Author: Mary Holmes , Flinders University

Date: April 2009

Basic Concepts & Definitions

Loving couples are usually expected to live together, but there are a variety of types of couple relationships in which partners do not share a household. Living apart together will be the term used to cover all of these non-cohabitational relationships, whether heterosexual or homosexual, married or unmarried. Living apart together couples have an ongoing self-defined couple relationship without everyday cohabiting (Levin & Trost, 1999, pp. 280-281). Some living apart together couples live nearby and others further away. Those who live further apart will be referred to as commuter couples and/or distance relationships.  Couples living apart together each have their own “home,” so this does not include young couples still living with parents. Some argue that those living apart together are different from commuter couples in giving roughly equal importance to each home. Commuter couples and distance relaters supposedly have a main household and a second apartment, which the commuter travels between (Levin, 2004). However, this distinction is not maintained here because research suggests that most commuter couples and distance relaters give each partner’s household fairly equally importance and take turns to travel between them (Gerstel & Gross, 1984; Holmes, 2004, 2006). Commuting and distance relating usually refers to partners who live apart because they have professional careers that are difficult for them to pursue within the same town. Most dual-career couples find that they need to live apart, or, at a minimum, consider the prospect of living apart together, in order to establish careers in their professions or in order to be promoted (Green, 1997; Gross, 1980). The term “distance relationship” is sometimes used to focus on the particular issues associated with pursuing an intimate couple relationship whilst living far apart (Holmes, 2004). However, “commuting” and “distance” can be used interchangeably to describe non-cohabitation across different locations.
 
Traditionally, couple relationships have involved cohabitation, apart from exceptional cases of distance relationships such as husbands going away to work at sea or in the military (e.g., Gerstel & Gross, 1984; Tunstall, 1962). The establishment of separate households very near each other shows that some families diverge from the usual expectation that couples cohabit. Some scholars have proposed that non-marital cohabitation has become institutionalised, and that this makes non-cohabitation possible (Levin & Trost, 1999). Non-cohabitation at a distance now often involves each partner having his or her own house or apartment and taking turns to travel to reunite. Historically, separation between couples most commonly involved men travelling to and from a main family home. These kinds of separations continue within the oil and mining industries, for instance, but the men tend to live in temporary or institutional accommodation while away. Their wives may work, but this work is typically subordinated to the husband’s career and expected to fit around care for the children (Beach, 1999; Gallegos, 2006; McKee, Mauthner, & Maclean, 2000). Note, however, that these commuter couple arrangements may take a different form in developing economies; for example, as reflected in women leaving their homes to market their wares or produce. Distance is also involved when women in poorer countries leave their families for domestic work in wealthier nations (Hochschild & Ehrenreich, 2003). These couple separations are similar to the traditional pattern, except that it is the women rather than the men working away (see the Encyclopedia Entry on transnational families: http://wfnetwork.bc.edu/encyclopedia_entry.php?id=6361&area=All).

Importance of the Topic to Work Family Studies

Commuter and distance relationships have come about as a result of more women working and couples having to manage two careers. These are excellent examples of some of the diverse responses to dealing with the often competing demands of workplace and home life. Much of the focus in the limited research on this issue has been on more privileged couples and tends to focus on cases in which one partner is compelled to migrate to seek work; these couples tend to conform to the absent-husband pattern mentioned above, even if it is now often women breadwinners who are away (Chandler, 1991; Golam Quddus, 1992; Hochschild & Ehrenreich, 2003). There are similarities, but couples compelled to be apart by poverty face different issues than those faced by more privileged couples. For professional couples, separation is not necessarily “chosen,” but there is a dimension of choice, as it is a way to ensure that both partners can pursue professional work that may hold considerable meaning beyond providing a livelihood (see Schvaneveldt, Young, & Schvaneveldt, 2001). For example, one distance relater commented that “you wouldn’t do it if you didn’t think it was very important that you both had a [satisfying] job” (Holmes, 2004, p. 191; see also Gerstel & Gross, 1984, pp. 45-49). 

