Impact of gender sensitive social services eng

Александр Геннадьевич Малышев — социолог общественной организации «Северный путь», социолог и начальник отдела организационнометодического сопровождения процессов предаттестационной подготовки и аттестации руководителей и работников учреждений социального обслуживания Санкт-Петербургского государственного бюджетного учреждения «Региональный центр "Семья"». А.Г. Малышев является организатором, а с 2010 года — руководителем городского методического объединения социологов учреждений социального обслуживания Санкт-Петербурга.

Alexander Malyshev

Impact of Gender-Sensitive Social Services on the Transformation of Parental Values and Practices in Today’s Russia

УДЛ 316.356.2 ББК 74.268.771 М12 The research is part of MIR-III (Men in Russia-III, 2011-2013) Russian-Swedish Project that was financially supported by SIDA (Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency).

The research content shall not be viewed as an official opinion of SIDA or of any other organization. It solely reflects the author’s opinion.

Russian version edited by E. A. Nikanorova Russian version proofread by E. A. Nikanorova Translated into English by O. E. Miniuk М12 Malyshev A. G. Impact of Gender-Sensitive Social Services on the Transformation of Parental Values and Practices in Today’s Russia.

St. Petersburg: Tuskorara, 2013. – 72 pages ISBN 978-5-89977-182-8 The book presents the findings of the sociological research into how a gender-sensitive social service (groups for fathers-to-be) impacts the transformation of parental values and practices in contemporary Russia. The researcher took St. Petersburg as an example. УДЛ 316.356.2 ББК 74.268.771 ISBN 978-5-89977-182-8 © A. G. Malyshev © I. A. Grigoryeva, Preface

Alexander Malyshev

Impact of Gender-Sensitive Social Services on the Transformation of Parental Values and Practices in Today’s Russia

Table of Contents Preface .................................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 5 Part 1. Theoretical Aspects of Researching into the Impact of Gender-Sensitive Social Services on the Transformation of Parental Values and Practices in Today’s Russia ..................................................... 6 1.1. The Research Subject, Topic, Targets and Objectives ................................................................ 6 1.2. Parental Values and Practices ...................................................................................................... 6 1.3. Transformation of Parental Values and Practices: Theoretical Context and Models of the Research ................................................................................................................................................. 7 1.4. The Historic Context of Parenthood, Motherhood and Fatherhood in Russia .......................... 11 1.5. Biopolitical Aspects of Parenthood ........................................................................................... 12 1.6. Vehicles to Spread Parental Values and Practices ......................................................................... 13 1.7. Gender-Sensitive Social Services Geared to Support the New Parenting Formats ...................... 15 1.8. Research and Data Collection Methods ........................................................................................ 18 Part 2. Research of Parental Values and Practices among St. Petersburg Men with Children............. 20 2.1. Empirical Research Base .............................................................................................................. 20 2.2. Values ............................................................................................................................................ 22 2.2.1. Family-Related Values ........................................................................................................... 22 2.2.2. Material Values ...................................................................................................................... 24 2.2.3. The Value of Self-Realization ................................................................................................. 26 2.3. Parenthood Components ............................................................................................................... 26 2.4. Parenting Practices ........................................................................................................................ 28 2.4.1. Parenting Practices: Normative Model of the Split of Responsibilities ................................ 28 2.4.2. Parental Practices: Assessment of Father Involvement ......................................................... 32 2.5. The Attitude to Father’s Right for Parental Leave ........................................................................ 38 Part 3. Research of Parental Values and Practices among Men Who Attended Father Schools in St. Petersburg in 2010-2013 ................................................................................................................. 40 3.1. Empirical Research Base .............................................................................................................. 40 3.2. Outcomes of the Survey among Father Groups’ Participants ....................................................... 40 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................... 51 List of References in Russian............................................................................................................... 52 List of References in German and English .......................................................................................... 54

2

Preface Gender roles and gender specifics hold a significant place in the current Russian social work. However, discussions of gender issues were mostly focused on the new understanding of women’s role and position in the society and how it affects the family/work balance for women. At the same time the issues around fathers/fatherhood and men’s parental practices attract less attention. The situation reinforced the traditional inequality in family relations where father’s role is treated as "secondary" to mother’s. In recent years as a result of active practical efforts by N. Eremin and S. Zakharov and with publications by I. Kon, E. Yarskaya-Smirnova, Zh. Kravchenko, O. Bezrukova and Zh. Chernova this imbalance gradually becomes history. However, there are still just a few studies examining the impact of current gender-sensitive social practices, i.e., services geared towards the emancipation of men for family and children (similarly to the earlier emancipation of women for work and society).

Many researchers believe that in the recent Soviet past fatherhood consisted of a set of practices and assumptions which would steer men to the role/domain of family providers and would underrate their paternal role. Therefore, development of services designed to support the new type of parenthood, i.e., responsible or involved fatherhood, is a social innovation. Currently various father schools became almost a conventional form of assistance to male parents. However, the empirical analysis of changes in fatherhood practices is still rare. This research is intended to close the gap.

Having reviewed father’s involvement in a variety of parental practices the researcher concludes that a significant number of fathers are involved into a quite wide range of caring and upbringing practices but with a different quality. For instance, a respondent's answer “often” (play with the child, cook, care, etc.) may represent a small portion of those who “always” participate in these activities and a rather big number of those who do it “rarely”. The research data show that men's values are still dominated by the firm belief that they shall ensure family’s financial security while women shall run the household.

However, there are reasons to expect that father group sessions help to enlarge the scope of parental practices and to greater involve fathers into parenthood. This will especially be the case if more father groups/clubs open and if mass media actively 3

promotes involved fatherhood practices and values that are extremely important for the democratic development of the Russian society. Therefore, I believe the author and the publishers of the paper deserve special thanks and we wish them success in the advocacy for gender-sensitive social services.

Doctor of Social Science I. A. Grigoryeva, Professor of the Social Science Department of St. Petersburg State University

4

Introduction Throughout the human history, the milestones of starting a family, birth and upbringing of one’s children hold a special place in the life of society and individuals.

On one hand, these events ensured reproduction and, on the other hand, they created a space for “self-realization” of individuals. [3, p. 125] Different societies and cultures or even different historic periods of the same society demonstrated quite a wide diversity within the family/childbirth value system in terms of its composition, importance and content. To illustrate the options we may say that parenting in some cultures (for instance, in many traditional cultures) could be predominantly perceived as an economic resource while in other cultures it is viewed as a key source for achieving parental potential and fulfilling one's emotional needs.

Parental practices, allocation of family responsibilities and childcare arrangements are determined by parenting values and concepts as well as by some external factors (e.g., family and demographic policy of the state, level of social and economic development, etc.).

Nowadays institutions of family and parenting are being transformed. The particular signs of the transformation are as follows: families are started later in life, marriage registration is postponed or waved, first child is born later, more children are born to middle age parents, weaker needs to have children, increased number of families with no or few children, single-parent families [14], separation of biological and social parenting [5, p. 61], changed motives to have children (the shift from the previously dominating biological and socio-economic motives to the prevailing psychological need of self-fulfillment through children [21]), reduced polarization of parental roles in childcare and upbringing [25, p. 105], etc.

In this research, we intended to show the spread of new parental practices and values (especially with regard to fatherhood as the most visibly changing parenting component) across today’s Russia and what support is available and delivered for the change.

5

Part 1.

Theoretical Aspects of Researching into the Impact of Gender-Sensitive Social Services on the Transformation of Parental Values and Practices in Today’s Russia 1.1.

The Research Subject, Topic, Targets and Objectives The research subject is parental values and practices in today’s Russia (using

St. Petersburg as example).

The research topic is how social services (that support new types of parenting and are gender-sensitive) transform parental values and practices.

The research field is how father schools - as a social service - impact the transformation of parental values and practices (in particular, the impact onto fatherhood as the most obviously changing parental component targeted by father schools).

The research objective is to identify and determine the link between social services sensitive to clients’ gender (using father schools as example) and changed values and practices of parenting (in particular, of fatherhood).

