Resilient Young Mothering: Social Inequalities, Late Modernity and the 'Problem' of 'Teenage'...

Resilient Young Mothering: SocialInequalities, Late Modernity and the‘Problem’ of ‘Teenage’ MotherhoodElizabeth McDermott & Hilary Graham

This paper draws on a systematic review of qualitative research to explore the resilient

mothering practices that young, British, working-class mothers employ to care for their

children. The synthesis of studies of UK mothers under the age of 20 demonstrates how

young working-class women must mother in impoverished circumstances, at the same

time as being discursively positioned outside the boundaries of ‘normal’ motherhood.

Consequently, they utilize the only two resources to which they may have access: their

families and their own personal capacities. Engaging with debates regarding the extent of

the transformations of the social in late modernity, the paper discusses the most

prominent of the young mothers’ practices: investment in the ‘good’ mother identity,

maintaining kin relations, and prioritization of the mother/child dyad. The paper argues

that, while the young mothers’ practices display reflexivity and individualism, they are

also deeply embedded in, and structured by, social inequalities.

Introduction

Early motherhood has become synonymous with a number of social ‘problems’ in

contemporary Britain. On the one hand, young women who become mothers before

the age of 20 are demonized as agents of social disruption. Choosing to mother

without men and dependent on the state, they are seen to undermine the traditional

social order that privileges ‘the family’ and to fuel the growth of an underclass that

encourages crime and delinquency (Roseneil & Mann 1996; McRobbie 2000;

Wallbank 2001). On the other hand, young mothers are portrayed as passive victims

Correspondence to: Elizabeth McDermott, The Institute for Health Research, Lancaster University, Alexandra

Square, Lancaster LA1 4YT, UK. Tel: �/44 (0)1524 593701; Fax: �/44 (0)1524 592401; E-mail: e.mcdermott@

lancaster.ac.uk. This paper draws on research funded by the ESRC (H141251011) through the Centre for

Evidence-based Public Health Policy, based at the MRC Social and Public Health Services Unit, University of

Glasgow. The Centre is part of the ESRC’s Evidence Network. The authors would like to thank Val Hamilton and

Mark Petticrew for their input and advice.

ISSN 1367-6261 (print)/ISSN 1469-9680 (online) # 2005 Taylor & Francis Group Ltd

DOI: 10.1080/13676260500063702

Journal of Youth Studies

Vol. 8, No. 1, March 2005, pp. 59�/79

and a vulnerable group in need of support. On both counts, they are central to the

UK government’s drive to reduce child poverty, social exclusion and health

inequalities (SEU 1999; Department of Health 2002).

Early motherhood is associated with social deprivation (Smith 1993; SEU 1999;

Griffiths & Kirby 2000; Bradshaw & Finch 2001). Young women born to parents in

unskilled manual occupations are 10 times more likely than their counterparts born

into professional families to become mothers before the age of 20 (SEU 1999). Early

parenting, in turn, increases the risks of poverty, lone motherhood, welfare

dependency and a number of negative social and health outcomes for mother and

child (Kiernan 1995; Wellings 1996; Allen & Bourke-Dowling 1998). In effect, the

‘problem’ of ‘teenage’ parenting has been constructed at two levels, as Mitchell and

Green (2002, p. 6) comment, ‘In a way, young mothers are frequently viewed as both

an ‘at risk’ group within society and ‘a risk’ to society’ (see also Aarvold 1998;

Duncan & Edwards 1999; McRobbie 2000).

What is striking about the focus on teenage pregnancy and early parenthood in

policy debates is the absence of perspectives from young mothers themselves (Arai

2003b). This paper draws on a systematic review (SR) of the small but important

body of UK qualitative research on young mothers to engage with these perspectives.

It situates findings from the qualitative studies within sociological debates regarding

the extent of the transformations of the social in late modernity. The paper explores

the ways in which young mothers care for their children in poor social and economic

circumstances, while simultaneously being discursively positioned, because of their

age and class, as inappropriate mothers. It suggests that their mothering practices

display some of the reflexive, individualized qualities identified in critiques of late

modernity but, at the same time, their practices are mediated by the very real

structural inequalities that shape their everyday lives.

The ‘Problem’ of Early Motherhood

Early motherhood is not a neutral subject*/it is embedded in a range of moral,

political and economic discourses and structures (Silva 1996) that construct young

parenting as both a social problem and a social threat. This is not to deny that early

motherhood is part of a disadvantaged trajectory. Early motherhood compounds

young working-class women’s disadvantaged socio-economic position by increasing

the risk of dependency on state benefits, unemployment and social housing (Kiernan

1995; Botting et al . 1998; Allen & Bourke-Dowling 1999). It also reduces educational

opportunities (Kiernan 1995; Dawson 1997) and contributes to poorer health status

in later life (Wellings 1996). A range of UK social policies specifically address these

links between early motherhood and poor life chances and living standards (SEU

1999; Department of Health 2002).

Some commentators argue that it is important to reflect critically on the ways in

which research on early mothering is conducted and reported, and hence on how the

‘problem’ of young motherhood is constructed (Bullen et al . 2000; Carabine 2001;

60 E. McDermott & H. Graham

Cunnington 2001; Lawler & Shaw 2002; Arai 2003a). For example, teenage pregnancy

is not consistently linked to greater health risks for mother and child. While

associated with a range of adverse health outcomes, including infant mortality,

morbidity and postnatal depression (Botting et al . 1998; SEU 1999), teenage

pregnancy can also have protective health effects. Younger maternal age protects

children from diabetes (Bingley et al. 2000), women from breast cancer (McPherson

et al. 2000) and is associated with better obstetric outcomes compared with older age

groups (Wolkind & Kruk 1985). These more positive outcomes are not so widely

circulated or commonly acknowledged.

Feminist critiques have also addressed the ways in which teenage motherhood is

produced as a social problem. They argue that early motherhood is constructed as a

social threat through discourses relating to a range of social norms connected to

motherhood, family and sexuality (Roseneil & Mann 1996; Silva 1996; McRobbie

2000; Wallbank 2001). McRobbie (2000, p. 207) elucidates:

Young single mothers have consequently been demonised by governments on both

sides of the Atlantic. Their reckless behaviour (often blamed on feminism) is seen

as signalling the decline of family life and even as encouraging the criminalisation

of young men who no longer have a role as responsible father figures. Thus these

young women could be seen as occupying a materially and symbolically impossible

position.

