- Email: [email protected]
Children of working parents: Experiences and outcomes
BOOK REVIEWS
Children of Working Parents: Experiences and Outcomes Edited by Cheryl Hayes ancl Sheila Kamerman LVashington, DC: Xationnl Xcademy Press, 1983. ix -t 275 pp., (softcover).
$16.30
One outcome of the recent interest in the development of national farnil! policy in the United States has been to draw attention to the impact ot ww-k on family life. The George Ct’ashinston Family Impact Seminar analyzed the connection in its study of flexltime (\Vinett 8~ Scale, 1980): the 1980 White House Conference on Families mentionecl it in theil conference finclings; and national family policy agendas set forth in the late 1970s reconinienclecl that industries be more sensitive ancl responsive 1977; Rice, 19’77). It is thus not surto the neecls of families (Keniston, prising that a national committee of experts shoulcl be appointed to esamine this newly iclentifiecl social problem, discover its pnrameters, draw conclusions, ancl make recommenclntions. In this countrv. the iclentitication‘of a social problem inevitably results in the establishment of a blueribbon commission to study it. The problem is that most commissions clo their \\.or-k. L\.rite thei .A commission appointecl to study a “new” reports, and are forgotten. social problem generally finds that so little is known about it that theil emrecommenclations must be tentative, vague, and broacl-primar-ill phasizing the need for further research. Commissions studying “old” social problems, on the other hand, are often faced with an o\.erabunclance of contradictory data that they can use selectively to support their recommendations. After an initial reaction period, the results of these commissions are also forgotten. Children of Working Parunts is a commission report that belongs in the former category. It is a study of a new social problem on the basis of insufficient, unreliable data, and its fate is unlikelv to be different from that of similar commission reports. The book is a’product of The Panel on \t*ork, Familv, and Communitv. rvhich \vas established in 1950 by the Committee on Child Development. Research, and Public Policy and \\x, chaired by Sheila Kamerman. Chiltlrerl of K’orkirzg Parents is the second of two reports and is intended to build upon the first, Familirs That Ll’ork: Chiltlretl iu n ChnnLgittg Lt’orftl (Kamerman X: Hayes, 1982). According to the authors, the ttt.0 books shoulcl be viewed as a cumulative product. The assumption that provides a basis for the committee’s i\x~rk is that a clramatic shift has occurred recently in family structure and em227
Book
228
Reviews
and that thaw chattges h,t\e h,ttl itttpot.t;tttt COIIWchil(lren in this socict!. -1’he \xliclit\ ot this a~sutnptiott ih tie~rr cluestiotied. The reader is sitnpl~ rettiirttled (repe:ttecll\~) that .59’7 of xhool-:tge chil(lretl and Ah‘57 of children ~tntlettllr age ot’ti \r‘tr, tton tia\,e r\-or-king inothers: that this tiqtre is continuing to rise: arid that consecIuences for chilclt-ett ttiust exist. l’t~esuttiabl~~ thebe cotisecl~tta~ices 2t.e tieg;tti\~e. E‘utnrliv\ T/1(11Il’ork addresses ttie cottttiiutiitv’s response to tllese chnttges and the conseq~~et~c~~ f’or children. \\.hilc C.‘Ai/dwrl 14 Il~orklrq PuwnLr focuses on the interactions Lb.ithin the Ltttiil~ and how that is tlif.f’krent l\.ith t\\w ~\arting parents as opposed to one. I.his rtxiew XMI-esses pritn;tril~. the latter book, but ttnany ot‘ the cottttnents appl!~ to bottt. Commissions seldom come up i\.ith new or startling tinclings. ~I’he best otir can hope for is ;t str-aightti,r~\,~i~tl. unbinsetl aii;tl\~sis and ititerprvtation of the pi-e\+ous studies in the at-e2 2nd ati xmt-ate pi-esentatioti of the findings. In this regai-cl. the cottlttiission report seeins to have a notso-hiclclen agenda \\.hich confesses the book’s purpose. Although the t-epot-t is supposecll>~ about children of working parents-b.hich one ttiight ;issuttie ttieans both seses-tnost of the research and cliscmssion deal ivith children of’ \vot-king mothet-s in an apparent attempt to e\xlu:tte the rvicleto chiltlreti b.hose spread belief that there are harrtifu1 consequences mothers F\urli. Fathers are rarely mentioned. escept to note that theit attitucles to~b2rcl the mothers bmrking ttiav be nn important \2riaf)le. -I-he independent impact of fathers 5vorkin g \v;is ignored. ‘I‘his b’;is ;tplxtt~etitl~~ clue to the neecl to littiit the subject itlatter, but the result is that the lx~ol; of Il.ot-king ;iticl Sotiuurl\5~~oulcI he more appmpriatel\, titled. “Children itig .