Scottish Government Equality Outcomes: Age Evidence Review

16 Appendix

Methods

16.1 Four research methods have been employed for this review. Firstly, a number of bibliographic search engines were used. These included Web of Knowledge, COPAC, Index to Social Sciences and Humanities Proceedings, Open Grey, TRID, British Education Index and CareData. The list of keywords used in Web of Knowledge was as follows:

Age+equality+Scotland;
public appointments+Scotland;
hate crime+Scotland;
transport+Scotland+age;
poverty+Scotland+age;
housing+Scotland+age;
employment+Scotland+age;
education+Scotland+age.

16.2 Secondly, the researchers consulted five key organisations Age Scotland; Children in Scotland; the Children's Commissioner; Poverty Alliance; and CREID. Dr. Suzi Macpherson (formerly Research Manager at EHRC, and now based in the Health and Social care division of the Scottish Government) was also contacted as an expert in the equalities field.

16.3 Thirdly, the researchers hand-searched bibliographies in recent publications on the subject.

16.4 Lastly, a focused Internet search was carried out and included the following websites: DWP; The Young Foundation; Scottish Government; Joseph Rowntree Foundation; Poverty Alliance; Equality and Human Rights Commission; Age UK; Age Scotland; Equality Network; and The Poverty Website.

16.5 The criteria for inclusion of evidence in this review were that it should have been produced within about the last ten years, be based on data for Scotland or else the UK where this is available, and address the relevant policy areas.

Limitations

16.6 It should be noted that, due to the time constraints under which this review was prepared, the evidence search has been selective rather than systematic or exhaustive. This review therefore bears the limitations of any rapid evidence assessment. Due to time constraints, the review is biased towards 'hard', numerical evidence rather than theoretical arguments about causation or social policy arguments about ways of alleviating age-related inequalities. Indicating where findings can be attributed to policy intervention or general economic/ societal trends would be useful but would necessarily require a more systematic review. Additionally, the results may be biased because there is a greater tendency for statistical findings to be published than non-statistical ones (technically called the 'publication bias').