Working here and there : an inquiry on how mobile teleworking parents combine work and family activities

(1)

Working here and there

An inquiry on how mobile teleworking parents combine work and family activities

Master Thesis

By Marloes Kampinga (11224991)

Private mail address: marloes-kampinga@hotmail.com Supervisor / first assessor: dhr. prof. dr. R.C. Kloosterman Second assessor: dhr. dr. D.L. Arnold

Master’s programme: Economic Geography Date: 23 June 2017

(2)

Summary

It is increasingly common to work at home nowadays. Moreover, today’s modern technology also enables workers to take a laptop with them to work at cafés, trains, hotels, libraries, planes and so on (Kurland and Bailey, 1999: 53, 55). Working at those third spaces is referred to as mobile teleworking. This issue of (mobile) teleworking is relevant, because the work-family balance is currently challenged in several ways. First, dual-earning families are more common nowadays. Secondly, global economic integration creates a nonstop-working competitive economy. Thirdly, employment is becoming more precarious with the rise of the gig economy. Family-friendly work arrangements are needed to enable parents to combine work and family life.

This research examines the flexibility of places of work. (Mobile) teleworking provides an opportunity to flexibly combine work and family life; since employees can choose the time and place of work that best fits their family needs (Hill et al., 1996: 294). Moreover, it enables them to reduce or even cancel commuting, as it is no longer necessary to travel to the employer’s premise to work (Hill et al., 1996: 294). However, the integration of both spheres could make it hard to disconnect from work at home or concentrate on work tasks with children around (Hilbrecht et al., 2013: 136; Magee and Arch, 2000: 35, 45). Another problem associated with teleworking might be the hidden costs to the social capital. If workers are spatially separated from each other, feelings of isolation might develop (Kossek et al., 2015: 7). Mobile teleworking might be a strategy to enhance interaction and stimulate interaction as other people are around in places like cafés and libraries (Groot, 2013: 23, 44).

Accordingly, the distinctiveness of mobile teleworkers and home-based teleworkers must be recognized. To wit, they could differ in their amount of time spend at home, which could cause a different work-family balance (Hislop and Axtell, 2007: 49; Kurland and Bailey, 1999: 62). Much existing research deals with home-based teleworking. This study, however, explores to what extent these findings are applicable to mobile teleworkers. The focus is on the spatial relationship between mobile teleworking and the work-family balance, hereby emphasising the relative relevance of spaces and places. Having the ability to freely choose the location of work means being more flexible in time and space. This case study research explores how the space-time patterns of mobile teleworking parents relate to work and family demands by analysing collected survey and travel diary data in the northern region of Haarlem.

(3)

around their residential location. Moreover, it is found that they use flexible work schedules (like flexible start and end times and working on weekend days) next to flexible places of work. Next, the respondents make discretionary non-working trips during traditional work hours to, for example, pick up their children, do the groceries or to satisfy alternative personal needs. Subsequently, as mobile teleworkers are more flexible in time, it was expected that they would reduce travelling and commuting during peak hours. It is found that the respondents do reduce commuting during these hours, but do not avoid travelling during peak hours. Their travels around these times are apparently mostly childcare related, performed on foot or by bike, and in close proximity to the residential location.

Furthermore, it is found that the sample population in this research performs mobile teleworking for several reasons. Most parents with young children work at home because it enables them to combine the work and family sphere. However, this motivation is less prevalent for mobile teleworkers. They choose to work at third locations, since it provides them with social interaction. Besides, (mobile) teleworking reduces commuting time, enables parents to concentrate on work activities and increases their productivity level.

Lastly, while results differ between home-based and mobile teleworkers, it was proposed that mobile teleworking practices and the work-family balance also display a gender dimension. It was expected that fathers are more involved in paid work than mothers (Bianchi and Wight, 2010), that part-time work remains feminized and that mothers have more responsibility for childcare and unpaid work (Lewis and den Dulk, 2010: 241, 249). This study confirms these theories. However, no clear differences were found with regard to mobile teleworking practices and the work-family balance. The motivation of performing mobile teleworking to combine work and family life is equally prevalent for both sexes. Moreover, mothers do not make more discretionary trips during traditional work hours that are childcare related than fathers do and working further away from home is not more or less likely for a certain gender.

Eventually, this research has found that the teleworking practices of mobile teleworkers and home-based teleworkers seem to overlap. Besides, the discovered space-time patterns of mobile teleworking parents are mostly clustered in space, which provides insights for urban and regional planning, and the configuration of cities and its functions. Third space owners could also use this study to improve the set up of their environment to attract mobile teleworkers.

(4)

1. Introduction

Working during evening hours, at night and on weekend days is increasingly common. With today’s modern equipment, it is for example possible to open your laptop at home after dinner or on a Saturday. Hereby, workers can flexibly allocate work and family activities throughout the day. For example, working during evening hours can compensate for time that is spent on childcare activities during traditional work hours. In the Netherlands, almost two-thirds of the working population works regularly or occasionally during evening hours or at night (between seven o’clock in the evening and six o’clock in the morning) or on weekend days (CBS, 2017a). At the same time, a discussion is taking place about whether employees need to be protected from pressures that are posed on them, because working whenever and wherever is becoming more widespread (van Houten, 2017; NRC, 2017). In France, workers have, since the beginning of this year, the right to turn off their laptops and mobile phones during non-working hours. This recent law is intended to reduce the blurring of work and family life; it is said that it will prevent employees from a heavy workload, burnouts and disturbed family relations (Jager, 2016). Correspondingly, it is discussed whether this French law needs to be imported in the Dutch society. The discussion is instigated by the finding that working at home during non-traditional work hours is said to disturb the balance between work and family life as Dutch workers, for example, miss family activities because of non-traditional work hours (CBS, 2017a).

These and other benefits and drawbacks of working at home are frequently covered in academic literature. Although, on the one hand, working at home enables flexibly integrating work and family life and reduces or even cancels commuting (Hill et al., 1996: 294), it could, on the other, become hard to disconnect from work at home or concentrate on work tasks with children around (Magee and Arch, 2000: 35, 45). Subsequently, today’s modern technology enables workers to freely choose where to work by taking a laptop with them to, for example, cafés. This opens doors for mobile teleworking, whereby someone can also work at third, non-home, non-office locations (also referred to as third spaces). Academic research addresses this distinctive type of teleworking to a lesser extent. This is problematic for two reasons.

