DOC E2/TUS/27/992000-01-311(10)
TASK FORCE
TIME USE SURVEY
2-3 December 1999
FINAL MINUTES
Chair:Mr. Antonio Baigorri, Ms. Iiris Niemi (3 Dec., 15-17h)
Secretary:Ms. Christina Österberg
Participants:see Annex 1
Agenda:see Annex 2
1.Opening of the meeting
Mr. Antonio Baigorri, Eurostat, welcomed the participants to the Task Force meeting, which was to be held in English with no interpretation. The documents for the meeting also exist only in an English version.
Mr. Baigorri thanked Statistics Finland for financing and arranging the Task Force meeting.
The main objectives of the Task Force meeting were the consolidation of earlier work, which has now reached a final stage, and the presentation and discussion of new work that is to be included in the methodology. This new work is carried out in co-operation between Eurostat, Statistics Finland and Statistics Sweden.
Mr. Timo Relander, Director General, Statistics Finland, wished all participants in the Task Force a warm welcome to the meeting. Mr. Relander pointed out the importance of having these discussions on Time Use Surveys, and expressed his satisfaction that so many countries were represented at the meeting.
Mr. Relander gave a brief history of the Time Use Surveys carried out by Statistics Finland, and noted that there had been no difficulties in finding sponsors for the 3rd Finnish Time Use Survey, which is carried out in 1999/2000.
Ms. Iiris Niemi, Statistics Finland, gave some practical information concerning the meeting.
There was a short round-the-table presentation of the participants, i.e. country, institution and name.
2.Approval of the agenda
(Doc. E2/TUS/16.1/99)
Eurostat proposed that Items 8.7 ‘A set of basic statistics for international comparisons’ and 8.9 ‘Certain aspects of field work’ should change place. The proposed agenda was thereafter adopted.
3.Minutes of the Task Force meeting 17-18 November 1998
(Doc. E2/TUS/8/98)
Mr. Baigorri made a short presentation of the minutes of the Task Force meeting in November 1998. There were no comments on the minutes. The minutes were approved.
4.Follow up of the Task Force meeting 17-18 November 1998
(Doc. E2/TUS/8/99)
Ms. Christina Österberg, Eurostat, gave a summary of the conclusions reached in the Task Force meeting in November 1998, and commented on how these conclusions have been taken care of.
Ms. Niemi expressed her appreciation of the valuable work done by Ms. Eva Belak, Slovenia, during her six months stay as a stagiaire at Eurostat
5.Minutes of Expert meetings in August and October 1999
(Doc. E2/TUS/17/99, Doc. E2/TUS/18/99)
Ms. Österberg gave a short summary of the two expert meetings in August and October 1999, and noted that Eurostat wanted that the Task Force should know that these two meetings had taken place.
6.National plans to carry out Time Use Surveys
(Doc. E2/TUS/9/99)
Mr Baigorri introduced this point on the agenda by stating that compared to the situation one year earlier the number of Member States and Phare countries now carrying out or planning for Time Use Surveys to be carried out very soon has increased substantially, and that soon the critical point, in terms of number of countries, for studying the possibility of a European database would be reached.
There was a round-the-table information of the countries’ present situation concerning the carrying out of Time Use Surveys. There was some positive news. Especially it deserves to be mentioned that Germany just recently has decided to carry out a Time Use Survey in 2001.
Annex 3 to the Minutes contains National plans in December 1999 to carry out Time Use Surveys.
7.Recent experiences from planning and carrying out European Time Use Surveys
(Doc. E2/TUS/19/99)
Member States and Phare countries recently having carried out a Time Use Survey, at the moment carrying out a TUS, or carrying out a TUS in the near future had already before the Task Force meeting been asked to prepare one page with information about their respective survey. As Doc. E2/TUS/19/99 contains short descriptions of all these surveys, this information will not be repeated in here.
In the meeting Member States that recently have carried or at the moment are carrying out a TUS, i.e. Belgium, France, Finland and Portugal, started by informing about their surveys.
