Abstract
Introduction
Over the past few decades, paternal expectations have shifted away from the enduring construct of the traditional male “breadwinner” towards a more care-centric and nurture-oriented model of “involved” fatherhood (Elliott, 2016; Ewald & Hogg, 2020; Scambor et al., 2014). However, traditional gender norms continue to underpin many work and family practices within Western society, with men still expected to prioritize success at work and building their career (Williams et al., 2016). The competing and contradictory positoning of men both as “involved fathers” and as “dedicated workers” has resulted in uncertainty and fluidity for men’s negotiation of fathering identity/ies (Cooper, 2000; Humberd et al., 2015). Indeed, previous research has revealed men hold multiple coexisting and interwoven images of themselves, including that of a provider, partner, role model, and nurturer (Humberd et al., 2015). Consequently, contemporary men are faced with having to assess what
While men are agentic subjects in the negotiation of fatherhood and masculine identity, social norms and gendered constructions of working and caring invariably shape fathering identities and paternal practices (Gatrell, 2005; Gatrell et al., 2014; Sheridan, 2004; Vandello et al., 2013). These identities are formed by competing and contradictory discourses around what it means to be a
Indeed, previous research has revealed that striking a balance between work and family responsibilities can be challenging for men (Allard et al., 2011; Cooklin et al., 2015); despite men’s increased access to FWAs (Baxter & Smart, 2010; Chung, 2018). There is some evidence that men’s commitment to the ideal worker norm, which emphasizes the need for men to work full-time and be unburdened by care (Williams et al., 2016), is at the core of men’s resistance towards adopting FWAs for the purposes of parenting. Furthermore, deviating from the ideal worker norm has been shown to endanger career advancement for men (Berdahl & Moon, 2013)—and this is acknowledged not only by men and fathers, but also by those in their immediate surroundings (Ewald & Hogg, 2020). These tensions are likely to escalate as men are increasingly called upon to engage in more carework due to the fact that in Australia alone, more than half of fathers with dependent children have a partner engaging in paid employment (Workplace Gender Equality Agency [WGEA], 2019).
In this paper, we add to the existing discourse around father’s involvement in the care of their children by exploring the underexamined issue of how fathering identities impact on fathers’ engagement with FWAs. We will focus on how men’s practices are shaped by the normative gender expectations that “real” men prioritse paid work over caring. We begin by outlining the type and nature of FWAs within Australia, and we then detail the fluid and complex nature of contemporary fathering by drawing on existing literature. Finally, we draw on data from semi-structured interviews with 43 Australian white-collar working fathers using Foucauldian Discourse Analysis to explore how diverse fathering identities influence men’s engagement with FWAs.
Flexible Working Arrangements Within Australia
While there are various definitions of flexibility throughout work-family scholarship and within policy documents (Canibano, 2018; Kossek & Lautsch, 2018), broadly speaking, FWAs are enacted when organizations provide their employees with the ability to modify how, when, and where they carry out their work. FWAs may include part-time work, compressed work schedules, working from home, parental leave, taking a leave of absence, and working flexible start and finish times (Borgkvist et al., 2018). Within Australia, a range of FWAs are accessed through a hybrid system involving the Paid Parental Leave scheme, an amendment to the Fair Work Act, the National Employment Standards (NES), and via some workplace/enterprise agreements or organizations providing their own initiatives and/or policies (Baird et al., 2021; Fair Work Ombudsman, 2021). The Paid Parental Leave scheme has been recently adapted to include a means-tested parental leave payment for up to 20 weeks for either parent (up from 18 weeks which was for a primary carer only). Although the amended scheme is positioned as being more “family” oriented, mothers have traditionally been most likely to adopt parental leave, with 99.5% of Australian parental leave payment recipients being mothers (Wood et al., 2020). Importantly, the amount of leave within this scheme is still currently below the recommendation of 26 weeks (Arthur, 2022; Baird & Constantin, 2016), is in opposition to the calls to provide adequate father specific leave for men (see Ewald et al., 2020), and the scheme has been criticized for its potential to merely increase the amount of time mothers take away from paid work to provide care for their children (Patten, 2022).
Prior to July 2023, and in the period which the data for this study was collected, there was a provision for “Dad and Partner Pay”, a means tested payment equating to approximately 40% of the average earnings for a full-time working male in Australia (Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS], 2020) which was made available to eligible fathers for up to two weeks after the birth of a child (Martin et al., 2014). This was well below the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, 2016) average of eight weeks for father specific leave.
