The Discourse of Family Policy in Sociological Research

Bikkinina Dzhamilya ORCID: 0000-0001-7540-2408 Specialist in educational work, University Reaviz 198099, Russia, Saint Petersburg, Kalinina str., 8k2 letter A kamilova_93@mail.ru

IntroductionCurrently, the issue of the consequences of the use of social – in particular, family – policy instruments remains debatable.

In one form or another, family policy belongs to the regulatory agenda of many European governments. The vision of the necessary social policy measures taken to ensure the welfare of the family may differ significantly, as well as ideas about the tasks and purpose of family policy. Family policy can be aimed at both changing and preserving the prevailing social trends.

Due to the heterogeneity of the discourse, the issue of classification of family policy measures comes to the fore to determine their effectiveness and to study the ways in which the state (government) can influence the family. Given the diversity of family policy functions, the social discursive question is of paramount importance: which model is optimal and contributes more to the real support of the family.

The formulation of the answer to this question is complicated by the fact that the discourse of family policy is complexly conceptualized. Thus, experts indicate that family policy appears in two guises: firstly, it is a space of political rhetoric and legal discourse; secondly, it includes real practices, measures of state and public material, social assistance to families^[1].

It seems that it is this language of describing family policy that needs to be clarified in the analysis of Russian and foreign studies, since the chosen priority directions for the implementation of measures in relation to families depend on the perception of the policy by the authorities and society.

The study of family policy is a popular aspect and arouses the interest of such Russian scientists as A. I. Antonov, V. N. Arkhangelsky, V. V. Elizarov, O. G. Isupova, O. V. Kuchmaeva, A.V. Noskova, A. B. Sinelnikov, Zh. V. Chernova, etc.

Modern authors highlight the problem of insufficient study of the nature of the influence of various approaches to family policy on the development of the institution of the family. Despite the research of family policy issues in the domestic sociology of the family, its discourse is not homogeneous. In Russian sociology, there are different paradigms and schools that express different attitudes to family politics. Thus, there is no unity of position in Russian sociology, and, as a result, there is limited opportunity to influence the formation of family policy in the state, to justify the expediency of this policy with the help of the scientific community.

Increasingly, in the light of modern trends, a broad approach to family policy is criticized, and it is considered expedient to move from solving common problems of society, from responding to economic and political challenges to considering the inner world of the family. As in Europe, the discourse of family policy is gradually moving away from the rhetoric of social protection of the family towards the social partnership of the state and the family. The issues of decentralization of family policy, the importance of fatherhood, gender equality, etc. come to the fore^[2]

Approaches to assessing the effectiveness of family policy vary from liberal to conservative, from targeted (local) to broad. Thus, the demand for solving the internal problems of the family is opposed to the need to solve social problems to improve the standard of living of families. For example, O. V. Kuchmaeva notes: "It seems wrong to consider family policy solely from the standpoint of the need to solve individual family problems. The current position of the institution of the family is due to the peculiarities of the development of the whole society. The change in the value system of modern society is global in nature, it cannot be ignored, since Russia lives in an open global world and strives to become a leading economic and political power. The national model of family policy will be effective if it takes into account, in addition to national peculiarities, global trends"^[3].

The main objective of this article is to compare the views of foreign authors and discourses of family policy, taking into account the diversity of approaches to family policy. To achieve this goal, the general characteristics of family policy were evaluated, which are indicated in the articles selected for analysis. Priority directions of family policy research in selected publications of foreign researchers were considered.

1.             Research methodologyFor the analysis, the principles that allow to represent the discourse of family policy are identified.

In this regard, the tasks were set to identify the concepts of family policy in the articles reviewed for the formation of tools that allow: 1) to determine the general characteristics and features of various approaches to family policy of the modern welfare state, highlighted in the works of foreign authors, 2) to assess the unity of positions in the field of family policy.

Articles by foreign authors were selected to fulfill the tasks set. When choosing these publications, the citation indicators of the authors studied, the rating of journals, the relevance of the selected articles (all articles are modern) were taken into account, the issue of family policy is investigated in all articles, as well as the fact that the attitude of public institutions of the state (authorities) to family support measures is represented in the texts of articles.

