Home
About
Methods
Project History
Contacts
Countries
Activities
Results Workshop
Results
Microdata

SLiCA Results

SLiCA Results consists of a three-part report: (1) Overview; (2) Tables; (3) Questionnaire. They can be accessed at the bottom of this page. We encourage you to read the following introductory material before accessing the results.

SLiCA results are intended to support the work of indigenous organizations, government agencies, and researchers. They are also intended to help the general public understand Arctic peoples and their way of life.

SLiCA results are the product of a decade of collaboration of researchers and indigenous peoples. We embarked on this project with the commitment that SLiCA would not bring harm to Arctic peoples. Together, we decided to release these tabulations. We ask all who use the data that they assume the commitment of the project team to benefit, and not harm Arctic peoples. The most likely way such harm may occur is through an inadvertent misunderstanding of the meaning of results. The best way to avoid such inadvertent misunderstandings is to consult with Arctic indigenous people. To obtain advice on how such consultations can be made, please contact Birger Poppel bipo@ilisimatusarfik.gl or Jack Kruse afjak@uaa.alaska.edu

Overview: We are releasing with the tabulation of results an overview article on SLiCA. The Overview describes the methods used in the study, the development of international analysis themes, and presents results by theme.

Tables: In keeping with the recommendations in the Arctic Human Development Report (AHDR 2004), we have organized the tables of results in six domains: Ties with Nature, Cultural Continuity, Control of Destiny, Health, Material Success, and Education. The tables are preceded with a List of Tables. Entries in the List of Tables are hyperlinked. Clicking on a Table Title in the List of Tables will transfer you directly to that table. To return to the List of Tables, use the "back" key on your browser.

Within these six domains, we tabulate results by country, region with country, regional capital versus other communities, gender, and age. Not every variable is presented by all these breakdowns. Reasons for not including a breakdown include data suppression in Canada to meet Statistics Canada disclosure requirements and a tradeoff off between report length and relevance. A few tables were inadvertently omitted from the final set of tabulations run in Canada.

Questionnaire: We have included a copy of the international core questionnaire as an appendix in SLiCA Results.

Dates of Survey: Fieldwork dates for SLiCA varied due to differences in funding. Dates were as follows:

Canada 2001

Alaska 2002 (Northwest Arctic Region), 2003 (North Slope and Bering Straits regions)

Greenland 2004-2006

Chukotka 2004-2006

Interpretation of Percentages: Results expressed in whole percents are appropriate to the level of precision obtained with the sample sizes used in SLiCA. We therefore have rounded all results to the nearest whole percentage. The careful reader will note that occasionally the sum of reported percentages does not exactly equal 100 percent. This is an inconvenient consequence of the rounding process. Eliminating this problem would require selective adjustments to percentages by hand. The reader should be confident that each percentage is correctly rounded to the nearest whole percent. If they wish to adjust the results so that they add up exactly to 100 percent, they will have a minimal deviation from the true rounded percents by adjusting the largest percent as in the following example:

Health Table 247: Self-Report Health by Gender
    Unadjusted Unadjusted
  Male Female Total Male Female Total
Excellent   20% 18% 19% 20% 18% 19%
Very good   45% 38% 42% 45% 39% 43%
Good   25% 30% 27% 25% 30% 27%
Fair   8% 9% 8% 8% 9% 8%
Poor   2% 4% 3% 2% 4% 3%
  100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
             
Estimated Total   43,720 38,300 82,020 43,720 38,300 82,020

Significance: All SLiCA results are subject to sampling error. Identical samples could yield slightly different results due to chance. The size of the estimated sampling error varies by the number of respondents contributing to each tables results and to the amount of variation in responses. For interpreting differences in percentages, a conservative assumption is to use a difference of at least 10 percentage points as a threshold for concluding that there is a significant difference. In most cases smaller differences are significant. For interpreting differences in means, a conservative assumption is to use a difference of one or more as a threshold for concluding that there is a significant difference.

Interpretation of Differences Across Age Groups: We all would like to know how SLiCA indicators of living conditions change over time. It is tempting to use age group comparisons as a proxy for time. If young people engage in fewer subsistence activities than older people, does that mean subsistence participation is likely to be decreasing over time? Not necessarily. People who vary in their age today are also likely to vary in their stage of life. What a young person does today may not be what he or she does in ten years. We urge you to use caution in interpreting the meaning of differences by age.

Interpretation of Differences in Satisfaction Questions: The SLiCA questionnaire was developed in English and highly respected experts translated it into the major languages of each area sampled. Despite these efforts, it is possible that we did not succeed in all cases in attaining comparably worded questions. In particular, we want to draw attention to the satisfaction questions. It is possible that the generally lower level of satisfaction reported in Greenland is at least in part due to a difference in how “very satisfied” is understood in its Greenlandic representation. Further research may help us all understand the extent to which response differences are due to differences in perceived meaning.