Some of the key issues couples say are important in making their distance relationships possible are flexibility at work, accessible transportation routes, regular communication with their partner, strong mutual emotional support, and good health. Where children are involved, quality care arrangements are also important (Gerstel & Gross, 1984; Holmes, 2004, 2006). This makes it apparent that dual-residence distance relationships both arise from and create new social conditions surrounding intimate life and work. Women have gained financial independence and with it, greater autonomy. These economic and social shifts combine with technological changes such as access to, and demand for, faster transportation options or more child-care facilities.

Commuting raises questions about changes in family life as women have gained social status and taken on professional work. New forms of distance relating were noticed in the late 1970s by social scientists researching the increasing numbers of dual-career couples. The Rapoports’ 1978 collection, Working couples, contained Farris’s findings from her master’s thesis on commuting (Farris, 1978). In the same year, Kirschner and Walum (1978) discussed “two-location families” in the first volume of the journal Alternative lifestyles. Attention was on commuter marriages because only married couples living apart would have been observable before unmarried cohabitation became common (Levin, 2004). This early research found that couples typically decided to move apart if a special job or educational opportunity arose for one partner. A diversity of arrangements existed, ranging from tens of thousands of miles of distance and limited contact to much closer proximity and more frequent contact. Weekend togetherness was usual for about half the couples. Once apart, they usually encountered financial strain and struggled to maintain intimacy. Commuter couples found their situation less stressful if both partners were highly career oriented, if husbands were supportive of their wife’s strong career orientation, if they did not have children, if they had a long-established marital relationship, and if they were not too far apart geographically. Distance relationships seemed to indicate that many women were no longer prepared to be the “trailing spouse” (see Green, 1997) following their husband wherever his work dictated. More emphasis was being put on the woman’s career, even if it meant separation.

Research in this area has centrally revolved around evaluating living apart as an attempt to achieve some balance between work and family demands. Work on commuting and other dual-career couples was a key part of attempts to understand how work and family are integrally linked. This was evident in the most comprehensive sociological study of commuting couples, by Naomi Gerstel and Harriet Gross (1984). In the 1970s, Gerstel and Gross had both researched commuter marriages and combined their qualitative data to give them a sample of 121 respondents, half of whom had children. Their argument was that commuter marriages illustrate how the economic system’s demand for mobile workers clashes with traditional patterns of shared family cohabitation. Both Functionalist and Marxist arguments have proposed that the nuclear family suits capitalism’s needs, but Gerstel and Gross’s work challenges this fundamental tenet of early thinking on work and family. They propose that the demands of work and the demands of family are in conflict and that individual families are forced to find ways to juggle these competing demands. Smaller studies on commuting in the early 1990s confirm Gerstel and Gross’s findings, as does much other research on living apart together. The advantages of living apart (as expressed by couples) include a greater sense of autonomy for women and a generally fairer division of household labour. Both partners also noted increased ability to divide work from leisure time and that their time together was of higher quality. Drawbacks could include the problems of maintaining intimacy and dealing with conflict, especially without being able to touch and hug.  There was also tiredness from travelling and problems with planning for the future. Despite their drawbacks, these relationships have had some success as an attempt to deal with the conflict between work practices and family needs. The geographical mobility of those living apart, sometimes at a distance, may be part of ongoing circulations and life-course shifts rather than permanent migrations (Bell, 2001; Green, 1997; Green & Canny, 2003; Holmes, 2006). It has its problems, but living away from one’s partner is not inevitably dissatisfying (Bunker, Zubek, Vanderslice, & Rice, 1992; Gerstel & Gross, 1984; Govaerts & Dixon, 1988; Holmes, 2006; Houghton, 1993; Pollard, 1990). Such relationships are usually highly committed (Borrell & Ghazanfareeon Karlsson, 2003; Gerstel & Gross, 1984; Holmes, 2004, 2006; Levin, 2004; Roseneil, 2006). Family and relationship demands cannot necessarily be “balanced” against the powerful claims of the workplace, but living apart together can be a realistic and even sometimes rewarding way to work and love within current social constraints.

