Contemporary Social Science

Journal of the Academy of Social Sciences

ISSN: 2158-2041 (Print) 2158-205X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsoc21

Twenty-first century grandparents: global

perspectives on changing roles and consequences

Ann Buchanan & Anna Rotkirch

To cite this article: Ann Buchanan & Anna Rotkirch (2018) Twenty-first century grandparents:
global perspectives on changing roles and consequences, Contemporary Social Science, 13:2,
131-144, DOI: 10.1080/21582041.2018.1467034

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21582041.2018.1467034

Published online: 09 May 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 13444

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 7 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rsoc21
CONTEMPORARY SOCIAL SCIENCE, 2018
VOL. 13, NO. 2, 131–144
https://doi.org/10.1080/21582041.2018.1467034

Twenty-first century grandparents: global perspectives on

changing roles and consequences
Ann Buchanana and Anna Rotkirchb
a
Department of Social Policy and Intervention, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; bPopulation Research
Institute, Väestöliitto, Finland

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This special issue on Grandparents highlights the increasing role Received 15 January 2018
that they are taking in raising the next generation, not only in the Accepted 10 April 2018
United Kingdom, but across the world. Why are grandparents
KEYWORDS
playing a major role in rearing the next generation? Firstly, older Grandparenting;
people are living longer and are healthier so they are more grandchildren; grandparental
available. Also rising divorce rates, increases in single parenthood, investment; well-being;
more working mothers and the globalisation of work has fuelled gender; intergenerational
family change. The expanding body of interdisciplinary research in relations
cross-generational relations has raised key questions such as: how
has human evolution shaped grandparental behaviour? How is
grandparenting different from parenting? How do lineage, gender
or marital status influence grandparenting? How does
grandparental involvement affect the well-being of children and is
this different when they are caring for them full-time? How is
contemporary grandparenthood shaped by cultural patterns and
what are the social policy implications? This introduction outlines
some key topics which are further developed by the 11 papers in
this special issue. Contributors come from many disciplines and
countries and employ a vast range of research methods. The
overall conclusion is that societies need to re-evaluate the role of
grandparents, pay attention to the support they need, and
systematically integrate kin and grandparental care into family
policies. As caretakers of many of their grandchildren, who will be
our future citizens, grandparents are guardians of all our tomorrows.

Introduction
In 2014, British Prime Minister Cameron highlighted the nearly six million ‘unsung heroes’
who spend their days looking after their grandchildren saving Britain more than £7 billion
in child care costs (Daily Telegraph, 2015). Two years later, in 2017, research revealed that
the number of grandparents who provide childcare for their grandchildren had risen dra-
matically (International Longevity Centre, 2017). The report found that over nine million
grandparents make up the UK’s ‘Grandparent Army’ with nearly three million offering
very regular care. Grandparents spend an average of over 8 hours a week looking after
their grandchildren. This time commitment rises to over 11 hours weekly for those core
grandparents who are most heavily relied upon. Two-thirds of grandparents offer financial

CONTACT Ann Buchanan ann.buchanan@spi.ox.ac.uk

© 2018 Academy of Social Sciences
132 A. BUCHANAN AND A. ROTKIRCH

contributions to their grandchildren’s upbringing, across payments towards clothes, toys

and hobbies, leisure activities and pocket money. Some also pay for others to babysit so
they and the parents can take a well-earned rest. According to the most recent report, the
major reason for grandparents’ increased involvement is their children’s workloads and
pressure to keep their job or get a pay rise. The vast majority (96%) of grandparent child-
minders receive no payment from their children to cover the cost of looking after their
little ones. The report adds that grandparents are also shelling out over £400 each year
for little ones’ activities whilst they are in their care, a colossal combined £3.8bn (Inter-
national Longevity Centre, 2017).
The increasing involvement of grandparents in child care is not restricted to the UK.
Across Europe, Glaser, Price, Ribe, di Gess, and Tinker (2013) using data from the Survey
of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) found that 44% of grandmothers
gave regular or occasional help looking after grandchildren, and 42% of grandfathers
played a similar role. This study also found that in Northern Europe, where municipally pro-
vided child care is more available and cheaper, grandparents were less often responsible
for day care, but nevertheless very involved in other ways. In Southern Europe, where state
subsidised child care is more limited, grandparents are often playing the major role caring
from grandchildren while their parents worked.
Across the world, also other factors come into play. In China, urbanisation has created
up to 60 million ‘left behind’ Chinese children, or about one fifth of all Chinese children,
who are growing up in the Chinese countryside while their parents live and work away,
manning the factories and shops which are bringing about China’s economic miracle
(BBC, 2016a; see e.g. Ban et al., 2017). In Romania (BBC, 2016b) it is estimated that
350,000 children are ‘left behind’ while their parents are working abroad. Similarly, in
the Philippines, large numbers of children are living with grandparents or relatives
while their parents work abroad (Asis, 2000).
Increases and shifts in grandparenting have fuelled increasing interest in this familial
relation. The last decades have witnessed a growing number of studies on intergenera-
tional relations in the fields of family sociology, demography and psychology, as well as
in economics and anthropology. In this issue, we include original research findings from
these disciplines and from a wide range of countries and cultures: England (Leeson,
2018), Scotland (Jamieson, Ribe, & Warner, 2018), Wales (Hunt, 2018), United States
(Bates, Taylor, & Stanfield, 2018; Capaldi, Tiberio, & Kerr, 2018; Hossain, Eisberg, &
Shwalb, 2018), Finland (Tanskanen & Danielsbacka, 2018), Australia (Coall, Hillebrand,
Sear, & Hertwig, 2018), South Africa (Wild, 2018) Israel (Attar-Schwartz & Buchanan,
2018) and Malaysia (Tan, 2018). Grandparenting is approached from the perspectives of
population change, grandparental investment, social and cultural change, and effects of
grandparenting on various family members, and we discuss them in detail below.

