PRIME Survey Dataset of Minoritised Ethnic People’s Engagement with Online Services

Our dataset is now publicly available via the university's open access repository:

DOI: 10.17861/db813826-e45d-4274-b4c3-7ecdbf2336a5 License: This dataset is released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)license.

Note: Please use the DOI link above to access and download the data. This directory is designated for dataset documentation, metadata, and any… See the full description on the dataset page: https://huggingface.co/datasets/JunhaoSong/prime-survey-question-answering.

The National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) series (formerly titled National Household Survey on Drug Abuse) primarily measures the prevalence and correlates of drug use in the United States. The surveys are designed to provide quarterly, as well as annual, estimates. Information is provided on the use of illicit drugs, alcohol, and tobacco among members of United States households aged 12 and older. Questions included age at first use as well as lifetime, annual, and past-month usage for the following drug classes: marijuana, cocaine (and crack), hallucinogens, heroin, inhalants, alcohol, tobacco, and nonmedical use of prescription drugs, including pain relievers, tranquilizers, stimulants, and sedatives. The survey covered substance abuse treatment history and perceived need for treatment, and included questions from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of Mental Disorders that allow diagnostic criteria to be applied. The survey included questions concerning treatment for both substance abuse and mental health-related disorders. Respondents were also asked about personal and family income sources and amounts, health care access and coverage, illegal activities and arrest record, problems resulting from the use of drugs, and needle-sharing. Questions introduced in previous administrations were retained in the 2014 survey, including questions asked only of respondents aged 12 to 17. These "youth experiences" items covered a variety of topics, such as neighborhood environment, illegal activities, drug use by friends, social support, extracurricular activities, exposure to substance abuse prevention and education programs, and perceived adult attitudes toward drug use and activities such as school work. Several measures focused on prevention-related themes in this section. Also retained were questions on mental health and access to care, perceived risk of using drugs, perceived availability of drugs, driving and personal behavior, and cigar smoking. Questions on the tobacco brand used most often were introduced with the 1999 survey. For the 2008 survey, adult mental health questions were added to measure symptoms of psychological distress in the worst period of distress that a person experienced in the past 30 days and suicidal ideation. In 2008, a split-sample design also was included to administer separate sets of questions (WHODAS vs. SDS) to assess impairment due to mental health problems. Beginning with the 2009 NSDUH, however, all of the adults in the sample received only the WHODAS questions. Background information includes gender, race, age, ethnicity, marital status, educational level, job status, veteran status, and current household composition.

This survey was designed to investigate whether having psychological connections to particular groups (ex: racial, ethnic, and national origin groups) and perceptions of discrimination lead to alienation from the structure and operation of representative democracy in the United States. The data allow for comparative ethnic analyses of people's views regarding the representative-constituent relationship and of the conditions under which group identifications and perceptions of discrimination matter. The survey includes oversamples of Black, Latino, and Asian respondents. A Spanish version of the survey was available. Demographic information retrieved about respondents include age, race/ethnicity, gender, education (highest degree received), employment status, marital status, religion, household size and income. In addition, ancestry was assessed with the question, "From what countries or parts of the world did your ancestors come?" Respondents also reported United States citizenship status, primary home language, and nationality. Variables focusing on respondent perceived representation in the United States include political ideology and political party affiliation.

Knowing the racial and ethnic composition of a community is often one of the first steps in understanding, serving, and advocating for various groups. This information can help enforce laws, policies, and regulations against discrimination based on race and ethnicity. These statistics can also help tailor services to accommodate cultural differences.This multi-scale map shows the most common race/ethnicity living within an area. Map opens at tract-level in Los Angeles, CA but has national coverage. Zoom out to see counties and states.This map uses these hosted feature layers containing the most recent American Community Survey data. These layers are part of the ArcGIS Living Atlas, and are updated every year when the American Community Survey releases new estimates, so values in the map always reflect the newest data available. The data on race were derived from answers to the question on race that was asked of individuals in the United States. The Census Bureau collects racial data in accordance with guidelines provided by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and these data are based on self-identification. The racial categories included in the census questionnaire generally reflect a social definition of race recognized in this country and not an attempt to define race biologically, anthropologically, or genetically. The categories represent a social-political construct designed for collecting data on the race and ethnicity of broad population groups in this country, and are not anthropologically or scientifically based. Learn more here.

