Mainstreaming equality outcomes: consultation analysis

Analysis of responses to the public consultation on Social Security Scotland's first equality strategy which ran between 7 November 2019 to 6 February 2020.

2. Methodology

This chapter details the methodology used to analyse responses to the Mainstreaming Equality Outcomes consultation.

Responses were collected in two ways:

  • A public consultation comprising quantitative (Yes/No) and qualitative (open-ended) questions. There was a standard online form as well as an easy read online form and responses could be submitted in other formats and via email to increase accessibility
  • A series of events across Scotland to complement the consultation and give stakeholders the opportunity to ask questions and provide feedback.

Event notes and responses to the public consultation where analysed separately.

Data from the public consultation was first cleaned. There were no campaign responses that had to be dealt with. However, one respondent completed the consultation twice; answers to all questions were identical and we deleted one set of answers to avoid double counting.

Responses to the standard public consultation and the easy read version were analysed separately where questions were phrased differently. The data analysis had a quantitative and a qualitative component. The quantitative analysis covered:

  • The number and proportion of individuals and organisations who answered the consultation
  • The number of respondents who answered each yes/no and each open-ended question, broken down by respondent type
  • The number of respondents who answered each yes/no question by yes or no, broken down by respondent type.

All findings from the quantitative analysis are presented in the Findings Chapter. The qualitative analysis of open-ended questions involved the following stages:

  • Stage 1: Based on 10 randomly selected sample responses, an initial thematic grid was developed for the analysis. This grid was further refined during the analysis.
  • Stage 2: All open-ended responses were "coded" using the software NVivo and the thematic grid developed in stage 1.
  • Stage 3: NVivo was then used to analyse the full range of views and issues raised by respondents and, where possible, quantify how often certain views were raised by different respondent types. As part of this, areas of consensus and disagreement were identified as well as any differences and similarities in views between respondent types (i.e. individuals and organisations).

Notes from the consultation events were provided by Social Security Scotland and we analysed these using the same thematic grid we used for the qualitative analysis of open-ended responses to the public consultation.

The qualitative analysis of event notes and open-ended responses to the public consultation were then combined into a thematic analysis identifying views and tendencies.The full qualitative analysis is presented in the Findings Chapter. Quotes are included where possible without breaching confidentility, in other words, only if a relevant respondent has consented to their response being published. Please note that where participants views have been recorded, not all these statements have been fact checked.

When discussing the prevelance of certain views, we have used the following terms to indicate the proportion of consultation responses that raised a particular point:

  • "Few": 5-9%
  • "Some": 10-19%
  • "Many": 20-49%
  • "Most" or "majority": 50-74%
  • "Large majority" or "broad agreement": 75 -89%
  • "Consensus": 90% or more.

It is important to note that, given the number of respondents and the fact that they were not selected randomly, the views emerging from this consultation are not representative of the view of the whole population. But they give a good indication of the range of opinions held by a notable number of interested organisations and individuals and the main issues they identify as important.

Another limitation of the analysis is that, given the available data and its level of detail, it was not possible to break down responses by geography (especially urban/rural) or distinguish between types of organisation.



Back to top