A problem facing scholars in the field of family studies is that of explaining the minimal change in patterns of the domestic division of labour, in the context of considerable change in the gender order of the wider society. Investigators have tackled various aspects of this problem. The present paper reports findings of a study which takes a new approach. This assumes that a more complete understanding of this area of family living requires taking into account the meanings individuals give to their involvement in this work. The theoretical and methodological frameworks of humanistic sociology permit such a focus (Thomas and Znaniecki, 1927; Smolicz & Secombe, 1981). This perspective also incorporates a theory of culture, in which ideology is accorded major importance.

A purpose of the study was to ascertain how participants' understood, or made sense of, their household work involvement; as well as how these meanings related to their actual performance of this. Fifty-five mature-age tertiary students participated, the large majority of whom were employed, as were their partners (other-gender). Data were obtained by means of a questionnaire.

Three differing work arrangements were identified in respondents' households. From their comments and explanations concerning these, six different variations of meanings were distinguished. These revealed varying impacts upon these individuals' lives of two competing cultural influences: (new) egalitarian values which support partners sharing this work, and (traditional) ideological values which prescribe gender divisions here (breadwinner/ homemaker norm). The latter guided unpaid work involvement and interpretations of this, to varying degrees, in almost two-thirds of respondents' households. They constituted a major barrier to many achieving gender equality in this area. Egalitarian values were more likely to influence the unpaid work performance of young, childless couples.

Married women's large-scale entry into paid employment has been identified as the most important of several major social changes affecting Australian society in recent times (Mackay, 1993). Yet despite its profound impact on family life, little appears to have changed with respect to the domestic division of labour by gender (Baxter, 1988; Baxter, Gibson and Lynch-Blosse, 1990; Edgar and Glezer, 1992; Bittman, 1992, 1995; Baxter and Bittman, 1995). Recent (national) research disclosed that over the past 20 years, the most important change to have occurred is not that of men increasing their participation; but of women reducing the time spent on some tasks. Women are also spending more time doing certain activities traditionally done by men. The only area in which men increased their activity over the period surveyed is that of childcare (Bittman, 1995), which women have also done. The situation applying in many family households, then, is of women continuing to do the bulk of unpaid work, irrespective of the amount of time they or a male partner spend in paid employment.

Numerous explanations have been put forward for these continuing inequities. Goode (1982), for example, argued that women's greater involvement in domestic work is because of men's resistance to increase their participation; whereas Bryson (1983) interpreted this as women's desire to retain some degree of autonomy. Finch (1980) suggested that the gender division of labour is maintained because it allows readily available and conventionally acceptable identities (cited Goodnow, 1989). Other writers - Edgar and Glezer (1992) for example - have identified insufficient structural support for change as an important factor. Those authors cited the example of workplace settings. Many of these are so rigid and 'family-unfriendly', they claimed, that some women and men have little choice other than to give primary responsibility to traditional areas of home/family care and breadwinning, respectively.

A characteristic of most previous research on household work has been a tendency to have as its primary focus either activities (i.e. specific tasks/time spent doing these - for example Bittman, 1992, 1995) or individuals' generalised attitudes toward the performance of this work (i.e. not specifically related to their actual involvement/life situations - for example Vandenheuvel, 1991). From the theoretical approach adopted in the present study- humanistic sociology- such an either/or orientation can permit only limited understanding of the phenomenon being studied (Thomas & Znaniecki, 1927; Smolicz & Secombe, 1981). A fuller comprehension, it is argued, requires a focus on individuals' attitudes and actions - in their combination - and as these are experienced by them in their everyday life situations .

Numerous scholars have pointed to the part played by ideology in sustaining gender inequities in unpaid work (Bryson, 1984; Gittins, 1985; Baxter et al., 1990; Edgar, 1991; Edgar and Glezer, 1992). Of those taking this perspective, it would appear that most provide little, if any, indication of what they take ideology to mean; nor do they indicate how 'it' may come to influence people's behaviour (Gittins, 1985, p.156). An advantage of a humanistic approach to this area of enquiry is its incorporation of a theory of culture in which ideology is accorded major emphasis (Thomas and Znaniecki, 1927; Smolicz, 1979; Russell, 1995). A brief overview of this follows.