Abstract

The Gallup Poll Social Series (GPSS) is a set of public opinion surveys designed to monitor U.S. adults' views on numerous social, economic, and political topics. The topics are arranged thematically across 12 surveys. Gallup administers these surveys during the same month every year and includes the survey's core trend questions in the same order each administration. Using this consistent standard allows for unprecedented analysis of changes in trend data that are not susceptible to question order bias and seasonal effects.

Introduced in 2001, the GPSS is the primary method Gallup uses to update several hundred long-term Gallup trend questions, some dating back to the 1930s. The series also includes many newer questions added to address contemporary issues as they emerge.

The dataset currently includes responses from up to and including 2025.

Methodology

Gallup conducts one GPSS survey per month, with each devoted to a different topic, as follows:

January: Mood of the Nation

February: World Affairs

March: Environment

April: Economy and Finance

May: Values and Beliefs

June: Minority Rights and Relations (discontinued after 2016)

July: Consumption Habits

August: Work and Education

September: Governance

October: Crime

November: Health

December: Lifestyle (conducted 2001-2008)

The core questions of the surveys differ each month, but several questions assessing the state of the nation are standard on all 12: presidential job approval, congressional job approval, satisfaction with the direction of the U.S., assessment of the U.S. job market, and an open-ended measurement of the nation's "most important problem." Additionally, Gallup includes extensive demographic questions on each survey, allowing for in-depth analysis of trends.

Interviews are conducted with U.S. adults aged 18 and older living in all 50 states and the District of Columbia using a dual-frame design, which includes both landline and cellphone numbers. Gallup samples landline and cellphone numbers using random-digit-dial methods. Gallup purchases samples for this study from Survey Sampling International (SSI). Gallup chooses landline respondents at random within each household based on which member had the next birthday. Each sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 70% cellphone respondents and 30% landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by time zone within region. Gallup conducts interviews in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking.

Gallup interviews a minimum of 1,000 U.S. adults aged 18 and older for each GPSS survey. Samples for the June Minority Rights and Relations survey are significantly larger because Gallup includes oversamples of Blacks and Hispanics to allow for reliable estimates among these key subgroups.

Gallup weights samples to correct for unequal selection probability, nonresponse, and double coverage of landline and cellphone users in the two sampling frames. Gallup also weights its final samples to match the U.S. population according to gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, population density, and phone status (cellphone only, landline only, both, and cellphone mostly).

Demographic weighting targets are based on the most recent Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older U.S. population. Phone status targets are based on the most recent National Health Interview Survey. Population density targets are based on the most recent U.S. Census.

Usage

The year appended to each table name represents when the data was last updated. For example, January: Mood of the Nation - 2025** **has survey data collected up to and including 2025.

For more information about what survey questions were asked over time, see the Supporting Files.

Bulk Data Access

Data access is required to view this section.

SEAMS integrates a large number of global and regional mass surveys, such as the World Values Surveys and the Afrobarometer. It serves two purposes: - First, it provides standardized information for major public opinion concepts, for instance on (dis-)satisfaction with government institutions and perceptions of belonging to a discriminated group. - Second, it provides systematic information on survey respondents’ ethnicity, region of residence, language, religion, and phenotype, which is linked to existing datasets, including EPR and CPSD. Thereby, it enables researchers to study how time-varying country- or group-level variables (such as democratization, GDP growth, and ethnic power-sharing) affect public opinion and vice versa. The current version integrates information from 98 unique survey waves, which together cover 2’071’315 respondents nested in 1372 country years and 148 countries. Future releases will add more variables (e.g., on ethnic identification and party choice), surveys, and information on the heterogeneous question items underlying SEAMS’ standardized variables.

The data on relationship to householder were derived from answers to Question 2 in the 2015 American Community Survey (ACS), which was asked of all people in housing units. The question on relationship is essential for classifying the population information on families and other groups. Information about changes in the composition of the American family, from the number of people living alone to the number of children living with only one parent, is essential for planning and carrying out a number of federal programs.

The responses to this question were used to determine the relationships of all persons to the householder, as well as household type (married couple family, nonfamily, etc.). From responses to this question, we were able to determine numbers of related children, own children, unmarried partner households, and multi-generational households. We calculated average household and family size. When relationship was not reported, it was imputed using the age difference between the householder and the person, sex, and marital status.