First, (mobile) teleworking is increasingly used (see figure 1) (Hill et al., 2003: 222; Hislop and Axtell, 2007: 37). Because of the different definitions used in academic articles, it is difficult to state exact numbers about the amount of mobile teleworkers. Still, mobile teleworking’s relevance is rising and therefore worth studying (Halford, 2005: 22; Hislop and

(7)

Axtell, 2007: 36). To wit, it is crucial to recognize the distinctiveness of mobile teleworking, especially when the research is concerned with the work-family balance. Home-based and mobile teleworkers could namely differ in their amount of time spend at home. Since mobile teleworkers work at non-office locations that can be non-home as well, they could be relatively more absent from their residential location in comparison to home-based teleworkers (Kurland and Bailey, 1999: 62). This could cause a different work-family balance (Hislop and Axtell, 2007: 49). Results from inquiries about home-based teleworking can therefore not be generalized to mobile teleworkers.

Figure 1: Percentage of Dutch companies (with more than 10 employees) with teleworkers

Source: CBS (2015)

* No data is available for 2011, because of a changed method (CBS, 2015).

Second, the ignorance of the different effects of home-based and mobile teleworking on the work-family balance could erroneously inform policy makers who compose flexibility arrangements. The interest of mobile teleworkers might differ from those of home-based teleworkers and are therefore necessary to explore for a just use of the arrangements (Kossek et al., 2015: 6, 10). To wit, a just execution of the arrangements can only be guaranteed if the interests of all stakeholders are respected (Kossek et al., 2015: 6, 10).

0 20 40 60 80 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011* 2013 2015 P erc ent age Year

(8)

To address these problems, this research aims at partially filling the knowledge gap. The goal is to explore to what extent the research findings on the work-family balance of home-based teleworkers are applicable to mobile teleworkers. Accordingly, this inquiry contributes to existing academic debates. Moreover, as mentioned above, this research can be valuable for society since it provides insights for labour market regulations. The users of such arrangements can benefit from this if arrangements better fit to their interests and social spatial behaviour.

This master thesis research is constructed in seven parts. The next part of this study addresses theoretical debates about (mobile) teleworking. The origin, different forms and benefits of workplace flexibility are discussed. Likewise, attention is paid to the geographical and gender dimension of mobile teleworking. Subsequently, the analytical framework (part 3) covers the main research question, sub research questions, assumptions and important concepts. Thereafter, part 4 is about the design of the research: it discusses the case selection of Haarlem Noord and how data is derived and analysed. Hereafter, the results part of this research (part 5) covers the analysis of both the survey and travel diary data. Sub conclusions, that provide an answer to the sub research questions, are formulated within this part of the study. Next, an answer to the main research question is formulated in the final conclusion (part 6). Finally, part 7 of this inquiry discusses the research design and the research findings.

2. Theoretical framework

While twentieth-century paid workers were mostly males who could expect an officinal home-made dinner when returning home after a workday, today’s paid workers are male, female, part-time working, part-part-time out of work, working nonstop etcetera. The traditional white-male model of full-time, full-year, year-in and year-out jobs is not anymore applicable (Christensen and Schneider, 2010: 2; Hewlett, 2010: 104). Partly caused by the increased labour force participation of women, both parents are now breadwinners and homemakers. In this dual-earning family, ‘‘the same two adults now share three jobs; two as breadwinners and one as homemaker.’’ (Christensen and Schneider, 2010: 2) Correspondingly, a two jobs-one adult situation is present in a single parent family. Hence, the number of jobs and their cumulative demands have increased while the composition of the family remained unchanged. This challenges parents to meet the demands of both family and work life. Additionally, other present-day challenges pose pressure on the balance between the work and family domain.

(9)

For example, whereas the introduction of steam power led to a lowering of transportation costs, ICT advances further paved the way for globalisation by reducing transmission costs and enabling coordination and communication from afar (Baldwin, 2011: 12). This globalization process enabled a spatial separation of business tasks to other nations without a loss of efficiency and timeliness (Baldwin, 2011: 6). Consequently, labour is divided into smaller units. It is no longer required to retain units in close geographical proximity; economic activities cross national borders, which shapes global economic integration (Groot, 2013: 7). Activities can be offshored and outsourced to other time zones, which empowers a nonstop working, competitive, globalized economy (Kloosterman et al, 2015: 17). This economy poses challenges on workers as they are expected to work hard and long hours.

Furthermore, the norms regarding labour market participation have changed. Formerly, fulltime and continuous jobs including benefits and entitlements were the norm (Vosko, 2010a: 4). This standard employment relationship accords with the traditional gender division of paid and unpaid labour (Vosko, 2010a: 8). Moreover, the employment relationship rested on a conception of membership in a community within the national context; nationality was the basis for civil, political and social rights. Permanent jobs were therefore limited to workers holding national citizenship (Vosko, 2010a: 11). However, as mentioned above, the gender division of paid and unpaid labour is crumbling and national boundaries are blurring (Vosko, 2010b: 209). These trends account for the rise of the gig economy. Originally, a gig is seen as a temporary job that gave workers only financial assets. While a fulltime, permanent job provided workers with an identity, friends, a stable income, protection by unions and the prospect of a career, a gig can be seen as the opposite (Parigi and Ma, 2016: 38-39). Besides, not everyone anymore aspires a fulltime continuous job and one single employer nowadays (Vosko, 2010b: 2010). For example, to meet childcare responsibilities in a dual-earning family, parental leave or (temporarily) part-time work are necessary (Galinsky et al., 2010: 146; Hewlett, 2010: 104). These developments gave rise to temporary jobs and a loss of security. Correspondingly, precarious employment is more common; the risk of economic fluctuations has been shifted onto the workers by flexibly adjusting employment and wages to demand conditions (Friedman, 2014: 172-3). These events can be linked to the declining rate of union membership. Workers are not anymore becoming part of the company; they are hired on the spot for the job with no promise for future employment. This increases uncertainty and economic risk for employees who experience variable

(10)

employment and income (Friedman, 2014: 172).

Subsequently, together with the expectation to work hard within an insecure employment relationship, an intensification of the demands of parenthood poses constrictive time pressures on families (Lewis and den Dulk, 2010: 256; Rodgers, 1992: 187). The expectations of what ‘good’ parents should do, involve more care, parental and financial input. For example, more parental involvement in schools is encouraged by national initiatives. ‘‘The crux of matter is the number of hours in the week that are consumed by a combination of work and family responsibilities.’’ (Rodgers, 1992: 187). Increasingly, employees report that work is ‘‘interfering with life’’ (Kossek et al., 2015: 5). In that case, the demands of work and life may exceed a person’s resources (Hill et al., 2010: 350). The pressures on workers generate stress, push them (mostly women) out of the workforce and/or decrease engagement with family practices (Lewis and den Dulk, 2010: 252; Ochs et al., 2010: 68; Williams, 2010: 206). The incompatibility of paid work and life roles causes a conflict between work and family life. Consequently, the fruits of family-friendly work arrangements are necessary to enable working parents to combine both tasks (Levitan, 1998: 286).

Forms of workplace flexibility

Possibilities to arrange flexibility are threefold. Next to these flexible arrangements (which are addressed below), opting out and shifting jobs could also help parents in combining work and family life. However, such ad-hoc career customizations are not about flexibly adjusting the existing employment relationship. These options are therefore not included in the tripartite overview below.

