« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
CHAPTER SIX THE VIEWS OF DATA PROVIDERS: THE
STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF DIFFERENT
CLASSIFICATIONS
INTRODUCTION
6.1 As the concepts being discussed were very abstract,
three different methods of classifying ethnicity were shown
to respondents during the interviews and group discussions.
These acted as stimulus materials, helping them to frame
ideas and encouraging them to think about what constituted
an "ideal" framework around which to base the question.
- Three different classifications were used. Apart
from the 2001 Census question on ethnicity itself, the
other two examples were not selected as being the best
available, rather because they presented different
approaches to collecting and/or categorising ethnicity.
All three examples are shown in the Appendices to this
report.
6.2 Certain themes emerged which were common across all
three classifications. Most fundamentally these included
the usage of the terms "White", "Black" and "Asian" as a
basis for the frameworks; and also the whole concept of
expanding categories instead of having two or three very
broad categories. These common strengths and weaknesses, as
well as conceptual themes such as length of framework, are
discussed in the chapter. Only those themes which were not
common to all three frameworks are discussed under the
individual framework headings below.
Common factors
6.3 This section considers the factors common to all
three classifications. A comparison of the three
classifications is made, which identifies common strengths
and weaknesses and considers how respondents thought the
different approaches might best be combined or otherwise
changed in order to come up with a workable ethnicity
framework. (As the classifications were used as stimulus
material respondents were, of course, free to reject all
three when they considered their 'ideal' framework.)
Following this, the three common themes are considered in
more detail, covering degree of specificity, single and
multiple classifications, and the 'Other' category.
Comparison of categories
Common strengths
6.4 Generally, respondents felt that all three
classifications would be varied enough for most people to
be able to find a category that described them (although
there were certain exceptions, which will be considered in
the section on common weaknesses below).
6.5 Not including religion was felt to be a positive
point by some, as they felt their religion was a personal
matter and that it either had little to do with their
ethnicity or they did not want to describe it, although
others did not agree.
"I think religion should not play into, religion
should be kept aside on people's personal whatever, I
think religion should not divide." (Male, Age 52,
Interview No.30)
6.6 Having a specific "Mixed/Dual" category was
appreciated by those respondents who felt that this
reflected their ethnic background. It made them feel as
though they were
"officially" included. As has been discussed
earlier, the historical lack of a 'Mixed' code as standard
in ethnicity classifications was something that certain
respondents had both noticed and disliked.
"It's nice to actually be included and just be part
of Scottish society completely, like officially, if you
see what I mean? So I like that, I think it's lovely."
(Female, Age 18-24, Interview No.27)
Common weaknesses
6.7 Although some respondents had specifically praised
the classifications for avoiding the mention of religion in
relation to ethnicity, others felt that the omission of
categories on religion and language meant that the sample
classifications were less valuable in giving a true
reflection of a data provider's ethnicity.
6.8 Some respondents, particularly those who had spent
time thinking about notions of ethnicity, rejected the
fundamental categories around which all the classifications
were based. They felt that the descriptors 'white', 'black'
and 'Asian' were inconsistent, being based both around skin
colour and geography. The point was also made that the
categories were not inclusive. For example, respondents who
were white but from Africa or the Caribbean would find it
difficult to place themselves according to these
categories.
6.9 Some data providers could not see any rationale for
relating colour to ethnicity. They suggested instead a
nationality-based list of categories. Others felt it was
important to gather data on colour, but suggested that it
was given less prominence, as there were other factors such
as language and nationality that were also important in
determining things like access to services. A similar
system of nationality categories was therefore suggested,
with the option of ticking 'White' or 'Black' in each.
6.10 Another issue that some respondents thought was a
common weakness across the classifications was the omission
of certain categories. Although respondents did vary in how
specific they felt ethnicity frameworks should be, there
was some discussion about which ethnic groups should be
included. 'African' was thought to be a large and diverse
category; some felt so large that they could not see what
possible use could be made of the data. It was suggested
either that specific countries should be listed or, if this
would make the form too large, that the regions North,
South, East and West Africa should be specified.
