Journal of Global Social Work Practice, Volume 4, Number 2, November/December 2011
|
"Education is important but...": Low-income Kurdish migrant mothers' beliefs about child education and child labor This qualitative study with 7 low-income Kurdish mothers from Istanbul, Turkey draws on parental ethnotheories to explore their attitudes toward child education and child labor in relation to other contextual factors that might affect parental decisions about their children's educational pathways. While all mothers wanted their children to pursue higher education, contextual factors, including household size and child birth order affected their decision-making. The study suggests a complex and non-linear relationship between parental ethnotheories and decision-making, underscoring that decisions made on child labor and education can best be understood in the context of other family factors. Keywords: Turkey; child labor; parental beliefs; Kurdish mothers; qualitative Contents Child labor is defined as work that is: Mentally, physically, socially or morally dangerous and harmful to children; and interferes with their schooling by depriving them of the opportunity to attend school, obliging them to leave school prematurely, or requiring them to attempt to combine school attendance with excessively long and heavy work (International Labor Organization, n.d., para. 4). Child labor in Turkey constitutes a significant threat to children's educational trajectories in Turkey, leading them to prematurely drop out of school (Muderrisoglu, 2006; Yilmaz, 2008) and hence hindering their chances for potential upward social mobility in the long run (Muderrisoglu, 2006). In 2006, 22.3% of the population in Turkey consisted of children between ages 6 to 17, 5.9% of whom engaged in some form of economic activity (Turkish Statistical Institute [TUIK], 2007). These statistics remain a concern considering that the poverty rate is still high (17.11%) (TUIK, 2009),and that economic recessions, and rural to urban migrations continue to burden low-income households in making ends meet (Bakirci, 2002). Child labor is especially significant for social work in Turkey because one of its concerns is to facilitate the inclusion of marginalized, socially excluded, vulnerable, and at-risk groups of people. Through inclusion, social workers can address and challenge the barriers, inequalities and injustices that exist in society (Bulut, 2003). Various factors contribute to child labor. In addition to poverty and migration (Dayioglu & Assaad, 2003; Karatay, 2000; Sen, 2005), children's characteristics such as the child's age and gender (Acar, 2010; Dayioglu, 2006; Dayioglu & Assaad, 2003), and family factors including parental education and household size (Acar, 2010; Yildiz, 2007; Yilmaz, 2004) contribute to child labor. Yet, research has not systematically studied parents' perceptions of child labor on education, despite the critical role they likely play in shaping children's experiences (Gaskins, 1996), including their school attendance. This qualitative study explores low-income Kurdish migrant mothers' beliefs about child education and child labor as children from low-income Kurdish families who migrated from the southeast of Turkey in the 1990s constitute a significant portion of working children in the city (Altuntas, 2003; Yildiz, 2007). Mothers' beliefs are examined in relation to other contextual factors in their lives that could impede decision making about children's education. It is important to study mothers' beliefs about education in the context of potential barriers in order to understand the dynamics of parental decision making about children's high school attendance and completion. Understanding the interplay between these factors is critical in identifying potential impediments to child education and in developing/revising interventions and policies for this population. Education and child labor are competing tasks as time spent working cannot be spent on homework or school attendance and vice versa (Strulik, 2008). The competing relationship between education and child labor is especially evident in the lives of the urban poor. Child labor facilitates the survival of the poor households in the short run, but it also limits children's access to education, which is critical for potential upward social mobility in the long run (Yilmaz, 2008). Many students from poor families drop out of school when they reach the ages of 13 or 14 to start working and miss the last years of their primary education (Erturk & Dayioglu, 2004; Karatay, 2000). Determinants of child labor in Turkey Poverty is closely linked to child labor. Family income as measured by household income or by father's occupation is negatively correlated with child labor (e.g. Dayioglu & Assaad, 2003; Yilmaz, 2004). Dayioglu and Assaad (2003) found that while only 14% of Turkish households fell below the poverty line when children's earnings were included, this percentage increased to 26% when children's income was excluded from household income. Parental Wage. In her study of child labor in urban Turkey, Dayioglu (2006) found that children from poorer families were more likely to seek employment. The study included children between the ages of 12 to 17 who were wage earners, family workers, and self-employed. Only children who worked 14 hours or more per week were included so as to exclude light work as defined by the International Labor Organization. Household income included annual household income (excluding children's contributions), father's annual earnings and non-wage income, and household assets. Dayioglu (2006) stated that child labor was higher among families who were asset- and income-poor, suggesting that families used their asset base as a buffer to keep their children out of the labor market. Although mothers' wages were not significant in determining child employment in these households, fathers' wages were instrumental for children's participation in and withdrawal from the labor market. In families where children worked, fathers mostly engaged in temporary, low-paying jobs with no social security benefits (Yildiz, 2007; Yukseker, 2006). In a study of street-vendor (any type of work that takes place in the street environment, including selling tissue or bottles of water, polishing shoes, cleaning car windows) does not guarantee a stable income, nor does it provide any type of social security benefits. Kurdish children living in an inner-city neighborhood of Istanbul, 75% of fathers declared that they had a job (Yilmaz, 2004). Yet these were mostly temporary, unskilled, and low-paying jobs such as construction work or street work that includes polishing shoes, selling tissue or bottles of water. Almost none of the mothers worked, except a few who worked at home for textile industries. Families acknowledged that the money their children earned was crucial for family survival (Yilmaz, 2004). Migration. Urban migration in Turkey is another factor related to increasing urban poverty and, hence, to urban child labor (Muderrisoglu, 2006; Sen, 2005; Yildiz, 2007). Urban poverty has been on the rise since 1990s as a result of the internal migration of Kurdish people who were forced out of or fled from rural east and southeast Turkey to urban areas because of the safety and employment concerns that resulted from the armed conflict in the area (Degirmencioglu, Acar, & Acar, 2008; Yilmaz, 2008). Families who came during this period lacked resources, education, and skills to find employment in big cities and quickly became the new urban underclass (Ayata & Yukseker, 2005; Yilmaz, 2008). These families resorted to child labor as a family survival strategy (Altuntas, 2003; Yukseker, 2006). As a result, Kurdish migrant children in cities are at a greater risk for child labor and constitute a significant portion of working children in urban areas (Altuntas, 2003; Yildiz, 2007). The majority of working children in urban areas are from families who migrated from the east and southeast of Turkey within the last 10 to 15 years (Yildiz, 2007). In his study of children working on the street in Istanbul, Karatay (2000) found that 70% of his participants (905 children) came from families who migrated from less developed, mostly rural areas, more specifically from the east and southeast of Turkey, the two regions with the highest number of people living below the poverty line. Altuntas (2003) reported similar findings in her study of 80 children who work on the streets of Ankara, the capital of Turkey. All children but one in her study reported that their families had migrated from the southeast of Turkey and that it was a forced migration. Children's Characteristics. Children are more likely to engage in economic activity as they get older (Dayioglu, 2006; Dayioglu & Assaad, 2003). In his study of children working on the street, Karatay (2000) found that although there were children as young as 4 years old who worked on the street, the majority of working children were between the ages of 10 and 15. Age also affects the type of work they engage