FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2067566970> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2067566970 endingPage "223" @default.
• W2067566970 startingPage "223" @default.
• W2067566970 abstract "As the 20th century comes to a close, increased attention is being directed to measuring continuity and change in men's involvement with children since the early 1900s. And, for lack of data, self-report surveys from the 1920s and 1930s, heydays in family social science, are being used to provide evidence of what fathers were doing, or not doing, 60 to 70 years ago. While there is no disputing the fact that these older surveys have contributed immensely to our understanding of social life in the past, the question that we raise here is: Should they be considered the definitive word on early 20th century fatherhood? We think the answer has to be no, for one very important reason: The surveys almost always excluded men. The Middletown Studies (Lynd & Lynd, 1929, 1937), for example, have been used to paint a traditional (role segregated) picture of the division of child care in the 1920s and 1930s (see Caplow, Bahr, Chadwick, Hill, & Williamson, 1982, pp. 150-151; Griswold, 1993, p. 226; Mintz & Kellogg, 1988, pp. 116-117; Pleck, 1987, p. 89). Information on family life in these studies, however, was based almost entirely on interviews with women. Children were interviewed somewhat, and husbands and fathers were occasionally present during the interview sessions--which is why comments from the men can be found in the Middletown volumes (e.g., Lynd & Lynd, 1929, p. 149) and in some historical accounts (see Griswold, 1993, p. 3; Pleck, 1987, p. 89). But, while the interviews with the children were sufficient to support an aggregate analysis, the occasional data from the men were not. Middletown fathers, in words, were given hardly any attention as subjects. Similarly, a 1930 White House Conference Study (White House Conference on Child Health and Protection, 1936/1972) has been used to render a traditional description of the division of child care in the early 20th century (see Griswold, 1993, pp. 42, 129, 295, 302). Yet, while the authors of the White House study made a concerted effort to gather information from across the socioeconomic spectrum, they failed to seriously consider the perceptions of men. Indeed, in only about 5% of the cases was a father asked a single question (White House Conference on Child Health and Protection, 1936/1972, p. 344). Investigators have long recognized that excluding men's reports in family research can pose serious measurement problems because an important reality, or set of perceptions, ends up missing (see Bernard, 1972, and Safilios-Rothschild, 1969, for two classic statements on this point). It also has been shown that while husbands and wives often will exhibit a partner-centric or credit-giving bias in marriage, idealizing their relationships in the process (Bradbury & Finchman, 1990; Finchman & Bradbury, 1989; Hall & Taylor, 1976; Lavin, 1987), they will display an egocentric or credit-taking bias when it comes to child care (Deutsch, Lozy, & Saxon, 1993). The implication of this finding is that studies that exclude men can underestimate father involvement. Since these methodological axioms apply also to historical research, one would have to assume that histories of fatherhood that ignore or downplay the perceptions of men also run the risk of misjudging the level of paternal care. Simply put, perceptions of father involvement, whether gathered today or in the past, can vary according to the gender of the perceiver (Marsiglio, 1993; see also Furstenberg as cited in Marsiglio, 1993). The conclusion that we draw from this is that more energy needs to be spent on identifying for data on father involvement--other that include men and that can expand the limits of what is now known about fatherhood in the past. In this article, we introduce one example of the kinds of other sources we are referring to, and show how the history of fatherhood takes on a different hue when one looks beyond the standard surveys. …" @default.
• W2067566970 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2067566970 creator A5015766176 @default.
• W2067566970 creator A5026504388 @default.
• W2067566970 date "1995-02-01" @default.
• W2067566970 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W2067566970 title "Gendered Perceptions of Father Involvement in Early 20th Century America" @default.
• W2067566970 cites W1558642680 @default.
• W2067566970 cites W1964948241 @default.
• W2067566970 cites W1971710799 @default.
• W2067566970 cites W2006566048 @default.
• W2067566970 cites W2027271470 @default.
• W2067566970 cites W2051782330 @default.
• W2067566970 cites W2055908924 @default.
• W2067566970 cites W2066285187 @default.
• W2067566970 cites W2070005830 @default.
• W2067566970 cites W2090725008 @default.
• W2067566970 cites W2097775131 @default.
• W2067566970 cites W2099461066 @default.
• W2067566970 cites W2104521492 @default.
• W2067566970 cites W2108826547 @default.
• W2067566970 cites W2112542598 @default.
• W2067566970 cites W2116065450 @default.
• W2067566970 cites W2127063197 @default.
• W2067566970 cites W2140135965 @default.
• W2067566970 cites W2320447303 @default.
• W2067566970 cites W2326141530 @default.
• W2067566970 cites W2327516568 @default.
• W2067566970 cites W2997324389 @default.
• W2067566970 doi "https://doi.org/10.2307/353830" @default.
• W2067566970 hasPublicationYear "1995" @default.
• W2067566970 type Work @default.
• W2067566970 sameAs 2067566970 @default.
• W2067566970 citedByCount "15" @default.
• W2067566970 countsByYear W20675669702014 @default.
• W2067566970 countsByYear W20675669702018 @default.
• W2067566970 countsByYear W20675669702020 @default.
• W2067566970 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2067566970 hasAuthorship W2067566970A5015766176 @default.
• W2067566970 hasAuthorship W2067566970A5026504388 @default.
• W2067566970 hasConcept C107993555 @default.
• W2067566970 hasConcept C138496976 @default.
• W2067566970 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2067566970 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2067566970 hasConcept C169760540 @default.
• W2067566970 hasConcept C26760741 @default.
• W2067566970 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W2067566970 hasConceptScore W2067566970C107993555 @default.
• W2067566970 hasConceptScore W2067566970C138496976 @default.
• W2067566970 hasConceptScore W2067566970C144024400 @default.
• W2067566970 hasConceptScore W2067566970C15744967 @default.
• W2067566970 hasConceptScore W2067566970C169760540 @default.
• W2067566970 hasConceptScore W2067566970C26760741 @default.
• W2067566970 hasConceptScore W2067566970C77805123 @default.
• W2067566970 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2067566970 hasLocation W20675669701 @default.
• W2067566970 hasOpenAccess W2067566970 @default.
• W2067566970 hasPrimaryLocation W20675669701 @default.
• W2067566970 hasRelatedWork W1975430480 @default.
• W2067566970 hasRelatedWork W1988185375 @default.
• W2067566970 hasRelatedWork W2047015521 @default.
• W2067566970 hasRelatedWork W2058343334 @default.
• W2067566970 hasRelatedWork W2066141621 @default.
• W2067566970 hasRelatedWork W2134666198 @default.
• W2067566970 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2067566970 hasRelatedWork W2809777561 @default.
• W2067566970 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2067566970 hasRelatedWork W4238816758 @default.
• W2067566970 hasVolume "57" @default.
• W2067566970 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2067566970 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2067566970 magId "2067566970" @default.
• W2067566970 workType "article" @default.