ANNA R NKA University of Jyv skyl O a a PIRJO KORVELA University of Helsinki*

Everyday Family Life: Dimensions, Approaches, and Current Challenges

The aim of this systematic literature review was to identify, categorize, and evaluate the empirical research that has been conducted on everyday family life. Fifty-three empirically based articles focusing on everyday family life were included in the analysis, which focused on the conceptual, empirical, and theoretical content. According to our review, everyday family life comprises three dimensions: emotions, actions, and temporality. It is a continuously constructed process in which family members transmit emotions, engage in activities, and schedule timetables in the course of interactions with each other and with the wider social context. Three empirical or theoretical approaches were identied: the emotion transmission approach, the cultural activity approach, and the constructionist approach, all of which adopt research methods and concepts sensitive to daily uctuations. In everyday life there are many family activities that take up a considerable amount of time, energy, and attention. However, as Kerry Daly (2003) noted, most aspects of everyday family

Family Research Centre, University of Jyv skyl , Finland a a (anna.ronka@jamk.).

Department

of Home Economics and Craft Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland. Key Words: everyday family life, conceptual analysis, literature review, research approaches.

life are poorly represented in theorization about families. Why are the ordinary activities of families understudied? It is clear that approaching the family from the everyday life perspective presents a challenge to researchers because it includes a variety of activities and is familiar to all people. According to Daly (2003), many aspects of everyday family life transcend rational and logical ways of behaving and are thus difcult to capture and understand via traditional theories and methods. Regardless of the overow and pervasiveness of everyday family life, we were concerned with identifying the relevant aspects worth studying. Recently, there has been some debate about the methods suitable for studying everyday life (e.g., Bolger, Davis, & Rafaeli, 2003; Larson & Almeida, 1999; Schneider, 2006; Tuomi-Gr hn, 2008b, 2008c). In this paper o we argue that there has been a particular lack of attempts to analyze the theoretical and conceptual elements of everyday or daily life (for exceptions, see Felski, 19992000; Tuomi-Gr hn, 2008a). By theoretical analyses o we mean elaborations concerning, for example, such questions as, Why study everyday family life? What dimensions are relevant and what theoretical approaches are useful? This article seeks to answer these questions by synthesizing current empirical ndings, conceptualizations, and theoretical explanations relating to an understanding of everyday family life. We start by dening the concept of everyday life in the 87

Journal of Family Theory & Review 1 (June 2009): 87102

88 context of families while recognizing that there are many elements of everyday life that occur in nonfamily contexts (e.g., work). We then review the available empirical research literature on everyday family life and compare the different research approaches. Finally, we discuss some of the current challenges that family members face in their daily lives and discuss the relevance and boundaries of the everyday perspective in family research along with its links to concepts such as family life and family process. Everyday Family Life Bennett and Watson (2002, p. x) noted that the emergence of everyday life is difcult to dene, because it could be regarded both as a theoretical concept and as experienced practice. As a theoretical concept, everyday life rst appeared in the 1920s, but its origin is in the 19th century when the process of industrialization increasingly separated production and reproduction, work and housing, work time and leisure time, and the private and the public into different spheres of life (Bennett & Watson, p. x; Lefebvre, 1971; Salmi & Kivim ki, 1997). a In the few denitions of everyday life that exist, the following aspects have been observed: First, everyday life has no clear boundaries and is difcult to identify (Felski, 19992000, p. 15). Second, everyday life is a concept that unites the different spheres of life (Salmi & Kivim ki, 1997) and denotes the rhythms and a routines of daily existence (Bennett & Watson, 2002). Third, it is not just a frame or a context for what people do but is constantly created and constructed by everyone (Bech Jorgensen, 1991). Fourth, as Salmi and Kivim ki noted, although a everyday denotes ordinary, mundane, dayto-day life, it cannot be dened as the opposite of exceptional, extraordinary, or unusual events. Some researchers have tried to outline the basic dimensions or aspects of everyday life. Felski (19992000) reviewed the work of Lefebvre (1971), Heller (1984), and Schutz (Schutz & Luckmann, 1973). From her reading she pieced together (p. 18) a denition of everyday life grounded in three key dimensions: time, space, and modality. She suggested that the temporality of the everyday is that of repetition, whereas the spatial ordering of the everyday is anchored, as she saw it, in a sense of home and the characteristic mode of experiencing

Journal of Family Theory & Review the everyday is that of habit. Daly (2003, p. 771) noted that everyday life is shaped by the complex intersection of many forces. In line with Felski, he paid attention to the temporal and spatial aspects of everyday life, but he also differentiated as dimensions of everyday life, among other things, material concerns, health issues, moral and spiritual concerns, and relationship concerns. On the basis of previous literature on everyday life, we propose a tentative denition of everyday family life: Everyday family life is a process that family members constantly create and construct in time and space, together and separately, by material, mental, and social means. Everyday family life comes within the broad denition of everyday life but is dened by and delimited to the context of a family. Below, we examine the literature to see to what extent empirical research lls out the denition proposed above. The Aims of This Article The aim of this systematic review of the literature is to identify, categorize, and evaluate existing empirical research on everyday family life and to compare the research approaches within it. The research questions in our review are as follows: What are the most central objects of research in the area of everyday family life and what concepts are used in operationalizing the object of research? What is the unit of analysis in analyzing everyday family life? What are the most central research approaches adopted and in what ways do they differ? METHOD Search Methods Among the various types of literature review (meta-analysis, systematic qualitative literature review, narrative literature review), our review belongs to the narrative literature review category (Baumeister & Leary, 1997; B. J. Green, Johnson, & Adams, 2001). A narrative literature review is valuable in linking together methodologically diverse, multidisciplinary studiesin other words, it covers the broad span of the relevant research in the eld. We used several methods to identify relevant studies, but most were identied through a systematic literature search via the ERIC, PsycINFO, and EBSCO databases. The

Everyday Family Life literature search was conducted in the spring and autumn of 2007. We included studies in which the words everyday family life or daily family life were used in the title or keywords of the study. We excluded articles published in medical journals. These were articles in which everyday family life was approached from the perspective of physical or mental illness or retardation (a relatively large group of articles in which the main aim was to analyze how, after having various diseases, individuals cope in their daily activities). We also excluded articles with a pedagogical or educational perspective (e.g., articles that dealt with everyday family life as a learning environment for academic skills). We did, however, choose for our analysis some articles that did not use daily or everyday family life in their titles or keywords but that nevertheless dealt with everyday family life. Among these were, for example, articles on handling day-today life or on how individuals live their lives. Our search was restricted to articles and chapters of books written in English. In addition to searching for literature via databases, we also performed backward searching through reference lists, as has previously been suggested (B. J. Green et al.). In all, we identied 53 empirical studies focusing largely on daily family life; these appeared in 15 journals and 21 books and were published in the period 19902007. Analysis In reviewing the articles we paid attention to their conceptual, empirical, and theoretical content. We started by conducting a general overview of the studies and continued by categorizing and clustering them on the basis of two criteria: the object of the research (e.g., daily activities, the transmission of daily emotions) and the unit of analysis. Daly (2007) pointed out that several units of analysis can be accommodated when studying families. We applied four units of analysis in categorizing the concepts used to dene everyday family life: The rst unit of analysis is the individual; that is, we hear the different voices in the family from the perspective of different family members. The second unit of analysis is the dyad, which allows the analysis of interaction processes, and the third unit of analysis is the family. Because the family is more than the sum of its members, it is important to deal with the we-ness of the