The research sets out to resolve the following tasks: 1. Identify parental values and practices in today’s Russia (using St. Petersburg as example); 2. Determine trends in the transformation of parental values and practices in today’s Russia (theoretical review); 3. Estimate the importance of social services in the context of transformed values and practices of parenting.

1.2.

Parental Values and Practices Parenting has a two-fold interpretation. On one hand, parenting means

"performing functions of childcare and upbringing in the family". [23, p. 103] In this sense, parenting covers two domains: care and upbringing.

On the other hand, parenting means “institutional features of parental relations”.

[9, p. 73] In this context, parenting includes pared notions of “fatherhood” and “motherhood”. This research will focus on studying how fatherhood changes.

6

Fatherhood is a set of institutionalized practices and assumptions associated with father’s role in child’s life that can be regarded by individuals and society through a variety of aspects determined by social and cultural contexts. It can range from actual care practices to material procurement for children and family.

The content and arrangements of parental functions are determined by personally internalized values. The values are "assumptions of individuals or groups of individuals seen as desirable, acceptable, good or bad". [6, p. 514] Parental values are notions, which guide personal criteria for desirability or undesirability of certain parental actions or situations.

The present research will review the place of family and parenting in the value system and will look into the content of the value set related to parenthood (what is a value within parental relations?).

Practices may be understood as a totality of social actions performed by individuals in a social reality. Parental practices are social actions performed by individuals and aimed at childcare and upbringing.

We view upbringing as “a deliberate and planned impact on an individual” [17] with the view to shape his/her personality.

We understand care as “a type of (non-)paid labor which includes physical, intellectual and emotional efforts to satisfy needs of other people”. [15 p. 67] This research will analyze caring and upbringing practices where fathers are involved.

1.3.

Transformation of Parental Values and Practices: Theoretical Context and Models of the Research In the latter half of the 20th century, the traditional family model of the developed

world gradually had been losing its previous stability typical over a long period.

Family stopped being a rigid and norm-regulated structure with clearly delineated distribution of functions between spouses where men primarily ensure household economics and women arrange for childcare.

Parenting is closely linked to the concept of family and as such is also gradually liberating from stringent norms and becomes “an outcome of collaborative creativity of all family members which brings pleasure to all”. [16, p. 11] Family members 7

understand family relations, childbirth, care and upbringing as the ways of emotional self-realization. This leads to “reinventing” parental roles within each individual family. The roles turn into a subject of negotiations and compromise between partners.

At the same time the transformation of the family institution shows several trends which can co-exist with some robust elements of traditional models or may influence the society only partially. Elisabeth Beck-Gernsheim remarks that “the traditional family model continues to exist in some society groups but others (groups) no longer use it. The majority of the society is characterized by a controversial mix of traditional aspirations and new expectations that are different for different generations and genders.” [27, p. 18] This statement can be illustrated with works by Julia Nentwich who writes about issues of rootedness of the traditional division of activities between parents in work and childcare [29].

B. Pfau-Effinger identifies five family/gender culture models (and adds in the sixth model described by Crompton and Harris) which are typical of Western Europe.

The succession among these models reflects the transformation of family and parenting [22, p. 80]: The Family Economic Gender Model (traditional extended family) (1); The Male Breadwinner/Female Home Carer Model (2); The Male Breadwinner/Female Part-Time Carer Model (3); The Dual Breadwinner/State Carer Model (4); The Dual Breadwinner/ Dual Carer Model (5); The Dual Earner/Marketized Female Carer (6) (the British model identified by Crompton and Harris).

Each of the models provides for a different make up of the female autonomy/dependency, family source of income and domains where family members are integrated into society.

We can also identify four fatherhood models. The move between the models illustrates the transformation of parenting: The Traditional Fatherhood Model (fathers shall “provide for the family/children, protect the family/children, uphold parental authority as a tool for child upbringing, and instill discipline in children” [12, p. 13]);

8

The “Absent Father” Model (“fathers practically never engage in everyday life of their child/children or have lost the contact with their children after divorce” [12, p. 14]); The “Responsible Father” Model (“fathers are actively involved in the process of child care and upbringing, however, their input is less than the mother’s” [12, p. 20]); The “New Father” Model (“in addition to taking up the responsibility for the family these fathers equally share with their wives any household duties and responsibilities for child care, development and upbringing”. [12, p. 20]) The visible transformation of family and parenting is certainly more pronounced in Western developed countries. However, some features to a greater or lesser degree become apparent in many other countries of the world including Russia.

Some Russian social scientists emphasize that family changes are dangerous for the society and call them “signs of crisis” lead to the breakdown of families and of the society at large. This approach is based on the definition of a traditional family with many

children

as

a

standard

family

type.

The

focus

is

at

family’s

performing/nonperforming its functions that are linked to the assumed society needs.

In this case the family is narrowly defined as “a historically developed private form of satisfying society’s need for reproduction”. [2, p 68] Alarmist rhetoric about country’s depopulation due to families’ “failure” to perform the assigned functions as a result of family and parenting transformation are sometimes coupled with concerns about blurred traditional values. Lately such a traditionalist position finds support within the Russian official political discourse. It brought about pronatalist statements of the Russian government implemented through the family policy. At the same time as remarked I. S. Kon - one of the most distinguished Russian researchers of family, sexuality and gender - the traditionalist discourse is “utopian because Russians … love, …have /do not have children for private and not political reasons uninfluenced either by administrative measures or by political rhetoric”. [13, p. 62] Other studies which view family as a product of social design not to be reduced to essential models and offer a different dimension in their analysis of issues related to changed family values, maternity, paternity and parenting. One of the most straightforward position statements may be found in the words by E. Beck-Gernsheim who says that when it comes to family and parental relations “nowadays in many 9

respects there is no clear division between an exception and the rule”. [27, p. 34] Researchers that belong to this group generally analyze the change of family values in conjunction with the changed gender relations and view the transformation as an opportunity to overcome discrimination of both women and men in the domain of parenting and family relations. From this position the changed values and parenting practices are unavoidable due to the modernization of society that releases a substantial emancipation potential.

The causes of transformed parental values and practices can be explained with the use of theoretical models that describe the change of the current society and its institutions.

Transformed parenting makes part of the transformation of intimacy. This transformation process is described in detail by Anthony Giddens who distinguishes three types of love (namely, amour passion, romantic love and confluent love) and determines the place of each love type over the course of the human history. In the contemporary society (primarily this theory is applicable to western societies) in Giddens’ opinion love exists within the attachment love or confluent love model. In this model “love develops only to the same degree as intimacy, i.e., to the degree that each partner is ready to open his/her interests and needs to the other and to become vulnerable to that other”. [7, p. 83] Attachment love is geared towards satisfying interests related to the feelings of both partners. Confluent love is not based on traditions. It is always a sort of agreement mutually beneficial for both partners because they drafted the conditions themselves. At the same time there lies a risk: if a partner is dissatisfied with the relations he or she may terminate them disregarding the tradition that has lost its significance. In the absence of traditions, confluent love no longer has a clearly defined development scenario for relations. The importance of children for the couple is markedly decreased. This explains a growing number of divorces and a reduced number of children in families. However, it brings about another important result: a really free egalitarian “contract” between a man and a woman based on choice and freedom rather than traditions leaves practically no space for exploitation, therein including exploitation via unequal distribution of gender roles within the family. Family relations, birth and upbringing of children within relations based on confluent love primarily mean the ways of emotional self-realization of the 10

partners. Therefore, both partners are ready to fully immerse into them.

Another theoretical model which explains the direction of value transformation (therein including transformation of parenting values) is the modernization theory offered by Ronald Inglehart. In his opinion “socio-economic development leads to approximately predictable cultural changes. At a certain stage these changes create an environment favorable for establishing a democracy.” [4, p. 31] These changes are not governed by strict laws but are rather probabilistic in nature.

Inglehart theorizes that cultural changes triggered by socioeconomic development bring about changed values. The societal move to the industrial age was accompanied by the shift from traditional values to secular/rational values. Further socioeconomic development brings along yet another value shift: from focusing at surviving (for instance, security, rationality, authority) to the values of self-expression (for instance, self-realization, tolerance). This theory explains why self-realization within family and a drive to enjoy time spend with children became one of the key features of new parenting.

