It's not like me to rise to the defence of my employer. I hope they
haven't got me brainwashed.
Every Census, the ABS puts out a publication outlining the planned
inclusions and omissions for the next Census and eliciting proposals.
Proposals must provide a rationale and suggest topics for omission, to
compensate for the new topic. The decisions on which proposals to accept
are opaque to grunts like me, but I assume that the bigwigs weigh the clout
of the proposers and their own personal preferances, along with any
pressure from politicians. In any case, Parliament has to sign off on the
form.
There is a proposal under consideration to deploy three different forms in
2011, along the lines of Ray's idea. I am not crazy about it, as it
entails distribution to a non random sample. In principle, collectors
could be trained to distribute them more randomly, although I'm not sure
how. Certainly two stage sampling would be virtually out of the question.
In practice, Census enumeration is almost by definition a casual job and
the employer is disinclined to sink much in the way of resources into their
training. The result is that the collectors themselves understandably have
little commitment to their job. That's capitalism for you. I know a
couple of people who have worked as collectors. They are sharp and
responsible people, but they still had significant stuff ups, which I
attribute mainly to the training regime based on Chinese whispers.
As long as cost is a factor, I think it's pretty inconceivable that the
Census will ever collect data with the precision and accuracy, such as it
may be, of a sample survey. The received wisdom is that probing more
deeply and demanding more time and attention from respondents does not make
people 'feel that they are making a positive contribution to the local
economy and society', but rather encourages refusal.
In solidarity,
Harry
"R.Thomas"
[log in to unmask]
Sent by: email list To
for Radical [log in to unmask]
Statistics cc
<[log in to unmask]
.UK> Subject
Re: Income questions and other questions in the 2011 Census
Protective Mark
08/11/2007 07:44 AM
Please respond to
"R.Thomas"
<[log in to unmask]>
One can see how particular questions must be of crucial importance to
particular organizations and interest groups. I have no envy for those
who have take on the responsibility for deciding between different claims.
Making such decisions are otiose because we know that governments are
likely to throw away a a lot of the information that respondents may have
painstakingly put together. So why bother to collect it on a 100% basis?
Isn't it rather insulting to respondents?
Surely the proper solution is to have different forms for different
respondents? The Census could have a modular structure. All forms would
have the basic demographic questions, age, sex, DoB, etc. But there
would be a form with questions on income and occupation, say, going to 10%
of households. Another form with questions related to, say, migration
going to 10% of households, Another form with questions related to
language, etc.
Such a modular approach would pose formidable problems for achieving a
random distribution of the modules. It would require involvementof the
enumerator in the distribution process. That would upgrade enumerators
work - which would be no bad thing.
More expensive? Yes indeed. But such a Census would have greatly
enhanced value - commercially and to local authorities.
Perhaps most important it would require public explanation of the census
and its purposes. It is very difficult to give a convincing public
explanation of the current census because the questions asked are difficult
to defend. More detailed questions should be more defendable. People
could be made to feel that they are making a positive contribution to the
local economy and society.
Ray Thomas, Faculty of Social Sciences, Open University
************************************************************************
-----Original Message-----
From: email list for Radical Statistics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Humphrey Southall
Sent: 07 November 2007 00:46
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Income questions and other questions in the 2011 Census
Having spent three hours today at an ONS advisory committee meeting
on the 2011 census, coming back to much of the discussion on the
Radstats list was a bit surreal. I would rather report back on the
meeting than discuss some of the postings.
The meeting was the first since the big census test in May, and
probably the last before the questions are finalised ... or so one of
the papers for the meeting said. This was later clarified with a
statement that ONS have already decided what questions they think
should be on the form, but (a) ONS does not take the final decision,
and (b) there is a decision still to be taken on the size of the
form, which has large cost implications. As usual, part of the form
will be questions about the whole household, mainly about the
dwelling, but the larger part will be a series of questions to be
answered about each individual in the household (for up to six
household members in the standard form).
