Life in Two Enclave Areas
|
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? at home? at work? |
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/ |
|
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 feelings about own community |
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? |
. | . |
CAIN
contains information and source material on the conflict
and politics in Northern Ireland. CAIN is based within Ulster University. |
|
|||
Last modified :
|
||
|