Household – A household includes all the people who occupy a housing unit. (People not living in households are classified as living in group quarters.) A housing unit is a house, an apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room that is occupied (or if vacant, is intended for occupancy) as separate living quarters. Separate living quarters are those in which the occupants live separately from any other people in the building and which have direct access from the outside of the building or through a common hall. The occupants may be a single family, one person living alone, two or more families living together, or any other group of related or unrelated people who share living arrangements.

Average Household Size – A measure obtained by dividing the number of people in households by the number of households. In cases where people in households are cross-classified by race or Hispanic origin, people in the household are classified by the race or Hispanic origin of the householder rather than the race or Hispanic origin of each individual.

Average household size is rounded to the nearest hundredth.

Comparability – The relationship categories for the most part can be compared to previous ACS years and to similar data collected in the decennial census, CPS, and SIPP. With the change in 2008 from “In-law” to the two categories of “Parent-in-law” and “Son-in-law or daughter-in-law,” caution should be exercised when comparing data on in-laws from previous years. “In-law” encompassed any type of in-law such as sister-in-law. Combining “Parent-in-law” and “son-in-law or daughter-in-law” does not represent all “in-laws” in 2008.

The same can be said of comparing the three categories of “biological” “step,” and “adopted” child in 2008 to “Child” in previous years. Before 2008, respondents may have considered anyone under 18 as “child” and chosen that category. The ACS includes “foster child” as a category. However, the 2010 Census did not contain this category, and “foster children” were included in the “Other nonrelative” category. Therefore, comparison of “foster child” cannot be made to the 2010 Census. Beginning in 2013, the “spouse” category includes same-sex spouses.

In developing countries, in-person surveys are frequently conducted in the presence of respondents' family, friends, or neighbors. What effect, if any, does their presence have on survey responses? We use data from an original representative survey in Karachi, Pakistan to examine how such presence affects responses to questions related to ethnic identity and ethnic politics. We find that respondents are systematically more likely to express greater support for ethnic politics and greater feelings of perceived ethnic discrimination in the presence of known others. We present suggestive evidence that this finding is explained by social desirability bias due to a norm of in-group solidarity. Our findings have important implications for the study of ethnic politics and for survey researchers working in contexts where respondent privacy is rarely guaranteed.

ACS DEMOGRAPHIC AND HOUSING ESTIMATES HISPANIC OR LATINO AND RACE - DP05 Universe - Total population Survey-Program - American Community Survey 5-year estimates Years - 2020, 2021, 2022 The terms “Hispanic,” “Latino,” and “Spanish” are used interchangeably. Some respondents identify with all three terms while others may identify with only one of these three specific terms. People who identify with the terms “Hispanic,” “Latino,” or “Spanish” are those who classify themselves in one of the specific Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish categories listed on the questionnaire (“Mexican, Mexican Am., or Chicano,” “Puerto Rican,” or “Cuban”) as well as those who indicate that they are “another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin.” People who do not identify with one of the specific origins listed on the questionnaire but indicate that they are “another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin” are those whose origins are from Spain, the Spanish-speaking countries of Central or South America, or another Spanish culture or origin. Origin can be viewed as the heritage, nationality group, lineage, or country of birth of the person or the person’s parents or ancestors before their arrival in the UnitedStates. People who identify their origin as Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish may be of any race.

The Presbyterian Panel began in 1973 and is an ongoing panel study in which mailed and web-based questionnaires are used to survey representative samples of constituency groups of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). These constituency groups include members, elders, pastors serving in a congregation and specialized clergy serving elsewhere. The August 2013 and February 2017 Panel surveys both dealt with race and ethnicity, and the inclusion of a number of identical questions in the two surveys allows for analysis of change over time. This dataset contains data from clergy in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

Sample data for participants who were volunteers, runners/walkers who volunteer and runners/walkers.