State of the Body of Knowledge

Within the social sciences, different disciplines have all had an interest in commuting and distance relationships. The psychological literature on distance relationships has focused on evaluating the satisfaction such a lifestyle brings in comparison to cohabiting relationships and usually provides advice. Some claim that commuting and distance can make work more satisfying, but relationships less so (Bunker et al., 1992); others posit that there is little difference in satisfaction between commuting and non-commuting couples and that, in some cases, distance might make relationships more satisfying (Govaerts & Dixon, 1988; Guldner, 2003; Jackson, Brown, & Patterson-Stewart, 2000). The satisfactions are usually similar to those noted in the paragraph above, but problems can arise from the individualised measures of satisfaction usually employed by psychologists. These can overlook the impact of wider inequalities on couples and oversimplify shifting interdependencies between partners. Geographers offer more consideration of the social and spatial context of such relationships and are interested in commuting as a form of geographical mobility that is used to replace migration. This shifting around has been termed circulation (Bell, 2001). Some terms can be confusing, however, as key geographical research on “commuting” initially refers simply to a longer drive to work each day (Green, 1997; Green, Hogarth, & Shackleton, 1999). There is some discussion of dual-residence distance relationships, which concentrates on the sustainability of such lifestyles. This work notes their potentially energy-greedy impacts on infrastructures providing work, transport, housing, and other services (Green & Canny, 2003).

Some of the early sociologically oriented work has been discussed above, and more recent studies have continued to examine living apart together as a work and family issue, but have also placed it within the context of new attention to the diversification of intimate life and to processes of individualisation and globalisation. Much work on forms of living apart together helps illustrate theoretical concerns with changes affecting traditional family and community bonds, and relations of care (e.g., Bauman, 2003; Giddens, 1992). These changes have arguably made long-lasting love difficult to maintain within the uncertainty of an individualistic consumer society that emphasises personal satisfaction and encourages people to dispose of partners when the relationship ceases to be “good.” However, Giddens (1992) argues that relationships have also become based more on negotiation and ideals of equality (but see Beck & Beck Gernsheim, 1995, 2002; Hochschild, 2003). Efforts are made to equally value the career of each partner (see the Encyclopedia Entry on career prioritisation in dual-career couples: http://wfnetwork.bc.edu/encyclopedia_entry.php?id=6473&area=All), but debates have evolved around whether these relationships are attempts to maintain more egalitarian gender roles and how successful such arrangements are in solving the problems of combining the demands of paid work with the needs of family life.  Gerstel and Gross (1984) focus on cost-benefit analysis, and this approach tends to emphasise financial and career concerns. One question that remains concerns issues of power and inequity in the process of making these decisions, as the outcomes can shift depending on whether the focus is on the individual worker or on the couple as an economic unit. Beyond economic considerations, the benefits (or costs) of these relationships are also not always clear, and, in many cases, distance relating can be an ambivalent experience. For instance, couples complain of isolation, disconnection, and high expectations of time together but also note the improved communication and the sense of romance that is fostered (Holmes, 2004, p. 189). Couples may choose to live apart for reasons other than work or study; for instance, to maintain autonomy, avoid conflict, or better provide care for children or elders. Some people want to avoid the complexities of blended families or spare partners the stress of providing live-in care for ageing parents (Borrell & Ghazanfareeon Karlsson, 2003; Levin, 2004; Levin & Trost, 1999). For women, and older women especially, living apart helps avoid a return to being burdened with housework. In a Swedish study, 70-year-old Anne says living apart makes it possible “to be yourself after having been married for so long and having been responsible for the home” (Ghazanfareeon Karlsson & Borrell, 2002, p. 18).

Research on commuting and distance relationships, in all their forms, can help test theories about the extent to which traditional or conventional ways of relating have become less dominant in the face of 21st-century living. Cohabitation, or at least proximity, is thought essential for intimate relationships, but distance relationships and other “life experiments” (Weeks, Heaphy, & Donovan, 2001) suggest that people are creative in making bonds with others that do not follow traditional blueprints (Budgeon & Roseneil, 2004; Weston, 1991). The development of communication technology, especially telephones, mobiles, and the Internet, have brought new possibilities for making and maintaining relationships across distance (Baldassar, Baldock, & Wilding, 2007; Holland, 2008; Wilding, 2006). There is still much to be done, however, in terms of exploring the complex relationships among individualisation, globalisation, geographical mobility, changing work and communication practices, sexual identities, and the ways in which people love and care for each other.

