Protection through coercion? Negotiating vulnerability and case constitution in Swiss adult protection

Abstract

Within the Swiss adult protection system, supportive measures intended to safeguard clients’wellbeing may, in practice, take the form of intrusive and potentially coercive actions that restrict individual autonomy. This presentation addresses these tensions by examining how ’need for protection’ is constructed and negotiated within the system. Drawing on the ongoing SNSF-funded qualitative research project ”(Not) in need of protection? Processes, practices and areas of tension in case constitution at the interface between work with older people and adult protection” (No.: 212402), the presentation investigates case constitution processes in adult protection based on an exploratory-reconstructive ethnographic design. The study follows approximately 20 cases involving individuals aged 65 and above from the initial endangerment report to the formal decision of the Adult Protection Authority, analysing interactions, documents, interviews with professionals and decision-making processes using grounded theory methods. The findings highlight that vulnerability is not a given condition but rather emerges or transforms through the processes of problem definition, institutional categorisation and professional judgement. Our analysis shows that adult protection interventions can address and mitigate vulnerability (’de-vulnerabilisation’) but can also produce or exacerbate it (’re-vulnerabilisation’). Categorising individuals as ’in need of protection’ can lead to stigmatisation, intrusion into privacy, and disruption of trust– yet professionals actively work to rebuild trust through negotiation, delayed intervention and alignment with the individual, even where institutional constraints limit their scope. Professional practice in adult protection involves navigating ambiguous mandates by balancing support with expectations of control, verification, and potential intervention. Practitioners manage this tension through strategies of intrusiveness management, face work and selective opacity– softening the coercive dimensions while building trust through empathy. They manage resistance through restraint and persuasive work and informally keep cases alive beyond formal closure. In doing so, they act as intermediaries who translate and mediate between the individual and institutional demands. This shows that the logics of inclusion and control are not neatly separable in practice, but are entangled in the everyday work of adult protection professionals.