Release Date: 2020-05-19.The Census Bureau has reviewed this data product for unauthorized disclosure of confidential information and has approved the disclosure avoidance practices applied (Approval ID: CBDRB-FY20-008)...Release Schedule:.Data in this file come from estimates of business ownership by sex, ethnicity, race, and veteran status from the 2018 Annual Business Survey (ABS) collection. Data are also obtained from administrative records, the 2017 Economic Census and other economic surveys...Note: The collection year is the year in which the data are collected. A reference year is the year that is referenced in the questions on the survey and in which the statistics are tabulated. For example, the 2018 ABS collection year produces statistics for the 2017 reference year. The "Year" column in the table is the reference year. The ABS has a larger sample size during the benchmark year of 2017. Due to the larger size, more detailed data are shown for reference year 2017...For more information about ABS planned data product releases, see Tentative ABS Schedule...Key Table Information:.Includes U.S. firms with paid employees, operating during the reference year with receipts of $1,000 or more, which are classified in the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), Sectors 11 through 99, except for NAICS 111, 112, 482, 491, 521, 525, 813, 814, and 92 which are not covered. Employer firms with more than one domestic establishment are counted in each geographic area and industry in which they operate, but only once in the U.S. and state totals for all sectors. Employment reflects the number of paid employees during the pay period in the reference year that included March 12...Data Items and Other Identifying Records:.Data include estimates on:.Number of employer firms (firms with paid employees). Sales and receipts of employer firms (reported in $1,000s of dollars). Number of employees (during the March 12 pay period). Annual payroll (reported in $1,000s of dollars)...These data are aggregated by the following demographic classifications of firm for:.All firms. Classifiable (firms classifiable by sex, ethnicity, race, and veteran status). . Sex. Female. Male. Equally male/female. . Ethnicity. Hispanic. Equally Hispanic/non-Hispanic. Non-Hispanic. . Race. White. Black or African American. American Indian and Alaska Native. Asian. Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander. Minority (Firms classified as any race and ethnicity combination other than non-Hispanic and White). Equally minority/nonminority. Nonminority (Firms classified as non-Hispanic and White). . Veteran Status (defined as having served in any branch of the U.S. Armed Forces). Veteran. Equally veteran/nonveteran. Nonveteran. . . . Unclassifiable (firms not classifiable by sex, ethnicity, race, and veteran status). ...Moreover, the 2017 reference year statistics include detailed race and ethnicity data tabulated for:.Hispanic subgroups. Mexican, Mexican American, Chicano. Puerto Rican. Cuban. Other Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish. . Asian subgroups. Asian Indian. Chinese. Filipino. Japanese. Korean. Vietnamese. Other Asian. . Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander subgroups. Native Hawaiian. Guamanian or Chamorro. Samoan. Other Pacific Islander. ...Data Notes:.. Business ownership is defined as having 51 percent or more of the stock or equity in the business. Data are provided for businesses owned equally (50% / 50%) by men and women, by Hispanics and non-Hispanics, by minorities and nonminorities, and by veterans and nonveterans. Firms not classifiable by sex, ethnicity, race, and veteran status are counted and tabulated separately.. The detail may not add to the total or subgroup total because a Hispanic or Latino firm may be of any race, and because a firm could be tabulated in more than one racial group. For example, if a firm responded as both Chinese and Black majority owned, the firm would be included in the detailed Asian and Black estimates but would only be counted once toward the higher level all firms' estimates.. References such as "Mexican-owned," "Puerto Rican-owned," "Cuban-owned" or "other Hispanic- or Latino-owned" businesses refer only to businesses operating in the 50 states and the District of Columbia that self-identified 51 percent or more of their ownership in 2017 to be by individuals of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban or other Hispanic or Latino origin. The ABS does not distinguish between U.S. residents and nonresidents. Companies owned by foreign governments or owned by other companies, foreign or domestic, are included in the category "Unclassifiable."...Industry and Geogr...