Motherhood is socially constructed and is a historically specific category that is

produced through regulatory discourses relating to what constitutes the good mother

(Phoenix & Woollett 1991; Smart 1996). Normative constructions of the (good)

mother are defined in relation to providing for the child and ensuring they become

responsible citizens (Woollett & Phoenix 1991). Teenage (lone) mothers fall outside

the normative boundaries of good motherhood on a number of counts.

First they are perceived to be rejecting fathers, and hence the dominant

heterosexual two-parent family which it is presumed is a better environment for

the proper socialization of children (Silva 1996; Wallbank 2001). Second, their

dependency on the state and reluctance to form a conventional family is purported to

be the cause of social decay and constitutive of a new underclass with its attendant

problems such as poverty, crime and delinquency (Phoenix 1991a; McRobbie 2000;

Wallbank 2001). As Silva (1996, p. 8) notes, teenage mothers are ‘the epitome of the

problematic mother’.

Young Motherhood and Late Modernity

Increasingly, empirical studies have drawn upon social theorists such as Beck’s (1992;

Beck & Beck-Gernsheim 1995) and Giddens’ (1991, 1992) analyses of late modernity

as a framework for understanding the features and experiences of contemporary

young people’s lives (see for example Furlong & Cartmel 1997; Thomson 2000;

Mitchell et al. 2001; Mitchell & Green 2002). Adkins (2002) claims reflexive

Journal of Youth Studies 61

modernity can be characterized by three interlocking changes: increasing reflexivity, a

detraditionalization of social orthodoxies, and individualization. These deep-rooted

and overlapping social changes are seen to be transforming social structures,

relationships and identities that mean peoples’ lives are shaped less by the certainty

of traditions and social institutions, and more by the self-reflexive construction of

personal biographies (Giddens 1991).

Both Beck and Giddens centre much of their analysis upon on the contradictions

facing women, giving theoretical significance to gender divisions, relations and

identities as key aspects of the organization of the social (Smart & Neale 1999). For

example, Beck and Beck-Gernsheim (1995) suggest that individualization intensifies

the struggles between male and female identities, and that while adult intimacy is

fragile, the mother/child relationship is ‘the last remaining, irrevocable, unexchange-

able primary relationship’ (Beck 1992, p. 118). They partially attribute the growth of

autonomous motherhood to this shift in the meaning of intimacy.

A number of critics have suggested that, while the characteristics of late modernity

are universal tendencies, the processes of transformation in the social are socially

differentiated: more evident among privileged than disadvantaged groups (Jamieson

1999; Smart & Neale 1999). Grounded in the life worlds of the privileged, theories of

reflexive modernity may therefore over-emphasize the rational, conscious choices of

reflexivity and identity formation (Lash 1994; McNay 1999; Adkins 2002). Lash

(1994, p. 120) comments:

Just how ‘reflexive’ is it possible for a single mother in an urban ghetto tobe? . . . Beck and . . . Giddens write with insight on the self construction of lifenarratives. But just how much freedom from the ‘necessity’ of ‘structure’ andstructural poverty does this ghetto mother have to construct her own ‘lifenarratives’?

Empirical studies have demonstrated the continuing importance of a sustained

engagement with how social inequalities may mediate the processes of late modernity

(Smart & Neale 1999). Mitchell and Green’s (2002) work on young mothers and

kinship shows that young women are self-reflexive agents seeking to make sense of

their lives, but their everyday practices continue to be significantly shaped by class,

gender and locality. Similarly, Thomson’s (2000) research on young people’s values

concerning sexuality and parenthood illustrates that the impact of individualization

is mediated by social class and gender, giving rise to very different meanings and

outcomes. In fact, Adkins (2002) argues that rather than ‘traditional’ inequalities of

gender and sexuality disintegrating, as the analysis of reflexive modernity claims,

these inequalities are being reconfigured in new ways.

This paper draws upon the highly complex debates regarding the extent of the

transformations of the social in late modernity to frame a SR of the everyday

practices, identities and ‘life-narratives’ of young working-class mothers in con-

temporary Britain. Following a brief description of the review’s methodology, the

discussion considers the structural and discursive conditions in which young women


mother. It then explores the most prominent of young women’s inter-related resilient

mothering practices: investing in the good mother identity, maintaining kin relations,

and prioritization of the mother/child dyad.

Systematic Review Methodology

SRs are assuming a central place in the development of social science. They are seen

to provide evidence with a higher degree of validity and reliability, and therefore

generalizability, than traditional (narrative-based) literature reviews. However, SR

methodology has been developed for quantitative studies (and for quantitative

intervention studies in particular). The systematic review of qualitative research

remains both under-developed (CRD 2001) and a contested issue (Dixon-Woods &

Fitzpatrick 2001). As yet, there are no set guidelines or common agreements on the

most appropriate methods to review qualitative research findings (Britten et al .

2002).

As a result, there is a diversity of methods used by different researchers to integrate/

synthesize qualitative studies (Strike & Posner 1983; Hammersley 2002; Dixon-Woods

et al . 2004), including, for example, thematic analysis, grounded theory, meta-

ethnography, Miles and Huberman’s cross-case analysis, and content analysis. What

links these different methods is that they all attempt, at varying levels, to draw out

and integrate findings across qualitative studies in ways that generate new insights

and understandings. A qualitative synthesis is therefore seen to add to, and differ

from, a traditional literature review. While a literature review summarizes findings to

make an informed assessment about the current state of a field of knowledge, its

primary purpose is not to identify and interrogate the main concepts for comparison

(Britten et al. 2002) in order to enlarge ‘the interpretative possibilities of findings’

(Sandelowski et al. 1997, p. 369). A qualitative synthesis requires conceptual

innovation (Strike & Posner 1983) to ‘attain a level of conceptual or theoretical

development beyond that achieved in any individual empirical study’(Campbell

et al. 2003, p. 672). Like a secondary analysis, qualitative synthesis can involve re-

interpretation, based not on the original data but on the published findings.

In our systematic review, we therefore combined SR methodologies used in

quantitative reviews with an increasingly used methodology for synthesizing

qualitative research. The first three stages of the SR (search strategy, inclusion/

exclusion criteria and quality appraisal) followed conventional SR methodology (see

CRD 2001). The final stage utilized meta-ethnography (Noblit & Hare 1988), which

aims to interpretatively, rather than aggregatively, derive understanding from

multiple qualitative studies (see for example Paterson et al. 1998; Beck 2002; Britten

et al. 2002; Campbell et al. 2003; Nelson 2002).

In stage one, the search strategy was designed to locate published and unpublished

primary UK research from 1990 onwards that used qualitative methods of data

collection and data analysis, and focused on the perspectives on motherhood of

mothers under the age of 20. Mothers’ attitudes to sex, contraception and decision-


making at conception fell outside the focus of the SR. A range of sources were

searched, including electronic databases, paper journals, research networks, the

Internet, and using reference citation. The search strategy yielded 98 possible studies.

