? No additional support needed More flexible work schedule (e.g., telework or flextime) Increased organizational understanding Improved health insurance/polices Unsure Self-employed More paid time off Childcare options EAP/support groups Offer less stressful/demanding position

21.4% 17.9% 17.9% 16.1% 10.7% 7.1% 6.3% 5.4% 3.6% 1.8%

Results Research Question 1: adjusting work to meet family demands As part of Research Question 1, we sought to examine how having a child with ASD affects a parent's work life. Participants provided 242 usable responses to this question, with each participant providing an average of 2.24 responses (SD = 1.12). Sixteen inter-related sub-themes were identified (see Table 2). From these responses, four broader themes present themselves. First, taking a boundary theory perspective, the most prevalent overarching theme across responses was the development and maintenance of boundaries that were meant to protect the family domain. Consistent with propositions within boundary theory, respondents reported prioritizing family over work, being willing to remove themselves from the work domain to address family demands, and being able to maintain more flexible work arrangements. To this end, over half of the respondents (51.7%) indicated the general sentiment that “family comes first.” Below are several archetypical responses related to this theme. ■ My priority is my family first, everything else comes after that. ■ I have strongly prioritized my family over my work. ■ Work is work. If I have a problem with my son and can't make it to work, they understand. I would quit if they didn't. Furthermore, approximately a quarter (22.3%) of respondents indicated they frequently adjusted their work schedule to meet family demands, 17.9% reported that they telecommute to meet family demands, and 17.9% reported seeking out other ways to “flex” their work schedule with many of these parents reporting that they work non-traditional schedules. ■ ■ ■ ■

I've had to make sure that every position I take permits flexibility in hours/days and allows some working at home options. I am fourtunate [sp] to have a flexible job that allows me to leave to take care of things. If I did not have some flexibility in my work schedule I don't know how I would do it. I work 3rd shift and my husband works days. That way there is always someone available.

Another overarching theme that presented itself was the prevalence of experiences with family-to-work conflict. Taking a conservation of resources perspective, many respondents indicated that demands within the family domain depleted their available resources. As such, they felt that both the amount of effort and time they could devote to the work domain was significantly impaired by demands in the family domain. More specifically, over a third (38.4%) of respondents indicated that they felt their performance at work was negatively impacted by the demands of having a child with ASD at home (e.g., strain-based family-to-work conflict). Additionally, 22.3% reported that they were forced to reduce the number of hours they worked in order to meet the demands of having a child with ASD (e.g., time-based family-to-work conflict). ■ I feel that I'm not the hard worker I once was. I do my job, but I don't give it my all. I give my all to making my child more functional. ■ As the years go by my sales have decreased by 50% (I am still above average, but no longer a superstar.) Sometimes I am so tired I can't focus and I am afraid of falling asleep at the wheel… I receive a lot of pressure to improve and be more engaged and work even more than I already am.

632

R.A. Matthews et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 79 (2011) 625–639

■ Because we don't have outside support & need money we work swing shifts making it more difficult to participate in networking events after work. In line with the previous theme, another overarching theme was the impact of having a child with ASD had on the parents' perceived career trajectories and career success. In reviewing the sub-themes, respondents frequently indicated they experienced work interruptions (i.e., voluntary and involuntary turnover), turned down promotions or took demotions, received fewer promotions, and perceived they had fewer training and development opportunities. ■ I had to give up a job paying 38 k a year as I could not get childcare for my son as he got older. ■ I am not sure that I will be able to work through the Summer because of my 13 year old child. I have no place for her to go and she cannot [sp] be trusted to care for herself. I will cross that bridge when I get there. ■ …I had to change my hours because of difficulty with childcare. Finally, the fourth overarching theme identified within the responses to the first research question supports the notion of work–family enhancement. Specifically, 4.5% of respondents indicated that work served as an escape from their family demands; that is, work allowed some parents an opportunity to recover from their family demands. Research Question 2: high prevalence of work-to-family conflict With Research Question 2, we sought to examine how having a child with ASD was affected by a parent's work life. Participants provided 166 code-able responses, with each participant providing an average of 1.50 responses (SD = .86). Eight inter-related themes were identified (see Table 2). Across the responses provided, respondents present an almost bimodal response pattern; either parents felt work had no direct impact on their ability to meet the demands of caring for their child with ASD, or they experienced high levels work-to-family conflict. Specifically, almost half (45.5%) of participants indicated that their work life did not affect their family life. In contrast, a substantial portion of respondents reported feeling like their work life negatively impacted their family life. Over a third (34.8%) of respondents felt like their work life left them tired and with too little time to spend with their children (i.e., strain- and time-based work-to-family conflict). Approximately a fifth of respondents (19.6%) indicated that their work life reduced their ability to access and utilize supports and resources needed to care for their child. Additionally, 15.2% reported that their work demands resulted in them feeling unable to meet their child's care demands. ■ I don't have the time to do everything needed to do; when I do have a few minutes, I'm mentally and physically exhausted. ■ I would love to be able to take our son for outside/private speech therapy and OT but it's too time consuming and would happen in the middle of the day. It's just impossible to get him into all of the services that are available that could help him. ■ If I was not working full time that I could research more therapies or pay closer attention to his diet, etc. ■ If I didn't work my stress level would be better, my ability to manage my son's behaviors would be better and the additional to-do's around the house would get done and not be another stresser [sp] in an already difficult family situation. It should be noted that a third though much smaller set of respondents (4.2%) indicated that their work-life enhanced their family-life. ■ ■ ■ ■

Work is an escape for me… I have learned a lot from my job that has helped me support my son better. Right now, I see my work as an escape from dealing with my son. Work takes you away from some of the stresses of having a child on the spectrum.