Release Date: 2022-11-10.The Census Bureau has reviewed this data product for unauthorized disclosure of confidential information and has approved the disclosure avoidance practices applied (Approval ID: CBDRB-FY22-308)...Release Schedule:.Data in this file come from estimates of business ownership by sex, ethnicity, race, and veteran status from the 2021 Annual Business Survey (ABS) collection. Data are also obtained from administrative records, the 2017 Economic Census, and other economic surveys...Note: The collection year is the year in which the data are collected. A reference year is the year that is referenced in the questions on the survey and in which the statistics are tabulated. For example, the 2021 ABS collection year produces statistics for the 2020 reference year. The "Year" column in the table is the reference year...For more information about ABS planned data product releases, see Tentative ABS Schedule...Key Table Information:.The data include U.S. firms with paid employees operating during the reference year with receipts of $1,000 or more, which are classified in the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), Sectors 11 through 99, except for NAICS 111, 112, 482, 491, 521, 525, 813, 814, and 92 which are not covered. Employer firms with more than one domestic establishment are counted in each geographic area and industry in which they operate, but only once in the U.S. and state totals for all sectors. Employment reflects the number of paid employees during the pay period in the reference year that included March 12...Data Items and Other Identifying Records:.Data include estimates on:.Number of employer firms (firms with paid employees). Sales and receipts of employer firms (reported in $1,000s of dollars). Number of employees (during the March 12 pay period). Annual payroll (reported in $1,000s of dollars)...These data are aggregated by the following demographic classifications of firm for:.All firms. Classifiable (firms classifiable by sex, ethnicity, race, and veteran status). . Sex. Female. Male. Equally male/female. . Ethnicity. Hispanic. Equally Hispanic/non-Hispanic. Non-Hispanic. . Race. White. Black or African American. American Indian and Alaska Native. Asian. Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander. Minority (Firms classified as any race and ethnicity combination other than non-Hispanic and White). Equally minority/nonminority. Nonminority (Firms classified as non-Hispanic and White). . Veteran Status (defined as having served in any branch of the U.S. Armed Forces). Veteran. Equally veteran/nonveteran. Nonveteran. . . . Unclassifiable (firms not classifiable by sex, ethnicity, race, and veteran status). ...The data are also shown for the number of employees working at the firm during the March 12 pay period:.Employment size of firms:. Firms with no employees. Firms with 1 to 4 employees. Firms with 5 to 9 employees. Firms with 10 to 19 employees. Firms with 20 to 49 employees. Firms with 50 to 99 employees. Firms with 100 to 249 employees. Firms with 250 to 499 employees. Firms with less than 500 employees. Firms with 500 employees or more. ...Data Notes:.. Business ownership is defined as having 51 percent or more of the stock or equity in the business. Data are provided for businesses owned equally (50% / 50%) by men and women, by Hispanics and non-Hispanics, by minorities and nonminorities, and by veterans and nonveterans. Firms not classifiable by sex, ethnicity, race, and veteran status are counted and tabulated separately.. The detail may not add to the total or subgroup total because a Hispanic or Latino firm may be of any race, and because a firm could be tabulated in more than one racial group. For example, if a firm responded as both Chinese and Black majority owned, the firm would be included in the detailed Asian and Black estimates but would only be counted once toward the higher level all firms' estimates.. References such as "Hispanic- or Latino-owned" businesses refer only to businesses operating in the 50 states and the District of Columbia that self-identified 51 percent or more of their ownership in 2020 to be by individuals of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban or other Hispanic or Latino origin. The ABS does not distinguish between U.S. residents and nonresidents. Companies owned by foreign governments or owned by other companies, foreign or domestic, are included in the category "Unclassifiable."...Industry and Geography Coverage:.The data are shown for the total for all sectors (00) and 2-digit NAICS code levels for:..United States. States and the District of Columbia. Metropolitan Statistical Areas...Data are also shown...

Abstract

This study is an experiment designed to compare the performance of three methodologies for sampling households with migrants:

• a stratified sample using the census to sample census tracts randomly, in which each household is then listed and screened to determine whether or not it has a migrant, with the full length questionnaire then being applied in a second phase only to the households of interest;
• a snowball survey in which households are asked to provide referrals to other households with migrant members;
• an intercept point survey (or time-and-space sampling survey), in which individuals are sampled during set time periods at a prespecified set of locations where households in the target group are likely to congregate.

Researchers from the World Bank applied these methods in the context of a survey of Brazilians of Japanese descent (Nikkei), requested by the World Bank. There are approximately 1.2-1.9 million Nikkei among Brazil’s 170 million population.

The survey was designed to provide detail on the characteristics of households with and without migrants, to estimate the proportion of households receiving remittances and with migrants in Japan, and to examine the consequences of migration and remittances on the sending households.

The same questionnaire was used for the stratified random sample and snowball surveys, and a shorter version of the questionnaire was used for the intercept surveys. Researchers can directly compare answers to the same questions across survey methodologies and determine the extent to which the intercept and snowball surveys can give similar results to the more expensive census-based survey, and test for the presence of biases.

