« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
CHAPTER 3: APPROACH TO ANALYSIS OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES
3.1 ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORKS
As previously noted, there were two distinct types of response to this consultation and a different analysis approach was adopted for each. All responses were analysed using a statistical analysis package ( SNAP) and this allowed us to produce quantitative data.
The substantive responses and those submitted in a free-flowing format 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.
These two approaches to analysis enabled a combination of quantitative and qualitative analysis to be undertaken, while also providing a database of the substantive 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.
Contradictions in the Data
It should be noted that occasionally there may appear to be inherent contradictions in the responses. For example, readers may notice that the total number of consultees commenting on a given question may add up to more than 100%. This is because there was no limit to the number of comments that a respondent could give to each question and every separate comment was coded and included in our analysis. Also, not every respondent chose to answer every question.
Interpretation of Findings
Responses were invited from older people, the wider general public, stakeholders, professionals and organisations, as well as interest or community groups. While the majority of those participating in the consultation exercise were self selecting, each of these had their particular motivation to take part. However, responses were specifically sought from older people within Black and Minority Ethnic communities.
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 (this is not strictly true of those responding within the black and minority ethnic communities), 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.
For analysis and reporting purposes, the following groupings were used:
- organisations (313)
- individuals (811)
Individuals comprised both individual consultees and those responding following a group discussion. Given the relatively small numbers of respondents in the first 3 age categories (under 21, 21-34, 35-49), these have been combined to form a broad 'under 50' sub-group. Similarly, two main ethnic groups responded; respondents selecting ethnic groups outwith these were combined as 'other ethic group' to form 3 relatively equal sub-groups. It should be noted that not all respondents gave classification details. Categories used for analysis of individual responses were as follows:
- age;
- under 50 (184)
- 50 - 64 (216)
- 65 and over (355)
- ethnic group;
- Scottish (270)
- Asian (224)
- other (196)
- gender;
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. If no differences are reported it should be assumed that responses are broadly consistent across all age, gender or ethnic groupings and between individuals and organisations.
Broadly speaking, responses were consistent across all groups, although occasionally differences were noted. These differences were seen mainly among the different age groups and so the 3 main age categories have been used for charting purposes throughout this report.
Summary Codes
Due to the wide range of comments emerging across the consultation, throughout the quantitative analysis summary codes were utilised by grouping together the coded responses that were essentially making the same or broadly similar point. These summary codes have formed the basis of the charts and the initial discussion. Responses subsumed within each summary code were then identified to illustrate specific issues or examples of particular interest or relevance, reflecting the depth and breadth of responses provided.
« Previous | Contents | Next »