With regard to post-Soviet states Inglehart remarks that “many post-Soviet states are relatively little impacted by the trend of increased level of personal independence and extended liberty.” [4, p. 14] It is explained by the sharp drop in the level of socioeconomic development of these countries during the shock therapy of the early 1990s. This provides the reason for the slow diffusion of transformed parental values in Russia.

1.4.

The Historic Context of Parenthood, Motherhood and Fatherhood in Russia Evgeniya Angelova and Anna Temkina follow feminist researcher Nancy

Chodorow in stating that “nuclear family of the 20th century had an asymmetrical parenting structure where women would perform special mothering practices, i.e., everyday childcare.” [1, p. 473] Soviet and post-Soviet societies primarily view motherhood as linked to practices of everyday childcare while fatherhood was much greater associated with ensuring material welfare of the family. It should be noted that this motherhood/fatherhood balance was dominating and still prevails to a certain degree.

11

The Soviet Union had developed the parental model which was later on kept by Russia. The model can be described as “only mothers have children ….. Fathers are ignored by societal institutions and by the society at large.” [23, 139] The phenomenon was promoted by the Soviet state’s policy of mobilizing men (as military and labor force) and women (as reproduction resource). With this policy the state separated men from their families and discriminated them as parents. Men were assigned the breadwinner role while women performed childcare duties. Fathers’ exclusion from parenting and retention within the domain of family protection and procurement resulted in the fatherhood similar to the Absent Father Model.

The asymmetric shape of parenting became quite persistent in the soviet society and was supported by laws. After the collapse of the soviet state the parenting model developed in the USSR maintained its stability because it was rooted in the society.

Transformation of parenting practices is linked with the overcoming the structure asymmetry and with the balancing of mother and father roles.

1.5.

Biopolitical Aspects of Parenthood Parenting and family life are essential elements of control in the bio-politics

because they affect the reproduction of population and to a certain degree the population quality. Biopolitics as a term in the sense defined by Michel Foucault means “how at a certain period power gets transformed in a way it can control not only individuals via a number of disciplinary procedures but also a totality of living things constructed as population.” [20] Biopolitics view families as a sort of “factories” to produce units of population, i.e., a type of state resources called human capital. The capital is used at two levels: family/interpersonal and state/market levels. At the same time more often “expenses of generating human capital are incurred mostly just at one level, i.e., in families.” [21, p. 149]. According to I. V. Plusch resources required to produce human capital can be conditionally divided into renewable (primarily, finances) and nonrenewable (private time of family members, women’s health, etc.).

As the society modernizes, individuals are becoming less capable of bearing responsibility for providing the total set of resource needed for reproduction of the population. The state partially undertakes the provision of these resources if it is interested in maintaining the reproduction growth rate. Biopolitics takes under control 12

“life aspects which later become the space for deploying state’s policy of inclusive welfare: in fact its development is pursued only for the better control over work force.”

[20] Thus the state strives to control and to regulate the processes of the population reproduction. Institutions of parenting and family are important in this context and as such they become affected by the control mechanisms used in biopolitics. For the regulation state uses its social policy, i.e., benefits, privileges, and the social service infrastructure. The state may compensate some resources (finances, time) to individuals/families and create an environment promoting the investment of resources by families/individuals where the state cannot offer compensation. To implement successfully state projects in biopolitics, it is required to strike a balance between the individual and state involvement in provision of parenting resources. The transformation of families and parenthood sets new objectives for the Russian state in its pursuit of such priorities as confronting country’s depopulation and stimulating the birthrate. Now the state must support the existing parenting models. For instance, state’s ignoring the trend to redistributed family duties between men and women in childcare (early childhood care now is delivered not only by mothers but by fathers as well) leads to additional tensions in families affected by the trends and may contribute to the decision of postponed childbirth. Therefore, the state may find itself compelled to support the new parenting models spreading in the society though at the political discourse level it declares traditionalist values. The transformation of parental values and practices affects the effective mechanisms of population reproduction. The support to the transformed parental values and practices in the context of state’s biopolitics may be a sort of “by-product” generated by the policy primarily geared to the reproduction of population.

1.6. Vehicles to Spread Parental Values and Practices In our opinion, the process of spreading new parental values and practices in the Russian society can be described via the Everett Rogers’ theory of diffusion of innovations [30]. The theory states that innovations are spread by certain types of individuals. Innovations get accepted as individuals pass through specific stages, i.e., knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation and confirmation. Innovations do not span the whole society at once but rather spread by involving parts of society over the 13

course of time. These parts are determined within the innovation diffusion theory at the following percentages: up to 2.5 % of innovators, 13.5 % of early adopters, 34 % of early majority, 34 % of late majority and 16 % of laggards. Innovators generate innovative ideas and are the first to embrace them. They run a risk by being first to adopt innovations, therefore, they must have some resources to absorb losses in case of failed innovations. Early adopters join quite soon after innovators in accepting an innovation. Everett Rogers describes them as highly educated individuals with a stable financial position who are opinion leaders ready to take risks of adopted innovations.

According to I. S. Kletsina, contemporary Russian men adopting new parental practices (who start changing their approach to family life and show an active interest in child upbringing) indeed have similar characteristics. They “belong to successful and active social strata and have achieved a certain level of personal (both material and spiritual) development.� [12, p. 21] Early majority individuals are more cautious in adopting new things. They have a sufficient number of social connections to receive information on innovations. Later majority individuals are skeptical, rigid and ready to accept an innovation only after it has been embraced by a significant number of individuals. Laggards mistrust innovations, adhere to traditions, and a have narrow or reduced network of social contacts. At a stage when only innovators and early adopters embrace social innovations it is important to have non-governmental organizations that unite innovators to help promoting innovations (including promotion of new parental practices). These organizations focus on supporting and spreading new practices among early adopters and early majority. Operations of NGOs in the domain of new parental values and practices may be geared towards introducing new practices into public discourse and creating stimuli for the state to include the practices into the public social policy. Innovating NGOs use various formats for information dissemination and social services as tools to spread parental values and practices.

These NGOs involve activists into raising the support for new practices via horizontal social networks and bring in other NGOs to promote new parental practices. They make efforts to articulate innovations at the level of state agencies and to integrate promotion of new parental practices into the agenda of state-operated social services.

The ways of how innovating NGOs participated in the spread of new parental practices in St. Petersburg are fully described in the article by A. Malyshev and O. Parfenova 14

titled Social Services as Vehicles for Transformation of Parental Practices (Evidence from the Spread of Father Schools in St. Petersburg) [19]. Therein, the authors identified four scenarios of how social services may support the new parental styles, i.e., responsible or involved fatherhood (schools for future fathers).

1.7. Gender-Sensitive Social Services Geared to Support the New Parenting Formats The support to the transformation of parental values and practices is provided by NGOs and by the state. The state almost exclusively owns such powerful means of influence as social family policy that can include social services. As for NGOs, for the active support of individuals choosing new parental practices they can use primarily social services. Social services mean services (or sometimes institutions which provide the services) offered to all regardless of income and aimed at helping service recipients to “solve everyday life challenges”. [8] There could be different reasons why a service provider views these services as important. The Russian social service practice has a tradition of equating social issues facilitated by social services with pathological conditions. However, “it is not always wise to equate social challenges with pathology especially in the medical sense of this word … disregarding the fact that the issues can indicate societal change and development.” [8] State social services are the “vehicles for delivering social policy elements in certain domains”. [18, с. 27] On one hand, state social policy shall focus at attaining social justice and leveling out societal inequalities (decommodification according to G. Esping-Andersen) and, on the other hand, as it was already mentioned above, it shall consider biopolitical aspects. Any social policy is underpinned by ideological concepts (conservatism, social democracy, liberalism, neoliberalism, etc.) which determine the configuration of institutions to deliver the policy. Offered nongovernmental social services are also a vehicle to implement some “ideological” constructs in this case created by activists of civil society organizations rather than by the state.

Actions of the state and of NGOs are mostly focused at developing an infrastructure to support new parenting styles. Considering the nature of the transformation of parenting practice (i.e., largely shaped by the move to gender 15

equality, defamilialization of women, involvement of men/fathers in active discharge of parental duties) we consider justified to primarily talk about gender-sensitive types of social services as an infrastructure to support new parenting formats.