"I'm not African because it's undermining that
Africa is a continent, you know what I mean, they're
saying 'what's your ethnic background?'. African, it's
actually wrong because for me, someone from Senegal to
someone from South Africa, we got absolutely, I mean
absolutely no ethnic anything in common apart from the
colour of our skin, end of line, you know? Like I'll go
today to South Africa, I'll be surprised how they
live." (Male, Age 35-49, Interview No.17)
6.11 Similarly, the use of 'Asian' in subcategories was
questioned by some respondents. They did not see the reason
for referring to 'Asian Indian', 'Asian Bangladeshi' and so
on, believing that Asian data providers would identify
themselves solely in terms of their country of origin or
ancestry.
"If they were going to use Asian, they don't need
to use Asian Indian, Asian Pakistani. The people, if
they're going to consider themselves, if they want to
be called Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, they wouldn't
[use] another tag, label on it that they're Asian.
Either they're Asian and Asia covers a whole area, you
know, quite a few countries under that, or they will
consider themselves individually with their country,
their link. To me, that ... it doesn't make any sense."
(Male, Age 35-49, Interview No.20)
6.12 Some respondents questioned why certain countries
were specified separately and not others. Although they did
not necessarily feel this was a problem, and could even
guess at potential reasons, such as the size of the ethnic
community in Scotland, that why some countries had been
picked out, they did feel that it was difficult to justify
listing certain countries separately while others were left
under 'Other'.
"I've always wondered why people always put
Chinese, I mean there are other major Asian countries
as well, like Japan… Korea, those are not in this, just
Chinese. Looking from that I think it's fine. … It
could be because, I think there is a bigger Chinese
community in Scotland, than a Japanese or Korean, and
things like that." (Male, Age 25-34, Interview
No.15a)
6.13 Finally, some respondents seemed confused by the
categories used. For example, one data provider who came
from South Africa said that she was just as likely to tick
Black Caribbean as Black African on a form, as she did not
think there was a great deal of difference between
them.
The Ideal method of classifying data
providers
6.14 Some stage 3 respondents felt that the categories
used in the example classifications were the wrong ones and
proposed their own. However, others suggested ways in which
the approaches adopted by the sample classifications might
usefully be combined in order to make a workable
framework.
6.15 Generally, the preference was for the national
identity question in Classification 2, but with the Census
categories replacing the second part asking about ethnic
background. Respondents liked the opportunity to emphasise
their national identity, whilst at the same time keeping it
separate from their ethnicity. The Census categories were
chosen over those in the second part of Classification 2
for two reasons: because the 'White' category was wider and
because it offered respondents the chance to specify (write
in) other ethnic backgrounds.
Specificity of categories
6.16 The degree of specificity respondents wanted from
an ethnicity framework was discussed and respondents fell
into three broad types:
- Those who wanted a short classification framework,
which they could fill in quickly, and were willing to
accept the lack of detail and clarity this would mean.
Some of these respondents suggested as few as three
categories would be acceptable to them: 'White',
'Black' and 'Asian'. However, these respondents also
understood that greater specificity was important to
other people, and stated that they did not mind filling
in a more specific framework.
- Those who acknowledged the theoretical benefits to
greater specificity of categories, but who felt that at
some point pragmatism would mean that the list would
have to be curtailed. Some of these respondents did,
however, make the point that frameworks could be far
more specific if they were only going to be used with
certain communities.