Implications for Research and Practice

Living apart together and commuter/distance relationships are difficult to measure quantitatively, and better information is needed on the extent of this phenomenon. Much large-scale survey research fails to portray the complex relationships among family members and couples, especially across households.  The ways information is collected on individuals and families make it difficult to capture couples living apart. Relatively recent surveys have included questions about partners in other households (Ermisch, 2000), but estimates vary depending on different definitions of living apart together. Based on Ermisch’s (2000) analysis of the British Household Panel Survey and Kiernan’s (1999) of the European Family and Fertility Survey, it appears that as many as one-third of those in Europe not married or cohabiting may be having a relationship with someone in another household. Haskey (2005) uses the Omnibus survey to estimate that around 2 million non-married people in Britain are in serious relationships that involve living apart together. However, he excludes those married couples who may cohabit and uses a survey that does not include the over 60s. Figures collected in Norway and Sweden suggest that 8-14% of those who are not married or cohabiting are in living apart together relationships. This probably constitutes up to 4% of those populations, but that may be a conservative estimate given the strict definition used. It is noted that French and German scholars suggest slightly higher figures in their own nations based on broader definitions (Levin, 2004, pp. 228-229; Levin & Trost, 1999, pp. 282-283). In these European figures, it is not known how far apart such couples live. In the United States, psychologist Gregory Guldner (2003, p. 1) has done his own research and claims that one-quarter of non-married people in the United States live in a long-distance relationship. This means that as many as 2.5 million people (not including hundreds of thousands in the armed forces) might be in some form of long-distance relationship. However, he includes relationships between college students and others that may be less serious or lasting and which are excluded by Haskey. All these figures remain tentative, and, given the snapshot aspect of most of their sources, may fail to indicate the importance that commuting plays in dual-career couples’ efforts to combine work and loving.

Various social practices may need to be reexamined in the light of information about distance and commuting relationships. There are important corrections that research into non-cohabitational and distance relationships makes to various potential misconceptions about modern living. Those who live alone when not with partners may be inflating the statistics on single-person households, and they raise questions about common portrayals of lonely singles (Holmes, 2006). There are also considerable policy issues attached to distance relating around transport, housing, and other needs. It has been noted in the United Kingdom, for example, that much mobilities research “overemphasises individualised networking,” and transport policy needs to account better for the fact that “many mobile professionals are constrained by their relationship” (Larsen, Urry, & Axhausen, 2006, p. 33). Changes in employment policies could make it easier for people to arrange their relationships around work. However, Hochschild’s research (e.g., 1997) suggests that something more radical than individual leave entitlements might be required.

Employment policies that are likely to be of most help to commuter couples are those allowing flexible work arrangements, which are beneficial to all workers. One exception is spousal hire, which is specifically designed to help couples avoid commuting (see the Encyclopedia entry on spousal supports provided by employers: http://wfnetwork.bc.edu/encyclopedia_entry.php?id=15014&area=All). This approach has been most commonly used by universities keen to attract academic “stars.” It may work, but can leave the trailing partner with colleagues who are resentful of their presence if other appointments in the department are then delayed or cancelled.  Often, spousal hire simply cannot provide the kind of job the spouse needs or requires (Ferber & Loeb, 1997, pp. 301-303). Flexible working hours and the ability to work away from the workplace can be good for all workers and are mentioned by distance relaters as helpful in making their relationships possible and bearable (Holmes, 2004, 2006). Given the current ease of communication facilitated by the Internet, email, and telecommunication, there seem few barriers to flexible working for professionals. Policies requiring employees to reside nearby should not be applied unless an employee’s presence is really required, as, say, with doctors on call. Frequent meetings that demand employees’ attendance need to be minimised and carefully timetabled. Again, technology should make alternatives possible, although they cannot entirely replace face-to-face connection. Rather than calling for better transport links, communication alternatives can be used to help create more environmentally sustainable ways of working away. No matter what the policies are, however, some couples may continue to choose not to cohabit--for work and other reasons.

