Featured Post from Aston University

Podcast: Research into household chores reveals fascinating home truths

Apr 19, 2023

4 min

Dr Emily Christopher


  • The notion of ‘women’s work’ still deeply embedded in today’s society
  • Men’s choice of housework centred around machinery and perceived physical strength
  • Some household tasks have ‘shifted’ over the years


A fascinating study by an academic at Aston University has revealed that women still do certain traditional tasks within the home.


The research by Dr Emily Christopher, a lecturer in sociology and policy, found that ‘woman-type’ tasks often involve multi-tasking while men’s roles often include solo duties such as mowing the lawn.


Dr Christopher, whose research focuses on the reproduction of gender inequalities in paid and unpaid work, spoke about her study in the latest episode of the 'Society matters' podcast series, presented by journalist Steve Dyson.


S4E8: Did you iron my shirt? Why household work - and who does it - matters



The episode is sub-titled 'Did you iron my shirt? Why household work, and who does it, matters'.


Dr Christopher explained that men are doing much more household work than they did 50 years ago, and that there was “general agreement” among the couples she interviewed that household work should be shared.


The lecturer, who invited couples to assign ‘task cards’ during interviews in their homes, said past research found that women still perform the ‘lion’s share’ of household work.


This, she said, followed on from the “age old idea” of women being more caring and nurturing which was “deeply embedded in the way society thinks”.


While some tasks were still more likely to be done by women, some had shifted over time.


Tasks still “overwhelmingly gendered” today include women remembering birthdays, organising presents, and remembering whether a child needs PE kit or money for a cake sale, all the cognitive labour of household management.


She said: “The problem is it’s invisible, so it isn’t recognised as work.”


Dr Christopher said that men tend to do the ironing if they find it “enjoyable”, often while listening to football or music, or if they have “particular standards”, such as creases in their sleeves.


However, some women choose ironing as a “form of protest”, doing their own and their children’s clothes but refusing to iron men’s shirts.


Dr Christopher pointed out that some other tasks traditionally seen as women’s, which had ‘shifted’, included cooking. She said: “Men are more likely to do this now, arguably this might be because they are less likely to be seen as less masculine for doing so, this helped by the rise of celebrity chefs like Gordon Ramsay, Rick Stein and Jamie Oliver.”


Her research also revealed that men are more likely to wash up and stack the dishwasher but, like ironing, men doing these tasks was often driven by standards such as liking them stacked a particular way.


They are also more likely to hoover than to clean, which fell mostly to women, with Dr Christopher suggesting: “I wonder whether sometimes this is something to do with the fact that hoovering involves technology and machinery, so it conceptualises more as a masculine form of housework.”


Similarly, Dr Christopher said men are more likely to do outside jobs such as DIY, washing the car and mowing the lawn, with the emphasis again on physical strength.


Significantly, tasks which men are more likely to be responsible for, such as DIY, are less likely to “interfere” with paid work, whereas those done by women often involve a reduction in their hours with “very wide implications” such as a gender pay gap, restrictions in career progression, and restricted access to pensions in later life.


As a result, she said the state needs to do more, particularly around parental leave and the lack of affordable childcare provision.


Dr Christopher said: “If you take maternity leave, it’s 12 months maximum in comparison to one or two weeks’ paternity leave, so straight away we are sending a message about who’s the natural carer. Parental leave needs to change to challenge this reinforcing of gender roles.”


She added that childcare provision needs to be seen as integral to the way society and the economy works, so needs funding.


Increasingly, Dr Christopher said couples are relying on their parents for help with childcare, and “interestingly, it tends to be the grandmothers who take on this work”.


Individuals wanting to put a monetary value on household work can complete the Office for National Statistics’ domestic labour calculator, although she said it was a crude measure and only gives a rough idea.


“Using this measure, my household work, on top of a full-time job at Aston University, is worth £18,000 a year,” she said.


Listen to all episodes of the 'Society matters' podcast

Connect with:
Dr Emily Christopher

Dr Emily Christopher

Lecturer in Sociology

Dr Christopher is a sociologist with an interest in the reproduction of gendered inequalities in paid work, housework and childcare.