Population change enhances grandparenting

At the heart of increasing grandparental involvement is demographic change. Countries in
the developed world have experienced an unprecedented growth in the number of their
elderly and this trend is expected to continue for the next decades. The demographic ‘Gray
Dawn:’ is often a cause for concern and framed as an ‘ageing crisis’ (Peterson, 1999).
Ageing populations do indeed pose huge challenges to social and health care services
 CONTEMPORARY SOCIAL SCIENCE 133

and the economic foundation of social welfare provision. However, the Gray Dawn also
means that there are more elderly who live longer and who are healthier and are available
to help. For instance, Finnish children born in 1860 shared on average four years of life
with at least one grandmother and one year with at least one grandfather. For a child
born in 1950, the corresponding amount of shared years had grown up to 24 years
with a grandmother and 13 years with a grandfather (Chapman, Lahdenperä, Pettay, &
Lummaa, 2017). In the United Kingdom, it is projected that, by 2044, those aged 65 and
over will represent 25% of the total population (Office for National Statistics, 2014). As
Leeson (2018) notes in the first paper in this special issue, never before have so many
elderly people survived to old age. While life expectancy at birth has increased steadily
for centuries, life expectancy at age 65 started to increase only in the twentieth century.
In parallel with increases in life expectancy, fertility rates are falling so that fewer chil-
dren are being born into each family (Buchanan & Rotkirch, 2013).
Total fertility rates, that is, the total number of children born to a woman in her lifetime,
have fallen dramatically, particularly in the developed world (Buchanan & Rotkirch, 2013).
In Taiwan, the rate is 1.1, which means that two people will produce only one child over
their reproductive life. The population replacement rate is estimated at just over 2. Over
the last 50 years, the global fertility rate has halved and is around 2.5 children per
woman today (Roser, 2017). As the world ages and moves to a low fertility phase, the
young become more valuable. They are the future workers and creators of future econ-
omic wealth. Hence the recent spread of pronatalist policies in many European countries,
which are trying to increase the birth rate but also improve the well-being of the young.
Developed family policies in many wealthy countries hint at this realisation: provision of
parental leaves with monetary compensation and of subsidised and high-quality day
care (Esping-Andersen, 2013; Gauthier, 2013).

Evolutionary roots of grandparenthood

In the recent decade, a new interdisciplinary perspective on grandparenting and interge-
nerational relations has emerged which combines social sciences with evolutionary
theory. Comparing humans to other species, Darwinian theory highlights how unusual
the human family system is in the animal kingdom. Mammalian grandparents rarely con-
tribute to raising children to the same extent as in our own species. A central question in
evolutionary studies is why grandparents typically are so involved in the lives of their adult
children and grandchildren. Could they not go off and enjoy their well-earned retirement?
In the second article in this issue Coall et al. (2018) with his multi-disciplinary, multi-
national team, explores the theory behind the involvement of grandparents in the lives
of grandchildren. Evolutionary theory is interested in the ultimate explanations for this
involvement, asking why our species has so many potentially involved grandparents.
One impetus for this research was the Grandmother hypothesis (e.g. Hawkes, O’Connell,
Jones, Alvarez, & Charnov, 1998), which sparked an ongoing discussion about the evol-
utionary roots of grandparenthood and the female menopause, and about the relative
importance of the nuclear family versus the extended family for children’s wellbeing in
different societies (see e.g. Kramer & Russell, 2015). Anthropological studies show that
where grandmothers are present, there is often a better survival rate in grandchildren.
This led to the hypothesis that female menopause may originally have evolved in order
134 A. BUCHANAN AND A. ROTKIRCH

for females to be able to assist with rearing their grandchildren. Although the grand-
mother hypothesis is debated, it appears to be clear that once menopause had, for what-
ever reason, evolved, grandparenthood emerged as a defining characteristic of our
families (e.g. Lahdenperä, Gillespie, Lummaa, & Russell, 2012). As Coall and colleagues
show in their contribution, such ultimate and evolutionary explanations do not exclude
complementary sociological and economical explanations (Rotkirch, 2018). For instance,
self-interest theory may play some role: by helping younger generations, grandparents
may hope that they in turn will look after them when the time comes. As Finch has
shown (1989) there is some truth in this: ‘the proper things to do’ is to support those rela-
tives who have supported you. But as Coall, Hilbrand, Sear, and Hertwig (2016) explain, the
evidence for reciprocity is not convincing. It may rather be that healthy, longer living
grandparents feel better in themselves, when they take part in their grandchildren’s’
lives, without ever receiving as much ‘in return’.

