# Central statistics office - survey with personal questions



## homeowner (10 Aug 2007)

A woman called to my house during the week saying she was from the central statistics office - the same people that do the census.  She had proper id and all.  She said our house was slected to take part in a survey and asked if she could ask us some questions.  

The questions were to do with where you work, what is your salary bracket, are you happy with your work, do you own your house, what is your job title ......questions along those lines.  She also asked for our names and dates of birth, nationality etc.....

I found the questions really intrusive and almost stopped answering at one point but she assured me that all details were confidential, but i dont understand why they wanted our names.

On her sheet was 10 other houses from our estate that she was calling on.  She also said she would be back in 3 months with the next module of questions which will be about Health, our health and how often we are sick etc.....then there will be another module a few months later.

I am not going to answer the door because she will have more information about me in one place that most of my family know about me.  

Has anyone else been through this?  Are I obliged to answer these questions?


----------



## ClubMan (10 Aug 2007)

homeowner said:


> asked if she could ask us some questions.
> 
> I found the questions really intrusive and almost stopped answering at one point


So why didn't you and tell her that you had withdrawn your consent?


> I am not going to answer the door because she will have more information about me in one place that most of my family know about me.


Why not answer the door and inform her of your concerns/objections?


> Are I obliged to answer these questions?


Presumably not if she asked you if she could ask you the questions in the first place?


----------



## z108 (10 Aug 2007)

Ring the number on the leaflet the person hands out and complain that you werent informed of your right to choose not to answer the survey. Then tell them on the phone never to visit you again. Also make sure anyone who visits is informed of your refusal and that any further action which does not respect your choice is considered as harassment.
I was met with one particularly pushy individual (do they get commission or something for each completed survey?) at my doorstep in the past who even went so far as to tell me it was my patriotic duty to answer the survey and who returned to my doorstep three times despite being told to go away for each of these three times. 
As far as Im concerned if the government wants this information  then it should mail us all anonymous letters which we can mail in and I'd be very happy to do this. What I wont do is dig up my past and present affairs in front of a stranger who was taken off the dole into a job part time and have those details stored alongside my name.
Instead of doing things properly and mailing us census forms, whats happening is they send around people with laptops who ask questions and then input the answers into the laptops (which could easily get copied,lost or stolen) and these 'officials' could be anyone as far as I'm concerned. It could be a private investigator wanting to know all your business, a stalker or just a nosey branch of government. 
I told them I'd  be very happy to do my 'duty' and post back a anonymous form (which I was told they cant facilitate so their LOSS!) but considering the way they went about collecting the data I told them to shove it and so should everyone else !


----------



## gianni (10 Aug 2007)

homeowner said:


> A woman called to my house during the week saying she was from the central statistics office - the same people that do the census. She had proper id and all. She said our house was slected to take part in a survey and asked if she could ask us some questions.
> 
> The questions were to do with where you work, what is your salary bracket, are you happy with your work, do you own your house, what is your job title ......questions along those lines. She also asked for our names and dates of birth, nationality etc.....


 
it is more than likely for the Quarterly National Household Survey (QNHS). Results of previous surveys are available on their website here . So you can see how the information is used.



homeowner said:


> I found the questions really intrusive and almost stopped answering at one point but she assured me that all details were confidential, but i dont understand why they wanted our names.


 
Names would usually be taken for verification purposes. The data collected by the CSO cannot be used for any other purpose other than compiling statistics... e.g. revenue won't be calling on you querying your undeclared household income of €100K.  During the last census it was suggested that the CSO use their info to update the electoral register but, for the reason mentioned, they wouldn't/couldn't do it.

The statistics gathered by the CSO are very important for the future development of the country. I think it's in all our interests for us to take part when contacted. I wouldn't dwell too much on the part played by the interviewer, they constantly interview respondents and I would doubt if they even remember who said what.


----------



## CCOVICH (10 Aug 2007)

If they have appropriate ID I wouldn't be too concerned.  Of course it's your own choice whether or not to take part.  It would certainly appear to me the this is a more robust method of collecting data than anonymous postal surveys.


----------



## homeowner (10 Aug 2007)

She caught me at a bad moment, I was extremly tired and not on the ball.  Normally I wouldnt have answered her questions but she presented it in a very official way.  We were in the middle of it before I reaslied the types of questions she was asking.  When I queried her more she said it was all confidential and i was too tired to care.  It was only today that I realise how much I had told her.

Anyway I'll not be ansering any more questions.  I still dont get why they need your name.


----------



## z108 (10 Aug 2007)

CCOVICH said:


> If they have appropriate ID I wouldn't be too concerned.  Of course it's your own choice whether or not to take part.  It would certainly appear to me the this is a more robust method of collecting data than anonymous postal surveys.