"It's just that if you had a category of Chinese or
Hong Kong, then you're running the risk of, the form
will be like 3 pages long, because there are Chinese
all over the world, there are Chinese from mainland
China, Chinese from Taiwan, Chinese from Singapore,
Malaysia. … So I would guess that if this survey is
concentrated on the Chinese community then definitely
you would need to … [specify] types of Chinese. But if
it's for, the whole of Britain, then people who are not
Chinese will be completely bored to death. Just like if
you look at an African person, then you will probably
think this classification is not specific enough, but
if everybody wants to be as specific as possible then
your leaflet will be like 3 pages long." (Male, Age
35-49, Interview No.15)
"Under Indian there is like, just not Sri Lankan, there
is Tamil, there are different groups in India, so where - I
mean, how are you going to…. I mean, under Indian, I mean,
they speak different languages. There is the Tamils and I
don't know who they sort of, you know, aligned with. Do
they align themselves with Indian or Tamil? I mean, so it
is going to be many, many different - you will have to have
so many different categories." (Female, Age 25-34,
Interview No.9)
- Those who wanted specificity to a potentially
infinite degree.
Single and multiple classifications
6.17 Respondents were divided over whether they were
happier with single or multiple questions on ethnicity.
Those who preferred a single ethnicity question said that
this was because such frameworks were quicker and easier to
work with on the part of the data provider. Some also felt
that the elements that might be used as a separate stage,
such as religion, were private.
"Obviously if you want to find out my religion or
you want to find out me weight and my height and all
that kind of stuff, that's something that I would -
That's personal, if you see what I mean, but things
that anyone could kind of find out, you can even find
out by looking at me, then I find that that's fine, but
anything underneath that I think is a wee bit
personal." (Female, Age 18-24, Interview No. 27)
6.18 On the other hand, respondents were very positive
when shown the two-stage framework which also included
nationality, as it allowed people to state their
Scottish-ness or British-ness as well as their ethnic
background; although those who felt nationality and
ethnicity were the same thing did not see a need for this
distinction.
6.19 Although respondents generally liked the
nationality question, some thought that there were other
categories which could usefully be added as a separate
stage, for example religion and language. They felt that
these would provide an even clearer picture of data
providers' identity, as for members of some religions this
could form the most important factor in their thinking
about ethnicity. Language was thought to be an important
factor in ethnicity too, and to be particularly helpful in
distinguishing between different groups of white
people.
The 'Other' category
6.20 Respondents also differed in their attitudes
towards the 'Other' category. For some, being forced to use
it could be an annoying experience, which made them feel
excluded. Others assumed that the categories on the
frameworks were based on population sizes and did not
therefore mind being 'unrepresented' if they were part of a
numerically very small community.
6.21 Respondents' feelings about the 'Other' category
also had a bearing on how they felt about specificity.
There were those who preferred a longer list of codes in
order to use the 'Other' code as little as possible; but
also those who wanted the form to be concise even if it
meant they would not be included.
"I feel alright with that because I know for a fact
that there's not so many Filipinos in the country, so
I'm fine with that, because we really are a minor
number in the population, so that's what I think."
(Female, Interview No.18)
The example classifications used in the research are now
considered, and the strengths and weaknesses of each
considered.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON EACH EXAMPLE
CLASSIFICATION:
CLASSIFICATION 1: ONE-STAGE classification;
wholly pre-coded
Initial reactions
6.22 Respondents' first reactions were that there was a
wide selection of categories and that they would be able to
classify themselves according to this framework. Those
respondents who at the time of recruitment had classified
themselves as something specific that was not represented
found it easy to find a corresponding category that they
felt fitted them well. For example, the respondent who had
defined himself as "Greek Cypriot" when asked his ethnicity
said:
"Here they describe more or less everything you
want to know, the only thing I don't understand, why
any other ethnic group, they're all there more or less.
... I don't think you can have any other ethnic group
than what they are asking you there. … If they ask me,
because that's what I am, I'm white, I come from
Europe, I'm a white European, and there isn't other
things in here the way you can describe me, I think."
