Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Global Work–Family Interface
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Global Work–Family Interface
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Part I Overview
- Part II Assessing Cultural and Structural Differences
- Part III Methodological Considerations
- 7 Review of Methods Used in Global Work and Family Research
- 8 Meta-Analysis as a Tool to Synthesize Global Work–Family Research Findings
- 9 Conducting Qualitative Work–Family Research across Cultures
- 10 Leveraging Archival Data in Global Work–Family Research: The Case of Time Use Data
- 11 Best Practices in Scale Translation and Establishing Measurement Equivalence
- 12 Getting the Global Band Together: Best Practices in Organizing and Managing International Research Teams
- Part IV Review of Research in Regions across the Globe
- Part V Cultures within Cultures
- Part VI Organizational Perspectives
- Part VII Family Perspectives
- Part VIII Individual Perspectives
- Part IX Conclusion
- Index
- References
9 - Conducting Qualitative Work–Family Research across Cultures
from Part III - Methodological Considerations
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 April 2018
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Global Work–Family Interface
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Global Work–Family Interface
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Part I Overview
- Part II Assessing Cultural and Structural Differences
- Part III Methodological Considerations
- 7 Review of Methods Used in Global Work and Family Research
- 8 Meta-Analysis as a Tool to Synthesize Global Work–Family Research Findings
- 9 Conducting Qualitative Work–Family Research across Cultures
- 10 Leveraging Archival Data in Global Work–Family Research: The Case of Time Use Data
- 11 Best Practices in Scale Translation and Establishing Measurement Equivalence
- 12 Getting the Global Band Together: Best Practices in Organizing and Managing International Research Teams
- Part IV Review of Research in Regions across the Globe
- Part V Cultures within Cultures
- Part VI Organizational Perspectives
- Part VII Family Perspectives
- Part VIII Individual Perspectives
- Part IX Conclusion
- Index
- References
Summary
In order to gain a complete understanding of work-family issues in different cultural contexts it is important for researchers to consider the local meanings of various work-family related concepts. Cross-cultural qualitative research can be used to explore different work-family phenomena in different cultural contexts and to compare the similarities and differences in those experiences across cultures. Qualitative approaches can also be used to complement quantitative research by establishing functional equivalence of concepts, or highlighting the unique components of the concepts in different cultural contexts. This chapter outlines some best practices in conducting qualitative work-family research across cultures (including data collection, sampling, and data analysis) and highlights some technical issues specific to cross-cultural qualitative research with references to these practices. Possible applications of the qualitative approach to supplement existing research findings are also discussed.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Global Work–Family Interface , pp. 179 - 192Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Allen, T. D., French, K. A., Dumani, S., & Shockley, K. M. (2015). Meta-analysis of work–family conflict mean differences: Does national context matter? Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 90, 90–100.Google Scholar
Ambert, A. M., Adler, P. A., Adler, P., & Detzner, D. F. (1995). Understanding and evaluating qualitative research. Journal of Marriage and Family, 57, 879–893.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D., Gosling, A., Weinman, J., & Marteau, T. (1997). The place of inter-rater reliability in qualitative research: An empirical study. Sociology, 31, 597–606.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ba’, S. (2011). Symbolic boundaries: Integration and separation of work and family life. Community, Work & Family, 14, 317–334.Google Scholar
Baker, S. E., & Edwards, R. (2012). How many qualitative interviews is enough? Expert voices and early career reflections on sampling and cases in qualitative research. National Centre for Research Methods Review Paper. National Centre for Research Methods, Southampton, the U.K. Retrieved from http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/2273/Google Scholar
Barbour, R. S. (2001). Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: A case of the tail wagging the dog? British Medical Journal, 322, 1115–1117.Google Scholar
