Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T20:16:07.102Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Social Networks, Social Influence, and Fertility in Germany

Challenges and Benefits of Applying a Parallel Mixed Methods Design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2014

Laura Bernardi
Affiliation:
University of Lausanne
Sylvia Keim
Affiliation:
University of Rostock
Andreas Klärner
Affiliation:
University of Hamburg
Silvia Domínguez
Affiliation:
Northeastern University, Boston
Betina Hollstein
Affiliation:
Universität Bremen
Get access

Summary

Introduction – Social Networks and Fertility

In this chapter we present a parallel mixed method research design applied in the field of fertility research. Our project aims at generating a comprehensive understanding of the network effects on fertility intentions and behavior. These effects have attracted the interest of researchers in demography and family sociology over the last 20 years (Bongaarts and Watkins 1996; Kohler 2001; Kohler and Bühler 2001; Bernardi and Klärner 2014). The central question of our research is how intimate life-course decisions of individuals and couples about becoming parents are influenced by social interactions with parents, siblings, relatives, friends, but also with colleagues as well as more contingent encounters that constitute individuals’ social networks.

Most research in this area has concentrated on providing evidence for social network effects measured at the macro-level, for example, for a significant relation between the geographical correlation of the diffusion of contraceptive knowledge and changes in fertility behavior. Researchers also have recorded social network effects on value change concerning gender roles, the role of women in society, the desired number of children, attitudes toward cohabitation, and so on (Kohler and Bühler 2001; Rindfuss et al. 2004). Central for this research are hypotheses involving the role of social learning and social norms (e.g., Montgomery and Casterline 1996; Casterline 2001; Kohler 2001) and social support (cf. Bühler 2007). Studies about network influence on fertility choices so far have been conducted mainly in developing countries (e.g., Kohler et al. 2001; Madhavan et al. 2003) or in post-socialist transformation societies (e.g., Philipov et al. 2006; Bühler and Philipov 2007; Bühler and Fratczak 2007), giving support to the thesis that better access to social support increases the likelihood to become parents. It is argued that in these countries traditional values and family and tribal structures are pre-dominant and therefore social networks serve as substitutes for malfunctioning or non-existent welfare-state institutions. Also, individualization and post-modern orientations – often considered as forces against social cohesion and therefore against effective and powerful influences by persons from the social network – are not so far spread in these countries. Yet, little is known about how social networks affect fertility intentions and behavior in western European societies that are characterized by individualization processes that tend to diminish the importance of traditional family bonds.

