Communication failures between interviewers and respondents in mass telephone surveys on the topic of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

A sociological interview is a dialogue between the interviewer and the respondent, during which information is exchanged. If a part of it is lost during this exchange, then the survey results turn out to be distorted. Since respondents do not always understand the questionnaire questions correctly and sometimes their answers do not fall into the proposed scale of options, and interviewers may make mistakes when reading out the question and building communication, it seems important to investigate the problem of communication disruption between the interviewer and the respondent in mass telephone surveys. The sensitivity of the survey topic may contribute to an increase in the number of communication disorders. Our previous research shows that the topic of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict is sensitive. During the fighting, a number of mass surveys (mainly telephone) were conducted on the attitude of Russians towards them, however, the final data distributions are subjected to detailed analysis, while communication violations that occurred during the interviews themselves remain outside the research. This paper attempts such a study. We analyzed audio recordings of a massive All-Russian telephone survey (N=1619). A total of 200 randomly selected audio recordings of successful interviews were listened to. The methods of content analysis and traditional qualitative analysis of documents revealed and described communication violations between interviewers and respondents. The following results were obtained. Communication violations are divided into those that occurred 1) due to the respondent's reaction and 2) due to the mistakes of the interviewers. In 137 cases, violations occurred for the first reason, and in 89 — for the second, i.e. problems on the part of respondents are more often the causes of communication violations than the mistakes of the interviewers. Most often, violations of the dialogue due to respondents' reactions are caused by the respondents' incorrect understanding of the questionnaire questions. The most common mistake of interviewers is to formally follow the instructions without taking into account the communication situation. In case of communication violations, the parameters measured by the questionnaire are sometimes significantly distorted. On the one hand, the reason for this is the respondents' understanding of the meaning of the question not in the way that was laid down by the compilers of the questionnaire. On the other hand, interviewers who make communication errors when voicing the text of a question also contribute to such distortions, although much less often. As a result, the information circulating between the sociologist, the interviewer and the respondent may be distorted by following this chain. Although fundamental distortions that destroy communication are relatively infrequent, the prevalence of communication disorders affects the quality of the data obtained in the dialogue between the interviewer and the respondent.

About the authors

Vladimir B. Zvonovskiy

Samara State University of Economics

Email: zvb@socio-fond.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-8805-9028
SPIN-code: 5589-3297
Dr. Sci. (Sociology), Prof. of the Department of Sociology and Psychology Samara, Russia

Alexander V. Khodykin

Social Research Institute

Email: a.khodykin@socio-fond.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-0230-5775
SPIN-code: 3376-6682
ResearcherId: AAB-8675-2020
Candidate of Sociological Sciences, Sociologist Samara, Russia

Darya O. Ippolitova

Samara State University of Economics

Email: IppolitovaDO@yandex.ru
student Samara, Russia

References

  1. Августис Ю.И., Широков А.А. (2019) Ситуации и методы переспрашивания в телефонных опросах: этнометодологический анализ стандартизированного интервью. Мониторинг общественного мнения: экономические и социальные перемены, 4: 22–42. https//doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2019.4.02.
  2. Андреенков В.Г., Сотникова Г.Н. (1985) Телефонные опросы населения (Методические рекомендации организации и проведения выборочных массовых опросов). М.: ИСИ АН СССР.
  3. Звоновский В.Б., Ходыкин А.В. (2022) Отражение культурной власти геополитического нарратива в коллективных представлениях россиян о специальной военной операции. Социологические исследования, 11: 38–5https//doi.org/10.31857/S013216250021524-9.
  4. Звоновский В.Б., Ходыкин А.В. (2023а) Восприятие россиянами конфликта с Украиной: проверка гипотезы «спирали молчания». Социологические исследования, 11: 38–50. https//doi.org/10.31857/S013216250028531-7.
  5. Звоновский В.Б., Ходыкин А.В. (2023б) Стратегии адаптации сторонников и противников спецоперации к жизни в ее условиях (на примере жителей Самарской области). Социологический журнал, 29(1): 8–3https//doi.org/10.19181/socjour.2023.29.1.1.
  6. Звоновский В.Б., Ходыкин А.В. (2024) Российское общественное мнение в условиях военного конфликта 2022–2023. Chişinău: Historical Expertise.
  7. Ипатова А.А., Рогозин Д.М. (2014) Условия коммуникативного успеха в стандартизированном телефонном интервью. Социологический журнал, 1: 21–54.
  8. Канеман Д. (2017) Думай медленно… Решай быстро. СПб.: АСТ.
  9. Литвинович В.М. (2016) Телефонное интервью по технологии CATI: преимущества и ограничения. Социологический альманах, 7: 58–67.
  10. Рогозин Д.М. (2002) Когнитивный анализ опросного инструмента. М.: Институт фонда «Общественное мнение».
  11. Рогозин Д.М. (2017) В тени опросов, или Будни полевого интервьюера: исследование. М.: Страна Оз.
  12. Рогозин Д.М., Ипатова А.А., Галиева Н.И. (2018) Стандартизированное (телефонное) интервью. М.: Пункт.
  13. Садмен С., Брэдберн Н. (2002) Как правильно задавать вопросы: введение в проектирование опросного инструмента / пер. с англ. А.А. Виницкой; под ред. Д.М. Рогозина. М.: Институт Фонда «Общественное мнение».
  14. Dillman D.A., Smyth J.D., Christian L.M. (2014) Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  15. Groves R.M., Fowler F.J., Couper M.P., Lepkowski J.M., Singer E., Tourangeau R. (2009) Survey methodology. John Wiley & Sons.
  16. Groves R.M., McGonagle K.A. (2001) A theory-guided interviewer training protocol regarding survey participation. Journal of Official Statistics, 17(2): 249–265.
  17. Maletzke G. (1963) Psychology of mass communication: theory and systematics. Berlin: Hans Bredow University.
  18. Maynard D.W., Schaeffer N.C. (2002) Standardization and its discontents. In: Maynard D.W., Houtkoop-Steenstra H., Schaeffer N.C., Zouwen J. van der (eds.) Standardization and tacit knowledge: interaction and practice in the survey interview. New York: John Wiley & Sons: 3–45.
  19. Morris J. (2023) Public opinion still does not exist. Russian Analytical Digest, 292: 7–9.
  20. Pechenkina A.O., Bausch A.W., Skinner K.K. (2018) The Pitfalls of List Experiments in Conflict Zones. Civil Wars, 20(3): 408–435.
  21. Schuman H., Presser S. (1996) Questions and answers in attitude surveys: Experiments on question form, wording, and context. London: Sage.
  22. Willis G.B. (2005) Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. London: Sage.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Согласие на обработку персональных данных

 

Используя сайт https://journals.rcsi.science, я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных») даю согласие на обработку персональных данных на этом сайте (текст Согласия) и на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика» (текст Согласия).