One of the family? Familial and professional relationships between migrant live-in caregivers and their employers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Many families in the developed world hire live-in caregivers to meet their childcare and elder care needs. Given the spatial arrangements – i.e., that the caregiver lives with her employer – relationships between employers and live-in caregivers can develop into family-like relationships. The purpose of this paper is to draw on data from two Canadian studies to examine the relationships between migrant live-in caregivers and their employers. Design/methodology/approach The first study focused on the live-in caregivers in Canada. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 Filipina nurses who migrated to Canada through the Live-in Caregiver Program. The second study was a pilot descriptive study that included interviews of recruiter groups and employers of live-in caregivers. Data were thematically analyzed, aided by NVivo software. Findings The studies indicate that some live-in caregivers prefer to be treated as one of the family, while others prefer to have a strictly professional employer/employee relationship. Their employers are similarly divided. The authors identify reciprocity and respect as important ingredients for healthy relationships between live-in caregivers and their employers. Without these key ingredients, relationships between employers and live-in caregivers can be exploitative, especially given the unequal power inherent in the relationship. Research limitations/implications Further studies are needed to better understand how these relationships evolve over time and in space. Practical implications There is a need to create policies to further prevent exploitation of live-in caregivers within an unfavorable employee or familial relationship. Originality/value This study provides useful insight into the development of knowledge on relationships between live-in caregivers and employers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".