Uncertain, Changing and Situated Fertility Intentions

The Flexibility of Fertility Preferences in a Context of Uncertainty

“…Depending on the precise definition used, between 31 percent and 47 percent of British women of reproductive age suggest that they are flexible in their preferences (Ní Bhrolcháin and Beaujouan ). Recent work on fertility preferences across Europe identifies a similar set of concepts, differentiating between distinct types of uncertainty and linking these to a new typology of fertility intentions, which includes contingent (flexible) and ambivalent (oscillating) outlooks in addition to pronatalist, antinatalist, and indifferent intentions (Bernardi, Mynarska, and Rossier ; Philipov and Bernardi ).…”

Wie konzipieren wir Kinderkriegen?

“…B. Bernardi et al 2015) neben der TPB auch auf das sozialpsychologische "Traits-Desires-Intention-Behaviour"-Modell (vgl. Miller & Pasta 1993;Miller 2011).…”

“…(Santelli et al 2009: 97) Qualitative Studien arbeiten mit Typenbildung: Helfferich et al (2014) fächern das Item "ungewollt" in vier Typen auf, Earle (2004) filtert aus den Narrationen "Planungstypen" heraus, wobei schwer festzulegen sei, wann eine Schwangerschaft eindeutig ungeplant ist. Inkonsistenzen zwischen Fertilitätsintention und -verhalten haben aber auch Ambivalenzkonzepte angeregt: Bernardi et al (2015) bildeten auf Basis einer Inhaltsanalyse ihrer Interviews eine sechsstufige Klassifikation von Intentionen. Frauen, die kein klares Ja oder Nein zur Kinderfrage äußerten, fielen in die Kategorien "Indifferenz", "Kontingenz" oder "Ambivalenz".…”

Exploring social norms around cohabitation: The life course, individualization, and culture

“…Previous qualitative research has led to important insights into cohabitation and marriage in individual countries (e.g., Manning and Smock 2005;Miller et al 2011;Mynarska and Bernardi 2007;Syltevik 2010;Le Goff and Ryser 2010;Sassler 2004;Lindsay 2000;Jamieson et al 2002;Gibson-Davis, Edin, and McLanahan 2005;Reed 2006), but most of this research relied on in-depth interviews, did not focus on social norms, and did not compare results across countries. A qualitative project coordinated from the outset and following a common research design did compare childbearing decision-making across countries (Bernardi, Mynarska, and Rossier 2015); however, this research was based on in-depth interviews and did not capture general social norms and attitudes in the same way a focus group does. Focus groups have the distinctive advantage that social norms appear more clearly than in other qualitative methods through the interaction between respondents, who support and sanction each other.…”