See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/359973003

Work From Home (WFH) during Covid-19: Perceptions of Researchers

Article · January 2022

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.6461460

CITATIONS READS

0 915

4 authors, including:

Professor Amina Parveen Shazia Jan

University of Kashmir University of Kashmir
58 PUBLICATIONS 85 CITATIONS 29 PUBLICATIONS 29 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Insha Rasool
University of Kashmir
26 PUBLICATIONS 36 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Syed Inshaallah Tahir on 15 April 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Volume 7, Issue 4, April – 2022 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165

Work From Home (WFH) during Covid-19:

Perceptions of Researchers
Amina parveen Shazia Jan, Insha Rasool, Syed Inshaallah Tahir
School of Education and PhD Candidate, School of Education and
Behavioural sciences Behavioural sciences

Abstract:- People's employment and personal life have employees undertake duties elsewhere that are traditionally
been shattered as a result of the pandemic (Venkatesh, performed in primary or central workplaces, for at least
2020), much of which can be related to the abrupt some portion of their work schedule, using digital media to
transition to WFH. WFH is currently considered as a engage with others inside and outside the
viable approach for reducing the risk of COVID-19 organisation, interestingly, they indicated that "elsewhere"
infection. The investigators used an online survey to refers to "home."
discover about the researchers' perceptions of their
Work from Home (WFH) experience during Covid 19. Workers who work from home have a number of
The survey's findings are based on the responses of 172 opportunities. Personal comfort as a result of the home
respondents (researchers). Despite some beneficial environment (e.g., Kurland & Bailey, 1999) is an often-
aspects of WFH, researchers' general view toward their mentioned benefit of WFH, yet setting up a home office has
WFH experience is still negative. 86% of the researchers physical and infrastructural requirements (Gurstein, P.
are not satisfied with the progress of their research work 1996). WFH has several other benefitslike, easier
due to WFH. Among the respondents 62.8% disagreed to management of household responsibilities (Wheatley, D.
work more from home after the lockdown as WFH 2017) and family demands (Singley, S. G. 2005), along with
impedes the speed of research’s research work progress increased autonomy over time use (Gajendran& Harrison,
(79%), decrease productivity of research work (83.7%) 2007; Kossek & Thompson, 2016)and less interruptions
and hinders the development of new research skills (Kurland & Bailey, 1999; Korbel&Stegle, 2020) greater job
(83.8%). Moreover, to WFH isolated the researchers motivation and satisfaction (Felstead & Henseke, 2017;
from rest of their colleagues and makes them feel Wheatley, D. 2017; Binder & Coad, 2016; Hill, et al. 2003)
lonelier (75.1%) which in turn can diminish the which is probably due to the greater work-related control
excitement and enthusiasm of the researchers (88.4%). and work-life flexibility (Baruch, Y. 2001). Working from
In general, communication among co-researchers of the home is positively connected to leisure time satisfaction,
research lab/team (86.1%) and communication with the according to a longitudinal nationally representative sample
Supervisor/research guide (74.4%) can be challenged by of 30,000 families in the United Kingdom (Reuschke D,
working from home and accordingly it can create 2019), implying that those who work from home can devote
difficulties in self-motivation of researchers (83.7%). more time to leisure activities. Furthermore, working from
Moreover, the attitude of researchers toward WFH home assists employees in balancing and distinguishing
differs significantly based on gender, marital status and their office work from their routine work (Amabile&
position of researchers. Kramer, 2013).

