The prevailing view on work excludes unpaid activities like care, individual or community work although they are crucial for economy and everyday life. Because the focus on paid work also leads to both social and environmental unsustainability, work has to be redefined. Cohousing evolved from the belief that through a collective organisation with a specific built and social environment, care work can become appreciated and facilitated. Hence, this thesis examines how cohousing today contributes to an extended view on work through a qualitative analysis of interviews with cohousing experts as well as participant observations of and focus group interviews with two cohouses in Austria and Sweden. The study shows that in cohousing the key to a redefinition of work is its community work, taking place at an intermediary level which is located between the private family and public spheres. Community work is more visible, pleasant and appreciated which is facilitated by a particular structure, physical space and a well-functioning community of a certain size. Furthermore, it allows a fairer distribution of work between women and men, facilitates family work, enables financial savings and strengthens the group. This study aims to reinforce the discussion of redefining work within Sustainability Science, where it is not a major topic despite its complex and transdisciplinary nature. By giving a practical approach to a redefinition of work, the findings contribute to an understanding of work and support the further development of cohousing.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
1.1 The Prevalent Notion of Work and its Exclusion of Unpaid Activities
1.2 Research Questions and Aims
1.3 Content and Structure
2 Methodology
2.1 Sustainability Science, Ontology and Epistemology
2.2 Qualitative Approach
2.3 Case Study Research
2.4 Methods
2.4.1 Expert Interviews
2.4.2 Participant Observation
2.4.3 Focus Group Interviews
2.5 Personal Reflections of the Research
3 Reconceptualising Work: The Concept of Mixed Work
3.1 Four Segments of Work
3.2 Achieving a Holistic View on Work as an Individual
4 Development of Cohousing and Today’s Definitions
4.1 The First Cohousing Generation
4.2 The Second Generation - Cohousing as an Intermediary Level
4.3 Cohousing Today
4.3.1 Cohousing’s Characteristics and Variations
4.3.2 Meanings of co in Cohousing
5 The Cases
5.1 Cohousing in Austria
5.1.1 The Cohouse Lebensraum
5.2 Cohousing in Sweden
5.2.1 The Cohouse Fiolen
5.3 Differences and Similarities of the Cohouses
6 Cohousing’s Comunity Work and its Contribution to Redefining Work
6.1 The Definition of Work Matters
6.2 Categorisation of Work in a Cohouse
6.3 Organisation of Community Work and its Required Time
6.4 Distribution of Work between Women and Men
6.5 Appreciation of Community Work
6.6 Visibility of Community Work
6.7 Benefits and Challenges of Community Work
6.7.1 Facilitation of Family Work
6.7.2 Financial Savings
6.7.3 Strengthening the Group
7 Conclusion
7.1 Summarising Statements and Potentials of Mixed Work in Cohousing for Sustainability
7.2 Suggesting Future Research
7.3 Concluding Remarks
Research Objectives and Themes
This thesis investigates how cohousing contributes to a redefinition of work, specifically addressing the systemic exclusion of unpaid activities such as care and community work from the prevailing notion of "normal work". Through qualitative research in Austria and Sweden, the study explores how the intermediary space of cohousing facilitates a more holistic approach to work, challenges traditional gender roles, and promotes social and environmental sustainability.
- Analysis of the concept of "Mixed Work" within cohousing environments.
- Evaluation of how physical and social structures in cohousing facilitate community work.
- Investigation of the distribution of work between women and men in a communal living setting.
- Assessment of the benefits and challenges of community work for resident well-being and life balance.