After this first part of the information the participants could ask questions about the four TUS surveys. The questions asked concerned:
-non-response
-postponement
-automatic coding
-income data and the use of registers
-differences in estimates of hours worked when using the week diary data and day diary data respectively.
Next to inform about their surveys were Member States etc. planning to carry out a TUS in the near future, i.e. Italy, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
Questions raised in connection with this information concerned:
-coding of travel to job, including a stop
-the use of simplified diaries using a restricted number of pre-coded activities.
The information on national Time Use Surveys was then finished by the Phare countries Estonia, Hungary, Romania and Slovenia, and Canada.
Prof. Andrew Harvey, IATUR, Canada, informed about the Canadian Time Use Survey, which was carried out in March 1998-March 1999. This information is not included in Doc.E2/TUS/19/99.
8.Guidelines for harmonised European Time Use Surveys
8.1Structure of the Guidelines
(Doc. E2/TUS/6.2/99)
Ms. Österberg presented the general structure of the Guidelines, and commented on the content of the Guidelines.
As an answer to a remark from Portugal it was clarified that the Guidelines will be one document only, including a rather short general part and several annexes, containing definitions and explanations, questionnaires, diaries, activity coding list etc.
Some countries use a ‘location’ column in the time diary. The use of such a column in the diary should be mentioned in the Guidelines as a possible alternative to coding location by using other diary information on activities.
There were no other comments on the proposed structure of the Guidelines for harmonised European Time Use Surveys.
8.2Method of assigning diary days
(Doc. E2/TUS/20/99)
Mr. Klas Rydenstam, Statistics Sweden, presented possible methods of assigning diary days in the Time Use Survey. One method is to randomly allocate dates to households, and to define a set of rules for postponing diary days. Another method is to allocate a set of days to the households, and to allow the interviewers to assign weeks. There are pros and cons with both methods.
Ms. June Bowman, ONS, United Kingdom, remarked that sampling a set of days also gives the interviewers some influence. The U.K. way to do this will be to divide the year into 5-week periods. The sample is then divided over these field periods. Interviewers can then allocate households within field periods.
Ms. Francoise Dumontier, INSEE, France, informed that in the French Time Use Survey dates had been randomly allocated to the households.
Mr. Paavo Väisänen, Statistics Finland, told about the way of assigning diary days in the Finnish Time Use Survey. Interviewers are given strict instructions to follow, and that works very well. Interviewers have the possibility of postponing interviews for 1 or 2 weeks. The Finnish method is stricter than the method used by the U.K., and gives better control. If it in the end is left to the interviewers to handle the assignment of diary days the random element will be lost.
Dr. Manfred Ehling, Statistisches Bundesamt, Germany, expressed that the Finnish method is the best one, but in Germany 16 independent offices will be carrying out the German Time Use Survey, and the method used by the U.K. will be the only realistic way of assigning diary days.
8.3Household questionnaire
(Doc. E2/TUS/21/99, Doc. E2/TUS/22/99, Doc. E2/TUS/5.3/99)
Ms. Österberg presented Doc. E2/TUS/22/99 ‘Directions for the survey forms’ and E2/TUS/21/99 ‘Survey forms. Questions for discussion in the Time Use Survey Task Force meeting 2-3 December 1999’.
The first-mentioned document will be included in the Guidelines for two purposes:
-To facilitate a uniform interpretation of the questions, as well as the process of adaptation and translation of the survey forms, with the aim of maintaining comparability.
-To be an aid when interviewer guidelines are worked out, which has to be done at the national level taking into account country specific situations and procedures.
The second document shows which questions in the household questionnaire that are proposed to be obligatory and voluntary respectively. This is the only remaining question for discussion concerning the household questionnaire.
Prof. Andrew Harvey noted that there should be information that makes it possible to distinguish between rural and city households.