Aside from parental leave, there are a range of other FWAs that facilitiate involved fathering (Allard et al., 2011; Baxter, 2019; Ewald et al., 2020). Arrangements such as flexible start and finish times, working remotely, and working part-time provide an opportunity for fathers’ involvement in activities such as school drop off and pick up, attending school events, and providing care during school holidays (which are particularly difficult periods for parents to navigate) (Charlesworth et al., 2014).
The Involved Father Model and Traditional Masculine Norms
The
However, normative masculine expectations for men to be economic providers and focused on their career prevent fathers from being as engaged and involved in caring as mothers (Aumann et al., 2011; Burnett et al., 2011; Cooklin et al., 2015; Dermott, 2014). In fact, the concept of father involvement stands in contrast to the pervasive and highly masculinized traditional conceptions of fathering that emphasize providing financially for one’s family (Williams, 2008). The
According to Hochschild (2012) while fathers have become more engaged in parenting, many heterosexual men still view women as primarily responsible for unpaid work in the home, and so perceive themselves as assistants in household labour, rather than as active caregivers. Such constructions give rise to the notion of the father as a
Australian women are also more likely to adopt flexibility to accommodate caring responsibilities than are Australian men (Diversity Council Australia [DCA], 2020). Indeed, many fathers take less than one week leave after the birth of their child, with approximately 11% taking no leave from their paid work at all (Wells et al., 2015), and although Australian men have been increasingly adopting forms of flexibility such as remote working (ABS, 2016), few significantly modify their working practices for the specific purpose of caring for children. In particular, there is a lack of men adopting part-time work, and other forms of flexible work, that significantly reduce their working hours (Baxter, 2019; Smyth et al., 2013).
While the existing research points to both material and psychological barriers to men’s adoption of FWAs, there is a dearth of research that examines specifically how men construct and experience FWAs in relation to their identity as fathers; and there is a lack of insight into how a broad range of FWAs may facilitate involved fathering practices. In this paper, we seek to address this gap, and to explore the following research questions: (1) How do fathers discursively construct and position their fathering identity (ies)?; (2) Do fathers adopt FWAs to participate in the care of their child (ren)?: and (3) How is men’s engagement with FWAs shaped by fathering identities?
Method
Participants
Forty-three heterosexual fathers working within the Australian financial sector volunteered to take part in the study. The fathers were recruited using a combination of snowball and convenience sampling. Details of the research were advertized using a flyer and email narrative shared through social media and professional networks. Details of the study were also distributed by a union group via email to their Australia wide member base, encouraging members who fit the selection criteria to make contact and to become involved in the research.
Ethics approval was provided by the university ethics committee (approval number H12955). The financial sector was chosen because of its reputation for a heightened pressure to succeed, poor work-life balance, and long working hours (Talukder et al., 2018); creating a culture that appears incompatible with involved fathering. Furthermore, the choice to focus on one sector ensured that the policies and practices, and cultures around flexibility were not significantly varied across the participants, as these do vary significantly between industries (WGEA, 2019).
The fathers worked in various positions, including as managers, service workers, sales workers, and administrative workers. The fathers occupied diverse occupational status levels across the organizational hierarchy. Previous research has identified a lack of research on father’s experiences of FWAs across occupational status (Ewald et al., 2023; Kossek & Lautsch, 2018), with much of the literature focusing on fathers working in managerial or professional roles. The fathers were categorized as having either high (
The participants were fathers of children who were aged between 0-12 years, with the exception of one participant whose child was 13 years at the time of the interview. The children’s age range was selected as these are the years at which children are most dependent, and hands-on caring can be the most intensive. Research has also found that these are the years at which fathers tend to work longer hours (Baxter, 2013; Baxter & Smart, 2010), there is a potential for increased work-family stress, and there is an increased need for flexible employment conditions. The fathers ranged in age from 27 years to 57 years, with an average age of 41 years. The majority of the fathers were Anglo-Australian or Anglo-Saxon (
Data Collection
One-to-one semi-structured interviews were used to explore the men’s accounts of fathering, paid work, and FWAs. A short questionnaire was also used to collect demographic information. The one-to-one interviews included questions relating to experiences of flexibility, whether the fathers felt they could access such arrangements, their thoughts and feelings on fatherhood and managing work and family life, generational differences in fathering, and the impact of FWAs on their parenting practices. The interviews were carried out by the first author, between 2018 and 2019, prior to the onset of COVID-19 in Australia. Interviews were audio-recorded and then transcribed verbatim for analysis—pseudonyms have been used to protect the identities of the participants.