Gender-sensitive social services are built around the principle of recognizing clients’ gender and on the assistance in resolving issues linked to gender specifics (very often coupled with other particulars of one’s social status). It could be, for instance, assistance to abused women or to violent men. Researchers of gender aspects in social work observe that in different countries women make the majority of social service clientele and that the share of women among rank-and-file employees of social service providers significantly exceeds the share of men (L. Dominelli [28], E. R. Yarskaya-Smirnova Е.Р. [28]). In Russia the gender imbalance among the social service clientele and staff is very substantial. For instance, in St. Petersburg in 2012 there was at least one state-run center for social assistance to family and children which had zero male employees. At state-run social service institutions in St. Petersburg the share of male staff rarely exceeds 25 %. The review of client database for services offered by family and children social assistance institutions shows that “primary recipients of social assistance are mothers, children come next and only in isolated cases we can see a purposeful inclusion of fathers into the delivered social/rehabilitation programs.” [10, p. 37] The contemporary Russian masculinity model maintains that seeking help (including social assistance) rather means a display of feminine qualities and as such is unwanted in men. In combination with the high level of feminization of social services’ staff and their focus at female clients (as they are more conformant, easier to make a compromise with and in general better understood by female employees) it creates the environment of excluding men from recipients of social assistance. However, men may also need social assistance and in some cases it can become imperative. These could be men “who suffer broken relations due to divorce, or who returned from military engagements and experience post-traumatic syndrome, or who were abused or demonstrate aggressive behavior towards their wives or partners, or teenagers drawn into drug use or into extremist groups, and many others.” [26] It shall be noted that parents quite often have to approach state-run social service institutions. Therefore, men involved in new parenting practices – i.e., responsible fathers who equally share childcare with mothers 16

– may also quite often approach them. Men need a mechanism of involving them into an interaction with social services. The mechanism is important to the performance of their parental role and then may become useful in contacting social services if these men face difficult life situations where social assistance is required.

Currently in St. Petersburg there are several types of gender-sensitive social services offered by state institutions of family and childcare and by non-profit organizations.

A wide network of departments that focus on helping women in difficult life situations is organized within state institutions of social services for family and children. These departments exist in each of 18 districts of St. Petersburg. At the same time one state-run social care institution has a specialized department which can be classified as gender-sensitive and focused at supporting fathers. This is a Department of Social Protection of Single Fathers at Moskovsky District Center of Social Care for Families and Children. Another more common type of gender-sensitive state social services are groups for future fathers (father groups). The groups are set up and operate at many centers of social care for families and children. The first father group was organized at Nevsky District Center of Social Care for Families and Children in autumn of 2008.

There are several St. Petersburg NGOs that offer gender-sensitive social services, namely, counseling and training for violent men, counseling for abused women, schools for future fathers (father groups), etc. Such organizations with the focus on delivering gender-services to men include Northern Way, Men of the 21st Century, Hesed Avraham and some others.

Father groups are a type of gender-sensitive group-based social work with men to support new parenting models. In St. Petersburg the work is delivered both by state social services and by NGOs actively supported by the state. The concept of The 20122022 St. Petersburg Family Policy includes “development of programs to improve parental competence and to support fathers (at father schools, clubs for single fathers, support groups, etc.) and to increase their accessibility for young fathers at all city districts� [14]. The concept approved by the Government of St. Petersburg does not assign the exclusivity of the assistance provided to young or future fathers either to

17

state-run or to non-governmental social services. The priority lies in improving the availability of the social service by spreading it across all districts of St. Petersburg.

Father groups are men’s clubs where members share a common interest: to get ready for the childbirth (and to potentially attend it) and to prepare for an active involvement in the child’s life after birth. Father groups offer a cyclic program where men meet to discuss main topics, i.e., future childbirth, first days, the first month of child’s life, and responsible fatherhood. Additional sessions on topics offered by group members are also possible. The group is run by the moderator who shall mandatorily be an accomplished father himself. Discussions of parenting related topics happen in the environment men can relate to and in the familiar gender format they can easily accept. Father groups aim at informing future fathers about their options to participate in childcare and that it is acceptable for men. The groups highlight values of gender equality and responsible fatherhood. In doing so they create prerequisites for a more equal childcare distribution within families, help to reduce gender polarization between father and mother duties and, ultimately, facilitate the diffusion of new parental practices of better equality than traditional ones. Being low-threshold gendersensitive social services for men father groups help to involve men into interaction with social services. Typically, father groups meet at state-run social care institutions or at non-profit social service centers; sometimes they meet at prenatal clinics. At these meetings men are told about the assistance they can expect from the social service and gain their first experience of interacting with social services. Later on the experience may help to overcome barriers in accessing social services.

1.8. Research and Data Collection Methods The field phase of the study had the following objectives:  Identify parental values and practices in today’s Russia (using St. Petersburg as example);  Determine the extent, nature, potential of and limitations to the impact of gender-sensitive social services (using father groups as example) offered to parents with regard to the transformation of parental values and practices (in particular, paternal).

The objectives were attained in a social study with three phases for field data 18

collection and analysis.

Phase 1: In-depth interviews organized with managers and moderators of gendersensitive social services (father groups); results analyzed. In total 4 interviews were analyzed.

Objectives of Phase 1: to identify father group formats and targets; to preliminary assess the impact of father groups onto participants’ values and practices; to develop a tool (questionnaire) for further research; to collect father group contact information to be used in further research.

Phase 1 resulted in selecting 60 contacts of the men who attended father school sessions. A set of question was developed for father school graduates and for the representative survey of St. Petersburg population.

Phase 2: A quantitative study of parental values and practices of St. Petersburg men with children. The data were collected within the representative target quota sample in June 2013. Quotas were based on children’s age. The sample included 404 respondents. At least 155 male respondents should have as a minimum one child aged between 0 and 4 years who lives together with them. At least 255 men should have as a minimum one child aged between 5 and 16 years who lives together with them. These parameters ensure a maximal expected statistical error under 5% for the one-dimensional distribution with the reliability level of 95%. The poll covered only males to provide for the comparability of Phase 2 results and Phase 3 outcomes and to enable the identification of father group impact on parental values and practices.

Objectives of Phase 2: Identify parental values and practices in today’s Russia (using St. Petersburg as example) Phase 3: A quantitative study of parental values and practices of men who attended father school sessions in St. Petersburg in 2010-2013. In total there were 40 male respondents who attended a series of sessions (at least 2 sessions) at the father school of Krasnogvardeisky District Center of Social Care for Families and Children, and at Hesed Avraham NGO (36 and 4 respondents respectively).

Objectives of Phase 3: Determine the extent, nature, potential of and limitations to the impact of gender-sensitive social services (using father groups as example) offered for parents onto the transformation of paternal values and fatherhood practices.

19

Part 2.

Research of Parental Values and Practices among St. Petersburg Men with Children 2.1. Empirical Research Base Sample Size: 404 respondents; all are males with children. 194 men have as a minimum one child between 0 and 4 years old living together with them and 255 men have as a minimum one child between 5 and 16 years of age living together with them.

Among the surveyed men 320 respondents have 1 child, 77 have 2 children, 5 have 3 children and 2 claimed having 4 children.

Diagrams 1 through 3 show the age distribution of children of the surveyed men.

Diagram 1. Age of the Youngest or the Only Child

Diagram 2. Age of the Child Born prior to the Youngest (in respondents’ families with 2 and more children)

20

Diagram 3. Age of the Eldest Child in Respondents’ Families with 3 Children

In respondents’ families with four children, two eldest children aged 10 and 12 years or 9 and 12 years respectively.

Diagram 4 shows the percentage distribution of the respondents according to their education.

Diagram 4. Respondents’ Level of Education

As the data show, over half of the respondents have a university degree and one third have vocational secondary education. These are quite expected values.

21

Diagram 5 displays the percentage breakdown of the respondents according to their material security.

Diagram 5. The Level of Material Security of Respondents’ Families

2.2. Values To identify respondents’ values and to determine their priorities for the family, we have designed four value categories: Material values (job, material well-being); Family-related values (children, family, and love); Self-realization values.