89 family, or how the family members construct family life together. The fourth unit of analysis deals with the relationship between the family and the larger environment or other contexts. Furthermore, in reviewing the articles we paid attention to the theoretical and methodological approaches adopted. RESULTS General Overview of the Studies In reviewing the articles (marked with * in the references), we noticed that the concept of everyday family life or daily life was very often taken for granted and that what is understood to represent everyday family life seems to vary greatly. The concept of everyday family life was usually combined with only one or two life areas or roles, generally work, the marital relationship, or parenting. Of these, the daily marital relationship seemed just recently to have become a more common topic of research (e.g., Doumas, Margolin, & John, 2003; Schulz, Cowan, Cowan, & Brennan, 2004). In studies of this kind the focus was on the daily uctuation of emotions and interactions between the couples, for example, in the daily juggling between work and the home. The interest in daily family life seemed, in most cases, to concern its negative aspects, that is, things that are not working well, cause problems, and give rise to feelings of dissatisfaction. Researchers have looked, for example, at daily hassles and stress (Almeida, 2005; Almeida & McDonald, 1998; Coplan, Bowker, & Cooper, 2003; Crnic & Low, 2002; Repetti & Wood, 1997), the transmission of negative emotions and experiences (Almeida, Wethington, & McDonald, 2001; Matjasko & Feldman, 2006; Repetti & Wood, 1997), difcult moments such as family rush hours (Galinsky, 1999; Schulz et al., 2004), and work-family interference (van Hooff, Geurts, Kompier, & Taris, 2006). There were, however, exceptions. For example, Delle Fave and Massimini (2004) studied the ways in which parents can learn important life skills in daily family life and discuss optimal experiences. They found that of the different life areas (parenting, work, leisure, media), parenting was experienced as the most satisfying, offering both high challenges and high involvement for both women and men.

90 Dimensions of Everyday Life On the basis of our literature review, the topical areas of recent research on everyday life fall roughly into three main dimensions, which we labeled as emotions, actions, and temporality (see Table 1). Most of the studies we reviewed were concerned with one of these three dimensions. There were also a few articles that dealt with some other aspects of everyday family life such as media use or religion, but the three main dimensions were very clear. The perspectives from which the studies we examined dealt with these dimensions varied, from the perspective of individual family members to that of couples and dyads to that of families as a whole, for example, in terms of family processes. Emotions in everyday family life. Emotions are considered an important aspect of daily family life because their quality inuences individual perceptions, thoughts, behavior, and well-being (Larson, 2005). In all, 43% of the articles we traced were concerned with emotions in everyday family life. According to Larson and Almeida (1999), the centrality of emotions in daily family life has been noted in several areas of family research: in parenting, the marital relationship, family therapy, and work-family interaction. How people feel in their daily life affects their ability to fulll their roles as parents and spouses. Emotional well-being is seen as very important in family life today. Perrez et al. (2005) emphasized that in the view of family sociologists the function of the family as an arena of emotion regulation has become more important, whereas some other functions
Table 1. The Dimensions and Levels of Everyday Family Life Emotions Individual level Mood, affect, and experiences Actions

Journal of Family Theory & Review have become less signicant. Accordingly, Koh (2005) noted that emotional satisfaction and the sharing of thoughts have become among the most important criteria of marital quality today. Paying attention to emotions is linked with a rise in affective individualism that goes back to the emergence of the modern family (Shorter, 1977, pp. 56) during industrialization. According to Daly (2003), emotions are still an unstudied area in family life, although their visibility in everyday life is evident: Emotions such as love, hate, jealousy, and empathy are often expressed in the family realm. In the family context, individuals tend to and are even encouraged to express all kinds of emotions, including negative emotions such as anger, sadness, and irritation (Perrez et al., 2005). This is because in comparison to other kinds of human relationships, such as peer relationships or relationships with colleagues, family relationships are more permanent; thus it is, or should be, safe for individuals to express their negative as well as their positive sides. In particular, the relationship between parent and child is strong; hence it provides a safe foundation for showing a range of emotions. The nature of family relationships becomes clear when we take into account the fact that these relationships often have a biological, emotional, and legal basis. There are other reasons why emotions are so visible in everyday life. First, daily life includes repeated routines and hassles that may evolve emotions (Almeida, 2005). Second, the family has multiple voicesthe voices of parents and children, for exampleand these may conict. As Larson and Richards (1994) pointed out, it is an illusion to see the family as a single,

Temporality Use of time, timetable, time budget, and rhythm Synchronization of timetables and rhythms Scheduling of timetables, key moments, and family time Match/mismatch between the schedule of the family and social institutions

Dyadic level

Family level Family and the wider social context

Transmission (crossover), emotional work, and emotion regulation Atmosphere, climate, and emotional tension Transmission (spillover)

Actions, tasks, duties, obligations, responsibilities, and engagement Interaction, negotiation, involvement, and division of homework Practices, routines, hassles, and tensions Match/mismatch between cultural traditions and family activities

Everyday Family Life coherent unit. They prefer to talk about the separate, sometimes conicting worlds of the mother, father, and children. Third, each family member takes home experiences from the life spheres they are involved in: work, day care center, school, and so forth. In the afternoon, in the family rush hour, when family members usually come home from work or school and are often tired, hungry, and frustrated (Galinsky, 1999; Schulz et al., 2004), the home may easily be loaded with negative emotions such as frustration and anger. Negative emotions tend to spread, affecting the family atmosphere and the interaction between family members. Daily emotions have been studied in individuals, for example, in terms of experiences (Delle Fave & Massimini, 2004; Koh, 2005; Matjasko & Feldman, 2006), mood, or affect (Meegan & Goedreis, 2006). Larson and Richardss (1994) study was an attempt to understand the emotional lives of different family members. They examined how the various members of the family felt during the day and week in everyday contexts and found differences between family members on that basis. Studies (e.g., Almeida & McDonald, 1998) have demonstrated the existence of typical daily and weekly rhythms in emotions; these tend to follow a weekday-weekend structure. Recently the focus of a large body of family research (e.g., Almeida & McDonald, 1998; Almeida, Wetherington, & Chandler, 1999; Almeida et al., 2001) has been on how emotions and experiences are transmitted between family members. When dyads are taken as the unit of analysis (see Table 1), the concept of crossover (Westman, 2005) denotes the process in which one family members emotional statefor example, aggressionaffects another family members mood so that she or he also becomes aggressive or upset. The transmission of emotions is not, however, automatic. A parent can do many things to lter and regulate her or his negative emotions in order to avoid bringing them home (e.g., from work); this can be done to avoid letting negative states spill over and affect the child. Emotional work refers to actions and intentions intended to moderate ones emotions; they act to improve other family members well-being in terms of support and guidance (Erickson, 1993, 2005; Strazdins & Broom, 2004). Family life can be seen as an arena for learning emotional skills such as emotion regulation (Perrez et al., 2005).