Humanistic sociology - theory of culture

Thomas and Znaniecki conceptualized culture as residing in those uniformities and similarities which are found in the activities, thinking and associated emotional responses of a given group of people. Over generations, these common meanings - termed 'values' - have become organized into (interconnected) systems of meanings which cover the various domains of a group's life - economic, language, family, religious, political, ideological, and so on. The ideological system is conceived of as the most vital element of culture. Included in this are values which correspond to group rules (norms) which all members should adhere to, and which frequently come to be incorporated in mainstream social institutions. Values from this system are seen to play crucial coordinating and evaluating functions with respect to all other value systems and cultural items. They are also closely linked to group and individual identity.The ideological values of particular relevance to the current study are those corresponding to the traditional breadwinning/homemaking norm (see Russell's [1995] argument for the ideological status of these values in Australian society).

Individuals learn their group's meanings in the process of growing up in society, and through participation in social life. Factors like race, ethnicity, class, gender, family, age, education and so on, influence the nature of the values people have access to; and hence their constructs of reality and identity - a vital component of which is gender. From these cultural raw materials also, each person develops guidelines for conducting and making sense of their life in the various social domains. Influencing such activities additionally, are an individual's unique personal characteristics (personality, needs, desires and so on). At the level of individual analysis, the counterparts of cultural values are termed 'attitudes'.

Group values and individuals' attitudes are conceptualized as being in a state of dynamic equilibrium. It is the interpenetration of these phenomena which is responsible for the dynamism of culture. Moreover, this also provides a mechanism whereby new attitudes developing in individuals can be incorporated into a group's system of values (see Russell [1995] for a discussion on Thomas and Znaniecki's theories of social change, including the application of these to the emergence of new gender equity values in Australia from the mid-1960s).

Importance of meaning

A vital and distinctive feature of humanistic sociology is the major emphasis accorded to meaning. It is the meanings, 'the suggestions which objects have for [conscious individuals] ... which determine [their] behavior' (Thomas and Znaniecki, 1927, p.1849). Such an emphasis is receiving increasing support in recent years. In addition to philosophers (see for example Birch, 1990), cognitive psychologists also are arguing for such significance. The desire of individuals to understand - to be able to make sense of, to explain - their experience is seen to constitute a primary motivating force for individuals. It is also viewed as being linked to their capacity to control their environment (Saks and Krupat, 1988, p.61). Some writers even assert that people have an 'innate concern' to find meaning for the events and activities which happen in their everyday lives (Millikan, 1990, p.4).

The relevance of meaning to understanding prevailing patterns of the domestic division of labour, is a basic premise of this article. It presents selected findings from a larger study which included an investigation of the meanings a group of individuals ascribed to the division of domestic work/childcare they perceived as prevailing in their households (Russell, 1995). The way they made sense of, or accounted for, their own and their partner's involvement is seen as having important implications for the particular behaviour in which they engaged. Consequently, information gained may shed light on factors associated with the persistent character of gender-divided family work patterns; as well as the circumstances and conditions under which these may change.

METHOD

Methodology of humanistic sociology

The methodology of humanistic sociology is a natural out-growth of the theory. Given the emphasis on meaning, it follows that humanistic studies must ascertain not only what people do in the situations being investigated but also what these activities mean to them: what their thoughts, feelings, opinions, assessments, aspirations and so on are regarding these. Hence, the methodology used always provides opportunities for participants to reveal information concerning aspects of their actual life experiences: 'to tell their own stories'. Interviews and questionnaires, allowing for such disclosure, are frequently used in humanistic research; as are personal documents - life-histories, letters, memoirs and autobiographies, for example. The present study utilised a questionnaire.

The Questionnaire

The questionnaire was divided into three areas. Part A asked about participants' personal and social background (including gender, age, educational level, own and partner's occupation and hours/week worked). In Part B details were sought concerning the frequency, relative to partner, with which participants engaged in a range of domestic and child care tasks, and their feelings about this. Part C aimed to elicit comments regarding their explanations for and evaluations of the particular division of work in their households; including what they felt and thought about this as well as how it was justified by them.

Participants

Copies of the questionnaire and an accompanying letter which explained some details of the research were sent to all students enrolled in postgraduate counselling courses at the South Australian Institute of Technology (since reconstituted as the University of South Australia). Three weeks were given for the questionnaire's completion. Because a major focus of the study was the gender division of household work, criteria for inclusion were that individuals be residing in a common dwelling, and sharing living arrangements with an adult person of the other gender to which they identified. Fifty-five completed questionnaires satisfied these criteria - 44 from women and 11 from men. While this gender imbalance was/is regrettable, at the time the data were collected (October 1988) this ratio of women to men closely approximated that of the courses for which participants were enrolled (259 women, 59 men - 4:1).

Concerning their ages, more than two-thirds of participants were in the category 31-45 years, with just under one-quarter being between 21-30 years. Three-quarters had spent all, or most, of their childhood in Australia; and one-fifth in countries which could be said to be culturally-similar - i.e. Britain, Canada and New Zealand. Two respondents had spent most of their lives in Malaysia. All but three respondents (95%) were employed and for the large majority this was full-time (35 hours or more per week). Two-thirds worked in the education and health fields. The partners of 90 percent of these individuals also were employed - again, mostly full-time. Two-fifths of respondents had children, their ages ranging from young infants to adults.

It will be apparent from the above information that participants are not representative of the general population (nor, indeed, are they typical of most tertiary students). Findings from the study, therefore, cannot be extrapolated to the population, overall. However, from the theoretical stance adopted in the study, information obtained concerning participants' and their experiences may be taken as contributing to an understanding of the situations of some groups in the wider society.

Identification of individuals' attitudes

As noted above, a humanistic investigation requires that the researcher gain access to individuals' attitudes, or mental states. In the present study, participants' comments and feelings about the performance of unpaid work in their households, including their explanations or justifications for inequities here, were sources of attitudinal data. The term 'empathy' is often used as a label for the activity engaged in by an investigator, here. The intention is to make an interpretation of what a given situation actually means to the person experiencing it - emotionally and/or cognitively and/or in some kind of evaluative sense.

The above process requires that everything known about a person which could be expected to influence their perceptions of the phenomenon being studied, be taken into account in arriving at such interpretation. Moreover, in engaging in this task, investigators necessarily draw upon their own life experience - for example, the culture by which they have been influenced; their knowledge of their social milieu and of specific individuals; as well as their own understanding of life, themselves and human beings in general (Thomas and Znaniecki, 1927, in Bierstedt, 1969, p.67).

Attitudes identified in these ways are then subjected to what Znaniecki termed 'theoretic standardisation' (Znaniecki, 1939, pp.799-811). In the present study, the standard used was the male breadwinner/female homemaker norm - conceptualized here as constituting ideological values in Australian society. In terms of the study's identified aims, each relevant action, non-action, statement or comment from a participant was examined to identify its relationship to these values (see Smolicz, 1979, pp.23-6 for further discussion here; also Russell, 1995, pp.167-172). An example follows.

Example of analysis

Respondent F20 is a woman. She spent her childhood in New Zealand. She and her de facto partner have been in their current living situation for under five years. She works 40 hours and he between 40-50 hours per week. Her university course involves her in a study commitment of 8-10 hours per week. There are no children. Although they do not engage hired home-help, a person is contracted to mow the lawns.

