The Generations and Gender Survey (GGS) incorporates two longitudinal dimensions: a retrospective one which collects data on people’s life history, and a prospective (panel) one which follows people over time to collect changes in their life trajectory and circumstances. Incorporating both longitudinal dimensions in the GGS provides a rich and detailed understanding of how individuals and families adapt and respond to social and economic change, including demographic trends, shifts in family norms and values, and changes in the labour market. The unique design of the GGS offers a dynamic and nuanced view of people’s lives, providing researchers and policymakers with valuable insight into how policies can better support individuals and families in navigating complex and evolving social landscapes.
The retrospective dimension: life histories
Over the past few decades, notable changes in the timing and order of key demographic events, such as marriage, divorce, and the birth of children, took place, resulting in more complex life course trajectories. More young adults today postpone having children until later in life or have a child before getting married, thereby deviating from the traditional life course of leaving home, getting married, and having children in that order. Such changing life course patterns are detected using retrospective life course histories, i.e., gathering information about key demographic events of people from different cohorts.
The GGS collects detailed information on people’s life histories in the Baseline questionnaire. This includes information on whether and when individuals left the parental home, got married and divorced, and had children. The GGS captures thus the occurrence and timing of events as well as their sequence. This improves our understanding of how demographic events are related to one another. By delving into people’s life histories, a lot can also be learned about how different life domains are intertwined and how they shape the trajectory of people’s lives. This can help identify significant events from the past that may have enduring effects.
The prospective dimension: panel design
People experience different key events in their lives, such as leaving the parental home, starting a job, or getting married. Such life course transitions can be caused by different factors, including personal choices, social norms, attitudes, and economic conditions. Moreover, life course transitions can have a major impact on individuals’ well-being, their relationships with others, and future experiences. Many of these factors and consequences are difficult to measure retrospectively because people may rationalize or reinterpret them based on their current understanding, making it challenging to accurately capture the original experience.
The panel design of the GGS makes it possible to study the causes and consequences of life course transitions. It consists of a baseline survey that collects detailed information on the respondent’s situation at the time of the interview and a follow-up survey that interviews the same respondents later in time. Following up with these respondents makes it possible to use the rich information gathered during the baseline survey to explain the occurrence and timing of life course events in the follow-up. Moreover, it makes it possible to examine the consequences of having experienced these life course transitions.
In every round, the GGS follow-up is conducted after three (and six) years of the baseline survey. By then, sufficient time has passed for peoples’ lives to change and for them to experience key demographic events. Since demographic events tend to happen during specific periods of life, the shorter design of the GGS can effectively capture these events. In contrast to other longitudinal surveys that interview respondents yearly over an extended time (e.g., twenty years), the GGS design is more effective to study demographic events.
Examples of research questions that can only be answered with a follow-up GGS
The realizations of intentions
The GGS Baseline includes questions about respondents' intentions, such as their plans to marry, have children, or stop working. The follow-up survey provides information on whether respondents have realized their intentions. This information is valuable to determine disparities in the realization of intentions across individuals and countries. The follow-up survey can help understand the factors that contribute to the realization of these intentions and the obstacles that hinder the realization of intentions.
Some examples:
- Did people who intended to have a child at Baseline fulfill their intention? If not, did factors like union dissolution, job loss, or difficulty conceiving prevent them from having a child?
- Did people who did not intend to have a child end up having one? Was the child unplanned?
- Did parents who were not in paid employment at baseline but intended to return to work fulfill their intention? If not, what obstacles did they face?
Young people’s life trajectory
Young adulthood is a phase of life that is usually marked by many life and demographic events. It is important to track these trajectories since they can also introduce major inequalities.
Some examples:
- What has been the progress for young people who were not in school, training, or employment at Baseline? Are they still in the same situation, or have they enrolled in a training program or secured employment? Did it impact their well-being?
- Have young people who lived with their parents at Baseline moved out and started living independently? How has their financial situation changed?
- Have we been able to contact young people who intended to emigrate at Baseline? If not, do we have any information about whether they have migrated as planned?
Gender (in)equalities
One of the strengths of the GGS is the focus on gender. The longitudinal data can be used to see within families if gender inequalities in the division of unpaid work have changed.
Some examples:
- Did the gender division of unpaid work at home (housework and childcare) change among respondents who had a child between waves and their partner?
- Did partners’ division of unpaid work at baseline remain the same at follow-up? If not, what contributed to the change?
- What is the impact of a partner starting or ending work on the power dynamic between partners?
