It’s sometimes argued that “a woman’s place is in the home” - but now new research seems to back this up. However, according to two ESRC-funded researchers, the results may not be all they seem.

The Families, Children and Child Care (FCCC) study which was carried out by researchers from the Universities of London and Oxford followed 1200 children from birth until they entered school. Their findings showed that children who were looked after by their mothers developed better socially and emotionally. Those who had nannies or were looked after by childminders came second, while children in nurseries did worst, followed by those cared for by relatives or friends.

Perhaps inevitably, the findings have been seized on by those who believe that women should be full-time mothers, as further evidence in support of their case. However, one of the research team, Professor Penelope Leach from the University of London, argues that the study should not be interpreted in this way. In fact, she says, the research shows that children whose mothers were depressed, or who had other priorities within the family, actually did better with childminders or in nurseries.

...children whose mothers were depressed, or who had other priorities within the family, actually did better with childminders or in nurseries.
Dr Carol Vincent, from the University of London’s Institute of Education last year completed an ESRC-funded research project which investigated child care provision for middle class families in two areas of London. She is currently working on another ESRC-funded project which examines the provision for working class families in the same areas. Although Dr Vincent says she personally has reservations about mothers rushing back to work, especially if they are in low paid jobs, she says she and her team were surprised at the level of positive response, among the poorer mothers, to work. She says, “Income apart, work was very important to women in terms of maintaining social relationships and establishing a life for themselves independent of their children. Some even said it made them better parents”.

One other controversial finding of the FCCC study, which Professor Leach says she herself found ‘staggering’, was the high proportion of mothers who did not bother to take up references for potential carers. However, Professor Rosalind Edwards, from the ESRC’s Family and Social Capital Research Group at London’s South Bank University, says this is probably because most parents prefer to rely on “word of mouth” recommendations. “The priority for parents in selecting appropriate child care is finding someone whom they feel they can trust and who share the family’s values”, she says, and she argues that it is this, rather than economics, that motivates parents to make their childcare arrangements, where possible, within the family. None of the middle class women in Dr Vincent’s study had parents or grandparents living nearby, so care within the family was not an option. However, among these women too, “word of mouth” recommendation was a key factor in selecting childcare.

The FCCC study also showed that a large proportion of women left making childcare arrangements till the last minute - but is this typical? Dr Vincent thinks not, and says of the middle class women she surveyed that “a lot of them did a great deal of research in advance. Some even looked at OFSTED reports!”

However, both Dr Vincent and Professor Edwards agree with Penelope Leach that the real issue arising from the FCCC study is not whether women should be full-time mothers, but that there has to be more high-quality childcare provision outside the home. The most important consideration, argues Professor Leach, has to be finding the most appropriate forms of childcare, not “what government thinks it can afford”.

Whatever long-term impact the FCCC research has, it is bound to provoke further debate at a time when the Government plans to introduce ‘wraparound’ care for all children up to the age of 14.

Economic & Social Research Council