Search results

PurposeCompared to the years prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, more workers today seemingly have choice over where, when and how they do their work. However, gender inequalities at work and at home persist, which may impact perceptions of choice. Thus, researchers must investigate the potential impact of gender and domestic responsibilities on perceptions of work-related options, including perceptions of workspace choice. Design/methodology/approachUsing an original dataset with workers in North America, South America, Europe and Asia (N = 3,147), the authors conducted logistic regression analyses to explore whether workers felt they had a choice in where they do their work (workspace choice). In addition to gender, the authors considered the effect of domestic responsibilities (childcare and housework) on worker perceptions of workspace choice.FindingsIn the paper's initial regression, the authors found that men (OR: 1.24; 95%CI 1.04–1.48) as well as workers reporting that a partner was responsible for all or most of the housework (OR: 1.80; 95%CI 1.34–2.40) and childcare (OR 1.51; 95%CI 1.09–2.09) reported feeling a greater sense of workspace choice. Simultaneously, follow-up regression analyses found that women and men whose partners had a greater share of domestic responsibility had amplified perceptions of choice. However, surprisingly, men who claimed primary responsibility for domestic work also reported more choice over workspace.Originality/valueUsing an international sample, the authors explore gender inequities in worker perceptions of workspace choice. The authors' findings suggest that domestic responsibilities interact with gender in interesting ways, leading to differences in perceptions of choice in the post-pandemic workplace.

abstract: Among the seventeenth-century non-elite, anonymous (or almost anonymous) individuals across England organized their experiences into petition narratives presented at various local Quarter Sessions. This article explores these narrative texts as sources of autobiographical acts. It contends that petitions for redress were sites of autobiographical telling that allow investigation into how non-elite people told their life stories in early modern England. It examines how, in the context of a petition for relief, individuals engaged in strategic acts of autobiographical disclosure for redress, which also had implications for the restoration of their dignity and even their identity.

Published here for the first time, the diary of George Lloyd (1642–1718) presents a richly detailed account of the everyday life of an unremarkable man during two phases of his life: his attempt, between 1675 and 1678, to establish himself as a schoolmaster in Colchester; and the twilight of his career as a Customs officer at the Port of London in 1711–12. Virtually unknown to scholarship, Lloyd's diary is not a record of notable events, political upheavals, or religious controversies. Rather, it is a uniquely quotidian text consisting of regular daily entries documenting the activities and experiences of an individual far removed from – and largely unconcerned with – the great events of history. This diary will be an invaluable resource for scholars studying many aspects of early modern English social and cultural history, including sociality, fashion, religious observance, courtship, food and drink, and working life.