This participant is more involved than her partner in all areas of household work examined. Her comments concerning this include that she is '... comfortable with our set-up'. She accounts for the inequitable division of work in the household by indicating that she is 'more skilled' at such activities than her partner; additionally she sees him as having 'greater demands [with respect to] his [paid] work role' than does she. Such comments, when examined in the light of the above information concerning this woman's situation, are interpreted as evidence for her ascribing meanings to both paid and unpaid work which are in conformity with the traditional norm. As such they are seen to be indicative of her being guided in both her thinking and actions in this life area, by her (predominantly) traditional ideological attitudes.

The latter is to suggest that this woman continues to be influenced predominantly by the traditional ideology in constructing her view of reality, as well as her guidelines for conducting and making sense of her life in this area. Her understandings here (attitudes) are consistent with the traditional work patterns characterising her household, and their strength is presently such that she cannot see any relevance of (new) egalitarian values to her situation (comments she makes elsewhere reveal some awareness of these). (Further article in progress.)

RESULTS

Household work performance

Findings concerning household work performance are similar to those reported in the literature reviewed earlier, although there is some suggestion of slightly greater male involvement in domestic tasks among participants in the current study (see for comparison Edgar and Glezer, 1992; Bittman, 1992, 1995). With regard involvement in specific tasks, most respondents revealed distinct divisions along gender lines to be operating in their households. For example, women were about twice as likely as their partners to frequently perform cleaning tasks (e.g., bathroom and toilet, sweeping and vacuuming floors, dusting furniture). Women also engaged more often in work associated with the care of young children - bathing, feeding, getting up to child at night, for example. Men, on the other hand, were much more likely than their partners to perform general household maintenance, repair the car and mow the lawn.

Respondents' involvement in the home was also examined with respect to each of three broad categories of family work: domestic work, home management and child care. It can be seen from Table 1 that the most marked gender difference here was in the area of child care, with traditional patterns being reported by 68 percent of respondents with children. In the area of domestic tasks, women had greater involvement than men in 58 percent of participants' households. Greatest equity was found in the area of home management, with just over half of respondents indicating a partner's equal involvement here. Participants not having traditional arrangements were more likely to report equal contribution by partners, for each of the work categories, rather than men being more involved.

Table 1: Respondents' household work arrangements: child care, domestic tasks, home management

Household work arrangements	Area of work
	Child care    (N=22)	Domestic tasks (N=55)	Home management (N=55)
Predominantly Traditional	15 (68%)	32 (58%)	26 (47%)
Predominantly New	7 (32%)	23 (42%)	29 (53%)
Total	N=22 (100%)	N=55 (100%)	N=55 (100%)

Examination of respondents' level of involvement relative to partner across the three identified categories, permitted some indication of their overall orientation in relation to family work; in particular, to what extent their household was characterised by gender - divided or shared arrangements, or a combination of both. It was found that over one-third of participants sustained traditional work patterns across all work areas relevant to their situation. The same fraction indicated they had equitable work arrangements. Just over one-quarter reported having traditional arrangements in one or more area/s of work and shared involvement in other/s.

Attitudes to household work arrangements

Participants' attitudes to their level of involvement in this work (as ascertained through analysis of comments they provided) disclosed that the meanings they gave to this work were influenced to varying degrees by traditional ideological and new egalitarian values. It was possible here, to differentiate six variations of meanings, or patterns of cultural activation. These were labelled Types 1-6 (see Table 2). Of these, three different types were identified among that group of participants reporting (identical) traditional work arrangements (36 percent).