Keywords: Work from Home, Covid-19 Pandemic, Gender, WFH also has some negative aspects, such as being
Marital Status, Researchers, Position of Researchers. alienated from co-workers and feeling alone due to the
physical and social distance between co-workers, according
I. INTRODUCTION to research (Fonner & Roloff, 2012; Pinsonneault &
Boisvert 2001). Employees who worked from home had
People's employment and personal life have been more trouble turning off and working longer hours than
shattered as a result of the pandemic (Venkatesh, 2020), those who worked in a traditional office (Felstead &
much of which can be related to the abrupt transition to Henseke, 2017). Working from home is especially tough for
WFH. WFH is currently considered as a viable approach for parents with young children (McCloskey DW, Igbaria,
reducing the risk of COVID-19 infection. WFH, however, is 2003), but intrusion from other family members, neighbours,
not a new concept and has been brought to the attention of and friends have also been identified as major WFH barriers
numerous schools of thought for a long time. Nilles (1988) (Gurstein, P. 1996). Furthermore, being away from the
first introduced the WFH concept in 1973, referring to it as office may result in a lack of exposure, which increases
"telecommuting" or "telework" (Messenger and Gschwind teleworkers' fears of being overlooked for promotions,
2016). WFH has been referred to by a variety of terms, rewards, and positive performance reviews (Cooper &
including remote work, flexible workplace, telework, Kurland, 2002). Increased freedom, on the other hand,
telecommuting, and e–working. These terms allude to places greater demands on workers to control not only the
employees' ability to work in flexible work environments, environment, but also themselves. WFH necessitates the
such as at home, through employing technology to complete development of work-life boundary control methods
job tasks (Gajendran and Harrison 2007; Grantet al. 2019). (Kreiner, et al 2009) as well as self-discipline, self-
Telecommuting was defined by Gajendran and Harrison motivation, and effective time management
(2007) as an alternative work arrangement in which skills (Richardson & McKenna, 2014). According to

IJISRT22APR377 www.ijisrt.com 31
Volume 7, Issue 4, April – 2022 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
Crosbie and Moore (2004), working from home is not a benefited from the new arrangements and seek to maintain
panacea for modern working life. Those pursuing working WFH in some form; others may have had comparatively
from home should carefully assess their goals and higher obstacles as a result of WFH. The present study
personality attributes. Those who work long hours outside aims to explore theresearcher’s perceptions about their
the home may realise that work life has suppressed their Work from home (WFH) experience during Covid
home life even more. In their study, Gajendra and Harrison 19.Women's work is repeatedly proven in the research to be
(2007) discovered that monitoring a worker's effort at home more influenced by family duties than men's (van der Lippe
is difficult, especially when interrupted by private T, 2007; van der Lippe T &Jager ,2006). Not surprisingly,
commitments and family members. Such productivity female scientists' academic productivity and research time
effects would be reflected in a worker's wage level in a were disrupted more than men's during the COVID-19
competitive labour market. The evidence on the productivity epidemic, most likely due to childcare duties (Frederickson,
effects of working from home is mixed, although it appears M. 2020; Myers, et al. 2020), thusthe study also aimed to
that good effects outnumber negative effects. According to investigate researchers' attitudes toward WFH on gender
Stevenson and Wolfers (2009), working from home can be basis, hypothesising that "there will be a significant
more or less beneficial to overall life satisfaction depending difference between the attitudes of male and female
on the interactions between work and personal life. researchers toward WFH" (H1 A).The presence of young
children at home also has an effect on the worker's WFH
Many individuals thought WFH was a fantasy before experience, according to the literature. Thus, the study also
the pandemic, but it was thought that such a system could aims to investigate the researcher's attitude toward WFH
not be implemented in densely populated or undeveloped based on their marital status, hypothesising that 'there will
nations. This is due to the fact that working from home be a significant difference in the attitude of researchers
necessitates a peaceful and dedicated space as well as access towards their WFH experience based on their marital
to modern technology, which can be difficult for individuals status' (H1 B). Based on the literature the study further
who live in tiny spaces (Vyas & Butakhieo 2020). The hypothesises that ‘there will be a significant difference in
coronavirus disease outbreak of 2019 (COVID-19) wreaked the attitude of researchers towards their WFH experience
havoc on academic life as well. Almost all institutions in the based on their position’ (H1C).
world were forced to temporarily close their doors and send
all students, faculty, and staff home to work when the II. MATERIAL AND METHOD
pandemic spread over the world. Working-from-home
(WFH) was extended and reextended indefinitely, causing Researchers who had to transfer their research work
university personnel, particularly faculty and Scholars, to home owing to the COVID-19 pandemic were surveyed
drastically adjust their work techniques, schedules, and using an online self-constructed questionnaire. The
duties. In comparison to the business sector, we know very questionnaire has been developed and disseminated to
little about how researchers work from home. Researchers in researchers via email and social media. The data gathering
higher education institutions interact in similar ways. They questionnaire was divided into two sections in Google
are usually expected to come to the office, if not for teaching Forms. The first part included demographic questions about
or supervision, then for meetings or to confer with their co- gender, age group, marital status, and the researcher's
researchers. They work in their lab during the rest of their position, while the second section was a self-constructed
shift or, if permitted, they may choose to accomplish portion questionnaire about attitudes toward work - from - home
of their work remotely. (WFH). The questionnaire comprised of 33 statements that
assessed researchers' attitudes on working from home
Until previously, the academics whose WFH (WFH). There are 20 items that measure negative attitudes
experience had been highlighted were largely those who about WFH and 13 items that reflect positive attitudes
were enrolled in online distance learning programmes. They toward WFH among these items. On a scale of 1 to 4, the
reported higher levels of work productivity and happiness, responses were rated. Each item has a four-choice response
as well as more autonomy, flexibility in workday schedules, pattern that ranges from 'strongly agree' (4 points) to
and the elimination of undesirable distractions, but they also 'strongly disagree' (1 point). Positive elements were given a
reported poor communication and a lack of opportunity for reverse score than negative ones. The questionnaire itself
skill development. We all know that working from home included instructions on how to fill out the demographic
limits one's ability to govern their time due to domestic information and how to complete the questionnaire.
responsibilities. Women who work from home, according to
Sullivan and Lewis (2006), are better able to fulfil their  Sample
domestic roles and manage their family responsibilities to Because the goal of this study was to learn more about
their satisfaction, but this comes at the cost of increased researchers' attitudes toward WFH, it focused on
perceived work–family conflict (Hilbrecht, et al. 2008). In increasing the sample size and diversity rather than
summary, the impact of WFH on academic life and determining the sample's representativeness. As a result,
productivity has gotten little attention until recently. the questionnaire was sent online through Kashmir
Scientists, on an enormous scale, had to devise ways to university mailing lists, social media, and group-emails to
continue their study from home during the current pandemic researchers. We don't know how many researchers have
lockdown. By providing proper legislation, services, and viewed our questionnaire because of the nature of our
infrastructure, institutions were pushed to support WFH sampling approach. Furthermore, the respondents'
arrangements. Some researchers and institutions may have residences were not collected. The responses for this

