IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/gender/v32y2025i1p15-36.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The flexibility paradox and spatial‐temporal dimensions of COVID‐19 remote work adaptation among dual‐earner mothers and fathers

Author

Listed:
  • Ashley Parry

Abstract

There is an increased blurring of work and home life in contemporary society due to access to technology and the mass expansion of remote work during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Flexible working arrangements like remote work can lead to men self‐exploiting themselves in the workplace and women self‐exploiting themselves in the domestic sphere in the context of a work‐centric society that is reliant upon passion at work and traditional gender norms. This study extends Chung's ideas on gendered patterns in the flexibility paradox by examining spatial‐temporal dimensions of COVID‐19 remote work adaptation among an extreme sample: dual‐earner parents with young children. Semi‐structured interviews were conducted on Zoom with 20 mothers and 17 fathers working from home in the U.S. with children ages 5 and under between the summer of 2020 and the spring of 2021. Findings indicate that fathers' work is prioritized in spatio‐temporal terms whereas mothers' work is fragmented and dispersed. Gendered patterns in the flexibility paradox and labor shouldered by mothers as primary caregivers are considered as potential theoretical explanations for the privileging of fathers' workspace and work time.

Suggested Citation

  • Ashley Parry, 2025. "The flexibility paradox and spatial‐temporal dimensions of COVID‐19 remote work adaptation among dual‐earner mothers and fathers," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 15-36, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:gender:v:32:y:2025:i:1:p:15-36
    DOI: 10.1111/gwao.13130
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.13130
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/gwao.13130?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nicholas Bloom & James Liang & John Roberts & Zhichun Jenny Ying, 2015. "Does Working from Home Work? Evidence from a Chinese Experiment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 130(1), pages 165-218.
    2. Heejung Chung & Mariska van der Horst, 2020. "Flexible Working and Unpaid Overtime in the UK: The Role of Gender, Parental and Occupational Status," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 151(2), pages 495-520, September.
    3. Jaeseung Kim, 2020. "Workplace Flexibility and Parent–Child Interactions Among Working Parents in the U.S," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 151(2), pages 427-469, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marie Boltz & Bart Cockx & Ana Maria Diaz & Luz Magdalena Salas, 2023. "How does working‐time flexibility affect workers' productivity in a routine job? Evidence from a field experiment," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 61(1), pages 159-187, March.
    2. Heejung Chung & Hyojin Seo, 2024. "Flexibility Stigma Across Europe: How National Contexts can Shift the Extent to which Flexible Workers are Stigmatised," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 174(3), pages 945-965, September.
    3. Heejung Chung & Hyojin Seo & Holly Birkett & Sarah Forbes, 2022. "Working from Home and the Division of Childcare and Housework among Dual-Earner Parents during the Pandemic in the UK," Merits, MDPI, vol. 2(4), pages 1-23, October.
    4. José Ignacio Giménez-Nadal & Jorge Velilla, 2024. "Home-based work, time allocations, and subjective well-being: gender differences in the United Kingdom," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 51(1), pages 1-33, February.
    5. Filippos Maraziotis, 2024. "Flexibility for equality: Examining the impact of flexible working time arrangements on women's convergence in working hours," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 62(2), pages 410-445, June.
    6. Zhuofei Lu & Senhu Wang & Yaojun Li & Xiyuan Liu & Wendy Olsen, 2023. "Who Gains Mental Health Benefits from Work Autonomy? The Roles of Gender and Occupational Class," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 18(4), pages 1761-1783, August.
    7. Heejung Chung & Cara Booker, 2023. "Flexible Working and the Division of Housework and Childcare: Examining Divisions across Arrangement and Occupational Lines," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 37(1), pages 236-256, February.
    8. Simisola Johnson, 2022. "Women deserve better: A discussion on COVID‐19 and the gendered organization in the new economy," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 639-649, March.
    9. Alfred Michael Dockery & Sherry Bawa, 2014. "Is working from home good or bad work? Evidence from Australian employees," Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre Working Paper series WP1402, Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre (BCEC), Curtin Business School.
    10. Claudia Hupkau & Barbara Petrongolo, 2020. "Work, Care and Gender during the COVID‐19 Crisis," Fiscal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 623-651, September.
    11. Guido Friebel & Matthias Heinz & Miriam Krueger & Nikolay Zubanov, 2017. "Team Incentives and Performance: Evidence from a Retail Chain," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(8), pages 2168-2203, August.
    12. Ro’i Zultan & Eldar Dadon, 2023. "Missing the forest for the trees: when monitoring quantitative measures distorts task prioritization," Working Papers 2319, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Department of Economics.
    13. Barbora Mazúrová & Ján Kollár & Gabriela Nedelová, 2021. "Travel Mode of Commuting in Context of Subjective Well-Being—Experience from Slovakia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-17, March.
    14. Kouki, Amairisa, 2023. "Beyond the “Comforts” of work from home: Child health and the female wage penalty," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    15. Stefano Magrini & Alessandro Spiganti, 2021. "The Day After Covid-19: Implications for Growth, Specialization, and Inequality," Working Papers 2021:13, Department of Economics, University of Venice "Ca' Foscari".
    16. Tim Klopries, 2018. "Discussion of “Working from Home—What is the Effect on Employees’ Effort?”," Schmalenbach Business Review, Springer;Schmalenbach-Gesellschaft, vol. 70(1), pages 57-62, February.
    17. Harkiolakis, Tatiana & Komodromos, Marcos, 2023. "Supporting knowledge workers’ health and well-being in the post-lockdown era," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 118409, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    18. Mayneris, Florian & Poncet, Sandra & Zhang, Tao, 2018. "Improving or disappearing: Firm-level adjustments to minimum wages in China," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 20-42.
    19. Christian Maier & Sven Laumer & Tim Weitzel, 2022. "A Dark Side of Telework: A Social Comparison-Based Study from the Perspective of Office Workers," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 64(6), pages 793-811, December.
    20. Heinz, Matthias & Jeworrek, Sabrina & Mertins, Vanessa & Schumacher, Heiner & Sutter, Matthias, 2017. "Measuring Indirect Effects of Unfair Employer Behavior on Worker Productivity: A Field Experiment," IZA Discussion Papers 11128, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:gender:v:32:y:2025:i:1:p:15-36. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0968-6673 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.