As a result, eight articles were selected in rating thematic journals with a high citation index: Journal of Family Theory & Review, Social Politics, Society, European Policy Analysis. Among the scientists studied: Andrew J. Cherlin (7331 times cited), Timo Fleckenstein (644 times cited), Olivier Thevenon (1011 times cited), Theodora Ooms (344 times cited), Josephine Nibi (35 times cited), Margarita Leon (541 times cited), Karen Bogenschneider (1187 times cited), Neil Gilbert (912 times quoted).^[4]

The articles of these authors investigated the main institutions of family policy, revealed the trends of marriage and family relations, social support measures aimed at supporting the family.

The subject of the research in these articles are approaches to assessing the effectiveness and principles of implementing family policy in developed countries such as the United States of America, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Italy, Spain, Finland, etc. For example, Neil Gilbert's research is based on the analysis of statistical data on marriages for the USA, Korea, Hong Kong, Brazil, Japan ^{[4, p. 638]}. In the publication of Margarita Leon, the "southern model" of social support is considered – on the example of Italy and Spain ^{[5, p. 2]}.

The analysis of texts was carried out using a proven methodology designed on the basis of content analysis^[5]. The content analysis was implemented via the "Advego" website, the rest of the procedure was implemented manually. A methodological model called "semantic-structural" analysis was used, which is based on a combination of content analysis and the method of information-target analysis.^[6]

The methodology of semantic-structural analysis assumes that the text is divided into fragments and categories to determine and understand its connotation. The algorithm of this analysis includes four stages: 1) the text is divided into parts, in accordance with the topics, semantic (connotation) modules are determined; 2) the number of meaning-forming words used in the text is calculated and the ratio of the frequencies of their use is measured; 3) semantic analysis of texts, analysis of the meaning of their main components. This stage is of particular importance, as it involves identifying and evaluating the distribution of the most important words and phrases for the study by modules, as well as the key loads of the modules themselves. As a result, modules that do not have a semantic load are withdrawn. Intermodule connections (explicit and latent) are determined. Their analysis is carried out in order to identify compliance with each other.

The analysis was carried out in two stages using a methodology designed on the basis of content analysis, on the one hand, and information-targeted text analysis developed by T. M. Dridze is on the other side. The method of analysis proposed by T. M. Dridze is most effective for studies that differ in the vagueness of the conceptual apparatus, and also reproduce ambiguous and complex ideas (artistic, journalistic, socio-philosophical, socio-scientific texts, etc.). The technique that combines both approaches was successfully applied by R. Sh. Maksubov in his dissertation "The socio-cultural process of modernization".^[7]

A model similar to the one proposed by Maksubov is used at the second stage of the study. It is constructed on the basis of assumptions about the stylistic similarity of texts related to the topic of family policy, about the identity of the conceptual foundations of the interpretation of the concept of family policy in the foreign studies of the authors considered.

Semantic units reflecting the totality of the studied views were identified. The information, estimates, and concepts contained in the text are expressed in certain terms and characteristic phrases that make up the units of material selection for analysis. Thus, content analysis was implemented using a logical and linguistic procedure.

From the totality of the content of the publications under study, provisions related to the definition of family policy measures, the place of family policy in socio-economic policy and socio-political communication were identified – a thesaurus of concepts related to the key dimensions of family policy was formed.

The theoretical object of the first stage of the study is the concept of family policy, the empirical one is its representation in selected articles.

As part of the second task, a semantic and structural analysis of scientific publications of foreign authors on family policy in modern democratic countries was carried out with the division of the text into modules.

The analysis of the percentage distribution of the content of texts by modules allows us to assess the degree of integrity of the study. For this purpose, the methodology of semantic-structural analysis was used, according to which the text was divided into fragments^[8].

