This study responds to the recognition that the majority of military spouses have paid employment but that neither the Department of Defense nor other organizations understand their motivations for work or their perceptions of how the military lifestyle has affected their employment. This article summarizes the input from more than a thousand military spouses who participated in interviews for this research. Qualitative and quantitative methods were used to examine spouse experiences and perceptions regarding their employment. Findings indicate that the majority of military spouses believe that the military has a negative effect on their employment. In addition, the interviews revealed that these spouses work for a variety of reasons, both financial and nonpecuniary. The reasons for the military's negative effect and spouse motives for working are discussed, along with the ensuing implications for policy. This study responds to the recognition that the majority of military spouses have paid employment but that neither the Department of Defense nor other organizations understand their motivations for work or their perceptions of how the military lifestyle has affected their employment. This article summarizes the input from more than a thousand military spouses who participated in interviews for this research. Qualitative and quantitative methods were used to examine spouse experiences and perceptions regarding their employment. Findings indicate that the majority of military spouses believe that the military has a negative effect on their employment. In addition, the interviews revealed that these spouses work for a variety of reasons, both financial and nonpecuniary. The reasons for the military's negative effect and spouse motives for working are discussed, along with the ensuing implications for policy.
Military Spouse Employment: A Grounded Theory Approach to Experiences and Perceptions
Type
Summary
Citation
Castaneda, L. W., Harell, M. C. (2008). Military Spouse Employment: A Grounded Theory Approach to Experiences and Perceptions. Armed Forces & Society, 34, 389-412. doi:10.1177/0095327X07307194