The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Smoking in Public Places
A Consultation on Reducing Exposure to Second Hand Smoke
Key Findings of Responses to a Public Consultation

CHAPTER 3: APPROACH TO ANALYSIS

Individuals within Organisations / Businesses

3.1 The main challenge for the analysis of responses to the consultation was not the volume of responses but the relatively large quantity of detailed and technical information provided by respondents in support of their submissions. In addition to deploying an organised and robust framework for identifying and collating relevant comments from respondents, the exercise also required a number of ground-rules to be set to ensure responses were prepared for analysis in a consistent and sensible fashion.

Analytical Framework

3.2 An electronic ACCESS database was used to store and assist analysis of the responses. This database enables the storage of either free text or numerical data in a systematic manner whilst providing the flexibility for framework amendments if these were required as the work progressed. The method of data entry can also be controlled via careful design of data entry forms to minimise the likelihood of any erroneous entries.

3.3 The fields used to record the material were based largely on the questions set out in the consultation document. The result was a comprehensive list of fields that formed the headings for the consultation database of responses.

Publication of written responses

3.4 After discussion with the Consultation Team, the convention adopted for this consultation has been to preserve anonymity of individual respondents and organisations, but to attribute their comments and quotes to the grouped respondent category to which they fit. In this way, a further depth is added to the analysis by providing some contextual information about the respondent type.

Analytical Framework

3.5 Responses from the general public utilising the questionnaire were generally provided in a tightly focussed format. Some questionnaires were returned by post; others were emailed back to the Scottish Executive. Given the vast number of responses, combined with the limited nature of individual responses, these were entered into a data processing package capable of dealing with 10,000s of questionnaire responses. In instances where a free flowing and lengthy submission was received, this was entered into the database alongside submissions from businesses and organisations.

Publication of questionnaire responses

3.6 Where individual respondents have agreed to publication, these responses are available in the Scottish Executive library. Free flowing organisational responses, which contain substantive information (and where the respondent had agreed to publication), were also published on the Scottish Executive website. Because of the large number of individual responses which were submitted using the public consultation document and the limited nature of the information involved, the decision was taken not to publish these on the internet.

Ground-Rules

Separate Responses from the Same Individual/Organisation

3.7 On occasions, one respondent may send in more than one response. The research team was alert to the possibilities of such double entries. Any identical or duplicate responses were picked up by hand searching or electronic screening and removed from the exercise. Where several identical responses could be associated with one individual, these were collated into one comprehensive response and attributed to that one respondent.

3.8 A total of 69 alternative submissions to the public consultation paper have been excluded from the analysis because they did not follow the format of the general public questionnaire and details of these are provided in Appendix 2.

Quality control

3.9 In order to minimise any inconsistencies in approach, the research team was kept to a minimum size and all worked to a well tested set of rules for data examination and entry. In accordance with our standard practice, members of the research team double-checked each other's decisions and highlighted to each other where a second opinion was required.

Quantitative Material

3.10 Given the vast number of responses from the general public to this consultation, the following process was followed for analysis.

• For each open-ended question, responses were listed and code frames developed (a code frame is a summarised list of all points made by respondents)

• Questionnaires were checked and coded manually by our experienced team of coders

• Data was entered on to disk

• A computer edit of the data was carried out prior to analysis, involving both range and inter-field checks

3.11 As with the lengthier responses from organisations however, the open nature of the consultation did not require people to provide a response on every issue and many respondents opted to provide more general comments rather than responding to each question posed. Thus, respondents could "opt in" to their chosen response topics.

3.12 Given the self-selecting nature of any consultation exercise, it should be noted that any statistics quoted here cannot be extrapolated to a wider population outwith the consultation population.

3.13 Given the variable levels of response to open questions, and the diverse range of comments submitted at different points in the questionnaire in response to open questions, the results from these questions are reported in a qualitative rather than quantitative style.

Factual Accuracy

3.14 The views presented in this analysis have not been vetted in any way for factual accuracy. The opinions and comments submitted to the consultation may be based on fact or may, indeed, be based on what respondents perceive to be accurate, but which others may interpret differently. It is important for the analysis to represent views from all perspectives. The report may, therefore, contain analysis of responses which may be factually inaccurate, but nevertheless reflect strongly held views. In some instances, such inaccuracies and misunderstandings will be relevant findings in themselves.

3.15 The following four chapters document the substance of the analysis, presenting the main issues, arguments and recommendations contained in the responses. These follow broadly the ordering of issues raised in the consultation document.

Interpretation of findings

3.16 The consultation received an extremely high number of responses, demonstrating that the issue of smoking in public places was clearly a significant one for large numbers of people. Nevertheless, those participating in this exercise were self selecting and each had their particular motivation to take part. The exercise was not intended to gain views that were representative of the Scottish population, but was intended to give all those who wished to comment an opportunity to do so. This has to be borne in mind in interpreting the findings presented here in this report.

Report structure

3.17 As the majority of respondents addressed their responses to each of the questions posed in the consultation report, the findings are presented for each of these questions in chapters 4, 5 and 6. Chapter 7 then discusses what could be done to encourage individual businesses to take action to become smoke-free or to provide more smoke-free provision and what else could be done to reduce peoples' exposure to second-hand smoke. Although most respondents provided answers to each of the questions, their responses often cited the same or similar reasons for their view separately for each question. Therefore there was some repetition in the themes being cited by respondents. These recurring themes will be highlighted when reporting on findings and Chapter 8 then brings each of these themes together and provides a summary.

« Previous | Contents | Next »