Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Global Work–Family Interface
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Global Work–Family Interface
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Part I Overview
- Part II Assessing Cultural and Structural Differences
- Part III Methodological Considerations
- 7 Review of Methods Used in Global Work and Family Research
- 8 Meta-Analysis as a Tool to Synthesize Global Work–Family Research Findings
- 9 Conducting Qualitative Work–Family Research across Cultures
- 10 Leveraging Archival Data in Global Work–Family Research: The Case of Time Use Data
- 11 Best Practices in Scale Translation and Establishing Measurement Equivalence
- 12 Getting the Global Band Together: Best Practices in Organizing and Managing International Research Teams
- Part IV Review of Research in Regions across the Globe
- Part V Cultures within Cultures
- Part VI Organizational Perspectives
- Part VII Family Perspectives
- Part VIII Individual Perspectives
- Part IX Conclusion
- Index
- References
7 - Review of Methods Used in Global Work and Family Research
from Part III - Methodological Considerations
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 April 2018
By
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Global Work–Family Interface
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Global Work–Family Interface
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Part I Overview
- Part II Assessing Cultural and Structural Differences
- Part III Methodological Considerations
- 7 Review of Methods Used in Global Work and Family Research
- 8 Meta-Analysis as a Tool to Synthesize Global Work–Family Research Findings
- 9 Conducting Qualitative Work–Family Research across Cultures
- 10 Leveraging Archival Data in Global Work–Family Research: The Case of Time Use Data
- 11 Best Practices in Scale Translation and Establishing Measurement Equivalence
- 12 Getting the Global Band Together: Best Practices in Organizing and Managing International Research Teams
- Part IV Review of Research in Regions across the Globe
- Part V Cultures within Cultures
- Part VI Organizational Perspectives
- Part VII Family Perspectives
- Part VIII Individual Perspectives
- Part IX Conclusion
- Index
- References
Summary
Conducting global work-family research involves a large number of methodological considerations, some of which are applicable to social science research in general and others which are particularly meaningful in the global context. This chapter reviews the methodologies used in extant global work-family research, with emphasis on the selection of country contexts, sample types, research designs, and the use of primary and secondary data. The strengths and weaknesses of these approaches are discussed along with the challenges involved in applying these methods. Important cautions for interpretations of these research methods are also reviewed.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Global Work–Family Interface , pp. 141 - 155Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Allen, T. D., French, K. A., Dumani, S., & Shockley, K. M. (2015). Meta-analysis of work–family conflict mean differences: Does national context matter? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 90, 90–100.Google Scholar
Amstad, F. T., Meier, L. L., Fasel, U., Elfering, A., & Semmer, N. K. (2011). A meta-analysis of work–family conflict and various outcomes with a special emphasis on cross-domain versus matching-domain relations. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16, 151–169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andres, M., Moelker, R., & Soeters, J. (2012). A longitudinal study of partners of deployed personnel from the Netherlands’ armed forces. Military Psychology, 24, 270.Google Scholar
Aryee, S., Fields, D., & Luk, V. (1999). A cross-cultural test of a model of the work–family interface. Journal of Management, 25, 491–511.Google Scholar
Baral, R., & Bhargava, S. (2011). Predictors of work-family enrichment: Moderating effect of core self-evaluations. Journal of Indian Business Research, 3, 220–243.Google Scholar
Barnes-Farrell, J. L., Davies-Schrils, K., McGonagle, A., Walsh, B., Di Milia, L., Fischer, F. M., … & Tepas, D. (2008). What aspects of shiftwork influence off-shift well-being of healthcare workers? Applied Ergonomics, 39, 589–596.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bouchard, G., & Poirier, L. (2011). Neuroticism and well-being among employed new parents: The role of the work–family conflict. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 657–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byron, K. (2005). A meta-analytic review of work–family conflict and its antecedents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 169–198.Google Scholar
