2011 UK Census

Reflecting on 2001 metadata
As we discussed previously the most commonly used 2001 metadata product was the Definitions Volume. Questionnaire respondents were asked whether it would be sufficient to produce an electronic only version of this for 2011, or if there was also a need for a printed version.

The majority of respondents (75 per cent) said that an electronic version would be sufficient.

Of the quarter who said they also need a printed version, the highest proportion was among users in the public sector (36 per cent) and third sector (48 per cent).

Table 13.1

Potential 2011 metadata products

Ad hoc feedback from users of 2001 data has included thoughts and opinions relating to the range of 2001 metadata products. This feedback was used as a base for questions in the output questionnaire - providing a range of options for users to express a preference for or comment on in the question

Question In addition to the types of metadata produced for 2001 Census outputs listed previously, the following metadata products have been suggested by users for 2011 outputs.

a) How useful would you find the following ? (Options: Very useful, of some use, not useful)

Table 13.2

b) What level of priority would you give to each ? (Options: high, medium, low)

Table 13.3

If some or all of these metadata options are pursued as components of the overall 2011 metadata strategy, they could be either stand-alone products or form parts of a unified complete package, and some elements may be used in a higher level 'Guide to Census data'. We discussed such a possible guide in an earlier post where users were asked to contribute thoughts and ideas about what should be included in a guide.

Linking statistical data with metadata

The online questionnaire sought user opinion of how important it is to join up the data and the metadata from the 2011 Census, both in terms of timing of release and embedding one with the other.

Question How important is it that 2011 Census metadata are "tied up with/linked to" 2011 statistical output in terms of

(a) timing (having associated metadata published at the same time as statistical output)

(b) embedding (having associated metadata joined with statistical output as one product)

(Answer options: Important - as long as no delay to results, Not important, Important even if means delay to results)

In terms of timing, tying up the two was important to the majority of respondents, 70 per cent, but not at the expense of any possible delay to publication of results. 15 per cent of respondents felt it was important enough to accept delays, and 15 per cent felt it was not important at all.

For 62 per cent of respondents it is important to go further and “embed” metadata with statistical output, but again with the caveat that only if this means no delay to the publication of results. 26 per cent do not attach this caveat, and 12 per cent feel linking the two is not important.

So, do these results match your own views? Do you have more specific or detailed views about these aspects of metadata, particularly timing? Or maybe there are other issues relating to metdata you want to discuss? If so, let us know.

See other posts similar to this one: