CAIN Web Service

Life in Two Enclave Areas
Appendix 2



[CAIN_Home]
[Key_Events] [Key_Issues] [Conflict_Background]
[Templegrove Action Research Limited - Main Menu]

Text: Ruth Moore and Marie Smyth ... Page Compiled: Fionnuala McKenna

APPENDIX 2
TECHNICAL DETAILS OF THE SURVEY

Sampling procedures

Given the relative difference in the population sizes, we opted for a 25% sample in The Fountain (116) and a 20% (262) sample in Gobnascale. We increased our sample size slightly to allow for non-responses or non-valid responses to individual questions in the questionnaire. The final sample sizes were 264 in Gobnascale and 121 in The Fountain. This was based on a selection of 160 households in The Fountain and 430 in Gobnascale to 430 in order to allow for non-responses.

The Sample: A Multi-Staged Sample Design

The survey was designed to yield a representative sample of adults over the age of sixteen, of the total population, living in private households. The sample was drawn randomly from a list of addresses which was drawn up manually by listing the addresses within an agreed community boundary, taken from the Northern Ireland Ordinance Survey Maps for each area. (Surveyed 1962, revised 1992; Fountain Grids: C432166 - C436166, C432162 - C436162; Gobnascale Grids C435159 - C445159, C435150 - C445150).

1.The list was agreed and updated in consultation with a community worker in each area. The addresses eliminated at this stage, were non-residential units. The map for each area did not show premises under construction, but did show the various types of units, such as houses, flats, maisonettes and business premises. Premises which were later discovered to be no longer in existence, vacant or derelict were also shown. The total number of addresses on the community list for Area 1/Gobnascale was 676, and for Area 2/Fountain was 240.

2. The total population of Gobnascale is 1312, according to our own small area statistics drawn from the census of population for 1991. Based on the same small area statistics, we calculated that the population of the Fountain is 467. It was calculated that a 20% sample for Area 1/Gobnascale and a 25% sample for Area 2/Fountain, would yield sufficiently precise findings. Since the total population of the Fountain area is quite small, it was decided a 25% sample would be required in order to produce the required precision in the findings.

3. A simple random sample of households was obtained by selecting one in three households from the list. A sample list was drawn up in this manner. The total sample drawn for Gobnascale was 451 addresses and 231 addresses for the Fountain.

4. The use of the Kish Grid in each house, represented a further stage of sampling. This is required to select an individual, from each household address, as the questionnaire respondent. As the list of addresses does not include any information on the number of individuals resident, the fieldworkers randomly select one individual, over the age of 16, using a Kish Grid. This procedure was carried out on delivery of the questionnaire.

Sampling errors

The sampling error for any percentage, p, sample can be calculated using the formula:

s.e(p)= p(100-p) n

where n is the number of respondents. the sampling error of any percentage, p, can be calculated by the above formula. We have calculated the sampling error using the return for both areas on age and employment.

Age categories: The Fountain
sample size = 121: total population = 467

Age p% S.E. 95% Confidence Limits
<17 0 - -
17-21 2.5 1.42 -.28 - 5.28
21-25 9.1 2.61 3.98 - 14.22
25-30 11.6 2.91 5.90 - 17.30
30-40 19.8 3.62 12.70 - 26.90
40-50 11.6 2.91 5.90 - 17.30
50-60 13.2 3.08 7.16 - 19.24
60-70 16.5 3.37 9.89 - 23.11
70+ 14.0 3.15 7.83 - 20.17



Age categories: Gobnascale:
sample size=264 total pop=1312

Age p% S.E. 95% Confidence Limit
<17 1.1 0.64 -.15 - 2.35
17-21 8.3 1.70 4.97 - 11.63
21-25 7.6 1.63 4.41 - 10.79
25-30 12.9 2.06 8.86 - 16.94
30-40 24.2 2.64 19.03 - 29.37
40-50 13.3 2.09 9.20 - 17.40
50-60 14.8 2.19 10.51 - 19.09
60-70 9.8 1.83 6.21 - 13.39
70+ 6.8 1.55 3.74 - 9.84



Employment categories: The Fountain
sample size=12: pop size=467

Age p% S.E. 95% Confidence Limit
Ever Unemployed 17 3.41 10.32 - 23.68
Never unemployed 31 4.20 22.77 - 39.23
No response/other 52 4.54 43.10 - 60.90



Employment categories: Gobnascale:
sample size=264: total pop=1312

Age p% S.E. 95% Confidence Limit
Ever Unemployed 15 2.20 10.69 - 19.31
Never unemployed 28 2.76 22.59 - 33.41
No response/other 57 3.05 51.02 - 62.98



The Fieldwork

Prior to the commencement of the fieldwork in both areas, letters were delivered in every household in the area and were distributed using existing networks of communication. The letter informed each household that Templegrove Action Research Limited would be in the area in the following weeks, carrying out a survey. It described the purpose of the survey and explained the procedures for the random selection of an individual. The letter also contained a telephone number and contact names if any individual had any queries they wished to make.