Data Analysis
Foucauldian Discourse Analysis (FDA) was chosen to analyse the data as it allows for the examination of discourse, subject positions, and the relationship between discourse and practice. This methodology has been used widely for critical psychological research to understand how identity and the self are shaped and negotiated within a social context, and “how discourse invites certain ways of being” (Hanna, 2014, p. 146). In particular, this method focuses on examining the way in which
The analysis was guided by the research questions and aims, and the six-stage procedural guidelines for FDA developed by Willig (2013). The first stage of data analysis began with reading and re-reading the transcripts, and examining the different ways discursive objects (e.g. fathering and FWAs) were constructed. As an example, we identified that some fathers constructed FWAs as “privilege” or a by-product of their trusted position in the workplace, while others constructed FWAs as a “right” for all employees. The second stage involved locating the constructions within wider social discourses and observing the differences in constructions within and between individuals. One of the key observations we made here was that FWAs are not directed towards or designed for fathers, but are instead constructed more for mothers; thus drawing on gendered notions of work and care in which women are cast as primary carers, even when engaging in paid work. In the third stage of analysis, the active orientation of the participants’ language was explored; that is, we examined the function and purpose of the constructions and what might be gained by their use. For example, some of the men positioned FWAs as facilitating them “helping” in the parenting role; playing a seemingly supportive, but certainly less dominant, role in parenting. This had the effect of framing men as maninfestly engaged fathers, but this language functioned to provide a literal and symbolic space for men to prioritize their paid work over their “help” with parenting. In the fourth stage, the subject positions taken up within the fathers’ accounts were identified, and we looked specifically at how these subject positions either enabled or restricted ways of being, or limited participants to their discursive gendered fit. Here we found that the positioning of men as “present” for their children enabled the fathers to demonstrate some resistance towards traditional gender norms and models of fathering, where men are more than simply “breadwinners”. However, this “presence” was typically bounded and circumscribed, with most of the fathers largely adhering to a traditional notion of fathering that prioritizes breadwinning and success at work. In the fifth stage of analysis, the relationship between discourse and practice, including thinking about what can be said and done as a result of taking up a particular position within a discourse, was examined. Here we focused on the discursive tension that exists for fathers between the ideal worker discourse and the discursive construction of FWAs as a feminized practice; a tension that ultimately restricted the fathers’ ability to adopt FWAs for fear of being cast an unmasculine non-ideal worker. In the final stage of analysis, we looked at the relationship between discourse and subjectivity, focusing specifically on what could be “felt, thought and experienced from within various subject positions” (Willig, 2013, p. 389), as well as how the fathers negotiated the tensions between different discourses. For example, high-status working fathers who are able to use FWAs for work purposes seemed to feel validated to do so because FWAs were constructed as aligning with their privileged position as a valued worker. However, father’s who adopted FWAs for family purposes appeared to risk being positioned as deviant or defying gender and workplace norms by prioritising care.
Through the data analysis process, we developed an overarching discourse of “involved fathering”, with three dominant subject positions constituting fathering identities: (1)
Results and Discussion
Below we examine the fathers’ accounts of fathering and flexible working, with a specific focus on how the men positioned themselves as fathers, and how they negotiated the ideologically antithetical roles of “father” and “worker”. The accounts revealed the various ways the identity/ies fathers took up shaped their practices around flexible working.
Positioning Fathering Identities and Flexible Working Arrangements
Many of the men talked about “different ways of being a father”, with the fathers often comparing themselves to other men (including their own fathers), and then discursively positioning and dichotomising their fathering practices as either “good” or “bad” vis-à-vis these other men. The fathers largely drew on a discourse of involved fathering, and they took up various subject positions within this space, these included:
The Present and Visible Father
Being present for, and visible to, children, was positioned as an ideal and desirable feature of contemporary fathering by most of the participants, with FWAs seen as facilitating this. For many fathers, presence related to watching their children “play sport” (Anthony), “attending school events” (Joshua), and generally being able to be “there” for children (Cameron), as opposed to being actively involved in their children’s day-to-day care. For example, Peter, a mid-status worker, reported that flexibility in his work schedule means that he can be there for his son’s school “assemblies”, and for Marco, a high-status worker with a stay-at-home wife, “if my daughter has performances at school.… I’m always there, and that’s great”.