in. While children between the ages of 6 and 15 are more likely to work on the street, such work decreases steadily after the age of 15, with children turning to other industries such as construction work, service sector or textile industry (Acar, 2010; Yilmaz, 2008). Acar (2010) draws attention to differences between children working on the street and children working in the service sector in terms of the age they started work. Acar (2010) found that 42% of children working on the street had started working at the age of 8 or younger whereas most of the children working in the service sector started working between the ages of 13 to 15. The mean age of children employed on the street was 12.3 whereas the mean age of those in the service sector was 17, suggesting that service sector might be the next step in the job career for these children. On the other hand, it is also possible that these two groups have separate trajectories since the study showed that they differed on other characteristics as well such as parental employment, and parental education. Little is known about the role child birth order plays in child labor in Turkey (Karatay, 2000). Karatay's study showed that only 18% of the first born children were working on the street compared to 20% of third-born children. According to Karatay, other factors such as age, school success, or affordability may have also influenced parents' decision making about child labor. Gender is a moderator variable that affects the relationship between child labor and its determinants. Dayioglu (2006) found boys were more likely than girls to engage in the labor market if fathers' employment prospects were poor. Similarly, they were more likely than girls to engage in child labor as they got older. Dayioglu did not include employment in domestic chores in her definition of child labor, leaving the amount girls spent on domestic work undetected. It is possible that girls may potentially engage more in domestic work as they get older. Gender affects the number of hours children work. Compared to male children, females work about six hours less per week (Dayioglu & Assaad, 2003). Dayioglu and Assaad also found that girls worked an average of 8.9 months whereas boys worked an average of 10.1 months. Again, child labor was defined to include only the economic activity of children. If domestic work was included in the definition, different patterns might have emerged. Gender also affects the type of work children engage in. Traditional gender definitions in Turkey create a strict gender division of labor and limit most girls to domestic labor (Aksit, Karanci, & Gündüz-Hosgör, 2001; Erturk & Dayioglu, 2004) or to work as wage earners or unpaid family workers in agricultural settings (Dayioglu & Assaad, 2003). Those who are employed in the labor market may work at a relative's or friend's workplace to minimize potential threat (e.g. daughters' interactions with male strangers) to family honor (Goncu, Ozer, & Ahioglu, 2009). Parental Characteristics. Family characteristics also affect child labor. In 2008, while the poverty rate was 8.48% for a family of three or four, it was 38.20% for families with seven or more members demonstrating that larger households are at greater risk for poverty (TUIK, 2009). Studies on children working on urban streets show that a majority of children come from large households (Acar, 2010; Altuntas, 2003). Karatay's study (2000) with children working on the street in Istanbul showed that 72% of the participants had 3 to 7 siblings, 24% had more than 7 siblings, and only 4% had 1 to 2 siblings. Aksit and his colleagues (2001) found that in three large Turkish cities the average household size (7.8) for children working on the street was larger than the average household size in Turkey (5.8) (Hacettepe University, 1999). Altuntas's study (2003) on children working on the streets of Ankara also found that half of the study sample of 250 children had 4 or more siblings. Acar (2010) drew attention to the large number of siblings for both children working on the street and in the service sector. However, Acar also pointed out that children working on the street lived in larger households (average number of 7 siblings) compared to those in the service sector (average number of 4 siblings), illustrating the fact that socio-demographic differences may exist among children working in different industries. Parental education needs to be understood not only in relation to the types of jobs and income parents can get, but also in terms of the value less educated parents may attach to education. While it is not possible to establish causality, studies suggest that parents of working children have less education compared to the educational attainment average in Turkey (e.g. Aksit et al., 2001; Karatay, 2000; Yilmaz, 2004). In 2008, the illiteracy rates for males and females were 3.3% and 13.09 % respectively (TUIK, 2009b). For instance, in their study of children working on the streets of three metropolitan cities, Aksit and his colleagues (2001) found that while most of the mothers in the sample were illiterate (almost 70%), fathers had relatively higher educational levels (only 32 % of them were illiterate). However, rates for both parents were significantly above the illiteracy percentages provided for Turkey overall. Similar findings were reported by Karatay (2000) for his sample of working children in Istanbul, this time with lower illiteracy rates for fathers (72% of the mothers and 14% of the fathers are illiterate) compared to Aksit et al.'s study. However, only 36% of the fathers reported to have completed elementary school compared to 9% of the mothers. Parental Beliefs about Child Labor Parental beliefs need closer attention as they are critical in shaping parents' childrearing practices and actions (Gaskins, 1996; Harkness & Super, 1996). The way Turkish culture and its subcultures conceptualize childhood and child labor affects parents' decision making processes and childrearing practices. For instance, in studies where parents were asked about their reasons for having children, the most common response from traditional families in Turkey referred to the economic (Hoffman, 1988) and utilitarian values of children (Kagitcibasi, 1998) as opposed to the need for love or fun and stimulation (Hoffman, 1988). Kagitcibasi and Ataca (2005) noted that there has been a significant increase in the psychological value of the child and a corresponding decrease in the child's economic value since 1975. Yet, they found that rural and less affluent urban groups continued to attach greater value to children's actual contribution to family economy compared to better-off urban groups. From this standpoint, children are an addition to the household labor force and have an economic value for parents. In rural areas of Turkey, the belief is that children who work will be more mature, and that child labor can thus not be harmful. Yilmaz (2008) illustrates how child labor is perceived by rural migrants and how this transfers into the urban context, influencing parents' decisions regarding child labor in cities. In rural households, children start working in the fields and/or as shepherds as early as age six or seven and their working on the street can thus be normalized as a mere continuation of this practice. Cultural codes around gender also affect parents' perceptions and actions regarding child labor. Similarly, in their study with children working on the street in three metropolitan cities, Aksit et al. (2001) showed that both parents and children believed that it was culturally unacceptable, in their own words "shameful," for girls to work on the streets instead of staying at home, particularly after age twelve. Men in a household, or even the entire family, can lose their "honor" if women from their household engage in "inappropriate" behavior with people, especially males outside the family. According to Aksit et al. (2001), this social norm provides protection for girls, keeping them away from the hazards of working on the streets. However, this may also be a reason for parents' unwillingness to send their daughters to school after age twelve. Culturally prescribed gender roles also discourage many women from working outside the household and thus contribute to the household income. This works at the disadvantage of children in families where income is an issue as they are more likely to be mobilized into the labor market. Despite these generalizations, there is little research that explores Kurdish parents' beliefs about child labor and education, without which an understanding of parental decisions on these issues is incomplete and superficial. Only two studies reported on parental beliefs around education with this population. Aksit et al. (2001) found in their study of three big cities that the majority of parents (64% in Diyarbakir and 66% in Istanbul) believed that education would provide their children with the chance to become "decent, educated adults" (p.74). Despite their low levels of education, parents still valued