First, the scheduling of work hours can be flexible. Examples of such arrangements are flextime (like non-standard or flexible start and end times) and compressed workweeks (compressing designated work hours into fewer workdays) (Christensen and Schneider, 2010: 338). Next, employees might choose to work during weekends or at night. One the one hand, this may contribute to more quality time within both the work and family domain (Hill et al., 2010: 356). It might be the case that the highest quality work hours are not always between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Besides, it might enable higher quality family time as working during evening hours can compensate for, for instance, accompanying children at the playground in the afternoon. However, on the other hand, parents could miss family activities because they work during

(11)

evening hours or on weekend days (CBS, 2017a).

Second, opportunities are present to adjust flexibility in the amount of work hours. Workers might choose to work part-time, share one job with a colleague or work part-year or seasonably (Christensen and Schneider, 2010: 338). Part-time work could enable parents, who otherwise refrain from employment altogether, to draw into paid work. At the same time, displacing full-time work with part-time work might be a solution for parents to better cope with parental caregiving responsibilities (Gornick, 2010: 240-241).

Lastly, and particularly relevant for this inquiry, the place of work can be flexible. After the ICT revolution, many people are not anymore necessarily tied to specific places and have more freedom regarding where to work (Winger, 2005: 247). Next to working at the office, employees can choose to work at home. This type of working is referred to as teleworking. It became practical after the invention of personal computers and portable modems that could be installed at home (Hill et al., 1996: 293). When these telecommunication techniques became more advanced, equipment became highly portable. Due to these developments, work can also be carried out at third locations like cafés, trains, hotels, libraries, cars, planes and so (Kurland and Bailey, 1999: 53, 55). Working at those locations is called mobile teleworking.

Advantages and disadvantages of (mobile) teleworking

Flexible workplace arrangements have advantages and disadvantages for employers and employees. While arranging flexible workplaces, the interests of both stakeholders should be respected to guarantee a just execution of the arrangements (Kossek et al., 2015: 6, 10). Although different types of flexibility involve specific benefits and drawbacks, this framework only addresses the advantages and disadvantages of (mobile) teleworking, because it is central to this research.

For employers, teleworking is cost-efficient since it reduces the costs of requisite office spaces (Halford, 2005: 30; Lewis and den Dulk, 2010: 253). Moreover, if employees are supported in flexibly choosing their place of work, it raises their level of motivation. It furthermore enables them to choose the workplace where they can work the best. Consequently, (mobile) teleworking reduces absenteeism (Galinsky et al., 2010: 133), improves productivity (Christensen et al., 2010: 184) and ameliorates recruitment and retention (Moen and Huang, 2010: 75). Employers therefore use this flexibility arrangement to strategically compete with

(12)

other employers (Iwao, 2010: 333). On the other hand, employers are fearful of a reduced moral and overuse of the benefit (Galinsky et al., 2010: 132; Halford, 2005: 26). This suspicion could put pressure on teleworkers, as they need to demonstrate their productivity and convince themselves and others that they are indeed working. Lastly, employers experience difficulties in managing and supervising their employees from a distance (Christensen et al., 2010: 185).

For employees, teleworking can result in a better work-life balance (Christensen et al., 2010: 184; Osawa, 2010: 304). Having the ability to choose where to work empowers individuals with the control to integrate and overlap work and family activities (Hill et al., 1996: 294). It enables employees to choose the time and place of work that best fits with business, personal and/or family needs (Hill et al., 1996: 294). Accordingly, spillover theory suggests that work and family life influence each other; a person’s moods and experiences transfer between both domains (Song et al., 2008: 444). The theory points out that the relation between the two spheres is negative whenever an individual is unable to control his or her time. Whenever a person can flexibly integrate work and family tasks in time and space, the spillover is positive and the work-family balance is healthy (Hill et al., 1996: 294; Hill et al., 2003: 222). Mobile teleworking allows flexibility and could thus, according to this theory, cause an effective work-family balance. Moreover, teleworking can reduce the commuting time of employees because it is no longer necessary to travel to the employer’s premise (Hill et al., 1996: 294). Besides, it is found that flexible work arrangements increase job satisfaction and reduce stress. As a consequence, workers’ wellbeing increases (Gornick, 2010: 238).

However, home-based teleworking mixes the spheres of work and family into one context, which can create complications, as it becomes harder to disconnect from work when it can be performed at home and third locations as well (Magee and Arch, 2000: 35). Leaving the office building is no longer necessarily the end of someone’s working day. Additionally, homeworkers risk the event of home activities entering the work environment (Hilbrecht et al., 2013: 136). This might cause conflicts regarding privacy and concentration, which increases stress and inefficiency. So, ‘‘a fine line exists between the privacy of the individual and the community of the family.’’ (Magee and Arch, 2005: 45) Although flexibility enables balancing work and family life, too much flexibility is damaging (Hill et al., 1996: 298). According to Hill et al. (1996: 300), family life educators could play a role in helping (mobile) teleworkers to use increased flexibility to ameliorate the work-life balance. Besides, teleworking is found to go

(13)

along with intensive workloads and targets (Lewis and den Dulk, 2010: 260). Next, a problem associated with the flexibility of work places might be the hidden costs to the social capital within relationships between workers. Such informal interactions establish loyalty, trust and bonds of reciprocity (Christensen and Schneider, 2010: 6). It might be hard to develop a strong network when workers are (sometimes) spatially separated from the office. Such a loss of social ties with colleagues could cause feelings of isolation (Kossek et al., 2015: 7). Accordingly, jobs become depersonalized with the spread of computers (Levitan, 1998: 45).

Following the last drawback about social isolation, mobile teleworking might be a strategy to enhance interaction. While home-based teleworkers are dependent upon their household members for social interaction, mobile teleworkers choose third locations like cafés and libraries over homeworking to stimulate interaction (Groot, 2013: 23, 44). To wit, humans are in need of social bonding and activity (Winger, 2005: 251). Mobile teleworking at third spaces provides opportunities to engage in proximate interaction (Halford, 2005: 27; Lee and Kwan, 2011: 470). However, studies have shown that employees feel overheard or interrupted in today’s open-plan office spaces. Caused by the removal of physical barriers in the office, people have shorter and more-superficial discussions than they would otherwise have (Fayard and Weeks, 2011). Whether a space encourages interaction depends on how it balances proximity, privacy, and permission (of interaction). As third locations can be open spaces as well, this concept could be a present phenomenon there. For example, employees could feel overheard by café visitors while making a phone call with a client or colleague. On the other side, with respect to working at home, working at third locations could enhance concentration and productivity, since household members, who can distract the worker from his or her job tasks, are mostly not around at those locations (Magee and Arch, 2005: 45).