\fd/~f~r:r.” The edited chaptet-s in this book art ;I cotn~~in2tion ot‘ literatitt~e revie1l.s and original reseatxh. Each of five chapters aclclres.zes ;I specific cluestion, for example, “Do childret of \vorhing mothers l\.atch tttore television “Do r\wrking ttlothers interact tliffet-entlyilrss than non\\mt-king mothers?“: of working motlietx use fel\.et- or ttiow conittiuFaith schools?“; “Do children nit\, services than children of non\\.ot-king, mothers?” (a sort of suhstitltte txit;ysitter- \.s. deprivation of oittsicle activities hypothesis). These 21-e t;tirl> specific questions r\,hich further narrorv the repot-t‘s tocus. In almost e\-er\ case, the authors tlecrv the lack of litio~\~leclge and then conclude that no clenionstrnble direct et:tect of ttiatertial ettiplo!~tnettt exists. Kcpeatetll~ ue at-e told that ifatty effect does esist, it is more likely due to the direct itttixtct of ior- to ati ittteractioti effect b.itti) 2 \xrietv ofindelxnclent ot- inter\-ctiitlg variables such as t-ace. socioeconomic status, attitudes to~\xt-tl KOI-k. the TV:IL householcl responsibilities are cliviclecl, and so on. In other ~~~otxls.the esisting datn (\t.ttich at-e neither reliable nor complete) sqgest that it is not the mother’s i\,orli per- se that causes problems. hut something else. Thnt wtncthins else is too complex to unravel at this time. thet-et;,t-r [chapter 7. “C:onclttsions”) extensive additional research is needed. On the positive side. this book contains ;i tvealth of research designs. Every chapter is fuII of so many un;tm~vetwl questions that txtsters and doctoral cnnclitlntes should be able to bmrl; from this book for quite saint plo\
c~ll’tlc’”
tt1et1t
p‘ltt~tm,
t’ol-
Book Reviews
229
;I list ot. available time. Fut-tllermore. the editors pro\,icle, in the appendix. large-xde data sets to facilitate second-hand clat;l analyses. I ha\ e the feeling b\.e xill see quite a few of these over- the next several !ears. The major problem k\.ith this report, hou.e\,er. is related to its basic assumption and to its apparent intent: to e\,alunte the impact of the incrensing number of mothers w,ho t\;ork outside the home. That cannot be evaluated because there are no comparison tiara on the impact of’ parents’ \vork from earlier vears \vhen mothers \b,orkecl at home hut \t’ere out on the f’arrn ancl therefort not really available in the home. Sor are there clata available from the 193k+, lc.hen mothers t\‘ertt presumably at home and in the home all clay. \\‘e simply have no ~lxy of knoi+,ing I\.hat the impact of parental employment on children was then, so we cannot reallv say with certaint! how it has changed. Doing w,ithin-group coniparisons-coriip~~ring chilclren of i\.orking ancl non~vorkir~g mothers-is helpful inasmuch as it tells us what is happening norm, and it lvill provide n basis for future comparisons. Hol\,ever, it seems misleacling to imply that 1t.e can in any \\.a~ evaluate the impact of the chalging emplovment status of i\x)men on chllclrearing \\,hen \\‘e have no basis for comp:irison other than nostalgia. As \ve do this neeclecl research of the impact of employment on families/children, I hope \ve can abanclon the assumption the commission usecl, or at least clisregarcl it as irrelevant. C\‘e cannot/should not talk about dramatic shifts ancl their consequences, but of \~wrl; and its consequences. Childwn I$ LC’orkir~gPnw~~t.c is not a book about t\.hat ive know\;; it is ;I book about Fvhat 1t.e clo not kno~\~. Ancl L\‘e know \.et-y. little j\.ith certainty. Of course most of the researchers currently doing l\xlrh in the area dread! know that and clo not neecl a cornmission to tell them. Ho\\.ever, Tvhen it the commission’s report may be comes time to request grant proposals, helpful in emphasizing the complexity of the problem ancl in lending supIn this respect the report has clone all that it port for neeclecl research. ~oulcl be expected to do: an aclequate job of pointing out the complexitv 01 the problem. the inadequacy of a\&d~le information, and the need ‘for further research. It offers little in the ~.ay of new insights and is likeI>. to be more useful to researchers ancl possibly to some community program plnnners than to practitioners. It is hoi\.ever, L ‘I beginning and ;t base for furthe research on the complex question of how parental emplo)ment--botii mother’s and father’s-impacts on children ancl families. References
Children of Working Parents: Experiences and Outcomes Edited by Cheryl Hayes ancl Sheila Kamerman LVashington, DC: Xationnl Xcademy Press, 1983. ix -t 275 pp., (softcover).