Caligiuri, P. M., Hyland, M. M., Joshi, A., & Bross, A. S. (1998). Testing a theoretical model for examining the relationship between family adjustment and expatriates’ work adjustment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 598–614.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., & Williams, L. J. (2000). Construction and initial validation of a multidimensional measure of work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 249–276.Google Scholar
Casper, W. J., Eby, L. T., Bordeaux, C., Lockwood, A., & Lambert, D. (2007). A review of research methods in IO/OB work–family research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 28–43.Google Scholar
Casper, W. J., De Hauw, S., & Wayne, J. H. (2013). Concepts and measures in the work–family interface: Implications for work–family integration. In Major, D. A. & Burke, R. J. (Eds.), Handbook of Work–Life Integration Among Professionals: Challenges and Opportunities (pp. 35–57). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Ford, M. T., Heinen, B. A., & Langkamer, K. L. (2007). Work and family satisfaction and conflict: a meta-analysis of cross-domain relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 57–80.Google Scholar
Gallie, D., & Russell, H. (2009). Work–family conflict and working conditions in Western Europe. Social Indicators Research, 93, 445–467.Google Scholar
Grzywacz, J. G., Quandt, S. A., Arcury, T. A., & Marín, A. (2005). The work–family challenge and mental health: Experiences of Mexican immigrants. Community, Work and Family, 8, 271–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grzywacz, J. G., Arcury, T. A., Marín, A., Carrillo, L., Burke, B., Coates, M. L., & Quandt, S. A. (2007). Work–family conflict: Experiences and health implications among immigrant Latinos. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1119–1130.Google Scholar
Haar, J. M., Roche, M., & Taylor, D. (2012). Work–family conflict and turnover intentions of indigenous employees: The importance of the whanau/family for Maori. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23, 2546–2560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, E. J., Erickson, J. J., Fellows, K. J., Martinengo, G., & Allen, S. M. (2014). Work and family over the life course: Do older workers differ? Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 35, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. London, UK: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Innstrand, S. I., Langballe, E. M., Espnes, G. A., Falkum, E., & Aasland, O. G. (2008). Positive and negative work–family interaction and burnout: A longitudinal study of reciprocal relations. Work & Stress, 22, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joplin, J. R., Shaffer, M. A., Francesco, A. M., & Lau, T. (2003). The macro-environment and work–family conflict development of a cross cultural comparative framework. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 3, 305–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kasearu, K. (2009). The effect of union type on work–life conflict in five European countries. Social Indicators Research, 93, 549–567.Google Scholar
Lallukka, T., Chandola, T., Roos, E., Cable, N., Sekine, M., Kagamimori, S., … & Lahelma, E. (2010). Work–family conflicts and health behaviors among British, Finnish, and Japanese employees. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 17, 134–142.Google Scholar
Lapierre, L. M., & McMullan, A. D. (2016). A review of methodological and measurement approaches to the study of work and family. In Allen, T. D. & Eby, L. T. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Work And Family (pp. 36–52). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Larson, R., Verma, S., & Dworkin, J. (2001). Men’s work and family lives in India: The daily organization of time and emotion. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 206–224.Google Scholar
Leiter, M. P., & Durup, M. J. (1996). Work, home, and in-between: A longitudinal study of spillover. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32, 29–47.Google Scholar
Lu, L. (2011). A Chinese longitudinal study on work/family enrichment. Career Development International, 16, 385–400.Google Scholar
Malinen, S., & Johnston, L. (2011). Seeking a better work–life balance: Expectations and perceptions of work-related practices and attitudes of recent immigrants to New Zealand. Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, 20, 233–252.Google Scholar
Masuda, T., & Nisbett, R. E. (2001). Attending holistically versus analytically: comparing the context sensitivity of Japanese and Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 922–934.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matsumoto, D., & Yoo, S. H. (2006). Toward a new generation of cross-cultural research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 234–250.Google Scholar
