Beyond time-binds: Rethinking work–family dynamics for a mobile world
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contemporary work is increasingly mobile, sparking new challenges for scholars of work and organizations. In this review article, we argue that a ‘mobilities lens’ offers strong potential for rethinking established approaches, focusing on one important sub-field: work–family studies. Drawing on a ‘problematization’ approach (Sandberg and Alvesson, 2011) and a systematic literature review (SLR) of work–family research published from 1995 to 2015, we show how theoretical assumptions about time, space, and place have narrowed the scope of work–family studies, focusing attention on ‘time’ and ‘time-binds’, and a limited subset of mobilities (e.g. telework, commuting). We argue that a mobilities lens can help us ‘think differently’ about work–family dynamics, prompting theoretical and methodological reorientations that recognize the inextricable connection of time and space (as ‘time–space’) and the need for a more encompassing excavation of the power, practice, and meaning of employment-related mobility (ERM) in work–family life. We sketch out a ‘mobilities inspired’ agenda to illustrate how ideas from mobilities studies can enrich work–family inquiry. We also discuss how mobilities studies can benefit, in turn, from greater engagement with work–family and organizational research.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 it