Table 2: Meanings of household work

Work Arrangements	Type	Meanings	Values Influence
Gender-divided (N=20, 36%)	1	Accept/content with (N=6, 11%)	Predominantly traditional/ ideological
	2	Accept for some work area/s, reject/dissatisfied with in other/s (N=9, 16%)
	3	Reject/very unhappy with (N=5, 9%)	Varying degrees of influence- ideological and egalitarian.
Gender-divided in some work area/s, shared equally in other/s (N=15, 27%)	4	Pleased with shared arrangements, accept/'fine' with inequalities (N=10, 18%)	(Direction of arrow indicates increasing evidence of latter)
	5	Pleased with shared, varying degrees of discontent with inequalities (N=5, 9%)
Shared equally (N=20, 37%)	6	Very happy/satisfied with (N=20, 37%)	Predominantly new/egalitarian

Type 1: Almost one-third of those participants maintaining gendered family work patterns disclosed their satisfaction with/acceptance of these. This is seen here as evidence for their according traditional meanings to this work. It suggests a predominant influence of (traditional) ideological values on their constructs of reality and their guidelines for leading and giving meaning to their life in this area. Further, since their attitudes are consistent with their actions, humanistic theory (like cognitive dissonance theory - Festinger, 1957) would predict that these individuals are unlikely to change their behaviour in the immediate short term.

Type 2: Just under half of participants having traditional patterns in all work areas relevant to their households, revealed evidence for holding both the seemingly-conflicting identified attitudes, the particular attitude depending on the area of work considered. Expressed acceptance or satisfaction about the gender imbalance of work involvement was taken as evidence for traditional attitudes (e.g., 'Fine. I was doing this [home management] long before he arrived'; and from a male participant, '... she is more comfortable with the tasks'). Dissatisfaction about work inequities was interpreted as indicating the presence of egalitarian attitudes (e.g., 'Makes me sad/angry/worried/annoyed - depends on situation' - one woman's comment regarding child care inequity; and 'I feel a little guilty' - a man's feeling about his lesser involvement in domestic tasks). Thus, whereas Type 2 respondents maintained traditional work patterns, there is evidence for the meanings they give to this being influenced by both ideological and egalitarian values, depending upon the particular category of work being considered.

Type 3: One-quarter of those participants reporting gender-divided work arrangements had developed egalitarian attitudes with regard to the performance of this - i.e. they had evolved new meanings for understanding this life area but their activities continued to be in conformity with the traditional norm: their attitudes were inconsistent with their actions. This is a most uncomfortable state for people to be in. Important in the identification of attitudes were the negative feelings they expressed about their household work inequalities (all were women) - for example: 'resentful'; 'frustrated'; 'annoyed'; 'disappointed'; 'pissed off'. For a range of reasons (see below) these women were prevented from activating their new attitudes.

Types 4 and 5: These respondents (just over one-quarter of the total) sustained traditional patterns of work in at least one of the areas examined, and equitable arrangements in other/s. As might be expected, their comments revealed attitudinal evidence for the influence of both value types on the meanings they accorded to this work.

However, among these individuals, differences were apparent in terms of their acceptance or not, of the gender divisions which did continue to prevail. Two-thirds indicated satisfaction with these (Type 4). For example, in relation to their greater involvement in domestic tasks, two women commented as follows: 'Why not? He shoulders responsibilities I prefer not to'; and 'He has certain chores which are his responsibilities'. These participants thus seemed willing to accept continuing gender inequality in family work, provided some aspect of this was seen by them to be shared equally with their partner.

The above was in contrast to the perceptions of those respondents who, while valuing equal participation with a partner in certain work, revealed from their comments that they felt a degree of discontent with continuing inequities (Type 5). Such expressions were interpreted as indicating greater evidence of new attitudes than Type 4, but which were not being activated - i.e. not translated into actions congruent with these. A male participant, for example, indicated feeling 'guilty' about his lesser involvement in domestic tasks; while a woman stated: 'I guess I've become resigned to it, but I won't totally give up the struggle for equal involvement'.

Group 6: These participants, who constituted a little over one-third of the total, shared equally the household work with their partners. The analysis of their comments revealed that the meanings they gave to this work - the understandings they had constructed for it - had been influenced predominantly by egalitarian values. These individuals had thus evolved new ways of organizing and making sense of family life in this area. Their responses frequently were suggestive of the conscious effort and time they had put into achieving equity here (e.g., 'I feel quite satisfied now, but it has taken time to become equally involved'). Some referred to earlier difficulties they had had in reducing their involvement in family work; as well as the need (often) to assist a partner to learn a task (e.g., 'I [now] will not do the task. I will take time to explain, supervise, reinforce the action').