Research Question 3: emotional support vs. social isolation In Research Question 3 we examined the degree to which parents felt having a child with ASD affected their relationships with other family members. Participants provided 302 usable responses, with each participant providing an average of 2.69 responses (SD = 1.14). Seven inter-related themes were identified (see Table 3). The overarching theme across responses was that having a child with ASD caused the parents to feel emotionally and physically isolated from their family or, conversely, parents perceived it as helping to bring family members closer together and provided opportunities for additional emotional support. Specifically, 60.0% of respondents indicated they felt that having a child with ASD had increased the amount of emotional support they received from other family members. Additionally, approximately a quarter of respondents (25.5%) indicated that having a child with ASD brought their family closer together. ■ Most of our family has been great! They have been very supportive of us and our daughter. ■ My son is a gift. He has brought our family together and my marriage is stronger than ever. We are very dedicated to our son and his progress is our focus. He is loved and accepted. ■ …we have great in home support, family and friends that help us. Nonetheless, a substantial portion of respondents noted that having a child with ASD had negatively impacted one or more relationships within their family domain. Notably, 61.8% of respondents indicated it had created a strain on other familial

R.A. Matthews et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 79 (2011) 625–639

633

relationships. Respondents also indicated they had less time to spend with other family members (43.6%). Lastly, 39.1% of respondents indicated they felt emotionally isolated from their family. ■ Relationship with spouse is strained to the point of being near break up. Husband ready to walk out. We play the blame game a lot. No physical or emotional energy to devote to ourselves or each other. ■ I hear, experience, feel constant criticism, especially from my mother-in-law. I just don't want to be around family at this point. ■ Because we always put our children first, it really didn't leave much time for us ■ I mostly resent the family members that live in our area, as they don't really offer any empathy or support to me and my husband. Research Question 4: substantial deleterious health effects In Research Question 4, we examined the degree to which parents felt having a child with ASD affected their own personal health. Participants provided 190 useable responses, with each participant providing an average of 1.71 responses (SD = .82). Seven inter-related themes were identified (see Table 3). The primary theme observed across responses is that parents of children with ASD experience substantial health complications. Approximately a quarter of respondents (25.9%) indicated that the demands associated with having a child with ASD have had no adverse affect on their health. However, 77.6% of the respondents indicated that they felt having a child with ASD caused them to neglect their own personal health and well-being, resulting in the development of physiological or psychological issues or the exacerbation of pre-existing health conditions. As the following quotes illustrate, experiences of these different conditions were often co-morbid. ■ I think neither of us will live long lives, there are just too many hard miles that have been traveled. We have neglected ourselves in favor or our daughter and her brother. ■ I look and feel old. I am dragging most days and not upbeat. I have tension and stress, gained 15 pounds and dress like a granny…I stop caring. ■ I feel very burnt out, very depressed at times, and every morning it feels like I [sp] am climbing Mount Everest [sp] just to get my child with autism out the door and into his school. ■ Initially you are so focused on your child that you lose sight of taking care of yourself-not eating right and not exercising. ■ I have been getting sick more often, and experiencing headaches and backaches more often. Somewhat surprisingly, 8% of respondents indicated that their health has actually improved during the course of their parenting a child with ASD. These respondents reported that having children with ASD forced them to pay more attention to their own health to ensure they could adequately care for their children. Research Question 5: lack of employer support In Research Question 5, we examined the degree to which parents felt their employers had policies, procedures, and/or benefits in place that they could utilize to better cope with and manage the challenges they face caring for children with ASD. Participants provided 163 useable responses, with each participant providing an average of 1.63 responses (SD = .77). Seven inter-related themes were identified (see Table 4), across which two primary themes present themselves. First and foremost, a substantial proportion of respondents indicated their employers had no supports in place. Of potentially greater importance, the context around this theme is even more telling. Specifically, within the 42.9% of respondents who indicated that their employer had no formal supports in place and consistent with past theorizing on family-supportive organizational perceptions, the majority of these respondents were extremely critical and negative towards their organization regarding the organization's failure to provide such opportunities. Generally speaking, these respondents would be classified as having very low family-supportive organizational perceptions. ■ You are joking with this question, right? Employers like most people would like to pretend autism is not occurring. ■ Ha! wouldn't that be nice. My work specifically excludes autism from its insurance plans. thank you very much, and I work at a hospital! ■ not [sp] whatsoever nor do they care. ■ I couldn't discuss my situation with my boss or peers and felt that if I shared my thoughts and what I was dealing with it was a sign of weakness and since I was a supervisor I felt that I couldn't show that to my staff. ■ I can say, as I worked in Human Resources for many years that employers are generally not very supportive of workers with special needs children. Anyone I know that is looking for a job I always advise them not to say anything about having a child with autism or anything else. ■ I would drop him off at day care and he would cling to me until the teacher had to practically rip him out of my arms. I would rush to my car and cry all the way to work and again suffer in silence because I felt alone and without support at work. A second overarching theme was that many respondents felt formal and informal supports were in place to assist them in managing their work–family demands. Specifically, in terms of formal support, almost one-third (32.1%) of respondents indicated they had access to health insurance and other health related benefits to help care for their children. Additionally, approximately a quarter of respondents indicated they had flexible work hours and schedules, or were able to use their comp time at their

