واکاوی عوامل مؤثر بر میل به فرزندآوری با رویکرد پدیدارشناسی
محورهای موضوعی : زن و جامعه
1 - دانش‌آموخته دکترای تخصصی سنجش و اندازه‌گیری، مدرس دانشگاه فرهنگیان خوزستان، پردیس حضرت فاطمه الزهرا (س)، اهواز، ایران
کلید واژه: واکاوی, عوامل مؤثر, میل به فرزندآوری, کلایزی,
چکیده مقاله :
هدف: هدف پژوهش حاضر کشف و فهم مؤلفه‌های مؤثر در فرایند فرزندآوری در زنان متأهل ایرانی است که با استفاده از روش کلایزی و راهبرد پدیدارشناسی در پائیز سال 1401 انجام شده است.
روش: به منظور جمع‌آوری داده‌ها با بهره‌گیری از نمونه‌گیری هدفمند و روش مصاحبه نیمه ساختارمند؛ در مصاحبه 23اُم اشباع نظری حاصل شد. این داده‌ها در مراحل هفت‌گانه روش کلایزی تحلیل و اعتبار روایی آن‌ها با استفاده از معیارهای لینکولن و گوبا بررسی و تأیید شد.
یافته ها: یافته‌های حاصل حاکی از احصا 8-مضمون بود که 32-خوشه و 87 کد را پوشش می‌دادند. بر اساس کدهای شناسایی شده، مضامینی همچون اقتصادی(21کد)، فردی(19کد) و روانشناختی(14کد)، به ترتیب دارای اولویت بودند. برحسب فراوانی نیز، بیشترین فراوانی مربوط به "مشکلات اقتصادی" در خوشه موانع دولتی، "مشکلات معیشتی" در خوشه جامعه، "اجاره بها" در خوشه مسکن، "شاغل بودن مادر و امنیت شغلی زوجین" در خوشه اشتغال، "افزایش سن" در خوشه سن، "نگرش منفی" در خوشه مدرنیته و "عدم‌مسئولیت‌پذیری" در خوشه پذیرش نقش خود به‌عنوان پدر و مادر، بوده است.
نتیجه‌گیری: باتوجه‌به اینکه جامعه‌شناسان عقیده دارند تمرکز جدی بر جوانان مبنای فرزندآوری برای نسل آینده است و ثروت هر کشور جمعیت جوان آن کشور است، بنابراین یافته‌های حاصل شده در پژوهش حاضر می‌تواند برای توسعه و پیاده‌سازی برنامه‌های بهبود فرزندآوری، موردتوجه مسئولان جامعه‌شناختی، اقتصادی، روان‌شناسی، مشاوره خانواده و ازدواج و واقع گردد.
Introduction: The aim of the current research was to discover and understand the effective components in the process of having children in Iranian married women, which was carried out using the Colaizzi method and the phenomenological strategy in the autumn of 2022.
Methods: In order to collect data using targeted sampling and semi-structured interview method; Theoretical saturation was achieved in the 23rd interview. These data were analyzed in the seven stages of the Colaizzian method and their validity was checked and confirmed using Lincoln and Guba criteria.
Findings: The results indicated the statistics of 8 themes (economic, family, individual, sociological, cultural, lifestyle, psychological and health) which covered 32 clusters and 87 codes. Based on the identified codes, themes such as economic (21 codes), individual (19 codes) and psychological (14 codes) were prioritized respectively. In terms of frequency, the highest frequency is related to "economic problems" in the government obstacles cluster, "livelihood problems" in the community cluster, "rent" in the housing cluster, "mother's employment and couple's job security" in the employment cluster, "increase age" in the age cluster, "negative attitude" in the modernity cluster and "Irresponsibility" has been in the cluster of accepting one's role as a parent.
conclusion: Considering that sociologists believe that a serious focus on young people is the basis of childbearing for the future generation and the wealth of any country is its young population, therefore the findings obtained in the current research can be of interest to sociological, economic, psychology, family and marriage counseling.
1- Rafiei Moqaddam F, Fathi Ashtiani A. Discovery of the Factors Inhibiting Couples from Childbearing in the Last Decade (A Systematic Review). The Women and Families Cultural-Educational, 2021, 15(53), 155-175.