education, believing it would enable their children to find jobs and have an acceptable position in society. Based on the data collected by the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV) through interviews with 50 internally displaced families, Yukseker (2007) also reported that most families valued education and had in fact left some of their children with their relatives back home so that they could finish elementary school. Child Labor and Education Yilmaz (2008) frames the role of child labor in the lives of the urban poor as paradoxical noting that while it creates the essential resources for the survival of the poor households in the short run, it constitutes a barrier to children's access to education, the key for potential upward social mobility. Education and child labor are naturally interrelated because the time spent on working cannot be spent on attendance at school or for homework and vice versa (Strulik, 2008). The formal educational system in Turkey consists of primary school (5 years), middle school (3 years), high school (3 years) and beyond. Until recently only primary school education was mandatory. In September 1997, compulsory education was extended from five to eight years to include middle school, mainly due to the fact that many girls were not continuing their education beyond elementary school (Smits & Hosgor, 2006). Formal education is free at all levels in state schools, although private schools exist as well (Tansel, 2002). Even though schools are free of charge, the poorest households cannot afford school supplies, school donation requests, and registration fees (which, although legally forbidden, are widespread in practice) (Yilmaz, 2006). Muderrisoglu (2006) states that by the time the students reach the age of 13 or 14, many from poor families are asked to drop out and join the workforce, missing the last years of primary education to support their families. During interviews with her participants, one 7th grade student who was not attending school at the time of the interview illustrates the pressure his family puts on him to work instead of going to school: I tell them I will go to school. They tell me you won't. I go. They tell me, "You will work." I tell them I won't. I get out of the house and go to the Atatürk Kitapligi (local library). They keep asking me, "Why don't you work?".... They kept saying we won't send you to school, we won't send you to school (p.62). Other studies conducted in Turkey also show that working children fall short in the education aspect of their lives. The findings from the study Karatay (2000) conducted a year after mandatory education had been extended to eight years were not any more promising. Of 905 children working on the street, 29% dropped out from school at some point, and 17% never went to school (Karatay, 2000). Yilmaz (2004) highlights another important aspect of the issue by pointing out that although the elementary school enrollment rate among working children in her study was as high as 75%, children that were interviewed for the study stated that they would leave the school as soon as they finished 5th grade so that they could start working in a regular manner to bring money to the family. Yilmaz (2004) argues that these statements draw the attention to the fact that although the educational regulation that extended compulsory education from five to eight years has been in force since the school year 1998-1999, the regulation has not penetrated all parts of society, or has not been enforced as it should. Although existing studies on child labor in Turkey suggest a negative impact of child labor on educational attainment (Demir, Demir & Uygur, 2006; Karatay, 2000; Yilmaz, 2004), these studies are limited in number and rarely go beyond providing descriptive statistics. While different factors (e.g. gender, culture, poverty) affecting the educational participation in Turkey have been conducted (Kirdar, 2009; Smits & Hosgor, 2006; Tansel, 2002), child labor has been omitted as a factor. Similarly, in child labor studies, educational attainment has been mostly treated as a demographic characteristic, showing that working children have low rates of school enrollment (Karatay, 2000; Ilik & Turkmen, 1994). Kurds in Turkey Kurds are the largest ethnic group in Turkey with a population of about 11.5 million, which is approximately 15% of the whole population in Turkey (Koc, Hancioglu, & Cavlin, 2008). As of 2003, the majority of Kurds (68%) lived in the less developed east and southeast regions of Turkey and constituted the majority of the population living in the area (Koc, Hancioglu, & Cavlin, 2008). Kurds, although living mainly in the rural southeast and east regions of Turkey, have been experiencing significant levels of migration to big cities in the West for the last twenty years and have ended up mostly in poor neighborhoods (Yilmaz, 2004). Kurds and forced migration. Even though Turkey has been experiencing rural to urban migration since the 1950s, the nature of the migration in the 1990s was quite different. People who migrated in the 1990s were either forced out of their villages or fled to urban areas from rural areas in the east and southeast of the country as a result of the armed conflict between forces belonging to Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) and the government forces (Degirmencioglu, Acar, & Acar, 2008; Yilmaz, 2004). Forced migration or internal displacement refers to a series of deliberate actions such as depopulation and/or burning down of villages for security reasons or desertion of villages by their inhabitants due to security and economic reasons (Yilmaz, 2004). The process of internal displacement in Turkey is very much embedded in the historical, political, ethnic, and social context of the country and its eastern and southeastern regions that are predominantly populated by people of Kurdish ethnicity (Aker, Celik, Kurban, Unalan, & Yukseker, 2005). The Kurdish-Turkish armed ethnic conflict started to rage in Southeast Turkey in 1984 (Bird, 2004) and since then, the conflict has been continuing to varying degrees of violence. During the period between 1984 and 1999, about 37,000 Turkish soldiers, Kurdish guerillas, and civilians were killed (Bird, 2004). The seeds of the conflict were sown shortly after the founding of the modern Republic of Turkey at the end of three years of war for the independence of Turkey in the early 1920s. Initially, the Kurds supported the war fighting alongside Turkish forces in the war of independence (Bird, 2004). Following the foundation of the Republic of Turkey, assimilationist policies and practices were put in place to create an indestructible nation-state with a monolithic Turkish identity (Bird, 2004). The most obvious target for this assimilationist perspective was the country's largest minority group, the Kurds, who live mainly southeast and east of Turkey (Aker et al., 2005). These two regions have continued to experience political, socio-economic, and cultural problems and discrimination since then (Aker et al., 2005). On March 3rd, 1924, all Kurdish schools, associations, publications, religious organizations, as well as Kurdish language and other cultural symbols were banned (Kurdish people had the right to their language, culture, and organizations under the rule of the Ottoman Empire) (Bird, 2004). Three big Kurdish revolts followed these restrictions, all of which were repressed by the Turkish government. Life for Kurdish people improved slightly in the 1950s. A limited amount of cultural expression was allowed but political parties representing Kurdish citizens continued to be outlawed, and the Southeast remained mired in poverty; the government did little to develop the area other than building roads to better police the Kurds (Bird, 2004). Kurds struggled with unbalanced and unjust land distribution, tribal structure, stagnant economy, insufficient investment in economy, health care, education, and military presence of the state in the area (Aker et al., 2005), problems that still remain to be resolved. The oppressive practices continued well into the 1980s, during which the Kurdish-Turkish relations entered a new and violent phase with the formation of a militant party called PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party). PKK launched its first successful operation in 1984, which have been followed by numerous others still to this day. The Turkish government responded to these attacks with military operations in the area (Bird, 2004). As portrayed by Bird, the villagers found themselves in a double-bind. If they refused to cooperate with the PKK, they suffered brutal reprisals (e.g. being beaten, killed, or kidnapped). For those who cooperated, Turkish military forces would beat, arrest, or torture them. During the height of the conflict between the Turkish military and the PKK militants in the 1990s, more than 900 villages and 2,500 hamlets were evacuated by either the security forces or the PKK in rural areas of the eastern and south-eastern provinces (Yukseker, 2006). This