Point 1.

How are you supposed to  know what an appropriate ID is supposed to look like ? Now a government postal address for a returned survey form I would trust a lot more.

Point 2.

I dont think its robust at all. Its only robust  as far as it is an aggressive form of collecting data. The types of questions asked are so personal about health and salaries  etc  that an anonymous survey would in my opinion contain a lot more honest answers.


----------



## huskerdu (10 Aug 2007)

AFAIK, the only reason they need your name is so that they can prove that they only used the survey from your house once and that no-one invents a load of questionnaires and writes down any old address. THey do have to do some verification that the survey is valid. 

It is a pity that you had a bad experience, as had been said before, the QNHS is important and makes very interesting reading ( or maybe that just marks me as a nerd that likes reading statistics).


----------



## Lauren (10 Aug 2007)

'....What I wont do is dig up my past and present affairs in front of a stranger who was taken off the dole into a job part time and have those details stored alongside my name...'

What has the fact that the person was possibly taken off the dole into a part time job got to do with this discussion?


----------



## z108 (10 Aug 2007)

Lauren said:


> '....What I wont do is dig up my past and present affairs in front of a stranger who was taken off the dole into a job part time and have those details stored alongside my name...'
> 
> What has the fact that the person was possibly taken off the dole into a part time job got to do with this discussion?



I cant believe you dont see my point! The guy who knocked on my door was totally unprofessional and returned 3 times looking for data despite being told  politely 3 times to go away. He even questioned other people about me who opened the door in my absence in order to satisfy his greed for data concerning my person. This alone is the single biggest reason why I will not cooperate with any of these people in future.
I dont know this guy from adam. What qualifies him to hold my personal data and to have the power to identify it with my identity ? If he was the parish priest I wouldn't give it to him. I am not going to entrust him or any single individual with my personal data and also with the powers to associate that personal data with my name and address.
And if you think he doesnt have that power you're kidding yourself. Each name on his list has a number and each profile in the computer is identified with that number.


----------



## annR (10 Aug 2007)

I think the interviewers are incentivised on collecting data so they are going to be pushy - if it's not appropriate it's more the fault of whoever decided to give them targets as if they were sales people.

My husband got surveyed like this recently, not sure if it's the same survey but he got 10 euros for answering the questions - well deserved as it went on for ages and he was not told upfront how long it was going to take.

He gave his weight and height measurements and they have called up twice asking if they can come themselves and weigh and measure him themselves! He said no but we were tempted to make them work for it and get them to hunt him round the garden and tag him like in the wildlife programs.  We could have great crack with that


----------



## gianni (10 Aug 2007)

sign said:


> Now a government postal address for a returned survey form I would trust a lot more.


 

The people sampled for the QNHS are done so in a systematic method which probably involve the setting of various quotas. The sampling needs to be sound for any inferences to be drawn from the survey results. A postal survey wouldn't achieve the same level of robustness as the response rates for postal surveys are much lower and there is no control over the demographics of the respondents...


----------



## z108 (10 Aug 2007)

gianni said:


> A postal survey wouldn't achieve the same level of robustness



Yeah interrogating visitors  with personal questions about me, visitors who answer the door in my absence, and recording in the laptop what those (intimidated) visitors say (about my household), all in my absence, is one way of getting their pound of flesh. 
Along with ignoring the fact of being told to go away several times and still being cheeky enough to return several times with insolence they cant get any more robust than that.
I should be thankful they're not higher on the *robustness * scale  and didnt attempt to kick down the door and beat the information out of us!


----------



## homeowner (10 Aug 2007)

I can see that this info is important for government to make decisions  but there is something very uncomfortable about telling a stranger very personal details about yourself that you would not normally divulge even to some of your closest friends e.g. salary and illness details.  She was very nice about it but if she lives locally she now knows everything about me.  I could bump into her in the supermarket.


----------



## gianni (13 Aug 2007)

sign said:


> Yeah interrogating visitors with personal questions about me, visitors who answer the door in my absence, and recording in the laptop what those (intimidated) visitors say (about my household), all in my absence, is one way of getting their pound of flesh.


 
It's not a personal crusade to get information on you specifically. Your home was selected via their sampling methodology - you were then selected for whatever reason (the head of the household, the main grocery shopper, the youngest male etc..) The interviewer would then have to try to secure an interview with you, this includes making call backs. 

If the interviewer was an a$$ there is no excusing that but I wouldn't let him/her put you off the idea of cooperating with the CSO in future. Analysing the personal data of a sample of the population allows the govt to strategically plan health services, education services, social services etc...

There is not much scientific merit in conducting a survey exclusively amongst people who like being interviewed.


