Panel attrition is one of the main concerns to longitudinal surveys, and may be especially problematic when vulnerable populations are concerned. This study looks into nonresponse and attrition in the Swiss Household Panel (SHP), focusing on the following two questions: (1) To what extent does attrition create bias in means and frequencies, and does weighting correct for this? (2) Are respondents who are at risk of vulnerability more likely to drop out from the SHP compared to others and if so, why? Our results based on data from 1999 to 2012 indicate that there are different nonresponse patterns in the SHP and that attrition is not completely at random, but is related to specific characteristics that are often associated with vulnerability. In particular respondents with a migration background, a low level of education, who are unemployed or whose health status is poor are more likely to drop out. Using weights only partially corrects for the selective dropout. Although general population surveys such as the SHP provide unique opportunities to study vulnerability in the population, researchers should be aware that overall prevalence of vulnerability is most likely underestimated.

This chapter discusses the rationale for the use of life history calendars in studying social and psychological vulnerability. Pragmatic and substantive aspects suggest that life history calendars are powerful tools for retrospective surveys on vulnerability. Life history calendars are substantially more cost-effective and easier to implement than prospective longitudinal designs while being in line with the life course paradigm. They can be used as follows: to investigate how people react to negative life events and which resources come into play to overcome conditions of vulnerability; to understand processes of accumulation of (dis)advantages in relation to the concept of vulnerability; and to observe how such processes are constructed across the life course and across life domains. In addition life history calendars address the interconnection between the factual events and their subjective perception by participants. Thus data produced by life history calendars are suitable to different paradigms that apply life histories as a socio-cognitive process. This chapter presents four tools developed at the University of Lausanne and the University of Geneva with a special focus on the operationalisation of different aspects of vulnerability such as the study of accumulation and diffusion effects of (dis)advantages across life domains.

This chapter aims at understanding the issues of capturing vulnerable populations in large-scale quantitative surveys. A dilemma in survey construction arises when a target vulnerable population to be analyzed cannot be reached using standard survey designs. Indeed, adapting standard procedures may improve access to the targeted vulnerable population; however, these changes may lead to inaccurate comparisons with other population samples. To address this issue, this chapter deals with the data collection process of the large-scale survey on aging Vivre/Leben/Vivere: Old Age Democratization? Progress and Inequalities in Switzerland (VLV). It highlights the need to adjust standard procedures of a quantitative survey to access elderly migrants and the impact of doing so. Results show the need for a constant dialogue between the scientific requirements and realities of fieldwork to avoid an under-representation in surveys. Finally, providing resources to assess vulnerability is not only a methodological engagement; this is also a major social issue about giving a voice to the voiceless.

This volume details tools and procedures for data collections of hard-to-reach, hard-to-survey populations. Inside, readers will discover first-hand insights from experts who share their successes as well as their failures in their attempts to identify and measure human vulnerabilities across the life course. Coverage first provides an introduction on studying vulnerabilities based on the Total Error Survey framework. Next, the authors present concrete examples on how to survey such populations as the elderly, migrants, widows and widowers, couples facing breast cancer, employees and job seekers, displaced workers, and teenagers during their transition to adulthood. In addition, one essay discusses the rationale for the use of life history calendars in studying social and psychological vulnerability while another records the difficulty the authors faced when trying to set-up an online social network to collect relevant data. Overall, this book demonstrates the importance to have, from the very beginning, a dialogue between specialists of survey methods and the researchers working on social dynamics across the life span. It will serve as an indispensable resource for social scientists interested in gathering and analyzing data on vulnerable individuals and populations in order to construct longitudinal data bases and properly target social policies.