91 One of the key purposes in family research is to understand the family holistically. Concepts describing the emotional life of the family include the emotional atmosphere or climate (Daly, 2003) and tensions in shared activities, which may turn emotional (Korvela, 1999). Daly (p. 775) noted that although emotions are embodied and expressed in individual family members, they are profoundly inuenced by family rules and the collective family atmosphere. Everyday family life does not exist in a vacuum. For example, as indicated above, family members take home what they felt during the working day (e.g., Matjasko & Feldman, 2006) or what happened to them or to people close to them (Daly). Spillover denotes the process by which family members bring with them experiences from other contexts (Westman, 2005). This is currently one of the most intensively investigated research topics. The question asked is, Does a hectic and demanding working life damage family life? Actions in everyday family life. The second basic dimension of everyday family life found in the course of our review concerns actions and practices. This dimension comprised 75% of the articles surveyed. In studies of this kind, the focus is on analyzing what family members do together and what they do individually and how cultural traditions and myths guide individual actions. Actions may also be analyzed according to the four units of analysis mentioned earlier and depicted in Table 1. When practices are approached from the perspective of individuals, one can speak of individual actions, tasks, obligations, and duties (Cara, Pacholok, & Gauthier, 2005; Fuligni, Yip, & Tseng, 2002). In the case of dyadic relationships, concepts such as interactions, engagement, involvement, and the division of housework are used (Almeida et al., 2001; Bj rnberg & Kollind, 2005; Ochs, o Graesch, Mittmann, Bradbury, & Repetti, 2006). On the family level, the concepts include family practices, routines, hassles, and tensions (Almeida, 2005; Almeida & McDonald, 1998; Coplan et al., 2003; Crnic & Low, 2002; Korvela, 1999). With respect to the link between the family and the wider society and culture, the focus is on the match or mismatch between cultural traditions and societal demands on the one hand and on the other hand the practices and routines of a single family. For example, this is the case in studies concerning immigrant

92 families and their everyday family activities (Fuligni et al.). The actions of family members can also be studied from the microsociological approach, which has evolved in family sociology. In this approach the aim is not just to dene the family (or family life) but rather to study how the family (or family life) is constructed through the everyday actions of its members: how responsibilities and rights are divided and negotiated and in what way practices and routines are created (Gubrium & Holstein, 1990; Holstein & Gubrium, 1994; Morgan, 1996, 1999; Silva & Smart, 1999; Smart, 2007). Recently, there has been some debate about the agency of family members in constructing the family; for example, are all family members similarly involved in doing family life (Bianchi, 2006; Nelson, 2006)? An additional point regarding the agency of family members has to do with childrens agencyin what way are they involved in negotiating family duties and rules? According to Dencik (2002), the childrearing culture has become more child centered during recent decades. Children are seen as subjects, not objects of socialization. Children are more involved in deciding about family rights and responsibilities, and this has resulted in an increase in daily negotiations in the family. Temporality in everyday family life. The third dimension of everyday family life in our conceptual analysis is temporality, which also has been considered an important aspect of daily life (Daly, 2003; Felski, 19992000) and is the focus of 60% of the literature we examined. Temporality refers not only to how family members use time but also to other temporal organizations of practices and emotions, such as periodicity, tempo, synchronization and coordination, duration, sequence, and temporal rhythms (Southerton, 2006). Certain events, routines and practices exist every day in a similar order. There are faster and slower cycles in family life according to whether the interest is in daily, monthly, or yearly schedules. These have to do partly with family members own rhythms and partly with the time schedules of the institutions in which family members are involved. Recent research in this area with individual family members as the unit of analysis has focused on timetables or time budgetshow family members share their time between

Journal of Family Theory & Review different activities (Deding & Lausten, 2006; Delle Fave & Massimini, 2004). When dyadic relationships in the family are the unit of analysis, the research focus is on the synchronization of timetables. At the family level, concepts relating to time include the scheduling of timetables, key moments, family time, and hot spots and cold spots (Daly, 2001; Southerton, 2003). From a wider perspective, the research focus is on the concepts of time pressure and the match or mismatch between family members time schedules and the institutions they are involved in (Korvela & Keskinen, 2008). The arranging of timetables is nowadays a major source of tension in the daily lives of families (e.g., N sman, 2003). Families have a to combine the rhythms of parents working schedules (daytime or shift work, part-time or full-time employment, holidays, business travel) with those of day care needs and school, as well as the hobbies and other activities that children are expected to take part in (Korvela & Keskinen, 2008). In addition, the family also needs reasonable sleeping, eating, and recreational habits (Elleg rd & Cooper, 2004). a An issue creating a mismatch between timetables in the family and in society is the increase in the so-called around-the-clock economy (Strazdins, Korda, Lim, Broom, & DSouza, 2004). One of the most central challenges facing families nowadays is the continuous sense of hurry, resulting in what has been called harriedness. The shortage of time available and the need for more time for oneself and ones family is a constant topic in the media as well as in peoples everyday conversation. Family members are striving to nd more time together, and parents, especially, feel guilty about spending too little time with their children (Daly, 2001). According to some researchers (Daly, 1996; Southerton, 2003), the reason for hurry and harriedness is not always that people work harder or are really busier in their lives. It may, in fact, be the increased need for coordinating time schedules that makes people feel rushed. The coordination of time has become more problematic because people nowadays are increasingly mobile and because institutions have become less rigid in their temporalities. It increasingly depends on the individuals own capacities whether she or he is able to control the use of free time or is able to free up time for signicant others. According

Everyday Family Life to Southerton (2003), it is the increased effort put into managing time that may create a sense of harriedness. Nevertheless, it is also possible that, with increased scheduling and controlling, people are actually doing more and therefore that people really are busier than before. Three Approaches in the Study of Daily Family Life We were also interested in the theoretical and methodological approaches applied in studies concerning everyday family life. We identied three approaches in the research literature, all of which combine the dimensions and levels discussed above. The approaches are the emotional transmission approach, the cultural activity approach, and the constructionist approach. These three research approaches do not represent classical family theories, which have recently been reviewed by White and Klein (2002) and Chibucos, Leite, and Weis (2005). Instead, they are relatively new in the area of family research and in some cases have recently been adopted from other elds of research. The three approaches differ from each other in their background: Whereas the emotional transmission approach arose from empirical research in the area of family psychology, the cultural activity approach has its origin in cultural psychology and is a derivative of sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978) and cultural historical activity theory (Leontev, 1978; Vygotsky). The constructionist approachwhich in recent years has frequently been cited within family sociology and life course studies (see Holstein & Gubrium,

93 2007)is for its part more a mosaic of theoretical, methodological, and empirical sensibilities than a singular, precisely specied analytic perspective (p. 335). The constructionist approach has its roots in a variety of sources such as constructionism (Gergen, 1994), social psychology, and phenomenological sociology (Schutz, 1932/1967). Furthermore, one relevant branch within the constructionist approach has a basis in feminist family research, which is especially occupied with the analysis of the construction of gender via daily activities (e.g., Bianchi, 2006; Nelson, 2006). These three approaches focus on everyday life and analyze daily family life by combining various concepts and methods (see Table 2). In describing these three approaches, we attended to the following aspects: what concepts of everyday family life they use, what disciplines they represent, and what methods they adopt. Emotional transmission. The emotional transmission approach, also known as the daily process approach, is interested in daily emotions, experiences, and interactions. It was introduced by Larson and Almeida (1999) and named as the emotional transmission paradigm. This empirical approach has largely inspired researchers studying the transmission of mood states generated at work to parenting (e.g., Matjasko & Feldman, 2006), to the marital relationship (Schulz et al., 2004), and to childrens well-being (Almeida et al., 1999; Larson & Gillman, 1999). The focus of interest is the transmission and daily variation of emotions between family members (crossover) and between contexts (spillover).

