Advertisement

Discursive Representations of Social Support for Reproductive Decision-Making Among Victorian Women

  • Annika Smissen
  • Greer Lamaro Haintz
  • Hayley McKenzie
  • Melissa GrahamEmail author
Original Paper
  • 5 Downloads

Abstract

Social support is a significant, yet little understood, part of the sociocultural environment that impacts women’s reproductive decisions. A discourse analysis was conducted on twenty-three semi-structured interviews with women living in Victoria, Australia. The research identified and explored key interpretive repertoires and ideological dilemmas within the women’s narratives, to better understand the relationship between social support and reproductive decision-making. Two key themes were identified in the women’s narratives; expectations of social support, reflected in the interpretive repertoires “I feel lucky”, and “I don’t blame them”; and constructions of social support, reflected in “my choice, my decision” repertoire, and the gendered repertoire, “she’s open, he’s laid back”. Influenced by dominant social discourses related to women’s control over their bodies, and reproduction as taboo and “women’s business”, these repertoires reflect the constrained provision of social support from others, and simultaneously establish the importance of affirmation of individual choice as a meaningful experience of support for reproductive decision-making. The women’s discursive representations coexist and interact within ideological dilemmas that reflect the complexity of women’s lived experiences of social support and reproductive decision-making. These findings provide insight into women’s perceptions and experiences of social support for reproductive decision-making.