634

R.A. Matthews et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 79 (2011) 625–639

discretion. However, respondents often indicated that their ability to flex their work schedule was not necessarily a function of some formal policies (i.e., flextime agreement). Rather, they frequently indicated their ability to flex their work schedule was based on an informal arrangement with their supervisor. To this end, although not a formal policy or procedure, 9.8% of respondents indicated that having a supportive supervisor was critical in helping them to cope with demands associated with raising a child with ASD. ■ …my employer does know about my son and has so far been very supportive if I need to take an afternoon off to take him to the doctor or something. ■ My direct supervisor is very supportive and sensitive to our situation. I am afforded every opportunity to support my son. ■ I am very lucky to have a flexible work schedule and an understanding boss. Research Question 6: opportunities for organizational facilitation of work–family management In Research Question 6, we examined what participants felt their employers could do to help them better cope with and manage the challenges they face as caregivers for children with ASD. Participants provided 126 code-able responses, with participants on average providing 1.25 responses (SD = .50). Ten inter-related themes were identified (see Table 4), which can be collapsed into three overarching themes. First, 21.4% of respondents indicated that they felt they did not require any additional support from their employers. Interestingly, 10.7% were unsure what their employers could do to better help them cope. For those individuals who did indicate that there were things their organization could do for them, responses can be categorized into two broad categories: providing additional “structural” supports, and facilitating more socio-emotional support. In terms of providing additional structural support, a relatively large proportion of respondents indicated a desire for more flexible work schedules (17.9%), improved health insurance/policies (16.1%), more paid time off (6.3%), and additional childcare options (6.3%). In terms of socio-emotional support, respondents often indicated that it would be helpful to them if individuals within their organization had a better understanding of what life is like when raising a child with ASD (17.9%), and that within their organization they had increased access to employee assistance programs (EAP) and social support groups (3.6%). ■ I think training for the employers, to give them an idea of the extreme amount of stress parents are dealing with. I doubt most of them know that we are dealing with the same amount of stress as soldiers engaged in combat. ■ I really would love a support group in my job in the work place. There are at least five women with children with austims [sp] or another kind of disability in my workplace. ■ …could offer a more flexible schedule for ip meetings, doctor appts., etc. — allow employee to come in earlier or leave early or to work messed [sp] hours somehow. ■ They can acknowledge the epidemic through providing counseling or programs through our benefits as they do for ADHD, asthma & diabetes ■ Understanding child's condition would be extremely helpful. The lack of sensitivity around issues of urgency is not always understood. Discussion In the present study we respond to the emerging call for work–family scholars to broaden our overall scope of interest (Casper, Eby, et al., 2007; Parasuraman & Greenhaus, 2002). More specifically, we examine the unique work–family challenges of parents of children with ASD. These families represent a unique population that has been largely ignored within the work–family literature (Parish, 2006). Our results provide strong preliminary evidence that these families experience many distinctive challenges and stressors. Furthermore, our results suggest that although these families share some of the same work–family experiences (i.e., work-to-family and family-to-work conflict) that are commonly reported by parents and families without children with ASD, these experiences may be more systemic for parents of children with ASD. ■ Often, things can feel overwhelming and you always feel guilty about whatever you're not currently doing… If I'm working I feel like I'm not spending enough time as mother or wife. If I'm relaxing with family, I feel as though I should get more work done. Between the meetings, classes, therapy sessions, and looking for the next breakthrough it's a constant stream of chaos with no rest. ■ It is a struggle figuring out how to meet the demands of my son, the needs of my daughter and husband and still maintain a career. ■ I always feel that I am not giving my best to anything – my kids, my marriage and my work – and even myself. It is very hard to balance. Our results also serve to effectively inform future scholarship regarding unique populations like parents of children with ASD and other disabilities. Furthermore, as we will discuss, we also posit that our results serve as a window into emergent disparate findings within the work–family literature. To this end and in an effort to translate our findings into actionable recommendations to guide future research, we have structured our discussion within the following areas: flexible work arrangements and nontraditional schedules, need for recovery, and the role of social support and support groups. Within each of these areas, given one of the primary outcomes of qualitative research is theory development, we pay particular attention to how our findings complement and extend existing work–family theories. We also seek to compare and contrast our findings with existing work–family literature on parents of children with disabilities.