(Male, Age 50+, Interview No.35)
Strengths
6.23 On first sight respondents generally felt that this
framework had a selection of categories long enough to
describe the range of ethnic classifications well, and that
it would both enable data providers to fill it in and data
users to work with it.
6.24 The fact that the framework has a specific
'Mixed/Dual' category was appreciated by those respondents
who felt that this reflected their ethnic background. It
made them feel as though they were 'officially' included.
As has been discussed earlier, the historical lack of a
'Mixed' code as standard in ethnicity classifications was
something that some respondents had both noticed and
disliked. Having a 'Mixed Other' category was appreciated,
although views were mixed on the other sub-categories (see
Weaknesses).
6.25 This framework was also liked because it included a
separate White European category. Respondents from
elsewhere in Europe did not feel the need for a list of all
the different European countries (although one British
person identified a need for this), but nevertheless
appreciated being able to tick something more specific than
"White Other".
6.26 Having the questions closed and in "tick box"
format was thought to be a strength by some, as they said
they were easy to fill in. Again, as will be discussed
later, not all respondents took this point of view.
"It makes life a lot easier, tick boxes." (Male,
Age 35-49, Interview No.20)
Weaknesses
6.27 Some respondents found it difficult to decide where
they would put themselves should they be presented with
this classification. This was particularly the case for
respondents who wanted to identify themselves as Scottish
as well as another ethnicity, and who were not White or
partly White. Although they might be able to find a
category that they would be able to fit into, they said
they would prefer to acknowledge their Scottish-ness. One
respondent of Chinese ethnicity, with a preference for
describing himself as 'Scottish Chinese', said that he
would be more likely to tick 'Asian - Other' over 'Chinese'
on the list presented, as he felt that the fact he was not
describing himself as being wholly Chinese represented
being a Scottish-born Chinese person better.
"There's none here that I can say, apart from the
Pakistani. As I said earlier, I would rather say
Pakistani Scottish." (Male, Age 35-49, Interview
No.20)
"I would tick other Asian, Asian British, I don't
know, but that's what I would have ticked, because I am
Asian British if you like." (Male, Age 25-34, Interview
No.15a)
6.28 Not everyone appreciated that the 'Mixed' category
was subdivided into a list of pre-coded options. This was
for two reasons. Firstly, it was felt that they did not
reflect the full range and diversity of Mixed backgrounds,
but only those involving White plus another of the broad
ethnic categories. Secondly, one respondent with a mixed
White and Asian background, who would ostensibly have been
represented, said that the way the categories were
specified implied that she took half of her ethnicity from
each. Respondents would not necessarily choose this option
even if they could relate to it in some way.
"Myself I would say I would probably put white and
Asian or any other mixed background…. It is just that
usually the 'any other mixed background' option doesn't
come up on forms. It is usually just white and Asian.
And whilst I do know a wee bit about being half Indian
and so on, it's, I am not… 50% in this case. So I would
prefer to choose, I would feel more comfortable
choosing any other mixed background." (Female, Age
18-24, Interview No.24)
6.29 Some respondents did not understand the reason for
including certain groups, for example Somali and, Gypsy
Traveller. This was for two reasons: because they were felt
to be unusual groups to include, and thus might make people
of these ethnicities feel conspicuous and as though they
had been identified for a specific reason such as being in
great need; or because they could be fitted into other
categories - for example, Somali people would be able to
tick Black African and Gypsy Travellers would also have an
ethnicity such as White British or White Other. In the case
of Gypsy Travellers, people (of non-Gypsy Traveller
heritage) objected to the name, as they felt it was
probably a racist term, and therefore said that people
might be offended by it.