IJISRT22APR377 www.ijisrt.com 32
Volume 7, Issue 4, April – 2022 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
survey were gathered between April and July 2021. In because their responses were inadequate. As a result, the
total, 210 researchers responded, but 38 were disqualified analysis contained 172 responses.

Gender N Percentage
Male 68 39.53%
Female 104 60.46%
Total 172
Marital Status N Percentage
Married 44 25. 58%
Unmarried 128 74.42%
Total 172
Position N Percentage
Assistant Professor 16 9.31%
Research Scholar 156 90.69%
Total 172
Table 1: Sample Demographics

III. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

The data was processed and analysed using percentage statistics and the t test. Among the 172 participants of the study

S.no. Items/ statements Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

Due to work from home during Covid-19 my
research work became more efficient as 4.7% 23.3% 65.1% 7%
compared to my work before lockdown.
I would like to work more from home even 4.7% 32.6% 46.5% 16.3%
after the lockdown.
Due to work from home I’m able to well 4.7% 32.6% 46.5% 16.3%
organize my time and schedule my tasks
effectively.
To work from home aids me to balance 2.3% 39.5% 48.8% 9.3%
between my research work and family
commitments.
To work from home creates difficulties in 41.9% 44.2% 11.6% 2.3%
communicating, sharing and discussing ideas
with other members of the research
lab/team.
To work from home impedes the speed of 20.9% 58.1% 20.9% --------
my research work progress
To work from home creates difficulties in 23.3% 48.8% 20.9% 7%
arranging and attending research seminars
and workshops.
Due to work from home, I am able to work 7.1% 38.1% 45.2% 9.5%
on my manuscript properly.
Reading literature and analysing the 14% 41.9% 30.2% 14%
collected data seems to improve due to
working from home as compared to working
from institution
To work from home hinders the development 23.3% 60.5% 11.6% 4.7%
of new research skills.
Work from home worrying me that I'm 16.7% 71.4% 11.9% -------
missing something vital since I'm oblivious
to it
Work from home makes me recognize the 11.6% 67.4% 20.9% -------
overabundance of information and
communication.
During work from home, when 16.3% 60.5% 23.3% --------
teleconferencing, the team's focus shifts
away from the work and onto
communication
Work from home acknowledges one's ability 11.6% 58.1% 25.6% 4.7%

