The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER TWO The views of stakeholders

2.1 It is important to find out if those that are in a strategic position to take forward race equality and equality work in Scotland have shared understandings, or different perspectives, on the need for and usage of ethnic classifications. Against this background, the overall aim was to identify key issues and themes that the qualitative research with data users and providers should take into account. This was achieved by obtaining the views of some key stakeholders on the census ethnic classification system, as well as identifying changing views on ethnic classifications.

Purpose of Ethnic Monitoring

2.2 Respondents identified four reasons for ethnic monitoring:

• As a fact finding tool in terms of demographics e.g. population, workforce, student group within an educational establishment, prison population
• To enable the delivery of equality of opportunitye.g. in terms of service provision, development of government policy. To enable this would also require the correlation of data from different sources
• To monitor progress. This could be about monitoring the level of awareness of issues over a period of time within the general population, measuring progress against targets set by service providers, measuring whether there is a decrease in levels of racial discrimination over a period of time
• As an awareness raising mechanism to give visibility to the diversity of ethnicities currently in Scotland/ UK. This was seen as a very important tool to aid inclusion, that is, to be seen to matter enough to be counted

2.3 The consensus amongst all those who were interviewed was that there was a lack of clarity, and no common understanding, of the purpose of data gathering on ethnicity, both, from the perspectives of the ' information providers' and, in many instances, the 'information users' as well.

2.4 There was concern that the purpose of collecting statistics was seen by many public bodies and local authorities as a way of evidencing compliance with the Race Relations legislation rather than as a tool for delivering equality of opportunity.

2.5 Respondents were unanimous that ethnic monitoring should not just be about counting or profiling. It had to contribute to the improvement of services and quality of life for people. It should also assist the different layers of government (national and local) as well as public bodies, business, voluntary and community organisations to enhance their provision and improve the quality of access for all; that is both majority and minority ethnic people.

2.6 A distinction was made by all between the 'potential' purpose of gathering data on ethnicity and the current perceived lack of effective use of the data.

2.7 A number of respondents recognised that the Census 'was a blunt tool' which may have to be supplemented by more detailed probing at a local level. There was concern that a majority of local providers appeared to use Census data as a guide to deciding how local services would be provided to minority ethnic groups rather than probing at more local levels. Many also questioned the currency of the Census information, given the ten-year gap and the usefulness of the statistics in shaping policy, particularly at local levels.

Usage and dissemination of data

2.8 Stakeholder respondents generally agreed that there were three stages in any data collection process: (i) collating data; (ii) analysing the data; and (iii) acting on the analysis. The consensus, however, was that there was little evidence of stages two and three.

2.9 A lack of evidence over how ethnicity data was being used was consistently raised by all those interviewed. Just one example of data usage was cited in the course of the stage 1 interviews, with one respondent citing the example of the Scottish Parliament as a model of good practice; this being an audit of the Parliament's workforce.

2.10 The audit is conducted in two parts; Part 1 being a quantitative audit of the profile of the workforce, for example, including questions on age, sexual orientation, gender, ethnicity and disability; and Part 2 of the audit involving recording the experiences of staff in relation to a range of areas such as recruitment, progression, harassment, and staff development. The data is then correlated to the data gained in Part 1 to provide a holistic picture of the experiences of employees within the Parliament. ⁶ The analysis of this exercise is placed on the website of the Parliament for information. This was seen as the type of good practice all public bodies in Scotland should be engaging in as part of their ethnic monitoring data gathering exercise. ⁷

2.11 Overall it was felt that the lack of visible demonstration of how the data was being used acted as a disincentive for people to take questions on ethnicity seriously, and in many cases may lead to individuals not providing the information needed. The unanimous view among our sample was of little, if any, evidence of data being used to tackle inequalities. For example, the lack of positive action schemes in employment was cited by one participant as an instance where, despite the availability of data demonstrating discrimination in employment amongst minority ethnic groups in Scotland, there has been little or no effective interventions.

2.12 A number of our respondents made a distinction between data usage based on the Census and information required at the local level. Respondents felt that local authorities, other public bodies and service providers needed to go beyond the quantitative national data to qualitative data gathering to provide really useful detail about needs and experiences. Participants commented that there should not just be a reliance on statistics to promote equal opportunities or improve services but to use focus groups and other qualitative methods of collecting data to give a more realistic picture of 'on the ground' experiences and needs

2.13 Some respondents indicated that data gathering at a local level had to be more than a technical 'number crunching exercise'; it had to be part of an ongoing relationship building process between communities and local authorities/public bodies. It was felt to be important for any agencies delivering services at the local level to be aware of the diversity of the communities they were seeking to serve. It was added that this could be actioned by developing mechanisms and tools for achieving such awareness and understanding, with a view to creating specific policy interventions that had visible and well defined outcomes.

