This paper will provide insight into the process mothers of young children use to select child care coping strategies, particularly the selection of social support strategies. How do mothers choose and engage their coping strategies, how do they determine the appropriate strategy and why are they reluctant to access the social support they need? Specifically, this paper will explore the process of child care strategy selection, giving insight into how reciprocal obligation provides a meaningful way to understand why mothers choose particular coping strategies. Interview data will be used to explore this connection; making clear the link between ideological context and strategy selection, emphasising that what women do everyday exists in a wider context.

"Both official and lay notions of motherhood in Australian society stress the responsibility of the biological mother for the rearing of her own children, especially during the early years" (Wearing, 1984, p. 9). Wearing makes the fundamental link between society’s vision of motherhood and the assigning of primary responsibility to the mother for child caring activities. Further, Wearing (1984) argues, the ideology of motherhood legitimises women’s responsibility, linking this primary responsibility to women’s subordination and oppression in a patriarchal society. This ideology maintains that because women are endowed with natural mothering abilities, only women therefore are capable of caring for their children. Privatised responsibility for child caring is reinforced by other mothers, relatives, neighbours, friends and community organisations (Wearing, 1984). Leonard (quoted in Gair, 1996) further links the ideology of motherhood to the ideology of male economic responsibility calling the combination of the two the ideology of family life. He argues that women are maintained in domestic labour by this ideology, a role for which women receive social approval. The link between ideology and primary child caring responsibility was also made by Hutchinson (1992) who described the ideology as the separate-spheres ideology "revolving around enforced dependency and compulsory altruism" (p. 72) of women.

Mothers also identify themselves as having primary responsibility for child caring. Wearing et al. (1990) reported in their study of 107 mothers of young children that 94% of these mothers indicated "they assumed primary responsibility for the baby" (p. 30). Fifty six percent reported they assumed this role because it was imposed on them by others, including their husbands; 18% assumed the role because their partner earned more money than they did; 17% because the partner was in paid work; 12% because they believed it was a woman’s role and 10% because they felt it was their duty. This analysis of why mothers thought they assumed primary responsibility begins to make the link between mothers’ sense of responsibility and their reluctance to engage the strategy of social support. Wearing et al. (1990) argued that the acceptance of primary responsibility is consistent with the notion that "women have learnt to regard themselves as cares/helpers/supporters within the family" (p. 32). Therefore, "the mother feels somewhat guilty that she cannot cope on her own - this is what she expects of herself and this is what society expects of her. All support for mothering has this hidden hook and carries an unwelcome sense of dependency" (Wearing et al., 1990, p. 27). Wearing et al. (1990) note that this reluctance to elicit support applies to support received from the woman’s partner. It is legitimate, however, to request support from another woman or your own mother because "she too is still expected to be a good mother - nurturant and supportive for her own daughter" (Wearing et al., 1990, p. 32). It is worth noting that participants’ comments in this research project challenge this dichotomy, revealing a much more complex and subtle strategy selection process.

Five mothers with at least one preschool age child were interviewed twice for this research project. The interviews were nonscheduled, standardised and qualitative in nature. The identities of the respondents have been anonymised and they are identified in this paper as Jenny, Margaret, Ellena, Gail, and Jane.

Women’s lives do not only exist in a gendered environment: "... gender identity is the gender identity appropriate to one’s ethnic, class, national and racial identity" (McMahon, 1995, p. 10). Researchers (Boulton, 1983; Wearing, 1984; Oakley, 1981) have linked the lived experience of motherhood to characteristics such as employment, class, education, ethnicity and family type. Comment on the respondents, in this wider context, will provide additional insight into their disclosures. All respondents could be described as professional and middle class with feminist, utopian ideals. Wearing (1984) links these characteristics to an experience of motherhood different from lower class, non-professional women. Wearing (1984) argues that educated, middle class women have access to life experiences in their past, present and future lives that are not completely defined by the demands of motherhood: "To varying extents they have therefore been able to transcend some of the limitations of the tenets of the ideology" (p. 100). Women accomplish this by aligning themselves with utopian ideals (feminism), seeking to share child caring responsibilities, placing less emphasis on housework and pursuing activities that promote individual potential.

Four of the respondents were employed either full or part time. Wearing (1984) notes that mothers employed outside the home experience an increased sense of autonomy and self worth. Outside employment is associated also with higher levels of fathers’ involvement in household tasks (Wearing, 1984). Money, likewise, improves the material conditions of mothering by providing the "added resources necessary to transcend some of the limitations of motherhood" (Wearing, 1984, p. 135). However, as Wearing (1984) and Maushart (1997) suggest, the extra ‘help’ that comes from partners and hired assistance does not free the working mother from her family responsibilities; "it was almost always mothers who organised the daily symphony ... of family life, ... the tasks of managing the help, finding, communicating with and paying the nanny ... planning even the takeaway meals" (p. 259). The respondents’ typical day scenarios demonstrated this responsibility for the family balancing act. Ellena’s typical day provided a particularly useful example, as during her day she checks the children’s progress at day care and school, pays the bills during her lunch hour and plans the evening meal in the afternoon: "So it’s a real sense that I have to do everything, I’m responsible." (Ellena, 10/7/97).

