Rosters: Freedom, responsibility, and co‐operation in young adult shared households

Abstract

Objective: The rationale for this study was to contribute to understanding the social dynamics of shared housing among young adults. Sharing is an informal socioeconomic contract, in which financially challenged individuals pragmatically divide household costs and duties. Whereas monetary contributions can be monitored, physical labour is more difficult to assess with housework cited as a major source of conflict. Method: Discursive psychology was employed to analyse talk of experiences of New Zealand house sharers aged 20 to 35. Results: While rosters have been mooted as the safest way to overcome problems of housework division, findings indicate that young adults are resistant to formal rules and rosters, considering them ineffective and compromising personal autonomy. Freedom is maintained by adopting organic rules, which provide structure. With responsibility and co-operation, households are orderly on their own terms. Conclusion: No particular formula guarantees success. Positive payoffs can be achieved for all by communication and mutually agreed strategies.

A fine balance: A review of shared housing among young adults

“…More recent research suggests rosters rarely provide long‐term solutions and are ineffectual (Heath et al, ; Natalier, ). Formal rosters are anathema to young adults seeking freedom and independence from the parental nest, where housework according to one participant was prioritised by a draconian mother over social life and hangovers (Clark, Tuffin, Bowker, & Frewin, in press). Rather than egalitarianism rosters represent authoritarianism (Williamson, ).…”

“…Since life does not conform to schedules, rosters are easily subverted by more pressing or attractive claims on time. If rosters are employed, then flexibility is imperative (Clark et al, in press). A sense of autonomy is possible with reciprocal co‐operation and responsibility and tacit agreements about when cleaning needs to be done (Heath et al, ).…”

“…Chores based on preferences, strengths and helping when someone else is clearly working toward tidying or cleaning communal areas are more desirable. No particular formula for successful housekeeping is guaranteed but positive payoffs are achieved by mutually agreeable strategies (Clark et al, in press). If everyone contributes, everyone gains but some individuals are never going to comply with the ethos (Mause, ).…”

Living Place Matters: The Duplicity of Shared Housing in the Young Adults of South Korea

“…The purpose of choosing a shared house to reduce housing costs and the value of living within a group are not always compatible. The co-living of the start-up class in other countries is consistent with the purpose of building and promoting human networks through collaboration and living values (Clark et al, 2019;Bergan et al, 2020), because of residents who are in the one-person band or professions. Korea's shared houses indicate that for some issues, co-living value, and culture can be discussed in a similar vein as other countries.…”

“…There is still controversy over whether a shared house is a reasonable or inevitable option as a housing choice (Kenyon, 1999 ; Kenyon and Heath, 2001 ). Because of different social, physical, and temporal interactions such as conflicts between residents and privacy issues around shared houses, it is still too early to judge if they can function as a long-term sustainable living place (Clark et al, 2017 , 2019 ; Orlek, 2017 ; Nasreen and Ruming, 2020 ).…”