‘The survey focuses on who people are, asking respondents to classify themselves.’

Wandsworth Quakers had mixed feelings about the national diversity survey. Linda Murgatroyd explains what they did next.

Diversity should be valued, and being an inclusive community is important. Any work to address these issues is very welcome. How genuinely welcoming are we to anyone who feels drawn to the Quaker Way? How able are we to translate our message into different idioms? We may not be aware of who in our Meetings feels marginalised, or what many Friends might have to offer, so we need to ask open questions and listen deeply – with genuine interest – to the responses. Perhaps some of us will need wider training and practice to do this well. This may be challenging, but it will surely also bring new insights, opportunities and gifts for us all.

At a recent Business Meeting, Wandsworth Quakers considered the ‘Inclusion and diversity’ survey currently being conducted by Britain Yearly Meeting (BYM). We had an interesting discussion with a wide range of views expressed. Friends feared that the survey’s statistical results will have little validity, and some objected to particular questions. We were not clear what the purpose of the survey really was. The survey focuses on who people are, asking respondents to classify themselves in terms of ethnicity, national identity, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, class and more. But it does not ask directly about people’s lived experience and feelings about welcome and inclusion. This seems a missed opportunity.

The Meeting asked that its concerns be shared with Edwina Peart, the inclusion and diversity coordinator at BYM. She explained that the intention was to produce a statistical baseline, which might be used for future comparisons. She said that a range of options had been tested on Friends, and that she was surprised at the variety of objections. Hence the questions were constructed in such a way that people could describe themselves in their own words. Edwina stressed that she would welcome any comments, along with stories of relevant experiences; they can be added at the end of the survey.

I still feel that the statistical results of this survey will be difficult to interpret and to replicate. It is likely that more people of some types will have responded than others – and of course there are strong correlations in the population between age, geography and other social characteristics. Presenting the survey’s results in the context of other data should help avoid some misleading conclusions.

Even if there were no methodological problems, though, it’s not clear how relevant the numerical results could be. It is unlikely that Quakers will ever be representative of the wider population, nor does this seem a suitable aim. All this said, the wider the response to the survey, the more useful it will be. So I do hope that as many Friends as possible will complete it, perhaps adding comments about relevant experiences.

If the survey prompts us to reflect on how we might feel if we were responding in a different way, that would be great; for example if we were always the only Quaker in the room from our particular cultural background or in our age group, or if people make wrong assumptions about our sexual orientation or gender? If it starts us asking such questions the survey could be a really valuable in helping us become a more open, tolerant and inclusive community.

The survey, deadline end of March, can be found at: www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/quakersurvey