Type
Chapter
Information
Mixed Methods Social Networks Research
Design and Applications
, pp. 121 - 152
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Antonucci, Tony C. 1986. “Measuring social support networks: Hierarchical mapping technique.” Generations 10(4):10–12.Google Scholar
Aquilino, William S. 2005. “Impact of family structure on parental attitudes toward the economic support of adult children over the transition to adulthood.” Journal of Family Issues 26(2):143–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arai, Lisa. 2007. “Peer and neighbourhood influences on teenage pregnancy and fertility: Qualitative findings from research in English communities.” Health & Place 13(1):87–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Axinn, William G., Clarkberg, Marin E., and Thornton, Arland. 1994. “Family influences on family size preferences.” Demography 31(1):65–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bandura, Albert. 1962. “Social learning through imitation.” Pp. 211–69 in Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, edited by Marshall R. Jones, . Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Bernardi, Laura. 2003. “Channels of social influence on reproduction.” Population Research and Policy Review 22(5–6):527–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernardi, Laura and Keim, Sylvia. 2007. “Anfang dreißig und noch kinderlos? Lebenswege und Familienmodelle berufstätiger Frauen aus Ost- und Westdeutschland.” Pp. 317–34 in Ein Leben ohne Kinder. Kinderlosigkeit in Deutschland, edited by Dirk Konietzka and Michaela Kreyenfeld. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.Google Scholar
Bernardi, Laura and Klärner, Andreas. 2014. “Social networks and fertility.” Demographic Research 30(23):675–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernardi, Laura, Keim, Sylvia, and von der Lippe, Holger. 2007. “Social influences on fertility: A comparative mixed methods study in eastern and western Germany.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1(1):23–47.Google Scholar
Bernardi, Laura, Klärner, Andreas, and Lippe, Holger von der. 2008. “Job insecurity and the timing of parenthood: A comparison between eastern and western Germany.” European Journal of Population 24(3):287–313.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bidart, Claire and Lavenu, Daniel. 2005. “Evolutions of personal networks and life events.” Social Networks 27(4):359–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billy, John O. G. and Udry, Richard J.. 1985. “Patterns of adolescent friendship and effects on sexual behavior.” Social Psychology Quarterly 48(1):27–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bongaarts, John and Watkins, Susan C.. 1996. “Social interactions and contemporary fertility transitions.” Population and Development Review 22(4):639–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bott, Elizabeth. 1957. Family and Social Network. Roles, Norms, and External Relationships in Ordinary Urban Families. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1986. “The forms of capital.” Pp. 241–58 in The Handbook of Theory: Research for the Sociology of Education, edited by Richardson, John G.. New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Brannen, Julia. 2005. “Mixing methods: The entry of qualitative and quantitative approaches into the research process.” International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8(3):173–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bühler, Christoph. 2007. “Soziales Kapital und Fertilität.” Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, Sonderheft 47:397–419.Google Scholar
Bühler, Christoph and Fratczak, Ewa. 2007. “Learning from others and receiving support: The impact of personal networks on fertility intentions in Poland.” European Societies 9(3):359–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bühler, Christoph and Philipov, Dimiter. 2007. “Social capital related to fertility: Theoretical foundations and empirical evidence from Bulgaria.” Pp. 53–81 in Vienna Yearbook of Population Research 2005, edited by Gustav Feichtinger and Wolfgang Lutz. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Burt, Ronald S. 1987. “Social contagion and innovation: Cohesion versus structural equivalence.” American Journal of Sociology 92(6):1287–1335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton, Linda M. 2004. “Ethnographic protocol for welfare, children and families: A three city study.” Pp. 59–69 in Workshop on Scientific Foundations of Qualitative Research, edited by Charles C. Ragin, Joane Nagel, and Patricia White. National Science Foundation. (.)Google Scholar
Casterline, John B., ed. 2001. Diffusion Processes and Fertility Transition. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Coleman, James S. 1988. “Social capital in the creation of human capital.” American Journal of Sociology 94 (Supplement): S95–S120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbin, Juliet M. and Strauss, Anselm L.. 2008. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahrendorf, Ralf. 1977. Homo sociologicus. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flick, Uwe. 2002. An Introduction to Qualitative Research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Friedkin, Noah E. 1982. “Information flow through strong and weak ties in intraoganizational social networks.” Social Networks 3(4):273–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Glaser, Barney G. 1965. “The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis.” Social Problems 12(4):436–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaser, Barney G. 1992. Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.Google Scholar
Glaser, Barney G. and Strauss, Anselm L.. 1999. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Granovetter, Mark S. 1973. “The strength of weak ties.” American Journal of Sociology 78(6):1360–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatfield, Elaine, Cacioppo, John T., and Rapson, Richard L.. 1994. Emotional Contagion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hodgkin, Suzanne. 2008. “Telling it all: A story of women’s social capital using a mixed methods approach.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research 2(4):296–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollstein, Betina. 2001. Grenzen sozialer Integration. Zur Konzeption informeller Beziehungen und Netzwerke. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollstein, Betina 2006. “Qualitative Methoden und Netzwerkanalyse – ein Widerspruch?” Pp. 11–35 in Qualitative Netzwerkanalyse. Konzepte, Methoden, Anwendungen, edited by Hollstein, Betina and Straus, Florian. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hülser, Oliver. 1996. Frauenerwerbstätigkeit im Transformationsprozeß der deutschen Vereinigung. Nuremberg: IAB.Google Scholar