Geographic coverage

Sao Paulo and Parana states

Analysis unit

Japanese-Brazilian (Nikkei) households and individuals

The 2000 Brazilian Census was used to classify households as Nikkei or non-Nikkei. The Brazilian Census does not ask ethnicity but instead asks questions on race, country of birth and whether an individual has lived elsewhere in the last 10 years. On the basis of these questions, a household is classified as (potentially) Nikkei if it has any of the following: 1) a member born in Japan; 2) a member who is of yellow race and who has lived in Japan in the last 10 years; 3) a member who is of yellow race, who was not born in a country other than Japan (predominantly Korea, Taiwan or China) and who did not live in a foreign country other than Japan in the last 10 years.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

1) Stratified random sample survey

Two states with the largest Nikkei population - Sao Paulo and Parana - were chosen for the study.

The sampling process consisted of three stages. First, a stratified random sample of 75 census tracts was selected based on 2000 Brazilian census. Second, interviewers carried out a door-to-door listing within each census tract to determine which households had a Nikkei member. Third, the survey questionnaire was then administered to households that were identified as Nikkei. A door-to-door listing exercise of the 75 census tracts was then carried out between October 13th, 2006, and October 29th, 2006. The fieldwork began on November 19, 2006, and all dwellings were visited at least once by December 22, 2006. The second wave of surveying took place from January 18th, 2007, to February 2nd, 2007, which was intended to increase the number of households responding.

2) Intercept survey

The intercept survey was designed to carry out interviews at a range of locations that were frequented by the Nikkei population. It was originally designed to be done in Sao Paulo city only, but a second intercept point survey was later carried out in Curitiba, Parana. Intercept survey took place between December 9th, 2006, and December 20th, 2006, whereas the Curitiba intercept survey took place between March 3rd and March 12th, 2007.

Consultations with Nikkei community organizations, local researchers and officers of the bank Sudameris, which provides remittance services to this community, were used to select a broad range of locations. Interviewers were assigned to visit each location during prespecified blocks of time. Two fieldworkers were assigned to each location. One fieldworker carried out the interviews, while the other carried out a count of the number of people with Nikkei appearance who appeared to be 18 years old or older who passed by each location. For the fixed places, this count was made throughout the prespecified time block. For example, between 2.30 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. at the sports club, the interviewer counted 57 adult Nikkeis. Refusal rates were carefully recorded, along with the sex and approximate age of the person refusing.

In all, 516 intercept interviews were collected.

3) Snowball sampling survey

The questionnaire that was used was the same as used for the stratified random sample. The plan was to begin with a seed list of 75 households, and to aim to reach a total sample of 300 households through referrals from the initial seed households. Each household surveyed was asked to supply the names of three contacts: (a) a Nikkei household with a member currently in Japan; (b) a Nikkei household with a member who has returned from Japan; (c) a Nikkei household without members in Japan and where individuals had not returned from Japan.

The snowball survey took place from December 5th to 20th, 2006. The second phase of the snowballing survey ran from January 22nd, 2007, to March 23rd, 2007. More associations were contacted to provide additional seed names (69 more names were obtained) and, as with the stratified sample, an adaptation of the intercept survey was used when individuals refused to answer the longer questionnaire. A decision was made to continue the snowball process until a target sample size of 100 had been achieved.

The final sample consists of 60 households who came as seed households from Japanese associations, and 40 households who were chain referrals. The longest chain achieved was three links.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

1) Stratified sampling and snowball survey questionnaire

This questionnaire has 36 pages with over 1,000 variables, taking over an hour to complete.

If subjects refused to answer the questionnaire, interviewers would leave a much shorter version of the questionnaire to be completed by the household by themselves, and later picked up. This shorter questionnaire was the same as used in the intercept point survey, taking seven minutes on average. The intention with the shorter survey was to provide some data on households that would not answer the full survey because of time constraints, or because respondents were reluctant to have an interviewer in their house.

2) Intercept questionnaire

The questionnaire is four pages in length, consisting of 62 questions and taking a mean time of seven minutes to answer. Respondents had to be 18 years old or older to be interviewed.

