Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Non-Participant Fathers in Time-Use Studies: Uninvolved or Data Artifact?

  • Published:
Social Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It is well-established that time spent with parents is beneficial for children’s development. However, time-use studies from various countries consistently indicate that there are a substantial number of parents, especially fathers, who report spending no time with their children. Much of the literature on parental time simply ignores these parents or assumes that they are similar to other parents. Using data from the 2005 Canadian General Social Survey time-use survey, this study takes a closer look at respondents who report spending 0 min with their children and asks whether they are simply an artifact of the data or whether they have distinct social, economic and demographic characteristics. The findings indicate that while data anomalies may partially explain the existence of this group, non-participants also differ in terms of their family, work, and demographic characteristics. Both the methodological and substantive implications of these findings are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. There is currently a debate in the literature as to how best to handle this ‘zero’ problem (e.g. see Flood and Grasjo 1998; Stewart 2006). However, to our knowledge there are no studies in which non-participants are the focal point.

  2. Estimates from Australia are even larger. For example, using Australian survey data, Bittman (2000) found that for every hour recorded as a primary childcare activity there are three more hours recorded of childcare as a secondary activity. Also using Australian data, Ironmonger (2004) found that childcare estimates are four times higher when secondary activities are included.

  3. A third perspective has also been suggested in the literature, namely the resource-power perspective, which posits that resources such as income, education, and occupational status contribute to relationship power, making it possible for partners with the most power to engage in fewer tasks, such as housework, which are deemed to be less rewarding (Brines, 1994; Huber & Spitze, 1983). We do not draw on this theory since we do not have reliable data on spouses’ income and have no data on occupational status.

  4. This is the un-weighted number of cases and differs slightly from the weighted one.

  5. Ideally, we would have preferred to contrast respondents with a regular daytime schedule with everybody else, but the data coded together ‘regular daytime schedule or shift’.

  6. This method is appropriate to answer our research question; that is, whether or not non-participants differ in their characteristics from participants. However, this method would be less satisfactory if our aim was to model the actual time devoted to children, as collapsing respondents into four subgroups results in a loss of information.

  7. There is no consensus in the literature as to what constitutes low, average, or above average time in childcare, so these cut-off points are somewhat arbitrary. However, they are roughly similar to Bianchi et al. (2004), who use 25th, 50th, and 75th percentile of the mean.

  8. It is important to note that time spent on childcare during the previous week can also include unusual days, however we have no way of knowing this. For example, if a father was on a business trip the previous week, it would substantially lower his weekly total of childcare time.

  9. Unfortunately, the survey does not contain precise information for the reasons why these respondents were not home.

  10. In the case of religious attendance, only the result for the comparison low vs. non-involved was statistically significant and ran counter to our theoretical expectations. Regularly attending religious services decreased the likelihood of being in the low involved category as opposed to the non-involved one.

References

  • Allard, M. D., Bianchi, S., Stewart, J., & Wight, V. R. (2007). Comparing childcare measures in the ATUS and earlier time-diary studies. Monthly Labor Review, 2, 7–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beitel, A. H., & Parke, R. D. (1998). Paternal involvement in infancy: The role of maternal and paternal attitudes. Journal of Family Psychology, 12, 268–288. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.12.2.268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bianchi, S., Cohen, P. N., Raley, S., & Nomaguchi, K. (2004). Inequality in parental investment in child-rearing: Expenditures, time and health. In K. M. Neckerman (Ed.), Social inequality (pp. 189–219). New York: Russel Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bianchi, S. M. (2000). Maternal employment and time with children: Dramatic change or surprising continuity? Demography, 37(4), 401–414. doi:10.1353/dem.2000.0001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bianchi, S., & Robinson, J. (1997). What did you do today? Children’s use of time, family composition, and the acquisition of social capital. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59(2), 332–344. doi:10.2307/353474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bittman, M. (2000). Issues in the design of time-use surveys for collecting data on paid and unpaid work. In Gender issues in the measurement of paid and unpaid work. New York: United Nations Secretariat Statistics Division.

  • Bonney, J. F., Kelley, M. L., & Levant, R. F. (1999). A model of fathers’ behavioral involvement in child care in Dual–Earner families. Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 401–415. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.13.3.401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bulcroft, R. A., Carmody, D. C., & Bulcroft, K. A. (1996). Patterns of parental independence giving to adolescents: Variations by race, age, and gender of child. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 866–883. doi:10.2307/353976.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooksey, E. C., & Fondell, M. M. (1996). Spending time with his kids: Effects of family structure on fathers’ and children’s lives. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 693–707. doi:10.2307/353729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craig, L. (2006). Parental education, time in paid work and time with children: An Australian time-diary analysis. The British Journal of Sociology, 57(4), 553–575. doi:10.1111/j.1468-4446.2006.00125.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fedick, C. B., Pacholok, S., & Gauthier, A. H. (2005). Methodological issues in the estimation of parental time: Analysis of measures in a Canadian time-use survey. Electronic International Journal of Time-Use Research, 2, 67–87. Retrieved May 20, 2006, from www.eijtur.org.

