The Census

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

Being Northern Irish, I regard the Census as just another sectarian headcount. I'm probably wrong, but there's nothing you can do about it.

go down south for the day on the 27th,the bastards cant touch you then.

Aye, but the priests will

[House of Usher]

A letter in the Times Higher today pointed out that parts of the census questionnaire are poorly worded, to wit:

Individuals are asked to indicate whether they have a higher degree, for example, an MA, PhD or PGCE. The last is obviously an error. The first has ambiguity in Scotland, where it represents a first degree for the ancient universities, and in Oxford, where it is an academic bonus gained through payment, not study.
- Ian McNay, Professor emeritus, higher education and management, University of Greenwich

On the one hand I think 'Ha! Serves them right.' On the other hand, but still as a former government social research employee with an axe to grind, I am irked by the knowledge that this example of poor questionnaire design may well be attributable to an organizational preference for mathematical and statistical skills, and writing formulae in particular, over social science skills including questionnaire design. Indeed, it would appear that people I worked with didn't regard questionnaire design to be a specialist skill at all but thought just anyone could do it (and just anyone did have a go), whereas they couldn't see the value of any graduate researcher who hadn't learnt how to write formulae, and nor were they willing to provide the training. When I left their employ they were thinking of changing their recruitment process to exclude qualitative researchers. If they're sensible they'll drop that idea and try to hire a few more to broaden the skills base of their organization.

[Stan]

I was gonna give them my basic details for headcount purposes but I kept thinking back to their petty threats and ripped it up instead. I could do time for murder without answering that many questions.

[TordelBack]

I can fully accept getting annoyed by bad survey design, it used to drive me mad when I was doing statistical analysis on Census results, and it was obvious that just one alternate word in some questions would eliminate acres of ambiguity.  I can also just about accept the 'Jedi' entry as representing a Monster Raving Loony Party-type two-fingers attitude to invasive systems of control, which I can see may be something commendable about the British character (although if you really do wish to indicate that you have no religious faith, or wish to indicate that you do not feel that that question is anyone's business but your own, I'd recommend saying that).  

What I can't understand is not filling out the form at all.  Leaving aside the value to the present allocation of resources (rejection of which is, i suppose, a political choice), it's part of a portrait of your whole society, that your descendants will be able to look at and specifically see your form, and place it in the context of all the other forms - and then go back to the previous one, and forward to the next one, and see how you as an individual moved through a vanished world.  There's nothing like it - I've read W.B. Yeats' census entry in his own hand, I've read my great grandmother's, I've read the entries for inner city tenements that you can match to the address on the O.S. map to see 50 people sharing one outside toilet and living off 5 wages.  Absenting yourself from the historical record like that is... well, short-sighted.

[Keef Monkey]

My missus filled it in but was asking me the questions. When it got to the religion part I said to put atheist, and she asked why I didn't just put none, and what the difference is. I honestly couldn't think of an answer and felt very stupid. Then she asked the difference between an atheist and an agnostic, and I felt even stupider.

Edit: I obviously know the difference now, but I didn't have google to hand. We put 'none' on the form in the end.

[SmallBlueThing]

The trouble with the religion part of the census is that you have three options if your beliefs aren't among those stated: you can ignore it, tick 'none' or write your answer in. The first two can be interpreted as apathy; which with further be interpreted as 'someone who hasnt yet seen the light, or someone who isnt going to care about cultural policy based upin religion, therefore we can continue pushing the idea that religion is serious and should be treated with repect'.
The empty box allows me to write 'atheist' (definitely not 'agnostic' or 'none'), but demeans that absolute lack of religious conviction by making it of exactly the same significance as someone writing 'jedi' or 'satanist' (an act that i do support, by the way).
The question should not be optional, and 'atheist' should be an option.

SBT

[The Legendary Shark]

The entire census should be optional.

Making it an offence to not fill it in is what bugs me - where's the freedom in that? If I wrote to David Cameron asking him these questions for my own personal research, would he answer me? Like balls he would. It's nothing more than keeping a check on the cattle.

[TordelBack]

The empty box allows me to write 'atheist' (definitely not 'agnostic' or 'none'), but demeans that absolute lack of religious conviction by making it of exactly the same significance as someone writing 'jedi' or 'satanist' (an act that i do support, by the way).

As regards the computer tally and present analyses, you're right - the question is clearly designed to record either your affiliation to a listed organised religion, or none, rather than your personal conviction.  As regards the historical record, your written preference will be recorded and accorded its appropriate weight.

But...

The question should not be optional, and 'atheist' should be an option.

You're absolutely right.

It's nothing more than keeping a check on the cattle.

Unless you're taking your political views to a Year Zero extreme, it really isn't.  

If I wrote to David Cameron asking him these questions for my own personal research, would he answer me? Like balls he would.

David Cameron is being asked those questions, and you will have an opportunity to analyse the anonymised data produced for your research, and in a hundred years time you can read his answers, just as he'll be able to read yours.

[House of Usher]

you will have an opportunity to analyse the anonymised data produced for your research, and in a hundred years time you can read his answers, just as he'll be able to read yours.

You say that like you sound sarcastic, but haven't you seen Futurama? Heads kept alive in jars, that's all I'm saying.

[House of Usher]

P.S. - David Cameron doesn't want your census returns; he'd rather have the money. It's the Office for National Statistics that does want them. For the purpose of producing statistics (ooh, sinister!).

[The Legendary Shark]

Lockheed Martin, the notorious US arms manufacturer, was awarded the £150m contract to run the census on behalf of the Office for National Statistics. 

Lockheed Martin provided private contract interrogators to the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and Guantánamo Bay in Cuba.  They are responsible for Trident missiles for both the US and the UK nuclear weapons systems, and are one of three contractors which run the nuclear weapons factory at Aldermaston.  80% of their work is done for the US defence department: they assist more than two dozen American government agencies and are involved in surveillance and data processing for the CIA and FBI. 

Now, what if I don't want to have anything to do with a project run by such a despicable company that makes the bulk of its money out of war? Well, I can get fined up to £1,000. No matter how useful the census will be to present or future generations (assuming there will be any future generations after companies like Lockheed Martin get through with us), I don't agree with this compulsory element. Why don't they pay everyone who agrees to take part a tenner instead?

[TordelBack]

Now, what if I don't want to have anything to do with a project run by such a despicable company that makes the bulk of its money out of war?

That's a different matter to dismissing it as 'checking on the cattle', and I'm inclined to agree with you on that one - the same criminals are running the Irish census.  The way to move forward on that one is to continue to protest a government procurement process that believes in the complete innocence of subsidiary companies from their owners' crimes (as our government does), or just point-blank doesn't care about it (yours).  It doesn't invalidate the census project as a whole.

[The Legendary Shark]

Until we get a choice, we are cattle. Or chattel.

[TordelBack]

Participating in any society automatically restricts choice.  Currently society holds that that the wider benefits of compulsory completion of the census outweighs your individual objections.  But as you point out, you still have a choice, albeit Hobson's.

[House of Usher]

Now, what if I don't want to have anything to do with a project run by such a despicable company that makes the bulk of its money out of war?

Did you participate in the 2001 census? Lockheed Martin won the contract to provide the data capture software for that one as well, so they probably had the edge in terms of track record of success when bidding for the 2011 contract.

Why don't they pay everyone who agrees to take part a tenner instead?

That would be giving us back our own money, and would increase to cost of the census by about £300,000,000.