Social and cultural changes in family composition and grandparental roles

Another major issue relating to the increased involvement of grandparents, is that a
growing number of women are working, for example in Finland (Leeson 2018). The
dual-earner family has rooted itself socially and culturally in most developed countries.
With advances in gender equality and in order to maintain the resources to give the
child the education and quality of life parents feel important, two salaries have become
the norm. Labour force participation rates of women in the prime ages of 25–54 years con-
tinued to rise in the 1990s to between 60% and 85% (Limm, 2002). Across the world, some
50% of all women are working (United Nations, 2010). This raises the question of who will
care for the children, especially those in the critical pre-school age and older children after
school and in the holidays?
In addition, family break-up and divorce impacts on the need for extra help. In the UK
one in four families are headed by a single parent, typically a single mother (separated/
divorced or single and unmarried). The increase in the number of lone mothers,
whether as a result of never having married or following divorce, places further
demands on grandparent care (Buchanan, 2017a). Earlier research shows that many of
these grandparents are filling the parenting gap: attending school meetings, helping
with homework, advising young people about careers (Tan, Buchanan, Flouri, Attar-
Schwartz, & Griggs, 2010).
Changing gender roles is also shaping grandparenting itself. When we talk about
‘grandparents’, the underlying assumption has for long been that we are talking about
grandmothers (Buchanan & Rotkirch, 2016). The specific role of grandfathers as men,
fathers and grandparents has until recently been absent in the family literature. In 2016
Rotkirch and Buchanan brought together scholars to explore global perspectives on
grandfathering and found, contrary to assumptions, that many grandfathers were very
connected with their grandchildren. Some of them represent the new ‘niche’ of
Western grandfathers, who aim to be more caring and involved grandfathers than what
was the norm in previous societies (Coall et al., 2016; Leeson, 2016). In this issue, a
paper from the from the United States by Bates et al. (2018) demonstrates how grand-
fathers can be analysed on a spectrum from involved, passive, to disengaged. Measuring
contact frequency, intergenerational commitment, and participation in activities, their
 CONTEMPORARY SOCIAL SCIENCE 135

contribution explores how grandfathers seek to keep in touch with their grandchildren,
using a sample of 351 grandfathers from the Grandfather Involvement and Health
Survey from the United States. Their results show that the well-known difference
between maternal and paternal grandfathers, the former of which tend to be more
involved grandfathers (Danielsbacka & Tanskanen, 2016) remains, but also which other
factors are at work. Alongside individual characteristics of the grandfather, such as
health and place of residence, both characteristics of the child’s family and characteristics
of the grandfather–grandchild relationship itself – especially the emotional closeness of
the grandfather–grandchild dyad – influence grandfathering (Bates et al., 2018).
Not discussed in this special issue, but important in understanding the changing roles
of grandparents, are the strong if little-articulated norms about how grandparents should
involve themselves with their grandchildren. One key norm of contemporary grandparent-
ing in many European societies including the UK is the concept of ‘being there’ (e.g. Clarke
& Roberts, 2004). This means being available if asked for support in caring or in financial
need. Another key rule in many other contemporary Western societies appears to be ‘non-
interference’ (Harper & Ruicheva, 2010). Grandparents should not undermine the parents’
relationships with their children and they are afraid of intruding too much or becoming a
burden. However, the norm of low interference is less true for grandparents of lone parent
families where grandparents can become ‘replacement partners’ and ‘replacement
parents’. It is noteworthy that both normative concepts are passive, that is, at heart, the
parents of the grandchildren are expected to be self-determining and independent.
Grandparents also have few legal rights or obligations in developed societies. But as we
see things may be changing, and for instance, an increase in the rights of grandparents
are now being debated in many countries.
The relatively passive cultural norms of grandparenting in UK and Western societies
contrast sharply with the authoritative role of grandparents and especially grandfathers
in more traditional cultures. A number of factors influence the roles grandparents play: cul-
tural traditions toward care of the elderly may be imported from the homeland – for
example, with the Chinese population there is the strong Confucian tradition of filial
piety and obligation to care for the elderly (Buchanan, 2017a). Another key factor is
whether elderly people live in multi-generational households or live alone (Buchanan,
in press). In this issue, Hossain et al. (2018) explores the influence of culture in examining
the social identities of grandparents. They note that grandparents assume many roles and
are valued differently across cultural communities. In the Western world, the processes of
individuation and economic practices tend to segregate grandparents from the social
mainstream. ‘Ageism’ may work insidiously to undercut the importance and status of
grandparents. By contrast, in the non-Western world, traditions of gender hierarchy,
kinship and property ownership have promoted the higher social status of grandparents
within the family and society. As family patriarchs, grandparents still maintain a respected
authority role, especially in many Asian, African and Latin American societies. In this issue,
Hossain et al., 2018 argue that despite all the advantages of greater equality between gen-
erations, such a respect-based social identity may also vitalise intergenerational inter-
actions because it is based on a sense of inclusion.
The main challenge to the more active grandparent role is that parents are the gate-
keepers of contact with grandchildren, as noted in a number of studies (e.g. Buchanan
& Flouri, 2008; Buchanan & Rotkirch, 2016; Clarke & Roberts, 2004). This poses a particular
136 A. BUCHANAN AND A. ROTKIRCH

dilemma following parents’ divorce. Under the UK law grandparents have no legal rights
for contact with their grandchildren if parents do not wish this. A UK-based qualitative
study by Ferguson (2004) exploring the role of grandparents in divorced families, con-
cluded that there was not sufficient evidence that grandparents should have their
special role recognised by the law. However, Dunn and Deater-Deckard (2001) using
data from the Avon longitudinal study showed that many grandparents, although they
may not be recognised by UK law, are already heavily involved following family separation
and divorce and are often key confidants for children. In addition, many young people
want ongoing contact with their grandparent, even when their parents do not support
this (Buchanan & Flouri, 2008).