Table 2. Three Approaches in the Study of Everyday Family Life Emotional Transmission Approach Main concepts Emotions, emotional transmission, spillover, crossover, and daily and weekly rhythm Empirical research in the area of family psychology and the development of diary methods Diary method and Experience Sampling Method

Cultural Activity Approach Daily actions and routines, activity settings, culturally and historically changing collective activity Cultural psychology, sociocultural theory, and cultural historical activity theory Video analysis and qualitative interview

Constructionist Approach Rules, practices, responsibilities and family atmosphere; individual vs. collective needs Constructionism, social psychology, phenomenological sociology, and feminist family research Qualitative interview and diary narratives

Background

Methodological approach

94 The key to the emotional transmission approach is experience sampling and the development of diary methods (e.g., Bolger et al., 2003; Schneider, 2006; Scollon, KimPrieto, & Diener, 2003); this means that repeated measures of emotions, behaviors, or activities are obtained from family members on a daily basis, over the course of a week or more. The idea is to study family members intensively, typically for a week or two. Family members report their daily emotions, stress experiences, and activities, usually several times a day. The traditional paper and pencil as a tool of reporting has been replaced or at least accompanied by new technology-assisted tools such as handheld computers (e.g., A. S. Green, Rafaeli, Bolger, Shrout, & Reis, 2006) and mobile phones (R nk , Malinen, Kinnunen, Tolvanen, o a & L ms , in press). Recently, researchers in this a a approach have been interested in questions such as what emotions family members experience in different contexts. The focus is on how these emotions vary during the day and week, how emotions are transmitted between contexts and between family members, and what buffers exist against the spillover and crossover of negative work experiences. Diary studies have thus far largely concentrated on well-functioning families; there has, however, recently been growing interest in adopting a diary approach in order to study challenging family situations, such as families with ADHD children (Whalen et al., 2006) or children suffering from asthma (Fiese, Winter, & Anbar, 2007). These types of studies have a new research focus, such as daily hassles (usually dened as stresses related to everyday routine or undesirable child behavior; see, e.g., Coplan et al., 2003) and how these accumulate over the week and affect parents daily mood and parenting stress. Cultural activity. The cultural activity approach is not a single approach but merely an umbrella under which are gathered different theories with a cultural activityoriented background (Leontev, 1978, originally published in the 1930s; Vygotsky, 1978). Researchers have applied a cultural approach, for example, to studying the interactions between parents and their children (Tulviste, 1995, 2001, 2002), the family in an educational context (Hedegaard & Chaiklin, 2005), and how family members construct their homes with everyday actions

Journal of Family Theory & Review (Korvela, 1999). Others have examined how everyday life has changed over the course of time (Korvela & Keskinen, 2008). In the cultural activityrelated approaches, an activity (also activity setting) is usually the unit of analysis. This means that individual and collective actions and everyday routines are studied in the context of culturally and historically evolving collective and societal activity. Individuals use material, social, and cultural means to understand and organize their everyday lives. For example, a study using this approach might examine how family practices such as childrearing or food-, housing- and cleaning-related activities differ in different cultures or how they have changed, faded, or emerged over time. The study might shed light on why some practices have evolved into their current form. The reason may be that the rules, the division of labor, or the tools relating to the activity have changed; here the term tools means the different kinds of artifacts that serve as mediators of the activity the individuals are constructing. Most important, in this approach the everyday life of families is analyzed as a culturally and historically sensitive and changing activity. For example, the study by Korvela and Keskinen (2008) on changes in everyday life in Finnish families showed that the everyday life of families in agrarian society was intertwined with work and the home. Working in a close relationship with nature and its forces was hard, and the objective of life could be described as scratching out a livingproviding for everyday bread and shelter. In contemporary society, families are increasingly connected with the multiple activity systems outside the home. The objective of everyday family life is often to organize and shuttle between home, work, school, day care, hobbies, and other ordinary activities (Korvela & Keskinen). Because families construct their everyday routines in relation to their environment and community, an activity setting is not static; rather, it is something that changes as a result of internal family processes and culturalhistorical processes (involving how the society, the community, and the physical environment change). In this sense it is beyond the control of individual households (Gallimore, Weisner, Kaufman, & Bernheimer, 1989, pp. 217218). One promising theory within the cultural activity approach is the eco-cultural theory,

Everyday Family Life which, in turn, draws on sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978) and ecological theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). This theory proposes that ecological effects in families are mediated through the activity settings of daily routines (Janhonen-Abruquah, 2006a, 2006b; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988; Weisner & Gallimore, 1994). According to the cultural activity approaches, a concrete institutional practice, for example, family life, is an integral whole, realized by the actions and interactions of multiple participants. At the same time, the production, reproduction, and development of this practice are inuenced by social, community, family, and individual forces (Hedegaard & Chaiklin, 2005). Cultural activity approaches use the methods of history, interviews, and ethnography, employing also visual methods, such as video recordings and photographs, in order to capture the activity of interest. Constructionist. The third approach concerns daily family life considered from a constructionist perspective. We identied two research traditions represented by this perspective. One focuses on how family life is constructed in daily life and the other on how individual identity and the identity of the family (we-ness) are constructed in postmodern individualized societies. For example, one research tradition is interested in how family members in their everyday life set rules and practices (Gubrium & Holstein, 1990; Holstein & Gubrium, 1994; Morgan, 1996, 1999; Silva & Smart, 1999; Smart, 2007), how they divide responsibilities and rights (Bj rnberg & Kollind, 2005), o how they construct gender roles (e.g., Bianchi, 2006; Nelson, 2006; Silva & Smart), and how they dene the boundaries of the family (e.g., Bianchi; Nelson). These questions are especially relevant in cases where the family does not fall within the category of the traditional family (what has been referred to as SNAF, the Standard North American Family; Smith, 1993) and where the responsibilities and rights of each family member must be negotiated and reconstructed (same-sex families, reconstituted families, etc.). These questions must also be discussed if the family is currently in transition. This is the case when, for example, somebody has just entered the family or left it. The research tradition concerned with understanding how families establish a unique identity (e.g., Daly, 2001; Dencik, 2001, 2002)