R.A. Matthews et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 79 (2011) 625–639

635

Flexible work arrangements and non-traditional work schedules For many parents in our study, as in other studies on parents of children with special needs, the need for and concerns with workplace flexibility constituted one of the most significant issues they faced (e.g., Brennan et al., 2007; George et al., 2008); numerous parents indicated that they often had to be able to adjust their work schedule to meet their family demands, and that if they were unable to flex their work schedule, this often resulted in significant challenges for them. As such, many of our participants reported using either formal telecommuting options provided by their employer or more informal schedule flexibility provided by their direct supervisor. There presently exists a wealth of literature on telework and telecommuting, but as noted by Shockley and Allen (2007), there are considerable inconsistencies in the conclusions that can be drawn from research on flexible work arrangements and their effects on the work–family interface. In part, discrepancies in past research may be a function of family type (Shockley & Allen, 2007). Unique populations, such as families with children with disabilities (e.g., families with children with ASD), have not been considered specifically when assessments of satisfaction with, desire for, or conflict with telecommuting situations are investigated. As such, the lack of attention given to unique populations' utilization of telecommuting/telework may be a contributing factor to the inconsistent results concerning telecommuting and employee satisfaction — different populations may approach and benefit from telecommuting options in varying ways. In support of this, Shockley and Allen (2007) examined how flexible work arrangements were related to experiences of work– family conflict in an all female sample and found that observed relationships were moderated as a function of family responsibility. That is, for women with high family responsibilities, flexible work arrangements were uniformly beneficial. However, for women with low family responsibilities, results were much less conclusive. Needless to say, parents of children with special needs would be high on overall family responsibilities. Thus, empirically testing the proposition that the presence of a disabled child impacts (or moderates) usage and perceptions of telecommuting/telework options seems warranted in future research. It may also be advantageous to consider these findings in light of recent work within boundary theory. Matthews, BarnesFarrell, and Bulger (2010a) suggest that the flexibility of work and family boundaries is comprised of two components. First, individuals vary in their willingness as well as their ability to flex a domain boundary. As such, it is possible that parents of children with special needs who have access to flexible work arrangements are more able to flex the work domain boundary. However, in being more flexible in where and how works get done, these parents may also be required to be more flexible within the family domain. In essence, these individuals need to be flexible with their family domain boundary to ensure that they are able to meet work demands that may have been adjusted to meet family demands (Brennan et al., 2007). It has been shown that when individuals have more flexible domain boundaries, they engage in more frequent (e.g., cognitive and physical) transitions between work and family (Matthews et al., 2010a). These transitions are performed to transfer resources (i.e., time and energy) into the domain that has the highest need at any given time. However, with more frequent transitions, individuals tend to experience more work–family conflict (Matthews et al., 2010a). The issue at hand is that families with children with special needs may find themselves in a negatively spiraling situation. Specifically, because of their excessive work–family demands, these individuals may maintain highly flexible boundaries. However, in doing so, because of the frequent transitions between work and family, these individuals may inadvertently produce situations wherein they experience increasing perceptions of work–family conflict because of their constant switching between domains. And as reported here, although these families report attempting to protect their family domain (i.e., “family comes first”) they do in fact report experiencing high levels of both work-to-family, and in particular, family-to-work conflict. Further empirical attention which draws on boundary theory's understanding (particularly in light of the proposed segmentation–integration continuum; Ashforth et al., 2000) seems warranted to better understand this potential negative spiral and how it may be moderated as a function of boundary management practices. Furthermore, although not directly assessed in the present study, several respondents indicated that they worked nontraditional work schedules to help them better cope with and manage their work–family demands. This finding is consistent with past research on parents with disabled children (e.g., Porterfield, 2002; Rosenzweig et al., 2002). It is well established that working a non-traditional work schedule can have significant deleterious effects (Staines & Pleck, 1983; Voydanoff, 1988). In part, because parents of children with autism often must manage a non-traditional work schedule, they reported frequently encountering trouble securing appropriate childcare. Having inadequate childcare can be a significant source of stress for many parents. For example, parental concerns over afterschool care supervision have been shown to relate to increased worry, and this increased worry was related to an increase in job disruptions (Barnett, Gareis, Sabattini, & Carter, 2010; Galinsky, 1992). However, the trouble that parents of children with special needs, like ASD, face in finding childcare while they are at work is typically greater than that of parents of children without disabilities (Rosenzweig et al., 2002). This is due to the fact that most childcare facilities are not equipped to care for children with disabilities (e.g., DeVore & Bowers, 2006). Furthermore, children with ASD often function best when they have set and regimented schedules. Structure and routine are core components of many therapeutic approaches for children with ASD (e.g., Cale, Carr, Blakeley-Smith, & Owen-DeSchryver, 2009; Kenny, 2002). Thus, for parents of children with ASD, the negative ramifications of non-traditional work schedules may be magnified by the additional stresses and worries caused by inadequate childcare options. This may significantly impact their ability to focus at work and may negatively impact their overall levels of health and well-being (Barnett & Gareis, 2006a; Barnett & Gareis, 2006b). The intersection between flexible work arrangements, need for specialized quality childcare, and work schedules is an area of research that work–family scholars are well positioned to examine. Considering how conservation of resource theory, boundary

