The focus-group participants were recruited via personal networking, but as discussed in Chapter 3, the strategies employed ensured that the groups included women from many different backgrounds, and with a variety of experiences. Table 6.1 shows the participants’ usual occupations, indicating the diversity of life experience within the groups. The occupations have been grouped into those requiring a bachelor degree or a diploma and those requiring other forms of education and training.
More of the participants were tertiary educated than Australian women in general. Approximately half the participants had degrees or diplomas, compared with 21% among women aged 25-34 years13 in the general population (Office of the Status of Women 1999). Comparing the participants’ industry sector with those of Australian women in general, the profiles are similar (Office of the Status of Women 1999). The focus groups included a lower proportion than the population of retail workers and manufacturing workers, and a higher proportion of workers in personal and other
13
This age-group was chosen for comparison because, of the age-groups reported, it had the most overlap with the participants’ ages.
services, but comparable proportions in health and community services, education, property and business services, accommodation, cafes and restaurants, finance and insurance, and cultural and recreational services.
Table 6.1: Occupations of focus-group participants Occupations requiring
Bachelor degree or Diploma
Occupations requiring other education and training Academic x 3 Bank teller
Child care worker (Diploma) Child care worker (Certificate) x 2
Chef Clerk Community artist Factory worker
Industrial relations advisor Gardener Massage therapist Hairdresser
Occupational therapist Manager, small business x 3
Physician Office administrator
Primary school teacher x 3 Own business
Psychologist Payroll clerk
Registered nurse x 2 Purchasing officer Research assistant Salary/wages officer Rehabilitation consultant Sales assistant Secondary school teacher Sales professional Social worker x 3 Secretarial worker x 3 Veterinary surgeon Self employed potter
The focus groups included rural women and urban women from the states of Victoria and Queensland. As shown in Table 6.2, 30% of the participants were from either Brisbane or Townsville in Queensland. About 23% lived in Melbourne’s inner suburbs, and 33% were from Melbourne’s Western suburbs. About 14% lived in country Victoria.
Table 6.2: Geographic location of focus-group participants Location Number Percentage
Queensland (Brisbane, Townsville) 13 30%
Inner Melbourne 10 23%
Western suburbs of Melbourne 14 33%
Country Victoria 6 14%
Most of the women had male partners, either married or de facto. None of the participants mentioned female partners. Only a few women were single at the time of the focus groups, and a few more had been single mothers in the past, but had re- partnered. To the best of my knowledge, no Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander women participated. A few women were from non-English speaking background, and a few more were born overseas in English-speaking countries. Two of the participants had twins and three had children with significant disabilities.
The groups missing from or under-represented in the focus groups were the most economically advantaged and disadvantaged Australian women. None of the focus- group participants was independently wealthy. A few employed a cleaner at home for a couple of hours a week, and two employed nannies, but none of them had as much help as they needed. The lower proportions of workers in retail and manufacturing, traditionally areas employing many women at poor rates of pay, reflect the expectation that people struggling financially are least able to participate in research such as this. Given that payment of focus-group participants was not possible, women whose lives were very difficult were unlikely to contribute to this research. Some of the focus-group participants were struggling financially as couple families on a single income, or as single mothers, but all had childcare arrangements that allowed them to attend a focus group. No study of this size and methodology could claim to be representative, but this study can validly claim to present the views of a cross-section of Australian women who are responsible for young children. Any future study designed to be representative would need to include adequate funding to obtain the participation of women in the most disadvantaged circumstances. It seems likely that inclusion of more single mothers, more mothers with low educational qualifications, and more non-English-speaking background mothers would have increased the frequency of the expression of some views. However, because this research is qualitative rather than quantitative, the presence of views is important rather than their frequency of expression. Care has been taken to report the views expressed by the participants from these under-represented groups. It seems likely that Indigenous
women and women living in remote parts of Australia would have some similar experiences and some different experiences compared with the focus-group participants. If this is the case, they could be expected to share some of the views expressed by the participants in this research and that they would have additional issues and views to those covered by this research.