"It might be useful for a company or organisation,
but, imagine if I was from Somali [sic] and I knew how
my country is. Like they are poor, they don't have
enough food, there are a lot of diseases, maybe I would
feel a bit embarrassed. Do you know what I mean. … I
would say, oh should I say really that, or should I say
for example, African." (Female, Age 25-34, Interview
No.23)
"That first one, I think it's crazy. … I mean do
you have to be, I don't know, a gypsy. You'll be either
Irish or Scottish or English or whatever. … Traveller
of Irish heritage, that's a new one. I've never heard
of that." (Female, Age 65+, Interview No.25)
6.30 The fact that there were no other definitions other
than "Traveller of Irish Heritage" to define Travellers was
also thought to be a weakness. However, the Showground
(Occupational) Traveller who was interviewed did not feel
this was the case, and said that he would unhesitatingly
tick "White British". This was because he saw 'travelling'
as something which constituted his job rather than his
ethnicity.
"Gypsy travellers see themselves as an ethnic
group. I see myself as an indigenous Scottish person or
British person who, I operate a small business which I
inherited from my father. And the only difference
between myself and any other small business person is
that my business entails moving around the country."
(Interview Ref. Occupational Travellers)
6.31 Another category which people felt should be
expanded was 'White British'. Respondents thought that many
people would prefer to define themselves as English, Irish,
Scottish or Welsh and that this was more important than
defining themselves as British. They felt that having a
broad definition like 'White British' had the potential to
upset people by not giving them the opportunity to
articulate a more specific Scottish, English or other
identity.
"The white British here is encompassing Welsh and
Scottish and English and they haven't broken that down;
I'd prefer to see white British broken down into
Scottish, English, Welsh or Northern Irish and have
that as separate." (Female, Age 29, Interview
No.14)
6.32 Classification 1 placed the 'Chinese' category
under 'Other'. Both Chinese and non-Chinese respondents
noticed this; many of the respondents who were not Chinese
assumed that Chinese people would be offended by this.
Although Chinese respondents did not express offence, one
respondent did say that it made her feel
"lost" and in general people did feel that it
would fit better under the 'Asian' category.
"It is just Chinese here… and it is like we are not
part of anything and it is just like, I don't know, I
just thought we would belong to something anyway. … [it
makes me feel] lost." (Female, Age 25, Interview
No.16)
6.33 Finally, some respondents felt that there should be
an opportunity for data providers to write in their
ethnicity for the 'Other' and 'Mixed' categories.
CLASSIFICATION 2: two-stage classification
including national identity, wholly pre-coded
Initial reactions
6.34 This form had mixed reactions compared when
compared to Classification 1 described above. Although the
second section was felt to collect data on ethnicity in
roughly the same way as the first form, the two-stage
approach was generally considered to be different from the
first form's one-stage approach. Respondents also
characterised is as "friendlier" and "less offensive" in
appearance; however, this was probably because of the more
finished layout.
Strengths
6.35 Those who wanted to classify themselves as Scottish
or British but were not of White ethnicity said that
Classification 2 allowed them to express their
Scottish-ness or British-ness whilst also recognising their
ethnic origin. The respondent who described herself as
Mixed ethnicity, and who saw herself as partly White
Scottish, said that this was very much preferable to
ticking 'Mixed', as it allowed her to express that she was
part-Scottish in ethnicity and also Scottish in
nationality. Being able to identify national identity was
very important to some respondents, for whom their
Scottish-ness or British-ness was a source of considerable
pride.
"I actually really like that, because I'm really
proud to be Scottish. Yes, I like that." (Female, Age
18-24, Interview No.27)
6.36 Some respondents thought that the two-stage
approach might mean that higher-quality data was collected,
as the ethnicity data would not be compromised through
people's desire to state their national identity. These
respondents also thought it would clarify the question for
those who had a tendency to assume that ethnicity was the
same as nationality.
6.37 The Chinese respondents interviewed preferred the
inclusion of the Chinese category under Asian. This was
felt to be more comfortable and easier to find, and also
more geographically logical.