2.14 Some respondents stated that ethnic monitoring data collected by local government and key service providers should be made available to smaller agencies, particularly, voluntary sector and non-governmental organisations serving communities. Smaller organisations did not have the financial or human capacity to necessarily monitor at the scale and depth required but would find the ability to extract such information immensely helpful in planning their own provision more appropriately and effectively. It was argued that bigger public bodies and local authorities often depend on these smaller agencies to scaffold and develop their own work and therefore such partnerships, in relation to data sharing, should be possible. There was recognition that issues of data protection and confidentiality were aspects to be considered by local government and service providers, however, it was still felt that generic local data could be made available while adhering to data protection issues. Data protection, professional territorialism, poor information technology and lack of leadership from public sector agencies were all given as contributory reasons for poor data dissemination.

2.15 A few respondents stated that it was critical to correlate data. This was necessary so that meaning could be given to different experiences, for example, the needs of a non-English speaking minority will be different to those that do speak English, or that of a male of a particular faith group to that of a female of the same faith group. Some respondents felt that unless correlations were made between ethnicity and other census questions different experiences would be masked. In particular, it was stated that issues of social class and levels of education together with ethnicity mattered, and the Census and local government data collation mechanisms needed to be able to record multiple identities so that issues of multiple discriminations can be explored .It was also suggested that there needed to be connectivity between Census data and data gained from other survey mechanisms such as the Scottish Attitudes Survey.

2.16 Some respondents felt strongly that current usage of ethnic monitoring data was being abused. They reported instances where comments seemed to be used an excuse for not engaging with race equality issues, for example, ' there are not many of them here' or as a justification to apportion resources to minority communities who were larger in numbers rather than on the basis of needs. This was seen as highly divisive of local communities and did little to assist diverse communities build bridges, create links or to bond.

2.17 With the exception of one individual who advocated caution on the issue of disaggregation into smaller ethnic categories, the other respondents felt that the information derived from the ethnicity data (based on the Census categorisation) in its present form was limited given that the categories are conceptually confused and inconsistent. It was stated that many minority ethnic people and groups do not feel they are effectively identified or included. However, the challenge of maintaining confidentiality and anonymity where the size of a specific group is small was also raised by a participant as requiring consideration.

Classification categories

2.18 There was a broad consensus among this qualitative sample of stakeholders with regard to the current classifications used on four issues.

2.19 Conceptual confusion and lack of consistency: All the respondents agreed that the current classifications were both confusing and inconsistent. The confusion of colour with ethnicity and spatial /geographical categories was seen to generate data that was inaccurate, open to a range of interpretations and meaningless in that it did not reflect the diversities that exist. Furthermore, respondents felt the current framework did not provide an effective tool for addressing the needs of all communities irrespective of their size. Some respondents pointed out that the current ethnicity question was quasi-objective unlike many of the other Census questions, which were seen as factual objective questions, like 'what is the country of your birth?'. It was argued that the original purpose for including an ethnicity question in the 1991 Census was to enable minority ethnic groups to be counted and made visible. On that basis, it was felt that the current ethnicity classification framework had not been successful, as it did not capture the real diversities within Scotland.

2.20 For example, in the current framework it would not be possible to quantify the number of people who considered themselves Scottish and Asian as those statistics are amalgamated under the banner of 'Asian, Asian Scottish or Asian British'. This gives the message that it is not important to know how many people classified themselves as Asian Scottish. This applies to African Scottish and other categories. The ability to be able to be able to record the number of minority ethnic groups who consider themselves to be Scottish is important largely to dispel the current dominant thinking that still equates being Scottish to being white and being born in Scotland. The consensus view was that if a colour question was to be asked it should be separate from ethnicity. For example as one participant pointed out: " where would a Libyan fit into the current categorisation? Would s/he tick the 'African' box?" The current categorisation makes an assumption that a person has to be 'black' to be African.

2.21 Categories as divisive and exclusive: Generally, respondents expressed grave concern that the current ethnicity framework did little to promote community cohesion. Respondents felt that the categories as currently articulated were exclusive, marginalising the identities of those who were non-visible minorities as well as those visible minorities who were small in number. It was considered to be an example of institutional racism by some and a route to ignoring the needs of smaller visible minorities, as well as those from non-visible minorities, such as the Gypsy/Travellers. Concern was expressed that communities that had contributed a great deal to Scottish society like the Italian and Polish communities continue to be unrecognised in their own right through either tick boxes or disaggregated Census data.