The mothers in this study identified 65 child care coping strategies. It was useful to consider the strategies as either internal to self or external to self. Internal to self strategies engaged by the mother, don’t require assistance from others. Conversely, strategies that are external to self require the assistance of other people or institutions, such as other family members, cleaners and day care centres. It was assumed that, with an emphasis on personal responsibility, the majority of strategies would be internal to self. However, a tally of the strategies according to this division revealed that, although the majority of strategies were internal to self, a substantial amount were external to self. It was useful to consider in this context d’Abbs (1991) who identified a similar, superficial disparity between actions taken and social context.

The context of d’Abbs’ discussion was formal services and informal support in which he identifies the more subtle influence of "norms of reciprocity and social distance" (1991, p. 129). He argues that support is more likely to be used where it is "relatively undemanding, readily reciprocated, and not highly intrusive" (d’Abbs, 1991, p. 129). d’Abbs comments further that:

By applying a ‘reciprocity filter’ (consistent with d’Abbs identification of this norm) to the strategies a more meaningful picture emerged. A ‘reciprocity filter’ enables the strategy to be viewed in terms of the likely amount of reciprocal obligation that would be incurred if the strategy was engaged. The respondents were most likely to employ strategies where their reciprocal obligations were least (see Table 1). In this context, whether the strategies were internal or external to self became irrelevant. Margaret’s comment, consistent with d’Abbs (1992) norms of reciprocity and social distance, exemplifies this concept.

Visualising child care strategies on a reciprocal obligation continuum is consistent with a social context that promotes the mother’s personal responsibility . A similar continuum was developed by d’Abbs (1991) to portray types of informal help. It was also consistent with the respondent’s comments in this study; "I’d rather look after it all myself if I can" (Jane, 31/7/97).

The link between reciprocal obligation and child care coping strategies emerged in the first interviews and was explored specifically in the second interview. It became apparent when respondents were describing the process of strategy selection, particularly when engaging the help of others to assist with child care. I noted two steps in the respondent’s decision making process regarding the selection of a strategy. Firstly, respondents determined if they could rely on themselves to engage the strategy or whether they needed to negotiate with others. The preference was to rely on yourself. Secondly, if it was not possible to rely just on yourself then you needed to assess the nature of the relationship with the person you are requesting help from. Questions mothers asked were: How equitable is it? What do I need to do to equalise the relationship? Is it possible to meet this obligation?

When seeking help from others the assessment process was complex and did not follow simple guidelines, such as it is easier to rely on your own family for support. The respondents noted that a complex decision making process was applied to each situation regardless of whom the request for help was asked. Margaret’s comment provides some insight into this process:

This finding contradicts previous studies which have assumed that mothers’ mothers are always available to assist with child care without the ‘hidden hooks’ of asking for assistance. Wearing et al. (1990) maintained that: "It is legitimate to receive support from another women, especially if she is one’s own mother. She is still expected to be a good mother - nurturant and supportive for her own daughter" (p. 32). However, respondents in this study applied the same assessment process to support requested from their mothers as they did to other potential providers of assistance.

There were times when respondents assessed that they had incurred too much reciprocal obligation. Margaret noted in her second interview that a mutual child minding arrangement in the school holidays had become too burdensome:

It was emotionally easier for respondents to pay for support; less reciprocal obligations were incurred. It was also less complicated.

The process of reciprocal obligation provided the basis for understanding the respondents selection of strategies. Respondents were most likely to select strategies that incurred the least reciprocal obligation. "I’d rather look after it all myself if I can" (Jane, 31/7/97). This preference is consistent with acceptance of primary responsibility which is in turn reinforced by the ideology of motherhood. d’Abb’s (1991) book, Who Helps: Support Networks and Social Policy in Australia, was particularly useful in providing insight into this process. He notes that "in general, the support available through kin, friends and neighbours serves to meet needs that are relatively undemanding, readily reciprocated, and are not intrusive for the recipient" (d’Abbs, 1991, p. 13). This statement was entirely consistent with the findings of this research project. Further, d’Abbs (1991) comments that "... the norms relating to reciprocity and social distance, ... underlie the giving and receiving of support through informal networks ..." (p. 13). Wearing et al. (1990) explore reciprocal obligation linking it to power relationships between male and female partners. "Support which has to be requested reduces her autonomy and increases her dependency beyond the economic sphere. Interdependency is problematic because of the asymmetry of the gendered aspects of support" (p. 33). Reluctance to seek support is linked to current, gendered divisions of labour in the family and the work force, which Wearing et al. (1990) maintain "creates a difference in legitimacy of support along gender lines" (p. 33).