$16.30
One outcome of the recent interest in the development of national farnil! policy in the United States has been to draw attention to the impact ot ww-k on family life. The George Ct’ashinston Family Impact Seminar analyzed the connection in its study of flexltime (\Vinett 8~ Scale, 1980): the 1980 White House Conference on Families mentionecl it in theil conference finclings; and national family policy agendas set forth in the late 1970s reconinienclecl that industries be more sensitive ancl responsive 1977; Rice, 19’77). It is thus not surto the neecls of families (Keniston, prising that a national committee of experts shoulcl be appointed to esamine this newly iclentifiecl social problem, discover its pnrameters, draw conclusions, ancl make recommenclntions. In this countrv. the iclentitication‘of a social problem inevitably results in the establishment of a blueribbon commission to study it. The problem is that most commissions clo their \\.or-k. L\.rite thei .A commission appointecl to study a “new” reports, and are forgotten. social problem generally finds that so little is known about it that theil emrecommenclations must be tentative, vague, and broacl-primar-ill phasizing the need for further research. Commissions studying “old” social problems, on the other hand, are often faced with an o\.erabunclance of contradictory data that they can use selectively to support their recommendations. After an initial reaction period, the results of these commissions are also forgotten. Children of Working Parunts is a commission report that belongs in the former category. It is a study of a new social problem on the basis of insufficient, unreliable data, and its fate is unlikelv to be different from that of similar commission reports. The book is a’product of The Panel on \t*ork, Familv, and Communitv. rvhich \vas established in 1950 by the Committee on Child Development. Research, and Public Policy and \\x, chaired by Sheila Kamerman. Chiltlrerl of K’orkirzg Parents is the second of two reports and is intended to build upon the first, Familirs That Ll’ork: Chiltlretl iu n ChnnLgittg Lt’orftl (Kamerman X: Hayes, 1982). According to the authors, the ttt.0 books shoulcl be viewed as a cumulative product. The assumption that provides a basis for the committee’s i\x~rk is that a clramatic shift has occurred recently in family structure and em227
Book
228
Reviews
and that thaw chattges h,t\e h,ttl itttpot.t;tttt COIIWchil(lren in this socict!. -1’he \xliclit\ ot this a~sutnptiott ih tie~rr cluestiotied. The reader is sitnpl~ rettiirttled (repe:ttecll\~) that .59’7 of xhool-:tge chil(lretl and Ah‘57 of children ~tntlettllr age ot’ti \r‘tr, tton tia\,e r\-or-king inothers: that this tiqtre is continuing to rise: arid that consecIuences for chilclt-ett ttiust exist. l’t~esuttiabl~~ thebe cotisecl~tta~ices 2t.e tieg;tti\~e. E‘utnrliv\ T/1(11Il’ork addresses ttie cottttiiutiitv’s response to tllese chnttges and the conseq~~et~c~~ f’or children. \\.hilc C.‘Ai/dwrl 14 Il~orklrq PuwnLr focuses on the interactions Lb.ithin the Ltttiil~ and how that is tlif.f’krent l\.ith t\\w ~\arting parents as opposed to one. I.his rtxiew XMI-esses pritn;tril~. the latter book, but ttnany ot‘ the cottttnents appl!~ to bottt. Commissions seldom come up i\.ith new or startling tinclings. ~I’he best otir can hope for is ;t str-aightti,r~\,~i~tl. unbinsetl aii;tl\~sis and ititerprvtation of the pi-e\+ous studies in the at-e2 2nd ati xmt-ate pi-esentatioti of the findings. In this regai-cl. the cottlttiission report seeins to have a notso-hiclclen agenda \\.hich confesses the book’s purpose. Although the t-epot-t is supposecll>~ about children of working parents-b.hich one ttiight ;issuttie ttieans both seses-tnost of the research and cliscmssion deal ivith children of’ \vot-king mothet-s in an apparent attempt to e\xlu:tte the rvicleto chiltlreti b.hose spread belief that there are harrtifu1 consequences mothers F\urli. Fathers are rarely mentioned. escept to note that theit attitucles to~b2rcl the mothers bmrking ttiav be nn important \2riaf)le. -I-he independent impact of fathers 5vorkin g \v;is ignored. ‘I‘his b’;is ;tplxtt~etitl~~ clue to the neecl to littiit the subject itlatter, but the result is that the lx~ol; of Il.ot-king ;iticl Sotiuurl\5~~oulcI he more appmpriatel\, titled. “Children itig .