The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

FOCUS GROUPS WITH MINORITY ETHNIC COMMUNITIES

CHAPTER THREE A PROFILE OF THE FOCUS GROUP PARTICIPANTS

Introduction

3.1 This chapter provides a demographic profile of the focus group participants. The information is derived from the Participant Monitoring Forms, a copy of which is included in the Technical Annex.

3.2 Overall, a total of 196 people from minority ethnic communities participated in the research across 29 focus groups. That represents an average of seven participants per focus group.

3.3 All participants were asked to complete a participant monitoring form at the end of each focus group. The participants in 22 of the 29 focus groups completed forms. There were seven focus groups where participant monitoring forms were not completed for reasons of language and time constraints. Details of these focus groups are provided at the end of this chapter.

3.4 The information on the profile of participants is drawn from the monitoring forms and so excludes those who did not fill in a form. A total of 70 participants did not complete forms. The information presented here is based on the 126 participants who did complete the monitoring form.

3.5 Wherever possible, similar demographic data was also collected from information provided by the participants in the focus groups and especially in their introductions to the group and from relevant information noted by the researchers during the course of the focus group.

Profile of Participants

Gender, marital status and children under 16

3.6 Table 3.1 shows that the majority of respondents (65%) were female. In all regions, except Glasgow, there were almost twice as many women as men. However, previous research ¹² has identified minority ethnic women as particularly under-represented so it is anticipated that this research can help to redress the current lack of representation of minority ethnic women's views.

3.7 The majority of participants (63%) were married or living as married. 27% of respondents were single. 62% did not have children aged 16 years or younger.

3.8 More than half of respondents (56%) were aged 26-59 years followed by those who were 60+ and 16-25 years. Eight participants were under 16 and all participated in the school age focus group.

Table 3.1 Gender, age, marital status and children under 16 (numbers)

Disability

3.9 The majority of respondents described themselves as not having a disability (Table 3.2). However, it should be borne in mind that respondents were not provided with a definition of disability but to assess their own circumstances. Participants were asked, 'Do you consider yourself to have a disability?'

3.10 There may have been a higher representation of people who considered themselves to have a disability amongst those groups where monitoring forms were not completed. The participants in these groups were largely made up of people over 60 years, a group where one would reasonably expect to find a higher proportion of people with disabilities.

Table 3.2 Disability

Language

3.11 Participants were asked to indicate their 'main language'. Table 3.3 shows that English was the main language for 30% of respondents. It should be noted however that this proportion may be impacted upon by participants in the groups who did not complete monitoring forms as three of the groups were made up of Hindi, Urdu and Punjabi speakers and two of the groups with Chinese speakers.

Table 3.3 Main Language Spoken*

*three respondents reported two languages as 'main'

3.12 Participants were also asked to indicate their ability to speak and to write English. In the first instance participants were asked to rate their ability to speak the English language as 'fluent', 'good', 'basic' or 'cannot speak English'. In the second instance, participants were ask to rate their ability to write in English as 'very good', 'good, 'basic' or 'cannot write in English'.

3.13 The data in Table 3.4 indicates that inability to speak or write English is a significant factor, especially for older people and people newly arrived in Scotland. This finding is significant for any consideration of possible survey methods. However, it should also be borne in mind that many non-English speakers do not read and write their mother tongue.

3.14 For six of the seven groups for whom data was not recorded, language was the major barrier. In all, these six groups represented 64 people. It is not possible to comment on the ability to either speak or write English of members of these groups but it is possible to say that for these people, written survey methods would not be appropriate.

Table 3.4 Ability to speak or write English

Employment status

3.15 The majority of participants were either in paid employment (35%) or in training and education (25%) (Table 3.5). There were a relatively low number of people who described themselves as unemployed, although data from the Labour Force Survey indicates that unemployment amongst non-white groups is 18%, considerably higher than that of the white population (8%) ¹³. The proportion of employed participants in the study will be influenced by the inclusion of Traders groups and the fact that the research did not specifically consider unemployed individuals. As discussed earlier in 2.39, there are a number of social groups within minority ethnic communities who may be particularly hard to contact and unemployed people are likely to be one of these.