The participants ranged in age from 23 years to 45 years, with a median age of 34 years. About one-third of the women had one child, one-third had two children, and the other one-third had three or more children. Approximately half of the women were caring full-time for their children. The other half were fairly evenly spread across three groups:
1. full-time employment and caring for children
2. part-time or casual employment and caring for children 3. full-time or part-time study and caring for children
Nearly all of the participants arranged alternative care for their children, at least occasionally. About one-half used that alternative care in order to undertake recreation or leisure pursuits. About one-third of the women arranged alternative care for their children to pursue paid employment. A few arranged alternative care to undertake unpaid work or study. Centre-based care was used by almost one-half of the women. About one-half of the women used informal care, with mothers and sisters being mentioned most often as providing the care. A few women stated that the child or children’s father cared for them while she did something else. This was not listed as an item on the form that the participants completed, and it may be that many of the fathers provided care for their children when the mother was not present. Other types of care utilised included babysitters, nannies, preschools and OSH (Outside School Hours) care.
In the focus groups, participants were asked to respond to particular suggestions made by the high-profile interviewees, and then they were asked if they had any further ideas to improve the situation of mothers of young children in Australia. They were provided with a list of main suggestions extracted from the interviews, and the
researcher expanded on the details and intentions of the suggestions as required. For example, in relation to paid maternity and paternity leave it was always necessary to state that it was not proposed that individual employers would become liable for these payments. The suggestions given to the focus groups for reaction were:
Introducing paid maternity/paternity leave
Providing free or low cost, high quality child care for any purpose
Recognising unpaid work – more statistics collected, Workcover, sick leave, superannuation
Providing support, education and training to assist mothers to re-enter employment
Maintaining attachment to employment, even if minimal
Changing employment conditions and practices e.g. go home on time, take time off for sick children, vary start and finish times, ……
Increasing fathers’ involvement in Unpaid work
Taking time out of employment Reducing hours
Taking sick child leave
Each focus group developed its own atmosphere, but some processes and dynamics recurred often enough to warrant comment. One of the most striking processes happened in two different focus groups. In each of these groups a young participant, in one case a single woman with one child and in the other case a married woman with two children, launched very early in the discussion into a strong statement saying that no further assistance was required. Each of these participants asserted that she was managing her life, and that the government could not afford to help any more than it was already. On both occasions, once other women started to discuss possibilities for change, and assistance that they would like, the young women concerned appeared to take a deep breath and gradually started to join in discussions about possibilities for change. It seems likely that several processes were operating on these occasions. One possibility relates to the prejudice against young mothers that was mentioned many times in the groups, and has been noted by other researchers
(Warner-Smith & Imbruglia 2001). The young women apparently wanted to make it clear that they were coping by not asking for any assistance. As Mullaly (2002) points out, the internalising of oppression means that the most disadvantaged groups are often the least likely to assert their claims to better social conditions. Once the young women discovered that it was acceptable within the group to criticise social arrangements and to suggest changes, they started to participate in doing so. This could be seen as simple conformity to the group, or alternatively it could be interpreted as a consciousness-raising impact of participating in the group.
Typically the groups included lively exchanges of information and views among the participants. In several of the groups, participants informed each other about childcare options, Centrelink benefits and other services and supports. In several groups, participants suggested that information for mothers should be better publicised because they heard for the first time at these groups about services and supports that would have been useful for them, had they known of them. When I thanked the participants, they invariably thanked me for the opportunity to discuss the issues, and to have their voices heard. Many stated that they found the discussions stimulating, and that they were very glad that someone was undertaking a study such as this because they could see a real need for change. Some went beyond articulating the need for change, and suggested strategies for bringing about change, including specific suggestions such as publicising this research, and broader suggestions including the need for women to act in a collective way in relation to the issues raised in the research. The focus groups clearly served a consciousness-raising function for some of the participants. This was evident in the process, and in the very positive and supportive atmosphere that was generated in the groups.
The remainder of this chapter takes each suggestion of the high-profile commentators in turn and provides a summary of the focus-group participants’ responses. A section is included on gender equity and gender culture because these topics emerged as significant themes in the focus-group discussions. All names used in this section are pseudonyms that have been assigned to the focus-group participants. When quoting, I have included selected details about the women’s situations: sometimes occupations
and, at other times, marital status or number of children or whether they are caring full-time for young children, studying, or in paid employment, full-time or part-time. Including all the details with every quotation would have been awkward, and could have been interpreted as implying that only people with those characteristics held that view, as well as being too identifying of individuals given that the participants were assured that their identities would be protected in the research.