The inclusion/exclusion criteria were then applied independently (see Table 1) by two

researchers; and 20 studies met the criteria for inclusion in the review.

The quality appraisal stage of the review utilized the quality assessment criteria

developed by the EPPI-Centre (Shepherd et al . 2002) (see Table 2). The eight quality

criteria were applied independently by two researchers to each of the 20 studies; and

10 studies were of sufficient quality (see Table 3 for details) to be included for the

synthesis stage.

The quality assessment enabled a high degree of reliability and validity in the

findings of the studies to be synthesized. We found that the studies included for the

final synthesis covered a range of different subject areas such as housing, diet and

family relationships, as well as having different theoretical approaches, data analysis

strategies and interpretations. For example, there was a variation as well as

consistency in theoretical approaches taken; with only the Green and Mitchell

(2002) research drawing on theories of modernity current today, but most of the

studies drawing on ideas connected to social constructionism.

Table 1 Inclusion/exclusion criteria

Parameter Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria

Location United Kingdom Non-United KingdomLanguage Studies written in English Studies not written in EnglishTime Frame Studies published from 1990

(inclusive) onwardsStudies published before 1990

Population Studies that focus on orinclude women under 20 years old

Studies with women who are 20 yearsold and over

Studies on women who are pregnantor caring for one child or more

Women who are not pregnant orcaring for any children

Outcome Studies concerned with teenagemothers’ and mothers’-to-beown accounts of their lives

Studies which DO NOT have teenagemothers’ and mothers’-to-be ownaccounts of their livesStudies concerned withpregnancy/abortion/adoptiondecisionsStudies investigating risk factors ofteen pregnancy/parenting (e.g. childabuse, low birth weight)Studies concerned with adolescentpregnancy prevention/ sex education

Study type Primary research Book reviews, opinion pieces,literature reviews, policy documents

Studies that report on findings thatuse qualitative methods (datacollection and analysis)

Studies that DO NOT includequalitative methods of data collectionand analysisStudies in the psychology paradigm


The exclusion of some studies on the grounds of a quality criteria enabled the

synthesis to work with a broad range and depth of findings on young mothers’ lives,

while simultaneously maintaining a level methodological rigour across the research

studies in terms of sampling, data analysis and theoretical framework. Although it

should be recognized that the sampling base of the studies included in the review are

in the majority white and poor.

The synthesis stage of the SR utilized a technique from Noblit and Hare’s (1988)

meta-ethnography called ‘lines-of-argument’. This is where the concepts, findings and

interpretations of individual studies (not the original primary data) are compared to

generate a new interpretative context or a ‘second level inference’ (Strauss & Corbin

1998, p. 64), preserving the interpretative properties of the primary data during the

process. Noblit and Hare (1988, p. 62) explain the ‘lines-of-argument’ method as:

. . . it is emic . . . in its allegiance to the studies being synthesized, it is historical in

that it uses time to give order and history-in-use to give context; it is comparative

in that it constructs an analogy of the relationships among studies; and it is holistic

in that it constructs an interpretation of all the studies, their interrelations, and

contexts.

Table 2 Quality assessment criteria

The study has:

Explicit account of theoretical framework and/or inclusion of a literature review: does the reportprovide an explanation of, and justification for, the focus of the study and the methods used? Thisquestion is intended to assess whether the research has demonstrated how it was informed by, orlinked to, an existing body of knowledge.

Clearly stated aims and objectives: does the report explicitly and clearly state the aims of the study?

A clear description of context: does the report adequately describe the specific circumstances underwhich the research was developed, carried out and completed?

A clear description of sample: does the report provide adequate details of the sample used in thestudy including details of sampling and recruitment? This should include presentation of socio-demographic data and data on any other salient factors so that an assessment of who was includedand excluded from the research can be made to aid interpretation and judgements about thevalidity and generalizability of findings.

A clear description of methodology, including data collection and data analysis methods: does thereport provide an adequate description of the methods used in the study including its overallresearch framework, methods used to collect data and methods of data analysis? This question is toassess how the methods shapes the findings of the study, again to aid interpretation and judgementsabout the validity and generalizability of findings.

Evidence of attempts made to establish the reliability and validity of data analysis: researchers needto show that some attempt had been made to assess the validity and reliability of the data analysis.

The inclusion of sufficient original data to mediate between data and interpretation: does the reportpresent sufficient data in the form of, for example, data tables, direct quotations from interviews orfocus groups, or data from observations, to enable the reader to see that the results and conclusionswere grounded in the data? Could a clear path be identified between the data and the interpretationand conclusion?


Table 3 Studies included for the synthesis stage

Study Aim Samplenumber

Sample type Data collection Context

Mitchell andGreen (2002)

To explore the role andimportance of kinshipwithin the lives of youngworking-class mothers.

14 Aged 15�/24 years,white

Interviews North EastEngland

Schofield (1994) Exploration of youngmothers’ pregnancy, birthand motherhood

13 White; pregnant 16years or under.Approximately 15�/24 years;from school�/mothereducation unit

Semi-structuredinterviews

Ipswich

Phoenix(1991b)

To seek to understandthe process of becoming amother

79 16�/19 years; majority UKborn, 14 per cent elsewhere

Interviewed threetimes over two years

London

Walters and East(2001)

To explore the experience ofrepeated homelessnessin the lives of youngmothers

3 Under 21 years; livingin temporaryaccommodation

Action research strategy,four focus groups

CentralEngland

Letherby et al .(2001)

To collect information aboutyoung mothersexperiences of motherhood(especially housing)

28 (�/1father)

16�/24 years Five focus groups, 10interviews

Coventry

Aarvold andBuswell (1999)

To challenge the ‘problem’approach of teen mothers

31, question-naire; 15, focusgroup

Pregnant under 16years; attendingschool-age mothers’educational unit

Questionnaire, threefocus groups

unknown

Burghes andBrown (1995)

To shed light on youngwomen’s pathways fromearly sexual experiences tolone motherhood

31 17�/23 years; under 20 yearsat birth; 19single mothers; 12cohabiting/married

Interviews Doncaster,Fareham, London,Manchester,Plymouth

66

E.

