27 November 2009

Clergymen more likely to marry for keeps

This article, Clergymen and dentists marry for keeps | Life and style | The Observer, is tantalising. It tells us that clergy and some other professions tend to produce fewer divorces. It tells us about the main way the figures were collected and worked. So we can be reasonably confident that this: "Those looking for a life of fidelity and loyalty, however, should marry agricultural engineers, optometrists, dentists, members of the clergy and podiatrists." is correct. What we don't get is clues to explain both the lower frequency /statistical likelihood in the aforementioned professions, or the higher incidence in chefs, mathematicians, urban planners etc. I guess that would be the next phase of study -or someone else's research project. What would be fascinating is to see the potential interplay of work-life balance, commitment, attitudes, workplace and home and perhaps things like general contentment. Watch this space ... or tell me if you find the follow-up studies.

2 comments:

Mark V-S said...

From my general observation, I'd have to say that it's unlikely to have anything to do with work-life balance as far as clergy go. I'm always suprised when I discover members of the clergy who actually take their day off consistently, work reasonable hours etc. The overall tendencies are all in the other direction as far as I can see. and there have been extensive studies showing the level of clergy stress...

Andii said...

To be honest, Mark, I was thinking similarly. I wasn't implying that I necessarily thought clergy did a good job of work/rest-of-life balance (though some manage to, I'm still given cause to be concerned about clergy burnout). But that's why I'd like the study to go further: it's really intriguing given what I know or suspect wrt clergy.
All of which tends to lead in the direction of suggestion that it may have something to do with belief and/or value systems ... ?

"Spend and tax" not "tax and spend"

 I got a response from my MP which got me kind of mad. You'll see why as I reproduce it here. Apologies for the strange changes in types...