20.1001.1.26454955.1399.15.53.7.2
2- Miranda-Ribeiro A, Garcia RA, Faria TC. Baixa fecundidade e adiamento do primeiro filho no Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Estudos de População. 2019 Sep 30;36. https://doi.org/10.20947/s0102-3098a0080
3- CBOS. Procreation plans of women. Research report no. 117/2017, October 2017. Warsaw: Public opinion research Centre. Available at: [12.07.19]. 2017. https://www.cbos.pl/EN/publications/reports/2017/117_17.pdf
4- Wesolowski K. To have or not to have a child? Perceived constraints on childbearing in a lowest-low fertility context. Population, Space and Place, 2015, 21(1), 86– 101. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.1811
5- Beaujouan É, Sobotka, T. Late childbearing continues to increase in developed countries. Population Societies, 2019, 562(1), 1-4. https://www.cairn-int.info/revue-population-and-societies-2019-1-page-1.htm
6- Sobotka T. Post-transitional fertility: The role of childbearing postponement in fuelling the shift to low and unstable fertility levels. Journal of Biosocial Science, 2017, 49(S1), S20– S45. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021932017000323
7- Timæus IM, Moultrie TA. Pathways to low fertility: 50 years of limitation, curtailment, and postponement of childbearing. Demography, 2020, 57(1), 267– 296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-019-00848-5
8- Fundo DP, Nações U. O poder de escolha. Direitos reprodutivos e transição demográfica [The power of choice. Reproductive rights and demographic transition]. 2018.» https://brazil.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/SWOP_2018.pdf
9- Modiri F, Tanha F, Gilani N. Socio-economic determinants of childbearing intention and behavior among men in Tehran. Quarterly of Social Studies and Research in Iran, 2021, 10(4), 1123-1147. 10.22059/jisr.2021.323694.1209
10- Klobucar NR. The role of spirituality in transition to parenthood: Qualitative research using transformative learning theory. Journal of Religion and Health, 2016, 55, 1345– 1358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-015-0088-4
11- Ekström‐Bergström A, Thorstensson S, Bäckström C. The concept, importance and values of support during childbearing and breastfeeding–A discourse paper. Nursing Open, 2022, 9(1), 156-167. 10.1002/nop2.1108
12- Varas GVV, Borsa JC. Predictor variables of childbearing motivations in Brazilian women and men. Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto), 2021, 31. 10.1590/1982-4327e3112
13- Tavares LP. Who delays childbearing? The associations between time to first birth, personality traits and education. European Journal of Population, 2016, 32(4), 575-597. » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-016-9393-1
14- Cooke A, Mills TA, Lavender T. ‘Informed and uninformed decision making’—Women's reasoning, experiences, and perceptions with regard to advanced maternal age and delayed childbearing: A meta-synthesis. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 2010, 47(10), 1317– 1329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.06.001
15- Mills M, Rindfuss RR, McDonald P, Te Velde E. Why do people postpone parenthood? Reasons and social policy incentives. Human Reproduction Update, 2011, 17(6), 848– 860. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmr026
16- Hanappi D, Ryser VA, Bernardi L, Le Goff JM. Changes in employment uncertainty and the fertility intention–realization link: An analysis based on the Swiss household panel. European Journal of Population, 2017, 33(3), 381– 407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-016-9408-y
17- Kuhnt AK, Trappe H. Channels of social influence on the realization of short-term fertility intentions in Germany. Advances in Life Course Research, 2016, 27(1), 16– 29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2015.10.002
18- Sinyavskaya O, Billingsley S. The importance of job characteristics to women’s fertility intentions and behavior in Russia. Genus, 2015, 71(1). https://www.jstor.org/stable/genus.71.1.23
19- Yu WH, Kuo JCL. Another work-family interface: Work characteristics and family intentions in Japan. Demographic Research, 2017, 36, 391– 426. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2017.36.13
20- Vignoli D, Mencarini L, Alderotti G. Is the effect of job uncertainty on fertility intentions channeled by subjective well-being? Advances in Life Course Research, 2020, 46, 100343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2020.100343
21- Boivin J, Buntin L, Kalebic N, Harrison C. What makes people ready to conceive? Findings from the International Fertility Decision-Making Study. Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online, 2018, 6, 90– 101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbms.2018.10.012
22- Kjerulff KH, Velott DL, Zhu J, Chuang CH, Hillemeier MM, Paul IM, Repke JT. Mode of first delivery and women's intentions for subsequent childbearing: Findings from the First Baby Study. Pediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, 2013, 27(1), 62– 71. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppe.12014