When classifying semantic blocks of text, the method of content analysis and information-target analysis was used with the allocation of the following modules: "thesis" (a statement or definition that is given without justification and verification), "goal" (involves the allocation of taxa that are components of the categories of method and task), "method" (category indicating the process of solving problems and achieving the goal), "task" (the stage of achieving a specific goal according to a single logical order and a single guideline), "example" (the category necessary to substantiate the thesis)^[9].

2.             Main results

2.1. Content analysis and representation of the main directions and trends of family policy in the publications under studyAt the empirical level, a thesaurus of the sociological discourse of family policy was formed, which was based on the following words and phrases: family policy, political party, state, child, support, vacation, reform, welfare, work/employment, allowance, woman, child protection.

Further, the representation of the key concepts of the family policy discourse in the publications under study was evaluated, with the relevant concepts being attributed to the social, political-legal, socio-economic, research, cultural or philosophical dimension. It is believed that these measurements can be considered sufficient for empirical verification of the theoretical foundations and conceptual apparatus of the discourse of family policy^[10].

In the analyzed texts, the most frequently mentioned categories (names) characterizing family policy, categories related to a particular model of family policy were identified.

The analysis of measurements and related concepts (words and phrases) made it possible to identify the ratio of the volume of concepts within the text itself, to which the selected words and phrases belong – through manual processing of selected texts.

For the purposes of this article, social, demographic and gender issues have been combined in the perspective of one social dimension, because, firstly, in our opinion, this dimension is most indicative when compared with research, political, socio-economic and cultural, based on the principle of classification of dimensions depending on the sphere of public life; secondly,Secondly, the division of the social dimension into subcategories would require further classification of terms included in the thesaurus, which in the future reduces the representativeness of the research results.

As A.V. Noskova notes, "at present it is almost impossible to clearly distinguish between the family sphere of state activity and some other functionally adjacent and adjacent spheres – primarily social, gender and demographic. The "family agenda" includes, for example, such issues as: demographic growth of the population, the search for ways to combine child care and extra-family professional activity of family members, gender equality, the fight against family and child poverty, etc."^[11].

The social, demographic and gender dimensions (40%) include the mention of the following categories: "work-life balance", "fertility", "marriage" ^{[1, p. 1; 4, p. 638]}, "cohabitation" ^{[4, p. 638]}, "gender roles" and "gender equality" ^{[6, p. 197; 4, p. 637; 5, p. 13, 14]}, "family structure", "social support" ^{[6, p. 197; 2, p. 544]}, "provision of paternity leave" ^{[6, p. 198; 5, p. 13]}, "social security", "social protection" ^{[6, p. 199; 4, p. 637]}, "child care" and "child support" ^{[4, p. 637; 5, p. 2]}, "vulnerable families".

To the research dimension (27%): "methods", "hypothesis (assumption)", "policy formation", "measurement", "data collection and processing"^[12]. A systematic analysis of family policy reforms is noted through the study of the main directions and measures of social support taken, as well as a theoretical justification of these measures based on the analysis of socio-political communication, including law–making initiatives ^{[6, p. 195]}.

To the socio-economic dimension (23%): "cash payments" ^{[6, p. 193; 5, p. 2]}, "income level", "paid leave" ^{[6, p. 193; 5, p. 2]}, "directions of spending public funds", "raising the minimum wage", "creation of effective employment programs" ^{[7, p. 15; 6, p. 193; 5, p. 2]}, "economic equality" ^{[4, p. 642]}, "training of productive personnel". Thus, the effectiveness of family policy measures is assessed through the prism of economic factors – in particular, based on the amount of budget funds per child ^{[8, p. 61]}. Theodora Ooms notes that vulnerable families include those at risk of poverty or disintegration ^{[7, p. 6]}. We are also talking about "monetary compensation", "increasing the birth rate", "measures aimed at supporting childhood", "spending public funds", "increasing income" ^{[1; 4]}, "the situation on the labor market" ^{[8; 1, p. 47]}, "division of labor by gender" ^{[4, p. 638]}. Andrew Cherlin examines the categories of "fertility" and "marriage" – the analysis focuses on measures of economic support for families (economic dimension), the ratio of fertility and readiness to marry (social dimension). Considering family policy, the author directly addresses economic policy issues, including indicators of the level of employment and inflation ^{[1, p. 48]}.

