Care(ers) in crisis?

CROWE doctoral researcher Louise Oldridge on the experiences of women combining employment and informal caring roles.

It has been well documented that the UK has an ageing population, and that people are not only living longer but are doing so with health problems.  In addition, we are also seeing an increasing number of care homes closing, as reported by the Care Quality Commission this month.  Nick Triggle, Health Correspondent for the BBC, recently reported on the costs of care detailing that the government is putting less funds into adult social care as the plan for care system reform (and caps on the cost of care) is now not expected until 2020.

Help in meeting care costs are means-tested in England and those who do have capital (assets of £23,250 or more) have to subsidise their care and can end up paying far more than a council would pay on their behalf (readers can find local care costs using the calculator in Triggle’s BBC article).  This has resulted in an ever increasing reliance on care provided on an informal basis, by friends and family, currently saving the state an estimated £132 billion (Carers UK, 2016) and there are significant implications for those who provide such care.  Those implications reported include adverse effects on health and wellbeing, quality of life, maintenance of social networks, income and capacity to remain in employment (Carers UK, 2016; Carers UK, 2015).

Data shows that the highest provision of such informal/unpaid care is provided by women between the ages of 50 – 64.  According to the last census in 2011, one in nine people combine caring and formal employment.  Previous research has demonstrated that those who are carers may find themselves having to reduce the number of hours they work, their levels of responsibility or even leave their jobs entirely (Carers UK, 2016; Waters, 2008; Yeandle et al, 2007).  It is therefore important to understand the implications of caring on the careers of women in this age bracket, especially as careers literature sees them as being at their professional peak and the government is keen to encourage older workers to remain active in the labour market.

My research focuses on women between the ages of 45 – 65 who live in Leicester/Leicestershire (home to De Montfort University) where (according to the calculator in Triggle’s BBC article) care costs can run at 46% higher than those negotiated by councils for residential care and 41% higher for nursing care.  Also, where the council are paying for care, individuals may still have to make a financial contribution themselves with an average of £145 per week for residential care and £142 for nursing care in Leicester.  Women in my study are currently, or have recently been, combining employment and informal caring and my research seeks to understand more about their care and career experiences.  By reaching out to both the city and county council, charities and carers support groups, local community centres, employers and through my network, just as a starting point, I have spent much of the summer interviewing women in this position.  The interview starts by plotting their career trajectories, with a focus on how their career has been shaped by the point at which they became a carer (if they are able to identify this) and is supplemented by questions around their careers and care.

Interviews are ongoing but some interesting themes are emerging:

  • There is much variation around expectations to provide care, but it is often linked to a reported belief in the failure of the adult social care system and the reliance on informal care, as noted above.
  • However, women also place expectations upon themselves to care, alongside family, upbringing, cultural and sometimes religious influences.
  • Some women think about their caring as a type of work, in addition to their formal employment, often in the form of both physical and emotional labour. This is important as it means it should be considered when reviewing their career and its development.
  • Frequently, women are talking about the additional skills that they have gained from caring but also the skills and experience from their employment history which helps them with caring, even where not directly care-related, such as project management.
  • Participants do not always get the opportunity to have career development discussions but do still seek development in many cases.
  • In light of their caring, career development becomes subjective rather than necessarily seeking upward progression and they often desire to combine employment and caring effectively.
  • Where they are still working sometimes women feel a sense of guilt because they think they should be caring.

This research has potential implications for adult social care research policy, practice, theories around women’s career development and concepts of work and as the research continues more findings will emerge.

Interviews are ongoing so if you, or someone you know, would be eligible to take part in the research then please do get in touch either by phone (0116 257 7430) or email (

Louise Oldridge is a Doctoral Researcher in CROWE, and Part-time Lecturer atlouise De Montfort University.  Before joining academia she gained 9 years’ experience working in industry in a range of positions in human resources in the private sector with a focus on employment relations.  Louise’s research interests focus on women’s careers, concepts of work and informal care. 










They’re all people, right?

Helen Timbrell, Volunteering & Participation Director for the National Trust, reflects on research on the management of volunteers conducted by CROWE’s Dr Jenna Ward and Professor Anne-marie Greene.

