In Search of Supportive Structures for Everyday Life

  • Liisa Horelli
  • Kirsti Vepsä
Part of the Human Behavior and Environment book series (HUBE, volume 13)


During the past decade, Scandinavian women have been active participants in a movement and have been action researchers in the issues of building and housing on women’s conditions. This chapter describes (1) the history of the movement and its vision of supportive structures for a “New Everyday Life”; (2) the theoretical perspective and practical examples of the Scandinavian women’s action research project; and (3) two case studies illustrating the application of the New Everyday Life concept in the Finnish context. The chapter also discusses critical issues in this kind of action research and the implications for future research.


Everyday Life Supportive Structure Living Room Domestic Work Intermediary Level 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Altaian, I., & Chemers, M. (1980). Culture and environment. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  2. Altaian, I., & Wandersman, A. (Eds.) (1987). Neighborhood and community environments. Human behavior and environment. Advances in Theory and Research. Volume 9. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  3. Ahrentzen, S. B. (1990). Rejuvenating a field that is either “Coming of age” or “Aging in place”: Feminist research contributions to environmental design research. In R. I. Selby, K. H. Anthony, J. Choi, & B. Orland (Eds.), Coming of age: Proceedings of EDRA Annual Conference (pp. 11–18). Oklahoma City: EDRA.Google Scholar
  4. Anttonen, A. (1989) Tarina Tuulenkylästä [The story of Tuulenkylä]. Helsinki: Asuntohallitus, asuntotutkimuksia 3.Google Scholar
  5. Barker, R. (1968). Ecological psychology. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bech-Joergensen. (1988). “Hvorfor gor de ikke noget”? In C. Bloch, L. Höjgaard, B. Bech-Joergensen, & B. Lindeskov Nautrup, Hverdagsliv, kultur og subjektivitet [Everyday life, culture and subjectivity] (pp. 56–82). Köbenhavn: Akademisk Forlag.Google Scholar
  7. Beck, U. (1986). Risikogesellschaft. [The risk society] Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
  8. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Choay, F. (1983). The modern city: Planning in the 19th century. New York: Brazilier.Google Scholar
  10. Cronberg, T. (1991). Gender and the diffusion of information technology: The case of the Danish telecottages. A paper to the GRANITE seminar, Amsterdam, November 1.Google Scholar
  11. Cronberg, T., & Vepsä, K. (1983). Asumisen uusi suunta [The new direction in housing]. Helsinki: Tammi.Google Scholar
  12. Cronberg, T., Duelund, P., Jensen, O. M., & Qvortrup, L. (Eds.). (1991). Danish experiments—Social constructions of technology. Copenhagen: New Social Science Monographs.Google Scholar
  13. Forskargruppen for det nya vardagslivet. (1984). Det nya vardagslivet [The New Everyday Life]. Oslo: Nord.Google Scholar
  14. Forskargruppen for det nya vardagslivet. (1987). Veier till det nye verdagslivet [The ways to the New Everyday Life]. Oslo: Nord.Google Scholar
  15. Foucault, M. (1979). Surveiller et punir. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  16. Franck, K. A. (1985). Social construction of the physical environment: The case of gender. Sociological Focus, 2, 143–158.Google Scholar
  17. Friberg, M. (1986). Deltagande framtidsstudier—om VETA-metodologin. In Att studera framtiden [To study the future]. Stockholm: SOU, 34.Google Scholar
  18. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  19. Gortz, A, (1980). Adieu au prolétariat. Au delà du socialisme. Paris: Galilée.Google Scholar
  20. Harding. S. (1987). Introduction: Is there a feminist methodology? In S. Harding (Ed.), Feminist methodology (pp. 1–14). Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hayden, D. (1981). The grand domestic revolution. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Heller, A. (1984). The New Everyday Life. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  23. Hillery, G. A. (1955). Definitions of communitiy: Areas of agreement. Rural Sociology, 20, 111–123.Google Scholar
  24. Horelli, L. (1993). Asunto psytologisena ympäristonä lineenä [The dwelling as a psychological environment]. Doctoral dissertation, Helsinki, University of Technology.Google Scholar
  25. Horelli, L., & Vepsä, K. (1990). The New Everyday Life. A memorandum for the Council of Europe’s seminar on participation by women in decisions concerning regional and environmental planning, Athens, 25-27.10.Google Scholar
  26. Horelli, L., & Vepsä, K. (1993). Ympäriston lapsipuolet [The stepchildren of environment]. Helsinki.Google Scholar
  27. Julkunen, R. (1991). Hyvinvointivaltion ja ja hyvinvointi pluralismin ristiriidat [conflicts of the welfare state and welfare pluralism]. In A. Mathies (Ed.), Valtion varjossa, katsaus epävirallisen sektorin tutkimukseen [In the shadow of the State] (pp. 51–68). Helsinki: Sosiaaliturvan Keskusliitto.Google Scholar
  28. Kanter, R. M. (1972/1977). Commitment and community: Communes and Utopias in sociological perspective. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Kaul, S. (1990). Fysisk planlegging mellom natur-struktur-hverdagsliv. In S. Kaul (Ed.), Fysisk planlegging i forvandling, natur-struktur-hverdagsliv [Physical planning in transition, nature-structure-everyday life] (pp. 193–224). Stockholm: Nordplan.Google Scholar
  31. Lefebvre, H. (1971). Everyday life in the modern world. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  32. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: Sourcebook of new methods. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. Mårtensson, B., Alfredsson, B., Dahlgren, L., & Grahm, L. (1988). Det hotade lokalsamhallet. Om sårbarhet, strategier och självtillit [The threatened local community]. Stockholm: Byggforskningsrådet.Google Scholar
  34. Noro, A. (1989). Yksilöllistävä palkkatyötäisyhteiskunta Kyllä, entä posttraditionaalit yhteisöt? [About post-traditional communities]. Sosiologia, 1, 1–5.Google Scholar
  35. Norrby, C, & Paavonen, H. (Eds.). (1990). Bygga och bo—en fråga om människosyn. [Build and dwell—A question of concept of the human being]. Rapport frán kvinnose-minarium. Örebro: Sverige.Google Scholar
  36. The Research Group for the New Everyday Life. (1991). The New Everyday Life—Ways and means. Copenhagen: Nord.Google Scholar
  37. Rogers, E. (1983). Diffusions of innovations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  38. Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. American Journal of Orthopediatrics, 3, 316–331.Google Scholar
  39. Saeterdal, A., & Takle, E. L. (1991). Mobilizing women in local planning and decision-making: A guide to why and how. Oslo: The Ministry of Foreign Affairs.Google Scholar
  40. Schiefloe, P. M. (1990). Networks in urban neighborhoods: Lost, saved or liberated communities? Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research, 7, 93–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tilastokeskus. (1990). Tilastonainen [The statistical woman]. Helsinki: Tilastokeskus.Google Scholar
  42. Tronto, J. (1987). Beyond gender difference to a theory of care. Signs, 4, 644–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Walker, A. (1989). Clients, consumers, or partners? In Clients or co-producers? The changing role of citizens in social services. Helsinki: The National Board of Social Welfare in Finland and European Centre for Social Welfare Training and Research.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Liisa Horelli
    • 1
  • Kirsti Vepsä
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Planning and Building DepartmentMinistry of EnvironmentHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations