I'm not up with this, but have always been rather sceptical of the
"gold standard" claims that are made for the decennial census.
A rolling series of biennial surveys (possibly 100% in sub-areas)
could be a strong competitor. I'd like to see some sensible
comparisons.
JOHN B
On 6 January 2012 14:49, Robin Rice <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm wondering what the general consensus is, or if there is one, on the
> question of replacement of the 2021 Census with other types of data
> collection?
>
> The omission of the long form in Canada, which I thought was so far ahead
> being the first to allow electronic submissions and having a 5-year Census,
> has raised a ruckus amongst data users, but I've not heard much dissent
> about this idea to scrap this 110 year tradition in the UK for reasons of
> 'efficiency':
>
> From the consultation document:
>
> in May 2010 Sir Michael Scholar, Chair of the UK Statistics Authority wrote
> to the Minister for the Cabinet Office to say that:
>
>
>
> “As a Board we have been concerned about the increasing costs and
> difficulties of traditional Census-taking. We have therefore already
> instructed the ONS to work urgently on the alternatives, with the intention
> that the 2011 Census will be the last of its kind.”
>
>
>
> The consultation finishes on 20th January 2012, at http://t.co/aFrG6FR9 with
> a questionnaire about your use of Census data.
>
> There is also a discussion forum started by the Royal Statistical Society
> Statistics User Forum here: http://www.sufenews.org.uk/forum/15
>
> The Guardian Data Store just did a compilation about data from 'the Iron
> Lady's' time in office, noting that there was no ethnicity benchmark data
> from 1981 (as the Census only asked about country of birth then).
>
> Bearing that in mind - wasn't so very long ago - won't we really be much
> more data poor without a decennial Census? We've got new migration questions
> in 2011. If ten years is too long to wait for benchmark data is the answer
> really to scrap it? Are the alternatives really more cost effective without
> sacrificing geographical accuracy and comprehensiveness? Would
> 'administrative' solutions be any less intrusive for privacy than the
> mandated Census?
>
> I'm good at asking questions but not so much at answering them. I'd love to
> read a view from a trusted 'radstats' perspective. Do the editors of the
> newsletter or the newly formed Population Studies group
> (http://www.radstats.org.uk/popgroup/index.htm) have any plans to publish a
> paper on this topic? If not, is there someone who'd be interested in
> cobbling together a blog post for the Radstats site (probably with the
> approval of the troika)?
>
> Looking forward to any responses,
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Robin Rice
> Data Librarian
> EDINA and Data Library
> University of Edinburgh
>
> [log in to unmask]
> 0131 651 1317 (M, W, F)
> 0131 651 1431 (T, Th)
> http://www.ed.ac.uk/is/data-library
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>
> ****************************************************** 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. *******************************************************
You may leave the list at any time by sending the command
SIGNOFF allstat
to [log in to unmask], leaving the subject line blank.
|