Mauno, S. (2010). Effects of work–family culture on employee well-being: Exploring moderator effects in a longitudinal sample. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19, 675–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milfont, T. L., & Fischer, R. (2010). Testing measurement invariance across groups: Applications in cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3, 111–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohammada, M. (2007). The Foundations of the Composite Culture in India. Delhi: Aakar Books.Google Scholar
Namasivayam, K., & Zhao, X. (2007). An investigation of the moderating effects of organizational commitment on the relationships between work–family conflict and job satisfaction among hospitality employees in India. Tourism Management, 28, 1212–1223.Google Scholar
Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of work–family conflict and family–work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 400–410.Google Scholar
Ng, C. W., Fosh, P., & Naylor, D. (2002). Work–family conflict for employees in an East Asian airline: impact on career and relationship to gender. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 23, 67–105.Google Scholar
O’Driscoll, M. P., Poelmans, S., Spector, P. E., Kalliath, T., Allen, T. D., Cooper, C. L., & Sanchez, J. I. (2003). Family-responsive interventions, perceived organizational and supervisor support, work–family conflict, and psychological strain. International Journal of Stress Management, 10, 326–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Öun, I. (2012). Work–family conflict in the Nordic countries: A comparative analysis. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 165–184.Google Scholar
Poster, W. R., & Prasad, S. (2005). Work–family relations in transnational perspective: A view from high-tech firms in India and the United States. Social Problems, 52, 122–146.Google Scholar
Riordan, C. M., & Vandenberg, R. J. (1994). A central question in cross-cultural research: Do employees of different cultures interpret work-related measures in an equivalent manner? Journal of Management, 20, 643–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaffer, M. A., Harrison, D. A., Gilley, K. M., & Luk, D. M. (2001). Struggling for balance amid turbulence on international assignments: Work–family conflict, support and commitment. Journal of Management, 27, 99–121.Google Scholar
Sharabi, M. (2010). Ethnicity, ethnic conflict and work values: the case of Jews and Arabs in Israel. Journal of Peace, Conflict and Development, 15, 60–73.Google Scholar
Shih, H. A., Chiang, Y. H., & Hsu, C. C. (2010). High involvement work system, work–family conflict, and expatriate performance–examining Taiwanese expatriates in China. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21, 2013–2030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shockley, K.M., Douek, J., Smith, C.R., Yu, P.P., Dumani, S., & French, K.A. (2017). Cross-cultural work and family research: A review of the literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 101, 1–20.Google Scholar
Shockley, K.M., Shen, W., Denunzio, M., Arvan, M., & Knudsen, E. (2014). Clarifying gender and work–family conflict: A meta-analytic approach. In Mills, M.J. (Chair) Work–life Interface Meets Employee Gender: Challenge and Opportunity. Symposium presented at the Work Family Researchers Network conference. New York, NY.Google Scholar
Spector, P. E., Cooper, C. L., Poelmans, S., Allen, T. D., O’Driscoll, M., Sanchez, J. I., … & Lu, L. (2004). A cross‐national comparative study of work‐family stressors, working hours, and well‐being: China and Latin America versus the Anglo world. Personnel Psychology, 57, 119–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spector, P. E., Liu, C., & Sanchez, J. I. (2015). Methodological and substantive issues in conducting multinational and cross-cultural research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2, 101–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Zee, K. I., Ali, A. J., & Salomé, E. (2005). Role interference and subjective well-being among expatriate families. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14(3), 239–262.Google Scholar
Wang, P., Lawler, J. J., & Shi, K. (2011). Implementing family‐friendly employment practices in banking industry: Evidences from some African and Asian countries. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84, 493–517.Google Scholar
Westman, M., Etzion, D., & Gattenio, E. (2008). International business travels and the work‐family interface: A longitudinal study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 459–480.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. G., Polzer-Debruyne, A., Chen, S., & Fernandes, S. (2007). Shift work interventions for reduced work–family conflict. Employee Relations, 29, 162–177.Google Scholar