2.22 Similarly, people with a Middle Eastern background, for example, Turkish, Kurd, Iraqi, and Iranian are missed out all together. These are newer communities within Scotland but are not acknowledged or disaggregated under current Census classifications. These communities are largely already invisible within minority ethnic discourses where numbers appear to dominate for provision and services and this invisibility is compounded if there is no legitimate ethnicity data to draw from.

2.23 The acknowledgment of specific ethnicities under the 'Asian' category and the exclusion of others were perceived as unfair especially by the visible minorities who have small populations and by those who cannot comprehend why Asians are disaggregated, but not other groups such as Africans. It was also suggested that some of the groups who are specifically highlighted ( e.g. Pakistani, Chinese, etc.) in the Census question on ethnicity were unclear as to why they were specifically identified and other minorities were not, creating suspicion about the purpose of the data collected.

2.24 One respondent argued that it was legitimate to specifically identify minority ethnic groups with sizeable populations - especially where evidence of discrimination had been clearly demonstrated. However, other stakeholder respondents did not support this view arguing strongly for a system where all minorities had the possibility of identifying themselves, irrespective of the size of their population.

2.25 The 'other' category: Three specific issues emerged in relation to this category. First, the increasingly diverse ethnicities that this category is expected to encompass. For example, several respondents pointed out that people from the Middle East, Eastern and Central Europe are likely to be invisible in the current form. Simply relegating new communities to 'other' was not seen as inclusive or acceptable. Second, for a number of groups (for example, Gypsy/ Travellers and smaller visible groups, e.g. Turkish), constantly putting oneself in the 'other box' was seen as ' psychologically devaluing', rendering some groups invisible. And finally, there were concerns expressed about the level and nature of analysis of the information in the 'other' category with a view to addressing needs but also informing future categorisation systems.

2.26 Colour as a Category: One participant argued very strongly that the level of racism and discrimination in Scotland towards all minority ethnic groups was still high enough to use the broad categories of 'white' and 'black'. However, other stakeholders felt that the categories 'black' and 'white' were potentially racist, meaningless and insulting as they exclude those who are neither black or white.

2.27 Some respondents expressed concern about 'colour' which they perceived as a form of labelling that was racist in itself, whilst others felt that colour coding was inaccurate as only blacks and whites were coded and not other skin colour variations. This was seen to be highly unacceptable and, for some, offensive.

2.28 Stakeholder respondents agreed that colour was a factor in racial discrimination and felt that it was the most obvious trigger for attracting racist abuse, harassment and treatment. Generally, they saw racism as a complex phenomenon, making reference to racism against invisible minorities in Scotland, such as white Eastern Europeans, Gypsy/Travellers, and white English people. They thought this type of prejudice should also be acknowledged. For these respondents, racism was not merely a matter of colour. For the individual supporting the broad 'white' and 'black' category it was a matter of adopting a pragmatic strategy to demonstrate and address the issue of racism and discrimination.

2.29 Some respondents remarked that the experiences of people who were not white, whether they be Scottish born or recently arrived, were different to the experiences of white people and that these experiences, particularly of racism and racial discrimination, needed to be recognised. These were vocalised strongly by several respondents who either belonged to or worked directly with minority ethnic communities and individuals.

The absence of a section on 'languages'

2.30 Several respondents raised concern that the wide range of languages spoken in Scotland was not part of the Census. It was felt to be important to include a section on languages spoken, as language was very much part of the identity of an individual, as the inclusion of a question on Gaelic would confirm. Equally, people could be discriminated against because of their language, or more precisely whether they are able to speak English or not. Therefore it was thought to be important for service design, and delivery, to have knowledge of populations in areas that may speak particular languages.

2.31 An example was given of how an Asian woman dressed in Western style clothes, speaking English with a local accent, and shopping in a supermarket would get a different reception to a white woman from Eastern Europe who spoke no English. Discrimination was, therefore, seen as complex. Colour, ethnicity, appearance, language, age, gender were just some of the potential triggers in this one example given by a respondent. This suggests a strong need for data collection to be as robust as possible so that more detailed information can be used to deeper understanding.

Suggestions for improvement

Colour and ethnicity

2.32 Overall, stakeholder respondents felt that colour and ethnicity should be separate. They commented that it was important to find a way of measuring whether colour discrimination existed and, over time, whether it was increasing or decreasing. However, respondents were less certain about how a colour question could be asked in a way that ensured maximum 'buy in' to the question. It was also generally understood that terms like 'Black' were used politically to refer to people who had suffered racism because they were not 'White'. However, a crude colour categorisation with 'White/Black' was seen as unlikely to be satisfactory in that there are people who do not perceive themselves as black or white.

2.33 One respondent suggested that if the intention of including colour was to gauge levels of discrimination because of colour, it might be more meaningful if the colour option was listed alongside a range of other characteristics which could trigger discrimination. This is illustrated in Option 1 below, or it was suggested that an explicit question could be asked about colour discrimination (Option 2, also below).

Option 1:

To ask a generic question to ascertain experience of discrimination. For example:

'In the last 12 months, have you experienced discrimination because of your …' (Please tick all that apply)

Option 2:

In the last 12 months, have you experienced discrimination because of your colour?

Yes No

If yes, please explain: __________________________________________

2.34 If the above data was correlated with other Census questions ( e.g. questions on country of birth and ethnicity) it would provide a picture of discrimination nationally, but also at a more local level.

2.35 It could, however, be argued that in both the above example questions, it may still not be possible to accurately find out about 'non-white' colour discrimination. However, Option 1 could be perceived as a more inclusive way of asking the colour question and one that acknowledges multiple identities and discrimination.

2.36 Other than the options above, respondents were not clear how else to ask the colour question.

Recognising diversity

2.37 One stakeholder respondent felt that breaking down groups into sub-categories would lead to fragmentation, making it difficult to address issues of racism in Scotland effectively. Others disagreed and suggested that it was important for ethnic categories to be inclusive of all visible and non-visible communities, irrespective of their size as ethnicity was not just confined to those who were visible. Although those interviewed were not specific about what categories might be used, they nevertheless expressed a strong desire for a system that enabled everyone to have a chance to be identified in a way they felt comfortable with.

2.38 Stretching the ethnicity categories to include smaller minorities and invisible minorities would present a much more diverse and true picture of the current population in Scotland and Britain. A few respondents indicated that there would be more differences between North and South Africans than Scottish and English. Additionally, overly generic categories would not enable data about different attainment rates, for example between African, Caribbean, Chinese, Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Indian pupils to emerge.

2.39 One respondent suggested that people could be asked to tick under broad regional headings as already used by the United Nations e.g. European, Asian, African, Middle Eastern, North American, South American. This would give an idea of how people viewed their origins but then respondents could be asked to further self-define e.g. Middle Eastern and Turkish, African and Ethiopian, Asian and Indian. Such a framework could be worked on to enable people to have multiple identities e.g. African Scottish, Scottish Iranian.

2.40 A few respondents indicated that knowing the ethnicities of people and where they are geographically could contribute to bridging, bonding and linking people and communities. These are essential for developing community and social capital. Such data would also assist service providers to plan appropriately. For example, placing asylum seekers in areas where they may find support in language, faith, and cuisine from similar communities assists their development and reduces isolation. This might also enhance personal safety and enable the growth of self-confidence and increase opportunities.

2.41 It was also stated by a few respondents that unpacking the diversities would assist in deconstructing the category 'white' and record the range of diversities that are currently masked under 'white'. These respondents felt this was critical, if racism was to be challenged and good race relations promoted.

2.42 Respondents, overall, were mindful of the need for comparability of data between countries within Great Britain. However, they did not see extending categories as being problematic. It was felt that data could be aggregated up for national comparisons, but conversely, if the framework was insufficiently diverse, you could not disaggregate down for local relevance.

Clarifying purpose and use

2.43 Improving categorisation on its own was not considered adequate in allaying any anxieties people may have in completing questions on ethnicity. While stakeholder respondents accepted that there were often very brief explanations about the reason for ethnic monitoring, there was less information on how such data has made a difference to public policy or local level service delivery changes. Clarifying and communicating the purpose of gathering data on ethnicity, and demonstrating the ways in which data was being used to improve people's lives, was seen as an area which could be vastly improved.

2.44 Several respondents felt it was very important to educate the public about the purposes of ethnic monitoring. This information would reassure those who perhaps considered ethnic monitoring to be a mere exercise in 'political correctness' or an infringement of individual privacy. It would also allay the fears of those providing the information ( e.g. refugees who have been tortured or exiled because of their ethnicity, age, nationality, faith and so forth); reassuring them that the information would have a positive impact and make a difference to their lives. It was thought that positive and reassuring messages played an important role in maximising the accuracy of people's responses.

Voluntary self-classification

2.45 Overall, stakeholder participants in this study felt that the current system of classifying people was constraining, in that it forced individuals to fit into boxes they may not feel reflected their sense of who they were, and indeed may well lead to non-completion. Whilst many of the respondents taking part in stage 1 supported, the ability to self-define, it was accepted that this made collation a difficult task.

2.46 Additionally, the basis for self-identification was not always clear. Some suggested nationality/citizenship as well as country of origin and colour.

2.47 On the matter of closed or open questions, there were divided responses. Some respondents suggesting open questions as a way forward for ethnic classifications and others rejected this approach. Those that rejected the open question method spoke mainly from experience of trying to ethnically monitor using an open question. It was felt that it was more pertinent to expand the ethnicity tick box options. This would acknowledge that there is no single category that is homogenous.

Other issues raised in Stage 1

Who decides on the categories in the Census form?

2.48 Respondents were not clear who decided on the categories that could be included on a Census form. There was a perception that the General Registrar's Office took its lead from data users who provided a menu of the type of data they would require in order to shape and deliver services. However, there was also a view that the data users felt restricted as they were limited by the fixed categories drawn up by GROS. Overall, there remained a concern that minority ethnic communities and equality experts were unable to influence Census data frameworks.

2.49 Concern was also expressed that unless the Census framework included, for example, wider ethnicity categories to include non-visible minorities or de-coupled colour from ethnicity, these changes were unlikely to be taken up and legitimised at local level. It was felt by some respondents that the current Census framework, coupled with repeated advice from the Commission for Racial Equality ( CRE) to use these frameworks, had meant little local variation had occurred. Consequently, it was believed that a confused ethnicity classification would continue to be legitimised and replicated unless changes were made nationally.

The needs of small communities

2.50 Many of the stakeholders interviewed felt strongly that all groups, irrespective of their population size, should have an opportunity to be identified. This was not just from a service delivery perspective, but also as a way for individuals to find out if there were others of the same ethnic group ( i.e. 'co-ethnics') and where they were, in order to network and help overcome social isolation.

Specific issues in relation to Gypsy/Traveller communities

2.51 There were three specific issues raised in relation to Gypsy/Traveller communities:

Generational differences

2.52 The issue of differences in the way in which identity might be articulated between older and younger people was raised. Essentially, the question of young people filling in forms, like the Census, on behalf of their parents, or vice-versa, but more specifically in cases where the older community were unable to communicate in English. In this context, it was felt that the younger people might prefer to identify themselves as 'British' as they did not wish to be identified as being different from the majority population, whereas their parents might prefer to identify themselves in terms of their country of origin. The danger being that the young person fills in the form erroneously.

2.53 There were also concerns expressed by a few respondents that there was insufficient consultation with young people on how they wished to be classified. These respondents felt that consideration needed to be given as to how the young people of today, who will be the form fillers of the future, may wish to identify themselves. Furthermore, there was also concern about how the growing mixed cultural heritage group /dual identity groups will be accommodated in the classification systems being developed.

Expanding the question on religion

2.54 One respondent suggested that the religion question could be modified to include the different sects/denominations of the other major faiths already cited on the form. Another respondent suggested that the wording of question 13 of the current Census form should be modified to say 'What religion, religious denomination or body do you consider you have, or do you associate with' rather than the current phrase using the word 'belong'. It was suggested that there are people who have an affinity to a faith/belief group but do not belong in the sense of a membership into that particular faith.

Scottish solutions and the question of identity

2.55 A few respondents indicated that it was important for Scotland to consider how it intended to be inclusive of different ethnic groups and what role ethnicity classifications had in this process. The example was given of national identities from the United States and Canada where people from a range of ethnic groups swear allegiance to the flag and celebrate July 4 ^th in the US and Canada Day on July 1 ^st. People might be singing their anthems with a Korean, Irish, Turkish, Ghanaian or a range of other assorted accents, but they did so with pride. They are Korean Americans or Ghanaian Canadians and their children see themselves with multiple identities too. This multiplicity is not seen in any way as unpatriotic or diluting notions of being American or Canadian, yet in Britain there appears to be a need to be singularly British in order to retain your British credentials. It was suggested that there was a need to move away from an 'imposed' sense of British-ness or Scottish-ness which expects an individual to dilute or negate other aspects of their cultural, ethnic or national identities.

2.56 It was therefore argued that the Census framework, with an imposed configuration, does not aid diversity or integration. It denies people an equitable way to define themselves in a way that allows them to hold onto their cultural and ethnic identities. It relegates those that are not in the majority to the 'other' category.

2.57 Several respondents felt strongly that Scotland needed to have their own national ethnicity statistics, which could be broad and diverse but could also be aggregated to enable UK wide comparability. Some respondents did not want the Executive or the Scottish Parliament to be constrained into the UK picture.

International lessons

2.58 One respondent called for the new framework to draw on lessons learnt from international ethnic monitoring models. There was also thought to be a need to learn how other countries utilised data gained nationally for local relevance and consequence.

« Previous | Contents | Next »