IJISRT22APR377 www.ijisrt.com 33
Volume 7, Issue 4, April – 2022 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
to operate autonomously.
Work from home provides a strong sense of 14.3% 61.9% 21.4% 2.4%
personal accountability for one's own work.
While working from home, having 44.2% 39.5% 14% 2.3%
difficulties with self-motivation.
Working from home diminishes productivity 18.6% 65.1% 14% 2.3%
of my research work.
Working from home allows me to be more 20.9% 51.2% 27.9% ---
flexible with my working hours.
Working from home encourages researchers 29.3% 43.9% 24.4% 2.4%
to procrastinate.
Working from home makes researchers feel 34.9% 44.2% 16.3% 4.7%
lonelier.
It's simple to "switch off work mode" when 20.9% 58.1% 18.6% 2.3%
you work from home.
Due to work from home and lockdown 27.9% 60.5% 9.3% 2.3%
measures, my excitement and enthusiasm
about my research work has diminished.
Work from home does not satisfy me about 30.2% 55.8% 9.3% 4.7%
the progress of my research work.
Work from home provides me a good 9.5% 16.7% 57.1% 16.7%
platform to get my research work done
without any hindrances.
Work from home makes me more alike the 16.3% 65.1% 11.6% 7%
part time researchers.
The pace of my work (research) from home 18.6% 69.8% 9.3% 2.3%
style is different rather slower than the work
from institution.
I feel satisfied with the frequency of my 4.7% 30.2% 55.8% 9.3%
research work done from home.
It is difficult for me to stick to a working 27.9% 58.1% 9.3% 4.7%
routine while staying at home.
Work from home has provided me enough 7% 34.9% 44.2% 14%
time to focus on and complete my research
work before the prescribed time.
Work from home acts as a barrier of 30.2% 44.2% 18.6% 7%
adequate communication between me and
my research guide.
To work from home increased the 16.3% 46.5% 37.2% ---------
interference of my family related strain with
my ability to perform research activities as
compared to the times before lockdown.
To work from home decreased my physical 7% 51.2% 39.5% 2.3%
fatigue associated with commuting to
research work
Due to work from home, I have to put off 20.9% 58.1% 16.3% 4.7%
doing my work things because of the
demands of family at home.
Table 2: Percentage statistics

Testing Hypotheses of the study

The researchers tried to find out whether the attitude
 There will be a significant difference between the attitudes
towards WFH is dependent on gender, marital status and
of male and female researchers toward WFH" (H1 A).
position of workers (researchers). Statistical technique of t’
 There will be a significant difference in the attitude of test has been used in order to test the hypotheses.The t’
researchers towards their WFH experience based on their values are depicted in the Table. 3 below:
marital status (H1 B).
 There will be a significant difference in the attitude of
researchers towards their WFH experience based on their
position (H1C).

IJISRT22APR377 www.ijisrt.com 34
Volume 7, Issue 4, April – 2022 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
Variable Gender N Mean t’ value Significance level
Male 68 90.35
WFH Attitude
2.861 0.01

Female 104 94.50

Variable Marital status
Married 44 88.00
WFH Attitude
4.12 0.01
unmarried 128 94.53
Variable Position
Research scholar 156 93.82

WFH Attitude 4.357 0.01

Assistant Professor 16 83.50

Table 3: WFH attitude differences based on gender, marital status& position of researchers