The issue is whether each household member gets three pages or four,
and these are the topics which will be asked about under each option:
3 pages 4 pages
Name Yes Yes
Sex Yes Yes
Date of birth Yes Yes
Marital/civil partnership (new) status Yes Yes
Student status Yes Yes
Term-time address Yes Yes
Second residence (new) Yes Yes
Country of birth Yes Yes
Address one year ago Yes Yes
Month/year of entry into UK (new) Yes Yes
Intention to stay in UK (new) No Yes
Citizenship (new) Yes Yes
Ethnicity Yes Yes
National identity (new) Yes Yes
Religion Yes Yes
Welsh language proficiency (Wales only) Yes Yes
Language (new) No Yes
Health status Yes Yes
Long-term illness/disability Yes Yes
Carers No Yes
Qualifications No Yes
Economic activity status Yes Yes
NS-SEC (self-employed, occupation, Yes Yes
supervisor status, ever worked) Yes Yes
Industry/name of employer No Yes
Workplace address Yes Yes
Transport to work Yes Yes
Using the longer form is not seen as affecting response rates, so the
issue is cost: four pages per person would cost an extra Pnds 22m.,
which ONS does not have but which they are asking other government
departments to contribute to. The best guidance that they could give
us was that it is genuinely uncertain whether the money will be found.
I do have more detailed information on the actual proposed questions,
but too long-winded to repeat here. There is nothing "secret" about
the documents that advisory group members get sent, but JISCmail does
not want us attaching long documents to list postings, and
re-publishing the documents on another web site would breach ONS
copyright, etc. They say they will try to get them on their own
website before advisory meetings rather than after, to help us sound
opinions more widely.
The two issues I want to raise are:
(1) Neither option includes an income question, even though an income
question was included in some versions of the May census test
questionnaires, and we had been sent a separate paper discussing the
pros and cons which said no final decisions had been taken. This is
when the bit about "ONS's decision" versus "the final decision" came
out. In the past, much of the opposition to an income question came
from within ONS itself, and was based on concern about the impact on
response rates. The test measured this, and showed that households
given an income question were 2.9% less likely to return it than
those gettings forms without the question -- and the impact on
response rates was fairly consistent across different categories of
areas defined in terms of "difficulty of enumeration". Of course,
replying to the census test is entirely voluntary while the census
is, in principle, compulsory; but in practice ONS see this as very
hard to enforce.
That information about response rates was interesting, and shows
there is a real "price" to be paid for an income question -- but the
main reason we were given for not including an income question in
2011 was that the central government departments and local government
bodies consulted saw it as a lower priority than the topics that were
being included, even in the four page version. Today's meeting was a
joint meeting of the academic and business advisory groups, and
interestingly both constituencies were very unhappy about this. IF
ANYONE WANTS AN INCOME QUESTION IN 2011, YOU NEED TO LOBBY HARD NOW.
(2) Two questions which have been asked for much of the last century
get dropped in the three page version, on educational qualifications
and on industry/business of employer. These are both very important
in getting an understanding of disadvantage -- it was pointed out
that knowing an "occupation", such as "engineer", is pretty useless
unless you also know what kind of employer they have -- car repairer
or engineering consultancy. Two other questions asked in 2001,
although with less of an earlier history, are also dropped even from
the four page version: number of employees, and hours worked.
Part of the reason there is a lack of space is the series of
questions on "identity" and immigration. One worry is the obvious
political drivers behind these questions, but asking about
citizenship may have a larger impact on response rates in some parts
of the population than an income question (the actual questions is
about what passports are people entitled to hold, and is only asked
of people born outside the UK; the question about "national
identity" is really about how people feel; and the question about
"intention to stay in the UK" is obviously about intent. Past
censuses have stuck to pretty basic factual issues, and there is
already evidence that many people, and not just special cases, find
it hard to answer these questions.
DO WE START A CAMPAIGN FOR "FOUR PAGES, NOT THREE"?
One downside of the longer questionnaire is that we will ALL have to
decide whether the French we learnt at school made us "fluent". The
introduction of civil partnerships has made the marital status
question much more complicated; one of the options now is
"Separated, but still legally in a civil partnership". Lastly, I
have asked if there is any statement available on ensuring
contractors follow the rules on confidentiality.
Best wishes,
Humphrey Southall
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's 'Reply-to-All'
button to send your message automatically to [log in to unmask]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and
cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by
subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical
Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of
our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************
? ????????? ?????????? ?????? SPAMfighter ??? ??????? ?????????????.
????????? ??????? 201 ??????????? ?????? ????? ?? ?????????? ???????.
???????????? ??????? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ????????? ? ?? ???????????
???????.
??????????? ?????????? ??????! SPAMfighter
****************************************************** Please note that if
you press the 'Reply' button your message will go only to the sender of
this message. If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically to
[log in to unmask] Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the
views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range
of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out
more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current
and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site
www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free publications and statistics available on www.abs.gov.au
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************
|