636

R.A. Matthews et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 79 (2011) 625–639

theory, and various social support theories intersect within one another may help work–family scholars in the development of an explanatory model linking these constructs. The application of results from this research could significantly improve the quality of life for parents of children with ASD as well as the children themselves. Need for recovery Several theoretical models, including conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989) and the effort–recovery model (Meijman & Mulder, 1998), discuss the concept of replenishing depleted resources. Employees can be more effective at work when they have ample opportunity to recover (i.e., replenish resources) during non-work time (e.g., Fritz & Sonnentag, 2005; Sonnentag, 2003). In turn, need for recovery occurs when an individual feels as though existing demands have depleted available resources, and a break is needed to replenish these resources (Demerouti, Taris, & Bakker, 2007). When an individual has a high need for recovery, she/he is often unwilling or unable to take on additional demands due to her/his depleted resources (Schaufeli & Taris, 2005). Within the work–family literature, need for recovery is typically discussed in terms of recovery from work during non-work (e.g., family time; Demerouti et al., 2007). However, little is known about the mechanisms employed by individuals who have recovery needs from work demands, but have no opportunity to replenish resources during non-work (i.e., family) time because of the demanding nature of the home domain. This is exactly the issue that was observed for the parents of children with ASD within the present study; they had no chance to recover from work at home and no chance to disengage from home while at work (i.e., while at work, they were still concerned with and thinking about their family lives). Because of their limited opportunities for recovery, many of the parents reported feeling like their work, family, and health had been significantly and negatively impacted by these exhaustive demands. The incorporation of special populations (i.e., families with children with special needs) that experience excessive family demands, wherein family demands function as a potential moderator of theorized relationships, offers an ideal opportunity to extend theories like the effort–recovery model (Meijman & Mulder, 1998). To this end, we found that for several of our participants, because of the excessive demands placed on them at home, work became the domain where they actively sought to recover and replace resources. This is consistent with past research on parents of children with a chronic illness (e.g., George et al., 2008). These results suggest that at least some of the parents in the present study experienced work-to-family enrichment; they gained resources at work that improved their performance at home (see Carlson, Kacmar, Wayne, & Grzywacz, 2006; Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). As discussed by Gareis, Barnett, Ertel, and Berkman (2009), the presence of work–family enrichment helps mitigate the negative impact that work–family conflict can have on one's health, level of depression, and negative affect. Compared to research on work–family conflict, research on work–family enrichment is still relatively limited. However, consistent with other studies on parents of children with some type of disability (e.g., Al-Yagon & Cinamon, 2008; George et al., 2008), our study provides further evidence from a conservation of resources perspective that the work domain can provide opportunities for these parents to replenish much needed resources. Thus, it may be particularly important that future work–family research considers the conditions under which individuals with excessive demands in both the work and family domains may experience enhancement. Past work concerning the need for recovery, specifically detachment literature (e.g., Etzion, Eden, & Lapidot, 1998; Sonnentag & Bayer, 2005; Sonnentag & Kruel, 2006), may also provide useful perspective for framing this future research. The role of social support and support groups Past research has repeatedly demonstrated the importance of social support in mitigating the negative effects of stress. For example, social support from coworkers and supervisors has been shown to negatively relate to experienced work role stressors (e.g., Carlson & Perrewé, 1999; Kumari & Sharma, 1990; Schaubroeck, Cotton, & Jennings, 1989). The proposed mechanism behind this relationship is that when people perceive they have high levels of social support on which to draw, they are less likely to appraise their environment as threatening or stressful (Cohen & Wills, 1985; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984); social support serves as a resource that can be drawn on to prevent stressors from manifesting into strain outcomes (Hobfoll et al., 1990). Past research has also shown that support from family members is negatively related to the experience of family-to-work conflict (e.g., Matthews, Bulger, & Barnes-Farrell, 2010b). Our results suggest that the importance of effective social support systems is to be magnified for parents of children with ASD. An area where respondents perceived significant opportunity for improvement was increasing general understanding of what ASD is and support for the demands and challenges they face within the workplace. This finding is consistent with several past studies on employed parents of children with special needs (e.g., Brennan et al., 2007; George et al., 2008; Rosenzweig et al., 2002). Several respondents simply asked that their coworkers and supervisor learn more about ASD. This request seems to be primarily driven by parents of children with ASD feeling socially isolated, wrongfully judged, and misunderstood by individuals at work as a result of the issues, challenges, and stresses that they face on account of caring for a child with ASD. Emerging research shows that autism specific training is useful for educating individuals linked to autism, such as teachers and parents (e.g., McDonnell et al., 2008; Scheuermann et al., 2003). However, little research explores what type of training is the most beneficial for disseminating knowledge about autism. As a result, future research should investigate the best methods for educating employers, coworkers, teachers, and others with regard to the challenges that parents of children with autism deal with on a daily basis. Employers that are more knowledgeable about the situation may be better equipped to help their workers to perform to the best of their abilities in spite of extenuating circumstances. Furthermore, organizations would be better positioned to promote a more positive work–family climate in the form of increased levels of family-supportive organizational perceptions.