Aside from attending events, FWAs were also adopted to manage emergencies or ad hoc caring requirements that their wife or partner were unable to fulfil. For example, Geoff explained that although his wife is typically able to look after the needs of the children, there are times where “if one of the kids is ill or if they’ve got an appointment or something like that, then that’s when I do it [flexible working]”.
The finding that
In our participants’ narratives, this led to a compromized position, where presence is restrained by work commitments. Restrained presence, therefore often took the form of limited care practices such as attending events or participating in ad-hoc caring, but even this type of engagement proved challenging for some. Jonathon, for example highlighted the obstacles to taking up flexibile work. While he expressed a desire to actively resist “going down the same path” as his own father, who he “barely ever saw” due to his father’s demanding career, he was also conscious of the barriers to flexibility for high-status men such as himself. He highlighted the potential for flexibility to lead to a “pay-cut” or to threaten his “ability to be the primary earner” for his family. As such, Jonathon expressed some trepidation around using some forms of flexibility that might be particularly visible, and that may threaten his status at work, such as “formal” arrangements or those that significantly reduced his time spent in the office. Jonathon’s comments draw on the idea that men may resist adopting flexibility because it has the potential to “make their status as caregivers more visible and salient within the workplace, much to their disadvantage” (Brescoll et al., 2013, p. 371; Reid, 2015). Jonathon’s comment also highlights the idea that there is an interaction between subjective barriers—such as men’s own attitudes and perspectives towards work and care—and external barriers to flexibility for men—such as restrictive organizational practices and policy (Ewald & Hogg, 2020).
In another interview, Colin identified a cultural pressure to be present and visible at events, and also the challenge of meeting this expectation. He stated: I think society puts the pressure on dads as well, you know “why weren’t you at this thing”, but if you work full-time it is hard to get to everything. I go to a lot of stuff, but sometimes you feel guilty because you can’t go to some things.
Here, Colin identifies a tension between changing fatherhood norms, albeit norms that are limited to presence at events, and the traditional (masculinist) worker norms of full-time employment, a tension that has also been observed in previous research (see Tanquerel & Santistevan, 2022). As outlined in the work of Marks and Palkovitz (2004) and Borgkivst (2022) these tensions have moral, economic and social underpinnings—whereby men are tasked with being dedicated workers while also being available to their children.
The men expressed the idea that some forms of FWAs that increased their visibility as a father such as flexible start and finish times and working remotely, were acceptable, however, they positioned more significant forms of flexibility such as part-time work, formalized arrangements, or working from home more than two days a week, as inaccessible, impractical or unattainable. Their engagement in their children’s lives was therefore often limited to restrained presence, and for some, even an expectation that they be present at events was too demanding. This discourse around only using forms of flexibility that did not jeopardize their position at work, had the effect of maintaining the gendered status quo, and reinforced the notion that FWAs which significantly interfere with paid work are not a legitimate practice for men, especially for men who are serious about their career. Some of these differences in constructions and experiences between different forms of FWAs have also been outlined within the existing literature (see Munsch, 2016).
The Involved and Competent Father
While the majority of the fathers discussed the importance of being
While only a minority of fathers reported taking parental leave after the birth of their child, those who did, discussed the positive impact it had on their relationship with their children, due to their ability to be more hands-on in providing their care. For example, Anthony, a high-status worker, and father of two young girls, said that his strong bond with his daughters was “particularly enabled by the [parental leave] policy here at work”, and he was grateful for the opportunity to become more
Indeed, Dean, who is a 41 year old part-time worker, compared himself to fathers from previous generations, claiming that: “I think certainly, you know, anyone that’s my age and younger, the expectation is that you are absolutely involved, as opposed to my parents’ generation”. The shifting expectations for fathers was also acknowledged by other men. Sean, a 44 year old mid-status bank worker, adopted a lot of the caring responsibilities within the home due to his wife’s demanding work role, and he drew on his awareness of the social expectations for fathers when rationalising his work-family practices. He explained that “we expect dads to have a level of competence” and that being a father today is “about engaging more with your kids, and having that relationship with them, and just doing more around the house, and having the breakdown of the barrier that dad just earns money and mum does the housework
However, the men’s accounts were also underpinned by the demands of paid work. Julian explained that “for the most part I’m in the office at about eight and I head off, not much after five. And if I do have any further work that I need to do I’ll kind of log back on once the kids are all settled in bed, and do what I need to do with the evening time”. Similarly, Brian explained that his job, while flexible enough to facilitate his involvement with his children, was also demanding. He stated that “no matter where you are, you’re working”, and that he tries “to keep the weekends free” and only works on weekends “if I have to”. Such dedication to work is likely to interfere with fathers’ endeavours to live up to the involved father ideal; and contributes in some way, no doubt, to the “new father agenda being riven with tensions” (Gregory & Milner, 2011, p. 601).