The table shows that researchers' attitudes toward jams and spending long periods of time away from home. In
WFH are influenced by their gender, marital status, this way, researchers may refocus on their duties to
and position, with female researchers having a negative themselves and their work by reallocating time and energy
attitude towards WFH compared to male researchers, that might otherwise be wasted.
married researchers having a negative attitude compared to
unmarried researchers, and research scholars having a Despite of these perks, it is evident from the study that
negative attitude compared to assistant professors. Thus, the most of the researchers are having negative attitude towards
hypotheses which states "there will be a significant WFH as 86% of the researchers are not satisfied with the
difference between the attitudes of male and female progress of their research work due to WFH. Among the
researchers toward WFH" (H1 A), there will be a significant respondents 62.8% disagreed to work more from home after
difference in the attitude of researchers towards their WFH the lockdown as WFH impedes the speed of research’s
experience based on their marital status' (H1 B) and ‘there research work progress (79%), decrease productivity of
will be a significant difference in the attitude of researchers research work (83.7%) and hinders the development of new
towards their WFH experience based on their position’ research skills (83.8%). Moreover, to WFH isolated the
(H1C) stands accepted. researchers from rest of their colleagues and makes them
feel lonelier (75.1%) which in turn can diminish the
IV. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION excitement and enthusiasm of the researchers (88.4%). In
general, communication amongco-researchers of the
WFH was made the only option to the entire world research lab/team (86.1%) and communication with the
through COVID-19. In the wake of the Pandemic, Supervisor/research guide (74.4%) can be challenged by
researchers' work and lives have changed dramatically. The working from home and accordingly it can create difficulties
opinions of researchers in this study show that they have in self-motivation of researchers (83.7%).
both positive and negative aspects of their WFH experience.
Work-from-home is a flexible alternative that can be used Gender appeared as the most consistently connected
temporarily for emergencies and crises, and in reaction to variable with working from home. In the current study, it
job or employee emergent situations, as well as permanently was discovered that female researchers have a negative
for jobs that are of such permitting nature. Surprisingly, an attitude regarding WFH when compared to male researchers.
overwhelming majority of respondents (80%) agreed that Work-life balance is expected to be an issue for female
WFH allowed them to be more flexible with their working researchers in the long run, especially during times of
hours. 69.7% of the respondents agreed that work-from- lockdown when all family members are at home and the
home acknowledges one's ability to operate autonomously. females are responsible for all house and family tasks.
Activities that include co-workers or team members are During the COVID-19 outbreak, female scientists' academic
naturally more suited to the workplace, but jobs that require productivity and research time were disturbed more than
concentrated attention, such as writing a manuscript or men's, most likely due to childcare responsibilities
analysing data, are better accomplished from home. Because (Frederickson, M. 2020; Myers, et al. 2020). According to
of WFH, 55 percent of the researchers in the study Stevenson and Wolfers (2009), working from home can be
agreed that their reading of literature and analysing the data more or less beneficial to overall life satisfaction depending
collected for their research projects has improved. WFH on the interactions between work and personal life. These
reduced physical exhaustion connected with commuting to interactions are likely to differ by parental status and gender,
research work, according to 58.2 percent of respondents. It as evidenced by the dilemma of female happiness reduction.
can be explained by the fact that the researchers saved time
and energy that would have been lost otherwise in traffic