R.A. Matthews et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 79 (2011) 625–639

637

As such, examining family-supportive organizational perceptions as a theoretically grounded meditational mechanism between employer provided special needs training and various personal (i.e., well-being, job satisfaction) and organizational outcomes (e.g., performance, turnover) seems warranted. Conclusion The present study sheds light on the needs, experiences, and challenges faced by parents of children with ASD and provides insight into ways to expand the scope of work–family research. More specifically, the present research provides evidence of how the family domain can greatly impact experiences and decisions made within the work domain for families with special needs children. In particular, our results highlight the utility of using boundary theory to examine the manner in which individuals who have unique family demands may engage in specific boundary management practices. Our results also provide insights into inconsistencies observed in past work–family research (e.g., family friendly policies like flextime). These results have particular relevance in regard to the advancement of theories that seek to examine the role of recovery within the stressor–strain process. Thus, the present research serves as an initial step in examining the interplay between home and work life for families with special needs in addition to demonstrating that this is a relevant and important research domain in need of additional consideration. References Adams, G. A., & Jex, S. M. (1999). Relationships between time management, control, work–family conflict, and strain. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4(1), 72–77. Allen, T. D. (2001). Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 414–435. Allen, T. D., & Armstrong, J. A. (2006). Further examination of the link between work–family conflict and physical health. American Behavioral Scientist, 49, 1204–1221. Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E. L., Bruck, C. S., & Sutton, M. (2000). Consequences associated with work-to-family conflict: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 278–308. Altiere, M. J., & Kluge, S. V. (2008). Family functioning and coping behaviors in parents of children with autism. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 18, 83–92. Al-Yagon, M., & Cinamon, R. G. (2008). Work–family relations among mothers of children with learning disorders. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 23, 91–107. American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed). Washington, DC: Author Text Revision. Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a day's work: Boundaries and micro role transitions. Academy of Management Review, 25, 472–491. Barnett, R. C., & Gareis, K. C. (2006a). Antecedents and correlates of parental after-school concern: Exploring a newly identified work–family stressor. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(10), 1382–1399. Barnett, R. C., & Gareis, K. C. (2006b). Parental after-school stress and psychological well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 101–108. Barnett, R. C., Gareis, K. C., Sabattini, L., & Carter, N. M. (2010). Parental concerns about after-school time: Antecedents and correlates among dual-earner parents. Journal of Family Issues, 31(5), 606–625. Bellavia, G. M., & Frone, M. R. (2005). Work–family conflict. In J. Barling, K. Kelloway, & M. Frone (Eds.), Handbook of work stress (pp. 113–147). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bouma, R., & Schweitzer, R. (1990). The impact of chronic childhood illness on family stress: A comparison between autism and cystic fibrosis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 46, 722–730. Brennan, E. M., Rosenzweig, J. M., Ogilvie, A. M., Wuest, L., & Shindo, A. A. (2007). Employed parents of children with mental health disorders: Achieving work– family fit, flexibility, and role quality. Families in Society, 88, 115–123. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32, 513–531. Bulger, C. A., Matthews, R. A., & Hoffman, M. E. (2007). Work and personal life boundary management: Boundary strength, work/personal life balance and the segmentation–integration continuum. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 365–375. Byron, K. (2005). A meta-analytic review of work–family conflict and its antecedents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67(2), 169–198. Cale, S. I., Carr, E. G., Blakeley-Smith, A., & Owen-DeSchryver, J. S. (2009). Context-based assessment and intervention for problem behavior in children with autism spectrum disorder. Behavior Modification, 33(6), 707–742. Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., Wayne, J. H., & Grzywacz, J. G. (2006). Measuring the positive side of the work–family interface: Development and validation of a work–family enrichment scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(1), 131–164. Carlson, D. S., & Perrewé, P. L. (1999). The role of social support in the stressor–strain relationship: An examination of work–family conflict. Journal of Management, 25, 513–540. Carter, A. S., Martínez-Pedraza, F. L., & Gray, S. A. (2009). Stability and individual change in depressive symptoms among mothers raising young children with ASD: Maternal and child correlates. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65, 1270–1280. Casper, W. J., Eby, L. T., Bordeaux, C., Lockwood, A., & Lambert, D. (2007). A review of research methods in IO/OB work-family research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 28–43. Casper, W. J., Weltman, D., & Kwesiga, E. (2007). Beyond family-friendly: The construct and measurement of singles-friendly work culture. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70, 478–501. Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310–357. Demerouti, E., Taris, T. W., & Bakker, A. B. (2007). Need for recovery, home–work interference and performance: Is lack of concentration the link? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71, 204–220. DeVore, S., & Bowers, B. (2006). Childcare for children with disabilities: Families search for specialized care and cooperative childcare partnerships. Infants & Young Children: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Special Care Practices, 19(3), 203–212. Dumas, J. E., Wolf, L. C., Fisman, S. N., & Culligan, A. (1991). Parenting stress, child behavior problems, and dysphoria in parents of children with autism, Down syndrome, behavior disorders, and normal development. Exceptionality, 2, 97–110. Eby, L. T., Casper, W. J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., & Brinley, A. (2005). Work and family research in IOOB: Content analysis and review of the literature (1980–2002). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 124–197. Einam, M., & Cuskelly, M. (2002). Paid employment of mothers and fathers of an adult child with multiple disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 46, 158–167. Etzion, D., Eden, D., & Lapidot, Y. (1998). Relief from job stressors and burnout: Reserve service as a respite. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 577–585. Ford, M. T., Heinen, B. A., & Langkamer, K. L. (2007). Work and family satisfaction and conflict: A meta-analysis of cross-domain relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 57–80. Fritz, C., & Sonnentag, S. (2005). Recovery, health, and job performance: Effects of weekend experiences. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(3), 187–199. Frone, M. R. (2000). Interpersonal conflict at work and psychological outcomes: Testing a model among young workers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 246–255.