McD

ermott

&H

.G

rah

am

Table 3 (Continued )

Study Aim Samplenumber

Sample type Data collection Context

Speak et al .(1995)

To investigate the barriersto independent living

40 16�/24 years; under 20 yearsat birth

Semi-structuredinterviews, 15 groupdiscussions

Newcastleupon Tyne

Burchett andSeeley (2003)

To look at pregnantteenagers’ food choices andeating behaviours

46 Under 18 years andpregnant

Interviews usingquestionnaire

Stoke on Trent,Rochdale,Liverpool,Lambeth,Gloucester,Croydon, Sussex

Corlynon andMcGuire (1999)

To explore the views andexperiences of pregnancyand parenthood of youngpeople in care

30 29 mothers; one father;pregnant at 16 years orunder. 23 white; sevenblack/Asian/mixed race

Interviews, three groupdiscussions

11 localauthorities Jou

rna

lof

Youth

Stu

dies

67

Utilizing this lines-of-argument methodology, we found that qualitative synthesis is

possible and extends understandings of UK young mothers’ lives beyond that

achieved in any individual empirical study. The next four sections discuss the ‘second

level’ themes highlighted through the synthesis of the interpretations and concepts in

the original studies. Table 4 displays which of these themes were present in the 10

studies included for the synthesis. Young mothers quotes are included throughout the

discussion to demonstrate that the ‘second level’ themes are consistent across the 10

studies included in the review. The following section explores the material and

discursive constraints of the young mothers’ lives and the three subsequent sections

discuss resilient mothering practices. The mothers’ accounts from the original studies

are reproduced verbatim and, for clarification, referenced in bold for the next four

sections.

Poverty, Stigma and Resilient Mothering

. . . Money’s always a worry but you just cut your cloth accordingly. (unnamed, inBurghes & Brown 1995, p. 50)

. . . Not being able to sleep . . . that’s what gets me . . . I’m all right during the day,with the two of them . . . too busy to think about it much . . . at night, when they’rein bed, you start thinking, how am I going to pay this or that. Then by the time I goto bed I can’t sleep . . . takes hours sometimes. He [the doctor] gave me sometablets but I daren’t take them, couldn’t wake up next morning, and I’m scared if Idon’t hear the bairns in the night. Anyway, I don’t need tablets, I need £200.(unnamed, in Speak et al . 1995, p. 45)

Table 4 Themes present in the studies included for the synthesis

Study Poorsocio-economiccircumstances

Experienceof youngmotherstigma

Goodmother

Prioritizationof mother/childrelationship

Significanceof kinrelations

Mitchell andGreen (2002)

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Schofield (1994) Yes Yes Yes Yes YesPhoenix (1991b) Yes Yes Yes Yes YesWalters and East(2001)

Yes Yes Yes No Yes

Letherby et al. (2001) No Yes Yes No YesAarvold and Buswell(1999)

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Burghes and Brown(1995)

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Speak et al. (1995) Yes Yes Yes Yes YesBurchett and Seeley(2003)

Yes No Yes No Yes

Corlynon andMcGuire (1999)

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes


As these two accounts illustrate, the synthesis demonstrates that poor economic

circumstances had wide-reaching effects on the young mothers’ lives. The majority of

the women were not in paid employment, lived on state benefits and, more often than

not, received little financial support from the fathers of their children (who were also

often unemployed). Labour market opportunities for the women were limited and

were generally part-time and low paid. Furthermore, the young mothers had few

opportunities to escape this impoverishment. The women did not, however, generally

lack drive, determination or agency, as the following accounts demonstrate:

We have all got high ambition, we want to work and we are independent and we arenot just sitting back and thinking everyone owes us something because we have gota baby. (Hannah, pregnant at 19, in Letherby et al . 2001, p. 22)

There are a lot of things that people say about young mothers*/that we have gotno ambition, that we’re just young people that want to get pregnant to get flats.I will tell you now, whether I got pregnant or not, I am a determined person andI would have got my own flat anyway. (17-year-old young mother, in Corlynon &McGuire 1999, p. 110)

Despite such aspirations and determination, the studies in the SR suggest that a

young mother’s escape routes from poverty through employment and education were

usually obstructed by their new positions as young (often) lone mothers caring for

their children with very little money. These difficulties were further compounded by

their stigmatization as inappropriate mothers. Kelly (Schofield 1994, p. 112)

explains:

It was hard. Everyone kept looking down their nose at you, going ooh! All the timepeople would say ‘That’s a pretty baby, is that your brother?’ They looked downtheir noses at me.

The young women’s experience of stigmatization is not, the research synthesis

indicates, confined to a few derogatory comments. They encountered a level of

judgement and hostility across a wide range of social sites such as schools and

education facilities, health, welfare and housing services, in their neighbourhoods,

and from their families. For example, Lindsey (Aavold & Buswell 1999, p. 5)

describes her experiences in hospital:

. . . you want to get out [of hospital] . . . you don’t want to sit there with themlooking down at you . . . she made me go to bed at half past eight, I was not allowedto watch TV or anything . . .

Similarly, a young mother (Speak et al . 1995, p. 20) challenges her treatment by the

local authority housing department:

Why do they put us all here? They think it don’t matter . . . just ’cause we’re young.They don’t treat you like proper families, just bung us down here. No one wants tolive down here.


The social construction of young mothers as a deviant form of motherhood is deeply

embedded within contemporary social values and welfare policies; consequently, it

had a palpable influence upon the women’s everyday lives. The synthesis suggests that

early mothering practices are created from a desire to do the best for their children

but against a backdrop of poverty, impoverished opportunities and stigmatization.

The young mothers’ limited resources mean they draw upon the only two resources

to which they may have access: their families and their own personal capacities.

The ‘Good’ Mother Identity

The synthesis shows that many of the young women felt proud about the ways in

which they were bringing up their children and felt positive about being a mother:

It’s great I love it. She’s really good, she hasn’t got any teeth yet but she’s doing all

the other things, crawling, pulling herself up the stairs, trying to walk . . . (Tina, 16

years old, with 9-month-old daughter, in Letherby et al . 2001, p. 21)

. . . I’m making the best of what I’ve got and I think I’m doing a damn good

job . . . I’m proud of the way I handle things and I juggle things so that I can still do

what I want and he is not getting neglected. (Jenny, in Mitchell & Green 2002,

p. 15)

Motherhood provides the young women with access to a loving relationship, to social

recognition and to a valued identity:

I loved being pregnant. I thought it was brilliant . . . had this feeling of being worthy

of something and I just felt . . . radiant all the time. And I was looking forward to

having the baby . . . I couldn’t wait for this little thing to look after and love.