Conditions for and consequences of grandparent involvement

Demographic, evolutionary, sociological and cultural perspectives on grandparenting
are all united by an interest in grandparental involvement and all the varied forms of
investment that different grandparents provide to their grandchildren. The main forms
of investment – child care, other forms of practical support, financial support and
economical support have been documented in several large and ongoing survey collec-
tions and analysed (see e.g. Arber & Attias-Donfut, 2002; Coall & Hertwig, 2010; Szydlik,
2016). More recently, research has further explored the effects of grandparental involve-
ment on various behaviours and on wellbeings, such as parental fertility, grandparental
wellbeing and child wellbeing (Rotkirch, 2018). Among these, one critical factor in grand-
parent involvement, as noted above, is the impact of parental divorce. It appears that
divorce and remarriage in either generation influences relationships. On the one hand,
it expands the extended family network of children, but on the other hand, it can
reduce or totally severe contacts to some branches of the kin network – typically that
on the paternal side.
In this issue, Tanskanen and Danielsbacka (2018) explore the effects of family recompo-
sition in the grandparental generation. Were Finnish grandparents affected by the change
in their marital status? The investigation was based on one sweep of the Generational
Transmissions in Finland 2012 survey, which includes 1441 grandparents aged between
62 and 67 years and was reported by the grandparents. They found that both their
divorce and remarriage were associated with reduced child care help and reduced con-
tacts between grandparents and their grandchildren. In addition, remarried and
widowed grandfathers provided significantly less practical and financial help to their off-
spring compared to their never-divorced counterparts. Among grandmothers, remarriage
was associated with reduced child care help and contact, and divorce with reduced finan-
cial help when compared to never-divorced grandmothers.
Although divorce may interrupt the grandparent relationship, step-grandparents can
also play a role. In this issue, Jamieson et al. (2018) using data from Growing Up in Scotland
survey (GUS) and qualitative in-depth interviews with different types of grandparents of
children involved in GUS, critically examined the established finding that maternal grand-
mothers tend to be the most involved grandparent. They found that with changing
families and increasing gender equality, children may have a number of older relatives
who were involved. Their results indicated, however, that despite these cultural
changes, maternal grandmothers continued to be most heavily involved, although this
 CONTEMPORARY SOCIAL SCIENCE 137

did not mean that the contributions of other grandparents, including step-grandparents,
were not also important.
There is now a growing body of research that illustrates that grandparent involvement
is associated with improved mental health, improved resilience and pro-social behaviour
in grandchildren. For instance, an earlier study by Buchanan & Flouri (2008) found that
adolescents whose closest grandparent was involved in their lives following their
parents’ separation or divorce, reported fewer emotional symptoms and more pro-social
behaviours than those with less grandparent involvement. Three papers in this special
issue (Attar-Schwartz & Buchanan, 2018; Wild, 2018; and Tan, 2018) provide a synthesis
of the effects of grandparenting through a series of studies conducted over the last
decade in the UK, Israel (both Arab and Israeli young people), South Africa and Malaysia.
These studies all consider situations in which the grandparent is not the primary caregiver,
but instead an important part of the extended family of the grandchild. It is interesting that
across these studies there are some commonalities. For example, amongst the studies on
grandchild well-being (Attar-Schwartz & Buchanan, 2018; Tan, 2018; Wild, 2018), grandpar-
ent involvement is associated with positive outcomes.
Broadly, these studies used the same methodology: self-report surveys of teenagers age
11–16 collected in school. It is remarkable that across these very different settings, results
show that grandparent involvement was associated with positive outcomes for children.
Frequent or emotionally close contacts between a grandchild and a grandparent may
protect against developmental problems and boost a child’s cognitive and social abilities.
However, the impacts vary with the study population and are sometimes found only for
specific types of grandparent–grandchild dyads. For instance, in the South Africa study
by Wild (2018) she found that in a large South African sample of adolescents, grandparen-
tal involvement was linked to increased pro-social behaviour. However, the even stronger
effect of reducing internalising or emotional problems was found only for some types of
grandparents.
As also stressed in the overview by Coall et al. (2018) in this issue, we need to remem-
ber, that although these studies carefully control for a variety of factors, such as socioeco-
nomic status, or the level of parental involvement with the child, the associations are not
necessarily strictly causal, A recent study comparing effects of variations in grandparental
involvement in the same child but over time did not find associations between child devel-
opment and grandparents’ involvements (Tanskanen & Danielsbacka, 2017). This may
mean that the results are based on reversed causality: grandparents invest more time
and resources to those grandchildren who do better at the first place. Alternatively, real
causal effects are too small for the ‘within-child’ methodology to pick up. The search for
even more stringent causal pathways continues as data and research methods improve.