Work Life BalanceHousework DivisionsChildcare DivisionsMasculinitiesChildcare Policy
Powered by

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from Aston University

Major trial shows increasing bone density fails to cut fracture risk in brittle bone disease featured image

3 min

Major trial shows increasing bone density fails to cut fracture risk in brittle bone disease

An international clinical trial involving Aston University researchers has challenged long held assumptions about how brittle bone disease is treated in adults, after finding that substantially increasing bone density did not reduce the risk of fractures. The study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), examined whether a two stage treatment using the bone building drug teriparatide followed by the bone preserving drug zoledronic acid could reduce fractures in adults with osteogenesis imperfecta, often referred to as brittle bone disease, a rare genetic condition that causes bones to break easily throughout life. Researchers followed 349 adults treated at 27 specialist centres across the UK and Europe. While the treatment led to clear increases in bone density in the spine and hip, fracture rates were no lower than among patients receiving standard care, suggesting that bone quality may matter more than bone density alone in preventing fractures in people with the condition. The findings underline a key distinction between brittle bone disease and more common bone conditions such as osteoporosis, where increasing bone density is known to reduce fracture risk. In osteogenesis imperfecta, the study suggests that bones can become denser without becoming less likely to break, indicating that the underlying quality and structure of bone tissue may play a greater role in fracture risk than density alone. Dr Zaki Hassan Smith, an endocrinologist at Aston Medical School who contributed to the research, said: “This study shows that in osteogenesis imperfecta, simply increasing bone density doesn’t necessarily translate into fewer fractures. That’s important, because it tells us that the disease is more complex than what we see on a scan. The findings help shift the focus towards understanding bone quality and how bones behave in real life, which is essential if we are to develop more effective treatments that genuinely reduce harm for patients.” Osteogenesis imperfecta is a genetic condition that affects collagen, leaving bones fragile and prone to fracture throughout life. There is currently no licensed treatment specifically approved to prevent fractures in adults with the condition, and patients often experience repeated fractures, chronic pain and long term disability. The trial tested a sequential treatment strategy commonly used in osteoporosis, where a bone building drug is followed by a treatment designed to preserve gains in bone strength. Although this approach successfully increased bone density in people with osteogenesis imperfecta, it did not reduce fracture rates, suggesting that treatment strategies effective in osteoporosis may not directly translate to rare bone diseases. Researchers did observe improvements in some quality of life measures among participants receiving the treatment, including reduced pain interference and improved mobility. However, fracture prevention remained unchanged, reinforcing the need for new approaches that target the fundamental properties of bone in osteogenesis imperfecta rather than density alone. The study was led by the University of Edinburgh and funded by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Aston University contributed clinical and academic expertise through Aston Medical School as part of the large international collaboration, which involved specialist centres across the UK and Europe. The study was led by the University of Edinburgh, with Aston University contributing clinical and academic expertise as part of a wider international collaboration involving multiple specialist centres across the UK and Europe. The research was funded by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Researchers say the findings provide important guidance for future research, helping to steer efforts towards treatments that focus on bone quality, strength and resilience in everyday life. They also highlight the value of large scale clinical trials in rare diseases, where learning what does not reduce harm is an essential step towards better care. The paper, Teriparatide Plus Zoledronic Acid for Osteogenesis Imperfecta, is published in JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2026.6889

Why disaster recovery in the Himalayas needs a rethink featured image

3 min

Why disaster recovery in the Himalayas needs a rethink

After five weeks of fieldwork across Nepal, Bhutan and Northwest India, Aston University researcher Dr Komal Raj Aryal is calling for a more locally grounded approach to resilience and post-disaster recovery in one of the world’s most hazard-prone regions. What happens after the headlines fade from a disaster? That question sits at the heart of new field research led by Dr Komal Raj Aryal, Lecturer in Crisis and Disaster Management at Aston Business School. After returning from a five-week research visit across Nepal, Bhutan and Northwest India, Dr Aryal says the evidence points to a troubling reality: many communities remain highly vulnerable long after major recovery programmes are supposed to have helped them rebuild. The trip brought together field visits, stakeholder consultations and community observations linked to ongoing UKRI, NERC and ISPF-supported research on earthquake risk, disaster governance, resilience and post-disaster recovery in the Himalayan region. The aim was not only to understand current conditions, but to ask why repeated losses continue despite years of international development assistance, scientific research and investment. Across the region, the research found that resilience is being undermined by a combination of persistent governance challenges, fragmented institutions, weak local preparedness systems, livelihood insecurity and mounting environmental pressures. In other words, recovery is not simply about rebuilding infrastructure; it is about whether communities are genuinely better equipped to cope with the next shock. This challenge is especially striking in places still living with the legacy of the 2015 Nepal earthquakes, where long-term vulnerabilities remain visible despite the scale of international support directed towards recovery and reconstruction. Reflecting on his findings, Dr Aryal said: “One of the most striking observations from the field is that many communities affected by the 2015 Nepal Earthquakes continue to face similar vulnerabilities today, despite significant international support allocated for recovery and reconstruction. This raises important questions about how disaster recovery is planned, implemented, and sustained over time.” The fieldwork also highlighted the growing complexity of future disaster risks in the Himalayas. Large-scale earthquakes do not exist in isolation; they interact with environmental degradation, cascading hazards, climate-related stresses and rapid urbanisation in fragile mountain settings. He added: “The Himalayan region is entering a period of growing uncertainty where environmental change, socio-economic inequality, weak governance systems, and seismic risks are becoming increasingly interconnected. There is an urgent need to rethink conventional development approaches and invest more seriously in locally grounded, community-centred resilience strategies.” For Aston University, this work reflects a broader commitment to international research on disaster risk reduction, resilience governance and humanitarian response across South Asia. Aston researchers are working with government agencies, local authorities, universities, emergency responders and humanitarian organisations to strengthen evidence-based approaches to preparedness and recovery. The findings feed into wider international debates about sustainable development, climate resilience, risk communication and the future of disaster governance in vulnerable mountain regions. They also underline the importance of moving beyond short-term recovery models towards approaches that are participatory, practical and rooted in local knowledge. Dr Aryal’s research emphasises the value of integrating community knowledge, participatory governance, youth engagement and long-term livelihood security into resilience planning. As future collaborations and policy discussions develop, these themes are likely to be central to how the region prepares for the risks ahead. The recent fieldwork is expected to inform future international research partnerships, policy dialogue and resilience-focused initiatives between the UK and South Asian partners.

Aston University economists say Prime Minister can reduce UK trade vulnerability with China visit featured image

2 min

Aston University economists say Prime Minister can reduce UK trade vulnerability with China visit

Greenland episode exposed UK’s lack of effective response to economic coercion from allies Research shows tariff retaliation would have cost the average UK household up to £324 per year Economists say China visit is “portfolio risk management” – diversification reduces vulnerability. The Prime Minister’s visit to China – the first by a British PM since 2018 – is an opportunity to reduce the UK’s vulnerability to economic coercion, according to new research from Aston University. A policy paper from Aston Business School’s Centre for Business Prosperity analyses the January 2026 Greenland tariff episode, when President Trump threatened and then withdrew tariffs on eight European countries. The researchers found that the UK had no good options: retaliation would have made Britain worse off, while absorbing the tariffs left Europe without credible deterrence. Director of the centre for business prosperity, Professor Jun Du, said: “The Greenland episode was a wake-up call. When your principal security ally threatens economic coercion, the old assumptions about who is safe and who is dangerous no longer hold. “The PM’s China visit should be framed as portfolio risk management – building diversified trading relationships that reduce the UK’s exposure to any single partner. Just as investors don’t put all their money in one stock, countries shouldn’t put all their trade into one basket. A UK with multiple strong partnerships is harder to pressure, whether the pressure comes from Washington or Beijing.” The research found that coordinated UK–EU tariff retaliation would have cost British households up to £324 per year – the worst outcome modelled. But the authors argue that Europe has untapped leverage elsewhere: the US runs a €148 billion annual services surplus with the EU, and mutual investment exceeds €5.3 trillion. Associate professor of economics and co-author, Dr Oleksandr Shepotylo, said: “Tariff retaliation fails because it hurts consumers and distorts the economy – the retaliator suffers similarly to the target. But Europe has cards it isn’t playing. Services, investment screening, and regulatory access are pressure points where Europe can respond effectively.” UK exports to China fell by 10.4% in the year to Q2 2025, with goods exports down 23.1% – the sharpest decline among major trading partners. The researchers argue that this closes off the UK’s largest alternative market at precisely the moment US reliability is in question. The paper identifies three priorities for UK policy: Recognise the permanent incentives behind US tariffs. US tariff revenue hit $264 billion in 2025. Trade negotiations alone cannot resolve revenue-driven policy. Build UK–EU coordination on non-tariff instruments. Services, investment, procurement, and regulation offer leverage that tariffs do not. Treat China engagement as portfolio risk management. Concentration in any single market creates vulnerability. Diversification is not about picking sides – it’s about resilience. Professor Du added: “The question for the Prime Minister is whether to use this breathing space to build resilience – or wait for the next Greenland.” To read the policy paper in full, click on this link:

View all posts
Powered by