displacement has created layers of social and economic problems for all its bearers, but especially those in the urban areas. The receiving communities, especially in areas outside the east or southeast of Turkey, were not always welcoming, which contributed to the social exclusion of this population. Social exclusion refers to situations in which some citizens cannot benefit from economic, political, social, and cultural activities or services whereas most citizens can (Yukseker, 2007). Yukseker points out that Kurdish people in these areas experienced discrimination in housing, employment, and education because of their Kurdish and rural identities. Interviews indicated that some homeowners did not want to rent their apartments to Kurdish families, a finding also reported by Celik (2005). Internally-displaced Kurdish families who migrated to big cities live in dire conditions. Not equipped with the skills and education necessary to find jobs in the urban context and unable to afford decent housing, most Kurds who moved to big cities in the west as a result of displacement ended up in shantytowns on the periphery of the city or in low-income inner-city neighborhoods (Yilmaz, 2006). They quickly became the new urban underclass in the urban context (Ayata & Yukseker, 2005). Studies conducted in Istanbul suggest strong links between urban poverty and forced migration. In her study of the neighborhood of Tarlabasi, Yilmaz (2006, 2008) states that most Kurdish inhabitants seek to use the centrality of the neighborhood as an asset in their survival strategies, especially in terms of employment. Yet, as previously stated, the jobs they can find are often precarious, irregular, and temporary; employment is mostly in the informal sector, without social security and with low wages (Yilmaz, 2008). Kurds and education. According to the report "Kurds and the Kurdish problem," the mean years of schooling is 7.4 for adults who self-identified as Turkish versus 6.1 for those who self-identified as Kurdish (Agirdir, 2008). The illiteracy rate among Kurds is 16.4% and high school graduation rate is 19.7%. Looking one generation back, the mean years of schooling goes down to 3.2 for Kurdish fathers and 1.3 for Kurdish mothers (compared to 4.8 and 3.3 respectively for Turks). These findings suggest that education may not really be prioritized among people of Kurdish ethnic background. Yet, there is not any study that looks into Kurdish parents' beliefs about and attitudes toward education. The goal of this qualitative research is to address this gap in the literature by exploring low-income Kurdish mothers' ethnotheories about child education and child labor using semi-structured interviews. Mothers of children from low-income migrant Kurdish families are examined as their children are at especially high risk for child labor and therefore for not pursuing education. As it is not possible to accurately understand the impact of parental beliefs on children's outcomes in isolation from the larger family context, this study also looks at contextual factors that affect families' decisions in sending their children to school versus to work. Theoretical framework This study draws on parental ethnotheories to explore mothers' beliefs about whether to send their children to school or work. Parents' understandings about the nature of children, the structure of child development, and the meaning of behavior is largely shared by members of a cultural group or subgroup (Gaskins, 1996; Goodnow, 1996, Harkness & Super, 1996).These understandings developed within a particular cultural place and time are called "parents' cultural belief systems" or "parental ethnotheories" (Harkness & Super, 1996). Cultures are important in providing parents with particular theories not only about how children become functional members of their culture (Gaskins, 1996) but also about what roles they are assigned in the family, as well as how and to what extent they should contribute to family life. Although parental ethnotheories may have some universal dimensions, they are constructed within cultural belief systems and they are often implicit (Harkness & Super, 1996). Harkness and Super (1996) suggest that parents use both individual interpretations of specific situations as well as previously learned social and cultural directions in formulating their reasoning. Hence, parental ethnotheories relate in systematic ways to parental action in the form of childrearing practices and thus, influence children's development (Gaskins, 1996; Tudge, Hogan, Snezhkova, Kulakova, & Etz, 2000). Understanding these particular theories provides the basis for understanding parents' cultural motivations that underlie the specifics of the ways parents structure their children's experiences and thus influence their development (Gaskins, 1996). Without such understanding, parents' decisions about and actions toward their children are uninterpretable, misinterpreted, or superficial. This study recognizes that parental decision-making processes are affected by other factors that facilitate or impede the translation of parental beliefs into action. Thus, the study situates parental beliefs within the larger family context to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the relationship between parental belief systems and actions. Research site The study was conducted in Saraybostan (a pseudonym), an inner-city neighborhood of Istanbul, Turkey. Saraybostan is home to large numbers of low-income Kurdish migrants from southeastern Turkey who settled in this neighborhood for its cheap housing. Densely populated with a maze of narrow streets and crumbling houses, Saraybostan is characterized by sub-standard housing, poor infrastructure, overcrowding, and illegal activities. Participants Seven mothers, identified by pseudonyms, were recruited through snowball sampling, except the key informant Kader whose daughter the author had worked with in a mentoring program. Mothers' self-reported ages ranging from 30 to 40 years. Self-identified as Kurdish, all mothers were married and first-generation migrants who had come within the last 20 years from villages in Southeast Turkey. Some mothers came because their husbands could not find a job in their hometown. Others came after they got married to their husbands who were already living in the city. The number of children in the households varied from two to nine. In 4 households, children older than fifteen were working. In two households, children were elementary school-age or too young to attend school. None of the mothers worked outside home and none attended elementary school except 1 mother who attended some elementary school. Fathers' jobs, as reported by the mothers, were mostly low-paying or seasonal jobs; one father worked as a driver for the municipality, one father was working in a restaurant, another had a corner store (for which he was paying rent), others worked in garment production and thus were unemployed for the summer during which garment production stops. Monthly family income varied between 450 (~$400) to 900 Turkish Liras (~$800). Although the study was originally designed to include fathers, the traditional gender roles that define the interactions of an unmarried woman with men who are not family members as 'inappropriate' made the inclusion of fathers unfeasible. This cultural norm was respected by the researcher. Table 1. Demographics of Participants Data Collection
Participants were interviewed by the author using semi-structured interviews were comprised of topically oriented, open-ended questions (Patton, 1990). The audio-taped interviews aimed to understand these families' lives before and after migration, their beliefs and attitudes toward child labor and education, and their aspirations for their children and families. The interviews were conducted by the author over the course of the summer in 2008. Each interview session lasted 1-1.5 hours. Interviews were held either in the participants' homes or in the key participant's house. Data analysis The interviews were transcribed verbatim in Turkish, and then translated into English. Analytic induction methods (Lofland & Lofland, 1995; Taylor & Bogdan, 1998) that focused on meanings and processes in the mothers' narratives guided the analysis. While some codes derived from interview questions that were informed by the literature, other codes emerged from the interviews. Initial coding identified broader themes and concepts, which were then broken down into smaller, more specific units until no further subcategory was necessary. Comparisons across participants were made to identify patterns and differences (Miles & Huberman, 1994). An unbiased peer debriefer was consulted with during data analysis to test and discuss the plausibility of emergent themes and hypotheses (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Mothers' beliefs about education Despite their own lack of experience with education, all mothers highly valued their children's education and perceived it as the way for children to get good jobs and earn money.