Kinship care
The grandparent involvement in the above studies did not include those who were in full-
time care of their grandparents. When children are unable to live with their birth parents, it
is typically their extended family, rather than the state, which steps in to take care of them.
Thus, the emotional costs of migrant working parents can be high, and several studies
show that the children’s physical and cognitive development may suffer in grandparental
care compared to children raised by their parents. In the case of the ‘left behind’ children
138 A. BUCHANAN AND A. ROTKIRCH

of China, such worse outcomes have been explained by lower emotional involvement in
parenting among grandparents, and that grandparents also are less able to provide phys-
ical care and less receptive to new parenting information (Chang et al., 2017).
In the United States grandparental primary care of a child is known as ‘custodial care’
while in the United Kingdom it is more commonly referred to as ‘kinship care’. In this issue,
Hunt (2018), who has undertaken many of the key studies in the United Kingdom, brings
together findings on kinship/custodial care from both the UK and the US.
Currently, somewhat more than 1% of children in the United Kingdom live with rela-
tives, usually with their grandmothers, without the parents present. Such families are
often socially and economically deprived, and improved appropriate support is sorely
needed. Overall, however, the outcomes are generally better than children living in stran-
ger placements such as state-provided foster care.
Taking on full-time responsibility for a grandchild can be challenging. A related ques-
tion that is not touched upon in this issue, is to what extent does this full-time parenting
impact on their grandparents’ health? This is important, not only from their perspective,
but also because of the long-known relationship between poor parental mental health
and the child development (Quinton & Rutter, 1985). The findings are ambiguous. Coall,
Hilbrand, Meyer, Gerstorf, and Hertwig (2017) in a prospective study of associations
between helping, health and longevity found that helping others and grandparenting
increased longevity. Hicks Patrick, Nadorff, and Blake (2016), drawing data from national
surveys and other empirical studies in the United States and Canada, however, found
that when it came to custodial grandfathers, they were more likely to report depressive
symptoms and to receive less social support as well as greater levels of life disruption
than non-custodial men. In the United States, custodial grandparenting is more
common among minority families who may be more likely to live in poverty (Hicks
Patrick et al., 2016). Yet, in another study, Bates and Taylor (2012) in the United States,
found that involved grandfathers had significantly fewer depressive symptoms and signifi-
cantly higher scores on positive effect than disengaged grandfathers, and there was a
positive health benefit for these involved older men.
The different outcomes in these studies may be explained by the amount of time
grandparents spend in caring. When it comes to both grandparents, Glaser et al. (2013),
in her study across Europe, found that intensive care of grandchildren (more than thirty
hours a week) was associated with less good outcomes for both grandchildren and grand-
parents, while less intensive care was associated with generally positive outcomes. Inten-
sive grandparent care was also associated with isolation and hardship among
grandparents.
There is thus a limit to the possible beneficial aspects of grandparental involvement.
Custodial grandparenting may nevertheless often be the best choice for a family in
crisis, compared to other options.
When exploring all the positives on intergenerational relations, it is easy to forget that
there are negatives. In an earlier research, Buchanan and O’Leary (2016), used a UK internet
site Net Mums, to explore parents’ views on grandfather involvement with their children.
Although mothers spoke about how much they appreciated the child care and other
support their parents provided, they also spoke of some really fraught intergenerational
relationships; there was sometimes concern about their parents’ abilities to care for
their children, and also occasional cases of possible abuse. Parents were the gatekeepers
 CONTEMPORARY SOCIAL SCIENCE 139

and grandchildren did not visit their grandparents unless they, as parents, gave per-
mission. In some cases, it was important grandparents stayed away.

Importance of longitudinal data sets

As we see through this special issue, research has been greatly enhanced by the emer-
gence of large surveys on generations, grandparenting and ageing, such as the US the
Longitudinal Study of Generations (LSOG), and the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retire-
ment (SHARE) in Europe. In this issue, national longitudinal studies of grandparenting uti-
lised include the Three Generational Study from Oregon, the Growing up in Scotland study
and one generation from the Generational Transmissions in Finland survey. Studies pre-
sented in this issue include both quantitative and qualitative methodologies as well as
analysis of cross-sectional and specially collected surveys and interviews.
Such data helps us grasp the social and economic impact of grandparenting and what
factors promote family solidarity and support. Nevertheless, detailed information about
grandparenting and its effects on families is still often missing since its collection ideally
requires information from at least three family generations and two kin lineages.
Large data studies and longitudinal cohort studies are being developed across the
world and we look forward to future findings on grandparents, for example, from The
China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS) (2018), a longitudinal survey
being conducted by the China Center for Economic Research at Peking University with
the University of Southern California. When these data sets become available, they will
offer exciting opportunities to explore issues of intergenerational relations across nations.
The final paper in this special issue also tempers the positive picture of grandparent
involvement given. Capaldi et al. (2018) from the Oregon Social Learning Centre
reminds us in the last article that also maladaptive behaviour, in this case substance
abuse, can be transmitted across generations. This final contribution underlines the impor-
tance and continuing scarcity of longitudinal data with information about, for instance, the
crucial period of adolescence, in several family generations. It also raises interesting ques-
tions about the contribution of genetics and the environment to risk behaviour. Nature or
nurture? These longitudinal studies do help us refine our understanding of how changes in
the environment interact with transmissions between family generations. There is much
still to know.

