POST 1901 CENSUS PROJECT
Open the door to Canada's Historic Census
Back to Main Page of Post 1901 Census Project
CRITIQUE AND COMMENTCensus Release Committee of the Alberta Family Histories Society.on the study entitled "Canadian Public Attitudes toward Options for the Release of Census Records" by the Environics Research Group. We applaud the enlightened decision of the Expert Panel on Access to Historical Census Records and Statistics Canada to commission this study. A number of the submissions to the Expert Panel have referred to the study commissioned by the U.S. Census Bureau ("Report on the Acceptance and Use of Records by General Services Commission" by the Committee on Government Operations of the House of Representatives, 1978), which sought to ascertain if there was a connection between the level of concern that Americans have about the census and the length of the blackout period before the nominal census data are released to the public domain. It is clear that it would be helpful to the resolution of the current debate about the release of Canadian census records if we had some current Canadian data to look at. Now that this survey has been done and released to the public, it is important that it be critically examined and evaluated by those involved in the debate about whether to release the census or not. It is certain that, as the debate moves towards its climax, this study will be referred to often by all who are involved. We must ask ourselves two questions as we look through the account of this study: (a) Was it done in such a way that it is likely to represent the true opinions of the people of Canada as a whole? (b) What were the people saying? Method We note that Statistics Canada was one of the bodies which commissioned the study. We suppose that this was done in order to facilitate the funding of the study, but as StatsCan is one of the main contenders in this debate, one cannot help but wonder if the fox was not being asked to guard the henhouse. It would have been useful if Environics had faced this issue head on, and had made some statement about the degree to which Statistics Canada had been involved in the design and conduct of the study. What is abundantly clear is that the wording of the questions leans markedly towards the views of those who favour withholding the line item census material from the public view ("withholders"), rather than the views of those who want these data to be released to the public domain after a suitable period of time ("releasers"). In both the preamble to the survey questionnaires and the summary of the things that were said to the various focus groups, the viewpoint and arguments of the releasers are given short shrift. We especially notice that the respondents were apparently never told:
(b) that the "guarantee of confidentiality", to which the Environics staff make frequent reference was a silent one, confined to various government papers and never conveyed to the public; (c) that there is a solid body of legal opinion which suggests that the interpretation which Statistics Canada puts on the relevant legislation is in error; (d) that the releasers are not a small and insignificant body of opinion; that politicians have received thousands of letters from those concerned about withholding the census; letters and submissions have been received from many official bodies representing historians, genealogists, archivists and writers, i.e. those who are professionally well-informed about the importance of releasing the census. We note in passing that the common practice in surveys is to select the focus groups from a set of people with special knowledge of the matter at hand, as the purpose of focus groups is to help the researchers to conceptualize the important questions. Clearly, for this project, Environics selected a set of people who had very little knowledge about the census, and the primary and secondary uses for which the census data may be used. The main interest lies in the two surveys from probability samples of the whole population of Canada (excluding those who live in the North and those who live in institutions). The sampling technique was a complex multistage procedure of the type that is necessary for national surveys. This seems to have been a reasonable approach. Such complicated sampling methods make for some difficulties in calculating the response rate; if one excludes the large number of people who were excluded from the study for purely technical reasons, and considers only those who spoke to the interviewers so that they could be understood, then the response rates for the two studies were respectively: (1) 19.8%, (2) 20.5%. This is perhaps an acceptable response rate for a national telephone study, but it is worth bearing in mind that this means that for every person who expressed their opinion, there were four who refused to do so. Clearly, if there was some way of polling all of these silent masses, it is possible that they might have radically changed the results - possible, but not very likely. Social scientists like to see a response rate of more than 70% if they are to have much confidence in the results. It would have increased one's confidence in the sampling technique if there had been some comparison of the distribution of various characteristics of the sample (e.g. age, sex, geographical location) with those which have been reliably established for the whole population. The other methodological point that should be considered is whether the questions asked, and the supporting explanatory statements, were neutral with regard to the issues under debate or whether they tended to lead the respondents towards a particular