Mr. Baigorri informed that Eurostat uses the NUTS nomenclature, which would probably be suitable also for the Time Use Surveys.
It has to be pointed out in the Guidelines that the household data should also include information about the appropriate NUTS code.
Ms. Bowman, asked ‘how obligatory is obligatory’.
The Eurostat answer to this question is that if the information gained by obligatory questions can be obtained otherwise, then it is not necessary to include these questions in the questionnaire.
Prof. Jay Gershuny, University of Essex, United Kingdom, noted that Time Use Surveys should be output harmonised and focussed on the statistics we plan to produce.
8.4Individual questionnaire
(Doc. E2/TUS/21/99, Doc. E2/TUS/22/99, Doc. E2/TUS/4.3/99)
Ms. Österberg commented on the changes made in the individual questionnaire since the version sent out in May 1999. The only remaining questions for discussion concerning the individual questionnaire are which questions should be obligatory and voluntary respectively, and which questions should be used as proxy questions.
There was a general discussion concerning proxy questions, and some solutions were proposed.
Ms. Österberg pointed out that all proposed proxy questions concern labour force status. The labour force questions in the individual questionnaire are in general the same as the questions used in the Labour Force Survey, and the proposed proxy questions are used as proxy questions in the Labour Force Survey.
Prof. Harvey wanted some kind of question on flexible hours.
The question was raised if there is really need for Question 9 on full time/part time. Is it not enough to ask Question 12 on the number of weekly contracted working hours?
Prof.Gershuny commented that part time is usually in the range 1-34 hours, and that in some occupations full time can be 28 hours, i.e. the number of hours does not tell if a person is working full time or part time.
Prof. Gershuny recommended that Eurostat should contact Eivind Hoffmann; ILO, about the nature of work in order to get his opinion on what can be included.
Mr. Ronny Dynoodt, Institut National de Statistique, Belgium, informed that 4 or 5 questions on flexible work are included in the Belgian Time Use Survey. Mr.Dynoodt will send English translations of these questions to Eurostat.
Dr. Koen Breedveld, Social and Cultural Planning Office, Netherlands, will send an English translation to Eurostat of the flexible work questions used in the SCP Time Use Survey.
Ms. Eva Belak, Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia, noted that Question 20 had been changed from occupation in second job to main activity at the place of the second job.
Both Prof. Harvey and Prof. Gershuny where of the opinion that a question concerning occupation in the possible second job should be included in the individual questionnaire.
Mr. Baigorri finished this point of the agenda by urging those who had proposed any changes in the individual questionnaire to send their written proposals to Eurostat.
8.5Time diaries
(Doc. E2/TUS/21/99, Doc. E2/TUS/22/99, Doc. E2/TUS/4.3/99)
Ms. Österberg presented the questions for discussion, concerning the time diary.
The meeting was asked for its opinion on the questions posed in Doc. E2/TUS/21/99.
There seems to be no need for covering more hours of the day in the child, adult and elderly person examples that are presented together with the time diary.
There does not seem to be one given solution to the question how to put together instructions, examples, time diary, and the questions and checklist at the end of the diary. But it does not seem practical to put everything together in one ‘overall’ diary. The solution chosen must take into consideration that the respondent is asked to fill in the diary now and then during the diary day, i.e. to carry the diary with him/her during the whole diary day.
There were some comments to Question 6 at the end of the diary.
Ms. Dumontier was of the opinion that Question 6 should concern the status of the diary day and not what the respondent did during that day.
There was a general agreement that Question 6 could be improved.
Dr. Breedveld made a quick translation into English of the corresponding SCP questions, which was handed over to Eurostat.
The wording of Question 6 will be revised, and countries will have the possibility to comment on the proposed revision.
8.6Activity coding list
(Doc. E2/TUS/23/99, Doc. E2/TUS/3.6/99)
Ms. Österberg presented the questions concerning the activity coding list, which are still open for discussion.
The Task Force agreed on that
- The classification system should allow for international comparisons at the 3-digit level.