The comments of this group were notable for their very positive tone, and suggested that these individuals experienced a good deal of satisfaction from having arrived at household work arrangements which were gender-equitable. 'Happy'; 'Great'; 'Good'; 'Content'; and 'Excellent' were among words used by them to describe their feelings about their household work arrangements. These individuals were more likely to be from younger age categories, and to be childless.

Barriers to activating new attitudes

As noted above, there were some in the study who sustained traditional work patterns but who had developed egalitarian attitudes. It was possible from the analysis of their comments and explanations, to identify certain factors they perceived as preventing them from achieving equity in unpaid work performance. However, even among these individuals, variations existed in terms of their capacity to comprehend the wider circumstances affecting their life situations here, and particularly the part played by cultural ideology in constraining their options and choices.

Some women saw a male partner's unwillingness to increase his involvement as an important reason in their household for the work imbalance; while others identified his job responsibilities as preventing a greater contribution from him. Their own superior skills in family work, coupled with the time pressures often facing two-income families with children, were seen by some women as influencing their 'choice' to continue doing certain tasks and so 'avoid the hassle' of involving an often less-skilled male partner. Other women identified their own 'higher standards' for this work as a reason for not seeking a male's greater involvement (e.g., 'He does the ironing, but leaves my clothes at my request'). Some admitted a reluctance to surrender certain tasks which they liked doing/found fulfilling.

A further feature of some women's comments which should be noted, was their unquestioned acceptance of a male partner's 'right' to certain leisure time and privileges - and often not enjoyed by them. For example, among reasons apparently accepted by some women as 'legitimate' explanations for a male partner's lesser involvement in unpaid work, were the following: 'laziness and enjoyment in the garden'; his choice 'to watch a program on TV'; or just being 'tired and lazy'. A male partner's hobbies, football and church commitments were among other reasons accepted by some women for his lesser involvement than they in the home. No similar comments were made by men. There were two instances of male respondents providing explanations for a partner's lesser participation in family work. One reported this as being because of his more flexible work (he was a clergyman, she a health professional); and the other perceived this as being the result of his partner's 'spoilt background [and being] slack'.

DISCUSSION

Findings from the study suggest that traditional breadwinner/homemaker ideological values continue to exert a strong influence on the lives of most participants. Two-thirds reveal this in the gender-divided division of labour which they sustain in at least one of the areas of work examined. The continuing power of this norm on people's lives is also confirmed in the nature of the meanings these same individuals ascribe to unpaid work, and is especially apparent in the ways some account for inequities here. Such explanations frequently draw upon ideological prescriptions for conducting and understanding activities in this area of family life.

The comments of most participants also are indicative - and again to varying degrees - of the influence of new equity values which have been emerging in this society over recent decades. In the case of participants classified as Type 4, for example, it may be seen how, in the context of recent social changes, they are organizing their activities and evolving meanings for these which constitute modifications to the traditional ideology. Thus, their meanings here incorporate an acceptance of some involvement on the part of men here, albeit not to the same extent as women. Type 5 individuals, however, while being positive about achieving a better balance in the performance of this work, appear not to accept so easily the gender inequities which persist in their households. The latter is interpreted as revealing the greater strength of these individuals' new attitudes.

Influential also with respect to gender divisions of family labour in respondents' lives, as indicated above, were those ideological values which support the greater importance of men's paid work, relative to women's; as well as the subordinate status of women, in comparison to men, in this society. In relation to the latter, some women appear to accept unquestioningly a male partner's paid work responsibilities as being greater than theirs - even where objective evidence does not support this (so far as this could be ascertained from a comparison of positions held, hours worked and salary). In terms of the status differential referred to and the performance of unpaid labour, some women view time spent by male partners in leisure/interest pursuits as satisfactory justifications for their lesser contribution to this work. The fact of themselves spending equal (or more) time in paid employment, in addition to doing the bulk of family work (and consequently perhaps not even having the time available for such 'luxuries'), appears not to arise as an issue for consideration by them here.

Such blindness to contradictions and matters in conflict with their group's ideology is a distinguishing characteristics of that phenomenon, at the level of individuals' experience (Thomas and Znaniecki, 1927; Smolicz, 1979; Morgan, 1985). Examples from the area examined here serve to highlight the pervasive character and continuing strength of those ideological values of interest. Such values, the study discloses, exert considerable influence on the meanings people attribute to family work. And these meanings, it is being claimed, exert a crucial impact on the behaviours individuals engage in.

Evidence of some people successfully challenging the traditional ideology is found among respondents categorised as Type 6 (37 percent). These tend to be younger than most in the study, as well as being childless (90 percent do not have children living in their households). However, the capacity of these individuals to sustain their equitable work arrangements may be brought in to question. Research has identified a tendency for couples, irrespective of either partner's employment status and where equitable work arrangements had previously been established, to resume gender-divided work arrangements with the advent of a child to a household (Belsky, Lang and Huston, 1986; Ruble, Fleming, Hackel and Stangor; Croghan, 1991). Such findings again point to the entrenched and pervasive character of the ideology we are concerned with - in this instance, raising issues related to notions of motherhood in this society (see Basow, 1992, pp.234-9 for a discussion). Obviously more research is called for in this area.

CONCLUSION

In identifying the meanings participants give to unpaid labour in their households, the study has contributed to a fuller comprehension of this complex area of family life. Such an understanding is not possible to achieve where the performance of this work is the primary (or exclusive) focus of investigations - which has been the case for much research in this area. These studies consistently report minimal alterations to traditional patterns of unpaid labour. However, it is suggested here that in neglecting the meanings individuals give to this work, certain important changes which are actually occurring may be obscured from view.

In relation to the latter, the particular interest here is with those ongoing cognitive-emotional activities - the 'work' (Wadel, 1979) - required of individuals in order to maintain or modify their constructions of reality, including being able to make sense of their conduct and life experiences. In the area investigated here, such tasks presently are posing extra demands on individuals. This is because of the nature of changes occurring in this society over recent decades; and in particular, the challenges some of these represent to gendered ideological notions of paid and unpaid labour (see also Edgar, 1991).

In the area of unpaid household work, the meanings this study's participants are attributing to this suggest that prevailing ideological values corresponding to this norm continue to be influential in their lives. There is some suggestion that these are being modified by some individuals, rather than challenged. The large majority of those who could be said to have evolved new, egalitarian meanings consistent with their gender-equitable work arrangements are childless. Research suggests that these individuals may be unable to sustain these. These studies report that the advent of children is often associated with the resumption to traditional patterns in both child care and domestic work - even in cases where equitable arrangements in the latter had previously been established by a couple.

It is suggested that the continuing power of the traditional ideology on the meanings many people ascribe to unpaid and paid work may be importantly related to the persistence of patterns of the domestic division of labour in families. Several articles are in progress which examine more closely these meanings, as well as the nature of cognitive activities which may be involved here.

REFERENCES

Basow, S. (1992). Gender: Stereotypes and Roles (3rd ed) Belmont, California: Brooks/Cole.

Baxter, J. & Bittman, M. (1995). Measuring time spent on housework. Australian Journal of Social Research, 1, 21-46.

Baxter, J. (1988). The Sexual Division of Labour in Australian Families. Australian Journal of Sex, Marriage and the Family, 9, 2, 87-93.

Baxter, J., Gibson, D. & Lynch-Blosse, M. (1990). Double Take: The links between paid and unpaid work.Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Belsky, J., Lang, M. & Huston, T.L. (1986). Sex typing and division of labour as determinants of marital change across the transition to parenthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 517-22.

