International approaches to advance equality: insights from six countries

Annex B: Methodology

Overview of our approach

We used a three-phase, multi-method approach to collect quantitative and qualitative data to answer the following research questions:

Research Questions:

• What are the key similarities and differences with Scotland’s legislative frameworks (regarding the promotion of equality) in the chosen countries?
• What is the evidence of the effectiveness of the equality-related legislative frameworks in these countries?
• How is evidence of impact published and measured?
• Are there areas of learning relevant to the Scottish Government’s current review of the effectiveness of the Public Sector Equality Duty in Scotland.

Three-Phase, Multi-Method Approach

Phase 1: Content Analysis: ^[29]We identified relevant legislation and associated guidance.

Phase 2: Literature Review: We searched^[30] for information published online by Government departments/agencies and scrutiny bodies.

Phase 3: Email Interviews: We identified 27 potential^[31] participants working in scrutiny bodies and government departments/agencies.

Phase 1: Content Analysis: We analysed 24 documents, including the SSDs. The documentation included in the review is listed in Annex H.

Phase 2: Literature Review: We sourced literature using Elsevier, Mendeley™, academic libraries, and Google Scholar, focusing on articles published since 2018.

Phase 3: Email Interviews: We used email to enable engagement with potential contacts working in various time zones.

Phase 1: Content Analysis: We established similarities and differences with the SSDs.

Phase 2: Literature Review: We generated results through a review of relevant literature.

Phase 3: Email Interviews: We generated qualitative responses from key contacts in the selected countries.

Email Interview Responses

Table 1 shows the responses received from Government departments and agencies along with the method of responses. Table 2 notes responses from independent organisations with interests in equality and public policy.

Table 1:

Government Department or Agency:

Canada

Women and Gender Equity (WAGE)

Method of response: MS Teams Interview

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat

Method of response: Email Response

Government Department or Agency:

Sweden

Swedish Gender Equality Agency

Method of response: MS Teams Interview

Table 2:

Independent organisations: Impact Assessment Committee of the Belgian Administrative Simplification Agency

Method of response: Email Response

Independent organisations: The Inter-Federal Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Discrimination and Racism Belgium

Method of response: Email Response

Independent organisations: Statistics Canada

Method of response: Email Response

Independent organisations: Public Service Commission, New Zealand

Method of response: Email Response

Independent organisations: National Business Initiative, South Africa

Method of response: Email Response

Independent organisations: EHRC, Wales

Method of response: Teams Interview

Independent organisations: Cardiff University,Wales (Academic Contact 1)

Method of response: Email Response

Limitations

The scope of our research was limited to the legislative frameworks and associated literature of the six countries selected for this review.

Organisations were not compelled to participate in the research. We achieved an overall response rate of 37%, with responses coming from all six countries.