Click Links from the Menu below to Navigate the People & Parliament Report
People & Parliament
Part 6 of the Full Report - Statistical Analysis of Sources
6.
Statistical Analysis
437
completed forms were returned to People & Parliament by 9 February 1999. All
of these were fully taken into consideration. Quotations have been drawn
proportionately more from forms received earlier since later ones often repeated
the same points.
Over
and above these 437 forms, about 20 of the groups which participated in the
pilot study used mainly participative appraisal techniques
that did not result in forms being completed. (People & Parliament is
grateful to Vikki Hilton of Edinburgh University and David Wilding from England
for their expert help respectively with the pilot study and the thinking that
surrounded it.) These particular pilot study statements have been consolidated
into the composite group, numbered “0,” comprising an estimated 100 people.
Allowing also for groups that have been sending in forms too late to be fully
considered in the study, this means that the total number of participating
groups is well in excess of 450; indeed, it will probably end up at near enough
500.
The
437 groups received in time for full analysis claimed to have involved a total
of 9,004 people in their deliberations. However, it was quite clear that many
groups simply stated their membership size. Others failed to state any number -
these are indicated with a 0. Some groups, we know, consolidated a number of
smaller groups into one form. In short, our sense of the “true” number of
People & Parliament participants is that a figure of about 3,000 would be
accurate.
Group
Identification Category Statistics
It
was an objective of People & Parliament to reach many different sectors of
Scottish society, but to target especially those whose voices are
normally under-represented. The following statistics suggest a measure of
success in reaching groups that are often marginalised, though the geographical
distribution of responses, whilst wide-ranging, is not representative. However,
an analysis of statements by geographical distribution revealed no discernible
regional differences. Of course, had the study been undertaken using
quantitative rather than qualitative methods, we would have expected some
differences to have emerged on specific questions consistent with the findings
of other studies.
Gender
Female
(f)
70
16%
Male
(m)
21
4.8%
Unspecified
346 79.2%
Totals
437
100%
Groups
could only be classified as single-gender when they had identified themselves as
such. It might be the case that many all-male groups might have thought there
was nothing exceptional about being all-male, whilst all-female groups might
have been more conscious of their group’s single-sex make-up and therefore
remarked upon it. Also, many of the groups were community or church-related
groups, and these tend to have higher proportions of women in them.
Disability
(d)
49
groups comprising 11.9% consisted of people with a disability of one sort or
another.
Ethnicity
(e)
30
groups comprising 6.9% consisted of ethnic minorities, including indigenous
ethnic minorities.
Older
People (o)
33
groups comprising 7.5% described themselves using such adjectives as
“retired,” “elderly,” and “pensioners.”
Youth
(y)
78
groups comprising 17.8% described themselves with such adjectives as
“pupils,” “youth” and “student.”
Group
Types
Community
Organisations (c)
164
37.5%
Religious
groups (r )
79
18.1%
Family
or neighbour groups (f)
21
4.8%
Professional
groups (p)
32
7.4%
Individuals
(v)
14
3.2%
Schools
& youth groups (y)
76
17.4%
Political
& governmental (l)
10
2.3%
Industry
(i)
5
1.1%
Unspecified
(?)
36
8.2%
Total
437
100%
Postcodes
The
column identifying postcodes has been removed from this published version of the
report in case it exposed vulnerable groups to identification during the period
when the report is first published and media interest is high. However, to
indicate geographical spread, the following analysis of postcodes is presented.
AB
48
10.9%
DD
21
4.8%
DG
3
0.7%
EH
72
16.5%
FK
12
2.7%
G
145
33.2%
HS
1
0.2%
IV
14
3.2%
KA
23
5.2%
KW
1
0.2%
KY
34
7.8%
ML
3
0.7%
PA
19
4.3%
PH
14
3.2%
TD
10
2.3%
ZE
0
0.0%
?
17
3.9%
India
1
0.2%
Total
435
100%
Euro-Constituency
Regions - Population Comparisons
Postcodes
for the 421 groups where these were provided were approximately mapped onto
Euro-constituency regions and compared with the percentage of the Scottish
population living in those areas. This shows representation in all areas, but
not evenly distributed.
Urban
areas are more highly represented than rural ones. This is probably because a
number of regional events were organised in urban areas. Some of the urban-based
groups would therefore have comprised rural peoples. A second factor is that it
is easier for urban groups to meet because of reduced travel distances. Thirdly,
the fact that we targeted marginalised groups, especially those affected by
poverty, probably accounts for most if not all of the strong representation from
Glasgow.
Constituency
Population
% Scot/Pop No/Groups
%Groups
Highlands
& Islands
428,750
8.4%
23
5.5%
West
of Scotland
603,840
11.8%
33
7.8%
Mid
Scotland & Fife
611,280
11.9%
59
14.0%
Glasgow
667,540
13.0%
124
29.5%
Lothians
683,000
13.3%
69
16.4%
South
of Scotland
697,940
13.6%
35
8.3%
North
East Scotland
704,280
13.8%
68
16.2%
Central
Scotland
725,870
14.7%
10
2.4%
Click Links from the Menu below to Navigate the People & Parliament Report
30-8-00