Definitional struggle

As already indicated, definitions about (mobile) teleworking tend to be rather vague. Researchers use multiple, broad paraphrases. For example, some researchers refer to telework as ‘‘working at home on a regular or occasional basis’’ (Christensen et al., 2010: 183), as ‘‘remote working by using ICTs, usually from home’’ (Halford, 2005: 19) or as ‘‘substituting formal day-time working hours at the employer’s premises for the same amount of hours worked at home.’’ (Ojala et al., 2013: 70) Furthermore, Hill et al. (1996: 293) and Coenen and Kok (2014: 564) define the

(14)

concept as doing work away from the office via telecommunications equipment. They propose that telecommuting is often referred to homework, since the alternative work location is usually the residential location. However, they recognize that modern equipment makes it possible to telework at a whole range of other places (Coenen and Kok, 2014: 566). Likewise, Daniels et al. (2001: 1154) refer to mobile work as ‘nomadic or multi-location telework’ that involves the use of computers and mobile phones. Accordingly, mobile teleworkers can also choose to work at non-home, non-office locations like cafés and libraries. Mobile teleworkers are thus less static with regard to their location of work in comparison to home-based teleworkers (Hislop and Axtell, 2007: 44). Subsequently, next to differences in the use of residential and third locations, definitions are dissimilar about whether a worker must do this on a regular or occasional basis to be called a (mobile) teleworker.

Besides, Coenen and Kok (2014: 564) point out that telework is often combined with flexible work schedules whereby start and end times are variable. These flexible work schedules involve freedom to choose when to work and when not to work. Of course, some employees are restricted in their ability to choose their time of work, for instance if they work at a shop with strict opening hours. Moreover, to enable coordination and communication, some employers compel their employees to maintain a certain work schedule or to be available during certain hours (Kurland and Bailey, 1999: 65). Although flexible time schedules are often used by teleworkers, Hill et al. (2010: 349) argue that most research focuses on flexibility in when people work or where they work, but not interactively together. The definitional struggle displayed above shows this ignorance, since most definitions do not cover a temporal dimension. However, Hill et al. (2010: 355) assert that combining flexibility in place and time of work maximizes the benefits with regard to the work-life balance (Hill et al., 2010: 355).

Family geographies

According to what is stated above, teleworking involves freely choosing the place of work, whether this is at home or at a third location. The concept therefore includes a strong geographical element. Geographical proximity to the employer’s premise is not anymore required to save travel time. Hence, teleworkers can choose non-office work locations that are closer to home to reduce or minimize commuting time. Contradictory, research on family geographies indicates that families still choose to live in the inner city, because of proximate employment

(15)

opportunities (Karsten, 2003: 2574). Yet, living in proximate distance to their employer’s premise was necessary for them to reduce commuting. To wit, the working parents in this research of Karsten (2003) rarely used teleworking. However, teleworkers could choose to live at a place that is less close to their work location while they can still minimize commuting time by performing (mobile) telework (Hill et al., 2010: 356; Kurland and Bailey, 1999: 66). It is established that home-based teleworkers indeed reduce travelling and commuting; their travels are concentrated around their residential location and they avoid travelling during peak-hours (Pendyala et al., 1991: 385, 398; Saxena and Mokhtarian, 1997: 141). As existing debates focus on home-based teleworkers, information is missing about whether the same holds true for mobile teleworkers.

Subsequently, family geographies state that families prefer inner city living because of the many informal city networks that diminish ‘‘the isolation that parents fear family life might trap them into’’ (Lilius, 2015: 109; Karsten, 2003: 2581). Likewise, mobile teleworkers are found to choose third locations like cafés and libraries over homeworking to protect themselves against social isolation (Groot, 2013: 23, 44). Mobile teleworking could thus possibly replace the social city interaction with interaction at third workspaces. Again, teleworking could provide opportunities to live in a less central location while still maintaining the benefits of inner city living.

Correspondingly, non-central locations would be suitable places for families if mobile teleworking can be performed. To wit, mobile teleworking can still reduce commuting and stimulate social interaction. Accordingly, it is established that non-central, urban, residential neighbourhoods are increasingly convenient locations for cognitive-cultural economic activities, for example because it is, at those places, manageable to flexibly combine work with other activities like childcare (Folmer and Kloosterman, 2016). These locations could compensate for the drawbacks of inner city environments. A city like Amsterdam is for example seen as a place where families have lacking freedom of movement. For instance, parents feel obliged to accompany their children at the playground and while travelling to sport facilities. Children cannot perform these activities independently, because of insecurity reasons (Karsten, 2003: 2580-2581).

(16)

Gendered work practices

While the labour participation of women increased, labour practices remain gender specified within families. Fathers are, for example, more involved in paid work than mothers (see figure 2) (Bianchi and Wight, 2010) and part-time work remains feminized (Lewis and den Dulk, 2010: 241). Likewise, if families are faced by a work-family mismatch, mothers are more likely than fathers to exit their careers (Moen and Huang, 2010: 74, 92). Besides, mothers experience more responsibility regarding childcare and unpaid work (like preparing dinner or doing the groceries) (see figure 3) (Lewis and den Dulk, 2010: 249). At the same time, fathers miss the family dinner more often (Ochs et al., 2010: 59, 64).

Geographical studies show that this division of paid and unpaid labour is context specific. To wit, people’s daily activities have a temporal and spatial dimension; every individual has a time-space budget each day. An individual’s daily performed activities take place within the spatial boundaries of his or her potential daily prism (Hägerstrand, 1970: 10). Since non-paid work activities often involve numerous daily trips to, for example, schools, shops and childcare facilities, temporal and spatial flexibility decreases with unpaid work. The distances between

0 100 200 300 400 A us tra li a A us tri a Be lgi um Ca na da D enm ark E st oni a F inl and F ra nc e G erm any H unga ry Ire la nd It al y Ja pa n K ore a M exi co N et he rl ands N ew Z ea la nd N orw ay P ol and P ort uga l S love ni a S pa in S w ede n T urke y U ni te d K ingdom U ni te d S ta te s Mi nut es pe r day OECD countries Figure 2: Time spent in paid work

Source: OECD (2014)

(17)

different locations set someone’s temporal and spatial flexibility. The availability of teleworking arrangements might determine someone’s potential daily prism. Having the ability to freely choose the location of work means being more flexible in time and space. Geographical proximity between places like the work and school location reduce travel time and can thus increase time available for paid work (de Meester et al., 2007: 589). Living in an area with a high density of facilities and work locations could therefore increase employment. This is especially true for women, since they are thought to be relatively more responsible for childcare activities. Living and working nearby schools could for example raise their employment. On the other hand, time spent in paid work is limited within a rural living area with poor access to facilities. Consequently, highly urbanized areas are linked to more gender egalitarian household arrangements (de Meester et al., 2007: 586). Noteworthy, the age and number of children are determining factors with regard to temporal and spatial flexibility, because young children are in need of more childcare and since ‘‘having more children increases the burden of unpaid tasks and the difficulty of coordinating different timetables.’’ (de Meester et al., 2007: 588)