95 has its roots in social psychology and social constructionism (Gergen, 1994) and also the concept of the we-relation introduced by Schutz (1932/1967, pp. 163172; 1964, pp. 2327). The concept of the we-relation refers to the most fundamental social experience, a face-to-face orientation in which persons living in the same time and space are mutually aware of each other (see also Lengermann & Niebrugge, 1995). The main interest of this research tradition lies in how individuals combine their individual and collective needs in everyday life, how family members negotiate and combine their separate worlds, and how this affects everyday family life concretely and emotionally. Lars Dencik (1997) dened four different family types according to the importance attributed to individual and collective needs. Of these, the so-called team family denotes a situation in which family members are allowed to not only have their individual needs and projects but also share time and do things together. According to Dencik (1997), this is a family type that works well in a postmodern society. The revolving doors family for its part is a family where the family members individual activities (hobbies, work, etc.) preclude the possibility for we-ness to develop: Family members meet each other only occasionally. Other, less common family types include the traditional patriarchal family in which family members are expected to act for the sake of the family and its unity, rather than their individual needs and projects. There is also the family as a social aquarium, where family members are like shes in a tank; they do not have an idea of how to live together, nor do they have individual needs and ambitions, but nevertheless they still keep on living together. These different family types are theoretical formations but have sprung out of the need to understand the common contradiction between individuality and communality in daily family life (Dencik, 1997). In cases where the constructionist approach is used to study the meanings of family life and the ways the family members do family life together, methods such as interviews and written qualitative diaries are often used. DISCUSSION The aim of this article was to review, summarize, and evaluate the research on everyday family life and especially the concepts used. In a systematic

96 literature review, everyday family life was found to be represented by three dimensions: emotions, actions, and temporality. Everyday family life is a continuously constructed process in which family members transmit emotions, engage in activities, and schedule timetables in interactions with each other and with the wider context outside the family. Our categorization of everyday life into three dimensions (see Table 1) differs somewhat from Felskis (19992000) categorization in which the concepts of time, space, and modality form the basis of everyday life. The differences between Felskis model and our own stems from our respective background disciplines and also from the data on which the categorizations are based. Felskis analysis was based on theoretical work within feministic and cultural studies, whereas our analysis is largely based on recent, empirical studies within the eld of family research. In relation to Dalys (2003) categorization of the basic forces of everyday life, we found similarities but also differences. The dimensions of emotions, actions, and time were included in Dalys categorization, but he also mentioned other aspects of everyday family life such as material issues, spirituality, and health concerns. We agree with Daly that these issues are relevant; as Daly pointed out, however, and as we noticed on the basis of our review, those aspects are rarely studied in family research. On the other hand, some of the issues Daly mentioned are included within our relatively broad categories of emotions, actions, and temporality, each of which can be understood as an umbrella for related concepts. For example, whereas Daly distinguishes between beliefs, feelings, and intuitions, we include these concerns in our concept of emotions. The existing research in the area of everyday family life or daily family life has mostly concentrated on analyzing the problems that can occur. It is true also that researchers have increasingly sought to shed more light on the positive and well-functioning aspects of daily life; there are, however, some empirically based reasons for focusing on problems as research evidence. For example, in relation to daily emotions, Larson (2005) has shown that negative emotions tend to spill over more strongly than do positive emotions. We found that everyday family life has been analyzed from various perspectives that

Journal of Family Theory & Review represent different units of analysis, such as from individuals in the family who indicate how they feel, what they do, and how they spend their time. Alternatively, dyadic relationships in the family can be studied to nd out, for example, how emotions are transmitted, how decisions are negotiated, and how time is budgeted or divided between family members. A third way to approach family life is to pay attention to the family as a wholeto the kind of emotional atmosphere that exists within the family, the kinds of routines and traditions there are, and how family life is experienced and constructed together. A fourth way to approach everyday family life is to investigate the links between the family and other contexts such as working life, economic life, and public services or to analyze how the rules, demands, and actions existing in other contexts are intertwined with family activities. We identied three research approaches to everyday family life (see Table 2). The emotional transmission approach (Larson & Almeida, 1999) focuses on emotions, whereas the cultural activity approach (e.g., Hedegaard & Chaiklin, 2005; Korvela, 1999; Tulviste, 2001) and the constructionist approach (e.g., Dencik, 2001; Morgan, 1996) focus on actions or individuals own interpretations of their actions. All three approaches take account of the passage of time. The three approaches indicate that there are many ways to understand, operationalize, and study everyday family life. All have adopted and developed research methods and concepts that are sensitive to daily uctuations and close to moments and situations. Diaries, videotaping, and ethnography are examples of methods often used in research on everyday life. Each of the approaches adds to our understanding of everyday life. Because of this, we would suggest that in order to understand everyday life, there should be more and better collaboration between researchers working within different research traditions. Current Challenges of Daily Life The studies we reviewed have identied some of the most relevant issues facing contemporary Western families in their everyday lives: the lack of time for all the actions families should or would like to perform, the difculties in combining family life with the demands of the institutions in which family members are

Everyday Family Life involved, the importance of emotions as an indicator of well-being, and the risk that negative experiences from other life spheres, such as working life, will be transmitted to the family, making it difcult for family members to fulll their family roles. Each of these core issues is important for enhancing healthy family functioning and ultimately the well-being of family members. For example, parental daily mood has been shown to form a central link between work stress and family life (e.g., Schulz et al., 2004), and small daily parenting hassles may accumulate and disturb parent-child relationships (Crnic & Low, 2002). A lack of time and energy because of long and demanding working days may, little by little, weaken the quality of the spousal relationship, the parent-child relationship, and feelings of togetherness in the family (e.g., Dencik, 2002; Matjasko & Feldman, 2006). The absence of routines and the poor organization of daily life may make everyday living difcult for family members. Families vary in emotional experiences, daily routines, and their use of time. Furthermore, the studies demonstrate the temporal variations within families in these aspects of everyday life. There are days and weeks when daily life is hectic in terms of emotions, time schedules, and actions and other days and weeks when daily life is peaceful and calm (e.g., Daly, 2001; Larson & Richards, 1994; Southerton, 2003). Daily family life is subject to seasonal variations, too: Family life during the summertime and while on vacation might be less hectic than in other seasons. In the course of a day, particular moments and times, such as family rush hours, are especially burdened with emotions and actions whereas, at other moments, family members gather together without any particular agenda. Both extremes are important for a uent and satisfying family life: either to coordinate the practices of individual family members or to maintain we-ness in the family. Everyday Perspective: Assumptions and Boundaries Paying attention to daily emotions, actions, and time is relevant and necessary because it reveals important issues that may not be noticed if the traditional view of the family is taken, for example, in terms of parental beliefs, attitudes, and well-being. The picture of family