  • Fisher, K., Egerton, M., Gershuny, J., & Robinson, J. (2007). Gender convergence in the American Heritage Time Use Study (AHTUS). Social Indicators Research, 82, 1–33. doi:10.1007/s11205-006-9017-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flood, L., & Grasjo, U. (1998). Regression analysis and time-use data: a comparison of microeconomic approaches with data from the Swedish time-use survey (HUS). Goteborg University: Unpublished working paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenstein, T. N. (1996). Husbands’ participation in domestic labor: Interactive effects of wives’ and husbands’ gender ideologies. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 585–595. doi:10.2307/353719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofferth, S. (2001). Women’s employment and care of children in the United States. In T. Van der Lippe & L. Van Dijk (Eds.), Women’s employment in a comparative perspective (pp. 151–174). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofferth, S. (2003). Race/Ethnic differences in father involvement in two-parent families. Journal of Family Issues, 24(2), 185–216. doi:10.1177/0192513X02250087.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hook, J. L. (2006). Care in context: Men’s unpaid work in 20 countries, 1965–2003. American Sociological Review, 71(4), 639–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, J., & Spitze, G. D. (1983). Sex stratification : Children, housework, and jobs. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ironmonger, D. (2004). Bringing up Bobby and Betty. In N. Folbre & M. Bittman (Eds.), Family time: The social organization of care (pp. 93–109). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kan, M. Y. (2008). Measuring housework participation: The gap between ‘‘stylised’’ questionnaire estimates and diary-based estimates. Social Indicators Research, 86, 381–400. doi:10.1007/s11205-007-9184-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitterød, R. H., & Pettersen, S. V. (2006). Making up for mothers’ employed working hours?: Housework and childcare among. Norwegian fathers, Work, Employment and Society, 20(3), 473–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, E. L. (1996). The role of the husband’s religious affiliation in the economic and demographic behavior of families. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 35, 145–155. doi:10.2307/1387081.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mestdag, I., & Vandeweyer, J. (2005). Where has family time gone? In search of joint family activities and the role of the family meal in 1966 and 1999. Journal of Family History, 30(3), 304–323. doi:10.1177/0363199005275794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pleck, J. (1997). Paternal involvement: Levels, sources, and consequences. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (3rd ed., pp. 66–103). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pleck, J. H., & Masciadrelli, B. P. (2004). Paternal involvement by U.S. residential fathers: Levels, sources, and consequences. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (4th ed., pp. 222–271). Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Presser, H. B. (1988). Shift work and child care among young dual–earner American parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 133–148. doi:10.2307/352434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rapoport, B., & Le Bourdais, C.(2002). Parental time and working schedules. Retrieved September 9, 2002, from www.ssc.uwo.ca/sociology/ftsc/RapoportLebourdais.PDF.

  • Robinson, J. P., & Godbey, G. (1997). Time for life; The surprising ways Americans use their time. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romano, M. C., & Bruzzese, D. (2007). Fathers’ participation in the domestic activities of everyday life. Social Indicators Research, 84, 97–116. doi:10.1007/s11205-006-9077-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy, L., & Bernier, J.(2007). Family policy, social trends and fertility in Québec: Experimenting with the Nordic model?: Québec: Ministère de la Famille, des Aînés et de la Condition Féminineo. Document Number.

  • Russell, G., & Hwang, C. P. (2004). The impact of workplace practices on father involvement. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (4th ed., pp. 476–503). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandberg, J., & Hofferth, S. (2001). Changes in children’s time with parents: United States, 1981–1997. Demography, 38(3), 423–436. doi:10.1353/dem.2001.0031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sayer, L., Bianchi, S., & Robinson, J. (2004a). Are parents investing less in children? Trends in mothers’ and fathers’ time. American Journal of Sociology, 110(1), 1–43. doi:10.1086/386270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sayer, L., Gauthier, A., & Furstenberg, F. (2004b). Educational differences in parents’ time with children: Cross-national variations. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 66(5), 1149–1166. doi:10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00084.x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shelton, B. A., & John, D. (1996). The division of household labor. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 299–322. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silver, C. (2000). Being there: The time Dual–Earner couples spend with their children. Canadian Social Trends, 57, 26–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. J., & Williams, D. R. (2007). Father-friendly legislation and paternal time across western Europe. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 9(2), 175–192. doi:10.1080/13876980701311604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, J. (2006). Tobit or not tobit? Paper presented at the International Association of Time-Use Research (IATUR).

  • Thomson, E., Hanson, T. L., & McLanahan, S. S. (1994). Family structure and child well-being: Economic resources vs. parental behaviors. Social Forces, 73(1), 221–242. doi:10.2307/2579924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, E., McLanahan, S. S., & Curtin, R. B. (1992). Family structure, gender, and parental socialization. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 368–378. doi:10.2307/353068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeung, W. J., Duncan, G. J., & Hill, M. S. (2000). Putting fathers back in the picture: Parental activities and children’s adult outcomes. Marriage & Family Review, 29(2–3), 97–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zick, C. D., Bryant, K., & Osterbacka, E. (2001). Mothers’ employment, parental involvement, and the implications for intermediate child outcomes. Social Science Research, 30, 25–49. doi:10.1006/ssre.2000.0685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This paper was supported by a grant from the Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. It was written while the second author was a fellow at the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities and Social Sciences. A first version of this paper was presented at the 2008 annual meeting of the Canadian Sociology Association. The authors thank the participants for their comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of British Columbia - Okanagan, Kelowna, BC, Canada

    Shelley Pacholok

  2. University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada

    Anne Gauthier

Authors
  1. Shelley Pacholok
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anne Gauthier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shelley Pacholok.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pacholok, S., Gauthier, A. Non-Participant Fathers in Time-Use Studies: Uninvolved or Data Artifact?. Soc Indic Res 96, 249–266 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9475-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9475-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation