Conflict and Harmony in Work and Family: A Bibliometric Perspective on Work-life Balance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study analyzes publication trends and historical patterns in Work-Family Conflict (WFC) literature using bibliometric analysis. Data were obtained from Scopus, Sinta, and Google Scholar using the keywords work-family conflict, work-life balance, and work stress within the 2020-2025 period. Articles were filtered using Publish or Perish in the fields of management, accounting, psychology, and social sciences. The findings indicate that WFC research has evolved from role conflict conceptualization (1990-2005) to organizational and psychological factors (2006-2018), and the impact of technology and the pandemic (2019-present). Publications have increased significantly since 2020, with the highest contributions from the US, UK, Canada, China, and Australia. Leading journals include the Journal of Vocational Behavior, Journal of Organizational Behavior, and Work & Stress. WFC negatively affects employee well-being, job satisfaction, and family relationships, while also increasing turnover and reducing company productivity. Research gaps remain, particularly in developing countries and in exploring hybrid work models and technology. Future studies should examine labor policies and cultural factors to promote sustainable work-family balance.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.205 | 0.336 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".