Husniye: "When they grow up, I want them to go school, I'll send them to school until they become something, I want this. Education is a good thing." Mothers did not explicitly talk about how their beliefs about education were shaped. However, their own lack of education may have motivated some mothers to send their children to school:
Fehime: "I wanted to go to school so much, they did not let me" Even though the study did not inquire into fathers' beliefs about education, some mothers alluded to their supportive attitude towards education:
Fehime: But now my husband is working. I will send my kids to school. He also wants it, wants to send them to school." Mothers aspired towards college education and saw the link to better paying jobs:
Sukran: "[If] she has a profession, she'll be comfortable. It will benefit her" Despite their emphasis on education, a few mothers were ambiguous about how much they would support it. For instance, Husniye thought education was the best option for her kids, but she also said, "When they grow up they will decide for themselves. I can't decide for them. If they are hard-working, they will go to school; if not they will stay at home." Fatma thought she could ask her children to work and go to school at the same time. When asked about how that might affect children's school work, she said, "I've never thought of that." In some families, children chose not to attend high school even though their parents sent them: Fatma: "He started high school, he went for 4 months, then dropped out... My other son did not go either, he dropped out"". Overall, low-income Kurdish migrant mothers were aware that education was a means for a brighter future for their children and highly valued education. Mothers' beliefs about child labor While all mothers emphasized the importance of education and wanted their children to have a profession, they stated they would expect their children to work if their family needed money.
Kader: "The girls finished middle school. Now they will work because my husband works by himself and we are eight people to spend it". Yet, both Fehime and Husniye also thought they would not send their children to work until after they completed eight years of compulsory education:
Fehime: "Not before they are 15-16, of course." These accounts suggest families ensure that children finish their eight years of compulsory education before they start working. While mothers were open to their children working, they were very particular about what constituted an appropriate workplace for their children. They differentiated between work on the street and other types of workplaces.
Husniye: "If the child works on the street, he'll lose his mind, other bad things will happen. I want my children to work at jobs that I know and want, [for instance] with their father, their uncles, or with a nice man [so that]...they can stay on the right track." Mothers were concerned about street work mainly because of the dangers of street life, such as drug dealing and purse-snatching, activities they witnessed in their neighborhood on a daily basis. Conversely, they felt comfortable with workplaces where their children can be supervised by trusted adults, such as kin or friends. Kinship and friend networks became a strategy for finding safe workplaces for children. Parental ethnotheories in context Mothers discussed various factors that affected their decisions to send their children to work. Financial Constraints. When talking with low-income migrant mothers, one theme was consistent: "It (education) is very important but if you have money." Financial constraints emerged as the biggest barrier against high school education. Serife said: "I mean when we first came here, I regret I didn't send my oldest daughter to school. The oldest, remember there is an oldest [son], he was very smart too, but I don't have the [financial] situation, not at all." Different factors contributed to financial problems families experienced. Father's Jobs. Not having a stable or well-paying job for fathers was the major factor contributing to financial problems. Husbands of women in this sample held low-paying or seasonal jobs. Some were working in the garment production industry. Although some owned their business, garment production brings little profit and most importantly stops during the summer: Husniye: "Men don't work in summer because the garment workshops close. They don't have any other work to do, they stay at home. Some go to coffeehouses, some hang out with friends." One father worked in a local restaurant as a cook and another had a corner store. However, because he rented the store, most of his earnings were spent on rent. Only one father had low-paying but stable income through his job as a driver for the municipality. Women not working outside the house. Another important factor contributing to financial limitations was due to women not being allowed to work outside the house after they got married. Mothers explained this situation by gender roles ascribed to women, "Usually women of the city we are from don't work." When Fehime was asked whether she would consider working if their situation would get worse, she said: "My husband won't allow. He won't allow me to work. It is the tradition of our men. Of course if it was in their textile atelier, if it is with them, then maybe. They would not allow us work somewhere else, our men. I mean, they won't let us. They would say 'you take care of the kids'...". While some mothers like Kader said she would work if there was work she could do from home like she had in the past, other mothers said they did not have time to work because they were too busy taking care of the kids and the house chores. Women not working outside the house had important implications for their children. They became the ones who were expected to support the family financially and that usually came at the expense of their high school education. Among Sukran's six kids, the two oldest sons were expected to go to high school and work at the same time. However, as explained by Sukran's younger daughter, work took its toll on education for her brother. Even though he was going to school, he was just staring at the blackboard because he was tired from working the day before. At the end, he dropped out of school. School expenses. Another factor that surely puts pressure on the family's financial situation is school expenses. In this small sample, one mother, Kader, explicitly mentioned that school related expenses were a concern for the family. She complained about the hidden costs of sending children to school: "School is expensive, it's not just uniform, school wants money for stuff, there is also lunch money for kids every day and I have four kids in school." Schools also ask for money from families for field trips and this becomes a significant burden on low-income households with more than one child in school. Indeed, although she did not explicitly talk about the school expenses, Fehime appreciated a non-profit organization that provided children who attended its youth program with school materials: "They [staff from the organization] said 'if they come often, we will give them 55 TL (~$35) and when the school starts, we'll buy their shoes, and school supplies'. Last year, they gave the school uniform and pants to my son and to Kader's son. They also gave 25 TL (~$15) last month to both my son and her son." Large households. The low level of income was further complicated by large household size. As noted earlier, the number of children in the households varied from two to nine, with a median of four. The mother with two children had only been married for six years, suggesting that the size of this household could still grow. As illustrated by Kader below, large households coupled with financial constraints made it harder for families to afford not only sending their children to school but meet families' other needs. "School is expensive, it's not just uniform, school wants money for stuff, there is also lunch money for kids every day and I have 4 kids.... My husband works by himself and we are 8 people to spend it." Child birth order As a result of financial constraints, children are expected to work or stay home so as not to increase family expenses by attending school. Child birth order becomes critical in this process. All working children in the sample were the oldest ones of their siblings. Kader illustrates how child birth order impacts their decision regarding their daughters' high school enrollment and clarifies that this decision is not influenced by their gender but by their age: "It is not because they are girls that we don't send them to school it is because they are the oldest, they will work so that the youngsters can go to school or be better off. No, it's not that [their gender] because if Murat was older, he would work, girls would go to school. Now these are the