Country comparisons on families and partnerships | 08.08.2023The GGS is unique

Prof. Dr. Anne Gauthier, Director of the „Generations and Gender Programme“ (GGP) Source: © FReDA

There are numerous demographic studies - what distinguishes the GGS from those studies?

Indeed, there are many other demographic studies and surveys. There are three large international demographic surveys: the Demographic Health Survey (DHS), the Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS) and the Generations and Gender Survey (GGS). The first two are mainly targeted at low and middle-income countries where traditionally fertility was relatively high. The GGS in contrast is unique in its focus on population and family dynamics, including the determinants of low fertility. It is also the only international longitudinal (panel) survey.

How important are cross-country comparative analyses and what insights can we gain from them?

Such cross-national comparative analyses are really important to assess the extent to which some demographic trends, behaviour, or values are observed in a wide range of countries, or are instead specific to some countries. For example, low fertility is at the moment observed in a very wide range of countries with different culture, institution and economies. This is actually challenging to explain. Moreover, the cross-national perspective is also crucial to test theories that have often been developed based on a single country or small set of countries. For example, is the link between gender equality and fertility the same in all countries? And is the link between divorce and education the same everywhere?

Of the topics that are included in the GGS, which ones are particularly relevant for demographic research or policy advice nowadays and why?

Fertility preferences and the whole fertility-making decision process are really important topics both for scientists and policy makers. For example, what role plays uncertainty in the decision to have or not to have children? How many? And when? But the GGS is more than a fertility survey. It also contains very rich information on the complexity of today’s families, their needs and inequalities, on young adults, inter-generational exchanges, gender roles, and work-life balance (to name only a few). These data can contribute to policy debates, for example on gender inequality in paid and unpaid work, or the reconciliation of work and family responsibilities.

What has changed in the way we carry out such surveys, especially for the GGS, as a result of COVID-19?

Even before the Covid-19 pandemic, the landscape of survey methodology had started to change. Response rates were declining everywhere, and the cost of running surveys in face-to-face mode (with interviewers) was increasing very rapidly. For these reasons, the GGS had already started to develop and test a web version of its questionnaire. The Covid pandemic has accelerated this trend towards web surveys. This is the case for the GGS and other surveys.

How can data research infrastructures benefit from each other? How important is the exchange of knowledge, experience and innovative ideas?

All survey-based research infrastructures are currently engaged in the same transition towards mixed mode of data collection (especially web), and they are all confronted to the same challenges including how to make sure that the data collected are nationally representative. The exchange of knowledge, insights and new tools between infrastructures is currently happening and is crucial. For example, the GGS regularly exchange information with ESS, SHARE and GUIDE. The GGS is also part of the broader SSHOC (Social sciences and humanities open cloud) project.

Outlook: What are the next steps for the GGS? How could the GGS develop further?

There are three main avenues that we are currently pursuing. First, we are continuously expanding our geographical coverage. This is important especially to cover regions that are often not included in comparative studies (eg. The Balkan), and also regions outside of Europe. The GGS recently fielded a survey in Hong Kong (China), Taiwan, and Uruguay. This is the first time that we have comparative data from these countries. Second, we are continuously expanding our openness and services to users. For example we recently launched a call for modules which allowed scientists to compete for the inclusion of new items in our survey. And we are also developing teaching datasets for students and other stakeholders. Finally, the technology and the availability of new forms of data represent big opportunities for surveys, but often with major legal barriers. We are working on finding solutions and ways of integrating these data in our infrastructure.

Editor's note: This interview first appeared on the Family Research and Demographic Analysis (FReDA) project website.