"For one thing, this one is more geographically
correct. Because Chinese is now part of Asia, which is
correct, but now Chinese is … which stands out from
like from the rest basically. So this is more factually
correct, I think it's more well organised." (Male, Age
35-49, Interview No.15)
6.38 Respondents also commented that the
UK was broken down into its constituent
countries, with British also included as an option.
Although comments on this issue were negative as well as
positive (see next section) having the different countries
listed was thought to provide scope for those who wished to
express a regional identity to do so. As discussed earlier,
respondents were aware that feelings often ran high on this
issue and so felt it to be sensible to break down the
category. One respondent also commented positively that she
had never before seen Northern Ireland listed on a form.
Similarly, there were respondents who were aware that it
was more important to some people to feel British than, for
example, Scottish or English. Some respondents who were not
British by birth but who had lived in Scotland for some
years felt they would be more likely to feel British than
they would one of the constituent country nationalities,
which they saw as specific, regional and associated with
having been born in the country.
"Because I am in Britain, I don't want to, I don't
want to say English or Scottish or I don't know.
British is more, more this, yes. … British is more
wider term." (Female, Age 35-49, Interview No.8)
Weaknesses
6.39 As mentioned above, there were also respondents who
disliked having a nationality breakdown. This was for three
reasons:
- They saw the category as superfluous, as anyone
identifying with a single nationality will also be
British. One respondent referred to people who insisted
on classifying themselves more specifically than
British as
"stubborn";
"I would put British because it has been on my
passport and when I fill the form, you know, I always
tick British; like college form. What nationality,
British, whatever, I just fill in, and jobs, always
British, because I always thought, like, Scottish was,
like, stubborn, so I was like,
OK, I am not going to." (Female, Age
25, Interview No.16)
- They felt that the identities Scottish, English,
Northern Irish and Welsh were regional identities, not
national; and
- They felt that the categories could be expanded.
For example, respondents said that Asian, or other,
nationalities should be included. The category
respondents felt did need to be added, however, was
Irish, by which respondents meant the Republic of
Ireland. This was felt to have a much stronger case for
inclusion than other nationalities, especially in a
Scottish categorisation. This was for three reasons:
because of the number of Irish people that live in the
UK and, more specifically, Scotland;
because the Republic of Ireland was seen as very
similar culturally to the
UK and, in particular, Scotland; and
because Ireland is geographically part of the British
Isles.
"English, Scottish, Northern Ireland, Wales, is
British, if you take British away altogether, anybody
who ticks Scottish, English, Northern Ireland, Welsh,
are British, and the regions are separate" (Male, Age
52, Interview No.30)
6.40 Some felt there was no need for the first question
on nationality at all. These people tended to see
nationality as being either a very similar concept or the
same as ethnicity.
"National identity and ethnicity? [You want to
know] what's the difference? … Maybe two different
words that end up with the same meaning, yes." (Female,
Age 35-49, Interview No.8)
6.41 One respondent disputed the description White
UK in the second half of the
classification. She felt that it had negative and
nationalistic connotations.
"That makes me think of the
BNP, you know, by putting white
UK. I would just never, ever
classify myself as white and I think the people that do
are negative against people who aren't [white]."
(Female, Age 29, Interview No.14)
6.42 Objections were also raised to the number of
categories given for the White category. This was because
it was thought that White Other did not adequately specify
where someone was from. It was suggested that the category
White European might be added at a minimum.
"It could have said "from Europe" or something,
actually say. Some of the others say, like 'Asian
Pakistan'; it would have been nice if it said… because
there is not so many Greeks here in Scotland as I
suppose Pakistanis or Asians, there's no any other way
of describing myself on there than by 'white other'."