In some cases, almost all significant results achieved as a result of reforms in the field of family policy have a socio-economic character ^{[6, p. 202]}, as well as issues formulated for the development of social policy ^{[4, p. 643]}. Key indicators for the study of the effectiveness of reforms in the field of family policy: child support, granting fathers the right to paternity leave, payments to families, household support and social support ^{[6, p. 207]}. Even in cases where the subject of the study is the socio-political communication of political actors (development of legislative initiatives, etc.), socio-economic effects in the description of social policy measures come to the fore – using appropriate concepts and categories.

To the cultural dimension (10%): "family values", "readiness for marriage", "the dark sides of family life" ^{[7, p. 3]}, etc. In the cultural sphere, "nepotism" can be contrasted with "individualism" ^{[7, p. 4]}. Neil Gilbert reviews the problem in close terms ^{[4, pp. 637-638]}.

The study revealed that most of the categories used by the authors relate to social, demographic or gender (40%), research (27%), socio-economic (23%) and cultural (10%) dimensions.

Thus, foreign researchers operate mainly with specific categories that mainly relate to social support measures (family leave, minimum wage, etc.) that determine the practical aspects of this area of government activity.

According to the results of the study, it can also be concluded that in reality, the categories used within the dimensions correspond to various thematic blocks – for example, the social dimension, including gender and demographic, reflects the goals of family policy, the socio-economic dimension corresponds to the description of family policy measures, while the cultural dimension serves as a context for research and implementation these measures.

Categories related to the research dimension are used to describe family policy tools. This state of affairs makes it difficult to analyze categories for practical purposes of family policy, since the actors' belonging to the political discourse is actually manifested in the use of socio-economic categories, as a result, only an indirect conclusion can be drawn about the correlation of the liberal and conservative agenda.

All the authors note the orientation of the family policy of democratic states in the middle of the XX century to maintain the traditional model of family relations. Then, since the end of the XX century, a gradual transition from state support of the traditional family model to support of the egalitarian model begins. Thus, it can be concluded that the established and socially approved family model largely determines the direction of family policy.

Researchers note that in the USA, Great Britain and the Nordic countries since the 1980s of the XX century, the state has pursued a similar family policy aimed at creating conditions for employment in the labor market of both adult family members. According to T. Fleckenstein, it is the provision of employment by the state for both parents that is the basis of family policy aimed at maintaining the modern model of marriage and family relations ^[2].

Some countries, such as Germany and Japan, continued to adhere to the traditional model of family relations for a longer time. In Japan, during the rule of the Komeito Party in 1998-2009, family policy was aimed at providing financial support to families with children. The Government paid benefits to families with children under the age of 14 ^[3]. These measures contributed to the preservation of the traditional model of family relations.

Currently, a single vector of family policy direction has been outlined in foreign democratic countries in the direction of creating the necessary conditions for the development of a modern model of family relations. 

The presence of cross-cutting categories in the texts as key ones can serve as empirical evidence of the existence of a common terminological basis for research in the field of family policy and the possible commonality of the theoretical positions of the authors of scientific publications. Consideration of the priority directions and thesaurus of the study reflects the opposition of the conditionally "liberal" discourse of family support and the conservative direction, characterized by a high degree of involvement of the state in the implementation of support measures.

Foreign authors highlight the controversial issue of the existence of negative consequences of the provision of financial and property assistance by the state to young families for the employment of parents. According to a number of researchers, this method of state support can cause parents to stay on vacation for a long time, which negatively affects the economy ^{[7, p. 26]}.

2.2.            Semantic and structural analysis of publications on family policyNext, let's turn to the results of the study.

The conducted semantic-structural analysis allows us to conclude that the content of the text is disproportionately distributed among modules. More than half (75%) the text is included in the "thesis" module, 12% in the "example" module, 7% in the "task" module, 4% in the "goal" module and 2% in the "method" module. Such a disproportionate distribution with an emphasis on the "thesis" module in the reviewed publications of foreign authors indicates that research is reduced to the formulation of conclusions. Foreign authors confine themselves to stating the facts and problems of family policy without formulating concrete proposals to overcome them.