2.2.1. Family-Related Values As anticipated, respondents attach the greatest importance to the values associated with family and parenting. Overall, 92.8 % of respondents rated family as the top priority value in their lives. Diagram 6 shows the percentage distribution of scores 22

given in assessing family as a life value (1 is the lowest score; 6 is the highest score).

Diagram 6. Values: Family

The data we obtained agree with the VCIOM data (All-Russia Public Opinion Research Center) that indicate that in “the rating of key life values pursued by Russians having a happy family and children upbringing take the lead�. In all-Russia studies 93 % of respondents consider family as their highest value.

The importance of children was assessed practically at the same level as the family, i.e., it received high scores. As the men interviewed in the study had children permanently living with them, probably, for those men family and children were equal notions and they considered children a mandatory component of the family. This explains the almost identical scores. Diagram 7 details the percentage distribution of prioritizing children as a life value (1 is the lowest score; 6 is the highest score).

Diagram 7. Values: Children

A high percentage of those who rated family and children as the top priority of 23

their lives calls for our attention. It points to the fact that these life domains receive the highest value and that respondents cannot imagine renouncing them under any circumstances.

The distribution of marks assigned to love as a life value is different from the family and children ratings. Similarly to them, love has the utmost importance for the majority of respondents. However, the group of respondents who assigned 5 marks out of the highest 6 mark score has significantly grown and reached 73.3 %. Diagram 8 presents the percentage distribution of prioritizing love as a life value (1 is the lowest score; 6 is the highest score).

Diagram 8. Values: Love

Though love is a crucial value, however, its score breakdown shows a higher elasticity compared to the scores for family and children. The elasticity is expressed in the significant number of respondents who assigned love with 5 or less marks. The elasticity of assessments means that under certain circumstances respondents are ready to sacrifice this value in favor of other values. Yet, reviewing the score figures we shall note that respondents would renounce love only in the worst case scenario.

2.2.2. Material Values As expected, the respondents assessed the importance of material well-being (wealth) quite highly. However, the elasticity of this value is even greater (though slightly) compared to the elasticity of the assessments for love, family and children.

Diagram 9 presents the percentage distribution in prioritizing wealth (material well-being) as a life value (1 is the lowest score; 6 is the highest score).

24

Diagram 9. Values: Wealth (Material Well-Being)

Job as a life value turned out to also score quite high but much lower than family values. The parameters of job assessments are similar to those of wealth, however, the share of respondents who graded it 5 or less out of 6 marks happened to be even larger.

On one hand, work acts as a means of providing well-being, and, on the other hand, it can be a self-realization means. The collected data demonstrate that on the whole work was rated high by respondents, however, for 43.6 % of them job was not their top priority and could be abandoned under certain circumstances. Diagram 10 presents the percentage distribution of prioritizing job as a life value (1 is the lowest score; 6 is the highest score).

Diagram 10. Values: Job

We consider the obtained data to be of significance for the outlooks of spreading the practice of fathers’ active involvement in childcare. In some situations (though it should be noted that the circumstances must be exceptionally grave) roughly 30 % of 25

males could give up the attained wealth level and job in favor of their top priority values, i.e., family and children.

2.2.3. The Value of Self-Realization It is interesting to analyze how the transformation of values changed the attitude towards self-realization. According to Ronald Inglehart theory, the rising importance of self-expression may be considered an indicator of the transfer to the post-industrial society. Our survey showed that the importance of self-realization was among the least appreciated values.

Diagram 11 presents the percentage distribution of prioritizing self-realization as a life value (1 is the lowest score; 6 is the highest score).

Diagram 11. Values: Self- Realization

Only half of respondents consider self-realization as their priority value. There were significant shares of respondents who assigned 5 or even 4 marks to selfrealization in their life projects. The distribution of answers means that self-realization has not yet become the priority value in the Russian society to be comparable to wealth or job (material values). This society is still moving towards the post-industrial age. At the same time it shall be highlighted that slightly over 50% of respondents assigned the value of self-realization with the highest mark.

2.3. Parenthood Components Respondents were asked to rate the most important things in parenting.

Diagram 12 presents the percentage distribution of the most frequent answers.

26

Diagram 12. Distribution of Answers to the Question: What is the Most Important Thing For You As a Parent?

According to the provided data, father rated the following components as the most significant: their sense of responsibility for the child (27.7%), love to the child (23.1%) and emotional pleasure of interacting with the child (20.5%). This choice indicates that the significant part of fathers (almost 1/3) feels the responsibility for their children. Fathers’ awareness of the responsibility even surpasses the love to the child. Identifying responsibility as the most essential aspect of parenthood speaks to the fact that parental attitudes considerably moved towards responsible parenting. At the same time we have not observed any statistically significant dependencies of these responses with other variables (for e.g., with the level of education or material security).

Male respondents recognized two other parameters as extremely important: emotional pleasure of interacting with and love to their children. Generally speaking, these answers are similar, therefore, together they are recognized as the most substantial parameters in over 40% of the cases.

It shall be noted that just a small group of men regarded material inputs as an important parenting component.

27

2.4. Parenting Practices 2.4.1. Parenting Practices: Normative Model of the Split of Responsibilities The content of parenthood as viewed by men shall be analyzed together with the gender aspect of parental roles and with the normative model of family responsibility split between mother and father as understood by fathers. This means a normative aspect in distributing family responsibilities by gender.

We tried to determine whether contemporary men look up to the traditional or to the new family model. For that we selected the following parameters as the most meaningful for the context, in our opinion:  Providing for family’s material well-being  Housekeeping  Child care and sitting  Child upbringing.

The traditional model will likely guide men to chose providing for family’s material well-being as the most appropriate activity for themselves and to leave child care/sitting/upbringing for women.

The modernized parenting model is based on the less polarized parental roles. It also means that men implementing practices of new or responsible fatherhood and parenting shall chose either an approximately equal or aiming for an equal split of responsibilities.

Diagram 13 displays the percentage distribution of answers to the question: “Who among parents shall cater for family’s material well-being?” 1 mark means “he/she shall not do it” and 6 marks mean “he/she shall do it a lot”. The question was first asked with regard to fathers and then with regard to mothers.

28

Diagram 13. Who among Parents Shall Cater for Family’s Material Well-Being?

The collected data make obvious a dominating assumption that father mandatorily shall be family breadwinner and that under no circumstances he can abandon this role.

At the same time only 30.7% of male respondents consider this domain mandatory for mothers. Another 23.5% gave it «5 marks» which means that providing for family’s material well-being is a highly desirable but not obligatory mother’s role. Altogether over 53% of respondents believe that child’s mother shall work though unlike fathers she can under some (highly unwanted) circumstances abandon her job. It is noteworthy that a very high share of respondents assigned very low marks (3 and less) to mother’s eligibility as family provider. This is one of the highest share of low marks in the whole set of questions on parental practices. At the same time almost all respondents who gave 4 marks and less to women-providers (above 45 % of respondents) believe that for fathers being a provider for the family is obligatory (gave «6 marks»).

Next Diagram 14 shows the percentage distribution of answers to the question: “Who among parents shall housekeep?” 1 mark means “he/she shall not do it” and 6 marks mean “he/she shall do it a lot”. The question was first asked with regard to fathers and then with regard to mothers.

29

Diagram 14. Who Among Parents Shall Housekeep?

We did not suppose that in traditional families homemaking would fall into the category of activities most stringently polarized by gender. However, according to the given answers, men’s understanding of gender-based split of functions would assign this duty primarily to women. 24.5 % of respondents gave 3 marks or less to this activity as suitable for fathers. At the same time 6 marks (i.e., “shall do it a lot”) was assigned in 88.1% of replies to mothers (plus 5.7 % of replies rated it at 5 marks).

Diagrams 15 and 16 show the percentage distribution of answers to the question: “Who among parents shall provide child care and sitting?” (Diagram 15) and “Who shall bring up the child?” (Diagram 16). 1 mark means “he/she shall not do it” and 6 marks mean “he/she shall do it a lot”. The question was first asked with regard to fathers and then with regard to mothers.

Diagram 15. Who Among Parents Shall Provide Child Care and Sitting?