The men’s accounts of allowing paid work to permeate the boundaries of their personal life, and discourses around the need to be available to work at all times, sustains the ideological antithesis between work and fathering—and also highlights the way in which men in higher-status roles may be reinforcing many of the barriers to flexibility for fathers.
The Father as Helping
Not all the fathers reported participating in the more contemporary model of fathering that is described in the accounts above. Many of the fathers indicated that traditional gender norms, which position women within the home and men within the workplace, not only still exist, but they allow men to have a level of She works at my daughter’s school. So, my two boys have gone by the time she needs to go to school [to work] and she’s back before the two boys are. It’s an ideal scenario. Perfect sort of job for [pauses thinking], perfect job for a mum.
Geoff’s account illuminates the continued prevalence of traditional gendered norms in work and family life, and his claim that flexibility is “perfect” for mothers appeals to the normative notion that FWAs are designed for women with children. Christian, who is a mid-status worker, stated that this type of heteronormative understanding of gender has led to flexible work being stigmatized for men. He stated: I think there’s a stigma that prevents men from using flexible working. There’s definitely an element where women in the office say: “my child’s sick and I have to stay home with my child” and people are like “oh, you poor thing, yes, your child’s your first priority” but if a father says that, then people are like, “well why isn’t your wife staying home to do it”?
Christian’s narrative illustrates that there still exists an assumption that men have a wife at home who will provide childcare. Such an assumption might limit men’s engagement with flexible work, and limit their engagement in care to practices of restrained presence.
Jordan, a high-status worker, whose wife was not currently engaged in paid work, also provided an account which gives us insight into the gendered assumptions of work and care. He described how there is little expected of men in terms of child caring: “I think this is a trap a lot of men fall into, stereotypically … society doesn’t really expect us to stay at home with the kids, and it treats us as a bit odd if we do”. Jordan’s comment highlights his awareness of the normative practices for fathers and the potential for men who choose to operate outside of these masculine norms to be ostracized. Jordan’s assumptions are supported by previous research that shows that men who deviate from the traditional breadwinner model of fatherhood by modifying their work for the purposes of care may face harassment in the workplace for not being “man enough” (Berdahl & Moon, 2013, p. 353). These men may also may earn less than other men in the future, and may be subjected to negative judgements regarding their ability to fulfil the ideal worker norm (Coltrane et al., 2013).
It was clear from many of the fathers’ accounts that there are barriers to their active participation in the caring role. As evidenced by these accounts, and as argued by Ruby and Scholz (2018), the involved model of fathering that challenges more traditional fathering ideals, still leaves a space for traditional fathering practices to occur. Furthermore, Segal (2006) argues that the perseverance of traditional fathering practices despite a shift in expectations, is due in part to men’s own resistance to change in this area, claiming that “it is simply not in men’s interest to change too much” (p. 34).
Indeed, although approximately 40% of the fathers in the study talked about using flexibility regularly for caring or for family purposes, the vast majority of these arrangements occurred on only one to two days per week, and they did not significantly impact the men’s time spent working. In fact, when the men did reduce their time at work for family purposes, they typically made up the hours later or earlier in the day, and only two participants worked part-time, with few reporting that they took extended periods of leave after the birth of their child.
Many of the men positioned their fathering role as one of a At night, obviously, I don't see them [the children], and I don't really help out then, because I’m not around, you know, I'm at work at that point in time. And that sort of late shift, I can see that, it does take a toll on my wife. You know, it is a bit sort of stressful for her, and unfortunately, it's just life at the moment.
While Jeremy acknowledged the impact of his work schedule on his ability to assist with childcare, he also drew on the idea that FWAs are not designed for men, claiming: “I think being a male, if I were to move to a flexible work arrangement, then I would think that it would have some kind of impact on my career growth”. Jeremy also describes his helping as the norm for contemporary fathers, suggesting that he is living up to the current expectations of involved fathering through helping rather than co-parenting: If I look at my dad, and I think about these kinds of things when I'm with my kids, don’t get me wrong, I had a great dad, and I had a great childhood, but in terms of responsibilities, my dad never helped me with my homework, my dad just went to work and did his own thing. Whereas now, the expectation is, you're also the father of the child, the expectation is that you need to help out, and not only that, you kind of want to help out as well.
