This paper provides an assessment of the value of national population censuses as information sources with specific reference to UK census data and its use in policy-making. Mixed methods were adopted to collect quantitative and qualitative data from two sources: (a) a content analysis of policy documents; and (b) interviews with policy-makers in Scotland. The findings highlight that, although the general value of the census is recognized, policy-makers are not necessarily closely engaged with the census as a tool for directing the development and implementation of policy. This is evident, for example, in a lack of awareness of proposed changes to the census, and infrequent deployment of available data. The opportunity to change perceptions among policy-makers, and to expand the application of census data in public policy, is identified. With a novel focus on the deployment of censuses as sources of evidence for policy-making that includes the views of policy-makers from both within and beyond government, this work contributes to an established body of global research on international censuses.
BoylePDorlingD.The 2001 UK census: Remarkable resource or bygone legacy of the ‘pencil and paper era’?Area2004; 36101–110.
2.
ColemanD.The twilight of the census. Population Development Review2013; 8: 334–351.
3.
DugmoreKFurnessPLeventhalBMoyC.Beyond the 2011 census in the United Kingdom: With an international perspective. International Journal of Market Research2011; 53(5): 619–650.
4.
WhiteI.The 2011 Census taking shape: Methodological and technological developments. Population Trends2009; 135: 64–72.
5.
CullenR.Culture, identity and information privacy in the age of digital government. Online Information Review2009; 33: 405–421.
6.
HeeneyC.Breaching the contract? Privacy and the UK Census. The Information Society2012; 28(5): 316–328.
7.
ChristopherAJ. The quest for a census of the British Empire c. 1840–1940. The Journal of Historical Geography2008; 34(2): 268–285.
8.
DaleA. Developments in census taking in the last 25 years. Population Trends200(100): 40–46.
9.
JohansenHC.Early Danish census taking. The History of the Family2004; 9(1): 23–31.
10.
PearceAJ.The Peruvian population census of 1725–1740. Latin American Research Review2001; 36: 69–104.
11.
ShoemakerN.The census as civilizer. historical methods. A Journal of Quantitative and Interdisciplinary History1992; 21(1): 4–11.
12.
AlyGRothKH.The Nazi census: Identification and control in the Third Reich. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 2004.
13.
ChristopherAJ.Delineating the nation: South African censuses 1865–2007. Political Geography2009; 28(2): 101–109.
14.
DeonandanRS.The mandatory census: Tension between individual rights and the public good. Canadian Journal of Public Health2011; 102(6): 414–416.
15.
BaffourBKingTValenteP.The modern census: Evolution, examples and evaluation. International Statistical Review2013; 81(3): 407–425.
16.
DiamondIAbbottOJacksonN.Key issues in the quality assurance of the one number census. Population Trends2003; 116: 11–19.
17.
SimpsonSDorlingD.Those missing millions: Implications for social statistics of non-response to the 1991 Census. Journal of Social Policy1994; 23(4): 543–567.
18.
BoazAGraysonLLevittRSolesburyW.Does evidence-based policy work? Learning from the UK experience. Evidence and Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice2008; 4: 233–253.
19.
PawsonRWongGOwenL.Known knowns, known unknowns, unknown unknowns: The predicament of evidence-based policy. American Journal of Evaluation2011; 32(4): 518–546.
20.
SandersonI.Is it ‘what works’ that matters? Evaluation and evidence-based policy-making. Research Papers in Education2003; 18: 331–345.
21.
SandersonI.Intelligent policy making for a complex world: Pragmatism, evidence and learning. Political Studies2009; 457(4): 699–719.
22.
WastellDG.Information systems and evidence-based policy in multi-agency networks: The micro-politics of situated innovation. Journal of Strategic Information Systems2006; 15(3): 197–217.
23.
ForemanJThomsonL.Government Information Literacy in the ‘century of information’. Journal of Information Literacy2009; 3(2): 64–72.
24.
GreysonDLCunninghamCMorganS.Information behaviour of Canadian pharmaceutical policy makers. Health Information and Libraries Journal2012; 29(1): 16–27.
25.
KarunakaranAReddyMCSpencePR.Toward a model of collaborative information behaviour in organisations. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology2013; 64(12): 2437–2451.
26.
LombardE.Pursuing information literacy. Oxford; Chandos 2010.
27.
MutchA.Managing information and knowledge in organisations; a literacy approach. New York: Routledge, 2008.
28.
ShahC.Collaborative information seeking: The art and science of making the whole greater than the sum of all. Berlin: Springer, 2012.
29.
XiaoLEasrmureV.Information use in group decision making teams. In: Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology2014; 51(1): 1–4.
30.
ChertovOAleksandroveM.Using association rules for searching levers of influence in census data. Social and Behavioral Sciences2013; 73: 475–478.
31.
CookL.The quality and qualities of population statistics, and the place of the census. Area2004; 36(2): 111–123.
32.
FeatherJ.The information society: A study of continuity and change, 6th ednLondon: Facet2013.
33.
CohenMHébertPC.Ideology trumps evidence with new voluntary survey. Canadian Medical Association Journal2010; 182 (12): E541.
34.
DaleAMarshC.The 1991 Census user’s guide. London: HMSO.
35.
BrownMGardinerC.Informing policy-making at sub-local authority spatial levels: Using small area micro-data from the 2001 Census. Local Government Studies2004; 30(1): 74–87.
36.
GiustiCMarchettiSPratesiMSalvatiN.Robust small area estimation and oversampling in the estimation of poverty indicators. European Survey Research Association, 2012.
37.
TarozziADeatonA. Using census and survey data to estimate poverty and inequality for small areas. Review of Economics and Statistics2009: 773–792.
PawsonR.Evidence-based policy: A realist perspective. London: Sage, 2006.
43.
Modernising government. London: HMSO, 1999.
44.
Kauhanen-SimanainenA.Corporate literacy: Discovering the senses of the organisation. Oxford: Chandos, 2007.
45.
YeoM.The rights of science and the rights of politics: Lessons from the long-form census controversy. Canadian Journal of Sociology2012; 37(3): 295–315.
46.
WebsterF.Theories of the information society, 4th edn. Abingdon: Routledge, 2014.
PanagiotopoulisPBowenF. Conceptualising the digital public in government crowdsourcing: Social media and the imagined audience. In: TambourisEJanssenMSchollHJWimmerMATarabanisKGascoMKilevinkBLindgrenIParycekP. (Eds), Proceedings of 14th IFIP WG 8.5 international conference, EGOV2015, 2015, pp. 19–30.
BaxterGMarcellaRIllingworthL.Organizational information behaviour in the public consultation process in Scotland. Information Research2010; 15(4), http://InformationR.net/ir/15-4/paper442.html (accessed 11 December 2015).
53.
CrawfordJIrvingC.Information literacy in the workplace: A qualitative exploratory study. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science2009; 41(1): 29–38.
54.
LloydA.Trapped between a rock and a hard place: What counts as information literacy in the workplace and how is it conceptualised?Library Trends2011; 60(2): 277–296.
55.
CrawfordJIrvingC.Information literacy, the link between secondary and tertiary education project and its wider implications. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science2007; 39(1): 17–26.
