The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Chapter one Introduction

Background

1.1 The 2001 Census revealed that minority ethnic groups comprise 2% of the population in Scotland. Of this 2%, the majority are Asian (70%). The Census currently collects data on ethnicity by asking respondents which ethnic background they feel best describes them. People can choose from a list of fourteen choices under five broad ethnic categories: White; Mixed; Asian, Asian Scottish or Asian British; Black, Black Scottish or Black British; and Other.

1.2 Reactions to the ethnicity categorisations used in the Census have been polarised, both in England and Scotland ¹. Debate has centred on the following four key issues:

• The use and purpose of gathering data on ethnicity;
• The use of terms such as 'black' and 'white' as a description of all visible minorities and the majority community, thus hiding the differences within both groups;
• The inconsistent and confused basis of categorisation, which veers between geography and colour, replicating what some have called 'apartheid' categories ² and rendering some groups invisible; and
• Whether communities, particularly small communities, could influence classification frameworks.

There has also been a tendency to conflate the term 'ethnicity' with 'non-white', thus de-emphasising the ethnic identity of both the white majority and other white groups.

1.3 The requirement to arrive at an inclusive, workable framework has been given further impetus by the monitoring and impact assessment requirements of the Race Relations (2000) Amendment Act, which placed a duty on all public bodies to gauge the effect of all their policies on different ethnic groups. It is argued that classified communities stand to have material benefits, while those that are not, may not ³.

1.4 Margaret Curran, then Minister for Communities, gave a commitment in 2003 to re-evaluate ethnicity classifications to better reflect the diversity of Scotland's communities, with the ultimate aim of gathering more meaningful information to better promote race equality.

1.5 Any such framework developed would need to be acceptable both to those from whom the data was to be collected, and those using the data. A framework which was unacceptable to data providers would run the risk of yielding incomplete, confused or inaccurate data, while one which data users had difficulty in using might make it difficult to compare data over time or between different areas.

1.6 Towards the end of 2004 BMRB Social Research, CERES and UHI PolicyWeb were commissioned to carry out research into ethnicity classifications with a view to exploring the issues described above.

Research Aims and Objectives

1.7 The overall aim of the research was to inform the development of a classification of ethnic identity. A classification that would be acceptable to individuals, whilst still providing the people who use such data (referred to as 'data users') with a framework that would enable them to gather and use data effectively. The research therefore needed to explore how individuals would wish to classify their ethnic identity ('data providers'), whilst looking at the informational needs of data users.

1.8 More specifically, the research aimed to:

• Identify the views of data providers in relation to ethnic identity classifications, including religion, ethnicity and country of birth;
• Explore the ways in which data providers would wish to classify their identity, including considering issues of multiple identity and strength of identification, and whether a set of questions about ethnic identity would be preferable to a single question;
• Identify the reasons why data users need data about different aspects of ethnic identity and what data is needed;
• Identify data users' views about the implications of changing ethnic identity classifications; and
• Develop recommendations for the consultation approaches to be used in any future consultation on proposals for ethnic identity classification frameworks.

1.9 Whilst the research was tasked to explore the best way of capturing data on ethnicity, it was understood from the outset that one option might be for the 2001 census question on ethnicity not to be changed at all.

Research Design

1.10 The research was designed to take account of the views of both data providers - defined as all individuals who provide data about their ethnic identity - and data users.

1.11 Data providers were 'ordinary' members of the Scottish public, drawn from a wide variety of ethnic backgrounds. Data users were staff working for the Scottish Executive, as well as several public bodies who were known to be using data on ethnicity. It was also felt to be important to gather the views of people directly involved in community groups and networks.

1.12 The research was designed in three stages. The first stage involved interviewing stakeholders, who had an interest in the area of ethnic identity, to discuss the broader issues and significance of the work being undertaken. The findings from this stage were used to inform the research among data users and data providers. The second stage was with data users. This explored the ways in which data users were collecting data on ethnicity, their reasons for doing so and the uses to which the data was being put. The research among data users also looked at alternative methods of classification covering advantages and disadvantages, as well as the implications of changing to a different method. The third stage was with data providers and involved exploring a range of issues, including how and why people define themselves in certain ways, and the extent to which definitions may change according to the context the data provider finds themself in.

Methodology

1.13 The study adopted a wholly qualitative methodology combining both in-depth interviews and group discussions. In-depth interviews are an excellent method for allowing people to talk at length about their individual views and experiences. Group discussions have the advantage of encouraging participants to share ideas and consider alternative points of view. Consequently, a combination of methods was used to maximise on the advantages of each. However, the emphasis was placed on one-to-one interviews as it was felt important to gain a good understanding of how different factors interrelate in an individual's case, which would be limited by a group situation. A slightly different approach was taken with data users. Here respondents were interviewed in pairs. This was because the research team were keen to balance the views of those handling data on ethnicity (for example, collating statistics) with those developing policy around diversity and equal opportunities; bringing people together at the same interview can be very illuminating.

1.14 For stage 1, a combination of face to face and telephone in-depth interviews were conducted among stakeholders and community groups. Eight of these interviews took place face to face and four were over the telephone. Where feasible and acceptable to the participants in stage 1, interviews were tape-recorded.

1.15 For stages 2 and 3, the interviews and group discussions were all conducted face-to-face and all the fieldwork was tape-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The fieldwork took place in a variety of venues including respondents' homes, places of work, colleges and, in a few cases, at a research facility in Glasgow.

1.16 The interviews lasted between 30 minutes and 1_ hours; the group discussions each lasted 1_ hours. The fieldwork was facilitated by experienced researchers using a topic guide agreed with the project steering group. Three topic guides were developed for the project, one for each stage, and these can be found in the appendix to this report.

1.17 At each stage, the research team ensured that participants based in both urban and rural parts of Scotland were included in the study.

1.18 The number of interviews and group discussions conducted at each stage is illustrated in the table below:

Table 1.1 Research design

The sample profile

Stage 1

1.19 The individuals who took part in stage 1 were people known to be working with a range of visible and non-visible groups, representing majority and minority communities. The participants are listed in Appendix 1.

• Black Community Development Project
• Scottish Refugee Council
• Scottish Jewish Representative Council
• Grampian Racial Equality Council
• Glasgow Caledonian University
• Glasgow Antiracist Alliance
• Glasgow Traveller and Gypsy Community Development Project
• Centre for Human Ecology
• Dumfries and Galloway Multicultural Forum
• Moray, Highlands and Islands Chinese Association

• Equality Network, Scotland

Stage 2

1.20 A range of data users were invited to take part in the interviews at stage 2. These covered people working for:

• The Scottish Executive
• The Prison Service
• A Human Resources ( HR) department
• A local authority
• The Office of the Chief Statistician
• NHSScotland
• Education sector
• The Police

1.21 Respondents were selected to reflect a range of different data users and, in some cases, because they were known to be using an ethnicity classification that was different from the one used on the 2001 Census. Due to funding and time limitations it was not possible to widen the sample but it was hoped that purposefully selecting organisations to take part would enable the research team to capture a variety of views and data needs. As mentioned earlier, steps were taken to include respondents who were information officers or statisticians, as well as people who could give a policy perspective ( i.e. respondents who used data on ethnicity to plan strategy and service provision).

Stage 3

1.22 It was decided that the aim for the stage 3 sample should be to ensure that a very diverse set of individuals was interviewed in-depth about their ethnicity and views of classifications. A decision was taken at the outset that it was better to reach out to a variety of people than to narrow the scope of the project to majority groups. This had the effect of limiting the type of analysis that could be undertaken. However, the team were particularly concerned that the views of people from groups that were small in percentage terms, when compared to the Scottish population as a whole, were included in the study as traditionally their views were often not heard.

Table 1.2 Sample profile of the participants in the data provider interviews

* RA is an abbreviation for Retirement Age

Table 1.3 Characteristics of the participants in the group discussions

Recruitment

Stage 1

1.23 The people selected to take part in stage 1 were not chosen to be representative of user provider groups or networks as a whole, but rather to provide illuminative information to be analysed alongside other data gathered in this study. The research team drew up the list of eleven respondents, with some suggestions from the Scottish Executive Equality Unit.

Stage 2

1.24 Data users were identified in collaboration with the project steering group. Contacts known to the research team, the steering group and the Equality Unit at the Scottish Executive were followed up by a professional recruiter briefed by the research team. Interviews were then conducted with a nominee or nominees from a variety of organisations.

Stage 3

1.25 Members of the general public were recruited to take part in the interviews and group discussions using a technique known as 'free-find' ⁵. BMRB has a network of recruiters based in locations across the UK. For this project professional recruiters based in Scotland were engaged to make direct contact with local people. This was sometimes in liaison with community groups and, for the group discussions, with further and higher education colleges.

1.26 A recruitment-screening questionnaire was designed by the research team for use by the recruiters to ensure a diverse sample of respondents and to confirm respondents' eligibility to take part. Each respondent was made aware that their participation was voluntary and that they had the right to withdraw from the research at any stage.

Use of interpreters

1.27 The nature of the research meant that the research team could not assume that all the respondents would speak English. Arrangements were made for an interpreter to be present at interviews as necessary. The concepts discussed were abstract and thought-provoking, and so respondents who did not speak English as their first language were encouraged to have an interpreter present. Professional interpreters based in Scotland were engaged by the research team and given an advance briefing on the specific requirements of interpretation during qualitative interviews. In all other cases the interviews were conducted in English.

Analysis of the data

1.28 A systematic and comprehensive analysis of the qualitative data was undertaken. This ensured that the extraction and interpretation of the findings was based on the raw data rather than on the researchers' impressions. For this study, the techniques included:

• A review of the verbatim transcripts;
• An initial debrief among the research team to discuss the emerging themes;
• Drawing up a framework based on the themes and sub-themes identified;
• Taking each transcript and sifting data according to the analysis framework;
• Reviewing the summarised data; comparing and contrasting the perceptions, accounts, or experiences; searching for patterns or connections within the data and seeking explanations internally within the data set.

1.29 As part of this process, verbatim quotes were drawn from the transcripts to illustrate and illuminate the findings presented in this report.

« Previous | Contents | Next »