In practice, Dutch men tend to use home working and teleworking more often, whereas Dutch women tend to use fixed work locations (CBS, 2012: 11, 15-16). These fixed locations

0 100 200 300 400 A us tra li a A us tri a Be lgi um Ca na da D enm ark E st oni a F inl and F ra nc e G erm any H unga ry Ire la nd It al y Ja pa n K ore a M exi co N et he rl ands N ew Z ea la nd N orw ay P ol and P ort uga l S love ni a S pa in S w ede n T urke y U ni te d K ingdom U ni te d S ta te s Mi nut es pe r day OECD countries Figure 3: Time spent in unpaid work

Source: OECD (2014)

(18)

tend to be closer to home, because this proximity facilitates combining paid and unpaid work (de Meester et al., 2007: 589). Lastly, work-family flexibility is more common in firms with a significant female workforce (Bourke, 2010: 299; Christensen et al., 2010: 180). So, as teleworking blurs the home and workspace, the gendered nature of the division of work and family tasks is possibly also blurred (Ojala et al., 2013: 72). Consequently, the work-family balance could differ between genders.

3. Analytical framework

The theoretical framework established an overview of the debates whence this inquiry is constructed. As mentioned, the existing academic debates about the flexibility of workplaces focus on home-based teleworkers (Halford, 2005: 21; Hill et al., 2003: 222; Hislop and Axtell, 2007: 43, 48). However, modern equipment like laptops can now be fitted into a briefcase and can be easily transported (Hill et al., 1996: 293). This advancement enables teleworkers to work beyond residential locations, and therefore generates relevance of more research on mobile teleworking whereby teleworkers use third spaces like cafés, trains, hotels, libraries, cars, planes and so on. For such inquiries, it is crucial to recognize the distinctiveness of mobile teleworking, especially when the research is concerned with the work-family balance. Home-based and mobile teleworkers could namely differ in their amount of time spend at home. In comparison to home-based teleworkers, mobile teleworkers could be relatively more absent from home, because they work at non-office locations that can be non-home as well (Kurland and Bailey, 1999: 62). This could cause a different work-family balance (Hislop and Axtell, 2007: 49). Results from inquiries about the work-family balance of home-based teleworkers can therefore not be generalized to mobile teleworkers. Accordingly, the aim of this research is to review to what extent the findings on home-based teleworking are applicable to mobile teleworking. Because of scope and time restrictions, it is necessary to focus on a particular theme within this knowledge gap. This inquiry focuses on the spatial relation between mobile teleworking and the work-family balance, because of the relative relevance of spaces and places within this topic of (mobile) teleworking.

Research questions and hypotheses

An exploration of the spatial behaviour of mobile teleworkers might reveal how their space-time patterns relate to work and family demands and how this corresponds to findings about

(19)

home-based teleworkers. The main question is thus about how a phenomenon manifests itself in reality. Accordingly, this research is an exploratory investigation with the following research question:

How do working parents with young children spatially use mobile teleworking to combine work and family activities in an urban area?

To answer this question, three sub questions are formulated that guide this research and help answering the main research question:

1. What are the space-time patterns of mobile teleworking parents with young children in an urban area?

2. How are these space-time patterns of working parents with young children related to mobile teleworking practices?

3. How do mobile teleworking mothers and fathers with young children differ in their strategies to combine work and family activities?

Based on these questions and theoretical insights, some propositions are made preliminary to the research. All together, these assumptions form the base for the analytical framework (see figure 4) that helps answering the main research question. Noteworthy, the framework distinguishes mothers and fathers from each other, even though homosexual parenthood is of course possible as well. This choice is made, since this study analyses the gender differences regarding strategies to combine work and family life (see sub question 3).

According to the first sub question, the assumption is that mobile teleworking parents use flexible work schedules next to flexible places of work. They might for example use non-standard work hours (like working during weekends) or flexible start and end times (such as working at night). Besides, it is expected that mobile teleworking parents, just like home-based teleworkers (Pendyala et al., 1991: 398) concentrate their travels around their residential location. Accordingly, it is proposed that mobile teleworking parents use third work locations close to home. This saves time, which could ease combining work and family life. Subsequently, the proposition is that mobile teleworking parents tend to avoid travelling and commuting during peak-hours. According to the Dutch statistical organisation CBS, these peak hours are between 7 and 9 o’clock in the morning and between 16 and 18 o’clock in the evening (CBS, 2017b). Eventually, it is assumed that mobile teleworking parents make discretionary non-working trips

(20)

instance, parents might pick up their children from school or do the groceries in the afternoon.

Figure 4: Analytical framework of mobile teleworking practices based on assumptions

by working at who perform to by is performed at is often combined with by mostly choose a nearby have more responsibilities for is used Mobile teleworking Mothers Fathers Combine work and family life Reduce commuting Foster social interaction and prevent distraction Employed parents with young children

Alternative activities like households tasks Work-related activities Family-related activities Employer’s premise

Third work location (like a café) Residential location

Flexible work schedule

No peak-hour travelling

Making discretionary trips during traditional work hours

Travelling around the residential location

(21)

Corresponding to the second sub question, it is expected that employed parents use mobile teleworking for several reasons. One of the reasons is that it enables them to balance work and family activities. To wit, spillover theory emphasizes that flexibly integrating work and family spheres in time and space results in a healthy balance (Hill et al., 1996: 294; Hill et al., 2003: 222). Moreover, based on family geographies (Karsten, 2003: 2574, 2578), it is assumed that mobile teleworking parents use mobile teleworking to reduce commuting time (Hill et al., 2010: 350). Besides, it is proposed that they choose to work at third, non-home, non-office spaces to prevent themselves from isolation and distraction. As clarified in the theoretical framework, they need and wish for interaction outside their residential environment. Moreover, family members may distract employees from working when they are at home (Hilbrecht et al., 2013: 136).

Thirdly, a sub question about gender differences is added since gender might be a prevalent factor in determining how employed parents differently use mobile teleworking to combine work and family activities. To wit, the theoretical debates explain how labour practices remain gender specified within families. Based on these insights, it is expected that mobile teleworking practices and the work-family balance indeed differ between genders. It is assumed that mothers are more likely to perform mobile teleworking for family objectives than alternative objectives like a reduction in commuting time, a stimulation of interaction or a productivity increase. This assumption connects to the relative relevance of childcare responsibilities of mothers (Lewis and den Dulk, 2010: 249). Consequently, it is expected that mothers make more discretionary trips during traditional work hours that are childcare related in comparison to fathers. Besides, the employer’s premise of mobile teleworking mothers is proposed to be closer located to the residential location than their male counterparts. Lastly, since Dutch men are more likely to perform teleworking than Dutch women (CBS, 2012: 11, 15-16), most respondents are assumed to be men.

