1 / 8

Impact of hidden methodological differences

Impact of hidden methodological differences. NESIS-workshop in Rome 26-27.6.2003 Mikael Åkerblom Statistics Finland. Contents. International efforts to harmonise data ’Hidden differences Effects of globalisation Linguistic bias Institutional factors

orrin
Download Presentation

Impact of hidden methodological differences

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Impact of hidden methodological differences NESIS-workshop in Rome 26-27.6.2003 Mikael Åkerblom Statistics Finland

  2. Contents • International efforts to harmonise data • ’Hidden differences • Effects of globalisation • Linguistic bias • Institutional factors • Different data sources and ways of collecting data • What can we do?

  3. International efforts to harmonise data • EU legislation • Other standards • United Nations • OECD and other international organisations • Gentlemen agreements • Benchmarking exercises • Ad hoc data collection

  4. Effects of globalisation • Role of multinationals has strongly increased during the last years (financial sector, telecom, pulp&paper, car manufacturing) • Decision making, strategic planning, cost accounting, R&D and innovation on a group or division of group level • Therefore basic statistical units on the national level, like enterprises and establishments are less relevant to describe activities of global enterprises • Statistics dependent on how multinationals are able to break down the figures between for them sometimes irrelevent units. Intergroup often non-monetary transactions may distort national aggregates • One or few multinationals may completely dominate the picture for especially smaller countries, which makes problems of interpretation

  5. Cultural and linguisticbias • Attitudes towards surveys differ • Translation of concepts and definitions might cause inconsistencies • Examples • R&D • Technological innovation • Technician • Science

  6. Institutional factors • Organisations of enterprises influence all industrial breakdowns • Combination of enterprises into groups • Splitting up of enterprises into smaller establisment units • Educational systems influence comparability of education indicators • Degree structures are different • Organisation of units (university systems differ between countries)

  7. Different sources and ways of collecting data • Different sources; registers and other administrative data, surveys (censuses, large or small scale samples), estimations • Different survey methods and routines like face to face or phone interviews, mail surveys • Different registers over various kind of units

  8. What can we do • Need to develop and implement indicators on globalisation • Pay attention to careful translation of definitions and concepts to avoid misunderstandings • The abovementioned reasons for hidden differences should be more explicitly incorporated in metadata

More Related