----------



## Hoagy (13 Aug 2007)

gianni said:


> There is not much scientific merit in conducting a survey exclusively amongst people who like being interviewed.


 
Surely if the survey is scientific the attitude of the respondent is irrelevant?


----------



## Lauren (13 Aug 2007)

sign, I understand your point about not wanting to provide your information to a stranger but what has the dole comment go to do with it?


----------



## z108 (13 Aug 2007)

Lauren said:


> sign, I understand your point about not wanting to provide your information to a stranger but what has the dole comment go to do with it?



Lauren, 
If the day comes when I feel the need to unburden my life story, income data, bank account details, countries I've lived in, jobs I have worked at, qualifications and personal health data etc to a complete stranger and put my word of honor and good name to it, that stranger will not be a part timer or a blow in. That stranger will be someone who is professionally trained and committed to a career in which he or she has earned some seniority and has earned the trust of his or her organisation and peers due to time served. I feel as a private citizen all of us deserve that much.
What none of us deserve is the totally unprofessional, ignorant and sneaky manner I encountered at my front door.


----------



## gonk (13 Aug 2007)

gianni said:


> If the interviewer was an a$$ there is no excusing that but I wouldn't let him/her put you off the idea of cooperating with the CSO in future. Analysing the personal data of a sample of the population allows the govt to strategically plan health services, education services, social services etc...


 
It can also allow garbage statistics to be collected to satisfy the pre-conceived notions and pet theories of politically-correct sociologists and similar busy-bodies.

Take this question from the last census, which everyone in the state was required to answer under threat of criminal prosecution and possible fines and imprisonment:

What is your ethnic or cultural background? 

A. White
• ___ Irish
• ___ Irish Traveller 
• ___ Any other White background 

•B. Black or Black Irish 
• ___ African 
• ___ Any other Black background 

• C. Asian or Asian Irish 
• ___ Chinese 
• ___ Any other Asian background 

• D. Other including mixed background 
• ___ Other including mixed background, write in description. 


There are so many logical fallacies underlying the premises of this question, it's difficult to list them all, but to cover a few:

(1) There is no objective definition of "white", "black" and "Asian".
(2) Racial background cannot be equated with ethnic and cultural background, unless you can believe a nonsense such as a "black" child, born to a "white" mother and raised by her, is ethnically and culturally different to its parent.
(3) The question assumes there is a homogeneous "Irish" cultural identity to which all "white" Irish people belong, other than Travellers.

I wrote on the form my objections to the question along the above lines and refused to answer it. If it's on the next census in similar form I will refuse to complete the entire form and challenge the CSO to prosecute me for failing to answer this rubbish.


----------



## joe sod (13 Aug 2007)

Alot of these surveys are useless in terms of information for the simple reason that they are surveys and people lie in them. People are aspirational so questions about income and jobs will be exagerated. The only information that is valuable is hard information from revenue etc which can't be scewed by people lying or exagerating. Maybe its another way of keeping jobs in the civil service


----------



## gonk (15 Aug 2007)

gonk said:


> Racial background cannot be equated with ethnic and cultural background, unless you can believe a nonsense such as a "black" child, born to a "white" mother and raised by her, is ethnically and culturally different to its parent.


 
There's a piece in today's _Irish Times _about a man born in the 60s to a white Catholic Belfast mother and a black Ghanaian doctor. He was raised in Belfast, joined Sinn Féin, and ended up in the Maze for four years in the 80s on firearms and explosives charges.

I wonder what the CSO would make of his "ethnic or cultural background"?


----------



## gianni (15 Aug 2007)

The Census (and various CSO surveys) can only record so much. They have to make generalisations and try to 'group' respondents whether it's in terms of ethnicity, socio-economic level, education etc. 

In an ideal world they could have a 10 page q'naire that properly investigates ethnicity but realistically they have to work within parameters. I think the idea that the CSO are trying to satisfy the "pet theories" of certain groups is a bit far fetched.


----------



## gonk (15 Aug 2007)

gianni said:


> In an ideal world they could have a 10 page q'naire that properly investigates ethnicity but realistically they have to work within parameters. I think the idea that the CSO are trying to satisfy the "pet theories" of certain groups is a bit far fetched.


 
I disagree. I think the area is wholly inappropriate for them to be gathering statistics on in the first place. Leaving that aside, the implication in the question that race, ethnicity and culture are synonymous is simply wrong. To take the CSO's categorization to its logical conclusion, two siblings born to a "white" mother, one with a "white" father and the other a "black" father, are of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds.

Requiring citizens under threat of prosecution to answer questions like these which are based on nonsensical, subjective and unscientific premises is an abuse of the CSO's powers in my view. If questions along these lines are to be included in the Census at all, answering them should be voluntary.


----------