638

R.A. Matthews et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 79 (2011) 625–639

Frone, M. R. (2003). Work–family balance. In J. C. Quick & L.E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of occupational health psychology (pp. 143–162). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Frone, M. R., Yardley, J. K., & Markel, K. S. (1997). Developing and testing an integrative model of the work–family interface. Journal of Vocational Behaviors, 50, 145–167. Galinsky, E. (1992). The impact of child care on parents. In A. Booth (Ed.), Child care in the 1990s: Trends and consequences (pp. 159–171). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ganz, M. (2007). The lifetime distribution of the incremental societal costs of autism. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 161, 343–349. Gareis, K. C., Barnett, R. C., Ertel, K. A., & Berkman, L. F. (2009). Work–family enrichment and conflict: Additive effects, buffering, or balance? Journal of Marriage & Family, 71, 696–707. George, A., Vickers, M. H., Wilkes, L., & Barton, B. (2008). Working and caring for a child with chronic illness: Challenges in maintaining employment. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 20, 165–176. Golden, L. (2001). Flexible work schedules: Which workers get them? American Behavioral Scientist, 44, 1157–1178. Goldenhar, D. (2003). The benefits of flexible work arrangements. New York: Advancing Women Professional and The Jewish Community. Grandey, A. A., Cordeiro, B. L., & Michael, J. H. (2007). Work–family supportiveness organizational perceptions: Important for the well-being of male blue-collar hourly workers? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71(3), 460–478. Grandey, A. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). The conservation of resources model applied to work–family conflict and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 350–370. Gray, D. E. (1994). Coping with autism: Stresses and strategies. Sociology of Health and Illness, 16, 275–300. Gray, D. E. (2002). Ten years on: A longitudinal study of families of children with autism. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 27, 215–222. Greenhaus, J. H., Allen, T. D., & Spector, P. E. (2006). Health consequences of work–family conflict: The dark side of the work–family interface. In P. L. Perrewe & D.C. Ganster (Eds.), Research in occupational stress and well-being, Vol. 5. (pp. 61–98). Amsterdam: JAI Press/Elsevier. Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 76–88. Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work–family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 72–92. Grover, S. L., & Crooker, K. J. (1995). Who appreciates family-responsive human resource policies: The impact of family-friendly policies on the organizational attachment of parents and non-parents. Personnel Psychology, 48(2), 271–288. Grzywacz, J. G., & Bass, B. L. (2003). Work, family, and mental health: Testing different models of work–family fit. Journal of Marriage & Family, 65(1), 248–261. Hastings, R. P. (2003). Child behaviour problems and partner mental health as correlates of stress in mothers and fathers of children with autism. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 47, 231–237. Hastings, R. P., Daley, D., Burns, C., & Beck, A. (2006). Maternal distress and expressed emotion: Cross-sectional and longitudinal relationships with behavior problems of children with intellectual disabilities. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 111, 48–61. Hastings, R. P., Kovshoff, H., Ward, N. J., Espinosa, F. D., Brown, T., & Remington, B. (2005). Systems analysis of stress and positive perceptions in mothers and fathers of pre-school children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 35, 635–644. Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513–524. Hobfoll, S. E., Freedy, J., Lane, C., & Geller, P. (1990). Conservation of social resources: Social support resource theory. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7(4), 465–478. Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. Oxford, England: John Wiley. Kenny, M. (2002). Integrated movement therapy™: Yoga-based therapy as a viable and effective intervention for autism spectrum and related disorders. International Journal of Yoga Therapy, 12(1), 71–79. Koegel, R. L., Schreibman, L., Loos, L. M., Dirlich-Wilhelm, H., Dunlap, G., Robbins, F. R., et al. (1992). Consistent stress profiles in mothers of children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 22, 205–216. Kossek, E. E., Baltes, B. B., & Matthews, R. A. (in press). How Work–Family Research Can Finally Have an Impact in the Workplace. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice. Kumari, K., & Sharma, S. (1990). Social support, organizational role stress and well being: A study of medicos. Psychological Studies, 35(3), 163–169. Lapierre, L. M., Spector, P. E., Allen, T. D., Poelmans, S., Cooper, C. L., O'Driscoll, M. P., Sanchez, J. I., Brough, P., & Kinnunen, U. (2008). Family-supportive organization perceptions, multiple dimensions of work–family conflict, and employee satisfaction: A test of model across five samples. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 92–106. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer. Leslie, D. L., & Martin, A. (2007). Health care expenditures associated with autism spectrum disorders. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 161, 350–355. Matthews, R. A., Barnes-Farrell, J. L., & Bulger, C. A. (2010a). Advancing measurement of work–family boundary characteristics. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77, 447–460. Matthews, R. A., Bulger, C. A., & Barnes-Farrell, J. L. (2010b). Work social supports, role stressors, and work–family conflict: The moderating effect of age. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76(1), 78–90. McDonnell, A., Sturmey, P., Oliver, C., Cunningham, J., Hayes, S., Galvin, M., et al. (2008). The effects of staff training on staff confidence and challenging behavior in services for people with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 2, 311–319. Meijman, T. F., & Mulder, G. (1998). Psychological aspects of workload. In P. J. D. Drenth, H. Thierry, & C. J. de Wolff (Eds.), Handbook of work and organizational psychology, Vol. 2. (pp. 3–33). Hove, England: Psychology Press. Michel, J. S., Mitchelson, J. K., Kotrba, L. M., LeBreton, J. M., & Baltes, B. B. (2009). A comparative test of work–family conflict models and critical examination of work–family linkages. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74(2), 199–218. Montes, G., & Halterman, J. S. (2008). Psychological functioning and coping among mothers of children with autism: A population-based study. Pediatrics, 119, 1040–1046. Olsson, M. B., & Hwang, C. P. (2001). Depression in mothers and fathers of children with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 45, 535–543. Parasuraman, S., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2002). Toward reducing some critical gaps in work–family research. Human Resource Management Review, 12(3), 299–312. Parish, S. L. (2006). Juggling and struggling: A preliminary work–life study of mothers with adolescents who have developmental disabilities. Mental Retardation, 44, 393–404. Porterfield, Shirley L. (2002). Work choices of mothers in families with children with disabilities. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 972–981. Posserud, M., Lundervold, A. J., Lie, S. A., & Gillberg, C. (2010). The prevalence of autism spectrum disorders: Impact of diagnostic instrument and non-response bias. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 45, 319–327. Rao, P. A., & Beidel, D. C. (2009). The impact of children with high-functioning autism on parental stress, sibling adjustment, and family functioning. Behavior Modification, 33, 437–451. Rice, C. (2007). Prevalence of autism spectrum disorders — Autism and developmental disabilities monitoring network, six sites, United States, 2000. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 56, 1–11 (SS-01). Rice, C. (2009). Prevalence of autism spectrum disorders — Autism and developmental disabilities monitoring network, United States, 2006. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 58, 1–20 (SS-10). Rosenzweig, J. M., Brennan, E. M., & Ogilvie, A. M. (2002). Work–family fit: Voices of parents of children with emotional and behavioral disorders. Social Work, 47, 415–424. Schaubroeck, J., Cotton, J. L., & Jennings, K. R. (1989). Antecedents and consequences of role stress: A covariance structure analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10(1), 35–58. Schaufeli, W. B., & Taris, T. W. (2005). The conceptualization and measurement of burnout: Common ground and worlds apart. Work & Stress, 19(3), 256–262.