(unnamed, in Burghes & Brown 1995, p. 50)

I was like looking at him in the cot and I was thinking: ‘god, he is actually mine,

you have grown up now you are a woman. (Sharon, in Mitchell & Green 2002,

p. 14)

Motherhood is a symbol of adult status (Schofield 1994) and it is a socially idealized

form of womanhood (Phoenix & Woollett 1991). It is an identity that confers

self-validation and social approval. The synthesis illustrates that, through mother-

hood, the young women felt they achieved maturity; they became responsible and

caring adults. The construction and maintenance of their new identities as

mothers*/a positive identity and a source of self-worth and social legitimation*/

is a key feature of their resilient mothering practices.

However, as signalled in the previous section, the synthesis underlined how the

construction of the mother identity is made difficult for the young women because

they are positioned, by virtue of their age and class, outside of the dominant

cultural norms of motherhood; they are ‘unsuitable’ mothers. The studies’ findings


consistently gave prominence to the ways in which the young women felt judged on

their mothering ability:

It’s like when I’m on the bus and she starts crying and I see people looking and Iknow they think because I’m young I’m not a good mum. (Elizabeth, pregnant at14, in Letherby et al . 2001, p. 21)

Donna: They think you’re stupid, don’t they? Cos you’re young!Penny: It’s judgement day, like you’re automatically labelled as ‘She’s a right*/’Donna: Yeah*/When you’ve been homeless a lot, it’s like ‘There must be

something bad about her’.Elaine: Especially if you’ve got a social worker . . . you’re a ‘bad mother’.

(Discussion group, in Walters & East 2001, p. 174)

The young mothers did not see themselves as a problem and resented these negative

perceptions. The synthesis suggests that they resisted their positioning as an unfit

mother by stressing their abilities as mothers; by investing in the ‘good’ mother

identity. Mothers construct and negotiate their own selfhood according to behaviour

deemed appropriate to meeting the needs of their children (Phoenix & Woollett 1991;

Lawler 2000; Wallbank 2001). The ‘good’ mother is defined through a discourse of

her children’s needs, and this discourse was heavily drawn upon by the young

mothers:

From the moment my baby wakes up until he goes to bed I don’t leave his side. Ifeel I have to be with him all the time. (Cheryl, pregnant at 16, in Letherby et al .2001, p. 21)

. . . the bairn always gets plenty . . . I see to that like . . . but I don’t think I do. Well Iknow I don’t not really. That’s why I’m tired all the time and ratty, get dead rattythese days . . . can’t be bothered with nowt. (Unnamed young mother, in Speak etal . 1995, p. 48)

In seeking to construct an identity as responsible, caring mothers and resist the

negative discursive representations of teen motherhood, the young women continued

to position themselves within the regulatory framework of ‘normal’ mothering. They

made very deep investments in mothering discourses, subverting, negotiating and

refusing discourses of teenage motherhood to construct their ‘good’ maternal selves.

Central to the production of their mother identity was the ‘othering’ of young

women who they perceived to transgress the boundaries of good mothering. Jenny

and another young mother illustrate:

No, I mean there are mothers down my street that just let their kids do what theywant. But there is no way I would let him [son] do what he wants . . . they [othermothers] are not bothered about the cars that go up and down the street, whereas Iam, he can play out the back. (Jenny, in Mitchell & Green 2002, p. 15)


A lot of mothers get pregnant because [Phoenix’s emphasis] they find that when

they have kids they can cope better because they seem to get more money when

they’ve got a child, than when they’re on their own. (Single, 19 year old, in

Phoenix 1991b, p. 171)

As these accounts suggest, the young women rejected negative stereotypes of teenage

mothers as not applicable to themselves, but they did not reject them outright*/they

deflected these negative constructions onto ‘other’ young mothers. They made a

distinction between themselves as good, caring mothers and ‘other’ (Phoenix 1991b;

Mitchell & Green 2002) teenage mothers. The young mothers also subverted

discourses of teenage motherhood:

I’ve never seen how age is relevant but other people do. I can never see how

someone can say, well you’re only so and so, you can’t do that. I mean, who says?

(Wendy, in Schofield 1994, p. 112)

I think there will be (advantages) when he’s older because hopefully I’m still young

enough to understand. (18 year old with child aged 2.5 years, in Corlynon &

McGuire 1999, p. 107)

Foucault (1979) argues that ‘reverse discourses’ are a strategy of resistance whereby

individuals draw on the categories of dominant discourses in order to create an

opposing view. The synthesis suggests that the young mothers constructed a number

of positive discourses regarding the advantages, or irrelevance, of age to the ability to

‘be’ a good mother. The young mothers’ resistance, refutations and subversion of

teenage motherhood discourses can be seen as a form of identity work in which

young women in disadvantaged circumstances make use of the discursive resources

available to them. As Lawler (2000, p. 169) states ‘they carve out a space for

themselves’ but it is inside the maternal story. While in Giddens’ (1991) terms the

young women are reflexively creating their own self-identities and life-narratives,

the choices available for their biographies are limited both by structural inequalities

and by the absence of positive discourses. The heavy investment in the good

mother identity is a strategy of resilience in which the young women are able to

maintain a positive sense of self and social legitimacy within impoverished social

spaces.

Kin Relations and Social Support

Without the help of my mum I don’t think I would have coped . . . I lived at home

until J was 18 months old. (unnamed mother, in Burghes & Brown 1995, p. 51)

Aye, I go visit my Mam or our Shona [sister], just pop in like just for natter, but it’s

always at meal times [laughs]. The bairns eat more at our Shona’s than at home

sometimes. (unnamed mother, in Speak et al . 1995, p. 48)


The lines-of-argument synthesis uncovered a second, and interlocking, set of resilient

mothering practices, focused around family relationships (which may include the

father of the child’s family). Kinship provided more than emotional, financial and

practical support, a safety net in times of crisis. It was constitutive of young

motherhood: sustaining the young women as mothers with children. Families

provided housing or the resources to set up home, money, clothes and equipment for

mother and child, and food. They helped with budgeting and mothering advice, as

well as childcare. Central figures of family support for the young women were their

mothers*/the grandmothers.

Family relations for the young mothers are a resource that is not easily available to

them elsewhere (from the state, the labour market, social networks or male partners).

Sharon and Jane illustrate the importance of their mothers:

. . . If I am really down in the dumps, I’m like, ‘mam will you have the kids for anhour?’ ‘Mam let me have a break for an hour’ But some single parents haven’t gotthat, have they? So that’s a good thing because I don’t know what I’d do withoutour mam. (Sharon, in Mitchell & Green 2002, p. 15)

Mum taught me a lot. How to look after her. I wouldn’t have known how clean tokeep her. There were some people in the [tuition] unit who used to keep them inthe same nappy, the same clothes, but whether it was their fault, they didn’t knowwhat to do . . . whereas I had mum at the beginning. (Jane, in Schofield 1994,p. 98)

Kin relations were safe spaces, usually free of the stigmatization and surveillance the

young women had experienced across other social sites. As such, they are not only a

vital practical and emotional resource for the young mothers; they also provided

space for identity work. The young women were able to produce their selves as ‘good

mothers’ by mothering practices that are made possible, partially through family

support (Mitchell & Green 2002).