97 life that is gained when the focus is on its daily aspects is less rened and, according to several researchers, more authentic and factual, denoting life as it is lived (Bolger et al., 2003; Perrez et al., 2005). Parents nowadays, at least in Western countries, are very much aware of their duties as parents. If they are asked for their opinions and attitudes, the results are usually positive in terms of parental warmth and guidance. An impression is gained of parents always acting and behaving in a rational and logical way (Daly, 2003). When their actual behavior is studied in a daily context, however, the picture is different. Parenting may be disturbed for several reasons, such as negative moods, exhaustion, or a level of overcommitment that leaves little time to achieve goals. At some moments being a supportive parent is easy, but at other moments parenting can be very challenging, such as at moments of tiredness and during rush hoursin other words during transitional periods that are loaded with negative emotions and hassles. How family members then act may be inconsistent and unpredictable. Daily family life is typied by temporality, ups and downs, and moments of irrationality, and this is best revealed by applying a daily life approach. Traditionally, family researchers have been interested in the variability of families with respect to certain outcome factors, such as family functioning. They have compared families identied as high in specic features with those found to be low in the same feature. Researchers on everyday life formulate their research questions differently: Why do things go badly on some days, whereas on other days things work well? Most families agree that some weeks or days are easier and more agreeable than others. Studies that focus on daily uctuations seek to identify the factors that may account for the difference between these two poles. This is a decision-oriented way to approach family life and thus useful for developing interventions that can enhance the uency of family time. It is also important to dene the boundaries of the denition of everyday family life. Not all research on emotions, action, and temporality in relation to family life should be understood as research on everyday family life. Studying family life from the perspective of everyday life includes certain assumptions that we would like to underline. First of all, an everyday family perspective may not be adopted if the

98 study deals only with individuals unconnected to their family context and relations. For example, research on emotions in individuals can be considered to represent everyday family life research if the emotions in question are studied in relation to other family members. For instance, a comparison of the mood states of boys and girls or an analysis of daily and weekly moods in an individual person would not fall into the province of everyday family life as we dene it. On the other hand, we can usefully think of families rather broadly, including within them unmarried and cohabiting couples with or without children and also single-parent families. The core issue is that the study of everyday family life should touch on daily situations, interactions, and transitions between family members and that it should bring to light the uctuations in these aspects. We agree with Daly (2003), who criticizes family studies that take only the individual as the unit of analysis. Furthermore, because everyday family life is multidimensional and affected by several forces both inside and outside the family, the most fruitful line of research would be one that is concerned with several dimensions (emotions, actions, temporality) at the same time and that adopts a multidisciplinary perspective. Second, because family life on the level of the single family and as a cultural phenomenon is in constant ux, the concepts, theories, and methods used should be sensitive to change. The concepts that arose out of this reviewemotions, practices, hassles, and so forthdo this. To demonstrate the difference between general and situation-specic concepts in family research we can here offer an example in relation to the area of parenthood. Parenthood can be variously conceptualized: as parenting styles, parental values, parenting practices, and parenting hassles. Of these, the latter two concepts refer to concrete, active, and situation-specic aspects visible in everyday practices, whereas the rst two denote more permanent, general, or even global aspects. We would suggest that researchers interested in daily family life ought to pay attention to the concepts they usethat is, to consider whether these concepts are helpful in capturing daily family dynamics or not. We believe that our categorization of everyday family life, based on three dimensions and four levels (see Table 1), would assist researchers in focusing on relevant

Journal of Family Theory & Review aspects of everyday life and in nding and choosing suitable concepts. The everyday perspective also presents a challenge to family theories. According to Daly (2003), traditional family theories have not succeeded in capturing lives as they are lived; instead, everyday life is located in a negative space, and this means that the dominant family theories and research traditions within family research do not draw attention to it. In Dalys (2003, p. 781) words, We may have to think about theories that reect the contradictions of everyday living, that are incomplete and yet provide portraits of culture in action, and the use of vocabularies that are recognizable in the worlds out of which the theories are fashioned. In other words, we need to develop theories that give us tools to capture and understand daily processes and the logic of behavior in the everyday context. The methods typically used for research on everyday family life include various types of diaries and experience-sampling methods (for reviews, see, e.g., Bolger et al., 2003, Larson & Almeida, 1999; Schneider, 2006); video analysis (Korvela, 1999; Ochs et al., 2006), and ethnography (Bech Jorgensen, 1991; Hedegaard & Chaiklin, 2005; Janhonen-Abruquah, 2006a, 2006b; see also methods of everyday life, Tuomi-Gr hn, 2008b, 2008c). All these are o methods that aim at revealing central aspects of daily life (emotions, actions, temporality). There is, however, an obvious need for researchers to develop new, innovative methods that would be able to get close to daily processes and moments. Contributions and Limitations In this article we set ourselves the task of making sense of the concept of everyday family life on the basis of the recent literature. Although it is difcult to dene, we are convinced of its value in family research, in directing the development of methods, empirical research, and theory building, so that actual, day-to-day life is brought under the spotlight. Finally, we are ready to present a denition of everyday family life grounded on the basis of recent theoretical and empirical work. Everyday family life is a process that family members are constantly creating with their individual and collaborative actions and emotions in time and space (which is often the home but also includes other

Everyday Family Life spaces and contexts that family members use collectively). Finally, we would like to draw attention to the relationships between everyday family life and other related concepts such as family life and family process. What distinguishes research on everyday family life from research on family life? As we have already suggested, everyday family life is not a synonym for these other concepts. If we compare it, for example, to the concept of family life, we notice that everyday family life is narrower than family life. The concept of family life is broader and includes not only daily aspects of family life but also other, more permanent domains, such as the issues mentioned above concerning family roles. There is also a clear difference between everyday family life and the concept of family process. In addition to the short-term family processes visible in everyday family life, the concept of family process also denotes long-term family processes such as the intergenerational transmission of values or parenting skills. We are aware that our article has some limitations. In selecting articles, we tried to be very systematic in nding those that were relevant. It was at times difcult, however, to interpret how the concept of everyday family life was understood in a study. Some studies explicitly used the concept of everyday family life or daily life, but we also included in our analysis studies in which these terms were not used and that were perhaps not seen by their authors as studies of everyday life. Nevertheless, as mentioned above, the stated object of research in these articles was relevant in the context of everyday family life and thus justied their inclusion in the analysis. Furthermore, our review focused on psychologically, educationally, and sociologically oriented family research. We are well aware that relevant research can be found outside these disciplines. Hence we would challenge researchers from other research traditions to continue the task that we have commenced, inspired by Daly (2003). REFERENCES
Almeida, D. M. (2005). Resilience and vulnerability to daily stressors assessed via diary methods. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 64 68. Almeida, D. M., & McDonald, D. A. (1998). Weekly rhythms of parents work stress, home