Research on distance relationships and commuting couples can assist in the evaluation of the extent to which individualisation is affecting social life. Even non-cohabiting relationships seemingly based on high levels of independence may involve inequalities and interdependence. And caring bonds are maintained across large distances (Baldassar et al., 2007). This area could benefit from more engagement with migration studies and theories about globalisation. Practices of working and loving are currently heavily infused with issues of “race”/ethnicity, religion, security, home, and care. Also, the “everyday migration” that is part of distance relating can be physically and emotionally exhausting, but sometimes exciting. Emotions and bodies need acknowledging in order to appreciate how distance relationships relate to well-being. Variations in such relationships emerge around varied economic wealth, views on gender, work options and practices, and transport and communication provisions. Whether more and more people will relate at a distance depends on women’s numbers and status in the workforce and on major forces affecting labour markets such as recession and climate change. Intimacy and relationships are also being altered as new possibilities arise concerning who to love and how. Heterosexual cohabitation is not the only, nor inevitably the best, way to organise love. More quantitative data on non-cohabitational relationships would help indicate how common such relationships are, providing a richer context for more qualitative research.  Knowing more about distance relationships and living apart together can help us understand how current social conditions constrain and/or enable different social groups as they attempt to find meaningful and satisfying ways to work, love, and live.

References

Anderson, E. A., & Spruill, J. W. (1993). The dual-career commuter family: A lifestyle on the move. Marriage and Family Review, 19, 131-147.

Baldassar, L., Baldock, C., & Wilding, R. (2007). Families caring across borders: Migration, ageing and transnational caregiving. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Bauman, Z. (2003). Liquid love: On the frailty of human bonds. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Beach, R. (1999). The impact of intense work schedule on family structure: A case study of a 4:1 fly-in/fly-out schedule in the Australian mining industry. In M. Collis, L. Munro, & S. Russell (Eds.), TASA 1999 conference proceedings: Sociology for a new millennium: Challenges and prospects. Melbourne, Australia: The Australian Sociological Association and Monash University.

Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (1995). The normal chaos of love. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002). Individualization. London: Sage.

Bell, M. (2001). Understanding circulation in Australia. Journal of Population Research, 18, 1-18.

Borrell, K., & Ghazanfareeon Karlsson, S. (2003). Reconceptualizing intimacy and ageing: Living apart together. In S. Arber, K. Davidson, & J. Ginn (Eds.), Gender and ageing: Changing roles and relationships (pp. 47-62). Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.

Budgeon, S., & Roseneil, S. (2004). Editors’ introduction: Beyond the conventional family. Current Sociology, 52, 127-134.

Bunker, B. B., Zubek, J., Vanderslice, V. J., & Rice, R. W. (1992). Quality of life in dual-career families: Commuting versus single-residence couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 399-407.

Chandler, J. (1991). Women without husbands. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.

Ermisch, J. F. (2000). Personal relationships and marriage expectations: Evidence from the 1998 British Household Panel Survey. (Institute for Social and Economic Research Working Paper.) Retrieved April 1, 2009, from http://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/publications/working-papers/iser/2000-27.

Farris, A. (1978). Commuting. In R. Rapoport & R. N. Rapoport (Eds.), Working couples (pp. 100-107). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Ferber, M. A., & Loeb. J. W. (1997). Findings and conclusions. In M. A. Ferber & J. W. Loeb (Eds.). Academic couples: Problems and promises (pp. 299-308). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Gallegos, D. (2006). “Aeroplanes always come back”: Fly-in fly-out employment: Managing the parent transitions. Perth, Australia: Centre for Social and Community Research: Murdoch University/Ngala. Retrieved March 29, 2009, from http://www.cscr.murdoch.edu.au/aeroplanes_always_come_back_report.pdf

Gerstel, N., & Gross, H. (1984). Commuter marriage. New York: Guilford Press.

Ghazanfareeon Karlsson, S., & Borrell, K. (2002). Intimacy and autonomy, gender and ageing: Living apart together. Ageing International, 27, 11-26.

Giddens, A. (1992). The transformation of intimacy: Sexuality, love and eroticism in modern societies. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Golam Quddus, A. H. (1992). The adjustment of couples who live apart: The case of Bangladesh. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 23, 285-294.

Govaerts, K., & Dixon, D. N. (1988) Until careers do us part: Vocational and marital satisfaction in the dual-career commuter marriage. International Journal for the Advancement of Counseling, 11, 265-281.

Green, A. E. (1997). A question of compromise? Case study evidence on the location and mobility strategies of dual career households. Regional Studies, 31, 641-657.

Green, A. E., & Canny, F. (2003). Geographical mobility: Family impacts. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.