The young mothers did not, however, take it for granted that their kin relations

would offer support. In the main, the young women were worried and fearful about

announcing their pregnancy to members of the family. Christine (Schofield 1994, p.

66) describes her experiences:

I was amazed. I knew that I was pregnant at two months but we didn’t tell my Dadtill I was four because my Dad would have had the pregnancy terminated . . . MyMum and Dad have very different attitudes. He was absolutely terrible about it. Hewent over the top. He got in the car and drove off. Just to calm down a bit, just thethought of me being pregnant.

The families’ responses to the pregnancy were often, but not always, shock and

disappointment. Nevertheless, the synthesis suggests that, in the majority of cases,

over time the young women and their family members were able to re-negotiate their

relationships, with the result that the new mother and baby were welcomed and

supported.


. . . after . . . she wanted the baby as well and she was looking forward to me actually

having the baby because she loved babies. (unnamed mother, in Burghes & Brown

1995, p. 39)

The majority of the families of the young mothers lived in poor economic and

material circumstances. The synthesis indicates that important to the re-negotiation

of relations between the young mother and family members is the knowledge that

both parties have limited resources. One young mother described how her parents

contributed materially to her household:

Our mums sometimes invite us over to dinner. That’s their way of helping us

without giving us money. They buy us little bits and pieces . . . for the baby or they

bring something up for the home. So they don’t actually give us money. They just

do it in their own sort of little way. (Married 17 year old, in Phoenix 1991b)

The synthesis suggests that for young working-class mothers, kin ties were

maintained and worked out on an implicit understanding that family relations are

negotiated ‘practices of survival’ (Walkerdine 1996). Young pregnancy and mother-

hood presented a disruption to kin ties, and the resulting re-negotiation between the

young mothers and family members displays the diversity and fluidity highlighted by

critiques of the family in late modernity (Finch & Mason 1993; Smart & Neale 1999).

But they are bonds re-created within impoverished conditions. Kinship, for the

women, was a protective factor against the material and psychological hardships of

young, working-class motherhood.

The Prioritization of the Mother and Child Relationship

I turned round to him (potential boyfriend), ‘before we go any further, I’m going to

be up front with you, I have a little boy and he will always come first’ and he said

‘that’s fine’ . . . No man will ever come before my kid . . . (Jenny, in Mitchell &

Green 2002, p. 9)

The synthesis indicates that the young mothers’ prioritization of the mother�/child

dyad is a strategy that provided a source of intimacy, fulfilment, self-identity and self-

worth within poor socio-economic circumstances. Their most important relationship

was with their child who supplied a permanent unconditional love, less risky and

fragile than the transient love associated with male partners. Rosie and another

mother describe the uncertainty of heterosexual relations:

He wants to get back with me and he wants to be a dad. But at first he didn’t and I

can’t get back with him because he might . . . like in nine months time he’ll want

nothing to do with me. (Rosie, in Aarvold & Buswell 1999, p. 11)

Most marriages end up in divorce . . . all the money to get married and the going

through the courts to get divorced . . . you might as well just live with someone and


if you wanted to you could just go your own way. (unnamed, in Burghes & Brown

1995, p. 47)

The young mothers’ prioritization of the mother/child dyad, the synthesis suggests,

does not only ensure a ‘safe’ intimacy. It puts the young mothers at the centre of their

own biographies (Beck 1992), especially regarding their relationships with the child’s

father:

I don’t want anything to do with him. I just don’t want to ever see him. I don’t want

to hear from him. I don’t want no money from him . . . I just want to get on with

my life with the baby . . . He’s on drugs all the time; he’s never got any money; he

beats his girlfriends up. I’m not going to sit there and stand for that . . . the baby’s

got me and that’s all she needs. (Maria, in Aarvold & Buswell 1999, p. 11)

Maria is articulating her self, constructing her maternal identity (the ‘good’ mother)

partially through the rejection of the baby’s father. This rejection is based on his

inappropriate behaviour as a ‘father’ and ‘partner’. This autonomy from men was

sometimes expressed by the young mothers as independence and freedom:

It ties you really if you’re married. Like I can get up and just go to me mum’s, but if

you’re married you’ve got to explain yourself. (16-year-old cohabitee, in Phoenix

1991b, p. 109)

I wouldn’t want to live together. I’d kill him! . . . Because he’s always under my feet

and I like my own space and I can’t do with anyone in my space. (16 year old, in

Corlynon & McGuire 1999, p. 133)

For some of the young women, independence and autonomy from men were

important to constructing a positive sense of self. They were seeking identities for

themselves and they invested heavily in the safety of the maternal story but have a

much more ambiguous and ambivalent attitude towards heterosexual relations.

While some young mothers were or aspired to be married, the studies provided

evidence of a wider de-traditionalization of gender roles and de-stabilization of

marriage and conventional family forms. One young mother (16 year old, in

Phoenix 1991b, p. 111) surmises:

The majority of people I know haven’t got anything out of it [marriage] . . . To me I

could never get married because I’ve sat down and watched my mum and dad’s

marriage fall apart and I wouldn’t like to go through that myself . . . I mean they

[men] come home, find the kitchen clean, food waiting . . . They get a little slave.

Set within debates about intimacy and individualization, the synthesis indicates that

poor young mothers have limited avenues through which to build positive identities,

and to find security and meaning for their lives. In these circumstances, the

prioritization of the mother/child dyad ‘provides an anchor for one’s life’ (Beck &

Beck-Gernsheim 1995, p. 73); it enables young mothers to reflexively construct ‘life


narratives’ by choosing the most trustworthy and stable source of intimacy, fulfilment

and positive self-identity within their impoverished circumstances.

Conclusion

To date, few systematic reviews of qualitative studies have been undertaken. Ours is

the first such review of the experiences of young mothers, either of UK studies or

studies conducted elsewhere. While the methodology for reviewing qualitative studies

is still under development, our synthesis points to their potential value. Our review

enabled us to work from a quality-assessed set of studies to identify a broader and

underlying set of experiences, within and across the studies. As a result, it generated a

deeper level of understanding (what has been called a ‘second level inference’). The

review suggests that young mothers develop resilient mothering practices in response

to their poor socio-economic circumstances and their positioning as outside the

boundaries of acceptable motherhood. The drawing together of poverty and stigma as

the two constraining factors on young women, and the resilient mothering practices

that arise within these circumstances, is a new interpretation that is not found in any

single study.

