Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38054887›Full record

ArticleAdvances in life course research2023

A qualitative life course perspective on covid-lockdowns and couples' division of unpaid labour.

Jonas Wood

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in life course research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Jonas WoodCentre for Population, Family and Health, University of Antwerp, Belgium. Electronic address: Jonas.Wood@uantwerpen.be.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Covid-19 lockdowns in many countries were characterised by increases in unpaid labour (e.g. home-schooling), as well as changing working conditions (e.g. remote work). Consequently, a large body of research assesses changes in dual earner couples' gender division of unpaid labour. However, despite the increasingly detailed picture of households' division of labour before and after the onset of the pandemic, it remains unclear how dual earner parents themselves perceive their decision-making regarding labour divisions during lockdowns. Consequently, using data from 31 individual in-depth interviews in Belgium, this study adopts a biographical-interpretative method to assess variation in narratives regarding the household division of labour before and during lockdown. Results indicate five ideal type narratives which vary in the extent to which lockdown divisions of unpaid labour exhibit path-dependency or constitute new gender dynamics, but also regarding the balance between individual agency and societal factors as determinants of labour divisions. Taken together, narratives discussing new gender dynamics during lockdowns put forward sector-specific changes in working hours and remote work as external and exogenous determinants. However, most importantly, findings indicate that household decision-making regarding unpaid labour during lockdowns is mostly perceived as path-dependent on pre-covid decision-making (e.g. gender specialisation) in the context of structural (e.g. gendered leave schemes) and normative boundaries (e.g. gendered parenting norms). Such path-dependencies in the decision-making underlying quantitatively identifiable divisions of unpaid labour during lockdowns are likely to be neglected in the absence of a qualitative life course perspective.

Indexed as

COVID-19Labor, ObstetricBelgiumCommunicable Disease ControlFemaleHumansLife Course PerspectivePregnancyBelgiumBiographical interviewsCOVID-19Household gender equalityLife course cubeUnpaid labour

Identifiers

PMID38054887
PMCPMC10060026

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.