IJISRT22APR377 www.ijisrt.com 35
Volume 7, Issue 4, April – 2022 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
In comparison to unmarried researchers, married abilities. A thorough examination of the factors in
researchers had a negative opinion regarding WFH, researchers' WFH lives would be required to determine how
according to the study. The majority of married respondents research and education institutions could best facilitate this
are less eager to work from home than single respondents, transformation. There is unlikely to be a one-size-fits-all
according to the study carried out by Shareena, P., &Shahid, solution for increasing employee productivity and
M. (2020). The married researchers are more prone to face happiness. When working from home, life circumstances
family-work conflict because they have families at home. In often limit how much control people have over their work-
the current study, 79% of respondents agreed that they have life boundaries.
to put aside work on a regular basis due to family
obligations at home. In the study of AbuJarour, S. et al, REFERENCES
2021, family-work conflict emerged as a common feature
that drove a negative attitude toward WFH. Majority of the [1.] AbuJarour, S., Ajjan, H., Fedorowicz, J., & Owens, D.
respondents who are not willing to work from home are (2021). How Working from Home during COVID-19
those having children at home (AbuJarour, S. et al, 2021). Affects Academic Productivity. Communications of
The married researchers were overburdened with the the Association for Information Systems, 48, pp-pp.
obligation of home-schooling their children during the https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.04808
lockdown, which may have altered their attitude toward [2.] Amabile, T., & Kramer, S. (2013, July 24). Working
WFH. from home: A work in progress.Harvard Business
Review, https://hbr.org/2013/07/working-fromhome-a-
According to another study finding, research scholars work-in-pr
have a more negative perception regarding WFH than [3.] Baruch, Y. (2001). The status of research on
assistant professors. Assistant professors are expected being teleworking and an agenda for future
more secure in their life and receive a higher income than research. International journal of management
simple research scholars. WFH requires a quiet and peaceful reviews, 3(2), 113-129.
home setting as well as high-speed internet. Because the [4.] Binder, M., & Coad, A. (2016). How satisfied are the
internet hosts the great majority of communications, self-employed? A life domain view. Journal of
installing a high-speed connection at home demands Happiness Studies, 17(4), 1409-1433.
additional duties and expenditures for the worker. [5.] Cooper, C. D., & Kurland, N. B.
Additionally, assistant professors have access to a number of (2002).Telecommuting, professional isolation, and
files and facilities that are not available to simple research employee development in public and private
scholars. organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior:
To conclude, more research on working from home The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational
during and after a pandemic is required. Interviews and and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 23(4),
focus groups with workers, line managers, human resource 511-532.
professionals, and top managers are suggested as data [6.] Crosbie, T., & Moore, J. (2004). Work–life Balance
collection approaches. Many academics have grappled with and Working from Home. Social Policy and Society,
work-life boundaries that have become significantly more 3(3), 223-233. doi:10.1017/S1474746404001733
complex than before, according to the findings of this study, [7.] Felstead, A., &Henseke, G. (2017). Assessing the
a concern that university administrators must address. By growth of remote working and its consequences for
arranging for home workers to commute to work once or effort, well‐being and work‐life balance. New
twice a week for follow-up on work, the disadvantages of Technology, Work and Employment, 32(3), 195-212.
hindered communication can be avoided in the future. [8.] Fonner, K. L., &Roloff, M. E. (2012).Testing the
Simultaneously, more training and feedback can be connectivity paradox: Linking teleworkers'
employed to improve virtual meeting and interaction communication media use to social presence, stress
efficiency. Furthermore, regardless of the pandemic from interruptions, and organizational
lockdown, researchers who live with dependent children can identification. Communication Monographs, 79(2),
take advantage of the benefits of working from home less 205-231.
than those who do not have childcare responsibilities. [9.] Frederickson M. COVID-19’s gendered impact on
Taking care of children is undoubtedly a major cause of task academic productivity [Internet]. GitHub. 2020.
overload and, as a result, work-family conflict. As a result, https://github.com/drfreder/pandemic-pub-bias
when defining work arrangements, organizations should pay [10.] Gajendran, R. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2007). The good,
careful attention to employees' childcare issues. It should be the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: meta-
obvious, however, that other caring responsibilities, such as analysis of psychological mediators and individual
looking for elderly or disabled family, should also be consequences. Journal of applied psychology, 92(6),
recognised. Additionally, in order to avoid linking non-work 1524–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1524
life with family life, a larger range of life circumstances, PMID: 18020794
such as those who live alone, should be considered. The [11.] Grant, C. A., L. M. Wallace, P. C. Spurgeon, C.
extensive research on work-life conflict should aid us in Tramontano, and M. Charalampous. 2019.
examining the problem and developing coping techniques Construction and Initial Validation of the e-Work Life
that are appropriate for academics. To cope with the Scale to Measure Remote eWorking. Employee
dissolution of traditional work-life boundaries, researchers, Relations 41 (1): 16–33. doi:10.1108/ER-09-2017-
like other workers, must create new arrangements and 0229.