oldest, they'll work a little. They'll save at least their siblings' lives." This became a collective coping strategy for the larger good of the family that enabled all children to at least have the minimum amount of education required. While being oldest was an obstacle for older children of the family, it became a protective factor for younger children. Sukran's and Kader's families illustrated how this collective coping strategy enabled younger ones to attend high school. School success. School success is another criterion parents consider in deciding whether they will send their children to high school or not. When asked, Husniye said her kids would decide for themselves if they wanted to go to high school, but also added "If they are hardworking, they'll go to school, if they aren't, they will stay at home." Similarly, as her two oldest daughters were asked to start working after graduating from middle school, Kader stated that deciding to send her younger children to high school depended upon whether they had good grades or not. Talking about her younger son Ahmet, she stated, "I want Murat to go to school because his sisters could not. We will see for Ahmet, if his grades are good he will continue school, if not he'll work." Fatma had a similar approach, "Whomever [of my kids] is a good student will go to school." This study was a first step to explore Kurdish low-income mothers' parental ethnotheories on child education and child labor in relation to contextual factors in families' lives. The parental ethnotheories framework suggests a direct link between how parents perceive issues around children and how they structure their children's experiences. However, the findings from this study suggest a more indirect link, showing that in low-income Kurdish migrant families, parental beliefs may not always predict how parents shape children's educational pathways as parents adapt their actions and decisions according to various contextual barriers identified in this study. In other words, based on mothers' beliefs on education, one would expect all children to pursue higher education in these families. However, because of financial constraints, only some children do so. Similarly, focusing only on child outcomes may lead to inaccurate conclusions on parental ethnotheories. For instance, low-income Kurdish children's low attendance to high school may lead one to conclude that education is not appreciated in these families. Yet, the most noteworthy finding of this pilot study is that despite a lack of experience with formal education, all mothers valued their children's education. Some also mentioned their husbands' support for education. Mothers saw the link between higher education (high school and beyond), and a better future for their children. If their children had a career as a doctor or teacher, they would have a stable future and decent income. The fact that these mothers were less clear on how their children's school work would be affected if they were to work simultaneously, and that they would leave it up to their children to decide whether or not to pursue high school raise concerns on how likely children would be to achieve this future. When situated within their socioeconomic and cultural contexts, various barriers to mothers' aspirations for their children to "become teachers or doctors" or "become something" were identified. Mothers acknowledged they would have to ask their children to work if their family needed the money, regardless of how much they valued education, putting the realization of these aspirations at jeopardy. Given the inadequate income of families in the study, it is very likely that at least some children, especially the oldest ones, will be asked to go to work in most of these households. Indeed, of the three households that did not have any working children, only one had children who were at the age children were usually sent to work (one eighth grader and one ninth grader) but were at the time not working. The other two households had children at the elementary school age or younger. Mothers' beliefs about child labor illustrated potential areas of flexibility and negotiation for the mothers (Goodnow, 1996) in regards to decisions they made on their children's behalf. While mothers were open to considering child labor, they were less flexible on what would constitute an appropriate workplace for their children. Street as a workplace option was strictly out of question. Mothers preferred that their children worked for relatives or friends, a finding also supported by Goncu and colleagues (2009). Some mothers also had age restrictions for when they would send their children to work. Consistent with the literature (Dayioglu, 2006; Dayioglu & Assaad, 2003), financial constraints were the biggest obstacle against children's educational pathways, pushing many families to consider child labor as an alternative. This eventually leads to mobilization of children into the workforce. In other words, child work becomes survival strategy for the family (Bakirci, 2002). Multiple factors contributed to low family income. Consistent with other literature (Yilmaz, 2008; Yukseker, 2006), low-income Kurdish fathers did not have the adequate education to hold jobs with decent and regular income, which contributed to financial constraints families experienced. Moreover, mothers did not work outside the house, abiding by culturally prescribed gender roles. Mothers had conflicting responses about whether they would consider work outside the house. Women not working outside the house coupled with men's lack of jobs with decent and regular income increased the likelihood of children's mobilization into the workforce for financial support. These findings suggest that adherence to gender roles for married women may be prioritized in these families over children's education. Consistent with the literature (Aksit et al., 2001; Altuntas, 2003), household size also strained the budget available to the family. The literature (Sirkeci, 2000) and household sizes in this study suggest that large households may be a cultural pattern. Kurdish families in Turkey live in relatively large households, 80% of which have six or more members (Sirkeci, 2000). The average household size is larger (6.8) for Kurdish families compared to overall average household size (5.8) in Turkey (Hacettepe University, 1999). Unfortunately, there is not enough data to explain the reasoning behind the beliefs mothers have about child education and labor. However, child birth order and school success seem critical in deciding whether a child should go to school or work. Mothers expressed child birth order as an important criterion on deciding which children would be sent to work. Contrary to the existing literature (Aksit et al., 2001; Dayioglu, 2006; Erturk & Dayioglu; 2004), gender's role in deciding which children would go to school and which would work was underplayed by child birth order, potentially because parents were able to find jobs with trusted adults for their daughters where they did not have to worry about any threat to family honor (Goncu et al., 2009). While in Karatay's (2000) study, first- and third-born children were working, in this study only oldest children were sent to work or asked to stay at home so that younger kids could attend school. These findings are consistent with studies in other developing countries (Emerson & Souza, 2008; Fafchamps & Wahba, 2006) that showed that oldest children worked to support their family and their younger siblings. Child birth order in these Kurdish families became a collective coping strategy that gave all children in the family an opportunity to get some level of education. The relationship between school success and child labor is understudied in Turkey. However, this study suggests that mothers may take into account school success when deciding whether their children would continue their education or would start working. These findings support Karatay's (2000) argument that school success may play an important role. However, the fact that oldest siblings were sent to work regardless of their school success contradict his findings that child birth order is less important than school success. Thus, oldest children's educational trajectories seem more at jeopardy compared to their younger siblings. More studies are needed to disentangle the dynamics between child birth order and school success in relation to child labor. School expenses were also a concern for some families, a finding that may become a common pattern in larger studies. In addition to regular expenses such as school uniforms and supplies, school administrations also ask for registration fees although public primary schools are in principle free, or for donations throughout the school year (Yilmaz, 2008). The pilot nature of this study makes definitive suggestions on implications premature. Nonetheless, certain