- There is need to distinguish between unspecified activities, which should be coded xy0, and activities that are specified but not included in any of the categories xy1-xy8, which should be coded xy9. This means that both codes should be included in the coding system.
- When two main activities are recorded within one 10 minute interval the following rules should be applied:
- If the activities simultaneous, and is none of them likely to be the consequence of the other, then the activity mentioned first is coded as main activity. The other activity is coded as secondary activity.
- If the activities sequential, and is none of them clearly longer than the other, then the activity mentioned first is coded as main activity. The other activity is not coded at all.
- The recommended upper age limit of a child when classifying an activity as belonging to 38 Child care should be 17 years.
- It is not necessary that the 3-digit level specification of activities in 42 Informal help to other households exactly corresponds to the 2-digit level specification in 3 Household and family care.
- The code 511 should be changed from Socialising (in general) to Socialising with family. A new code should be added for Socialising outside family.
Mr Odd Vaage asked if ‘Listening to a religious activity on TV’ really should be coded 432 Religious activities and not 821 Watching TV.
It was agreed not to change the coding of ‘Listening to a religious activity on TV’.
Prof. Gershuny said that it is important to separate shopping by computer from 371Household management, and suggested a new code 372 Shopping by Internet.
Prof. Harvey proposed another new code 373 Banking by Internet.
Ms. Rina Camporese, Istituto Nazionale di Statistica, Italy, pointed out that there is need for a code concerning location that makes it possible to separate between inside and outside.
Ms. Guilhermina Lopes, Instituto Nacional de Estatistica, Portugal, proposed the definition of a new location code 16 In the street, in the market, on the beach, in the forest etc.
Mr. Rydenstam commented that the discussion shows that the activity coding list has to be a living document, and that it is necessary to find a way for future common solutions to questions that may arise during the coding process.
Mr. Rydenstam also noted that there is probably a technical solution to the travel problem mentioned earlier by Norway (Point 7 of the agenda).
Mr. Baigorri said that in some years it would probably be necessary to have another TUS meeting to deal with different problems that may have arisen when carrying out national Time Use Surveys.
Prof. Gershuny was of the opinion that we need to take a strong view of the coding list, and that there is need for an authority that takes responsibility for it.
Dr. Ehling proposed that the TUS activity coding list should be handed over to the Working Party for Classification for approval.
Dr. Ehling also described how CIRCA could be used.
Mr. Rydenstam proposed that CIRCA should be used for keeping an extended coding index. There is also need for a ‘help desk’ for countries to turn to when they need to discuss specific problems in connection with their respective Time Use Surveys.
Ms. Niemi said that Statistics Finland could start the help desk activity, and report possible new descriptions of activities to Eurostat to be included in an extended coding index.
Ms. Lopes stressed the need for a ‘final’ activity coding list.
Ms Österberg said that a ‘final’ version of the activity coding list will be prepared as soon as possible, but not before the end or the year.
8.9Certain aspects of field work
(Doc. E2/TUS/26/99)
Mr. Hannu Pääkkönen, Statistics Finland, presented the general structure of Doc. E2/TUS/26/99 containing a proposal for what should be included in the guidelines on fieldwork.
Ms. Niemi underlined the central role of the interviewers for obtaining Time Use data of high quality.
Ms. Dumontier suggested the use of quality indicators for following up the performance of interviewers; e.g. Interviewers with a low number of episodes are ‘looked at’.
Mr. Rydenstam pointed out the importance of meta-data on each Time Use Survey to make it possible to describe the quality of the survey.
Ms. Niemi asked the Task Force meeting if Statistics Finland should send out the next draft document for comments.
The answer to that question was ‘Yes’.
8.7A set of basic statistics for international comparisons
(Doc. E2/TUS/24/99)
Ms. Rydenstam presented Doc. E2/TUS/24/99 where he has developed his thoughts concerning how the needs for Time Use statistics could be fulfilled.