-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Dear all,
I'm not fully up to speed on how the imputation was done, but has any
allowance for local levels of functional illiteracy been made. I am told
that locally in some areas young male functional literacy is of the
order of 75%. Could it be that the failure to have human enumeration
meant that the large number of those who could not fill in the form
never had a chance to be counted.
Was consideration given to the thought that the new quick method may
have compromised accuracy and precision.
Mark
In article
<[log in to unmask]>, on Thu,
14 Nov 2002, Ray Thomas <[log in to unmask]> writes
>The Census results demand more comment than were made at this meeting.
>
>The 2001 Census seems to mark the culmination of a trend towards the
>substitution of statistical estimation for social investigation.
>
>That trend became established with the failure to investigate the causes of
>under-enumeration in 1991. All that happened in the way of research was
>that some groups and localities became labelled as 'hard to enumerate'.
>Age and sex comparisons supported identification of those hard to enumerate.
>But AFAIK no other research was undertaken on causes. The reasons for
>underenumerations were taken as self-evident or as common sense. 'Young men
>are out and about'. 'Old women don't answer the door'. Etc.
>
>So a lower response rate was expected in 2001. 'Lower response is general,
>an inescapable part of the modern world' was the argument added. The
>expectation of a low response was was reflected in the census procedures.
>And most important supported the design of a One Number Census.
>
>The outcome was that the response from youngish men in some areas was so low
>that it led the ONS to believe it was not just a matter of being hard to
>enumerate. The ONS have concluded that the youngish men were not in the
>UK.
>
>This must surely be the first time that a major statement about the UK
>population has been made solely on the basis of statistical estimation. And
>there does not appear to be much in the way of supporting evidence for the
>explanatory theory put forward - that men tell the International Passenger
>Survey that they are making a visit abroad, but in fact stay abroad.
>
>If this were a common male predeliction, then surely it is to be expected
>that there would have been some recognition of this as a social problem?
>Might it not be expected to be reflected, for example,in letters to agony
>aunts? Would it not be expected that there would be many letters from
>deserted wives, lovers, and girl friends saying 'He said he was just going
>for a holiday, but he has not come back' ??
>
>Does anyone know of any such corroborative evidence that supports the
>estimate that 900,000 men have emigrated?
>
>Ray Thomas, Social Sciences, Open University
>Tel: 01908 679081 Fax 01908 550401
>Email: [log in to unmask]
>35 Passmore, Milton Keynes MK6 3DY
>
>******************************************************
>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]
>*******************************************************
- --
Mark Temple
[log in to unmask]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk 2.0.5
iQA/AwUBPdQpUtNGNPOGsYShEQI6aQCgqzD+GvEZabdy6vPC9DecK3bg3jAAn0m8
pRaBXXpqoOkoPVEeLSVfu7BI
=myAo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
******************************************************
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]
*******************************************************
|