30

Diagram 16. Who Among Parents Shall Bring Children Up?

The outcome suggests that surveyed men regarded children’s upbringing along with child care and sitting (in fact, these are two parental practice components) as slightly more fitting to mothers: 6 marks (“mothers shall do it a lot”) were assigned in 87.6 % of answers to “child care and sitting”, and in 88.1 % of answers to “child upbringing”. At the same time men think they shall also participate in parenting: a greater involvement in upbringing of 83.6 % of respondents who rated this practice as appropriate to fathers by assigning 5 or 6 marks (out of 6 marks possible), and a slightly less engagement in child care/sitting of 70.5% of respondents who rated the practice as fitting to father’s role by assigning 5 or 6 marks (out of 6 marks possible).

The surveyed men held an opinion that both father and mother shall engage in parental practices. However, we can identify two differences in the distribution of opinions about how the practices fit fathers and mothers. The first difference: men assigned statistically

significant

reduced

scores

to

father’s

inclusion

into

child

upbringing/care/sitting in comparison to their rating of mother’s inclusion. The second difference: the assessment of whether fathers need to be included into the above practices showed a significantly higher elasticity.

The obtained data make evident that the respondents hold the view that the traditional allocation of family responsibilities (men act as breadwinners and women keep the household) is the most acceptable. At the same time there is a difference with the traditional beliefs because the respondents subscribe to a higher men involvement in child upbringing and care in comparison to the prescribed traditional mode of assigned parental roles. The survey demonstrated that father’s role in these practices 31

received much more diverse assessments than mother’s. However, the very inclusion of these practices into the fatherhood normative model by respondents indicates the move toward a more equal sharing of responsibilities between parents compared to the assumptions under the traditional parental model.

In summary we may say that the views of contemporary St. Petersburg fathers about the normative model of family responsibility split are more in line with the traditional model of responsibilities shared between father and mother, but it includes some important elements of a more equal distribution of family duties.

2.4.2. Parental Practices: Assessment of Father Involvement We see it necessary to explore the actual participation of fathers in parental practices.

There were 3 key parameters chosen to assess father’s involvement into parenting practices:  Amount of time respondents devote to their children;  The frequency of various activities in childcare and upbringing as assessed by respondents;  Participation in child-centered activities that the traditional model assigns to mothers.

Diagram 17 visualizes the average time spent by respondents with their children per week (as they see it).

Diagram 17. Average Time Per Week Spent with Children by Respondents

It is evident that less than half of surveyed fathers (42%) spent over 24 hours of 32

their personal time on their children. On one hand, this amount is sufficiently large because it means that the fathers spent 15% of their personal time on child care and upbringing. On the other hand, the data show a low involvement into active parental practices of more than half of respondents (as another 42% have a very little involvement).

The quantitative description of the time spent by fathers on childcare shall be complete with the qualitative analysis of the content.

Phase 1 of the study has identified the following practices of child care and upbringing:  Playing with the child;  Going for a walk;  Cooking for the child;  Bodily childcare (including bathing and change of diapers);  Talking to the child privately;  Shared household or dacha chores, shopping.

Diagrams 18 through 23 show the percentage breakdown of replies about the frequency of the respondents’ engagement in these practices.

Diagram 18. Distribution of Answers to the Question: How Often Do You Play with Your Child?

33

Diagram 19. Distribution of Answers to the Question: How Often Do You Go for a Walk with Your Child?

Diagram 20. Distribution of Answers to the Question: How Often Do You Cook for Your Child?

34

Diagram 21. Distribution of Answers to the Question: How Often Do You Provide Bodily Care for Your Child (e.g., changing diapers, bathing)1.

Diagram 22. Distribution of Answers to the Question: How Often Do You Talk to the Child Privately?2

1 2

The question was asked only of respondents with children of 4 years old and younger.

The question was asked only of respondents with children of 5 years old and older.

35

Diagram 23. Distribution of Answers to the Question: How Often Do You and Your Child Do Household/Dacha Chores or Go Shopping?3.

According to the presented diagrams, on average roughly 60 % of men are somehow involved into such childcare practices as walks and games with children, discussing private matters, shared activities and shopping. The data were produced by summing up the quantity of the practices in “always”, “almost always” and “often” categories.

Practices of cooking for the child and bodily care for the child showed lower quantitative parameters of father involvement (29.7 % and 50% of the respondents respectively). The low percentage of respondents participating in cooking may be explained by the lack of some skills that Russian men rarely have. The relatively small percentage of fathers who provide bodily care for children, in our opinion, is due to the impact of the traditional model of the parental duties’ split.

The reviewed evidence allows to conclude that a significant part of fathers is involved into a rather wide range of care and upbringing practices. The review of the involvement quality makes an important aspect in the analysis of fathers’ involvement into childcare practices. The majority of answers that demonstrated father’s involvement fall into the “often” category (that is a part of the 6-mark scale between “never” and “always”). The “often” response is at the center of the scale and refers to the minimal positive value of the attribute. The “rarely” reply next to it refers to the minimal negative value of the attribute. As it is evident form the diagrams, the quality of fathers’ involvement into parental practices mostly stay at the level of “often” that is 3

The question was asked only of respondents with children of 5 years old and older.

36

the minimal positive attribute. It means that the surveyed fathers responded that they had to participate in parental practices but not regularly and not always.

The analysis of replies that represent a more intensive father’s involvement into parental practices (the sum of “almost always” and “always” replies) makes evident a quite significantly reduced father’s involvement into active parental practices (varying between 4.2 % for “cooking for the child” and 15.3 % for “shared house/dacha chores and shopping”).

A considerable share of the respondents who answered “rarely” or “very rarely” to childcare practices shall be also mentioned. With regard to different practices the share of such respondents ranges from 35 % to 50 %. It becomes evident that about 1/3 of the fathers are poorly or very poorly involved into parental practices.

The assessment of the parental time and of its quality is completed with the assessment of fathers’ readiness to participate in child-centered activities which the traditional parenting model assigns to mothers.

Diagram 24 shows the percentage distribution of answers to the question: “If your child shall be taken to the doctor’s, to the kindergarten, etc., who will do it in your family?” Those respondents who selected the “other” answer most often meant that they would go together with the wife or ask relatives to help.

Diagram 24. Distribution of Answers to the Question: If Your Child Shall Be Taken to the Doctor’s, to the Kindergarten, etc., Who Will Do It in Your Family?

The diagram demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of the respondents (in 37

total 75.7%: those who answered “mostly my wife” and “depends on who is busier at work (me or my wife) but mostly my wife”) do not participate in this childcare practice by delegating it to the partner. Generally speaking, it suits the traditional scenario of shared parental duties and indicates that men are poorly prepared to interact with social services as it was described in the chapter on gender-sensitive social services.

2.5. The Attitude to Father’s Right for Parental Leave The transformation of the parenthood institution, defamilialization of women and a more active involvement of men in parental practices make European countries pay a lot of attention to creating equal conditions for fathers and mothers in providing care for the child during his/her initial years of life. For instance, the paternal leave can be taken either by mother or by father. The contemporary Russian law offers the same options but Russian fathers practically never use it.

Diagram 25 shows the percentage distribution of answers to the question: “What is the best way to use the paternal leave?” (i.e., who shall take it?) In the majority of cases the “other” answer meant that “both parents shall take the leave simultaneously”.

Diagram 25. Distribution of Answers to the Question: Parental Leave Can Be Taken by Fathers and Mothers. What Is the Best Way to Use the Parental Leave?

The distribution of replies uncovered the skepticism of responding fathers 38

towards their option of using parental childcare leave (64 %). 13 % of the respondents believe that a lower paid parent shall use the right for the childcare leave which often means that it would be the mother (frequently women are paid less than men).

At the same time 15 % of the respondents stated as appropriate that mothers and fathers take turns in having the childcare leave while 4 % believed that fathers should take it. These small groups supporting an egalitarian use of the parental leave form a potential to change current parental practices.

39

Part 3.