Response rate

1) Stratified random sampling 403 out of the 710 Nikkei households were surveyed, an interview rate of 57%. The refusal rate was 25%, whereas the remaining households were either absent on three attempts or were not surveyed because building managers refused permission to enter the apartment buildings. Refusal rates were higher in Sao Paulo than in Parana, reflecting greater concerns about crime and a busier urban environment.

2) Intercept Interviews 516 intercept interviews were collected, along with 325 refusals. The average refusal rate is 39%, with location-specific refusal rates ranging from only 3% at the food festival to almost 66% at one of the two grocery stores.

The Los Angeles County Social Survey (LACSS) continues the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area Studies (LAMAS) and the Southern California Social Surveys (SCSS). The Log Angeles County Social Survey (LACSS) is part of a continuing annual research project supported by the Institute for Social Science Research at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). Each year a University of California researcher is given an opportunity to be principal investigator and to use a segment of the LACSS for his or her own research. The 1992 principal investigator was Dr. Lawrence Bobo, who was an Associate Professor of Sociology at UCLA. The LACSS 1992 was conducted between February and July 1992. Los Angeles County residents were asked questions concerning ethnic relations, social dominance, social distance, immigration, affirmative action, employment, and government. A split ballot methodology was utilized concerning the topics of immigration and affirmative action. Respondents were randomly selected to answer a series of questions from one of three ballots. In addition, a different series of social distance questions were asked depending on the respondent's ethnicity. Questionnaires were provided in both English and Spanish languages. Demographic information collected includes race, gender, religion, age, education level, occupation, birth place, political party affiliation and ideology, and origin of ancestry.

Distribution of assets in study sample of U.S. adults by race/ethnicity (N = 26,382).

Association between Vit-D intake (Q.9—see S1 File) and age, gender, ethnicity, BMI, skin type, sun exposure and skin coverage.

Survey was conducted before and after the parliamentary election in Romania on 11 December 2016 as a case study on the effect of ethnic party campaigns in communities with different ethnic compositions: ethnic Romanians living in predominantly Hungarian counties, ethnic Romanians in the rest of the country where they are in the majority, and ethnic Hungarians especially from central and western Romania. Respondents were interviewed a first time five to six weeks before the election and another time four to five weeks after the election. The questionnaire consisted of questions on ethnic belonging, trust in individuals and institutions, perceptions of electoral integrity, opinions on parties, and items on life satisfaction and assessments of the current social and political conditions of Romania. While, due to questionnaire constraints, some questions were asked in only one of the interviews, others were recorded in both waves, allowing for analyses of changes over time.The political mobilisation of ethnicity has led to tensions between ethnic groups in, for example, Belgium and Canada, and to violent conflict with disastrous consequences in such diverse cases as Cyprus, Rwanda, and Sri Lanka. Some observers point to the particularistic politics of ethnic parties as fomenting ethnic tensions and call for their regulation. Others argue that ethnic parties may be valuable vehicles in solving such tensions because they contribute to the integration of diverse ethnic groups. However, both views are so far based on assumptions rather than empirical evidence; to date, the effect of ethnic parties on ordinary people within society has not been examined directly. The project fills this gap, contributing to a better understanding of the links between ethnic parties and national unity within the population: Does the presence of ethnic parties affect the way people perceive the ethnic "other" or the nation? Is this effect positive, because ethnic parties as emancipatory vehicles increase the inclusion of ethnic minorities within the population? Or is it negative, because ethnic parties raise awareness of ethnic differences? To answer these questions, the project first conducts a global comparative analysis of 105 diverse countries, using a new multilevel dataset. It will then conduct in-depth studies of two countries to examine the nature of these links. Both the quantitative and in-depth analyses are needed to better understand whether there are general links between the presence of ethnic parties and diminished national unity throughout different contexts and to identify the nature of this link in important cases. Stratified random sampling of three different groups. Sampling of primary sampling units: PSUs (localities) were sampled separately for each group: For Group 1, both urban and rural localities in the counties Harghita and Covasna were randomly sampled in proportion to the overall number of urban–rural localities in each county. For Group 2, counties other than Harghita and Covasna were randomly sampled from all NUTS2 regions. Within each selected county, both urban and rural localities were randomly sampled in proportion to the overall number of urban–rural localities in each county. For Group 3, both urban and rural localities in the counties Harghita, Covasna, Bihor, Mures, Satu Mare, and Cluj were randomly selected in proportion to the overall number of urban–rural localities in each county. Sampling of respondents within PSUs: The sampling of the secondary (households) and tertiary sampling units (individuals) was the same within each locality: a number of starting points were randomly sampled (1–2 per rural locality, more than 1–2 per urban locality). From these starting points interviewers initiated a random walk procedure, selecting the second house to the right and continuing to select every second house after that. In the case of a block of flats, interviewers went to the top floor and conducted the random walk procedure for apartments. At each house or flat, the voting-age person with the most recent birthday was selected for participation. Only one person per household was interviewed. Interviewers made three attempts to interview selected people at different days and times of day before using a pre-selected substitute. A maximum number of 10 interviews was conducted from each starting point. Targeted sample: In total, 1,200 respondents are interviewed per wave, made up of the following three groups: 400 Romanian-speaking citizens aged 18 years or above in Harghita and Covasna counties; 400 Romanian-speaking citizens aged 18 years or above from the other 39 counties and the municipality of Bucharest; 400 Hungarian-speaking citizens aged 18 years or above from throughout Romania – especially from the Central area and West side of the country. Obtained sample: 401 Romanian-speaking citizens aged 18 years or above in Harghita and Covasna counties; 418 Romanian-speaking citizens aged 18 years or above from the other 39 counties and the municipality of Bucharest; 423 Hungarian-speaking citizens aged 18 years or above from throughout Romania – especially from the Central area and West side of the country.