23- Preis H, Tovim S, Mor P, Grisaru-Granovsky S, Samueloff A, Benyamini Y. Fertility intentions and the way they change following birth-a prospective longitudinal study. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 2020, 20, 1– 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-020-02922-y
24- Aassve A, Arpino B, Balbo N. It takes two to tango: Couples’ happiness and childbearing. European Journal of Population, 2016, 32(3), 339– 354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-016-9385-1
25- Fan E, Maitra P. Women rule: Preferences and fertility in Australian households. The BE Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 2013, 13(1), 1-30. doi.org/10.1515/bejeap-2012-0021
26- Testa MR. Couple disagreement about short-term fertility desires in Austria: Effects on intentions and contraceptive behavior. Demographic Research, 2012, 26, 63– 98. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26349882
27- Mynarska M, Rytel J. Fertility desires of childless poles: Which childbearing motives matter for men and women?. Journal of Family Issues, 2020, 41(1), 7-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X19868257
28- Rajan S, Nanda P, Calhoun LM, Speizer IS. Sex composition and its impact on future childbearing: A longitudinal study from urban Uttar Pradesh. Reproductive Health, 2018, 15(1), 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-018-0482-y
-29- Kuhlmann AS, Shato T, Fu Q, Sierra M. Intimate partner violence, pregnancy intention, and contraceptive use in Honduras. Contraception, 2019, 100 (2), 137– 141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2019.03.050
30- Schaffnit SB, Sear R. Supportive families versus support from families: The decision to have a child in the Netherlands. Demographic Research, 2017, 37, 417– 453. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26332201#metadata_info_tab_contents
31- Bernhardt E, Goldscheider F, Turunen J. Attitudes to the gender division of labor and the transition to fatherhood: Are egalitarian men in Sweden more likely to remain childless? Acta Sociologica, 2016, 59(3), 269– 284. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001699316645930
32- Vignoli D, Rinesi F, Mussino E. A home to plan the first child? Fertility intentions and housing conditions in Italy. Population, Space and Place, 2013, 19(1), 60– 71. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.1716
33- Cranney S. The association between belief in god and fertility desires in Slovenia and the Czech Republic. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2015, 47(2), 83– 89. https://doi.org/10.1363/47e2915
34- Barber JS, Miller W, Kusunoki Y, Hayford SR, Guzzo KB. Intimate relationship dynamics and changing desire for pregnancy among young women. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2019, 51(3), 143– 152. https://doi.org/10.1363/psrh.12119
35- Samani L, Kouhpeima Ronizi Z, Kouhpeima Ronizi S. The Influence of legal supports of working women during pregnancy and lactation period on their desire to have children. Islam J Women Fam, 2020, 8(19), 117-32. 20.1001.1.25386190.1399.8.2.6.3
36- Nelson-Coffey SK, Cavanaugh LA. Baby fever: Situational cues shift the desire to have children via empathic emotions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2022, 28(2), 438. doi:10.1037/xap0000381
37- Kossakowska K, Söderberg M. Psychometric properties and factor structure of the attitudes to fertility and childbearing scale (AFCS) in a sample of polish women. Current Psychology, 2021, 40(7), 3125-3135. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-020-01004-8
38- Smuseneto A, Musor ME. Determinants of Desire for Having Children among Generation Y Thai Muslims in Thailand. International Journal of Religion & Spirituality in Society, 2021, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.18848/2154-8633/CGP/v11i01/171-183
39- Muluneh MW, Moyehodie YA. Determinants of desire for more children among women in Ethiopia. BMC Women's Health, 2021, 21(1), 1-7. doi:10.1186/s12905-021-01563-3
40- Ahinkorah BO, Seidu AA, Armah-Ansah EK, Budu E, Ameyaw EK, Agbaglo E, Yaya S. Drivers of desire for more children among childbearing women in sub-Saharan Africa: implications for fertility control. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 2020, 20(1), 1-11. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12884-020-03470-1
41- Roziboyevna MN. Socio-psychological factors in the formation of reproductive culture. international journal of social science & interdisciplinary research, 2022, 11(01), 210-213. http://www.gejournal.net/index.php/IJSSIR/article/view/149
42- Akbari Burang M, Pour S. Qualitative data analysis with a phenomenological approach (based on the Claizian method), first edition, Birjand University Publishing. 2020.