Research of Parental Values and Practices among Men Who Attended Father Schools in St. Petersburg in 2010-2013 3.1. Empirical Research Base Sample Size: 40 respondents. All respondents at the time of the survey had children and had attended a series of sessions (at least 2) at a father school: either at state-operated Krasnogvardeisky District Center of Social Care for Families and Children (36 respondents) or at Hesed Avraham NGO (4 respondents). Among them 27 men had 1 child and 13 men had 2 children who lived with them.

Regrettably, Phase 3 sample size does not allow to state that all father school graduates strictly meet the representation criteria. The size was restricted by the difficulties in accessing some of the respondents and by the limited number of father school participants. In total, during 5 years of operations roughly 600 people had passed through father groups in St. Petersburg. However, not all of them attended at least 3 meetings. So, Phase 3 of the survey is exploratory. The sample of 40 respondents for the total population of 600 people fits the reliability criteria for an exploring survey.

The key objective of Phase 3 (in the survey that overall studied the impact by gender-sensitive social services onto the transformation of parental values and practices in contemporary Russia) was to collect the data on individuals who had cooperated with gender-sensitive services and to compare their indicators for parental values and practices with the data of the earlier conducted wide-scale representative survey describing the general parental values and practices in St. Petersburg. Once compared, it allows to determine the influence of gender-sensitive services onto the transformed parental values and practices (if any).

We also pursued the analysis of issues that could have been faced while interacting with the gender-sensitive social service and the search for the ways to improve the service.

3.2. Outcomes of the Survey among Father Groups’ Participants The education and income levels of the surveyed graduates of father schools 40

turned out to be slightly higher than those of Phase 2 respondents. Diagrams 26 and 27 show the education and material security levels respectively.

Diagram 26. Education Level of Father Group Attendees

Diagram 27. The Level of Family Material Security of Father Group Attendees

Practically all polled fathers learned about father groups from their wives who were informed by the prenatal clinics.

The majority of respondents stated that they liked everything in the content and 41

format of the sessions and that father group meetings were extremely useful. Here is a quote of one respondent’s answer to the open question where he was asked to give an example of the positive attitude to father groups: “Communications with other dads in the school gave me reassurance; before that I was absolutely “empty””.

According to the respondents, issues with father groups are related to the “limited access to father groups” and to the difficulty of obtaining any information about their operations. Over 40 % of the respondents in the answer to the open question about the improvements required to the father school mentioned the need of a wider advertising.

The analysis of father school attendees’ data showed that they had rated family values lower than fathers who did not attend father groups. Only 53 % of the respondents gave 6 marks out of 6 to the importance of the family (plus additional 30 % who assigned it with 5 marks). The assessed importance of children is also significantly lower: 60 % put 6 marks and 20% assigned 5 marks. The importance of love was rated by father group attendees roughly the same as the assessment received in Phase 2 of the survey. However, the Phase 3 assessment showed a much wider elasticity within the rating. Diagram 28 demonstrates the percentage distribution of scores in assessing love as a life value by father school graduates (1 is the lowest score; 6 is the highest score).

Diagram 28. Values of the Respondents Who Attended Father Groups: Love

There is no significant quantitative or structural difference in the distribution of the assessed material values between Phase 3 and Phase 2 data.

The assessment of the importance of self-realization among father school 42

graduates was noticeably lower than the scores received after the Phase 2 analysis.

Diagram 29 demonstrates the percentage distribution of scores in assessing selfrealization as a life value by father school graduates (1 is the lowest score; 6 is the highest score).

Diagram 29. Values of the Respondents Who Attended Father Groups: Self-Realization

We believe that the specifics of how important the values are for father school graduates were not influenced by attending father groups. Father schools do not aim at changing one’s value systems though such differences are obvious if we compare values of the representative sample of fathers who did not attend father schools and the father school graduates. Most likely, this difference is due to a small size of the father school graduates’ sample.

The distribution of parenthood components by their importance as assigned by father group participants mostly corresponds to the values obtained in the analysis of Phase 2. Here the dominating components are: sense of responsibility for, love to and an emotional pleasure of interacting with the child.

Diagrams 30 through 33 demonstrate the parameters of the normative model for splitting of parental duties as viewed by father school graduates in providing for family’s material well-being, housekeeping, child care/sitting and child upbringing.

Diagram 30 displays the percentage distribution of answers to the question: “Who among parents shall cater for family’s material well-being?” 1 mark means “he/she shall not do it” and 6 marks mean “he/she shall do it a lot”.

43

Diagram 31 shows the percentage distribution of answers to the question: “Who among parents shall housekeep?” 1 mark means “he/she shall not do it” and 6 marks mean “he/she shall do it a lot”.

44

Diagram 32 shows the percentage distribution of answers to the question: “Who among parents shall provide child care and sitting?” 1 mark means “he/she shall not do it” and 6 marks mean “he/she shall do it a lot”.

Diagram 33 shows the percentage distribution of answers to the question: who among parents shall bring children up? 1 mark means “he/she shall not do it” and 6 marks mean “he/she shall do it a lot”.

According to the presented diagrams, similarly to Phase 2 respondents, most father school graduates also prefer the traditional model of parental role distribution where man is a breadwinner and woman primarily takes care of children and the house.

Father school attendees showed a more egalitarian distribution of duties concerning 45

housekeeping. However, in aspects related to child care/sitting/upbringing the normative model for parental duties’ split - as viewed by father school graduates - even greater resembles the traditional model than in the opinion of Phase 2 respondents.

The comparison of the assessments of the time spent with their children by men who attended father schools with the time invested by Phase 2 respondents demonstrates that the majority of father school graduates assessed their involvement into the care for their children as low. They spent on interaction with their children either the same or even less time as the men who did not attend father groups (respondents of Phase 2). Diagram 34 shows the comparison of the time invested by Phase 2 respondents (who did not participate in father groups) and by the men surveyed in Phase 3. There is a noteworthy and significant difference between the number of father-group attendees who spent over 24 hours a week on interacting with the child and the number of those who had not attended the group but still spent the same amount of time. The stark difference in the time spent is somewhat reduced if we compare father group graduates and Phase 2 respondents who had children younger than 4. Therefore, the difference in time spent by the men - who had and had not attended father schools - may be partially explained by the children’s age and by the small sample size in Phase 3. Apparently, father schools do not significantly impact the amount of time men spend on interacting with their children.

Diagram 34. Comparison of the Time Spent on Average Per Week with Their Children by Men Who Had not Attended Father Schools (Phase 2) and by Father School Attendees (Phase 3)

The comparison of the quality content (i.e., childcare practices) of the time men spent with their children shows the difference between father school attendees and non-attendees.

46

Father school attendees were asked how often they do something with or for the child:  Playing with the child;  Going for a walk;  Cooking for the child;  Bodily child care (including bathing and change of diapers); Diagrams 35 – 38 show the percentage distribution of answers about the frequency of these practices performed by responding fathers.

Diagram 35. Comparison of the Answers to the Question: How Often Do You Provide Bodily Care for Your Child (diaper change, bathing, etc.) - by Men Who Had not Attended Father Schools (Phase 2) and by Father School Attendees (Phase 3)

47

Diagram 36. Comparison of the Answers to the Question – How Often Do You Play with Your Child? - by Men Who Had not Attended Father Schools (Phase 2) and

by Father School Attendees (Phase 3)

Diagram 37. Comparison of the Answers to the Question – How Often Do You Take Your Child for a Walk? - by Men Who Had not Attended Father Schools (Phase 2) and by Father School Attendees (Phase 3)

48

Diagram 38. Comparison of the Answers to the Question – How Often Do You Cook For Your Child? - by Men Who Had not Attended Father Schools (Phase 2) and

by Father School Attendees (Phase 3)

Nearly everywhere for this set of questions the number of fathers who answered that they “always” or “almost always” deliver the relevant practices was higher (and sometimes significantly higher) than among Phase 2 respondents. The quantity of fathers who stated that they “often” carry out these practices also grew in Phase 3. At the same time Phase 3 replies showed a substantially reduced number of fathers who “never” or “rarely” performed childcare practices. Father school attendees not even once had chosen “never” answering any of the questions in the set. This ratio cannot be explained by the age of children in their families (the ratio persists even if we only analyze the men with children aged between 0 and 4 years).