Conceptualization

The above research questions and hypotheses include some concepts that need to be clarified. Especially the concept of mobile teleworking requires a detailed clarification, as definitions about this concept are rather vague among several investigations. For instance, definitions diverge about the type of work locations that teleworkers can use. Workers can purely use one workplace or they can switch between places. A home-office teleworker is for instance someone who uses

(22)

both the employer’s and his or her own premise (Hislop and Axtell, 2007: 46). This type of worker is frequently reviewed in academic articles. However, the mobile teleworker is relevant for this research. This person works at three different locations: at the employer’s premise, at home and/or at third, non-office and non-home locations. So, in addition to home-office teleworkers, mobile teleworkers also use third spaces like cafés, trains, hotels and libraries. Within this study, mobile teleworkers are free to choose their place of work; they are not imposed to do so by a supervisor. Moreover, the frequency of use of the locations can be occasional or regular.

Another concept that needs clarification is the concept of employed parents. The parents need to have one or more biological or adopted children. The definition is indifferent about a parent’s marital status. Parents are qualified as employed if they perform paid work, irrespective of the number of hours they work. To wit, part-time teleworkers still need to combine work and family activities during (tele)working days and they will only be analysed during workdays. The definition is furthermore indifferent about whether a worker is self-employed or under supervision. These paraphrases are derived from ‘het Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek’ (CBS), a Dutch organization that is responsible for official national statistics (CBS, 2017c; CBS, 2017d). Additionally, the employed parents in this research must be older than eighteen years old, which corresponds to the Dutch minimum driving age. This choice is made since this inquiry involves a review of travel modes. To prevent biased disparities between respondents, underage parents are excluded from this research.

Furthermore, the research questions indicate that the parents must have young children. This condition is relevant, because this inquiry is about combining work and family tasks. Parents must therefore have responsibilities for both domains. Since young children are less self-independent and thus more dependent on their parents’ care, respondents must have young children. This ensures that the researched parents indeed have childcare responsibilities. Consequently, the children of the parents in this research must be preschool children or ‘onderbouw’1 pupils: they are not older than eight years old (Rijksoverheid, 2017). This choice is made since pupils in a further stage of the elementary school are (taught to be) more independent (Doolaard et al., 2002: 12).

1_{‘Onderbouw’ is a Dutch term that refers to the first half (the first four years) of the elementary school}

(23)

Subsequently, work and family activities are separated concepts within the research questions. Work activities relate to tasks performed for an individual’s paid job. Likewise, commuting is seen as a travel activity from the residential location to the work location, and vice versa. Conversely, family activities refer to caring for children and must be distinguished from household tasks like cooking and cleaning.

Eventually, a medium-sized urban city is set as the research context to apply focus in this inquiry. Academic literature indicates that those locations are increasingly suitable to combine work and family activities (Folmer and Kloosterman, 2016). It is found that teleworkers are not required to live in close distance to the office, which is often located in metropolitans where economic activities, resources and power are concentrated (Groot, 2013: 8; Hill et al., 2010: 356). Hence, urban, metropolitan areas are chosen to be the study object. Yet, the focus is on non-rural areas because facilities like third spaces, which are relevant for this inquiry, might not be present at rural locations. Medium-sized urban cities are conceptualized based on a qualitative interpretation of urbanism, because it is difficult to absolutely state the difference between urban, suburban or non-urban areas based on hard demographic data like the population density. These numbers namely differ per scale, nation and in time (Brenner and Schmid, 2014: 735-6).

Operationalization

This research involves a data collection process and thus uses primary data. Since respondents are interrogated during this process of gathering data, the above concepts will be operationalized by self-reported information. To provide a valid and replicable measure, objective demographic information about the respondent is covered within a survey. To measure the concepts of mobile teleworking and employed parents with young children, respondents will be asked what work locations they use, how many hours they perform paid work and how many preschool and young primary school (‘onderbouw’) children they have. These objective measurements within the survey reflect the meaning of the concepts and guard against the researcher’s subjectivity (Babbie, 2006: 143, 146). Besides, respondents are asked to note if their travel activities were work or family related in a self-administered diary. The next section of this research will provide a detailed investigation about this and other methodological issues.

(24)

4. Methodological framework

Case selection

A case study of a medium-sized city is executed to be able to answer the exploratory research question. Studying a particular case helps exploring how a phenomenon manifests itself in reality. Haarlem is selected as the case in this research. This city, the capital of the Noord Holland province, has around 158,000 inhabitants and is located some twenty kilometres to the west of Amsterdam (Gemeente Haarlem, 2017).

The official Dutch statistics organization CBS has defined Haarlem as an urban, but non-metropolitan area (CBS, 2017e). This is one of the reasons why this city is chosen as the research case. Furthermore, Haarlem can be identified as a city that is smaller in scope in comparison to the four big cities in the Randstad region of the Netherlands: Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht. Those four cities had number of inhabitants that varied between 320,000 and 800,000 in 2013 (CBS, 2017f). Since those numbers at least double the number of inhabitants of Haarlem, the city of Haarlem fits into the qualitative interpretation of a medium-sized city. The city can thus be purposively chosen as a representative case that could reproduce relevant causal characteristics of a larger entity (Gerring, 2007: 88). Moreover, this city is especially relevant for this inquiry since navigation service TomTom found that car users experience the most traffic jam delay in the Netherlands in and around Haarlem (de Volkskrant, 2017). This delay is likely to increase commuting time and might trigger Haarlem’s working inhabitants to start (mobile) teleworking to save travel time.

Subsequently, the research focuses on a part of the city to develop a feasible investigation. The region that is found the most appropriate is called ‘Haarlem Noord’, which is located in the northern part of the city, just above the city centre (see figure 5). In comparison to other parts of the city, this region is home to relatively more families with toddlers and elementary school pupils (Gemeente Haarlem, 2015: 6-7). Another essential demographic is the unemployment rate. This rate is relatively lower in ‘Haarlem Noord’ than in the city as a whole (Gemeente Haarlem, 2015: 15). Since these two relevant demographics are strongly connected to this research on mobile teleworking parents with young children, ‘Haarlem Noord’ is selected as the case study.

