« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
ENHANCING SEXUAL WELLBEING IN SCOTLAND - A SEXUAL HEALTH AND RELATIONSHIPS STRATEGY: Analysis of Written Responses to the Public Consultation
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS APPROACH
2.1 The analysis of written responses followed the Consultation Good Practice Guidance provided by the Scottish Executive. This requires that the analysis should be robust and transparent.
2.2 The analytical approach adopted was appropriate for the volume and nature of this data. Since most responses were unstructured, the main chapter headings in the Draft Strategy were used as an organising framework. Certain modifications have been made to the organising framework to ensure inclusion of responses that did not readily fall within the chapter headings. Generally, responses either did not refer to specific elements of the Draft Strategy but made fairly broad statements, or conversely, commented only on one or two specific elements of the Draft Strategy (or on an interpretation of an element of it).
2.3 The analysis was approached systematically, starting with each response being read in full. During the initial full reading, a coding frame was developed reflecting the points and issues raised in the responses. The responses were then re-read and the main comments, views and issues were coded and transferred onto a tailored pro-forma. To enable some quantification, the pro-forma data was entered into a database. Further analysis was then undertaken using a combination of the database and the raw responses.
2.4 The analysis mapped the range and nature of views and, in appropriate cases, described any extreme opposing views. This involved looking for commonalties and uniqueness in response. Associations between responses have also been identified to indicate whether respondees from certain interest groups or with certain characteristics or experience held particular views. The analysis was not intended to produce a "single story" but includes multiple accounts and views from amongst respondents.
2.5 Respondents were grouped to aid analysis. The categories of respondents were as follows:
Organisations
Representatives of Education and Young People
Equalities (race, sex, disability etc)
Medical Health (e.g. clinical health professionals commenting on treatment)
Social Health (e.g. health or other professionals commenting on social aspects)
Faith Groups (Churches etc)
Miscellaneous
Individual
2.6 Care was taken to assign people to the correct category - particularly in relation to defining responses as Individual or Organisational. Where possible this was done using the Respondent Information Form but as so many of these forms were missing we needed to refer to the responses themselves in order to make the categorisation.
2.7 Where possible, categorisation was undertaken on the basis of how respondents described themselves. Examples of this were 'I am writing as a concerned parent', (Individual parent or grandparent) 'As a Christian', (Individual self-identified religious perspective) 'As the Chair of the School Board' (Representatives of Education and Young People). Parish Priests, for example, who stated that they were writing on behalf of their church or their parishioners were coded as responding on behalf of a Faith Group while those who stated 'I have been a minister for 25 years' were coded as Individual self-identified religious perspective.
2.8 Health Professionals were categorised using a combination of their current role and the content of their responses - for example, a GP discussing the social effects of the Draft Strategy would be 'Social Health'.
2.9 Quotes are used where relevant, but are anonymised so it is not possible to identify the source. These have been chosen to reflect the diversity of responses.
2.10 There was also a quantitative element to the analysis to provide a basic descriptive profile of the number of responses, type of respondent, interest groups, geography etc.
2.11 Checks have been made for very similar responses. These have been included in the count of total responses, but it has been noted where it is clear that these are the result of a campaign. Total duplicates (owing to both email and hard copies being submitted) have been removed
3.
2.12 The broad consensus of opinion, where it existed, is noted in concluding the analysis. Outstanding, unresolved or difficult issues have also been identified. Four individuals have been involved in the analysis at TNS to allow cross checking and validation of the interpretation of the data.
2.13 It is extremely important to note that, owing to the very nature of such a consultation process, which invites anyone to participate who wishes to do so, the responses are not based on a representative sample of those potentially affected by, or involved in the delivery of the Draft Strategy. Additionally, as respondents were asked to comment on the Draft Strategy overall, submissions were not based on 'closed questions' (i.e. questions with a limited number of response options such as 'yes/no' or 'agree/disagree') and vary greatly in their depth and nature. For example, some responses comprise a short paragraph commenting on one element, whereas other submissions commented on many recommendations and extended to numerous pages (in some cases with supporting materials attached).
2.14 Although responses were provided by a broad range of respondents, it appears that the vast majority of responses came from individuals with strong feelings about some elements of the Draft Strategy. While writing the report, we have tried to make sure that responses from all groups, however well represented, are given consideration.
2.15 However, it is clear that, in many cases, those in support or agreement with recommendations simply indicated their broad agreement and either made no further comment or flagged up an associated issue for consideration.
2.16 In contrast, respondents not in agreement with recommendations tended to make much more detailed comments. Therefore, note should be taken when reading the report that, even where many responses have been positive about the recommendations, the comments made are generally by those in opposition to the recommendation and care should be taken to consider the overall picture. Further, comments are not always an expansion of why respondents were opposed to a recommendation, but serve to offer suggestions, highlight reservations or concerns, or identify where areas relate to each other.
2.17 There are also some particular responses which we felt it was important that the Scottish Executive should read as they contained particularly detailed comments about individual proposals and we felt it would be beyond the scope of this report and not constructive merely to list these comments.
2.18 Before turning to the detailed analysis, it is useful to present an overview of respondents' general attitudes to the Draft Strategy. This was ascertained where either an overall perspective was noted in the response, or where enough detail was included in the response for an overall perspective to be assessed.
2.19 The considerable majority of respondents agreed with the Draft Strategy that action was required to deal with the growing problems of rising unplanned or unwanted pregnancies and increased sexual ill health.
2.20 However, as we will see in the following chapters, there were key differences in attitude among the different respondent groups in relation to what action or approach should be adopted to solve the identified problems.
2.21 Generally, Health Professionals and Equalities Groups were more broadly positive about the approach adopted in the Draft Strategy while Faith Groups and Individual respondents were much more negative (and Individual responses accounted for the considerable majority of responses).
2.22 For example, the considerable majority of Social and Medical Professionals were overall positive about the Draft Strategy with just a few reservations and issues. Similarly, two thirds of the Equality Group responses were broadly positive with qualifications.
2.23 Representatives of Education and Young People were more divided in their opinions than the Health Professionals, with around a third being overall positive but almost half being negative about the Draft Strategy. This is likely to be owing to the number of responses received from Catholic Schools and Catholic School Boards. Catholic individuals and organisations tended to be very negative about the proposals as a whole, viewing them as in direct conflict with key principles of the Catholic faith in general and Catholic education in particular.
2.24 At least half of Faith Group and Individual respondents were negative about the Draft Strategy overall. Additionally, in most other Faith Group and Individual responses, although it was not possible to ascertain the overall view on the Draft Strategy as comments were only made on one or two elements, the comments which were made were negative. However, some Faith Groups and Individuals did make more positive comments, though these were often qualified or accompanied by more critical discussion.
« Previous | Contents | Next »