Table 3.5 Employment Status¹⁴

Ethnicity

3.16 Participants were asked two questions in relation to ethnicity. The first asked people to describe their own ethnicity using an open-ended question, whilst the second asked participants to place themselves in pre-assigned categories as used in the 2001 Census. The responses to the second question are presented in Table 3.6. This shows that the largest representation in the research was of Indian, Pakistani and Chinese ethnic groups.

Table 3.6 Ethnic group based on Census (2001) categories

3.17 When these results are compared with those from the open ended question, it shows that the respondents often choose to describe themselves differently from the Census categorisation using a more complex range of reference points, for example, religion, country of origin and colour.

3.18 For each category, for example 'White' or 'Asian' the use of the option of 'other' tends to mask the true range of diversity. The category 'White other', hid a range of ethnic origins in the study including Gypsies/Traveller, 'French Algerian' and 'Canadian'.

3.19 The data in Table 3.7 compares the sample of participants in the research with that of the minority ethnic population in Scotland. Overall, there was a lower proportion of Pakistani participants, a higher proportion of Indian, Black African and Bangladeshi participants and a slightly higher proportion of Chinese participants.

Table 3.7 Comparison of ethnicity of research sample to ethnicity of (non-white) minority ethnic population in Scotland

White minorities: Gypsies/Travellers

3.20 In the context of this research a number of points need to be highlighted in relation to Gypsies/Travellers. In terms of ethnicity, when self-defining, Gypsies/Travellers did describe themselves as 'travellers' or as 'Romany'. However, when answering the closed Census question, most described themselves as 'White Scottish'. Without a separate category for 'Gypsies/Traveller', the unique ethnic identity of this group, and arguably other White minorities, is effectively lost in any ethnicity survey.

3.21 While all of the Gypsy/Traveller participants spoke English fluently or well, many described their ability to read and write English as 'basic'. Thus any survey methods also need to take cognisance of variable literacy levels amongst white minority ethnic participants.

Non-Respondents

3.22 Participants monitoring forms were not completed by seven of the 29 focus groups. The following focus groups did not complete the Forms:

3.23 Together these groups were made up of the following numbers:

Table 3.8 Non-respondents in the research

3.24 It is not possible to provide precise information in relation to age, number of children under 16 or ethnicity. However, it is possible to draw out some general points about this group of participants.

3.25 In the first instance the majority of participants were aged over sixty, belonging as they did to groups specifically for older people. Secondly, and perhaps most significantly, language was the main barrier for all but one of these groups (the women's only group, Glasgow.)

3.26 Five of the focus groups where monitoring forms were not completed were with older Asian and Chinese people, instances where there were significant language barriers. Such problems could not be overcome even with the provision of translations since many of the older people did not read or write in their mother tongue. There were also time constraints on these groups, which did not allow for the one-to-one support to translate monitoring forms and responses by the interpreter.

Conclusion

3.27 This chapter has provided a summary of the main characteristics of the survey participants. All of the largest non-white minority ethnic communities in Scotland are represented in the research as detailed in Table 3.7.

3.28 Data from the Participant Monitoring Forms provides valuable information about the language needs of minority ethnic communities that will impact on the process and method of any proposed survey. It is clear from both the data collected from the Participant Monitoring Forms and the difficulties encountered in administering the form to other groups, that a written survey would effectively exclude some members of minority ethnic groups, particularly older people.

3.29 It is recognised that these characteristics along with the interest group to which a participant belongs, geographical area and other characteristics for which data was not collected, such as class, may impact on the findings of the research. Indeed, there is scope for potential bias, however it was considered important to include the diversity of groups rather than ensure representativeness. Where possible, the findings reflect where a particular group is making a response or comment.

« Previous | Contents | Next »