As argued by Gatrell (2005) and by Halford (2006), despite changes to conceptualizations of fathering, ultimately, men are still positioned as
Marco, whose wife is a stay-at-home mother, also positioned himself as a helper within the home, while his wife is the primary carer: So, it’s about kind of helping, so, my wife will drive my son to school, and I’ll get my daughter’s breakfast ready and her lunch, and all of those things. So, I try and help in the mornings as best I can.… She takes on a lot of that responsibility, and I help the best I can, and if she asks me to do something then I will, like if I need to come in later to work, or whatever it might be.
Marco’s comment that his wife may need to ask him to help, rather than him taking initiative himself, and his reference to helping “the best that I can” reflects the way that caring is positioned as a mother’s responsibility with fathers only required to intervene when they are asked, and where they have the time and ability to do so.
Similarly, Patrick, whose wife works part-time, also described how he “sometimes” helps his wife, and explained that this occurs as a result of her not being there, rather than as an attempt at co-parenting: Sometimes I’d like to get home earlier to help with the dinner and the dog and everything that happens after five, but if I’ve got a lot of work on, sometimes I’ll have to stay back until seven or whatever that time might be. But if my wife has something on and I have to go home, or I have to pick the kids up, I will do that, and then I’ll log on later, and work in the evening to make it up.
The fathers’ accounts of helping and supporting their wives again reinforces the idea that men have choice and flexibility around their level of involvement in the home, and can negotiate how much caring and housework they do with their partners (Ruby & Scholz, 2018). Indeed, the fathers who positioned themselves as helpers to their partners rather than as co-parents with equal caring responsibilities, created a space where their dedication to work was legitimized because they were not
Conclusion
This study set out to explore fathering identities alongside men’s flexible working practices. The study has shown that fathering identities are organized around multiple competing and paradoxical models of fatherhood. The study revealed that the notion of involved fathering is broad, with most of the men identifying as involved fathers while also taking up various other subject positions. This highlights the dynamic and fluid nature of fathering identities, and the partial and contradictory nature of changing norms of fatherhood. Societal expectations of men also appeared contradictory and multiple, in that they included both traditional and involved understandings of fatherhood, and understandings of men as “ideal” full-time workers.
While many of the accounts about flexibility were common across the men, the discursive constructions, positionings, practices, and consequences of adopting flexibility varied depending on which fathering model the men most strongly identified with. Despite the men broadly identifying as involved fathers, few men significantly modified their employment practices for caring, and their adoption of flexibility was mostly in the form of ad hoc or minor modifications to their work schedule, rather than significant changes to their time spent engaged in paid work. There was some evidence of the men constructing FWAs and their level of engagement in caring as a “choice,” which is something that has historically not been an option for mothers, who have shouldered the burden of care and significantly modified their engagement with paid work after having children. Indeed, many of the fathers carefully negotiated FWAs and actively avoided arrangements that would jeopardize their position or status at work.
Some fathers adopted the position of a
Similarly, FWAs (often informal and irregular changes to start or finish times) were adopted to support fathers taking up the position of
While fathers who identified as
While this research has contributed to our understanding of how Australian men identify as fathers, and how fathering identities shape men’s constructions and experiences of flexible work, the research also has some limitations: the participants all identified as cis-gendered heterosexual men and white-collar working fathers from one sector. Future research would benefit from exploring men’s experiences of flexibility from a broader range of gender and sexual identities and across diverse industries, family structures, and cultural backgrounds. While men from different cultural backgrounds were included in the this study, no significant correlations between cultural backgrounds and experiences of flexible work were found.
Yet, it is hoped that future research can extend further upon these findings, and in particular expand on how normative constructions of fathering and masculinity shape experiences of FWAs, and expand on understanding the tension between societal expectations that men should be both involved fathers and “ideal workers”. Another area that requires further exploration is the way in which men compare themselves to other fathers in the process of navigating their own fathering identity. In doing so, we can further our understanding of how contemporary men mobilize themselves as fathers and as workers, and in particular the role of FWA’s in facilitating involved fathering practices.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
Funding
ORCID iDs