 If, like me, you’ve worked in volunteer management and leadership for a long time you will no doubt have come across colleagues who are of the view that organisations should manage staff and volunteers in the same way, because “they’re all people, right?”.  I strongly disagree with that.  Really strongly.  I mean, obviously they ARE people, but I think the way we manage them needs to be different.  And now I’ve been lucky enough to be involved in some research that confirms that is the case.

At the National Trust we’ve been working with researchers from De Montfort University to explore the extent to which the management of volunteers is similar or different to the management of paid staff.

My favourite sentence from the research report is this one:  “We can, with confidence, argue that in practice, the management of volunteers within the National Trust is significantly different to the management of paid staff”.    Cue my smug face.

But why does this matter?  If I knew that anyway, what’s the value of research to prove it?  Surely I didn’t just support a research project to prove myself right?   Well, no.  For me the real value of the research has been in identifying where and how it’s different, prompting us to think hard about whether we are providing enough of the right type of support and training for the people we ask to manage volunteers.

The research (which was based on interviews, observations and diaries of activities at two of our properties) identified five key areas of difference described as:

  • Performance Management
  • Communication
  • Task Differentiation
  • Trust and Fear v Autonomy and Creativity
  • Emotional Labour

Information on all five is available in the full report – email me if you’d like a copy – but three key things really resonated for me:


Misplaced protection of volunteers

Often staff spoke of not sharing all the information about developments at the property or in the Trust because they didn’t want to bore and/or burden the volunteers.  Similarly often they didn’t ask them to get involved in the jobs they really needed a hand with because they thought the volunteers wouldn’t like those jobs.  In contrast volunteers often talked about the frustration of being kept in the dark and/or of being able to see what needed to be done but not being able to get involved.  The evidence, and my experience, suggests we are less likely to make these well-intentioned but ultimately unhelpful assumptions about paid staff: we are less hesitant in our communications and braver in our asks, perhaps because we feel we have a “right” to do so?


The need for real dialogue

This links to the need for regular, open dialogue between staff and volunteers.  Even where communication was happening it was often one way, with much less space to hear from volunteers or have a genuine dialogue.  One of the factors in this was the sheer size of the volunteer teams our managers are working with:  they spoke of a sense of an impossible task when faced with hundreds of volunteers, which feels very different from working with much smaller staff teams.  Perhaps another factor was assumptions about the quality of the dialogue they would be able to have with a volunteer: self-limiting thoughts about how much value a volunteer might really be able to add.


Working in the “unregulated emotional landscape”

Perhaps the most powerful findings were in relation to the way in which managing volunteers is a much more emotional experience than the management of paid staff.  Without the presence of a contract (and associated norms of deference, compliance and control/authority) the behaviour of volunteers was often less constrained, with more regular, open and strong expressions of feelings.  Often gloriously positive but sometimes negative “outbursts” arose as volunteers felt free to not think about biting their tongue or toeing the line.  These strong expressions of feelings coupled with the size of the volunteer team sometimes created incredibly emotionally charged working environments for volunteer managers, most of whom are managing volunteers as part of a much wider set of responsibilities.


All of this has made me think hard about how well we support and train our volunteer managers:  are we focussing on the right things?  Are we honest enough about what’s involved?  In the sector we run training on how to recruit and select volunteers, how to develop new forms of volunteering, how to attract a more diverse audience but do we really do enough to equip volunteer managers to operate confidently, in true partnership with volunteers, in the much more emotional landscape?


How much of our specific volunteer management training focusses on participatory ways of working, partnership and resilience?  How to deal with difficult situations not from a process perspective but as a human being, standing in front of another human being who is shouting at you in a room full of forty others?  Do we support our volunteer managers to think about how they use their body language, their tone of voice, their eye contact to respond in these situations?  Do we ensure the managers of our volunteer managers understand the demands they are under and in turn provide effective support?   In the National Trust right now I think the answer is no:  we do a lot of great things to support our volunteer managers but there is clearly so much more we can do.   And we need to lead that as a volunteering team, because they might be people, but it’s not the same.