It is important to understand that the young women’s resilient mothering practices

are rooted in both the broad processes that are transforming the social in late

modernity, as well as the immediacies of living in disadvantaged material

circumstances and being positioned as a ‘unfit’ mother. The tendencies of reflexive

modernity were evident in these young women’s practices. In impoverished spaces,

the young women are self-reflexive agents using the resources available to them to

make their lives, and their children’s lives, happy and meaningful.

However, despite the young mothers reflexively constructing their own life

narratives, they do this within the confines of very real structural inequalities and

discursive limitations. Thus, there are constraints on the choices young, working-class

mothers can make about identities, relationships and mothering practices. In these

resource-poor spaces, human action may result from a more embedded reflexivity;

young women’s resilient mothering practices are the reflexive ‘choice of the necessary’

(Bourdieu 1984, p. 379).

Our review of the everyday lives of young, working-class mothers in the UK

provide a base on which to build comparative analyses. Given the dearth of UK-based

literature, young black mothers would be a significant comparative group, with

studies providing important evidence about the ways in which race and ethnicity

influence young mothers resilient mothering practices. Also, by extending the

systematic review process to include qualitative studies from other postmodern

societies (e.g., United States, Cananda, Scandinavia), it may be possible to establish

whether the processes of reflexivity and resilience evident in the UK young mothers

are also present elsewhere.


References

Aarvold, J. (1998) ‘Risk, sex and the very young mother’, in Risk, Health and Health Care: A

Qualitative Approach , ed. B. Heyman, Arnold, London.

Aarvold, J. & Buswell, C. (1999) ‘Very young motherhood: whose problem?’, Youth and Policy, vol.

64, pp. 1�/14.

Adkins, L. (2002) Revisions: Gender & Sexuality in Late Modernity, Open University Press,

Buckingham.

Allen, I. & Bourke-Dowling, S. (1998) ‘Teenage mothers: decisions and outcomes’, in Changing

Britain: Families and Households in the 1990s , ed. S. McRae, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Arai, L. (2003a) ‘British policy on teenage pregnancy and childbearing: the limitations of

comparisons with other European countries’, Critical Social Policy, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 89�/102.

Arai, L. (2003b) ‘Low expectations, sexual attitudes and knowledge: explaining teenage pregnancy

and fertility in English communities. Insights from qualitative research’, The Sociological

Review , vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 199�/217.

Beck, C. T. (2002) ‘Postpartum depression: a metasynthesis’, Qualitative Health Research , vol. 12,

no. 4, pp. 453�/472.

Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society: Towards A New Modernity, Sage, London.

Beck, U. & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (1995) The Normal Chaos of Love , Polity Press, Cambridge.

Bingley, P., Douek, I., Rogers, C. & Gale, E. (2000) ‘Influence of maternal age at delivery and birth

order on risk of type 1 diabetes in childhood: prospective population based family study’,

British Medical Journal , vol. 321, pp. 420�/424.

Botting, B., Rosato, M. & Wood, R. (1998) ‘Teenage mothers and the health of their children’, ONS

Population Trends , vol. 93, pp. 19�/28.

Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction , Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.

Bradshaw, J. & Finch, N. (2001) Area Variations in Teenage Conceptions and Abortions: A Study

Preliminary to Research , University of York Social Policy Unit.

Britten, N., Campbell, R., Pope, C., Donovan, J., Morgan, M. & Pill, R. (2002) ‘Using meta-

ethnography to synthesise qualitative research: a worked example’, Journal of Health Services

Research & Policy, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 209�/215.

Bullen, E., Kenway, J. & Hay, V. (2000) ‘New Labour, social exclusion and educational risk

management: the case of ‘‘gymslip’’ mums’, British Educational Research Journal , vol. 26, pp.

441�/456.

Burchett, H. & Seeley, A. (2003) Good Enough to Eat? The Diet of Pregnant Teenagers , The Maternity

Alliance and The Food Commission, London.

Burghes, L. & Brown, M. (1995) Single Lone Mothers: Problems, Prospects and Policies , Family Policy

Studies Centre and Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York.

Campbell, R., Pound, P., Pope, C., Britten, N., Pill, R., Morgan, M. & Donovan, J. (2003)

‘Evaluating meta-ethnography: a synthesis of qualitative research on lay experiences of

diabetes and diabetes care’, Social Science & Medicine , vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 671�/684.

Carabine, J. (2001) Constituting sexuality through social policy: the case of lone motherhood 1834

and today’, Social and Legal Studies , vol. 10, pp. 291�/314.

Corlynon, J. & Mcguire, C. (1999) Pregnancy and Parenthood: The Views and Experiences of Young

People in Public Care , National Children’s Bureau, London.

CRD (2001) Undertaking Systematic Reviews of Research for Effectiveness: CRD’s Guidance for those

Carrying out Commissioning Reviews, CRD Report Number 4, 2nd edn, NHS Centre for

Reviews and Dissemination, York.

Cunnington, A. (2001) ‘What’s so bad about teenage pregnancy?’, The Journal of Family Planning

and Reproductive Health Care , vol. 27, pp. 36�/41.


Dawson, N. (1997) ‘The provision of education and opportunities for future employment for

pregnant schoolgirls and schoolgirl mothers in the UK’, Children and Society, vol. 11, no. 4,

pp. 251�/263.

Department of Health (2002) Tackling Health Inequalities: 2002 Cross-Cutting Review , The

Stationery Office, London.

Dixon-Woods, M. & Fitzpatrick, R. (2001) ‘Qualitative research in systematic reviews’, British

Medical Journal , vol. 323, pp. 765�/766.

Dixon-Woods, M., Agarwal, S., Young, B., Jones, D. & Sutton, A. (2004) Integrative Approaches to

Qualitative and Quantitative Evidence , Health Development Agency, London.

Duncan, S. & Edwards, R. (1999) Lone Mothers, Paid work and Gendered Moral Rationalities ,

Macmillan Press, Basingstoke.

Finch, J. & Mason, J. (1993) Negotiating Family Responsibilities , Routledge, London.

Foucault, M. (1979) The History of Sexuality: 1 , Allen Lane, London.

Furlong, A. & Cartmel, F. (1997) Young People and Social Change: Individualization and Risk in Late

Modernity, Open University Press, Buckingham.

Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity, Polity Press, Cambridge.