99
stress, and parent-adolescent tension. In A. C. Crouter, & R. Larson (Eds.), Temporal rhythms in adolescence: Clocks, calendars, and the coordination of daily life. New directions for child and adolescent development (No. 82, pp. 53 67). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer. Almeida, D. M., Wethington, E., & Chandler, A. L. (1999). Daily transmission of tensions between marital dyads and parent-child dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 49 61. Almeida, D. M., Wethington, E., & McDonald, D. A. (2001). Daily variation in parental engagement and negative mood: Implications for emotionally supportive and conictual interactions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 417 460. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. L. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology, 1, 311 320. Bech Jorgensen, B. (1991). What they are doing when they seem to do nothing? In J. Ehrnrooth, & L. Siurala (Eds.), Construction of youth (pp. 148 158). Helsinki: VAPK-Publishing and Finnish Youth Research Society. Bennett, T., & Watson, D. (2002). Understanding everyday life: Introduction. In T. Bennett & D. Watson (Eds.), Understanding everyday life (pp. ix xxiv). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Bianchi, S. M. (2006). Mothers and daughters do, fathers dont do family: Gender and generational bonds. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 812 816. Bj rnberg, U., & Kollind, A.-K. (2005). Indio vidualism and families. Equality, autonomy and togetherness. London: Routledge. Bolger, N., Davis, A., & Rafaeli, E. (2003). Diary methods: Capturing life as it is lived. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 579 616. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cara, B. F., Pacholok, S., & Gauthier, A. H. (2005). Methodological issues in the estimation of parental timeAnalysis of measures in a Canadian time-use survey. eIJTUR: Electronic International Journal of Time Use Research, 2, 67 87. Chibucos, T. R., Leite, R. W., & Weis, D. L. (Eds.). (2005). Readings in family theory. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage. Coplan, R. J., Bowker, A., & Cooper, S. M. (2003). Parenting daily hassles, child temperament and social adjustment in preschool. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18, 376 395. Crnic, K., & Low, C. (2002). Everyday stresses and parenting. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 5, Practical issues in parenting. (2nd ed., pp. 243 267). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Daly, K. (1996). Families and time. Keeping pace in a hurried culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

100
Daly, K. J. (2001). Deconstructing family time: From ideology to lived experience. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 283 294. Daly, K. J. (2003). Family theory versus the theories families live by. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 771 784. Daly, K. J. (2007). Qualitative methods for family studies and human development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Deding, M., & Lausten, L. (2006). Choosing between his time and her time? Paid and unpaid work of Danish couples. eIJTUR: Electronic International Journal of Time Use Research, 3, 28 48. Delle Fave, A., & Massimini, F. (2004). Parenthood and the quality of experience in daily life: A longitudinal study. Social Indicators Research, 67, 75 106. Dencik, L. (1997). The position of families in the transformation of the modern Scandinavian welfare states. In L. A. Vaskovics (Hrsg.). Familienleitbilder und familienrealit ten (pp. a 248 277). Opladen: Leske + Budrich. Dencik, L. (2001). Transformations of identities in rapidly changing societies. In M. Carleheden & M. Hviiid Jacobsen (Eds.), The transformation of modernity. Aspects of the past, present and future of an era (pp. 183 221). London: Ashgate. Dencik, L. (2002). Living in modern times: Implications for the lives of children and their families. A question of time. Partners, parents, perceptions and priorities (pp. 1 11). London: International Commission on Couples and Family Relations. Doumas, D. D., Margolin, G., & John, R. S. (2003). The relationships between daily marital interaction, work, and health-promoting behaviors in dualearner couples: An extension of the work-family spillover model. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 3 20. Elleg rd, K., & Cooper, M. (2004). Complexity in a daily lifeA 3D-visualization showing activity patterns in their contexts. eIJTUR: Electronic International Journal of Time Use Research, 1, 37 59. Erickson, R. J. (1993). Reconceptualising family work: The effect of emotion work on perceptions of marital quality. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 888 900. Erickson, R. J. (2005). Why emotion work matters: Sex, gender, and the division of household labor. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 337 351. Felski, R. (19992000). The invention of everyday life. New Formations, 39, 13 31. Fiese, B. H., Winter, M. A., & Anbar, R. (2007). Nighttime waking in children with asthma: An exploratory study of daily uctuations in family climate. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 95 103.

Journal of Family Theory & Review

Fuligni, A. J., Yip, T., & Tseng, V. (2002). The impact of family obligation on the daily activities and psychological well-being of Chinese American adolescents. Child Development, 73, 302 324. Galinsky, E. (1999). Ask the children. New York: Quill. Gallimore, R., Weisner, T. S., Kaufman, S. Z., & Bernheimer, L. P. (1989). The social construction of eco-cultural niches: Family accommodation of developmentally delayed children. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 94, 216 230. Gergen, K. J. (1994). Realities and relationships. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Green, B. J., Johnson, C. D., & Adams, A. (2001). Writing narrative literature reviews for peerreviewed journals: Secrets of the trade. Journal of Sports Chiropractic & Rehabilitation, 15, 5 16. Green, A. S., Rafaeli, E., Bolger, N., Shrout, P. E., & Reis, H. T. (2006). Paper or plastic? Data equivalence in paper and electronic diaries. Psychological Methods, 11, 87 105. Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (1990). What is family? Mountain View, CA: Mayeld. Hedegaard, M., & Chaiklin, S. (2005). Radicallocal teaching and learning. A cultural-historical approach. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. Heller, A. (1984). Everyday life. London: Routledge. Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (1994). Constructing family: Descriptive practice and domestic order. In T. R. Sarbin & J. I. Kitsuse (Eds.), Constructing the social (pp. 232 250). London: Sage Publications. Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (2007). Constructionist perspectives on the life course. Sociology Compass, 1, 335 352. Janhonen-Abruquah, H. (2006a). Eco-cultural theory in the research of trans-national families and their daily life. EURODIV PAPER 33.The Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei Series. Retrieved from http://www.feem.it/NR/Feem/resources/EurodivPapers/ED2006-033.pdf Janhonen-Abruquah, H. (2006b). Methodological challenges. Trans-national families and their daily life. In A.-L. Rauma, S. P ll nen, & P. o a Seitamaa-Hakkarainen (Eds.), Human perspectives on sustainable future. Research Reports of the Faculty of Education 99 (pp. 62 67). Joensuu, Finland: University of Joensuu. Koh, C.-Y. (2005). The everyday emotional experiences of husbands and wives. In B. Schneider & L. J. Waite (Eds.), Being together, working apart. Dual-career families and the worklife balance (pp. 169 189). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Korvela, P. (1999). Constructing home through everyday actions in familiesA methodological perspective on analyzing the home. In K. Turkki (Ed.), New approaches to the study of everyday lifePart I. Proceedings of the International