The distribution of the answers to the questions about father-provided childcare practices given by father group attendees and non-attendees may indicate that father groups make a particular difference in the domain of childcare and upbringing practices delivered by fathers. We may suppose that father group sessions help to enhance the range of parental practices and to better involve men in them.

The important differences with the men who had not attended father schools were shown by father group participants in their answers to questions like, “if your child shall be taken to the doctor’s, to the kindergarten, etc., who will do it in your family?”

The question allows to assess father’s readiness to participate in child-centered 49

activities that the traditional model assigns to mothers.

Diagram 39 shows the percentage distribution of answers to the question: “If your child shall be taken to the doctor’s, to the kindergarten, etc., who will do it in your family?” Those respondents who selected the “other” answer most often meant that they would go together with the wife or ask relatives to help.

Diagram 39. Distribution of Answers to the Question: If Your Child Shall Be Taken to the Doctor’s, to the Kindergarten, etc., Who Will Do It in Your Family?

(Father Group Attendees).

The “depends on who is busier at work (me or my wife) but mostly my wife” answer proved to be the most frequent (over 61 % of responses). At the same time the “mostly my wife” answer – the most frequent option for respondents who had not attended father schools – was given only in 12 % of questionnaires. The distribution of the answers provided by father group attendees and in comparison with the nonattendees may indicate that father school participants are better equipped to cooperate with social services. It may be qualified as a positive impact of father schools (unless it is related to other external factors). Having analyzed the responses to the question and with some reservations related to the size of Phase 3 it could be stated that in general father groups successfully perform the role of a low-threshold social service that adapts men to interaction with other social services.

50

Conclusions Family is among top priorities of contemporary men. And though, as of today, the normative model of how parents share responsibilities for child care and upbringing primarily stays with the traditional view (the model where men are breadwinners and women take care of children), it includes certain characteristics that belong to a more egalitarian split of duties. Roughly 2/3 of fathers in today’s Russia are involved in childcare practices. However, their involvement is limited, rather non-uniform and relatively unstable. On the whole, men are not ready to interact with social services on child related issues and they delegate such interaction to their partners (mothers).

Father school as a gender-sensitive social service does not significantly impact either parenting values or the normative model of sharing childcare practices between the spouses. However, most men who were drawn into contact with this social service (compared to men who had not been influenced by father schools) demonstrate a more active involvement into child care practices (bodily care, cooking, going outdoors, games) and a far better readiness to cooperate with social services than the men who had not attended father groups. The gained growth of fathers’ involvement into child care practices after having attended father group sessions is relatively small (about 1015 %) but stable (was seen across all surveyed parameters).

The research of the impact of gender-sensitive services (using father groups as example) onto the transformation of parental values and practices in contemporary Russia (using St. Petersburg as example) brought the outcomes which indicated a certain limited impact of gender-sensitive social services available today (i.e., father schools) on the transformation of parental practices.

An improved access to father schools, an opportunity offered to all future fathers to attend such sessions and an active dissemination of information about father schools may further assist in a wider and more intense spread of parental practices based on gender equality.

51

List of References in Russian 1. Ангелова Е., Темкина А. Отец, участвующий в родах: гендерное партнерство или ситуативный контроль? // Новый быт в современной России: гендерные исследования повседневности. СПб, 2009. С. 473-508.

2. Антонов А.И., Медков В.М. Социология семьи. Москва, 1996.

3. Бергер П.Л., Бергер Б. Социология: биографический подход // Личностноориентированная социология. Москва, 2004 4. Вельцель К., Инглхарт Р. Модернизация, культурные изменения и демократия: Последовательность человеческого развития. Москва, 2011.

5. Вишневский А.Г. Семья в поиске // Образовательная политика. 2011. № 5 (55). С. 57-64.

6. Гидденс Э. Социология. Москва, 1999.

7. Гидденс Э. Трансформация интимности. Сексуальность, любовь и эротизм в современных обществах. СПб, 2004.

8. Григорьева И.А. Развитие социальной работы в России и возможности улучшения профессионального образования. // Социальная работа: теория, методы, практика Выпуск 3, том 3. 2013. С. 9-13.

9. Гурко Т.А. Родительство в изменяющихся социокультурных условиях // Социологические исследования. 1997. №1. С.72-79.

10.Еремин Н.Н. Папа-школа: гендерно-чувствительные формы социальной работы // Ответственное отцовство: новые формы социальной работы. СПб, 2010. С. 29-45.

11.Зеликова Ю.А. Влияние социальной политики и родительских ценностей на семейное поведение и воспитание детей: межстрановой анализ // Журнал исследований социальной политики, том 10, №3, 2012. С. 343-360.

12.Клецина И.С. От традиционного типа отцовства к вовлеченным отцам. // Ответственное отцовство: новые формы социальной работы. СПб, 2010. С.

7-28.

13.Кон И.С. Гендер и маскулинность, сыновья и отцы // Журнал социологии и социальной антропологии. 2012. Том XI. № 1, С. 48-64.

14.Концепция семейной политики в Санкт-Петербурге на 2012-2022 годы. Одобрена постановлением Правительства Санкт-Петербурга от 10.07.2012 52

№695.

15.Кравченко Ж.В. Мужчины в заботе о детях: сравнительный анализ России, Франции, Норвегии // Журнал социологии и социальной антропологии.

2012. Том XI. № 1, С. 65-85.

16.Кукулин И., Майофис М. Новое родительство и его политические аспекты // Pro et Contra. 2010. Т. 14. № 1/2. С. 6-19.

17.Литвинова С. Рецензия на книгу Лев М. Введение в социологию образования и воспитания (на нем. яз., 2003). // Социологические исследования. 2005. № 5. // http://www.isras.ru/files/File/Socis/20059/litvinova.pdf 18.Малышев А.Г. Информированность о социальных сервисах в СанктПетербурге. Проблемы и перспективы социологического анализа. // Социальная работа: теория, методы, практика Выпуск 2. 2012. С. 27-30.

19.Малышев А., Парфёнова О. Социальные сервисы как проводники трансформации родительских практик (на примере распространения папашкол в Санкт-Петербурге) // Социальные работники как проводники перемен. Москва, 2012. С. 68-88.

20.Негри А. Труд множества и ткань биополитики // http://www.polit.ru/article/2008/12/03/negri 21.Плющ И.В. Основные факторы изменения моделей рождаемости и их учет в социальной политике // Журнал социологии и социальной антропологии.

2008. Том XI. № 2, С. 136-152.

22.Пфау-Эффингер Б. Культурные перемены и семейная политика в Восточной и Западной Германии // Социологические исследования. 2003. № 10. С. 78-87.

23.Чернова Ж. В. Модель «советского отцовства»: дискурсивные предписания // Российский гендерный порядок: социологический подход. СПб, 2007. С.

138-169.

24.Семейные ценности – вне конкуренции // http://wciom.ru/index.php?id=269&uid=11410 25.Чернова Ж. В. Семейная политика в западноевропейских странах: модели отцовства // Журнал социологии и социальной антропологии. 2012. Том XI. 53

№ 1, С. 103-122.

26.Ярская-Смирнова Е.Р. Гендерно-чувствительный подход к социальной работе. // http://do.teleclinica.ru/206340

List of References in German and English 27.Beck-Gernsheim E. Was kommt nach der Familie? Alte Leitbilder und neue Lebensformen. Mьnchen, 2010.

28.Dominelli L. Anti-oppressive social work theory and practice. Basingstoke, 2002.

29.Nentwich J. Wie Mьtter und Vдter gemacht werden – Konstruktionen von Geschlecht bei der Rollenverteilung in Familien.// Zeitschrift fьr Frauenforschung & Geschlechterstudien. 2000. № 3. S. 96-121.

30.Rogers E. M. Diffusion of Innovations. Fourth edition. New-York. 1995.

54

Alexander Gennadyevich Malyshev are employed by St. Petersburg state-run budget-funded Semya (Family) Regional Center as a social scientist and the Head of the Organizational and Methodological Support to Pre-Appraisal and Appraisal of Managers and Workers of Social Service Institutions. A. G. Malyshev was the founder and starting 2010 is the Head of the City’s Methodological Association of Social Scientists Working at St. Petersburg Social Service Institutions.