Academic Research
Community Research Interest
Policy Interest
Education & Training
| Audit of Current Scots Language Provision in Scotland |
 |
 |
 |
|
Audit of Current Scots Language Provision in Scotland Executive Summary Dr. Rhys Evans Scottish Government Social Research Limited extracts from the text may be produced provided the source EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background The purpose of the research was to conduct a baselineaudit of current Scots language provision in Scotland. The aims of the audit were to:
The audit was undertaken by Dr Rhys Evans (Integrate Consulting) between April and October 2008. The audit provides an overview of currently available provision (see Appendix 1 for a data table which contains the actual results of the audit and the provision found). This report provides a textual description of the data collected and highlights some of the contents of the audit by describing what was found. The audit analyses current Scots language provision by the 7 categories of public life defined by the CoE ECRML – Education; Judicial Authorities; Administrative Authorities and Public Services; Media; Cultural Activities and Facilities; Economic and Social Life; and Trans-Frontier Exchanges (Note: These categories have been used to underpin the analysis of data emerging from this audit and do not indicate any intention by the Scottish Government to seek to reclassify Scots from Part II to Part III of the CoE ECRML). Due to the crosscutting nature of language, all types of provision, therefore, have been placed in one or more of these categories. The data table includes information on CoE ECRML category of public life; provider; description and detail of provision’ geographical coverage of provision; and further comments. The audit is not an evaluation, consultation or an audit in the sense of a financial audit. It was not asked to assess the quality of the provision found, how often it was used, its impact or its management arrangements (including current funding arrangements or current expenditure on Scots language provision). Instead, it documents currently available provision. The audit is not exhaustive. It does not capture every single act of provision. Within these constraints, the audit provides a reliable picture of provision at this point in time (i.e. a snapshot), and is a useful foundation to which further research, discussions or policy development could refer. Caution must therefore be used when interpreting the absolute figures in the following analysis. The audit also allowed respondents to identify, describe and present their own provision in the provision report form used by the audit (i.e. respondents themselves were responsible for deciding what constituted an act of provision). This could potentially skew the coverage of provision by category of public life through over-reporting. Although follow-up with providers on their description of their provision was undertaken, responding to any potential inconsistencies lies beyond the scope of this audit. This could, however, form the basis for future research. Overview of the provision found Of the 262 entries recorded in this research, Education was by far the most common category of provision with 109 fields. This was followed by 72 examples of provision in the Cultural Activities and Facilities category and 38 entries for Media. The remaining categories comprised less than 20 entries, with the Judicial Authorities comprising only three. As for the forms of provision, the most common ways of delivering Scots related services were Online (66) and Print based (62). Examples of educational provision were relatively numerous as well, with 44 entries. Unsurprisingly, most of the provision was delivered Scotland-wide (98). This was closely followed by 78 entries, which noted that their provision was world-wide. Within Scotland, the audit found that most of the provision was concentrated in Aberdeen (17), Edinburgh (15), Aberdeenshire (13) and Glasgow (10). Other local authorities had lower amounts of targeted Scots provision. In terms of the providers of current Scots language provision, the Scottish Language Dictionaries (SLD) had the highest number of entries (32), closely followed by the Scots Language Centre (22) and the Elphinstone Institute (21). To put this into perspective, the majority of providers had less than three entries in the spreadsheet, reflecting a diverse, yet much fragmented Scots language community. Topline findings
The audit data table contains around 270 entries of provision and it found many acts of provision across the range of the seven categories of public life as defined by the CoE ECRML. Provision is currently strongest in the categories of Education and Cultural Activities and Facilities, and it is relatively low in the categories of Judicial Authorities and Administrative Authorities and Public Services. The audit noted the significant growth potential in the field of Media, especially web-based technologies (blogging) and broadcasting. One interesting avenue of media support for the Scots language was found in the community radio movement. Providers ranged from established, centrally-based organisations in traditional fields such as academia, to more grassroots organisations which supported the Scots language at a local level. Four organisations emerged as the fundamental and largest deliverers of existing provision - Scottish Language Dictionaries, The Scots Language Centre, Association for Scottish Literary Studies (ASLS), and Itchy Coo - the publisher of Scots language books for children. These four providers contributed a significant proportion of the provision found in the audit, and their provision covered the full spectrum of public life. They were well-represented in Education and Cultural Activities and Facilities. In addition, their work could also be found across many of the other categories, including Trans-Frontier Exchanges (of both works and people) and, increasingly, the Media. The audit found an even larger number of regional and local initiatives which operated at the grassroots level (often working in a voluntary capacity), working in local schools, supporting local oral traditions and Scots song. In Education, there was evidence of much activity in higher education and in the primary school sector, and potential for further growth in the secondary school and further education sector. There was no apparent consistency regarding educational provision across local authorities from a top-down perspective. Access to Scots language learning activities for primary and secondary age children was uneven and tended to depend on the initiative of individual teachers and school head teachers. Current provision was also less evident in the economic and social development fields, providing opportunities for learning from examples outwith the provision community when building new development strategies. Given the large impact of tourism on Scotland’s economy, promotion of the Scots language’s heritage in this way could potentially generate further economic opportunities. Although a number of Scottish publishers included Scots titles on their lists, this audit found that there was no equivalent to Itchy Coo for publishing adult literature in the Scots language. The audit also found that there was no single lead organisation or person positioned with an overall and general responsibility for Scots language provision. Nor was there any overarching policy concerning the language. Rather, there were a number of individuals and organisations who, in pursuing their own agendas, operated as a loose collective with Scots as their major concern. The contrast between the position of the Scots language and that of Gaelic with its new formal language policy in Government was also noted. This then was not a gap in a particular category of public life, but rather one identified in comparison with the progress made in supporting Gaelic. There was a strong sense that the Scots language should be treated with equal fairness and parity to Gaelic, but how that treatment is administered or structured need not necessarily be the same as the approach taken by the Scottish Government to protect and promote the Gaelic language. It was suggested that the Scots language needs its own unique solutions, driven by the historical context within which the language has existed. As well as being a vital community, the audit found that the Scots language community was also in some instances a fragile one, with a great deal of the delivery of provision dependent on the dedication and hard work of a few individuals, and much of that work being done on a voluntary basis.
Summary of Provision TableCategory of Provision:
Area of provision:
|