Making grandparenting visible: social policy issues

In most parts of the developing world, it is assumed, that if parents cannot provide care for
their children, because they are working or for other reasons, grandparents are the best
caretakers. It is only in the developed world that legal hurdles separate grandchildren
from grandparents. However, some of these hurdles are being rescinded (Rotkirch &
Buchanan, 2016).
Under public law in England and Wales, when parents are unable to care for their chil-
dren, there is a greater recognition by the courts that ‘the best interests of the child’ are
often better met by family and friends’ care. Grandparent Plus in the UK (Grandparents
Plus, 2018) demonstrates the valiant work many grandparents are doing as full-time
kinship carers. These grandparents are of course providing a considerable resource and
140 A. BUCHANAN AND A. ROTKIRCH

they are cheaper than state care. Many of the grandparents are very poor or have had to
give up work to care for their grandchildren. Some of these children have had difficult
backgrounds and can be very challenging. A major concern in UK, as Hunt and Water-
house (2013) point out is that because carers are ‘family’, they may not receive the help
needed to manage some very damaged young people.
A second issue is that parents can block contact with grandchildren and this is true in
many jurisdictions of the developed world (Rotkirch & Buchanan, 2016). In a recent letter
to the Times Buchanan (2017b), noted that if parents in the UK no longer want grandpar-
ents involved in their children’s lives grandparents must apply for ‘leave’ of the court to
make an application – a cumbersome and expensive business. According to Grandparent
Plus, it is estimated that one million grandparents in Britain are being denied contact with
their grandchildren because of family breakdown, death or divorce (Grandparent Plus,
2018). Quite apart from the issue of Grandparental rights, it could be argued that children
have right to contact with grandparents because of the support they offer, resources and
future inheritance available, and indeed because this is what young people want (Bucha-
nan, Hunt, Bretherton, & Bream, 2010). Kaganas (2007) and the Scottish organisation
Grandparents Apart Self Help (GASH) suggest that there should be a change in the law
to give a ‘presumption of contact’ with the grandparents as there currently is with
Fathers under English and Welsh, Northern Ireland, and/Scottish law. The organisation
suggests that this will encourage those involved to attend conciliation/crisis counselling
to assist in finding a compromise. This presumption can of course easily be overruled
where a grandparent may pose a risk for a child. In her letter to the Times Buchanan
(2017b) made this suggestion which has received some support from the higher judiciary.

Conclusion
Contributions in this issue come from a range of disciplines: demography, sociology, ger-
ontology, psychology, social work, human biology, family studies, anthropology and
Health Studies. It is certainly no coincidence that most contributing scholars have been
involved in multi-disciplinary research and in multi-cultural research at some stage in
their careers. Grandparenting has become a ‘melting pot’ for the behavioural sciences
at large, attracting explanations from sociology to evolutionary biology and economics
(e.g. Arber & Attias-Donfut, 2002; Coall & Hertwig, 2010; Lee, 2013). Since most scholars
agree on the major empirical findings regarding grandparenting relations, the field
serves as a useful playing ground to compare and integrate disciplinary hypotheses and
theoretical explanations (Rotkirch, 2018).
Grandparenting is characterised by both universal traits and cultural variation. The mere
fact that children can form meaningful social relations to the parents of both their mother
and their father is biologically quite unique. Some other species such as elephants and dol-
phins have involved grandmothers, but these are usually maternal grandmothers (Euler,
2011). To have paternal grandmothers and males involved in the lives of grandchildren
is exceedingly rare in nature. Demographic, social and cultural factors shape how
extended families interact in different populations, and what grandparenting means in
society at large. We are proud that the contributors to this issue are currently based in
leading Universities from around globe. Thus, the experiences of grandparenting dis-
cussed here represent a wide geographical spread. There is still much we do not know,
 CONTEMPORARY SOCIAL SCIENCE 141

but across the world, many of these grandparents are filling the gap for time-poor mothers
and fathers (and in some cases failing parents). Indeed, they are the new army of proxy
parents. As societies, we need to support them for they are playing an increasing role
in raising the next generation. These children will be all our futures.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Ann Buchanan is emeritus professor and senior research associate at the Department of Social Policy
and Interventions, University of Oxford. For twenty years, she directed the Centre for Research into
Parenting and Children at Oxford. She was awarded an MBE in 2012 for her services to social science.
She is a Fellow of the National Academy for Social Sciences.
Anna Rotkirch is research professor and director of the Population Research Institute, Väestöliitto. As
a sociologist, she has specialized in comparative research on families in Europe. Current research
interests include fertility, grandparenting, and friendship. In 2013, she co-edited with Ann Buchanan
Fertility Rates and Population Decline. No time for Children, and in 2016, Grandfathers: global per-
spectives both published by Palgrave Macmillan.

References
Arber, S., & Attias-Donfut, C. (Eds.). (2002). The myth of generational conflict: The family and state in
ageing societies. London: Routledge.
Asis, M. M. B. (2000). Imagining the future of migration and families in Asia. Asian and Pacific
Migration Journal, 9, 255–272.
Attar-Schwartz, S., & Buchanan, A. (2018). Grandparenting and adolescent well-being: Evidence from
the UK and Israel. Contemporary Social Science. doi:10.1080/21582041.2018.1465200
Ban, L., Guo, S., Scherpbier, R. W., Wang, X., Zhou, H., & Tata, L. J. (2017). Child feeding and stunting
prevalence in left-behind children: A descriptive analysis of data from a central and western
Chinese population. International Journal of Public Health, 62(1), 143–151.
Bates, J. S., & Taylor, A. C. (2012). Grandfather involvement and aging men’s mental health. American
Journal of Men’s Health, 6(3), 229–223.
Bates, J., Taylor, A. C., & Stanfield, H. (2018). Variations in grandfathering: Characteristics of involved,
passive, and disengaged grandfathers. Contemporary Social Science. doi:10.1080/21582041.2018.
1433868
BBC. (2016a). Counting the cost of China’s left-behind children 12 April 2016. Retrieved from http://
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-35994481
BBC. (2016b). Left behind children in Romania. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-
europe-36542014/romania-s-left-behind-children
Buchanan, A. (2017a). Changing roles of grandparents in the United Kingdom; the emergence of the
‘new’ grandfather. In D. Shwalb & Z. Hossain (Eds.), Grandparents in cultural context (Chapter 6).
New York: Routledge.
Buchanan, A. (2017b). The role of grandparents needs legal recognition. Letter to the London Times
November 22, 2017.
Buchanan, A. (in press). Grandfathers: Are their roles changing and is this having an impact on chil-
dren? In B. Hayslip & C. Fruhauf (Eds.), Handbook of grandparenting: The changing dynamic of family
relationships. New York: Springer.
Buchanan, A., & Flouri, E. (2008). Involved grandparenting and child well-being: Non-technical summary
(research summary) ESRC End of Award Report, RES-000-22-2283. Swindon: ESRC.
142 A. BUCHANAN AND A. ROTKIRCH

