Bibliographic record
Abstract
Caring is Sharing? explores why and how mixed-sex couples make decisions around parental leave at the transition to parenthood, and how these decisions shape their work and family care practices during and after the leave period. It does this through a longitudinal qualitative comparative analysis of mixed-sex parent couples in England who do and do not share parental leave after the birth of their first child. The study shows that men and women’s visions and practices of family life are embedded in ideals of appropriate intimate relations, and negotiated with real and imagined reactions from peers, wider family and colleagues. These negotiations are often deeply emotional and shape how parents navigate the wider institutional and structural context in the UK, where parental leave policy, family and work norms are highly gendered. The book shows that practices of couple intimacy in the UK influence the imaginaries of new parents and the processes through which they enact divisions of parental leave and ultimately of care. In so doing, it highlights the intersections of intimacy and equality, contributing to debate around the ‘stalled’ gender revolution and what is needed if UK parental leave policy is to become an effective driver of change in gender relations and family life. Praise for Caring is Sharing? 'Katherine Twamley’s beautifully crafted book Caring is Sharing? makes significant contributions to scholarly and public understandings of parents’ relational negotiations and experiences of caring while sharing (or not sharing) parental leave time and the complexities of measuring policy effects. This book embodies Twamley’s outstanding qualitative research skills. I was moved by her analysis of narratives of care and intimacy and impressed by her stellar parental leave policy recommendations.' Andrea Doucet, Canada Research Chair in Gender, Work, and Care; Brock University; author of Do Men Mother? 'This is what excellent sociology looks like: Twamley presents us with an empirically grounded, robust analysis of a pressing social issue (the low take-up of ‘shared’ parental leave) and in the process does some deep conceptual work that really extends scholarship in the fields of family, gender and intimacy. Rich, poignant and beautifully readable, I cannot recommend this book highly enough.' Dr Charlotte Faircloth, UCL Social Research Institute 'A riveting good read, using state-of-the art scholarly research, to offer timely messages about gender equality, outcomes for heterosexual couples trying to combine infant care and paid employment, and "shared parental leave" policies. A must read for anyone with an interest in parenting, fairness and making a more liveable world.' Lynn Jamieson, University of Edinburgh 'This book presents a rich analysis that explores parents’ decisions about shared parental leave and how these decisions later affect their divisions of labour. Through detailed quotes and anecdotes, Dr Twamley reveals the promises and pitfalls of SPL – providing recommendations on how leave policies may better promote gender equality.' Richard J. Petts, Ball State University
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.790 | 0.661 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".