Giddens, A. (1992) The Transformation of Intimacy, Polity Press, Cambridge.

Griffiths, C. & Kirby, L. (2000) ‘Geographic variations in conceptions to women aged under 18 in

Great Britain during the 1990s’, Population Trends , Winter, pp. 13�/23.

Hammersley, M. (2002) ‘Systematic or Unsystematic, is that the Question? Some Reflections on the

Science, Art and Politics of Reviewing Research Evidence , Public Health Evidence Steering

Group, Health Development Agency, London.

Jamieson, L. (1999) ‘Intimacy transformed? A critical look at the ‘‘pure relationship’’’, Sociology, vol.

33, no. 3, pp. 477�/494.

Kiernan, K. (1995) Transition to Parenthood: Young Mothers, Young Fathers-Associated Factors and

Later Life Experiences , LSE Discussion paper, London.

Lash, S. (1994) ‘Reflexivity and its doubles: structures, aesthetics, community’, in Reflexive

Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order, eds U. Beck, A.

Giddens & S. Lash, Polity, Cambridge.

Lawler, D. A. & Shaw, M. (2002) ‘Too much too young? Teenage pregnancy is not a public health

problem’, International Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 552�/553.

Lawler, S. (2000) Mothering the Self , Routledge, London.

Letherby, G., Wilson, C., Bailey, N. & Brown, G. (2001) Supported Semi-independent Housing for

Under 18 Lone Parents: Needs Assessment , Coventry Health Authority and The Centre for

Social Justice, Coventry University.

McNay, L. (1999) ‘Gender, habitus and the field: Pierre Bourdieu and the limits of reflexivity’,,

Theory, Culture and Society, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 95�/117.

McPherson, K., Steel, C. M. & Dixon, J. (2000) ‘Abc of breast diseases: breast cancer*/

epidemiology, risk factors and genetics’, British Medical Journal , vol. 321, pp. 624�/628.

McRobbie, A. (2000) Feminism and Youth Culture , Macmillan, London.

Mitchell, W. & Green, E. (2002) ‘‘‘I don’t know what I’d do without our Mam’’: motherhood,

identity and support networks’, Sociological Review, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 1�/22.

Mitchell, W., Crawshaw, P., Bunton, R. & Green, E. (2001) ‘Situating young people’s experiences of

risk and identity’, Health Risk and Society, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 217�/233.

Nelson, A. (2002) ‘A metasynthesis: mothering other-than-normal children’, Qualitative Health

Research , vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 515�/530.

Noblit, G. & Hare, D. (1988) Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative Studies , Sage, London.

Paterson, B., Thorne, S. & Dewis, M. (1998) ‘Adapting to and managing diabetes’, Image: Journal of

Nursing Scholarship , vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 57�/62.

Phoenix, A. (1991a) ‘Mothers under twenty: outsider and insider views’, in Motherhood: Meanings,

Practices and Ideologies , eds A. Phoenix, A. Woollett & E. Lloyd, Sage, London.


Phoenix, A. (1991b) Young Mothers? , Polity Press, Cambridge.

Phoenix, A. & Woollett, A. (1991) ‘Motherhood: social construction, politics and psychology’, in

Motherhood: Meanings, Practices and Ideologies , eds A. Phoenix, A. Woollett & E. Lloyd, Sage,

London.

Roseneil, S. & Mann, K. (1996) ‘Unpalatable choices and inadequate families: lone mothers and the

underclass debate’, in Good Enough Mothering? Feminist Perspectives on Mothering , ed. E.

Silva, Routledge, London.

Sandelowski, M., Docherty, S. & Emden, C. (1997) ‘Qualitative metasynthesis and techniques’,

Research in Nursing and Health , vol. 20, pp. 365�/371.

Schofield, G. (1994) The Youngest Mothers , Avebury, Aldershot.

SEU (1999) Teenage Pregnancy: Report by the Social Exclusion Unit , Stationery Office, London.

Shepherd, J., Garcia, J., Oliver, S., Harden, A., Rees, R., Brunton, G. & Oakley, A. (2002) Barriers to,

and Facilitators of the Health of Young People: A Systematic Review of Evidence on Young

People’s Views and on Interventions in Mental Health, Physical Activity and Healthy Eating ,

EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, London.

Silva, E. (ed.) (1996) ‘Introduction’, in Good Enough Mothering? Feminist Perspectives on Lone

Motherhood , Routledge, London.

Smart, C. (1996) ‘Deconstructing motherhood’, in Good Enough Mothering? Feminist Perspectives on

Lone Motherhood , ed. E. Silva, Routledge, London.

Smart, C. & Neale, B. (1999) Family Fragments? , Polity Press, Cambridge.

Smith, T. (1993) ‘Influence of socio-economic factors on attaining targets for reducing teenage

pregnancies’, British Medical Journal , vol. 306, pp. 1232�/1235.

Speak, S., Cameron, S., Woods, R. & Gilroy, R. (1995) Young Single Mothers: Barriers to Independent

Living , Family Policy Studies Centre and Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research , Sage, London.

Strike, K. & Posner, G. (1983) ‘Types of syntheses and their criteria’, in Knowledge Structure and

Their Use , eds S. Ward & L. Reed, Temple University Press, Philadelphia, PA.

Thomson, R. (2000) ‘Dream on: the logic of sexual practice’, Journal of Youth Studies , vol. 3, no. 4,

pp. 407�/427.

Walkerdine, V. (1996) ‘Working-class women: psychological and social aspects of survival’, in

Feminist Social Psychologies , ed. S. Wilkinson, Open University Press, Buckingham.

Wallbank, J. (2001) Challenging Motherhood(s) , Prentice Hall, London.

Walters, S. & East, L. (2001) ‘The cycle of homelessness in the lives of young mothers: the diagnostic

phase of an action research project’, Journal of Clinical Nursing , vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 171�/179.

Wellings, J. (1996) Teenage Sexuality, Fertility and Life Chances , London School of Tropical

Medicine, London.

Wolkind, S. & Kruk, S. (1985) ‘Teenage pregnancy and motherhood’, Journal of the Royal Society of

Medicine , vol. 78, no. 2, pp. 112�/116.

Woollett, A. & Phoenix, A. (1991) ‘Psychological views of mothering’, in Motherhood: Meanings,

Practices and Ideologies , eds A. Phoenix, A. Woollett & E. Lloyd, Sage, London.


Resilient Young Mothering: Social Inequalities, Late Modernity and the 'Problem' of 'Teenage'...

Documents

Transcript of Resilient Young Mothering: Social Inequalities, Late Modernity and the 'Problem' of 'Teenage'...