Care is not a tally sheet: rethinking the field of gender divisions of domestic labour with care-centric conceptual narratives

Abstract

This article addresses two puzzles that are at the heart of the field of gender divisions of domestic labour. How is it that care concepts seldom appear in a field that is focused on unpaid care work? Why does the field focus on divisions rather than on relationships and relationalities? To address these puzzles, I interrogate some of the conceptual underpinnings in the field’s dominant theories: social exchange and ‘doing gender’. Through a weaving of Margaret Somers’ historical sociology of concept formation and Nancy Fraser’s historical mapping of capitalism, care and social reproduction, I aim to rethink and remake the field of gender divisions of domestic labour through care theories, especially feminist care ethics and care economies research. I argue that care concepts – which highlight relationalities, responsiveness and responsibilities – can radically re-orient how we approach the ‘who’ and ‘what’ questions of this field’s long-standing central focus on ‘who does what?’

What and How are we Measuring When we Research Gendered Divisions of Domestic Labor? Remaking the Household Portrait Method into a Care/Work Portrait

“…These studies confirm long-standing patterns of gendered differences and inequalities in both paid and unpaid work. While research on gender divisions of domestic labor continues to proliferate, less attention has been given to the methodological and epistemological complexities of measuring unpaid work in quantitative surveys, time use studies, and qualitative research studies (but see Doucet, 2022Doucet, , 2023Christopher, 2020;Folbre, 2018Folbre, , 2021Folbre, , 2022Milkie, in press).…”

“…We were developing a Canadian qualitative research study when we read these remarks; they compelled us to consider using the Household Portrait in our qualitative interviews on practices and approaches to paid and unpaid work in diverse families. At the same time, our attention to long-standing and new theoretical developments in care concepts led us to reconfigure the method into a Care/Work Portrait that is informed by care theories (mainly feminist care ethics and care economies) that attend to relational subjects, intersections between justice and care, and conceptual and practical relationalities of unpaid care work, paid work, and paid care work (see Doucet, 2023).…”

Time use studies, time, temporality, and measuring care: Conceptual, methodological, and epistemological issues

“…Although considerable methodological advancements have been made in time use methods over the past decade, assessments and critiques about the efficacy and applicability of time use studies for measuring the intersections between time and care have been growing. These critiques highlight, for example, the need to attend to the challenges of measuring overlapping categories and activities in everyday life; the relational and processual characteristics of time and care practices and concepts; the multiple meanings and enactments of time and temporalities in different contexts; the epistemological and ontological moorings of time use studies (Bryson, 2008); the gaps between theories of time and methodological approaches to time (e.g., Adam, 1989Adam, , 1995Adam, , 2006Adam, , 2018Bryson, 2008;Cheng, 2017;Daly, 2002;Davies, 1994Davies, , 1996Maher, 2009); and specific measurement challenges of studying practices, meanings, and spatial boundaries of care work, unpaid work, and community-based care work (e.g., Doucet, 2000Doucet, , 2023Doucet and Klostermann, 2023;Taylor, 2016). The papers in this special issue seek to expand time, temporalities, and time use studies discussions, debates, and critiques, especially those related to unpaid care work.…”