Buchanan, A., Hunt, J., Bretherton, H., & Bream, V. (2010). Families in conflict perspectives of children
and parents on the family court welfare service. Bristol: Policy Press.
Buchanan, A., & O’Leary, A. M. (2016). Grandfathers: The parents’ perspective in the United Kingdom
chapter 5. In A. Buchanan & A. Rotkirch (Eds.), Grandfathers: Global perspectives (pp. 89–104).
London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Buchanan, A., & Rotkirch, A. (Eds.). (2013). Fertility rates and population decline. Not time for children?
London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Buchanan, A., & Rotkirch, A. (Eds.). (2016). Grandfathers: Global perspectives. London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Capaldi, D., Tiberio, S., & Kerr, D. (2018). Assessing associations in risk behaviours across three gen-
erations: From grandparents to sons, and from sons to their children. Contemporary Social
Science. doi:10.1080/21582041.2018.1433313
Chang, F., Shi, Y., Shen, A., Kohrman, A., Li, K., Wan, Q., … Rozelle, S. (2017). Understanding the
Situation of China’s Left-Behind Children: A Mixed-Methods Analysis. Stanford University, Rural
Education Action Programme, Working Paper 315, July 2017, reap.fsi.stanford.edu.
Chapman, S., Lahdenperä, M., Pettay, J., & Lummaa, V. (2017). Changes in length of grandparenthood
in Finland 1790–1959. Finnish Yearbook of Population Research, 52, 3–13.
China Health and Longitudinal Study (CHARLS). (2018). Retrieved from http://charls.pku.edu.cn/en
Clarke, L., & Roberts, C. (2004). Grandparenthood: Its meaning and its contribution to older people’s lives.
Sheffield: ESRC Growing Older Programme, University of Sheffield. Retrieved from www.shef.ac.
uk/uni/projects/gop/
Coall, D., & Hertwig, R. (2010). Grandparental investment: Past, present, and future. Behavioral and
Brain Sciences, 33, 1–59.
Coall, D., Hilbrand, S., Meyer, A., Gerstorf, D., & Hertwig, R. (2017). A prospective study of associations
among helping, health, and longevity. Social Science Medicine, 187, 109–117.
Coall, D., Hilbrand, S., Sear, R., & Hertwig, R. (2016). A new niche? The theory of grandfather involve-
ment. In A. Buchanan & A. Rotkirch (Eds.), Grandfathers: Global perspectives (pp. 21–44). London:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Coall, D., Hillebrand, S., Sear, R., & Hertwig, R. (2018). Interdisciplinary perspectives on grandparental
investment: A journey towards causality. Contemporary Social Science. doi:10.1080/21582041.2018.
1433317
Daily Telegraph. (2015). Financial support for grandparents who look after children. Retrieved from
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11042376/Financial-support-for-grandparents-who-
look-after-children.html
Danielsbacka, M., & Tanskanen, A. (2016). Grandfather involvement in Finland: Impact of divorce, re-
marriage, and widowhood. In A. Buchanan & A. Rotkirch (Eds.), Grandfathers: Global perspectives
(pp. 183–198). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Dunn, J., & Deater-Deckard, K. (2001). Children’s views of their changing families. Joseph Rowntree
Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/childrens-views-their-changing-families
Esping-Andersen, G. (2013). Investing in early childhood. In A. Buchanan & A. Rotkirch (Eds.), Fertility
rates and population decline. No time for children? (pp. 288–302). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Euler, H. A. (2011). Grandparents and extended kin. In C. A. Salmon & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of evolutionary family psychology (pp. 181–210). New York: Oxford University Press.
Ferguson, N. (2004). Children’s contact with grandparents after divorce. Family Matters 67 Canberra:
Australian Institute of Family Studies. Retrieved from https://aifs.gov.au/sites/default/files/nf.pdf
Finch, J. (1989). Family obligations and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gauthier, A. (2013). Family policy and fertility: Do policies make a difference? In A. Buchanan &
A. Rotkirch (Eds.), Fertility rates and population decline: No time for children? (pp. 269–287).
London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Glaser, K., Price, D., Ribe, E., di Gess, G., & Tinker, A. (2013). Grandparenting in Europe. London:
Grandparents Plus (2018). Retrieved from https://www.grandparentsplus.org.uk/what-is-kinship-
care
Grandparents Plus. (2018). Charity website. Retrieved from https://www.grandparentsplus.org.uk/
what-is-kinship-care
 CONTEMPORARY SOCIAL SCIENCE 143

