The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

C hapter eight emerging themes

Purpose and usage of ethnicity data

8.1 The stakeholder respondents, data users and data providers recognised that data on ethnicity was collected for a variety of reasons:

8.2 It was generally agreed that collecting ethnicity statistics had to move beyond mere compliance with the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 to contributing towards the improvement of services as well as promoting greater equality of opportunity.

8.3 However, stakeholders were concerned that data gathering might not always be used to promote equality of opportunity and that it could be open to abuse. For example, stakeholders commented on how the issue of small numbers was still used as an 'excuse' for not engaging with race equality matters. They were also concerned that numbers were used as a justification to apportion resource to minority communities who were larger in number rather than on the basis of need.

8.4 This had an effect of being divisive rather than enabling cohesion within communities. There was also concern that some employers might use the data to discriminate rather than facilitate opportunity.

8.5 There were some contexts where data providers in particular saw clear validity for asking about ethnicity data, such as in the area of health. It was recognised that some medical conditions were related to different ethnic groups and such information would better inform medical staff about possible health areas of concern.

8.6 The stakeholder respondents in Stage 1 commented on the need to be better informed about how data gained nationally could be used for local relevance.

Analysis and dissemination of data

8.7 Data provider and stakeholder respondents commented on the lack of evidence available showing how ethnicity data was currently being analysed and used. This lack of information, particularly in relation to improvement of service provision or equality of opportunity, may be contributing to the concerns cited by stakeholders. In particular in relation to why ethnicity data was being asked for and a perception that people were reluctant to take part in any further requests for ethnicity information.

8.8 Data users on the other hand commented on how data gathered was currently assisting them to improve practice. For example, data users reported

8.9 Data users were particularly concerned about issues of confidentiality and anonymity. This was perceived as an issue for Scotland where numbers of minority ethnic groups were very small. Dissemination at present was largely in an 'official' capacity, internal within organisations or in response to external requests. There was no evidence among this study's sample of data users of any wider dissemination nor did respondents see a need for this. There is however no evidence to suggest data users would be averse to disseminating data so long as confidentiality needs were addressed. Correspondingly, the issue of confidentiality and anonymity was not a significant issue for data providers and was not actually mentioned by Stage 3 data providers at all.

8.10 There is a critical difference in expectations about dissemination from data providers and users. Data providers and stakeholder respondents want more evidence on how the collation of ethnicity statistics contributes to the improvement of services and life chances particularly for minority ethnic groups. Data users see the need to ensure anonymity and confidentiality as being critical and this could be affecting the wider dissemination of data. There is a need, however, to consider how information about improvements can be made more widely known without necessarily compromising on issues of confidentiality and anonymity. Equally, care needs to be taken that issues of confidentiality and anonymity do not become reasons for lack of dissemination.

Classification categories

8.11 There was consensus between stakeholder respondents, data providers and data users that there was now a greater diversity of people within contemporary Scotland. In general, it was recognised that the current classification systems would benefit from refinement to better record the diversities of these new communities, in particular, white minority groups. One respondent believed that people were simply responding to existing categories, rather than reflecting on their identity in any informed or meaningful way.

8.12 Another area commented on by stakeholder respondents, data users and providers was in relation to the 'Other' category. There was recognition that some data providers might avoid being recorded in this category as they resented being classified as 'other' or find it psychologically devaluing to be constantly placed within this category. However, neither stakeholder respondents nor data users were clear whether a longer list of categories was going to be helpful or desirable. This not withstanding, data users and stakeholder respondents felt there would be value in having a wider choice of categories to enable some groups to be better counted and identified.

8.13 Stakeholder respondents, data providers and users also recognised the fluidity of concepts like ethnicity and identity. All groups recognised that context, a sense of belonging, whether you held a British passport, whether you were born in Scotland/ UK, as well as other factors, contributed to how a person might classify themselves. The complex range of responses, particularly from data providers in Stage 3 of the study, demonstrates that issues of identity are not fixed and do influence the way people respond to classifications.

8.14 Stakeholder respondents found the conflation of characteristics such as nationality, ethnicity and colour to be highly problematic. They also viewed the current ethnicity question within the Census as being conceptually flawed and confusing. Data users also saw the need to separate issues, however, unlike the stakeholder respondents who commented in particular on the conflation of colour and ethnicity, data users were more concerned about the linking of nationality and colour.

8.15 The stakeholder respondents in general saw the need to decouple colour from ethnicity or nationality, but the issue of colour was rarely mentioned by data users. There were mixed views among data providers, with many expressing concerns over references to colour in ethnicity classifications, but not all participants took this view. Nationality, however, was uncontentious, in particular in terms of classifying self according to the country of origin. The stakeholder respondents were clear that colour was still a clear trigger for racial discrimination and had to be addressed. Consideration may need to be given as to how 'colour' is included within an ethnicity classification framework so that the key tenets of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 could be met.

8.16 Religion was mentioned in passing by the stakeholder respondents and data users. For some data providers, this was perceived to be an important facet of their identity. The stakeholder respondents suggested there was a need to expand the religion question to include the different sects/denominations of the other major faiths. Data users on the other hand queried the relationship between religion and ethnicity and how being members of one religious group such as being Jewish or Muslim constituted being part of a distinct ethnic group. There were mixed views among data providers from Stage 3 with some people seeing religion as key to their identity and others feeling that questions on religion were an unnecessary intrusion into their personal life.

8.17 The stakeholder respondents raised the importance of language as part of identity but also the lack of being able to communicate in English as a potential source of exclusion or discrimination. These respondents suggested that the language section should be expanded to record the wide range of languages spoken in Scotland. Such data was important at a national and local level to enable the improvement of access to services. Among data users, the issue of language was limited to one organisation describing how a question was asked to monitor the need for interpretation services. Data providers talked about language being part of ethnicity and, for some, it was something that contributed to having a sense of culture.

Areas to focus on in future consultations

8.18 How can the purpose for asking about ethnicity be more clearly communicated to members of the public in Scotland?

8.19 How can information about the way in which ethnicity data is used to improve services and enhance quality of provision for Scotland's diverse populations be better disseminated widely without compromising matters of confidentiality?

8.20 What mechanisms should be in place to enable data collated by the Census to be used more extensively to meet the diverse needs of communities at national and local levels?

8.21 What mechanisms need to be in place to assist those who have a difficulty ( e.g. literacy or language issues) to fill in forms such as the Census?

8.22 How should issues of colour, nationality and ethnicity in ethnicity question frameworks be disentangled?

8.23 That colour is a trigger for discrimination is not disputed. However, is the Census the correct vehicle to do this? If yes, can you suggest ways in which a question on colour might be included?

« Previous | Contents | Next »