Annex 1: Questionnaires/Focus Groups

The study involved both quantitative and qualitative techniques. Four questionnaires were involved. They were distributed mostly by the participating departments/agencies. Various methods were used by each department/agency in distributing them. Questionnaire 1 for those with hiring/managing responsibilities and Questionnaire 2 for EX group members were distributed by the departments/agencies to a sample of individuals (a specific number). Questionnaire 3 for visible minorities and Questionnaire 4 for the control group were distributed in different ways by different departments/agencies. Some distributed Questionnaires 3 and 4 to everyone in their department/agency through e-mail or other means. Others sent the questionnaire for visible minorities only to those who had self identified. The remaining announced through e-mail the availability of the questionnaires and those who were interested were free to contact the consultants.

Several individuals contacted the consultants directly (especially through union newsletters and word of mouth) and requested the questionnaires. All questionnaires were responded to on a voluntary basis. Questionnaires 1 and 2 were identical except for the question on racial origin. Questionnaire 3 was to be responded to only by visible minority public servants while Questionnaire 4 was designed for non-visible minority public servants. Because of the nature of the questionnaire distribution, it is not possible to calculate a response rate for the questionnaires.

As can be expected in any survey, a few questionnaires were not usable. Some had not been completed beyond the first page. Some had misunderstood the term "visible minority" and filled out Questionnaire 3 claiming to be so. They were primarily, aboriginal persons, persons with disabilities, immigrants born in Southern European countries, and some who claimed visibility because of being "white male."

Out of 1,712 questionnaires received 1,612 were usable. They were as follows:

Questionnaires

An important question that could be raised is how representative were the questionnaires received. It was impossible to answer this question in the case of Questionnaires 1 and 2. However, the question could be answered for Questionnaire 3 and to some extent Questionnaire 4. This can be done by comparing some of the important characteristics of the universe with the characteristics of those who responded to the questionnaire.

The number of visible minorities who responded to the questionnaire was close to 12% of the visible minority employees in the public service. The comparison between some of the key characteristics of the public servants who self-identified shows that while the study did not use a systematic sampling scheme, the survey by and large was somewhat representative of the visible minorities in the public service in terms of sex and occupational category.

Table 1A

Comparison of Visible Minorities in the Federal Public Service and the
Study Sample By Gender

Table 1B

Comparison of Visible Minorities in the Federal Public Service and the
Study Sample By Occupational Category

Charts 1 and 2 show graphically the similarities with respect to gender and occupational distribution between the visible minority population in the public service as a whole and those who participated in the study.

In terms of the origins of visible minority employees in the study sample, the three major ethnic groups in the visible minority population in Canada (Chinese, South Asians and Blacks) were also the major groups that responded as seen in Chart 3.

The control group had 62.6% women compared to 47.4% in the public service. Occupationally over 85% of the sample belonged to the administrative and foreign service group and the administrative support group compared to 61.4% in the public service as a whole.

Focus Groups

Focus Groups by Type

Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page