Beigi, M., & Shirmohammadi, M. (2017). Qualitative research on work–family in the management field: a review. Applied Psychology: An International Review, doi:10.1111/apps.12093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (1992). Cross-Cultural Psychology: Research and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brislin, R. W., Lonner, W., & Thorndike, R. M. (1973). Cross-Cultural Research Methods. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Brough, P., O’Driscoll, M.P., Biggs, A. (2009). Parental leave and work–family balance among employed parents following childbirth: An exploratory investigation in Australia and New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online, 4, 71–87.Google Scholar
Burgess, J., Henderson, L., & Strachan, G. (2007). ‘I just juggle’: Work and family balance in Australian organisations. Hecate, 33(1), 94.Google Scholar
Chan, K. B. (2002). Coping with work stress, work satisfaction, and social support: An interpretive study of life insurance agents. Asian Journal of Social Science, 30(3), 657.Google Scholar
Coffey, B. S., Anderson, S. E., Shuming, Z., Yongqiang, L., & Jiyuan, Z. (2009). Perspectives on work–family issues in China: the voices of young urban professionals. Community, Work & Family, 12(2), 197–212. doi:10.1080/13668800902778967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutrona, C. E. (1996). Social support as a determinant of marital quality: The interplay of negative and supportive behaviours. In Pierce, G. R., Sarason, B. R., & Sarason, I. G. (Eds.), Handbook of Social Support And The Family (pp. 173–194). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
De Cieri, H., & Bardoel, E. A. (2009). What does “work–life management” mean in China and Southeast Asia for MNCs? Community, Work & Family, 12, 179–196.Google Scholar
Frisby, C. L. (1998). Culture and cultural differences. In Sandoval, J. H., Frisby, C. L., Geisinger, K. F., Scheuneman, J. D., & Grenier, J. R. (Eds.), Test Interpretation and Diversity: Achieving Equity in Assessment (pp. 51–73). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Fugard, A. J. B., & Potts, H. W. W. (2015). Supporting thinking on sample sizes for thematic analysis: A quantitative tool. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 18, 669–684.Google Scholar
Georgas, J. (2006). Families and family change. In Georgas, J., Berry, J. W., van de Vijver, F. J. R., Kagitçibasi, Ç., & Poortinga, Y. H., (Eds.), Families Across Cultures: A 30-Nation Psychological Study (pp. 3–50). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbons, J. L., Hamby, B. A., & Dennis, W. D. (1997). Researching gender role ideologies internationally and cross-culturally. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 151–170.Google Scholar
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies For Qualitative Research. London, U.K.: Aldine Transaction.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., & Allen, K. R. (2015). Communicating qualitative research: Some practical guideposts for scholars. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77, 3–22.Google Scholar
Green, B. (2004). Personal construct psychology and content analysis. Personal Construct Theory and Practice, 1, 82–91.Google Scholar
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76–88.Google Scholar
Grzywacz, J. G., Arcury, T. A., Marín, A., Carrillo, L., Burke, B., Coates, M. L., & Quandt, S. A. (2007). Work–family conflict: Experiences and health implications among immigrant Latinos. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1119–1130.Google Scholar
Hall, E. T., & Hall, M. R. (2000). Key concepts: Underlying structures of culture. In Lane, H. W., DiStefano, J. J., & Maznevski, M. L. (Eds.), International Management Behavior: Test, Readings, and Cases (pp. 199–206). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Johnson, P. J., Asmaro, D., Suedfeld, P., & Gushin, V. (2012). Thematic content analysis of work–family interactions: Retired cosmonauts’ reflections. Acta Astronautica, 81, 306–317.Google Scholar
Joplin, J. R. W., Francesco, A. M., Shaffer, M. A., & Lau, T. (2003). The macro-environment and work–family conflict: Development of a cross-cultural comparative framework. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 3, 305–328.Google Scholar
Kasper, H., Meyer, M., & Schmidt, A. (2005). Managers dealing with work‐family‐conflict: an explorative analysis. Journal of Managerial Psychology, (20) 5, 440–461.Google Scholar
King, N. (1998). Template analysis. In Symon, G. & Cassell, C. (Eds.), Qualitative Methods and Analysis in Organizational Research (pp. 118–134). London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
Kirkwood, J., & Tootell, B. (2008). Is entrepreneurship the answer to achieving work–family balance? Journal of Management & Organization, 14(3), 285–302.Google Scholar
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Lewis, S., Gambles, R., & Rapoport, R. (2007). The constraints of a ‘work–life balance’ approach: An international perspective. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18, 360–373.Google Scholar
Löckenhoff, C. E., Lee, D. S., Buckner, K. M. L., Moreira, R. O., Martinez, S. J., & Sun, M. Q. (2015). Cross-Cultural Differences in Attitudes About Aging: Moving Beyond the East-West Dichotomy. In Cheng, S.-T., Chi, I., Fung, H. H., Li, L. W., & Woo, J. (Eds.), Successful Aging: Asian Perspectives (pp. 321–337). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
Lu, Q., Huang, X., & Bond, M. H. (2016). Culture and the working life: Predicting the relative centrality of work across life domains for employed persons. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 47, 277–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, D., & Juang, L. (2017). Culture and Psychology (6th ed). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. London, U.K.: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Mitteness, L., & Barker, J. (2004). Collaborative and team research. In Seale, C., Gobo, G., Gubrium, J. F., & Silverman, D. (Eds.), Qualitative Research Practice. London, the U.K.: Sage.Google Scholar
Mojtaba, V., Turnnen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing and Health Sciences, 15, 398–405.Google Scholar
Nelson, J. (2017). Using conceptual depth criteria: Addressing the challenge of reaching saturation in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 17 (5), 554–570.Google Scholar
Ng, C. W., Fosh, P., & Naylor, D. (2002). Work–family conflict for employees in an East Asian airline: Impact on career and relationship to gender. Economic & Industrial Democracy, 23(1), 67–15.Google Scholar
Nicholas, H., & McDowall, A. (2012). When work keeps us apart: A thematic analysis of the experience of business travellers. Community, Work & Family, 15, 335–355.Google Scholar
Novick, G. (2008). Is there a bias against telephone interviews in qualitative research? Research in Nursing and Health, 31, 391–398.Google Scholar
Ollier-Malaterre, A., & Foucreault, A. (2017). Cross-national work–life research: Cultural and structural impacts for individuals and organizations. Journal of Management, 43, 111–136.Google Scholar
Peus, C., & Traut-Mattausch, E. (2008). Manager and mommy? A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(5), 558–575.Google Scholar
Poelmans, S. A. Y., Greenhaus, J. H., & Maestro, M. L. H. (2013). Expanding the Boundaries Of work–Family Research: A Vision for The Future. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Poster, W. R., & Prasad, S. (2005). Work–family relations in transnational perspective: a view from high-tech firms in India and the United States. Social Problems, 52(1), 122–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohner, R. P. (1984). Toward a conception of culture for cross-cultural psychology. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15(2), 111–138.Google Scholar
Rothbard, N. P., Phillips, K. W., & Dumas, T. L. (2005). Managing multiple roles: Work–family policies and individuals’ desire for segmentation. Organizational Science, 16, 243–258.Google Scholar
Seale, C., Gobo, G., Gubrium, J. F., & Silverman, D. (Eds.). (2004). Qualitative Research Practice. London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
Shordike, A., Hocking, C., Pierce, D., Wright-St. Clair, V., Vitayakorn, S., Rattakorn, P., & Bunrayong, W. (2010). Respecting regional culture in an international multi-sight study: A derived etic method. Qualitative Research, 10, 333–335.Google Scholar
Smith, P. B., Fischer, F., Vignoles, V. L., & Bond, M. H. (2013). Understanding Social Psychology across Cultures: Engaging with Others in a Changing World (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2007). Strategies for coping with work–family conflict: The distinctive relationships of gender role ideology. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(1), 1–19. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.12.1.1Google Scholar
Sturges, J. E., & Hanrahan, K. J. (2004). Comparing telephone and face-to-face qualitative interviewing: A research note. Qualitative Research, 4, 107–118.Google Scholar
Thein, H. H., Austen, S., Currie, J., & Lewin, E. (2010). The impact of cultural context on the perception of work/family balance by professional women in Singapore and Hong Kong. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 10, 303–320.Google Scholar
Valk, R., & Srinivasan, V. (2011). Work–family balance of Indian women software professionals: A qualitative study. IIMB Management Review, 23, 39–50.Google Scholar
Wong, O. M. H. (2003). Postponement or abandonment of marriage? Evidence from Hong Kong. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 34, 531–554.Google Scholar
Wong, S., & Goodwin, R. (2009). The impact of work on marriage in three cultures: A qualitative study. Community, Work & Family, 12, 213–232.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, T. S., Haddock, S. A., Current, L. R., & Ziemba, S. (2003). Intimate partnership: Foundation to the successful balance of family and work. American Journal of Family Therapy, 31, 107–124.Google Scholar