The fieldwork in Gobnascale began on the 9 October, and was completed on the 29 October, 1995, over a period of three weeks. The fieldwork in the Fountain began on the 23 October, 1995 and was completed by the 20 November, 1995, - a period of four weeks. Three staff from Templegrove Action Research carried out this exercise. The questionnaires clearly identified the research organisation, all fieldworkers were fully briefed, and dealt with residents' queries on both delivery and collection days.

451 addresses in Gobnascale and 231 addresses in the Fountain were selected. The two areas were divided up into three patches. Fieldworkers were required to make at least three calls at each address, at different times of the day (including evenings and weekends) before declaring an address as a nil return. Similarly, on collection of the questionnaire, the fieldworkers were instructed to call at least three times before declaring it a nil return.

An overall response rate of 78.25% was achieved, based on the total number of questionnaires delivered. This represented a response rate of 77.94% in the Gobnascale area and 78.95% in the Fountain area.

Refusals

The overall refusal rate was 14.84%, based on the total number of questionnaires delivered. The refusal rate for the Gobnascale area is 10.59% and for the Fountain area is 24.34%. Reasons for refusal were ascertained where possible, and reasons given for refusal included: no interest in the questions; no time; had already filled out a similar questionnaire in the previous weeks; had filled out a different questionnaire in the previous weeks; and the belief that the questionnaire was a waste of time. There were a greater number of outright refusals in the Fountain area. This could well be due to the Fountain having had three different research organisations conducting surveys in the two months prior to this survey. Questionnaires which were taken, and handed back had not been completed in some cases. In a number of cases, the questionnaires were not handed back at all. A variety of reasons were given by respondents. These included: the opinion that the questions were too personal; the questions "cut too close to the bone"; that residents did not have enough knowledge of the community since they had only lived in the area for a short time; and some residents said that they had lost the questionnaire. In this last case, some respondents decided that they did not want to fill out another questionnaire.

Wherever possible, the fieldworkers introduced the research with the randomly selected respondent and agreed a time and date suitable for collection of the questionnaire. If not possible, this was discussed and agreed with the individual who answered the door. Assistance in completing the questionnaire was offered at this point, which would be made available on collection, and the questionnaire was left for the selected respondent to fill out in his or her own time. On average, 3 days were allowed before collection. On a number of occasions, assistance was availed of at the day of delivery. Usually, this occurred where the selected respondent was elderly or disabled, and unable to avail of help from other sources. On a number of occasions, assistance was availed of on the day of collection. Respondents seeking assistance varied.

Return rates

The return rates for each of the two areas are shown in the tables which follow:

RETURN FOR GOBNASCALE AND FOUNTAIN:
AGGREGATED TOTAL

Number As % of total
As % of total
delivered
As % of total population
of Gobnascale and Fountain
Total Void and
Non Residential Units

49

7.18%

10.45%
Refusals 75 11% 15.99%
Nil Returns 173 25.37% 36.89%
Total Delivered 469 68.77% 100% 26.36%
Total Returns 385 56.5% 82.09% 21.64%
Total Sample 682 100% 38.34%
Total Population
of area surveyed
1779 100%

RETURN FOR THE FOUNTAIN


Number As % of total
sample drawn
As % of total
delivered
As % of total
population of Fountain
Total Void and
Non Residential Units

24

10.39%

15.79%
Refusals 37 16.02% 24.34%
Nil Returns 50 21.65% 32.89%
Total Delivered 152 65.80% 100.00% 32.55%
Total Returns 120 51.95% 78.95% 25.70%
Total Sample 231 100.00% 49.46%
Total Population of
area surveyed

467

100.00%

RETURN FOR GOBNASCALE

Number As % of total
sample drawn
As % of total
delivered
As % of total
population of Gobnascale
Total Void and
Non Residential Units
25 5.54% 7.89%
Refusals 38 8.43% 11.99%
Nil Returns 123 27.27% 38.80%
Total Delivered 317 70.29% 100% 24.16%
Total Returns 265 58.76% 83.6% 20.20%
Total Sample 451 100% 34.38%
Total Population
of area surveyed

1312

100%

Data Coding and Analysis

Data entry was subcontracted to The Analysis Bureau, on an agreed set of coding practices. Data was entered and analysed using custom software to produce a data list and basic cross-tabulations in the first instance. Data was subsequently entered and cross tabulated and tested statistically using SPSS 6.1 for Windows. Tests conducted include Pearson's and Spearman's chi square; Continuity correction; Likelihood ratio; Mantel-Haenszel test for linear association, Phi and Cramer's V: Fisher's Exact Test: One tailed and two tailed; Pearson's Rank and Spearman's Correlation.