Harper, S., & Ruicheva, I. (2010). Grandmothers as replacement parents and partners: The role of grand-
motherhood in single parent families. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 8(3), 219–233.
Hawkes, K., O’Connell, J. F., Jones, N. B., Alvarez, H., & Charnov, E. L. (1998). Grandmothering, meno-
pause, and the evolution of human life histories. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
95(3), 1336–1339.
Hicks Patrick, J., Nadorff, D., & Blake, V. (2016). Physical health of custodial and caregiving grand-
fathers in North America. In A. Buchanan & A. Rotkirch (Eds.), Grandfathers: Global Perspectives
(pp. 201–214). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hossain, Z., Eisberg, G., & Shwalb, D. (2018). Grandparents’ social identities: Global perspectives.
Contemporary Social Science. doi:10.1080/21582041.2018.1433315
Hunt, J. (2018). Grandparents as substitute parents in the UK. Contemporary Social Science. doi:10.
1080/21582041.2017.1417629
Hunt, J., & Waterhouse, S. (2013). It’s Just Not Fair! Support, need and legal status in family and friends
care. Family Rights Group. Retrieved from http://www.frg.org.uk/its-just-not-fair-support-need-
and-legal-status-in-family-and-friends-care
International Longevity Centre. (2017). The Grandparent Army. Retrieved from http://www.ilcuk.org.
uk/index.php/publications/publication_details/the_grandparents_army
Jamieson, L., Ribe, E., & Warner, P. (2018). Out-dated assumptions about maternal grandmothers?
Gender and lineage in grandparent-grandchild relationships. Contemporary Social Science.
doi:10.1080/21582041.2018.1433869
Kaganas, F. (2007). Grandparents’ rights and grandparents’ campaigns. Child and Family Law
Quarterly, 19(1), 17–14.
Kramer, K. L., & Russell, A. F. (2015). Was monogamy a key step on the Hominin road? Reevaluating
the monogamy hypothesis in the evolution of cooperative breeding. Evolutionary Anthropology:
Issues, News, and Reviews, 24(2), 73–83.
Lahdenperä, M., Gillespie, D. O. S., Lummaa, V., & Russell, A. F. (2012). Severe intergenerational repro-
ductive conflict and the evolution of menopause. Ecology Letters, 15(11), 1283–1290.
Lee, R. (2013). Intergenerational transfers, the biological life cycle, and human society. Population and
Development Review, 38(Suppl. 1), 23–35.
Leeson, G. (2016). Out of the shadows: Are grandfathers defining their own roles in the modern
family in Denmark? In A. Buchanan & A. Rotkirch (Eds.), Grandfathers: Global perspectives (pp.
69–88). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Leeson, G. (2018). Global demographic change and the role of families and grandparents.
Contemporary Social Science. doi:10.1080/21582041.2018.1433316
Limm, L. L. (2002). Female labour-force participation UNesa publication. Retrieved from http://www.
un.org/esa/population/publications/completingfertility/RevisedLIMpaper.PDF
Office for National Statistics. (2014). Overview of the UK population. Retrieved from http://www.ons.
gov.uk/ons/rel/pop-estimate/population-estimates-for-uk--england-and-wales--scotland-and-
northern-ireland/mid-2014/sty---overview-of-the-uk-population.html
Peterson, P. G. (1999). Gray Dawn: The global aging crisis. Foreign Affairs. Retrieved from https://www.
foreignaffairs.com/articles/1999-01-01/gray-dawn-global-aging-crisis
Quinton, D., & Rutter, M. (1985). Family pathology and child psychiatric disorder: A four-year prospec-
tive study. In A. R. Nicol (Ed.), Longitudinal studies in child psychology and psychiatry (pp. 91–134).
Chichester: John Wiley.
Roser, M. (2017). Future Population Growth. Published online at OurWorldInData.org. Retrieved from
https://ourworldindata.org/future-population-
Rotkirch, A. (2018). Evolutionary family sociology. In R. Hopcroft (Ed.), Oxford handbook of evolution,
biology and society (Chapter 21). New York: Oxford University Press.
Rotkirch, A., & Buchanan, A. (2016). Making time for children. In A. Buchanan & A. Rotkirch (Eds.),
Fertility rates and population decline. No time for children (pp. 303–318). London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Szydlik, M. (2016). Sharing lives: Adult children and parents. London: Routledge.
Tan, J.-P. (2018). Do grandparents matter? Intergenerational relationships between closest grandpar-
ents and Malaysia adolescents. Contemporary Social Science. doi:10.1080/21582041.2018.1424931
144 A. BUCHANAN AND A. ROTKIRCH

Tan, J.-P., Buchanan, A., Flouri, E., Attar-Schwartz, S., & Griggs, J. (2010). Filling the parenting gap?
Grandparent involvement with U.K. Adolescents. Journal of Family Issues, 31(7), 992–1015.
Tanskanen, A., & Danielsbacka, M. (2018). Marital disruption and grandparental investment in
Finland. Contemporary Social Science. doi:10.1080/21582041.2017.1422794
Tanskanen, A. O., & Danielsbacka, M. (2017). Multigenerational effects on children’s cognitive and
socioemotional outcomes: A within-child investigation. Child Development, 23, 67. doi:10.1111/
cdev.12968
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2010). The World’s women 2010. Trends
and Statistics. Retrieved from http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/Worldswomen/
WW_full%20report_color.pdf
Wild, L. (2018). Grandparental involvement and South African adolescents’ emotional and behav-
ioural health. Contemporary Social Science. doi:10.1080/21582041.2017.1422536