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.Understanding Society, (UK Household Longitudinal Study), which began in 2009, is conducted by the Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER) at the University of Essex and the survey research organisations Kantar Public and NatCen. It builds on and incorporates, the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS), which began in 1991. This is a teaching resource for those who are new to data analysis. It is a step-by-step guide starting from exploring a survey, understanding the structure of the survey data and then using the data to do some simple exercises to measure differences in health and wellbeing across ethnic groups. The survey used here is Understanding Society: the UK Household Longitudinal Study which interviews individuals in the sampled households every year. To make it easier to use the teaching dataset accompanying this teaching resource only includes responses given by adults (16+ year olds) during the first interview to questions about ethnicity, health and wellbeing and some key socio-demographic characteristics such as age, sex, education, income, labour market status etc. The statistical software used to construct the dataset is Stata, but it is also available to download in SPSS and tab-delimited text formats.Nandi, Alita and Wiltshire, Deborah. (2019). "Teaching Resource: Analysing ethnic differences in health using data from Understanding Society".For information on the main Understanding Society study, see SN 6614, Understanding Society and Harmonised BHPS.Latest edition informationFor the second edition (August 2020), updated data and documentation files were deposited. Main Topics: Social behaviour and attitudesMinoritiesGeneral health and well-being Multi-stage stratified random sample

The fourth in a series of surveys instituted by the Home Office in 1982, this survey examines levels of victimization in Great Britain and offers attitudinal data on issues relating to crime. The 1992 survey was intended to replicate the 1982, 1984, and 1988 surveys (ICPSR 8672, 8685, and 9850) in methodology and content as much as possible. In 1992, a "core" sample of 10,059 adults along with booster samples of 1,650 ethnic minority adults and 1,350 young people aged 12-15 resident in the same households as adult respondents were interviewed. The 1988 survey had also included an ethnic minority booster sample employing the same sampling method. Respondents were asked a series of screening questions to establish whether they had been the victims of crime during the reference period, and another series of detailed questions about the incidents they reported. Basic descriptive background information, such as sex, age, employment, education, and number of children, was also collected on the respondents and their households. Other information was elicited on fear of crime, contact with the police, lifestyle, and self-reported offending. Part 1, Demographic File, consists of data captured on the Demographic Questionnaire. Parts 2 and 3 represent data collected via Follow-Up Questionnaire A and Follow-Up Questionnaire B, respectively. Each respondent completed one of the two Follow-Up Questionnaires, with all respondents in the ethnic minority booster sample completing Follow-Up Questionnaire A. Part 4, Main File, consists of data from the Main Questionnaire. Each respondent completed a Main Questionnaire that included some attitudinal questions and a large number of screening questions to identify crime victims. Data in Part 5, Victim File, were collected from the Victim Form. Only respondents reporting incidents of victimization on the Main Questionnaire have Victim Forms, with up to four Victim Forms per respondent. The unit of analysis for this collection is the individual.