(SEX???, Age 50+, Interview No.35)
6.43 Finally, respondents spoke about the Occupational
Traveller category. The respondent who could technically be
described as an Occupational Traveller, as mentioned
earlier, said that he did not feel the need to classify
himself as anything other than White British,
distinguishing his ethnicity from his job. He felt that
putting Occupational Travellers with Gypsy Travellers
confused those who were ethnically Gypsies with those who
travelled as part of their work, and potentially created
situations where they could suffer by association with the
negative perceptions some people had of other traveller
groups. However, he did see a need for data to be collected
on those who spend their lives travelling in terms of
service provision, and consequently did not oppose the
category. Respondents who were not themselves Travellers
sometimes found this category confusing, associating it
with travelling salesmen, for example.
"This is asking for your ethnic background, what's
an occupational traveller well I wouldn't think that
that is… ethnicity. …Because it's not describing the
person from an ethnic point of view. Occupational
traveller could apply to anyone." (Female, Age 23,
Interview No.33)
CLASSIFICATION 3: 2001 CENSUS
CATEGORIES
Initial reactions
6.44 The Census was thought to have a similar approach
to Classification 1 and similar categories to both
Classification 1 and the second stage of Classification 2.
However, some respondents thought it strange that the
categories should be less specific than those in the other
classifications, as they would have assumed it would be
more specific with the aim of gathering more precise
data.
Strengths
6.45 The main strength of the Census classification was
thought to be the provision of open questions for the Other
categories and Mixed category, or of spaces where ethnicity
could be specified if the respondent wanted to. Respondents
acknowledged that some people would prefer to give their
precise ethnicity rather than tick a box. Adding a space
for the respondent to describe their ethnicity was also
thought to mean that higher-quality data could be
collected.
"You're putting other there and what does other
mean? It could mean anywhere in the world, so it's not
telling the person that's reading that then very much."
(Female, Age 65+, Interview No.25)
6.46 The provision of a space to write in more specific
information also removed confusion in people's minds about
whether or not to write on the form, as well as ticking the
box. Respondents who habitually ticked 'Other' said they
were often confused about whether they should do so.
"It's not so much different from those two
[Classifications 1 and 2], but the good thing is, it
mentioned that if you want to write, you know, you can,
you don't have that doubt, should I write down or
should I not, you know. … because it put these, you
know, like empty places." (Female, Age 25, Interview
No.23)
6.47 In common with Classification 2, 'Chinese' was
included under the 'Asian' category and this was thought to
fit better with respondents' preferences as well as seeming
more logical.
6.48 Irish respondents liked the provision of 'Irish' as
a separate category in the Census classifications; however,
for some this was thought to be a weakness.
Weaknesses
6.49 In common with the other classifications, there
were thought to be some areas where there was a lack of
clarity about the categories used. Respondents were not
sure where some people would put themselves. Although
'Irish' was given as a category, respondents were unsure
whether this referred to the whole of Ireland or just to
the Republic. They thought that, at the least, Northern
Irish respondents would be unclear whether or not to tick
it.
6.50 The White category, in common with Classification
2, was not thought to be broken down far enough. Like this
classification, it lacked a White European category.
6.51 One respondent felt that the Census categories did
not have a specifically Scottish focus. He believed that
such categories were worked out centrally in London and
then applied across the
UK, and that they were therefore not
necessarily applicable to Scotland. However, he did not
offer any suggestions on how they might adopt a more
Scottish focus. Another respondent felt that the terms
Asian Scottish and Asian British were not readily
understandable.
6.52 One respondent was concerned that the form included
'White Scottish' and 'Black Scottish' as broad headings,
but listed 'Mixed' as a heading on its own. This seemed to
imply that respondents of Mixed ethnicity were not
considered to be Scottish. Additionally, she complained
that the amount of space provided for her to write in her
ethnicity was inadequate.
"There's never a box big enough to fit Scottish
South African, or you'd be Afro-Scot, that's what you -
I hate that, I hate writing that, but it was only
because the boxes were too small to write that in. So
yes, it's fine that it's got the box in, you can do it,
but it's still kind of excluding you, if you know what
I mean, because everyone else is included." (Female,
Age 18-24, Interview No.27)
« Previous | Contents | Next »