Although we have been asked to provide ‘a brief overview of key fi ndings from
recent research on fatherhood’, it is diffi cult to summarise such a sprawling
literature succinctly. We have found that even localised aspects cannot be captured
adequately, despite lengthy books on methodology (Day and Lamb, 2004),
interdisciplinary perspectives (Tamis-LeMonda and Cabrera, 2002), paternal
infl uences (Lamb, 2004; Flouri, 2005), work–home relationships (O’Brien and
Shemilt, 2003) and social policy issues (Hobson, 2002).
Scholars have long noted that men’s commitment to childcare is marked by wide
variability, even when we restrict the focus to ‘traditional’ families, loosely defi ned
by households in which fathers and mothers are co-resident (e.g. Lewis, 1986). It
has proved hard to evaluate the differences between men who do more childcare
than their partners and the majority who specialise in economic provision. Two
issues in particular have dogged researchers. The fi rst concerns the assessment of
‘involvement’. Lamb et al. (1987) made an initial stab at distinguishing between three
different dimensions – the amounts of time that fathers spend interacting with, being
accessible to, or making arrangements for the care of their children. These three
dimensions continue to dominate research, especially in the United States, and are
still used to explain complexities and contradictions in the literature (see Pleck and
Masciadrelli, 2004). Unfortunately, although Lamb et al. (1987) were explicit that their
focus on childcare activities should not lead researchers to ignore other important
aspects of fatherhood, many have restricted their focus to the three dimensions, to
the detriment of important activities like breadwinning. In a noteworthy departure
from this trend, Morgan (1998) has provided insights by questioning dimensions
of the familiar dichotomy between parenting and activities outside the home. For
example, he suggests that participation in trade union activities may serve to protect
opportunities in the labour force for the next generation. They could, therefore, be
construed as ‘fathering’, affecting children’s long-term well-being.
In recent years, several authors (see examples in Tamis-LeMonda and Cabrera,
2002; Day and Lamb, 2004; Pleck and Masciadrelli, 2004) have sought to analyse
what men do with their children and factors that facilitate or inhibit involvement.
Palkovitz (1997) differentiated between 15 aspects of paternal involvement, including
factors like play, instruction and guidance. The list of possible aspects could probably
be much longer than this. However, any conceptualisation of ‘involvement’ will seem
remarkably rudderless unless there are clear theoretical postulates steering the
identifi cation of relevant categories.