Bierstedt, R. (Ed.), (1969). On humanistic sociology. Chicago, USA: University of Chicago Press.

Birch, C. (1990). On purpose: A new way of thinking for the new millenium. Kensington, New South Wales: New South Wales University Press.

Bittman, M. (1992). Juggling Time: How Australian Families Use Time. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Bittman, M. (1995). Changes at the Heart of Family Households - Family responsibilities in Australia 1974-1992. Family Matters, 40, 10-15. Melbourne: AIFS.

Boulding, E. (1996). Examiner's comments - unpublished doctoral thesis - G. Russell (1995) (op.cit.).

Bryson, L. (1983). Thirty Years of Research on the Division of Labour in Australian Families. Australian Journal of Sex, Marriage and Family, 4, 125-32

Bryson, L. (1984). The Australian Patriarchal Family. In S. Encel, M. Berry, L. Bryson, M. deLepervanche, T. Rowse & A. Moran (Eds.), Australian Society: Introductory Essays. Australia: Longman Chesire.

Croghan, R. (1991). First-time mothers' accounts of inequality in the division of labour. Feminism and Psychology, 1, 221-46.

Edgar, D. & Glezer, H. (1992, February). Reconstructing Family Realities: Men Do Matter. International Conference: Changing families in changing societies: International Council of Women.

Edgar, D.E., Earle, L. & Fopp, R. (1993). Introduction to Australian Society, 2nd Ed. Australia: Prentice Hall.

Edgar, D.E. (1991). Families and the social reconstructuon of marriage and parenthood in Australia. In R. Batten, W. Weeks & J. Wilson (Eds.), Issues facing Australian families: Human services respond. Melbourne: Longman Chesire.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Gittins, D. (1985). The Family in Question: Changing households and Familiar Ideologies. London: MacMillan.

Goode, W. (1982). Why do men resist? In B. Thorne & M. Yalom (Eds.), Rethinking the family: Some feminist questions, 131-150. New York: Longmans.

Goodnow, J. (1989). Work in households: an overview and three studies. In D. Ironmonger (Ed.), Households Work. Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 38-58.

Mackay, H. (1993). Reinventing Australia: The Mind and Mood of Australia in the 90s. Sydney: Angus & Robertson.

Millikan, D. (1990). Preface to C. Jones, The search for meaning. New South Wales, Australia: ABC Enterprises.

Morgan, D.H.J. (1985). The Family, Politics and Social Theory. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Morgan, D.H.J. (1996). Examiner's comments - unpublished doctoral thesis - G. Russell (1995) (op.cit.).

Ruble, D., Fleming, A., Hackel. L. & Stangor, C. (1988). Changes in the marital relationship during the transition to first-time motherhood: Effects of violated expectations concerning division of household labour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 78-87.

Russell, G. (1995). Unpublished doctoral thesis, Families as Active Crucibles of Change: A Humanistic Sociological analysis of the Division of Unpaid Work in Family Households. Adelaide University.

Saks, M. & Krupat, E. (1988). Social Psychology and its Applications. New York: Harper & Row.

Smolicz, J. & Secombe, M. (1981). The Australian School through Children's Eyes. Australia: Melbourne University Press.

Smolicz, J. (1979). Culture and Education in a Plural Society. Canberra, ACT: The Curriculum Development Centre.

Thomas ,W. & Znaniecki, F. (1927). The Polish Peasant in Europe and America. New York: Dover Publications Inc.

Vandenheuvel, A. (1991). The most important person in the world: A look at contemporary family values. Family Matters, 29, 7-11. Melbourne: AIFS.

Wadel, C. (1979). The hidden work of everyday life. In S. Wallman (Ed.),The Social Anthropology of Work. London: Academic Press.

Znaniecki, F. (1939). Social groups as products of participating individuals. American Journal of Sociology, 1, 799-811.