Excerpt from the Book
6.1 The Definition of Work Matters
In both Lebensraum and Fiolen, the first reaction from most interviewees was to define work as something rather negative. Whereas the interviewees in Fiolen could not find a common definition since there were too many different opinions and thus could not agree on categories of work either, the focus group discussants of Lebensraum used more general terms. Florian (L) summed this up: “Work is the general performance of activities to reach a goal”. However, for most of the interviewed representatives in Lebensraum, the term is negatively connoted if it is related to effort, to something that has to be done and is dictated by others as well as if there is no enjoyment or sense in it. If these negative aspects are not given, for some, the term work turns into something rather positive. Then Roswitha (L), for example, would call it activity instead. Also in Fiolen, the residents would rather describe work as task, if perceived as positive. However, everyone enjoys different things. Jakob (L) highlighted that thinking deeper and discussing the term work might change the view on it and connote it positively. It also makes one realise how much work is actually done, according to Hanna (F).
Whereas Lebensraum’s residents’ definition of work resembles the definition of holistic work and thus is an important step to get closer to a reconceptualisation of work closer, some Fiolen residents had quite a traditional view of excluding unpaid work but also work as unpleasant and physical. Further, Fiolen residents preferred to define house and care work as plikter [duties]: “Something you have to do, you cannot get out of it.” (Hanna, F) Also, the things done for and in the cohouse, although this does not majorly differ to Lebensraum, should not be called work but communal duties.
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: Provides the problem statement regarding the narrow societal focus on paid work and introduces the research aims regarding cohousing.
2 Methodology: Details the qualitative research approach, including the multiple-case study design using Lebensraum (Austria) and Fiolen (Sweden).
3 Reconceptualising Work: The Concept of Mixed Work: Establishes the theoretical framework by defining the four segments of work and the need for a holistic view.
4 Development of Cohousing and Today’s Definitions: Reviews the history of cohousing from the first generation to the current focus on the "intermediary level".
5 The Cases: Describes the specific characteristics, structure, and social composition of the two investigated cohousing communities.
6 Cohousing’s Comunity Work and its Contribution to Redefining Work: Analyzes the primary findings regarding the organization, visibility, and appreciation of community work.
7 Conclusion: Summarizes how cohousing supports a redefinition of work and offers suggestions for future research.
Keywords
Redefining Work, Mixed Work, Cohousing, Community Work, Sustainability Science, Unpaid Activities, Intermediary Level, Social Sustainability, Collective Organisation, Gender Equality, Recognition, Collaborative Housing, Lebensraum, Fiolen, Shared Living.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research?
The research focuses on how cohousing, as a specific form of shared housing, provides an "intermediary level" that allows for a more holistic understanding and organization of work, beyond the traditional reliance on paid labor.
What are the primary thematic areas explored in the thesis?
Key areas include the definition of work, the organization of communal tasks, the distribution of work between genders, the appreciation of unpaid activities, and the role of the physical environment in facilitating social and environmental sustainability.
What is the main research question?
The central research question asks: "How does cohousing contribute to a redefinition of work?"
Which research methods were employed?
The author used a qualitative approach, combining expert interviews, participant observation within the cohouses, and focus group interviews with residents of Lebensraum in Austria and Fiolen in Sweden.
What aspects are covered in the main body?
The main body examines the definition and categorization of work, the specific organization of community work (collaborative vs. collective), and the benefits and challenges associated with communal living, such as financial savings and group strengthening.
How would you characterize the keywords for this study?
The keywords highlight the intersection of social science, gender studies, and sustainability, specifically focusing on the practical application of 'Mixed Work' within cohousing communities.
How does cohousing impact the traditional gender-based division of labor?
The study suggests that cohousing encourages a fairer distribution of housework and care duties, although traditional gender roles still persist to some degree, even within these progressive communities.
Does living in a cohouse lead to significant financial advantages?
Yes, residents report financial savings through sharing goods, facilities, and services, which in some cases reduces the individual need for income generation and frees up time for other activities.
What is the significance of the "intermediary level" in this thesis?
The intermediary level represents a social and physical space between the private household and the public sphere, which the author identifies as essential for creating a visible and appreciated form of community work that standard economic models overlook.
- Citation du texte
- Teresa Rauscher (Auteur), 2013, Work, Community and Sustainability. Redefining Work through Cohousing, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/215612