Due to the size of the data set, this report has limited itself to reporting on a comparisons of data from each of the two enclave areas. Further analysis, examining in more detail sub-sets of data on issues such as gender, or deprivation may be undertaken at a later stage. In addition, the full data set will be archived at the National Data Archive at the end of the project, and thus will be available for secondary analysis.

Overall research design

It may be useful to note that this survey was part of a larger project, which employed a range of methods, approaches and techniques. These are discussed in more detail in other publications of the project (see inside back cover). Here, it is sufficient to summarise the overall research design thus:

RESEARCH DESIGN

Qualitative Quantitative Action Research
Phase 1 Entry into
Communities
Data Collection &
Analysis of Census Data
Entry into Communities
Aim: To create a climate
of respectful public
discussion about issues
of sectarian division
Phase 2 5-7 in depth
interviews in
each enclave
community
(selected by
networking
with local groups)
Research Design
sample frame
design and selection
Public seminars on
aspects of sectarian
division.
Publications on Area
Plan census Data.
Seminars etc
Phase 3 Use of focus groups
work in schools
+ youth clubs
Follow up in depth
Questionnaire design,
pilot and administration
Opsahl type hearing on
minority experience
in the city. Publication
of findings
Trips to Belfast Community
education with each enclave
community.
Phase 4 Final Report Statistical analysis
of survey results
Public Exhibition/
Broadcast.
Final Report

Questionnaire design

The overall design of the questionnaire was derived from the analysis of qualitative work in both areas. (This work is published separately: Hemmed In and Hacking It: Words and Images from The Fountain and Gobnascale. Derry Londonderry: Guildhall Press.) The preliminary in-depth interviews with residents in the Fountain and Gobnascale were tape recorded, transcribed and the contents analysed.


The questions were designed to gather data on the themes which emerged from in-depth interviews. These were: movement into and out of the area, including reasons for moving into the area; problems and difficulties of living in the area; the factors which influence decisions to stay or go; attitudes and beliefs about minority experience, population balance and segregation; and a socio-economic profile of respondents. The questions which elicit demographic details were based on the Social Attitudes Survey '95, and amended to suit the specific requirements of this survey. Other questions were amended versions of various surveys including Brendan Murtagh's surveys of Belfast interface areas.

The questionnaire was drafted and advice was sought from both the Board of Directors and Advisory Group to the project, notably Brendan Murtagh and Dr Denis McCoy. Advice on coding was given by Tom Wright of The Analysis Centre and Trevor McMullan of the University of Ulster. The questionnaire was amended and then piloted in Gobnascale and the Fountain. The completed pilots were examined, the questionnaire was further reduced in length and a number of other minor amendments were made, before finalising the design. The scheme for these interviews on which the questionnaire was based was as follows:


Areas of questioning Proposed questions Prompts
The experience of being in a
local minority or majority
What is it like to be part
of the majority in the area
you live in?
What is it like to part of
the minority in the area you
live in? How does being in the
majority compare with being
in the minority? What was
different/ the same about
those experiences?
at home? at work?
socially?

at home? at work?
socially?

at home? at work?
socially?

Desirable and essential
conditions to maintain quality
of life for minorities
What was the best/worst thing
about living in the area?
What could have been better for
you when you lived in this area?
The experience of people of
living in an area in which they
were/are a minority?
What is your experience of living
in an area as a majority/ minority?

What was/ is it like to live there/
remain there?

Experiences people have of
moving out of their homes/
areas?
What experiences do you/your family
/friends have of moving out of your
homes/areas?
Reasons for moving













expectations of government
agencies attitudes to government officials attitudes to the research

feelings about own community
stigma, respectability,

Why did you/they move?
What would have been needed
to be different in order to make it
possible for you/them to stay?
What would need to happen to make
it possible for you/them to move
back? Could a comfortable life be
established for you/them
in a mixed community? How?
What requirements/ needs would
you/they have in such a context?
How could those needs/requirements
be met?
Prompts: redevelopment;
street riots in 70's;
bought a better house;
work reasons; police
harassment; area had a
bad name; paramilitary
activity in area
sense of belonging, boundaries,
commitment /attachment to own
community,
. .
sense of empowerment
/control/influence in own
area/community,
. .
contact with
others/ the other side
. .
political attitudes influenced by
segregation?
. .

 

Return to list of contents


CAIN contains information and source material on the conflict and politics in Northern Ireland.
CAIN is based within the University of Ulster.


go to the top of this page go to the top of this page
Last modified :