Everyday Family Life

Household and Family Research Conference, May 31June 3, 1998, Helsinki, Finland (pp. 80 92). Department of home economics and craft science research reports 3. Helsinki, Finland: University of Helsinki. Korvela, P., & Keskinen, H. (2008). From surviving to reconciling home and workAn activitytheoretical study on the changing everyday life of families. In T. Tuomi-Gr hn (Ed.), Reinventing o art of everyday making (pp. 241 270). Bern: Peter Lang Publishing Group. Larson, R. W. (2005). Commentary. In B. Schneider & L. J. Waite (Eds.), Being together, working apart. Dual-career families and the worklife balance (pp. 159 163). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Larson, R. W., & Almeida, D. M. (1999). Emotional transmission in the daily lives of families: A new paradigm for studying family process. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 5 20. Larson, R. W., & Gillman, S. (1999). Transmission of emotions in the daily interactions of singlemother families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 21 39. Larson, R. W., & Richards, M. H. (1994). Divergent realities. The emotional lives of mothers, fathers, and adolescents. New York: Basic Books. Lefebvre, H. (1971). Everyday life in the modern world. London: Allen Lane, Penguin Press. Lengermann, P. M., & Niebrugge, J. (1995). Intersubjectivity and domination: A feminist investigation of sociology of Alfred Schutz. Sociological Theory, 13, 25 36. Leontev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness and personality. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Matjasko, J., & Feldman, A. F. (2006). Bringing work home: The emotional experiences of mothers and fathers. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 40 46. Meegan, S. P., & Goedreis, E. A. (2006). Life tasks appraisals, spouse involvement in strategies and daily affect among short and long-term married couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 319 327. Morgan, D. H. J. (1996). Family connections. An introduction to family studies. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Morgan, D. H. J. (1999). Risk and family practices: Accounting for change and uidity in family life. In E. B. Silva & C. Smart (Eds.), The new family? (pp. 13 30). London: Sage Publications. N sman, E. (2003). Employed or unemployed a parents. A child perspective. In A. M. Jensen & L. McKee (Eds.), Children and the changing family. Between transformation and negotiation (pp. 46 60). London: RoutledgeFalmer. Nelson, M. K. (2006). Single mothers do family. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 781 795.

101
Ochs, E., Graesch, A. P., Mittmann, A., Bradbury, T., & Repetti, R. (2006). Video ethnography and ethnoarchaeological tracking. In M. PittCatsouphes, E. E. Kossek, & S. Sweet (Eds.), The work and family handbook. Multi-disciplinary perspectives, methods, and approaches (pp. 387 409). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Perrez, M., Watzek, D., Michel, G., Shoebi, D., Wilhelm, P., & H nggi, Y. (2005). Facts of a emotion regulation in families with adolescents: A new research approach. In H. Kriesi, P. Farago, M. Kohli, & M. Zarun-Nejadan (Eds.), Contemporary Switzerland. Revisiting the special case (pp. 61 84). New York: Palgarve. Repetti, R., & Wood, J. (1997). Effects of daily stress at work on mothers interactions with preschoolers. Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 90 108. R nk , A., Malinen, K., Kinnunen, U., Tolvanen, A., o a & L ms , T. (in press). Capturing daily family a a dynamics via text messages: A development of a mobile diary. Community, Work and Family. Salmi, M., & Kivim ki, R. (1997). Introduction. In a L. Rantalaiho, & T. Heiskanen (Eds.), Gendered practices in working life (pp. 83 87). London: Macmillan. Schneider, B. (2006). In the moment: The benets of the experience sampling method. In M. Pitt-Catsouphes, E. E. Kossek, & S. Sweet (Eds.), Multi-disciplinary perspectives, methods and approaches (pp. 469 488). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Schulz, M. S., Cowan, P. A., Cowan, C. P., & Brennan, R. T. (2004). Coming home upset: Gender, marital satisfaction, and the daily spillover of workday experience into couple interactions. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 250 263. Schutz, A. (1932/1967). The phenomenology of the social world (G. Walsh & F. Lehnert, Trans.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Schutz, A. (1964). Collected papers, Vol. 2 (A. Brodersen, Ed.). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Schutz, A., & Luckmann, T. (1973). The structures of the life-world (R. M. Zaner & H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr., Trans.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Scollon, C. N., Kim-Prieto, C., & Diener, E. (2003). Experience sampling: Promises and pitfalls, strengths and weaknesses. Journal of Happiness Studies, 4, 5 34. Shorter, E. (1977). The making of the modern family. New York: Basic Books. Silva, E. B., & Smart, C. (1999). The new practices and politics of family life. In E. B. Silva & C. Smart (Eds.), The new family? (pp. 1 12). London: Sage Publications. Smart, S. (2007). Personal life. New directions in sociological thinking. Cambringe, UK: Polity Press.

102
Smith, D. E. (1993). The Standard North American Family: SNAF as an ideological code. Journal of Family Issues, 14, 50 65. Southerton, D. (2003). Squeezing time: Allocating practices, coordinating networks and scheduling society. Time and Society, 12, 5 25. Southerton, D. (2006). Analysing the temporal organization of daily life: Social constraints, practices and their allocation. Sociology, 40, 435 454. Strazdins, L., & Broom, D. (2004). Acts of love (and work). Gender imbalance in emotional work and womens psychological distress. Journal of Family Issues, 25, 356 378. Strazdins, L., Korda, R. J., Lim, L., Broom, D. H., & DSouza, R. M. (2004). Around-the-clock: Parent work schedules and childrens well-being in a 24-h economy. Social Science & Medicine, 59, 1517 1527. Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social contexts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Tulviste, T. (1995). Mothers regulation of their two-year-olds behavior in two settings. In K. Junefelt (Ed.), Activity theory. Proceedings of the XIVth Scandinavian conference of linguistics and the VIIIth conference of Nordic and general linguistics, August 1621 1993. Gothenburg papers in theoretic linguistics 73 (pp. 127 137). G teborg: Gothenburg University Press. o Tulviste, T. (2001). Can differences in motherchild interaction be explained by context and collectivistic attitudes expressed by mothers? Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 541 554. Tulviste, T. (2002). Language socialization across socio-cultural contexts. Stockholm: Stockholm University. Tuomi-Gr hn, T. (2008a). Everyday life as a o challenging sphere of research: An introduction. In T. Tuomi-Gr hn (Ed.), Reinventing art of everyday o

Journal of Family Theory & Review

making (pp. 7 24). Bern: Peter Lang Publishing Group. Tuomi-Gr hn, T. (2008b). Methodological challenges o in studying the art of everyday making. In T. Tuomi-Gr hn (Ed.), Reinventing art of everyday o making (pp. 27 51). Bern: Peter Lang Publishing Group. Tuomi-Gr hn, T. (Ed.). (2008c). Reinventing art of o everyday making. Bern: Peter Lang Publishing Group. van Hooff, M. L. M., Geurts, S. E., Kompier, M. A. J., & Taris, T. W. (2006). Work-home interference: How does it manifest itself from day to day? Work and Stress, 20, 145 162. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The psychology of higher mental functions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Weisner, T., & Gallimore, R. (1994). Ecocultural studies of families adapting to childhood developmental delays: Unique features, dening, differences and applied implications. In M. Leskinen (Ed.), Family in focus. New perspectives on early childhood special education (pp. 11 25). Jyv skyl studies in education, psychology, and a a social research 108. Jyv skyl , Finland: Univera a sity of Jyv skyl . a a Westman, M. (2005). Cross-cultural differences in crossover research. In S. Poelmans (Ed.), Work and family. An international research perspective (pp. 241 260). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Whalen, C. K., Henker, B., Jamner, L. D., Ishikawa, S. S., Floro, J. N., Swindle, R., et al. (2006). Toward mapping daily challenges of living with ADHD: Maternal and child perspectives using electronic diaries. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34, 115 130. White, J. M., & Klein, D. M. (2002). Family theories (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Articles included in the analysis