(25)

Legend

Boundary of ‘Haarlem Noord’ region

Figure 5: Map of the city of Haarlem indicating the ‘Haarlem Noord’ region

Source: Buurtmonitor Haarlem (2017)

Sample selection

Within the selected region, units of analysis from where data can be gathered must be chosen. Since this investigation is about the spatial behaviour of individuals, data is collected from people: working parents with young children. These individuals must live in ‘Haarlem-Noord’. They can be self-employed or under supervision. However, they do need to perform mobile teleworking. The parents were reached online by reporting on social media and by reporting in digital newsletters of schools and daycare centres. Moreover, they were contacted face-to-face by approaching them in the northern region of Haarlem on several school squares, at cafés and at

(26)

markets on ‘Koningsdag’ (a Dutch national holiday). Finally, 88 respondents make up the survey sample selection of this inquiry. As will be mentioned below, travel diaries are spread as well. Of the 88 survey respondents, 16 respondents filled in 25 travel diaries.

4.1 Data collection and analysis

Since multiple research questions are examined, two methods of data collection and analysis are selected that fit to particular sub questions. Both methods are provided in Dutch and English; English versions are back-ups for non-Dutch speaking inhabitants of Haarlem-Noord. This eliminates a language barrier for the respondent.

Travel diaries and time geography

The first method to collect data involves self-administered travel diaries, which capture the space-time trajectories of the first sub question (Crosbie, 2006). It is asked where respondents move to explore their travel and commuting behaviour. Moreover, the respondents’ use of flexible schedules is reviewed by questioning when they move. Accordingly, participants are asked to note from and to which (geocoded) places they go and if the activities they performed there were work, family or alternative activities. Besides, they are asked to note their mode of transport when travelling from one location to another and the corresponding travel start and end times (see appendix 2). Since the respondent only notes the start and end times of his or her travels, working at home during evening hours or at night might be missed. Moreover, information on working on weekend days is missed since participants are asked to post up two weekdays on which they perform mobile teleworking, as it is necessary for them to have both work and family responsibilities. Hence, both working during evening hours or at night and working on weekend days will be captured within a survey.

The participants are asked to post up two days on which they perform mobile teleworking in a travel diary, since it is a time consuming exercise. The respondents in this research are characterized by their scarcity of time to combine work and family tasks; they would thus not have much time to participate. Travel diaries are selected because they, as opposed to statistical data collection methods, capture spatial and temporal patterns. Statistical analyses involve analysing aggregate characteristics of activities, while space-time analyses include the interaction between people and their environment as a process in time rather than at a given point in time

(27)

(Chen et al., 2011: 394; Miller, 2005: 23). This temporal dimension is essential for this research, because of the dynamic interaction between work and family life. Time-space approaches portray a continuous sequence of activities in a particular time period (Buliung and Kanaroglou, 2006: 39; Hägerstrand, 1970: 14). Consequently, this approach ‘‘enhances our understanding of complex relationships that cannot be easily revealed through conventional statistical analysis.’’ (Lee and Kwan, 2011: 468).

Figure 6: A space-time path visualizing time geography

Source: Miller (2005: 20)

The space-time analysis is implemented by using Hägerstrand’s time geography method (Hägerstrand, 1970: 10). It visualizes individuals’ space-time paths in a three-dimensional conceptual framework: a ‘space-time aquarium’ (see figure 6). Locational and temporal dimensions are framed in a map that visualizes locations, durations, sequences and types of activities. The vertical axis presents the time of the day and the horizontal plane displays the spatial dimension. Accordingly, vertical lines display stationary activities (no locational change) and tilted lines display activities whereby the individual moves in space during a particular time. The modern geocomputational and visualization capabilities of geographical information systems enable digitizing this aquarium (Chen et al., 2011: 395; Eyer and Ferreira, 2015: 696; Lee and Kwam, 2011: 478). The extension ‘Extended Time-Geographic Framework Analysis Tools’ of ArcScene, the three-dimensional viewer of ArcGIS, is used, since it is able to generate space-time paths and show hidden activity patterns in an individual-level activity diary dataset (Chen et al.,

(28)

2011: 396, 398; Shaw and Yu, 2013).

Time geography is particularly useful for analysing a small number of respondents. Identifying space-time patterns from a large number of participants is hard, because a large numbers of paths may be difficult to discern (Chen et al., 2011: 395; Lee and Kwan, 2011: 476). Hence, this qualitative method is useful for exploratory data analysis, which is the case in this research. Qualitatively, meaningful relationships can be explored to see when and where mobile teleworking parents move. Results of this investigation help inform a quantitative analysis, which is conducted in the sequel (Lee and Kwan, 2011: 471).

Surveys and quantitative analysis

All respondents are asked to fill in a survey (see appendix 1) to help answering the two analytical sub questions in a quantitative manner. Surveys are chosen, because they are not time-consuming. As mentioned, the participants in this research have limited time to combine work and family tasks. It is hence expected that they would not have much time to participate to this research. Correspondingly, the survey is concise to enable respondents to answer it in a few minutes. It is distributed digitally by handing over a tablet with the survey on it to respondents who are approached face-to-face (at playgrounds, cafés, firms and so on). Furthermore, surveys are sent via digital distribution channels. Accordingly, the survey is a self-completion questionnaire (Bryman, 2012: 232). The survey results are collected digitally because it saves time and travel costs. Subsequently, a lot of contemporary interaction goes via the web. Digital data collection therefore eases reaching respondents and connections. Moreover, self-completion questionnaires are convenient for respondents as they can choose when and where to fill it in. Furthermore, respondents might feel less pressure to give social desirable answers and be more honest when the researcher is not around (Bryman, 2012: 233-4). Besides, it eliminates bias caused by influence of the interviewer. However, no probing is possible when the respondents fill the survey in themselves. Reading the questions to the respondent in case he or she is approached face-to-face can solve this problem and provides more detailed information.

The survey starts with demographic questions about the participant’s gender, age, job and family (see appendix 1). Next, participants are interrogated about their use of mobile teleworking, the reasons why they do so, which specific locations they use, whether they use a flexible work schedule and how they feel about their work-family balance. Analysing the respondents’ answers

(29)

to these questions will involve a quantitative investigation. The survey for example captures demographic data like gender, the number of work hours, commuting distance, number of children and job types. The descriptive data of these variables can be analysed within frequency tables and diagrams (Bryman, 2012: 337). Thereafter, bivariate and multivariate regression analysis is executed to discover relationships between variables. If the variable is binary (for example with gender), logistic regression will be executed (Acock, 2014: 330). Multinomial logistic regression is used when the dependent variable is categorical and composed of more than two categories that cannot be ranked in order (Acock, 2014: 428; Bryman, 2012: 335).

5. Results

Analysing the collected data aims at answering the main research question of this inquiry: How

do working parents with young children spatially use mobile teleworking to combine work and family activities in an urban area? The results are discussed within three sub topics (part 5.2 to

5.4), which correlate to the three sub research questions. The answers to these questions are formulated within a sub conclusion in each part of this chapter of the study. Before answering these sub queries, the characteristics of both the survey and travel diary sample are reviewed in part 5.1 of this research.