Helen Timbrell

Volunteering & Participation Director

National Trust


DMU Research Team

Dr Jenna Ward @d20jat

Prof Anne-marie Greene @ProfGreeneDMU


This blog was originally posted on the Thoughtful Thursdays blog at

Join us on the 13th October 2016 live on Twitter #ttvolmgrs for more on why managing volunteers is different to managing paid staff


A link to the full research report can be found here

Informal Economy/ Informal Work: Challenges for Industrial Relations

 Industrial relations has predominantly focussed on the formal workplace and formal institutions of representation and neglected the informal economy/work. Informal work, instead of being a transitory phenomenon, has been a predominant form of work in the Global South and is increasingly prevalent in the Global North (Chang 2013; Kalleberg 2009). As work continues to reach beyond the formal workplace and into the informal economy – into the community, household and the realm of social reproduction – institutional forms of industrial relations face a challenge. While Organising and Social Movement literatures address this challenge, conceptual and methodological issues remain underexplored in industrial relations.


Initially conceptualised as the ‘informal sector’ (Hart 1973), since the 1990s the term ‘informal economy’ has focussed attention on a broad and heterogeneous type of employment and enterprises that are unregulated and unprotected (Portesand Castells 1989; Hussmans 2005; Agarwala 2009). The expanded definition of the informal economy sees it as segmented into a range of informal firms and employment relationships i.e. self-employed with assets and employees, survival self-employed (own account operators and unpaid family labour), wage labour, casual wage labour, domestic labour and industrial outworkers/homeworkers. As Breman (2013) puts it ‘there is not one but a variety of regimes of informal labour, not all vicious to the same extent. These also differ in coping behaviour and resilience, some segments being more successful than others’. In sum, informality has multiple levels of exploitation as well as of forms and avenues of resistance.


Accompanying this recognition of the permanence of the informal economy is also one that recognises its significance to capitalist development. The relationship between the formal and informal economy is seen as a continuum of economic relations of production, distribution and employment where firms and workers move along the continuum or can operate simultaneously in both (Chen 2007; Lerche 2010; Harriss-White 2010).There is a recognition of diverse socio-economic relations that can result from the interaction of the formal and informal economy.  Agarwala(2008) captures this in her relational understanding of the informal economy where informal workers are intertwined with the formal economy, society and the state through structures, networks and political institutions. Informality is now fused within formerly formal parts of the economy, through outsourcing and supply chains.


My research in a new industrialising region in North India shows how manufacturing firms, domestic as well as multinational, tap into and structure the informal economy. Over a span of ten years they have reduced their permanent workforce while employing three times the number of informal workers. These are segmented into contract, casual, company casual and apprentice workers and often fulfil the jobs of a full-time production worker inside the firm. In addition, firms draw upon informal workers through outsourcing and long supply chains both in the textile and the automotive sector. As in earlier industrial sociology, neighbourhood comes into the firm and the firm reaches into the neighbourhood. This blurs the boundaries between the spheres of production and reproduction when analysing control and contest. Trade unions are unable to respond to the needs of informal workers or formulate a strategy to counter the state-capital restructuring of work.


For industrial relations, the challenge is how to conceptualise these interlinkages between the formal-informal work/economy and how to organise disparate, dispersed and often mobile informal workplaces and workers. This requires a rethink of definitions and conceptualisation of labour, framing options, organisational forms and strategies, and types of struggles for labour in spheres of production as well as reproduction. ‘New’ questions, with long history, have arisen. Is labour a mere production input or ‘social’ labour? Is work only in the sphere of production or is it all the work that helps in capitalist accumulation? Do we need to conceptualise labour as an actor, or only as collective actor? Can, or indeed should, the informal be ‘formalised’? Why is informal economy/work so difficult to regulate? What role do inter-firm relations play in informality? Do we need to go beyond institutional forms of industrial relations? What are the methodological challenges in researching the informal economy/work?


One of the many ways forward is Bernstein’s (2007) ‘classes of labour’. The approach provides an analytical framework that is flexible enough to capture the diversity of employment in formal-informal economy. Another possibility is the integrated framework of social reproduction (Luxton 2006; Ferguson and McNally 2015) that captures social relations of capitalism more comprehensively. Such approaches are sensitive to varied economic survival strategies of different groups of informal workers and the diverse means of resistance.


A more differentiated understanding of work and labour, and links between oppression and exploitation and production and consumption may help in framing strategies to address the challenges informal economy/work poses to industrial relations and to the labour movement.

Anita Hammer is a member of CROWE at Leicester Business School, De Montfort University, UK. Her research focuses on the Global South and examines the development trajectories of new industrial regions, changing patterns of work and employment and the role of the informal economy