\fd/~f~r:r.” The edited chaptet-s in this book art ;I cotn~~in2tion ot‘ literatitt~e revie1l.s and original reseatxh. Each of five chapters aclclres.zes ;I specific cluestion, for example, “Do childret of \vorhing mothers l\.atch tttore television “Do r\wrking ttlothers interact tliffet-entlyilrss than non\\mt-king mothers?“: of working motlietx use fel\.et- or ttiow conittiuFaith schools?“; “Do children nit\, services than children of non\\.ot-king, mothers?” (a sort of suhstitltte txit;ysitter- \.s. deprivation of oittsicle activities hypothesis). These 21-e t;tirl> specific questions r\,hich further narrorv the repot-t‘s tocus. In almost e\-er\ case, the authors tlecrv the lack of litio~\~leclge and then conclude that no clenionstrnble direct et:tect of ttiatertial ettiplo!~tnettt exists. Kcpeatetll~ ue at-e told that ifatty effect does esist, it is more likely due to the direct itttixtct of ior- to ati ittteractioti effect b.itti) 2 \xrietv ofindelxnclent ot- inter\-ctiitlg variables such as t-ace. socioeconomic status, attitudes to~\xt-tl KOI-k. the TV:IL householcl responsibilities are cliviclecl, and so on. In other ~~~otxls.the esisting datn (\t.ttich at-e neither reliable nor complete) sqgest that it is not the mother’s i\,orli per- se that causes problems. hut something else. Thnt wtncthins else is too complex to unravel at this time. thet-et;,t-r [chapter 7. “C:onclttsions”) extensive additional research is needed. On the positive side. this book contains ;i tvealth of research designs. Every chapter is fuII of so many un;tm~vetwl questions that txtsters and doctoral cnnclitlntes should be able to bmrl; from this book for quite saint plo\
c~ll’tlc’”
tt1et1t
p‘ltt~tm,
t’ol-
Book Reviews
229
;I list ot. available time. Fut-tllermore. the editors pro\,icle, in the appendix. large-xde data sets to facilitate second-hand clat;l analyses. I ha\ e the feeling b\.e xill see quite a few of these over- the next several !ears. The major problem k\.ith this report, hou.e\,er. is related to its basic assumption and to its apparent intent: to e\,alunte the impact of the incrensing number of mothers w,ho t\;ork outside the home. That cannot be evaluated because there are no comparison tiara on the impact of’ parents’ \vork from earlier vears \vhen mothers \b,orkecl at home hut \t’ere out on the f’arrn ancl therefort not really available in the home. Sor are there clata available from the 193k+, lc.hen mothers t\‘ertt presumably at home and in the home all clay. \\‘e simply have no ~lxy of knoi+,ing I\.hat the impact of parental employment on children was then, so we cannot reallv say with certaint! how it has changed. Doing w,ithin-group coniparisons-coriip~~ring chilclren of i\.orking ancl non~vorkir~g mothers-is helpful inasmuch as it tells us what is happening norm, and it lvill provide n basis for future comparisons. Hol\,ever, it seems misleacling to imply that 1t.e can in any \\.a~ evaluate the impact of the chalging emplovment status of i\x)men on chllclrearing \\,hen \\‘e have no basis for comp:irison other than nostalgia. As \ve do this neeclecl research of the impact of employment on families/children, I hope \ve can abanclon the assumption the commission usecl, or at least clisregarcl it as irrelevant. C\‘e cannot/should not talk about dramatic shifts ancl their consequences, but of \~wrl; and its consequences. Childwn I$ LC’orkir~gPnw~~t.c is not a book about t\.hat ive know\;; it is ;I book about Fvhat 1t.e clo not kno~\~. Ancl L\‘e know \.et-y. little j\.ith certainty. Of course most of the researchers currently doing l\xlrh in the area dread! know that and clo not neecl a cornmission to tell them. Ho\\.ever, Tvhen it the commission’s report may be comes time to request grant proposals, helpful in emphasizing the complexity of the problem ancl in lending supIn this respect the report has clone all that it port for neeclecl research. ~oulcl be expected to do: an aclequate job of pointing out the complexitv 01 the problem. the inadequacy of a\&d~le information, and the need ‘for further research. It offers little in the ~.ay of new insights and is likeI>. to be more useful to researchers ancl possibly to some community program plnnners than to practitioners. It is hoi\.ever, L ‘I beginning and ;t base for furthe research on the complex question of how parental emplo)ment--botii mother’s and father’s-impacts on children ancl families. References