directions emerge for consideration in intervention planning. First of all, Kurdish mothers are aware that education increases their children's likelihood for a better future. Yet, they are not as knowledgeable about the concrete steps that need to be taken and the support that should be provided to children to follow an educational pathway. For instance, some mothers said it would be up to their children to decide whether they would go to high school and beyond. Similarly, some mothers were unaware of how working and attending school simultaneously may interfere with school success. Thus, social work could help provide mothers with needed education on the steps that should be taken for their children's higher education, on how to support and promote higher education for their children, and how child labor can interfere with school success and attendance. Given that many Kurdish women cannot read, educatory change will best take place in conversations. With home visits or parent meetings in elementary and middle schools through partnership with educators in school settings, social workers can inform parents on the importance of higher education and ways to promote and support children's higher education. Certain industries such as garment production, carpet industry, and mechanics are known to be common workplaces for children (Akin, 2009). As these tend to be small scale enterprises, they can more easily escape government inspections against child labor. Given that research suggests these workplaces as potential milieus for child labor, policies for inspections against child labor should also encompass smaller enterprises and these enterprises should be more closely scrutinized. Considering that poverty is an important contributor to child labor, vocational trainings can also be offered to parents who have migrated from rural areas to cities and do not have the necessary skills to hold jobs in an urban environment. Promoting microcredit programs in communities such as the one in this study can be considered. Similarly, social workers can assist in creating culturally appropriate job opportunities for women in these communities. Social workers can also advocate for paid internships during summer time which can be implemented for high-school age children both to provide extra income to the family and to provide skill training for children. Finally, since child labor has implications for children's long-term educational pathways, social workers' efforts are needed to raise public awareness on child labor and to discourage consumption of products for which child labor has been used either for the production or selling of products. Policies can be put in place to discourage employers from using child labor and consumers from consumption of such items. This strategy adopted especially in the carpet industry in other developing countries, has yielded positive results (RugMark Foundation USA, 2008). Elaborating on the parental ethnotheories framework, these findings underscore the importance of contextual factors in shaping children's experiences. While contextual circumstances did not affect mothers' ethnotheories on the importance of education, they made mothers more tolerant of child labor and influenced their decisions about sending children to school or work. Parental decision-making could only be understood if parental beliefs were situated within the larger family context. In other words, the relationship between parental ethnotheories and parental actions was non-linear and complex. Better understanding of parental ethnotheories and their relation to parental actions is critical for well-informed and effective services for this population. This pilot study suggests that financial constraints play a prominent role in parents' decisions to send their children to school or to work. Yet, the findings also show that these decisions are made by taking into account various family and child characteristics, such as household size, children's age, birth order, and school success. Qualitative studies cannot disentangle which factors are more critical in shaping parental decisions and the mediating and moderating roles they may play. Thus, future quantitative studies can establish correlational and causal links between parental beliefs and actions, as well as the relationship between parental beliefs and other contextual factors. The pilot nature of the study entails other limitations that need to be addressed in future research. One of the study limitations is the small sample size that might have concealed patterns that may emerge with larger samples. For instance, school expenses were mentioned only by few families as a barrier to children's education. With larger numbers of participants, qualitative studies can explore whether and how school expenses affect children's education and consequently child labor. This study suggests, contrary to the literature, that child birth order is more critical than the child's gender. Both quantitative and qualitative studies with larger samples may help better identify whether this is a general pattern for low-income Kurdish migrant families. This study only focused on mothers' accounts, even though some mothers talked about their husbands' opinions on child education and labor. Thus, future qualitative research should have larger samples that include fathers' views as well, considering that fathers may have more power in making decisions in these families with traditional gender roles. Including fathers in future qualitative studies can provide important and more comprehensive insight to parental ethnotheories on child labor and education in Kurdish families as well as the decision-making process. Finally, more systematic research is needed to explore factors that shape Kurdish low-income migrant parental ethnotheories on education and child labor as well as the dynamics of the relationship between parental ethnotheories and decisions. In other words, future research can inquire more directly and extensively into the cultural roots of parental ethnotheories as well as the factors that mediate or moderate parental decisions. While qualitative studies would be helpful in understanding the process by which these families negotiate their beliefs in relation to contextual factors in their lives, quantitative studies would help understand the mediating and moderating roles contextual factors play in both shaping parental ethnotheories and decisions about child education and child labor. Acar, H. (2010). Children working in the streets and in the service sector in Turkey: A comparative study. International Journal of Human Sciences, 7(1), 1009-1019. Agirdir, Bekir (2008). Kurtler ve Kurt sorunu. Retrieved on October 6, 2010, from http://www.bekiragirdir.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/kurtler.pdf Aker, T. A., Çelik, B., Kurban, D., Unalan, T., & Yukseker, H. D. (2005). The problem of internal displacement in Turkey: Assessment and policy proposals. Report published for Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation. Istanbul, Turkey. Akin, L. (2009). Working conditions of the child worker in Turkish Labor Law. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 21, 53-67. Aksit, B., Karanci, N., & Gündüz-Hosgör, A. (2001, November). Working street children in three metropolitan cities: A rapid assessment. International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC). Retrieved on October 1, 2010, from http://ilo-mirror.library.cornell.edu/public/english/standards/ipec/simpoc/turkey/ra/street.pdf Altuntas, B. (2003). Mendile, simite, boyaya, cöpe...Ankara sokaklarinda calisan cocuklar [Children working on the streets of Ankara]. Istanbul, Turkey: Iletisim. Ayata, B., & Yukseker, D. (2005). A belated awakening: National and international responses to the internal displacement of Kurds in Turkey. New Perspectives on Turkey, 32, 5-42. Bakirci, K. (2002). Child labour and legislation in Turkey. The International Journal of Children's Rights, 10(1), 55-72. doi:10.1163/157181802772758128 Bird, C. (2004). A thousand sighs, a thousand revolts: Journeys in Kurdistan. New York, NY: The Random House Publishing Group. Bulut, I. (2003). A generalist approach in social work education in Turkey. Social Work & Society, 1(1). Retrieved on August 11, 2011, from http://www.eassw.org/swSchools/Turkey/Social%20Work%20Education%20in%20TurkeyIsilBulut.pdf Celik, A. B. (2005). "I miss my village": Forced Kurdish migrants in Istanbul and their representation in associations. New Perspectives on Turkey, 32, 137-163. Dayioglu, M. (2006). The impact of household income on child labor in urban Turkey. Journal of Development Studies, 42(6), 939-956. doi:10.1080/00220380600774723 Dayioglu, M., & Assaad, R. (2003). The determinants of child labor in urban Turkey (Working Paper Series No. 0302). Cairo, Egypt: Economic Research Forum. Retrieved on April 7, 2010 from http://www.erf.org/eg/CMS/getFile.php?id-159 Degirmencioglu, S., Acar, H., & Acar, H. B. (2008). Extreme forms of child labour in Turkey. Children & Society, 22(3), 191-200. doi:10.1111/j.1099-0860.2008.00150.x Demir, C. E., Demir , E., & Uygur, S. (2006) The relationship between work, school performance and school attendance of primary school children in Turkey. Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, University of Geneva,13-15 September 2006. Emerson, P.M., & Souza, A. P. (2008). Birth order, child labor, and school attendance in Brazil. World Development, 36(9), 1647-1664. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.09.004 Erturk, Y., & Dayioglu, M. (2004). Gender, education and child labour in Turkey. International Labor Organization: Geneva, Switzerland. Retrieved on October 1, 2010, from http://www.un.md/un_ag_mol/ILO/reports/1049%20GenderLabourTurkey.pdf Fafchamps, M., & Wahba, J. (2006). Child labor, urban proximity, and household composition. Journal of Development Economics, 79(2), 374-397. doi:10.1016/j.jdeveco.2006.01.005 Gaskins, S. (1996). How Mayan parental theories come into play. In S. Harkness & C. M. Super (Eds.), Parents' cultural belief systems: Their origins, expressions, and consequences (pp. 345-363). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Goncu, A., Ozer, S., & Ahioglu, N. (2009). Childhood in Turkey: Social class and gender differences in schooling, labor, and play. In M. Fleer, M. Hedegaard, & J. Tudge (Eds.), Childhood studies and the impact of globalization: policies and practices at global and local levels (pp. 67-85). New York, NY: Routledge. Goodnow, J. J. (1996). From household practices to parents' ideas about work and interpersonal relationships. In S. Harkness & C. M. Super (Eds.). Parents' cultural belief systems: Their origins, expressions, and consequences (Pp. 313-344). New York, NY: Guilford Press. GoodWeave Foundation USA. (2008). White paper: Learning from the GoodWeave model. Retrieved on May 15, 2010 from GoodWeave Organization website: http://www.goodweave.org/uploads/WhitePaper0409.pdf Hacettepe Institute of Population Studies. (1999). Demographic and Health Survey 1998. Ankara, Turkey. Harkness, S., & Super, C. M. (1996). Parents' cultural belief systems: Their origins, expressions, and consequences. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Hoffman, L. W. (1988). Cross-cultural differences in childrearing goals. In R. A. LeVine, P.M. Miller, & M. M. West (Eds.), Parental behavior in diverse societies: New directions for child developmentNo: 40(pp. 99-122). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Ilik, B. & Turkmen, Z. (1994). Sokakta calisan cocuklar [Children Working on the Street]. Report prepared for International Labor Organization, International Programme on Elimination of Child Labor. Ankara, Turkey: Demircioglu Matbaacilik. International Labor Organization. (n.d.) About child labour. International Program on the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC). Retrieved March 20, 2010 from http://www.ilo.org/ipec/facts/lang--en/ Kagitcibasi, C. (1998). The value of children: A key issue to gender issues. International Child Health, 1998, 9(1), 15-24. Kagitcibasi, C., & Ataca, B. (2005). Value of children, family and self: A three-decade portrait from Turkey. Applied Psychology, 54(3), 317-337. Karatay, A. (2000). Istanbul'un sokaklari ve calisan cocuklar [Streets of Istanbul and working children]. In S. U. Sayita & M. R. Sirin (Eds.), 1. Istanbul çocuk kurultayi arastirmalar kitabi (pp. 453-541). Istanbul, Turkey: Istanbul Cocuklari Vakfi. Kirdar, M. G. (2009). Explaining ethnic disparities in school enrollment in Turkey. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 57(2), 297-333. doi: 10.1086/592841 Koc, I., Hancioglu, A., & Cavlin, A. (2008). Demographic differentials and demographic integration of Turkish and Kurdish populations in Turkey. Population Research and Policy Review, 27(4), 447-457.doi: 10.1007/s11113-008-9072-y Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. H. (1995). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Muderrisoglu, S. (2006). To work or not to work: That is the question! In F. Adaman, & C. Keyder (Eds.), Poverty and social exclusion in slum areas of large cities in Turkey (pp. 56-67). Report prepared for European Commission on Employment, Social Affairs, and Equal Opportunities. Retrieved on March 6, 2008 from http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/spsi/docs/social_inclusion/2006/study_turkey_en.pdf Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluations and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Sen., L. (2005). Poverty alleviation, conflict, and power in poor displaced households: A study of the views of women in Diyarbakir. New Perspectives on Turkey, 32, 113-135. Sirkeci, I. (2000). Exploring the Kurdish population in the Turkish context. GENUS, An International Journal of Demography [Online serial], 56(1-2), 149-175. Retrieved on April 7, 2008 from http://ssrn.com/abstract=838824 Smits, J., & Hosgor, A. G. (2006). Effects of family background characteristics on educational participation in Turkey. International Journal of Educational Development 26(5), 545-560.doi: 10.1016/j.ijedudev.2006.02.002 Strulik, H. (2008). The role of poverty and community norms in child labor andschooling decision. Proceedings of the German Development Economics Conference, Zurich, Germany. Tansel, A. (2002). Determinants of school attainment of boys and girls in Turkey: Individual, household and community factors. Economics of Education Review, 21(5), 455-470. Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1998). Introduction to qualitative methods: A guidebook and resource (3rd Ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley. Tudge, J., Hogan, D., Snezhkova, I., Kulakova, N., & Etz, K. (2000). Parents' child-rearing values and beliefs in the United States and Russia: The impact of culture and social class. Infant and Child Development, 9, 105-121. Turkish Statistical Institute (TUIK). (2007, April 20). Cocuk isgucu arastirmasi, 2006 (Child labor research, 2006). T.C. Basbakanlik Turkiye Istatistik Kurumu Haber Bulteni, 61, p. 1-3. Turkish Statistical Institute (TUIK). (2009). 2008 Yoksullluk arastirma sonuclari (2008 Poverty research results). T.C. Basbakanlik Turkiye Istatistik Kurumu Haber Bulteni, 205, p. 1-2. Yildiz, O. (2007). Calisan cocuklar: 'Sorun' mu? 'Cozum' mu? [Working children: The "Question" or the "Solution"?]. Gaziantep Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6(2), 57-66. Yilmaz, B. (2004). Street-vendor children in Istanbul: The visible facet of urban poverty. In S. Naumovic & M. Jovanovic (Eds.), Childhood in South East Europe: Historical perspectives on growing up in the 19th and 20th century (pp. 125-147). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Yilmaz, B. (2006). Far away, so close: social exclusion and spatial relegation in an inner city slum of Istanbul. In F. Adaman, & C. Keyder (Eds.), Poverty and social exclusion in slum areas of large cities in Turkey (pp. 26-40). Report prepared for European Commission on Employment, Social Affairs, and Equal Opportunities. Retrieved on March 6, 2008 from http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/spsi/docs/social_inclusion/2006/study_turkey_en.pdf Yilmaz, B. (2008). Entrapped in multidimensional exclusion: The perpetuation of poverty among conflict-induced migrants in an Istanbul neighborhood. New Perspectives on Turkey, 38, 205-234. Yukseker, D. (2006). Severed from their homeland and livelihoods: The internal displacement of Kurds in Turkey as a process of social exclusion. In F. Adaman, & C. Keyder (Eds.) Poverty and social exclusion in slum areas of large cities in Turkey (pp. 41-55). Report prepared for European Commission on Employment, Social Affairs, and Equal Opportunities. Retrieved on March 6, 2008 from http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/spsi/docs/social_inclusion/ 2006/study_turkey_en.pdf Yukseker, D. (2007). Internal displacement and social exclusion: Problems encountered by internally displaced persons in the provinces of Istanbul and Diyarbakir. In D. Kurban, D. Yukseker, A. B. Celik, T. Unalan, & T. A. Aker (Eds.), Coming to terms with forced migration: Post-displacement restitution of citizenship rights in Turkey (pp. 256-276). Retrieved on July 15, 2010 from http://www.tesev.org.tr/UD_OBJS/zgoc_yuzlesmek_ENG_kitap_24_10_08_pdf.pdf
Acknowledgement
Author's note: Ozge Sensoy Bahar, MSW, is a doctoral student at the School of Social Work at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign. She received her MSW from Columbia University. Her research interests include international social work, child labor, forced migration, low-income ethnic families' experiences with migration, with a particular focus on women in developing countries. |