The concept of the life course was formulated as an alternative to, or an adaption and extension of, the earlier concept of the life cycle (O’Rand & Krecker 1990; Abramsson 2008; Jansen et al 2011). In life cycle analysis it is presumed that individuals follow a more or less fixed life cycle of stages that are universal, strictly ordered and coherent (Blenstrup 2010). Thus, everyone goes through the stages in the same order, without returning to previous stages and with individuals in the same stage sharing a consist-ent and meaningful set of attributes (Johnson-Hanks 2002). The life cycle has often been described by presuming that the individual follows the same stages over time as the stages identifiable in cross-sectional data analysis. The life cycle framework, however, led to a rigid view of individuals’ lives; a view criticised for presuming an order and a universality that simply was not empirically true. This led to life course analysis. In life course analysis the sequences of life are not presumed to follow a specific order; instead it is the objective of the analysis to describe the sequences and how they follow each other over time (Myers 1999): “From a life course perspec-tive, individuals make transitions between states of being, that is, between the various
stages of the life cycle, following a nonlinear pattern of change. The individual may, over his life course, bypass some states of being (such as parenthood), leave and re-turn to other states (such as marriage or the labor force), and spend little or much time in any state (such as residence in parent’s household) (Espenshade & Eisenberg Braun 1982:1026). Transition is a key concept for the change occurring during the life course (Blenstrup 2010) and is defined by Elder as “changes in state that are more or less abrupt” (Elder quoted in Wingens 2011). The development within housing stud-ies corresponds with the general shift from life cycle to life course analysis. Thus, the early studies from the 1950’s and 1960’s focused on the housing life cycle: a fairly fixed notion of how housing circumstances change for a household over its life cycle (Myers 1999). Later, housing studies turned to life course analysis instead: as opposed to presuming a specific order of stages in the housing career, the aim is to describe the path of housing careers, making room for the variations that exist.
A helpful account of life course analysis is presented in Wingens et al 2011. Here, life course analysis is seen as offering a potential starting point for overcoming the micro-macro divide through seeking to understand and explain the links between structure and agency over time. As opposed to the life cycle model, life course anal-ysis does not presume an ordered and generally applicable pattern across individuals’
lives (Johnson-Hanks 2002). However, the existence of a pattern across individuals’
lives is recognised, leading to a quest to identify and explain the systematic regular-ities across individual experiences. Life courses are at least partially organised ac-cording to societal structures, resulting in expectable and recognisable patterns of the order and timing of life course events (Wingens et al 2011). Not everyone lives by them. However, they are clearly identifiable. The focus in life course analysis is on the complex interplay between actors and structures: on the structuring effect of so-ciety’s institutional arrangements on the life course of actors and on the possibilities for actors to shape their life course within these structures. Through their life cours-es, individuals impact societal structures and institutions as well; changing, shaping and reproducing them (de Valk et al 2011). Despite the changed norms and the grow-ing individualisation of the life course linked to the second demographic transition, patterns across individual life courses do, to some extent, persist. These patterns are what life course analysis aims to describe and understand by linking the micro-level of individual lives with the macro-level of society’s structures. This link is situated in time7: society and its structures change over time, and the individual’s aging process and previous, time-situated experiences influence how the individual acts within the structures. Inherent in this lies another central contribution of life course analysis:
the recognition that human development and aging are lifelong processes (Elder et al 2003) and that it is not enough to study only the initial phases of the life course.
Fundamental changes can take place at all ages. Mayer (2009) identifies a tendency in life course research to put too much emphasis on early life course experiences.
7. To draw a parallel, a central characteristic of the Chicago School sociology is the empha-sis put on change and development over time (Jørgensen 2014).
However, this criticism relates to the application of life course analysis and not to the analytical approach itself.
As mentioned, life course analysis has yet to be developed into a coherent theoretical framework. At present, it offers a theoretical orientation, pointing to key aspects of the link between actors and structures. These can be applied as principles in empirical work. Criticising the current state of affairs, Mayer (2009) contends that the develop-ment of theoretical explanations for the mechanisms of the life course, along with the further development of appropriate methods, are imperative for the continued rele-vance of life course analysis. Life course analysis does not explain empirical findings.
Instead it helps us identify patterns which we then need other theories to explain and understand. Thus, other theories such as theories on settlement and mobility are drawn upon in the papers of this thesis to explain and understand the empirical findings. For such a combination to make sense, the other theories must acknowledge both structure and agency or at least be modifiable to do so. This is the case for the theories drawn upon in this thesis. Apart from that, as specific theoretical explanations have yet to be developed for life course analysis, there are no inherent contradictions between the theories that prevent the combination of them.
As an analytical tool for empirical analyses, life course analysis has a lot to offer.
Wingens et al (2011) identify six principles that are the most commonly used guiding principles8 for empirical analyses based in life course analysis: historical time and place, situational imperatives, accentuation, linked lives, agency and life stage. While these are the most common according to Wingens et al, a number of other principles based in life course analysis can be formulated. Their relevance depends on the pur-pose with which the specific life course analysis is conducted. For this project, two further principles are relevant: the principle of linked careers and the principle of age and life phase. These are based on key aspects of life course analysis, as will be shown below. Apart from their relevance here, the principles are generally applicable for life course analysis and thus capture additional aspects to the principles by Wingens et al. While Wingens et al do not claim to have covered all the guiding principles of life course analysis, I find that the two additional principles cover imperative aspects of life course analysis and thus should be included.
8. Elder et al identify five principles of life course analysis (2003). Four of these overlap with the principles of Wingens et al. The fifth principle is The principle of Life-Span Development. This states that human development and aging are life-long processes.
While this is an essential notion of life course analysis, it is less of a guiding principle for empirical analyses and more of a key understanding behind the whole approach to life course. I find the additional principles of Wingens et al very useful and thus take their presentation as a starting point, but refer to Elder et al where relevant.