Interpretation of Income Results: We collected income data in local currency units. We report income in two ways: in nominal US dollars using a simple currency conversion ratio and in “purchasing power parity” (PPP) dollars intended to adjust for differences in purchasing power. We made purchasing power adjustments using nationally available conversion figures. These figures do not necessarily reflect real differences at the regional level, particularly as we are dealing with remote regions. The net effect of the purchasing power conversion is to multiply Chukotka income figures by a factor of about five. Adjustments have only minor effects on the other countries. We do not think that either the unadjusted or adjusted income results in themselves adequately portray income comparisons involving Chukotka. Together, they are still imperfect but an improvement on either one alone.

What We Mean by Regions:

  1. Nunavik      Inuit settlement region in Canada
  2. Labrador    Inuit settlement region in Canada
  3. Inuvialuit    Inuit settlement region in Canada
  4. Nunavut     Inuit settlement region in Canada
  5. Sydgronland    South region in Greenland
  6. Midgronland     Mid-western region in Greenland
  7. Diskobugten     Northwestern region in Greenland
  8. Nordgronland   North region in Greenland
  9. Ostgronland      Eastern region in Greenland
  10. Anadyr                Anadyr region in Chukotka
  11. Central                Central region in Chukotka
  12. Eastern               Eastern region in Chukotka
  13. Western              Western region in Chukotka
  14. North Slope       North Slope Borough in Alaska
  15. NANA                  Northwest Arctic Borough in Alaska
  16. Bering Straits    Bering Straits region in Alaska 

What We Mean by Region/Place Size: Community size may be a proxy for many differences between communities. Simple categorizations of communities by size have proven elusive. We attempted to divide communities in each region into two categories: “regional capital” and “other communities”. In Alaska this easily translates into comparisons for the regional centers of Barrow, Kotzebue, and Nome and comparisons with the remaining smaller communities in each region. The implementation of this idea in other countries is not so straightforward. In the Nunavik region, for example, three communities exceed a 1,000 population. And in Greenland, there are twelve towns exceeding 1,000 population and five regions. With the exception of the mid-region with the national capital Nuuk, there is no easy match between region and regional capital. In Chukotka there are four regions and only two communities exceeding 1,000 indigenous population. While no one rule could be applied across countries, we nevertheless wanted to provide meaningful comparisons, at least within countries. In Alaska and Canada, we compared the regional capital to other communities. In Greenland, we only broke out Nuuk from the remainder of its region. In Chukotka, we compared the primarily Inuit eastern region with the remainder of Chukotka.

Respondent versus Household-Based Results: All sample results are generalized to all indigenous adults. Most results are based on the responses of a single individual selected in a sampled household, the respondent. We did, however, record some characteristics of all household adults in an early part of the interview called the “household chart” (see Questionnaire in Appendix A). Where tabulations are based on all household adults, the title of the table includes the phrase “household adults”.

Differences in Data Availability by Country: As we mentioned in the overview, there are differences in the questions asked by country, particularly between Canada and the other three countries. We have noted differences by table.

Possibility of Errors: While we have worked diligently to avoid errors, the thousands of lines of computer code used to generate results may contain an undiscovered error. The requirement of getting results from Canada in the form of rounded total counts rather than percentages meant that each table is the product of formulas set up in Excel. Also requiring spreadsheet manipulation was the task of integrating results from Canada with results from the other countries. These manual steps introduce the potential for error. We welcome questions about potential errors. We will maintain an errata sheet on our website.

Conditions for Use of the Data in Publications: In keeping with the collaborative nature of this project, the research team committed to a review of draft publications by our indigenous partners. While we cannot enforce such a commitment on those using the tabulations in this report, we want to underscore the value of such a review to all parties. There are a myriad of differences between countries that may account for differences in results. It is beyond the scope of SLiCA to equip the reader with an understanding of these differences; we certainly don’t understand them all ourselves! Our lack of understanding of differences increases the risk that any of us will inadvertently misinterpret SLICA results. Our misinterpretations when published could harm indigenous people. Consultation before publication is the best way to avoid inadvertent misinterpretations of results. We urge all who use these tabulations to consult with others prior to publication. To obtain advice on how such consultations can be made, please contact Birger Poppel bipo@ilisimatusarfik.gl or Jack Kruse afjak@uaa.alaska.edu

Citation: Please use the following citation if for use of SLiCA Results:

Poppel, Birger, Jack Kruse, Gérard Duhaime, Larissa Abryutina. 2007. SLiCA Results. Anchorage: Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage.

SLiCA Results Report

bulletOverview
bulletTables
bulletCorrections to Tables
bullet Questionnaire
bulletPresentations in Danish