The ideology of motherhood assumes that mothers are primarily responsible for the care of their own children. This promotion of the acceptance of responsibility is consistent with women’s role as carer/supporter/helper (Wearing et al., 1990). It is therefore legitimate for women to provide support but not to accept it. When considering what strategies to engage for coping with young children, selection is construed within this framework of giving but not receiving support. If the mother can manage the situation on her own she will. If she cannot she will choose strategies that will engage the least reciprocal obligation. "Reciprocity of support is undermined by ideologies concerning women’s natural capacity for mothering and nurturing, men’s for protecting and providing and by gendered constraint on support" (Wearing et al., 1990, p. 35). In the conclusion of their paper Wearing et al. (1990) recommend continued research in this area, "understanding the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of gendered support ... The general definition, experience and legitimacy of support in the family ... " (p. 36). The data gathered in this research project has attempted to add additional insight into this complex process.

In this study it was found that coping strategies, selected by the respondents, were consistent with an ideological context which emphasises maternal responsibility. This emphasis is promoted by the ideology of motherhood and it’s caretakers (e.g. the media). Acknowledgment of this context should not, however, detract from the value of practical knowledge applicable to everyday mothering lives and to service providers and planners.

Attempting to understand the process of strategy selection, why women choose one strategy and not another, led me to consider the notion of reciprocal obligation (Wearing, 1990; d’Abbs, 1991). Reciprocal obligation is applicable to understanding why particular strategies were selected by respondents, and others were not. Strategy selection was a complex process. Respondents preferred to accept personal responsibility if they could. Negotiation with others for assistance required assessing the burden of the request and the amount of reciprocal obligation incurred. Whether the "other" was a friend, family member or acquaintance seemed irrelevant. This contradicts the claim of Wearing et al. (1990) that assistance from female friends and particularly the mother’s mother could be taken for granted. Circumstances were assessed on an individual basis. The less complex the arrangement, for example fee for service assistance, the more favourably it was regarded. Consistent with research on the ideology of motherhood (Wearing, 1984; Wearing et al., 1990; Oakley, 1981), respondents accepted personal responsibility for strategy selection.

There are a number of theoretical and practical applications arising from this research project:

• This research provides insight into the process of child care strategy selection, particularly relevant to the engagement of the strategy of social support. It demonstrates that women assume responsibility for engaging in this complex process. The feminist, utopian ideals of these group of respondents have not negated their acceptance of primary responsibility for this process.
  
  
• Respondents’ everyday actions were constituted within a framework of ideologies, particularly the ideology of motherhood. This ideology, identified by feminist researchers, serves to maintain women in isolated family units, assuming the role of primary caretaker of their children. This research makes clear the link between this ideological context and strategy selection. What we do everyday exists in a wider context that cannot be ignored.
  
  
• The establishment of support programs for mothers should be planned in a context that acknowledges these ideologies and the messages of their caretakers. Further, as mothers’ everyday actions are constituted within these ideological frameworks, programs should be designed to accommodate the resultant way that mothers plan and act out their lives. Programs should also seek to challenge the ideology of motherhood through exposing its agenda and implications.
  
  
• Finally in-depth feminist research into the lived experiences of mothers can provide depth and texture to their experiences and the ideological contexts of their mothering that more wide ranging research can only hint at.

BOULTON, M. (1983) On Being a Mother: A Study of Women With Pre-School Children. London: Tavistock Publications.

D’ABBS, P. (1991) Who Helps: Support Networks and Social Policy in Australia. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.

GAIR, S. (1996) Adoption: A Different Road to Mothering. Unpublished PhD Thesis, James Cook University.

HUTCHINSON, E. (1992) "Child Welfare as a Women’s Issue", Families in Society. Vol 73, No. 2, pages 67-78.

MAUSHART, S. (1997) The Mask of Motherhood: How Motherhood Changes Everything and Why we Pretend it Doesn’t. Sydney: Vintage.

McMAHON, M. (1995) Engendering Motherhood: Identity and Self-transformation in Women’s Lives. New York: The Guilford Press.

OAKLEY, A. (1981) Subject Women. Oxford: Martin Robertson.

WEARING, B. (1984) The Ideology of Motherhood. Sydney: George Allen and Unwin.

WEARING, B., RUDLAND, S., KOENIG, S., and NOBLE-SPRUELL, C. (1990) Hidden Hooks in Social Support for Women: A Study of New Mothers. Unpublished paper, University of New South Wales.