Keim, Sylvia. 2011a. Social Networks and Family Formation Processes: Young Adults’ Decision Making about Parenthood. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keim, Sylvia 2011b. “Social networks and family formation.” Pp. 112–28 in Families and Kinship in Contemporary Europe, edited by Jallinoja, Riitta and Widmer, Eric. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Keim, Sylvia, Klärner, Andreas, and Bernardi, Laura. 2009. “Qualifying social influence on fertility intentions: Composition, structure and meaning of fertility-relevant social networks in western Germany.” Current Sociology 57(6):888–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keim, Sylvia, Klärner, Andreas, and Bernardi, Laura 2013. “Tie strength and family formation: Which personal relationships are influential?” Personal Relationships 20(3):462–478.
Klärner, Andreas and Keim, Sylvia. 2011. “(Re-)Traditionalisierung und Flexibilität. Intergenerationale Unterstützungsleistungen und die Reproduktion von Geschlechterungleichheiten in West- und Ostdeutschland.” Pp. 121–44 in Reproduktion von Ungleichheit durch Arbeit und Familie, edited by Peter A. Berger, Karsten Hank, and Angelika Tölke. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.Google Scholar
Kohler, Hans-Peter. 2001. Fertility and Social Interaction: An Economic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohler, Hans-Peter and Bühler, Christoph. 2001. “Social networks and fertility.” Pp. 14380–88 in International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, edited by Smelser, Neill J. and Baltes, Paul B.. Oxford: Pergamon/Elsevier.Google Scholar
Kohler, Hans-Peter, Behrman, Jere R., and Watkins, Susan C.. 2001. “The density of social networks and fertility decisions: Evidence from South Nyanza District, Kenya.” Demography 38(1):43–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Konietzka, Dirk and Kreyenfeld, Michaela. 2004. “Angleichung oder Verfestigung von Differenzen? Geburtenentwicklung und Familienformen in Ost- und Westdeutschland.” Berliner Debatte Initial 15(4):26–41.Google Scholar
Kreyenfeld, Michaela. 2001. Employment and Fertility: East Germany in the 1990s. PhD Dissertation, University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany.Google Scholar
Kreyenfeld, Michaela 2004. “Fertility decisions in the FRG and GDR: An analysis with data from the German Fertility and Family Survey.” Demographic Research, Special Collection 3(11):276–318.Google Scholar
Lin, Nan. 2001a. Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, Nan 2001b. “Building a network theory of social capital.” Pp. 3–30 in Social Capital, edited by Lin, Nan, Cook, Karen S., and Burt, Ronals S.. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lippitt, Ronald, Polansky, Norman, and Rosen, Sidney. 1952. “The dynamics of power: A field study of social influence.” Human Relations 5:37–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madhavan, Sangeetha, Adams, Alayne, and Simon, Dominique 2003. “Women’s networks and the social world of fertility behavior.” International Family Planning Perspectives 29(2):58–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mandemakers, Jornt J. and Dykstra, Pearl A.. 2008. “Discrepancies in parent’s and adult child’s reports of support and contact.” Journal of Marriage and Family 70(2):495–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsden, Peter V. and Friedkin, Noah E.. 1993. “Network studies of social influence.” Sociological Methods & Research 22(1):127–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merton, Robert K. 1968. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Mey, Günter. 1999. Adoleszenz, Identität, Erzählung. Theoretische, methodische und empirische Erkundungen. Berlin: Köster.Google Scholar
Montgomery, Mark R. and Casterline, John B. 1996. “Social learning, social influence and new models of fertility.” Population and Development Review 22(1):151–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, Michael and Wang, Duolao. 2001. “Family-level continuities in childbearing in low-fertility societies.” European Journal of Population 17(1):75–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nauck, Bernhard and Schwenk, Otto G.. 2001. “Did societal transformation destroy the social networks of families in East Germany?”American Behavioral Scientist 44(11):1864–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nee, Victor, Sanders, Jimy M., and Sernau, Scott. 1994. “Job transitions in an immigrant metropolis: Ethnic boundaries and the mixed economy.” American Sociological Review 59(6):849–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pappi, Franz U. and Wolf, Gunter. 1984. “Wahrnehmung und Realität sozialer Netzwerke. Zuverlässigkeit und Gültigkeit der Angaben über beste Freunde.” Pp. 281–300 in Soziale Realität im Interview, edited by Meulemann, Heiner and Reuband, Karl-Heinz. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
Philipov, Dimiter, Spéder, Zsolt, and Billari, Francesco C.. 2006. “Soon, later, or ever? The impact of anomie and social capital on fertility intentions in Bulgaria (2002) and Hungary (2001).” Population Studies 60(3):289–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rindfuss, Ronald R., Choe, Minja K., Bumpass, Larry L., and Tsuya, Noriko O.. 2004. “Social networks and family change in Japan.” American Sociological Review 69(6):838–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schütze, Fritz. 1977. “Die Technik des narrative Interviews in Interaktionsfeldstudien, dargestellt an einem Projekt zur Erforschung von kommunalen Machtstukturen.” Bielefeld: o.V.
Short, Susan E., Chen, Feinian, Entwisle, Barbara, and Fengying, Zhai. 2002. “Maternal work and child care in China: A multi-method analysis.” Population and Development Review 28(1):31–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steenhof, Liesbeth and Liefbroer, Aart C.. 2008. “Intergenerational transmission of age at first birth in the Netherlands for birth cohorts born between 1935 and 1984: Evidence from municipal registers.” Population Studies 62(1):69–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steglich, Christian, Snijders, Tom A. B., and Pearson, Michael. 2010. “Dynamic networks and behavior: Separating selection from influence.” Sociological Methodology 40(1):S.329–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Straus, Florian. 2002. Netzwerkanalysen: gemeindepsychologische Perspektiven für Forschung und Praxis. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitätsverlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strauss, Anselm L. and Corbin, Juliet M.. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Uhlendorff, Harald. 2004. “After the wall: Parental educational attitudes in East- and West-Germany.” International Journal of Behavioral Development 28(1):71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witzel, Andreas and Herwig, Reiter. 2012. The Problem-Centred Interview. Principles and Practice. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×