5.1 Sample characteristics

Survey sample characteristics

Table 1 to table 4 display the demographic characteristics of the 88 individuals who filled in the survey. In table 1, the descriptive statistics of the categorical variables about gender and age are shown. It shows that the distribution of the respondents by gender is nearly equal, with a slight overrepresentation of women. This could be caused by the fact that respondents were mostly approached at childcare related locations like schools and playgrounds. Since women are assumed to be relatively more responsible for childcare activities (Lewis and den Dulk, 2010: 249), they could be relatively more present at the places where participants were approached. The expectation that most respondents would be male, because Dutch men are more likely to perform teleworking than Dutch women (CBS, 2012: 11, 15-16), is thus not true. Next, more than half of the respondents are older than 40 years old and no participant is younger than 25 years old. This corresponds with the requirement that the employed parents participating in this research must be

(30)

older than eighteen years old (the Dutch minimum driving age), to prevent biased disparities based on possible travel modes.

Table 1: Descriptive statistics on the survey sample population’s gender and age Frequency (individuals) Percentage Cumulative percentage Gender Female 49 55.68 % 55.68 % Male 39 44.32 % 100 % Total 88 100 % Age 20 to 25 years old 0 0 % 0 % 25 to 30 years old 3 3.41 % 3.41 % 30 to 35 years old 10 11.36 % 14.77 % 35 to 40 years old 30 34.09 % 48.86 %

Older than 40 years old 45 51.14 % 100 %

Total 88 100 %

Furthermore, table 2 shows the distribution of the weekly number of work hours among all respondents. On average, the participants work around 35 hours a week. Other work related characteristics are presented in table 3. The distribution of the distance between individuals’ residential locations and their employer’s premises is various. Most, almost one third, of the survey sample population lives maximum ten kilometres away from the office. However, living 10 to 20, 20 to 30 or more than 40 kilometres away from the employer’s premise is also common. The only distance that is relatively less represented is living 30 to 40 kilometres away from the office. Next, the respondents’ partners are part-time or fulltime employed in more than nine out of ten cases. Accordingly, dual-earning families are common within the sample. Like the theory declared, ‘‘the same two adults share three jobs; two as breadwinners and one as homemaker.’’ (Christensen and Schneider, 2010: 2). Noteworthy, the total number of respondents is lower for this variable, as some answers are missing. To wit, it could be the case that participants are single parents and have no partner. There could be a two jobs-one adult situation for those single parents, performing both the breadwinning and homemaking activities.

(31)

Table 2: Descriptive statistics on the survey sample population’s weekly number of work hours Variable Number of observations Mean Standard deviation Minimum Maximum

Weekly number of work hours 88 35.55682 8.813336 16 55

Table 3: Descriptive statistics on the survey sample population’s work-related demographics Frequency

(individuals)

Percentage Cumulative

percentage Distance between home and employer’s premise

0 to 10 kilometres 27 30.68 % 30.68 %

10 to 20 kilometres 19 21.59 % 52.27 %

20 to 30 kilometres 19 21.59 % 73.86 %

30 to 40 kilometres 7 7.95 % 81.82 %

More than 40 kilometres 16 18.18 % 100 %

Total 88 100 % Employment partner No (formal) job 5 6.17 % 6.17 % Part-time working 35 43.21 % 49.38 % Fulltime working 41 50.62 % 100 % Total 81 100 %

Lastly, table 4 describes how the family life of the respondents looks like. It denotes that approximately 60 per cent of the survey sample population shares the responsibility for childcare activities with their partner on an equal base. It is interesting to analyse whether in the remaining cases the persons who are mainly responsible for childcare activities, are women. This would be expected based on theoretical statements and real statistical information (see figure 2) (Bianchi and Wight, 2010). This issue is captured in part 5.4 of this inquiry. Eventually, table 4 also demonstrates how many preschool and/or young primary school children the respondents have.

(32)

Table 4: Descriptive statistics on the survey sample population’s family characteristics Frequency (individuals) Percentage Cumulative percentage Responsibility childcare

Mainly for the respondent him- or herself 22 25.00 % 25.00 %

Mainly for my respondent’s partner 13 14.77 % 39.77 %

Both the respondent and his or her partner equally 53 60.23 % 100 %

Total 88 100 %

Number of preschool children

0 43 48.86 % 48.86 % 1 33 37.50 % 86.36 % 2 11 12.50 % 98.86 % 3 1 1.14 % 100 % Total 88 100 %

Number of young primary school children

0 22 25.00 % 25.00 %

1 40 45.45 % 70.45 %

2 24 27.27 % 97.73 %

3 2 2.27 % 100 %

Total 88 100 %

Travel diary sample characteristics

While filling in the survey took the respondents just a few minutes, participating in the travel diary part of this research required more effort. Therefore, as expected, the number of respondents for this part of the research is lower: around forty survey respondents were willing to fill in a travel diary next to the survey. Eventually, sixteen of these forty respondents have sent one or two useful travel diaries. The remaining participants did not hand in anything, did not perform mobile teleworking on the reported days or did not live in the northern part of Haarlem. Furthermore, some travel diaries were not suitable to use as some respondents were not able to geocode the locations he or she visited during the day, for example because of privacy reasons.

(33)

tables are compared to the four tables above, which describe the demographics of the survey sample population, to check whether the sixteen individuals who filled in the travel diary make up a representative group of the total 88 individuals who filled in the survey. As can be seen from table 5, the travel diary population is characterized by a slight overrepresentation of women. The same holds true for the survey population (see table 1). Moreover, table 5 shows that the number of respondents grows with each age category (which is again similar to the survey sample).

Table 5: Descriptive statistics on the travel diary sample population’s gender and age Frequency (individuals) Percentage Cumulative percentage Gender Female 11 68.75 % 68.75 % Male 5 31.25 % 100 % Total 16 100 % Age 20 to 25 years old 0 0 % 0 % 25 to 30 years old 0 0 % 0 % 30 to 35 years old 2 12.50 % 12.50 % 35 to 40 years old 6 37.50 % 50.00 %

Older than 40 years old 8 50.00 % 100 %

Total 16 100 %

Subsequently, table 6 provides similar information in comparison to table 2, both about the weekly number of work hours. For both sample populations, the average weekly number of work hours is around 35 hours. Besides, for both populations, almost all of the participants’ partners are employed. In both cases, about half of the partners are fulltime working (see table 3 and table 7). With regard to the distances between the participants’ residential locations and their employer’s premises, spreading occurs. Although no distance was outstanding for the survey population, most respondents lived 0 to 10 kilometres away from the office (consult table 3). However, the most common distance for the travel diary population is 20 to 30 kilometres (see table 7). Again, no outstanding distance can be discovered as living 0 to 10, 10 to 20 or more than 40 kilometres away from the employer’s premise is also common for the travel diary sample. So,

Working here and there : an inquiry on how mobile teleworking parents combine work and family activities