Skip to main content
Log in

Role Involvement of Farm Women

  • Published:
Journal of Family and Economic Issues Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study describes role involvement of farm women through computer content analysis of text. This approach provides a broad framework for characterizing social meanings. The sample includes 193 farm women. The role involvement variable includes a combination of the farm work role, off-farm work role, family role, and social/civic role. Four contextual/conceptual categories are the organizing foundation of the computer content analysis program. Those women at the lowest involvement levels described their needs in traditional ways, the mid-range levels were more emotional, and those at the highest role involvement levels were very pragmatic. The mid-ranges emphasized themes of help, education, and future while the highest levels emphasized immediate time and uncertainty.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barnett, R. C., & Baruch, G. K. (1985). Women's involvement in multiple roles and psychological distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 135–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkowitz, A. D., & Perkins, H. W. (1984). Stress among farm women: Work and family as interacting systems. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46, 161–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bescher-Donnelly, L., & Smith, L. W. (1981). The changing roles and status of rural women. In R. T. Coward & W. M. Smith (Eds.), The family in rural society (pp. 167–186). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bird, G. W., & Ford, R. (1985). Sources of role strain among dual-career couples. Home Economics Research Journal, 14, 187–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bokemeier, J. L., Sachs, C., & Keith, V. (1983). Labor force participation of metropolitan, nonmetropolitan, and farm women: A comparative study. Rural Sociology, 48, 515–539.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boulding, E. (1980). The labor of U.S. farm women—A knowledge gap. Sociology of Work and Occupations, 7, 261–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coughenour, C. M., & Swanson, L. (1983). Work statuses and occupations of men and women in farm families and the structure of farms. Rural Sociology, 48, 23–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danes, S. M. (1988). Minnesota farm women: Who are they and what do they do? Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota, Department of Family Social Science, St. Paul.

  • Danes, S. M. (1991). Locus of control, gap between the standard and level of living, and satisfaction: A path model. Home Economics Research Journal, 19, 282–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danes, S. M., & Keskinen, S. M. (1990). The extent of off-farm employment and its impact on farm women. Human Services in the Rural Environment, 14, 10–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danes, S. M., & Rettig, K. D. (1993). Farm wives' business and household decision involvement in times of economic stress. Home Economics Research Journal, 21, 307–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danes, S. M., & Solheim, C. (1993). Satisfaction and role quality perceptions of farm women employed off the farm. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 14, 115–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fassinger, P. A., & Schwarzweller, H. K. (1984). The work of farm women: A midwestern study. Research in Rural Sociology and Development, 1, 37–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gasson, R. (1983). Roles of women on farms: A pilot study. In D. H. Olson & B. C. Miller (Eds.), Family studies review yearbook, Vol. 1 (pp. 461–470). Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gladwin, C. H. (1985). Values and goals of Florida farm women: Do they help the family farm survive? Agriculture and Human Values, 2, 40–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goode, W. J. (1960). A theory of strain. American Sociological Review, 25, 483–496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, D. T. (1972). A model of coping with role conflict: The role behavior of college educated women. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 471–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haney, W. G. (1983). Farm family and the role of women. In G. F. Summers (Ed.), Technology and social change in rural areas (pp. 179–193). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, B. J., & Rapkin, B. D. (1986). Multiple roles, social networks, and women's well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1237–1247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hochschild, A. (1979). Emotion work, feeling rules, and social structure. American Journal of Sociology, 85, 551–575.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoiberg, E., & Huffman, W. (1978). Profile of Iowa farms and farm families: 1976 (Bulletin No. P-141). Ames: Iowa State University, Iowa Agricultural and Home Economics Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawton, M. P. (1980). Environment and aging. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyson, T. A. (1985). Husband and wife work roles and the organization and operation of family farms. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47, 759–764.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marks, S. R. (1977). Multiple roles and role strain: Some notes on human energy, time and commitment. American Sociological Review, 42, 921–936.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKenry, P. C., Hamdorf, K. G., Walters, C. M., & Murray, C. (1985). Family and job influences on role satisfaction of employed rural mothers. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 242–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • McTavish, D. G., & Pirro, E. B. (1990). Contextual content analysis. Quality and Quantity, 24, 245–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodgers, R. H., & White, J. M. (1993). Family development theory. In P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 225–254). New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenblatt, P. C., & Anderson, R. M. (1981). Interaction in farm families: Tension and stress. In R. T. Coward & W. M. Smith (Eds.), The family in rural society (pp. 147–166). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld, R. A. (1985). Farm women: Work, farm, and family in the United States. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, P. (1985). A commentary on research on American farm women. Agriculture and Human Values, 2(1), 19–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sachs, C. (1983). The invisible farmers. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sachs, C. (1985). Women's work in the U.S.: Variations by regions. Agriculture and Human Values, 2(1), 31–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholl, K. K. (1983). Farm women's triad of roles. Family Economics Review, 1983(1), 10–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sieber, S. D. (1974). Toward a theory of role accumulation. American Sociological Review, 39, 567–578.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Commerce. (1986). Farm population of the United States: 1985 (CPR Series P-27, No. 59). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voydanoff, P. (1988). Work role characteristics, family structure demands, and work/family conflict. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 749–761.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walters, C. M., & McKenry, P. C. (1985). Predictors of life satisfaction among rural and urban employed mothers: A research note. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47, 1067–1071.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Danes, S.M., McTavish, D.G. Role Involvement of Farm Women. Journal of Family and Economic Issues 18, 69–89 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024973301476

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024973301476

Navigation