Green, A. E., Hogarth, T., & Shackleton, R. E. (1999). Longer distance commuting as a substitute for migration in Britain: A review of trends, issues and implications. International Journal of Population Geography, 5, 49-67.

Gross, H. (1980). Dual-career couples who live apart: Two types. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 567-576.

Guldner, G. T. (2003). Long distance relationships: The complete guide. Corona, CA: J. F. Milne Publications.

Haskey, J. (2005). Living arrangements in contemporary Britain: Having a partner who usually lives elsewhere and Living Apart Together (LAT). Population Trends, 122, 35-45.

Hochschild, A. (1997). The time bind: When work becomes home and home becomes work. New York: Metropolitan Books.

Hochschild, A. (2003). The commercialization of intimate life: notes from home and work. Berkeley, CA, University of California Press.

Hochschild, A. R., & Ehrenreich, B. (Eds.) (2003). Global woman: Nannies, maids, and sex workers in the new economy. London: Granta.

Holland, S. (Ed.). (2008). Remote relationships in a small world. New York: Peter Lang.

Holmes, M. (2006). Love lives at a distance: Distance relationships over the lifecourse. Sociological Research Online, 11(3). Retrieved from http://www.socresonline.org.uk/11/3/holmes.html

Holmes, M. (2004). An equal distance? Individualisation, gender and intimacy in distance relationships. Sociological Review, 52, 180-200.

Houghton, D. S. (1993). Long distance commuting: A new approach to mining in Western Australia. Geographical Journal, 159, 281-290.

Jackson, A. P., Brown, R. P., & Patterson-Stewart, K. E. (2000). African Americans in dual-career commuter marriages: An investigation of their experiences. Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 8, 22-36.

Kiernan, K. (1999). Cohabitation in Western Europe. Population Trends, 96, 25 - 32.

Kirschner, B. F., & Walum, L. R. (1978). Two-location families: Married singles. Alternative Lifestyles, 1, 513-525.

Larsen, J., Urry, J., & Axhausen, K. (2006) Social networks and future mobilities. (Report to the UK Department for Transport. Lancaster, UK and Zurich, Switzerland: Lancaster University Sociology Department, Institute for Transport Planning and Systems, and Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.) Retrieved from https://www.ivt.ethz.ch/vpl/publications/reports/index/edit/ab330.pdf

Lasch, C. (1977). Haven in a heartless world: The family besieged. New York: Basic Books.

Levin, I. (2004). Living apart together: A new family form. Current Sociology, 52, 223-240.

Levin, I., & Trost, J. (1999). Living apart together. Community, Work and Family, 2, 279-293.

McKee, L., Mauthner, N., & Maclean, C. (2000). “Family friendly” policies and practices in the oil and gas industry: Employers’ perspectives. Work, Employment and Society, 14, 557-571.

Pollard, L. (1990). Fly-in, fly-out: Social implications for remote resource development in Western Australia. Perth, WA: Social Impact Unit, Department of State Development.

Rapoport, R., & Rapoport, R. N. (Eds.) (1978). Working couples. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Roseneil,  S. (2006). On not living with a partner: Unpicking coupledom and cohabitation. Sociological Research Online, 11(3). Retrieved from http://www.socresonline.org.uk/11/3/roseneil.html

Schvaneveldt, P. L., Young, M. H., & Schvaneveldt, J. D. (2001). Dual-resident marriages in Thailand: A comparison of two cultural groups of women. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 32, 347-360.

Tunstall, J. (1962). The fishermen. London: MacGibbon and Kee.

Weeks, J., Heaphy, B., & Donovan, C. (2001). Same sex intimacies: Families of choice and other life experiments. London: Routledge.

Weston, K. (1991). Families we choose: Lesbians, gays, kinship. New York: Columbia University Press.

Wilding, R. (2006) “Virtual” intimacies? Families communicating across transnational contexts. Global Networks, 6, 125-142.

Locations in the Matrix of Information Domains of the Work-Family Area of Studies

The Editorial Board of the Teaching Resources section of the Sloan Work and Family Research Network has prepared a Matrix as a way to locate important work-family topics in the broad area of work-family studies. (More about the Matrix...)

Note: The domain areas most closely related to the entry's topic are presented in full color. Other domains, represented in gray, are provided for context.

---