mind-set and opinion. As was said above, we were in no doubt that the tendency of both survey questionnaires was to favour the opinions of the withholders, and this was far more marked in the second survey than the first. Specific instances will be cited as we examine the questions one by one. The authors of this report indicate that they intended the two surveys to look at different aspects of the debate; Survey I was mainly directed towards the possibility of releasing the nominal data from current or future censuses, and Survey II was mainly directed at the possibility of retroactively releasing historical census data. Our group, reading the questionnaires with considerable care, were not able to pick up on this subtle distinction, and we doubt that most of the respondents were able to either. All of the questions about the release of census data seemed to be timeless; if one wants to withhold one's own census data, then one assumes that the census data from past generations should also be withheld. The findings The differences in the questions asked and the differences in wording of both the questions and the explanatory statements mean that these are two quite separate questionnaires, and that one cannot add the responses to similar questions to obtain an aggregate result. However, it does make for some interesting comparisons between the responses to similar questions. Let us now examine individual questions and their responses. The Roman numerals identify the two national surveys, and the Arabic numerals that follow identify the question number in either the First or Second Survey. I-1 and II-1 Although the opening preamble is different for each of the surveys, they say approximately the same thing, and they favour neither the withholders nor the releasers. As one might expect from these conditions, the responses are very similar. We suspect that many unsophisticated respondents may have failed to realize that these questions were about the line-item results as opposed to the aggregate results, and it is common knowledge that Statistics Canada publishes and even sells the latter. I-2 This question favours the releasers, as there is no mention of the body of opinion which believes that name, address and answers should not be released in 100 years or ever. It is interesting that the three uses suggested are ranked in the way that would be predicted according to a "personal utility model". So:
(ii) Many people at least know of one or more genealogists, even if they have no personal interest in the subject (79%) (iii) Far fewer people personally know a historian or have much understanding of what historians do, or their importance to the general community (75%) I-3 and II-2 The question in the First Survey clearly grounds the query with "Thinking about yourself.." and offers four possible answers. A large majority of the respondents (76%) agree that personal census information should be made available to historians, genealogists and the public. In the Second Survey the majority holding this opinion is far less (55%), but it would be possible to account for this by the nature of the question. It begins with the phrase "From now on..." which implies that a cataclysmic change to the handling of the census is being suggested, when in fact the historical norm has been to release the nominal census data. Historians and genealogists are not mentioned this time, and release is to be made "to the public", suggesting every Tom, Dick and Harry. The respondents were offered only two possible answers instead of four; this is the old gambit used by lawyers in court, who ask a complex, multifaceted question and thunder "Answer me 'Yes' or 'No' ". II Information section between questions 2 and 3 These two paragraphs are grossly one-sided and lead the respondents towards responses that favour the withholding side. They mention the 1918 Statistics Act that mandated withholding, with no reference of the possibility of alternative interpretations of this law. They mention that "Statistics Canada assured Canadians that their personal census information would never be released", but do not say anything about the fact that this was a silent assurance. This section was sure to lead to a mind-set that would favour the withholders. I-4 and II-3 Both of these questions are framed to lead to the withholding mind-set, the second more than the first. The underlying question was whether Canadians would approve of as scary a measure as changing the law in order to make the census data available to the public. In the First Survey 69% were in favour of this, and in the Second Survey, in which it was also pointed out that this would involve having the government break a guarantee of confidentiality, and in which the respondents were given just two possible answers, the approval score fell to 55%. This is a big difference, but it should be noted that even with such prejudicial presentation of the question, a majority still favour making the appropriate legislative changes to allow the release of the census data. I-5 and II-4 Although the intention in the First Survey was apparently to make question I-5 refer to the release of historical census data and question I-4 to relate to current census data, we felt that most respondents would see very little distinction between these two questions. The distribution of the responses would seem to bear out this impression; they were almost identical. It is interesting to note, on page 5 of the report, that 68% in favour of release in I-5 is characterized as "some support". Question II-4 approaches the same underlying query with an even more unbalanced set of explanatory statements (e.g. "Some people..." - not