R.A. Matthews et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 79 (2011) 625–639

639

Scheuermann, B., Webber, J., Boutot, E. A., & Goodwin, M. (2003). Problems with personnel preparation in autism spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 18(3), 197–206. Schieve, L. A., Blumberg, S. J., Rice, C., Visser, S. N., & Boyle, C. (2007). The relationship between autism and parenting stress. Pediatrics, 119(Supp. 1), S114–S121. Shimabukuro, T. T., Grosse, S. D., & Rice, R. (2008). Medical expenditures for children with an autism spectrum disorder in a privately insured population. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38, 546–552. Shockley, K. M., & Allen, T. D. (2007). When flexibility helps: Another look at the availability of flexible work arrangements and work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71, 479–493. Sonnentag, S. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: A new look at the interface between nonwork and work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 518–528. Sonnentag, S., & Bayer, U. -V. (2005). Switching off mentally: Predictors and consequences of psychological detachment from work during off-job time. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 393–414. Sonnentag, S., & Kruel, U. (2006). Psychological detachment from work during off-job time: The role of job stressors, job involvement, and recovery-related selfefficacy. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(2), 197–217. Staines, G. L., & Pleck, J. H. (1983). The impact of work schedules on the family. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute of Social Research. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Building the legacy: IDEA 2004. Retrieved from http://idea.ed.gov/ van Steenbergen, E. F., & Ellemers, N. (2009). Is managing the work–family interface worthwhile? Benefits for employee health and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 617–642. Voydanoff, P. (1988). Work role characteristics, family structure demands, and work/family conflict. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50(3), 749–761. Warfield, M. E. (2005). Family and work predictors of parenting role stress among two-earner families of children with disabilities. Infant and Child Development, 14, 155–176. Waterhouse, L. (2008). Autism overflows: Increasing prevalence and proliferating theories. Neuropsychology Review, 18, 273–286. Williams, K., Mellis, C., & Peat, J. K. (2005). Incidence and prevalence of autism. Advances in Speech Language Pathology, 7, 31–40. Wing, L., & Potter, D. (2002). The epidemiology of autistic spectrum disorders: Is the prevalence rising? Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 8, 151–161.