The authors describe the work experiences of in-home day care providers, particularly their relationships with the parents of the children for whom they care throughout the day. The authors identify two unintended consequences of the providers' organizing structures and policies: feelings of stress and underappreciation in potential interactions. Ironically, the providers also instituted these same structures and policies to stay home with their own children and meet their own financial needs. This double bind of agency and constraint produced stress, which in turn compromised their interactions with their family and friends. Findings highlight the difficulties involved in managing work and family from a home-based business and draw particular attention to the relational challenges faced by the providers.
Apgar, M. (1998, May-June). The alternative workplace: Changing where and how people work. Harvard Business Review, 76, 121-136.
2.
Baxter, L.A. (1988). A dialectical perspective on communication strategies in relationship development. In S. W. Duck, D. Hay, S. Hobfoll, W. Ickes , & B. Montgomery (Eds.), A handbook of personal relationships theory, research, and interventions (pp. 257-273). London: Wiley.
3.
Baxter, L.A., & Montgomery, B.M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New York: Guilford.
4.
Butler, J.A. (2005). Managing emotions in the daycare context: Communication, structure, and agency. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio University, Athens.
5.
Campbell Clark, S. (2000). Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance. Human Relations, 53(6), 747-770.
6.
Deming, W.G. (1994, February). Work at home: Data from the CPS. Monthly Labor Review, 83(6), 49-54.
7.
Department of Trade and Industries. (2006). Work and families: Choice and flexibility. Retrieved March 8, 2008, from http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file35584.pdf
8.
Edley, P., Hylmo, A., & Newsom, V. (2004 ). Alternative organizing communities: Collectivist organizing, telework, home-based internet businesses, and online communities. Communication Yearbook, 28(1), 87-125.
9.
Edwards, P., Edwards, S., & Roberts, L. (2002). The entrepreneurial parent: How to earn your living from home and still enjoy your family, your work, and your life. New York: Tarcher/ Putnam.
10.
England, P., & Folbre, N. (1999). The cost of caring. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 561, 39-51.
11.
Folbre, N. (2001). The invisible heart: Economics and family values . New York: New Press.
12.
Galinsky, E., Howes, C., Kontos, S., & Shinn, M. (1994). The study of children in family child care and relative care. New York: Families and Work Institute.
13.
Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure and contradiction in social analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press.
14.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
15.
Goffman, E. (1959). Presentations of self in everyday life. New York: Overlook Press.
16.
Graham, E.E. (2003). Dialectical contradictions in post-marital relationships . Journal of Family Communication, 3(4), 193-214.
17.
Hays, S. (1996). The cultural contradictions of motherhood. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
18.
Hochschild, A. (2003). The commercialization of intimate life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
19.
Kontos, S. (1992). Family day care: Out of the shadows and into the limelight. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
20.
Lang, H. (2005, May-June). The trouble with daycare: Are scientists telling parents the whole truth?Psychology Today, pp. 17-18.
21.
Leavitt, R.L., & Power, M.B. (1989). Emotional socialization in the postmodern era: Children in daycare. Social Psychology Quarterly, 52(1), 35-43.
22.
MacDonald, C.L. (1998). Manufacturing motherhood: The shadow work of nannies and au pairs. Qualitative Sociology, 21, 25-53.
23.
Maher, E., Brandon, R., Ganghul, L., & Burton, A. (2003). Determinants of state childcare utilization patters for estimating the size of the childcare workforce at the state level. Washington, DC: Center for Childcare Workforce.
24.
McPhee, R.D. (1985). Formal structure and organizational communication . In R. D. McPhee & P. K. Tompkins (Eds.), Organizational communication: Traditional themes and new directions (pp. 149-178). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
25.
Medved, C.E. (2004). The everyday accomplishment of work and family: Exploring practical actions in daily routines. Communication Studies, 55(1), 128-145.
26.
Medved, C.E., & Kirby, E.L. (2005). Family CEOs: A feminist analysis of corporate mothering discourses. Management Communication Quarterly, 18(4), 435-478.
27.
Montgomery, B.M., & Baxter, L.A. (1998). Dialectical approaches to studying personal relationships . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
28.
Nelson, M.K. (1990). Negotiated care: The experience of family daycare providers. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
29.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
Rawlins, W.K. (1983). Negotiating close friendships: The dialectic of conjunctive freedoms. Human Communication Research, 9, 255-266.
31.
Rawlins, W. K. (1989). A dialectical analysis of the tensions, functions and strategic challenges of communication in young adult friendships. In J. A. Anderson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 12 (pp. 157-189). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
32.
Rutman, D. (1996). Childcare as women's work: Workers' experiences of powerfulness and powerlessness. Gender & Society, 10, 629-649.
33.
Stones, R. (2005). Structuration theory. New York : Palgrave Macmillan.
34.
Tom, A. (1992). The messy work of childcare: Addressing feminists' neglect of childcare workers. Unpublished manuscript, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
35.
Tuominen, M.C. (2003). We are not babysitters: Family childcare providers redefine work and care. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
36.
U.S. Department of Labor, Women's Bureau. ( 1997). Facts on working women (98-01). Washington, DC: Author.
37.
Uttal, L. (1996). Custodial care, surrogate care, and coordinate care: Employed mothers and the meaning of childcare. Gender & Society, 10, 291-311.
38.
Weitzmann, J. (2006). The impact of home daycare on the biological children of providers: Case examples of unintended consequences. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 23(4), 379-389.
39.
Whitebook, M. (1999). Child care workers: High demand, low wages. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 563(1), 146-161.
40.
Williams, J. (2000). Unbending gender: Why family conflict and work conflict and what to do about it. New York: Oxford University Press.
41.
The Women's Unit. (2000). Women and men in the UK: Facts & figures 2000. Retrieved March 8, 2008, from http://www.womenandequalityunit.gov.uk/publications/pocket_book.pdf
