Juliet Stone, Ann Berrington, Emma Calvert and Sue Heath ESRC Centre for Population Change

1. ESRC Grant number RES-625-28-0001 Draft presentation.  Not for citation without author's permissionLiving without kin: the rise in non-family living among young adults in the UK Juliet Stone, Ann Berrington, Emma Calvert and Sue Heath ESRC Centre for Population Change University of Southampton European living arrangements workshop, London School of Economics 18th December, 2009

2. Background to the project (1) • ESRC Centre for Population Change • 4 strands: 1. Household dynamics and living arrangements across the life course 2. Dynamics of fertility 3. The demographic and socio-economic implications of national and transnational migration 4. Modelling population change

3. Strand 1: Household dynamics and living arrangements across life course • The living arrangements of young adults • Leaving and returning home • Non-family living • Research Methods – mixed methods (?) • Quantitative analysis of secondary data • Cross-sectional data from LFS, EHCS • Longitudinal data from BHPS • Qualitative interviews of young adults • 40 qualitative interviews young people aged 25-34 • Those who have left home and are living outside of a family in the Southampton area

4. Format of this presentation • Theoretical background • How to research non-family living? • Quantitative strategy • Results • Qualitative strategy

5. Theoretical background • Transition to adulthood • extended and individualised • Britain • Early home leaving compared to many other European countries • Social polarisation of transition experiences • Emerging adulthood – a new phase of the life course for more advantaged? (Arnett, 2000; Bynner, 2005)

6. Typology of living arrangements Living in a new family (with partner and/or children) Living with parent (s) Living alone Living with others - kin - non-kin

7. Some Issues in defining and researching non-family living • Physical identification of those living alone versus those sharing • Bedsit………………..shared private………joint mortgage • Relationships beyond the household e.g. as offspring, partner or parent • Transitional nature – routes into and out of status. • We can no longer assume that people occupy a single status anyway e.g. spending some time at girlfriend’s house…

8. Quantitative Research questions • How has the overall prevalence of non-family living changed over the past decade among young adults? • To what extent are trends in the prevalence of non-family living being driven by changes in the composition of the population resulting from migration? • Is non-family living associated with previous experience of higher education?

9. Data • UK Labour Force Survey (ONS) • 1998 and 2008 (Quarterly household datasets) • Provides detailed information on household composition and family units within the household • “A household comprises of a single person, or a group of people living at the same address who have the address as their only or main home. They also share one main meal a day or share the living accommodation (or both).” Source: LFS User Guide, Volume 8. (Office for National Statistics, 2008)

10. Overall trend in non-family living

11. Types of non-family living

12. Impact of migration

13. Educational attainment

14. Types of living arrangements: men aged 25-34 years

15. Some findings from quantitative work • There has been an increase in prevalence of non-family living for UK men (but not for women) over past decade • Sharing with non-relatives has become a bigger component of this trend • This is partly being driven by immigration e.g. of young A8 migrants • Among UK-born men aged 25-34, those who have experienced higher education are more likely to be living outside of a family and are more likely to be sharing with unrelated individuals compared with those with lower educational qualifications. • However, shared living is not confined to those who have experienced higher education • Even with a large survey such as LFS – numbers become too small to answer certain questions……. • ………………………………………………………….Qualitative work

16. Mixed Methods Research (MMR) • Mixed methods research grown in popularity (dedicated Journal of Mixed Methods Research). • Many typologies, many inconsistencies. • Tashakori and Teddlie (2003) • Multiple method designs: • Multimethod - QUAN/QUAN or QUAL/QUAL • Mixed methods research - QUAL/QUAN or QUAN/QUAL • “A major advantage of mixed methods research is that it enables the researcher to simultaneously answer confirmatory and exploratory questions, and therefore verify and generate theory in the same study.” (p.15).

17. MMR Known Issues • “Paradigm wars”. • Criticisms as to integration (e.g. Bryman, 2007). • “Research findings can converge, which can be seen as an indicator of their validity; secondly, they can generate new comprehension of the phenomenon by forming complementary parts of a jigsaw puzzle, or thirdly, they can produce unexplainable divergence leading to a falsification of previous theoretical assumptions” • Erzberger and Prein (1997).

18. Qualitative Approach • The qualitative approach is able to explore issues where secondary data analysis is limited. • Living arrangements research project - “semi” sequential. • First phase of quantitative research generates questions and provides context for qualitative approach. • Not uni-directional.

19. Context • Coles (1995): identified three interlinked transitions: • Housing transitions • Employment transitions • Domestic transitions • This project builds on previous research on young people, e.g., ESRC Youth Citizenship and Social Change (Ford et al., 2002), ESRC Young Adults & Shared Housing Living project (Heath & Cleaver, 2003). • Changed economic environment.

20. Aims and Objectives • The qualitative phase aims to explore: • the implications of these shifts for young people’s intimate relationships with friends, partners, parents and other family members. • the degree to which new patterns of intergenerational transfers of resources might also attend these demographic shifts. • the interactions between the housing and household pathways. • imagined futures in relation to household/family formation. • the strategies adopted in relation to their housing needs and desires.

21. Key Research Questions • Key research questions include: • young people’s perceptions and first hand experiences of the changing nature of household formation and housing market entry. • the perceived opportunities and constraints linked to these changes. • their dependence on, and availability of, resources provided by peers and family members

22. The Sample • Sample parameters: • 40 young adults, 25 - 34 yrs old living in/around the city of Southampton. • currently living outside of the parental home and do not currently have a resident partner (but may have a non-resident partner). • Purposive sampling: • current living arrangements - living alone/shared accommodation. • housing tenure - private rented housing/social housing/owner occupied. • level of qualification - graduate/non-graduate. • sexual orientation – heterosexual/gay/lesbian/bisexual. • geographical location – urban/rural/semi-rural.

23. Next Steps • Sample recruitment: • In development – possible mechanisms include local estate agents/employers/housing developments/internet. • Research method & analysis: • Semi-structured interviews. • Recorded, transcribed and analysed using NVivo 8. • Time-line: • November 2009 – November 2010.

24. Acknowledgements This research is funded by ESRC Grant number RES-625-28-0001. The Centre for Population Change is a joint initiative between the University of Southampton and a consortium of Scottish Universities in partnership with ONS and GROS. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors and should not be attributed in any manner to ONS or GROS. The Labour Force Survey is conducted by the Office for National Statistics and the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency. Access to the data is provided by the UK Data Archive.