Keywords

Reproduction Decision-making Reproductive decision-making Social support Women 

Notes

Funding

This study was funded by the School of Health and Social Development, Deakin University.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Almeling, R., & Waggoner, M. R. (2013). More and less than equal: How men factor in the reproductive equation. Gender & Society,27(6), 821–842.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243213484510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baheiraei, A., Mirghafourvand, M., Mohammadi, E., Charandabi, S. M.-A., & Nedjat, S. (2012). Social support for women of reproductive age and its predictors: A population-based study. BMC Women’s Health,12(1), 30.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6874-12-30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benschop, Y., Halsema, L., & Schreurs, P. (2001). The division of labour and inequalities between the sexes: An ideological dilemma. Gender, Work & Organization,8(1), 1–18.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0432.00119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Billig, M. (1988). Ideological dilemmas: A social psychology of everyday thinking. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  5. Blieszner, R., & Roberto, K. A. (2004). Friendship across the life span: Reciprocity in individual and relationship development. In F. R. & K. L. Lang Fingerman (Eds), Growing together: Personal relationships across the life span. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 159–182.Google Scholar
  6. Candace, C. M., Rachel, W., & Jodi, D. (2017). ‘It’s awkward stuff’: Conversations about sexuality with young children. Child and Family Social Work,22(2), 711–720.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dolan, A., & Coe, C. (2011). Men, masculine identities and childbirth. Sociology of Health & Illness,33(7), 1019–1034.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2011.01349.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Earle, S., & Letherby, G. (2003). Introducing gender, identity and reproduction. In S. Earle & G. Letherby (Eds.), Gender, identity & reproduction: Social perspectives. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Edley, N. (2001). Analysing masculinity: Interpretative repertoires, ideological dilemmas and subject positions. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor, & S. Yates (Eds.), Discourse as data: A guide for analysis. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Fennell, J. L. (2011). Men bring condoms, women take pills: Men’s and women’s roles in contraceptive decision making. Gender & Society,25(4), 496–521.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243211416113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goldberg, A. (2006). The transition to parenthood for lesbian couples. Journal of GLBT Family Studies,2(1), 13–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Golden, A. G., & Pomerantz, A. (2015). Interpretative repertoires that shape low-income African American women’s reproductive health care seeking: ‘Don’t Want to Know’ and ‘Taking Charge of Your Health’. Health Communication,30(8), 746–757.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2014.898363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Graham, M., & Rich, S. (2012). Representations of childless women in the Australian print media. Feminist Media Studies, iFirst.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2012.737346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heaney, C. A., & Israel, B. A. (2008). Social networks and social support. In K. Glanz, B. K. Rimer, & K. Viswanath (Eds.), Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  15. Hepburn, A., & Potter, J. (2004). Discourse analytic practice. In C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. F. Gubrium, & D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative research practice. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  16. Imeson, M., & McMurray, A. (1996). Couples’ experiences of infertility: A phenomenological study. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 24(5), 1014–1022.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.1996.tb02938.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hussey, K. A., Katz, A. N., & Leith, S. A. (2015). Gendered language in interactive discourse. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,44(4), 417–433.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-014-9295-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jørgensen, M., & Phillips, L. (2002). Discourse analysis: As theory and method. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lang, F. R. (2000). Endings and continuity of social relationships: Maximizing intrinsic benefits within personal networks when feeling near to death. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,17(2), 155–182.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407500172001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lang, F. R., Wagner, J., Wrzus, C., & Neyer, F. J. (2013). Personal effort in social relationships across adulthood. Psychology and Aging,28(2), 529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Langford, C. P. H., Bowsher, J., Maloney, J. P., & Lillis, P. P. (1997). Social support: A conceptual analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing,25(1), 95–100.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1997.1997025095.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leahy Warren, P. (2005). First-time mothers: Social support and confidence in infant care. Journal of Advanced Nursing,50(5), 479–488.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03425.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Letherby, G. (2002). Challenging dominant discourses: Identity and change and the experience of ‘infertility’ and ‘involuntary childlessness’. Journal of Gender Studies,11(3), 277–288.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0958923022000021241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Maisel, N. C., & Gable, S. L. (2009). The paradox of received social support: The importance of responsiveness. Psychological Science,20(8), 928–932.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02388.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Major, B. (1993). Gender, entitlement, and the distribution of family labor. Journal of Social Issues,49(3), 141–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Markham, C. M., Lormand, D., Gloppen, K. M., Peskin, M. F., Flores, B., Low, B., et al. (2010). Connectedness as a predictor of sexual and reproductive health outcomes for youth. Journal of Adolescent Health,46(3), S23–S41.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.11.214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Miller, W. B. (1994). Childbearing motivations, desires, and intentions: A theoretical framework. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs,120(2), 223–258.Google Scholar
  28. Miller, T. (2007). “Is this what motherhood is all about?” Weaving experiences and discourse through transition to first-time motherhood. Gender & Society,21(3), 337–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Morell, C. (2000). Saying no: Women’s experiences with reproductive refusal. Feminism & Psychology,10(3), 313–322.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353500010003002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Newman, M. L. (2013). Introduction. In M. L. Newman & N. A. Roberts (Eds.), Health and social relationships: The good, the bad, and the complicated (1st ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  31. Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  32. Price, N. L., & Hawkins, K. (2007). A conceptual framework for the social analysis of reproductive health. Journal of Health, Population, and Nutrition,25(1), 24–36.Google Scholar
  33. Redshaw, M., & Martin, C. R. (2011). Reproductive decision-making, prenatal attachment and early parenting. Journal of Reproductive & Infant Psychology,29(3), 195–196.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02646838.2011.614106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rich, S., Taket, A., Graham, M., & Shelley, J. (2011). ‘Unnatural’, ‘Unwomanly’, ‘Uncreditable’ and ‘Undervalued’: The significance of being a childless woman in Australian society. Gender Issues,28(4), 226–247.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-011-9108-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ryan, M. (2013). The gender of pregnancy: Masculine lesbians talk about reproduction. Journal of Lesbian Studies,17(2), 119–133.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10894160.2012.653766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Samandari, G., Speizer, I. S., & O’Connell, K. (2010). The role of social support and parity on contraceptive use in Cambodia. International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health,36(3), 122–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Slauson-Blevins, K., & Johnson, K. M. (2016). Doing gender, doing surveys? Women’s gatekeeping and men’s non-participation in multi-actor reproductive surveys. Sociological Inquiry,86(3), 427–449.  https://doi.org/10.1111/soin.12122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sullivan-Bolyai, S., & Lee, M. M. (2011). Parent mentor perspectives on providing social support to empower parents. The Diabetes Educator,37(1), 35–43.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0145721710392248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tarkka, M.-T. (2003). Predictors of maternal competence by first-time mothers when the child is 8 months old. Journal of Advanced Nursing,41(3), 233–240.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02524.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Taylor, S. E. (2011). Social support: A review. In H. S. Friedman (Ed), The Oxford handbook of health psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 189–214.Google Scholar
  41. Throsby, K., & Gill, R. (2004). “It’s different for men”: Masculinity and IVF. Men and Masculinities,6(4), 330–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Turnbull, B., Graham, M. L., & Taket, A. R. (2016). Social exclusion of Australian childless women in their reproductive years. Social Inclusion,4(1), 102–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Uchino, B. N. (2006). Social support and health: A review of physiological processes potentially underlying links to disease outcomes. Journal of Behavioral Medicine,29(4), 377–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Woodward, K. (2003). Representations of motherhood. In S. Earle & G. Letherby (Eds.), Gender, identity & reproduction: Social perspectives. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  45. Woollett, A., & Boyle, M. (2000). Reproduction, women’s lives and subjectivities. Feminism & Psychology,10(3), 307–311.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353500010003001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Deakin UniversityGeelongAustralia
  2. 2.La Trobe UniversityBundooraAustralia

Personalised recommendations