followed by "other people" - "...government should keep this promise", "...even if it means changing the law"), leading to a dichotomized answer. We feel that absolutely no unbiased person could interpret this as anything but a loaded question. It served the purpose of actually making more respondents say that they felt that the government should keep its promise (49%) than said that they should release the census data(48%)...but the margin is so thin as to still be unconvincing. I-6 and II-5 These questions relate to the subject of whether the respondents would be more or less likely "to answer the next census" if the census data were to be released. This is clearly a trick question, as everyone knows that we are all forced by law to answer the census - not that our group is against the use of trick questions in opinion polls as a way of seeing if the respondents are paying attention. They were; for both surveys the proportion that considered that this would make no difference was exactly the same, 69%. The addition of weasel words ("...eventual..") and leading and untrue statements ("...guaranteed would remain confidential...") to the question in the Second Survey served only to reverse the order of those answering "More likely" and "Less likely". This reversal was dramatic, but says more about the questions asked than the opinions of the respondents. I-7 and II-6 These questions are similar to those just discussed, but focus on whether release of the census data would affect the accuracy of answers to the next census. The same comments as above apply to the questions asked. Once again the majority said that this would make no difference to the accuracy of their census answers and the proportions so answering were about the same as to the previous question (65% and 70% respectively) By manipulating the question the survey team were able to reduce the proportion who said that it would make them more likely to give accurate answers to the census from 22% to 9%. I-8 This question in the First Survey follows the pattern of the last two questions, seeking to discover what would be the effect of the release on the likelihood of people participating in other surveys under the aegis of Statistics Canada. Again most thought it would make no difference (62%), and those answering "More likely" and "Less likely" were almost equal in number. II-7 This question follows the pattern of the previous two in the Second Survey, and probes the effect that release would have on the trust that people have in StatsCan (we have seen from the responses to the first question in each survey that this is probably not tremendously high anyway). Once more the majority (62%) said that it would make no difference. Of the others, the greater number (30% of the respondents) indicate that this would erode their trust in Statistics Canada, but, as has just been said, this is a response to an intensely leading question. Our summary of the main findings 1. We are satisfied that the study was conducted in such a way as to poll a true probability sample of the uninstitutionalized population of southern Canada. 2. Most Canadians would find it acceptable to release individual-level data from censuses after a time delay of about 100 years. 3. Most Canadians see the value of releasing the data so that their descendants could make use of it for health-related or genealogical purposes, and, to a slightly lesser degree, for historical purposes. 4. Most Canadians say that release of the census data would have no effect on:
(b) their willingness to take part in future surveys organized by Statistics Canada (c) their level of trust in Statistics Canada We are surprised that the survey team include the trick questions, I-6 and II-5 in their summary. These questions may well be technically useful, but are devoid of meaning. 5. We are not convinced that one can draw fine distinctions in this survey between how people feel about the release of their own current census data and about the release of historical census data. It is our opinion that most of the respondents would have seen these two questions, which were not clearly distinguished, as simply part of the central question " Should the nominal census data be released after about 100, years, or not?" 6. If one accepts this last premise, then one can only be amazed at the robustness with which the respondents stood up for their view that the census results should be released and the law should be changed, despite the fact that the questions, especially in the Second Survey, seemed determined to get them to change that view. Out of 7 questions in the two surveys that dealt with release of the census and/or changing the law to make this possible, all but one (II-4) showed a majority in favour of these actions. In that one outlier the proportion of those against exceeded those in favour by only one percentage point. Our group is of the opinion that this survey strongly indicates nation-wide approval of the move to make the line-item available to the public after a suitable black-out period, and allays the major fears of the with-holders that this would have undesirable consequences. We can see no reason why the government should not now move speedily to make the necessary legislative changes to put the old census data back into the public domain, where it used to be, and where it should be. September 14, 2000 Census Release Committee of the Alberta Family Histories Society. |
Post 1901 Census Project Site Sponsored by:
Everything for The Family Historian!
43 Main Street South, Campbellville, Ontario, Canada L0P 1B0
ph. 905-854-2176 or 1-800-361-5168 Bookstore Website
Copyright © GlobalGenealogy.com Inc. 1996-2008
