« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Appendix 6: Approach to analysis of consultation responses
In addition to deploying an organised and robust framework for identifying and collating relevant comments from respondents, the exercise also required a number of ground-rules to be set to ensure responses to the consultation were prepared for analysis in a consistent and sensible fashion.
Analytical framework
The analytical framework used in our analysis of the consultation responses was an electronic ACCESS database specifically written for this consultation. This enabled a combination of quantitative and qualitative analysis to be undertaken.
The electronic ACCESS database was used to store and assist analysis of all responses, including those that were lengthier or free flowing and which did not follow the structured questionnaire format. This database enabled the storage of free text in a systematic manner. The method of data entry could also be controlled via careful design of data entry forms to minimise the likelihood of any erroneous entries.
The fields used to record the material in the Access database were based on the questions set out in the consultation document.
The text from free flowing responses was, where possible, assigned to a specific question and stored in the relevant field.
A copy of the database has been provided to the Scottish Executive under separate cover.
Publication of written responses
Where respondents have agreed to publication, these responses are available in the Scottish Executive library. After discussion with the consultation team, the convention adopted for this consultation has been to preserve the anonymity of individual respondents and organisations, but to attribute their comments and quotes to the grouped respondent category to which they fit. In this way, a further depth is added to the analysis by providing some contextual information about the respondent type.
Ground rules
Separate Responses from the Same Individual/Organisation
On occasions, a respondent may send in more than one response. The consultation team at the Scottish Executive were primarily responsible for identifying and removing any such duplicates. The research team at George Street Research were also prepared for the possibility of double entries and ensured that any identical or duplicate responses that had been missed were picked up and removed from the exercise. This was done by hand searching or electronic screening.
Quality Control
In order to minimise any inconsistencies in approach, the research team at George Street Research was kept to a minimum size with all working to a well tested set of rules for data examination and entry. In accordance with our standard practice, members of the research team verified 10% of coding and data entry and highlighted areas where a second opinion was required.
Factual Accuracy
The views presented in this analysis have not been vetted in any way for factual accuracy. The opinions and comments submitted to the consultation may be based on fact or may, indeed, be based on what respondents perceive to be accurate, but which others may interpret differently. It is important for the analysis to represent views from all perspectives. The report may, therefore, contain analysis of responses which may be factually inaccurate or based on misunderstanding or misinformation on the actual proposals but nevertheless reflect strongly held views. In some instances, such inaccuracies and misunderstandings will be relevant findings in themselves.
Interpretation of Findings
Those participating in the consultation exercise were self-selecting and each had their particular motivation to take part. The exercise was not intended to gain views that were representative of the Scottish population, but was intended to give all those who wished to comment an opportunity to do so. This has to be borne in mind in interpreting the findings presented here in this report.
Given the self-selecting nature of any consultation exercise, it should be noted that any statistics quoted here cannot be extrapolated to a wider population outwith the consultation population.
Consultee Types
The views of all those responding to the different strands of this consultation have been taken into account. While all views are relevant and have been incorporated into our reporting, it needs to be borne in mind that many of the organisations participating in this consultation were responding on behalf of their membership and / or those they represent. As such, while their views are not considered to be any more important than those responding on an individual basis, greater emphasis may be placed on the weight of balance of their views.
A qualitative approach
Given the depth and breadth of comments and responses to the consultation, they were entered into a bespoke database designed specifically for this element of the public consultation paper to enable qualitative analysis. Where possible, a degree of quantitative analysis has been undertaken to sit alongside the qualitative analysis.
The report
The focus or perspective of those responding to the consultation, attending information events, focus groups or in-depth interviews often varied. Similarly the importance attached to different aspects of the consultation exercise often varied. However, the same themes emerged across all individuals and types of organisation participating in this exercise.
The protocol we have adopted in our reporting is to firstly state the themes emerging from individuals and organisations responding to the consultation paper, and these have been referred to as "consultees". We then provide additional commentary from those attending information events, focus groups or in-depth interviews and these are referred to as "respondents".
Given that the same themes generally emerged across all types of organisation and individual, we have only commented on differences in opinion. Where we do not make distinctions by organisation type, it should be assumed that this is because there are no significant differences in views emerging. So, where there are significant omissions or differences of opinion across different types of organisation, these have been highlighted in our commentary.
The report documents the substance of our analysis, presenting the main issues, arguments and views expressed by those responding to the consultation and those participating in information events, focus groups and in-depth interviews. These follow broadly the ordering of issues raised in the consultation document. Verbatim quotations have been included for illustrative purposes.
Since the commencement of this consultation, within Scotland the term "vulnerable adults" has been replaced by the term "adults at risk". However, the original consultation documentation and many consultation responses refer to "vulnerable adults", and so both terms are used in this report. Since the start of the consultation, the term "adults in need" has superseded the terms "vulnerable adults" and "adults at risk", although we have not used this in our reporting. In our report, where we are providing a direct quotation we use the term provided by the consultee, so there are some instances where the term "vulnerable adult" is in the body of this report.
In responding to the consultation paper specifically, a number of consultees raised the same issue(s) in response to a number of questions posed. For example, reference to the costs or potential costs of the new scheme was made throughout responses to the consultation paper. Our protocol in this report is to provide commentary in relation to each relevant question posed.
Report Structure
Our analysis along with this report has been structured to follow the sections as laid out in the consultation document. The findings are presented for each of these questions in chapters 2 to 8 and chapter 9 provides some brief conclusions on this consultation exercise.
« Previous | Contents | Next »