APPENDIX 1: RESEARCH METHODS
A.1 Table A1 shows the research methods employed for this research.
Table A1: Elements of the Reasonable Preference research
Element | Methodology | Key issues considered | Role in relation to the research as a whole |
|---|
1 | Rapid evidence assessment of all previous research on reasonable preference | Identify all issues around the interpretation and implementation of reasonable preference found by previous research. | Inform questionnaire design for subsequent stages. Test the extent to which previously identified issues remain current. |
|---|
2 | Analysis of secondary data on social housing allocations in Scotland to include SCORE, HL1 and APSR data. | Look at patterns of social housing allocation in Scotland. Look for variation in behaviour of social landlords in respect of allocation. | Understand wider context in which research is taking place. |
|---|
3 | Online survey of Scottish Social Landlords | Data on interpretation and operation of reasonable preference and how it influences allocation. Review of data held on Reasonable Preference. | Identify patterns of interpretation of and responses to reasonable preference. Inform selection of case study areas and topic guide design for elements 4 and 5. |
|---|
4 | Visits to five areas to conduct focus groups and telephone interviews with social landlords | Collect detailed qualitative data on how social landlords interpret and administer reasonable preference and information on how useful they feel the categories are and whether they remain fit for purpose. | Provide detailed and nuanced information on the interpretation of reasonable preference and the assessments of social landlords as to its value to social housing allocation. |
|---|
5 | Interviews with housing rights and tenant representative groups conducted as part of fieldwork in Edinburgh and Glasgow | Collect detailed qualitative data from agencies that act on behalf of individuals and households seeking to access social housing and their views and interpretation of the value of reasonable preference in enhancing access for groups in particular need of social housing. | Extend understanding of the operation of reasonable preference from the perspective of agencies acting as advocates for groups seeking to access social housing. |
|---|
A.2 The responses to the online survey were less than anticipated and while the responding social landlords managed a significant proportion of the national total social rented housing stock (42%), only one third of all social landlords responded (Table A2). There was an underrepresentation of social landlords working in rural areas and also of smaller social landlords. The results of the survey were therefore not necessarily representative of the views of social landlords in Scotland and are best viewed as indicative.
Table A2: Response rates to the online survey
Type of social landlord | National total | Of which responded to survey | As % | National self contained units | Of which managed by survey respondents | |
|---|
Registered Social Landlords | 163 | 54 | 33% | 272,401 | 157,424 | 58% |
|---|
Local authority housing services managing housing | 26 | 7 | 27% | 323,138 | 93,526 | 29% |
|---|
All social landlords | 189 | 61 | 32% | 595,539 | 250,950 | 42% |
|---|
* Sources: Scottish Housing Regulator, Scottish Government
A.3 In total, representatives of 28 social landlords took place in focus groups and telephone interviews conducted for the research. Some of the imbalances in the response to the online survey were addressed by concentrating effort on smaller social landlords and rural areas in these interviews. Focus groups with local authority and RSL representatives were held in Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Highland and Perth and Kinross.
A.4 Overall representation of the social rented sector in the research was reasonably strong. Respondents of 28 social landlords took part in the research via the telephone interviews and focus groups and a further 61 responded to the online survey. Collectively these responses represented 89 social landlords which was just under half (47%) of all the social landlords operating in Scotland.
A.5 Additional interviews were held with six representatives of housing rights organisations and representatives of social landlords in Scotland.
A.6 While there was extensive consultation with social landlords the research resources and timetable did not allow for direct consultation with applicant households and tenants of social landlords to gather their views. While there were a small number of interviews with tenants' representatives and tenants' rights groups, the absence of consultation with applicant households is a limitation with the methodology employed. As noted in Chapter 5, it is recommended that if any possible revision or modification of reasonable preference results from this research that extensive consultation occurs with social housing tenants and applicant households.
A.7 The interviews were recorded and analysed using thematic grid analysis. Respondents were guaranteed anonymity on four levels. The University undertook to disclose no information that might possibly identify an individual, the organisation for which they worked or the area in which that organisation worked. In compliance with the Social Policy Association Guidelines and the Data Protection legislation, the University undertook to delete the recordings once the research was complete.