IJISRT22APR377 www.ijisrt.com 36
Volume 7, Issue 4, April – 2022 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
[12.] Gurstein, P. (1996). Planning for telework and home- [26.] Shareena, P., &Shahid, M. (2020).Work from home
based employment: Reconsidering the home/work during COVID-19: Employees perception and
separation. Journal of Planning Education and experiences. Global Journal for Research
Research, 15(3), 212-224. Analysis, 9(5), 7-10.
[13.] Hilbrecht, M., Shaw, S. M., Johnson, L. C., &Andrey, [27.] Singley, S. G., & Hynes, K. (2005). Transitions to
J. (2008). ‘I'm home for the kids’: contradictory parenthood: Work-family policies, gender, and the
implications for work–life balance of teleworking couple context. Gender & Society, 19(3), 376-397.
mothers. Gender, Work & Organization, 15(5), 454- [28.] Stevenson, B. and Wolfers, J. (2009).The paradox of
476. declining female happiness. American Economic
[14.] Hill, E. J., Ferris, M., &Märtinson, V. (2003). Does it Journal: Economic Policy, 1(2):190-225.
matter where you work? A comparison of how three [29.] Sullivan, C., & Lewis, S. (2001). Home‐based
work venues (traditional office, virtual office, and telework, gender, and the synchronization of work and
home office) influence aspects of work and family: perspectives of teleworkers and their
personal/family life. Journal of Vocational co‐residents. Gender, Work & Organization, 8(2), 123-
Behavior, 63(2), 220-241. 145.
[15.] Korbel, J. O., &Stegle, O. (2020).Effects of the [30.] Van der Horst, M., Van der Lippe, T., & Kluwer, E.
COVID-19 pandemic on life scientists. Genome (2014).Aspirations and occupational achievements of
biology, 21(1), 1-5. Dutch fathers and mothers. Career Development
[16.] Kossek, E. E., & Thompson, R. J. (2016). Workplace International, 19(4):447–68.
flexibility: Integrating employer and employee [31.] Van Der Lippe, T. (2007). Dutch workers and time
perspectives to close the research–practice pressure: Household and workplace
implementation gap. The Oxford handbook of work characteristics. Work, employment and society, 21(4),
and family, 255. 693-711.
[17.] Kreiner, G. E., Hollensbe, E. C., & Sheep, M. L. [32.] Van der Lippe, T., Jager, A., & Kops, Y. (2006).
(2009). Balancing borders and bridges: Negotiating the Combination pressure: The paid work-family balance
work-home interface via boundary work of men and women in European
tactics. Academy of management journal, 52(4), 704- countries. ActaSociologica, 49(3), 303-319.
730. [33.] Venkatesh, V. (2020). Impacts of COVID-19: A
[18.] Kurland, N. B. & Bailey, D.E. (1999).The advantages research agenda to support people in their fight.
and challenges of working here, there, anywhere, and International Journal of Information Management, 55.
anytime.Organizational Dynamics, 28(2):53–68. [34.] Vyas, L. &Butakhieo, N. (2021). The impact of
doi.org/10.1016/S0090-2616(00)80016-9. working from home during COVID-19 on work and
[19.] McCloskey, D. W., &Igbaria, M. (2003).Does" out of life domains: an exploratory study on Hong Kong,
sight" mean" out of mind"? An empirical investigation Policy Design and Practice, 4(1): 59-76, DOI:
of the career advancement prospects of 10.1080/25741292.2020.1863560
telecommuters. Information Resources Management [35.] Wheatley, D. (2017). Employee satisfaction and use of
Journal (IRMJ), 16(2), 19-34. flexible working arrangements. Work, employment and
[20.] Messenger, J. C., and L. Gschwind. (2016). Three society, 31(4), 567-585.
Generations of Telework: New ICTs and the
(r)Evolution from Home Office to Virtual Office. New
Technology, Work and Employment 31 (3): 195–208.
doi:10.1111/ntwe.12073
[21.] Myers, K. R., Tham, W. Y., Yin, Y., Cohodes, N.,
Thursby, J. G., Thursby, M. C., ... & Wang, D. (2020).
Unequal effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on
scientists. Nature human behaviour, 4(9), 880-883.
[22.] Nilles, J. M. 1988. Traffic Reduction by
Telecommuting: A Status Review and Selected
Bibliography. Transportation Research Part A:
General 22 (4): 301–317. doi:10.1016/0191-
2607(88)90008-8.
[23.] Pinsonneault, A., &Boisvert, M. (2001). The impacts
of telecommuting on organizations and individuals: A
review of the literature. Telecommuting and virtual
offices: Issues and opportunities, 163-185.
[24.] Reuschke, D. (2019). The subjective well-being of
homeworkers across life domains. Environment and
Planning A: Economy and Space, 51(6), 1326-1349.
[25.] Richardson, J., & McKenna, S. (2014). Reordering
spatial and social relations: A case study of
professional and managerial flexworkers. British
Journal of Management, 25(4), 724-736.

IJISRT22APR377 www.ijisrt.com 37

View publication stats