Who Cares? The Dilemma of Carework in Older Filipina Migrants’ Narratives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many studies within the growing field of the intersection of migration and aging revolve around the carework done by migrants for the elderly. However, the care issues of migrants who are growing old themselves have remained underexplored. This paper contributes to this field of study, focusing on older New Zealand-based Filipina migrants’ narratives around the carework they do for their families and the care arrangements they desire in old age to investigate links between individual narratives and the discourses around carework and aging. Applying thematic analysis ( Braun & Clarke, 2006 ) with a poststructuralist approach to language on data from pakikipagkwentuhan (an indigenous method for collecting narratives) with 20 Filipinas, I show that women account for their increased performance of carework for their families by calling on notions of acculturation to New Zealand and Filipino constructions of motherhood and femininity. I also demonstrate how women’s own desires for care arrangements in later life are shaped by idealized Filipino family-based care as well as idealized New Zealand state-supported care. I argue that carework is a task women are conscripted to perform for others throughout their life for the benefit of families, communities, and the state(s) they belong to ( Browne, 1998 ; Calasanti, 2010 ; Cruickshank, 2003 ); and yet there is increasing demand for women to be responsible for their own care in aging. The discussion engages with classic and current feminist literature on the gendered construction of carework and the contemporary globalized, ‘professionalized’ context in which an increasing amount of it is performed.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".