« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
CHAPTER 3: APPROACH TO ANALYSIS OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES
3.1 ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORKS
Responses were entered into an electronic ACCESS database specifically written for this consultation. 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.
This approach to analysis enabled a combination of quantitative and qualitative analysis to be undertaken, while also providing a database of responses. The database format enabled us to select appropriate verbatim comments both to illustrate the data and to provide extra detail for any specific areas of interest.
3.2 GROUND RULES
Separate Responses from the Same Individual/ Organisation
On occasions, a consultee 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 in that they 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.
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 consultees 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 issues but nevertheless reflect strongly held views. In some instances, such inaccuracies and misunderstandings will be relevant findings in themselves.
Interpretation of Findings
While the exercise was intended to give all those who wished to comment an opportunity to do so, it must be borne in mind that views may not be representative of the Scottish population. This has to be borne in mind in interpreting the findings presented here in this report.
Given the primarily 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.
3.3 REPORTING
The following chapters document the substance of the analysis, present the main issues, arguments and views expressed in the responses. These follow broadly the ordering of issues raised in the consultation document.
Examining the responses of different sub-groups provided an opportunity to uncover any differences in opinions, attitudes or priorities. Where a particular sub-group showed a marked difference in their responses, this has been highlighted in the text.
Consultees were free to answer any or all of the questions posed and, perhaps due to the specific nature of some of the subject areas, the majority of questions were answered by less than half of the total number of consultees. For this reason, where quantitative data is presented, the base size given is that of the number of respondents (by sub-group and by total), to each specific question. The qualitative questions were broken down into answers to specific targets, milestones or actions; possibly due to the specific nature of these points response rates tended to be fairly low with less than a quarter of consultees commenting on each.
Issues and comments emerging at the seminars in both Dyce (Aberdeen) and Edinburgh mainly reflected those emerging from the consultation responses. As such, the seminar reports have been appended to this report and only additional issues have been included alongside consultation comments in the relevant section of this report.
« Previous | Contents | Next »