This study investigated how English and Canadian families with preschool children used strategies to impose varying levels of order to manage day-to-day activities. This grounded theory study is a secondary analysis of 55 hours of participant observation and interviews with 58 individuals and 29 couples. Constant comparative analysis and theoretical sampling were used to construct categories. To attempt to impose order, strategies used by families included organizing and planning, establishing routines, setting limits, setting standards, purchasing services and technology, and delegating tasks. Most families used these strategies successfully; costs outweighed benefits where families concentrated inflexibly on a few strategies in particular spheres of activity or had difficulty using strategies. Families using a variety of strategies flexibly were better at balancing personal and family goals, promoting fulfillment, health, and happiness for each family member, and fostering family development and commitment. Imposing order links everyday family dynamics and concerns to long-term goals.
Avard, D. (1999). All in a day's work. Families and Health, 6, 1-2.
2.
Becker, P. E., & Moen, P. (1999). Scaling back: Dual-earner couples' work-family strategies. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 995-1007.
3.
Blismas, N. G., & Dainty, A.R.J. (2003). Computer-aided qualitative data analysis: Panacea or paradox?Building Research and Information, 31(6), 455-463.
4.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Berkeley: University of California Press.
5.
Burg, M. M., & Seeman, T. E. (1994). Families and health: The negative side of social ties. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 16(2), 109-115.
6.
Chesla, C. A. (1999). Becoming resilient: Skill development in couples living with non-insulin dependent diabetes. In H. I. McCubbin, E. A. Thompson, A. I. Thompson, & J. A. Futrell (Eds.), The dynamics of resilient families (pp. 99-134). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7.
Clark, F. A. (2000). The concepts of habit and routine: A preliminary theoretical synthesis. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 20, 123S-137S.
8.
Clark, S. C. (2000). Work/family balance border theory: A new theory of work/family balance. Human Relations, 53(6), 747-770.
9.
Connell, R. W. (2005). A really good husband. Work/life balance, gender equity, and social change. American Journal of Social Issues, 40(3), 369-383.
10.
Daly, K. J. (1996). Families & time: Keeping pace in a hurried culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
Daly, K. J. (1999). Crisis of genealogy: Facing the challenges of infertility. In H. I. McCubbin, E. A. Thompson, A. I. Thompson, & J. A. Futrell (Eds.), The dynamics of resilient families (pp. 1-40). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
Daly, K. (2003). Family theory versus the theories families live by. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 771-784.
13.
Denham, S. A. (2003). Relationships between family rituals, family routines, and health. Journal of Family Nursing, 9(3), 305-330.
14.
Doane, G. H., & Varcoe, C. (2005). Family nursing as relational inquiry: Developing health-promoting practice. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams, & Wilkins.
15.
Fiese, B. H., Tomcho, T. J., Douglas, M., Josephs, K., Poltrock, S., & Baker, T. (2002). A review of 50 years of research on naturally occurring family routines and rituals: Cause for celebration?Journal of Family Psychology, 16(4), 381-390.
16.
Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. San Francisco: University of California.
17.
Glaser, B. (1992). Emergence versus forcing: Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
18.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
19.
Hall, W. A., & Callery, P. (2001). Enhancing the rigor of grounded theory: Incorporating reflexivity and relationality. Qualitative Health Research, 11(2), 257-272.
20.
Hall, W. A., & Callery, P. (2003). Balancing personal and family trajectories: An international study of dual-earner couples with pre-school children. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 40, 401-412.
21.
Hanson, S. M., & Boyd, S. (1996). Family nursing: An overview. In S. M. Hanson & S. T. Boyd (Eds.), Family health care nursing: Theory, practice, and research (pp. 5-34). Philadelphia: F. A. Davis.
22.
Hartrick, G. (1995). Part I: Transforming family nursing theory: From mechanicism to contextualism. Journal of Family Nursing, 1(2), 134-147.
23.
Higgins, C., Duxbury, L., & Lee, C. (1994). Impact of life-cycle stage and gender on the ability to balance work and family responsibilities. Family Relations, 43(2), 144-150.
24.
Hochschild, A. R. (1996). The emotional geography of work and family life. In L. Morris & E. S. Lyon (Eds.), Gender relations in private and public: New research perspectives (pp. 13-32). London: Macmillan Press.
25.
Howe, G. W. (2002). Integrating family routines and rituals with other family research paradigms: Comment on the special section. Journal of Family Psychology, 16(4), 437-440.
26.
Komter, A., & Vollebergh, W. (1997). Gift giving and the emotional significance of family and friends. Journal of Marriage and Family, 59, 747-757.
27.
Marks, S. R., & MacDermid, S. M. (1996). Multiple roles and the self: A theory of role balance. Journal of Marriage and Family, 58, 417-432.
28.
Mayall, B. (1994). Negotiating health, children at home and primary school. London: Cassell.
29.
McCubbin, H. L., & Patterson, J. M. (1983). Family transitions: Adaptation to stress. In H. I. McCubbin & C. R. Figley (Eds.), Stress and the family volume I: Coping with normative transitions (pp. 5-25). New York: Bruner/Mazel.
30.
Mederer, H. J. (1999). Surviving the demise of a way of life: Stress and resilience in Northeastern commercial fishing families. In H. I. McCubbin, E. A. Thompson, A. I. Thompson, & J. A. Futrell (Eds.), The dynamics of resilient families (pp. 203-236). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
31.
Olson, D. H. (1989). Circumplex Model of Family Systems VIII: Family assessment and intervention. In D. H. Olson & I. Sprenkle (Eds.), Circumplex Model: Systemic assessment and treatment of families (pp. 7-47). New York: Haworth Press.
32.
Proulx, C. M., Helms, H. M., & Payne, C. C. (2004). Wives' domain-specific “marriage work” with friends and spouses: Links to marital quality. Family Relations, 53(4), 393-340.
33.
Rolfe, G. (2006). Validity, trustworthiness and rigour: Quality and the idea of qualitative research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53(3), 304-310.
34.
Sidebotham, P., & ALSPAC Study Team. (2001). Culture, stress, and the parent-child relationship: A qualitative study of parents' perceptions of parenting. Child: Care, Health and Development, 27(6), 469-485.
35.
Stanfield, J. B. (1998). Couples coping with dual careers: A description of flexible and rigid coping styles. Social Science Journal, 35(1), 53-64.
36.
Vanier Institute of the Family. (2004). Profiling Canada's families III. Ottawa, Ontario: Author.
37.
Voydanoff, P. (2002). Linkages between the work-family interface and work, family, and individual outcomes. Journal of Family Issues, 23(1), 138-164.
38.
Wethington, E., & Kessler, R. C. (1993). Neglected methodological issues in employment stress. In B. C. Long & S. E. Kahn (Eds.), Women, work and coping (pp. 269-295). Montreal, Quebec: McGill-Queen's University Press.
39.
Wright, L. M., & Leahey, M. (2000). Nurses and families: A guide to family assessment and intervention (3rd ed.). Philadelphia: F. A. Davis.
40.
Wright, L. M., & Leahey, M. (2005). Nurses and families: A guide to family assessment and intervention (4th ed.). Philadelphia: F. A. Davis.