In order to clearly demonstrate the lack of a unified position – the opposition of a "broad" and targeted approach – in the studies of family policy, foreign authors have identified the main substantive blocks of scientific publications by T. Fleckenstein and E. Cherlin.

T. Fleckenstein, considering the issue of reforming family policy in Germany, points to the ongoing competition of two models of family relations in the country: the traditional model of the male breadwinner and the modern model, the main principle of which is the employment of all adult family members (the "thesis" module); speaks about the system of insurance, taxation, social services as the main tools conservative family policy in Germany (module "thesis"); notes that at the beginning of the XXI century, a change in German family policy begins by introducing incentives for parents to work after the birth of a child: a part-time regime was introduced, reduced parental leave (1 year instead of two) with an increase in monthly allowance by 50%, an annual child care allowance of 1,500 euros was established for working parents (the "example" module); the main problem is the definition of the role of a woman in the model of family relations (the "goal" module).

            Considering the topic of modern family policy, E. Cherlin points out the weak elaboration of the term family policy in modern sociology ("thesis"); the main difference between European and American family policy calls the existence of a widely supported goal of its implementation – increasing fertility ("thesis"); calls the definition of the model of family relations the most pressing issue of family policy in the United States (the "goal"); indicates that the great disadvantage of the US family policy is the lack of measures aimed at creating conditions for employers to provide paid family leave (the "task").

            The basis of the publications of T. Fleckenstein and E. Cherlin are the conclusions of these authors related to the "thesis" module, a small proportion is the text of the "goal" and "task" modules. When formulating current goals and objectives of family policy in a particular state, foreign researchers do not offer specific ways to solve problems and do not define the tools and means necessary to achieve goals.

ConclusionThe results of the research presented in the article revealed the principles that make it possible to represent the discourse of family policy.

From the totality of the content of the publications under study, provisions related to the definition of family policy measures, the place of family policy in socio-economic policy and socio-political communication were identified – a thesaurus of concepts related to the key dimensions of family policy was formed.

The analysis of scientific articles by foreign authors allows us to conclude that there is a unified approach to family policy in the welfare states of Western Europe, Asia and North America. The approach to family policy, which is widespread in these countries, is primarily aimed at supporting the modern model of the family, which seems to be the most favorable format of marriage and family relations for the economy of modern states.

The presence of cross-cutting categories in the texts as key ones can serve as empirical evidence of the existence of a common terminological basis for research in the field of family policy and the possible commonality of the theoretical positions of the authors of scientific publications.

The unity of the authors investigating family policy measures is manifested in the recognition of the need to flexibly assess the changes associated with the evolution of family policy – in particular, the increasing importance of fatherhood, changes in socio-economic conditions, the request for the development of socio-economic prerequisites for gender equality, etc. Differences in approaches are manifested in the competition of different models of family policy, which is aggravated by the weak elaboration of this term.

A common place in modern studies of family policy is the emphasis on the importance of economic measures associated with the work of family members, the possibility of strengthening relations between parents and children through the implementation of social policy measures. Given the predominance of social and socio-economic categories in the description of legal and political transformations, values of family policy, it can be concluded that the language of the study of economic measures becomes the "resultant" of family policy, can be used to unify methods for evaluating its effectiveness.

The existence of a unified approach, however, does not mean the complete absence of differences in family policy conducted in the territory of the countries under consideration. Consideration of the priority directions and thesaurus of the study reflects the opposition of the conditionally "liberal" discourse of family support and the "conservative" direction, characterized by a high degree of involvement of the state in the implementation of support measures.

The conclusions of the study showed the ambivalence of family policy due to the lack of an opportunity to form a unified doctrinal idea of evaluating the effectiveness of family policy measures. The question of assessing the effectiveness of appropriate measures, the priority of a "broad" approach in relation to solving problems within the family remains debatable.