This article analyzes the incidence, causes, and types of refusals encountered during face-to-face survey interviews. Drawing on a long-standing body of methodological literature, the study focuses on the local level within a culturally diverse borderland community. It utilizes an original survey investigating motives for non-response, with data collected in 2024 during a fieldwork project conducted as part of an academic research camp in Poland. On a theoretical level, the article contributes to the literature on the classification of survey refusals, the conversion of attitudes among potential respondents, and the communication and persuasion strategies deployed by interviewers. It also examines the influence of socio-demographic characteristics on increasing rates of non-consent. The findings, based on a quantitative and qualitative content analysis, result in a structured typology of the observed refusal categories. Particular attention is paid to the respondents’ justifications, notably community-specific factors and anxieties stemming from a general sense of insecurity characteristic of Central and Eastern European societies.
AhaltCSudoreRBolanoMMetzgerLDarbyAMWilliamsB (2017) Teach-to-goal to better assess informed consent comprehension among incarcerated clinical research participants. AMA Journal of Ethics19(9): 62–72.
2.
AnuszewskaI (2010) Sondaże – zwierciadło społeczeństwa. Rytuały komunikacyjne a kreowanie wiedzy wspólnej. Warszawa: CeDeWu.
3.
BabbieE (2009) Podstawy badań społecznych [Fundamentals of Social Research], trad. A. Kloskowska-Dudzińska. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
4.
BaggioSGonçalvesLHellerPWolffHGétazL (2023) Refusal to participate in research among hard-to-reach populations: The case of detained persons. PLoS ONE18(3): e0282083.
5.
BaumanSL (2008) Refusal and refusal rate. In: LavrakasPJ (ed.) Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 700–01.
6.
BonevskiBet al. (2014) Reaching the hard-to-reach: A systematic review of strategies for improving health and medical research with socially disadvantaged groups. BMC Medical Research Methodology14(1): 42.
7.
CalderwoodLPlewisIKetendeSMostafaT (2016) Evaluating the immediate and longer term impact of a refusal conversion strategy in a large scale longitudinal study. Survey Research Methods10(3): 225–36.
8.
DutwinDet al. (2015) Current knowledge and considerations regarding survey refusals: Executive summary of the AAPOR Task Force Report on Survey Refusals. Public Opinion Quarterly79(2): 411–19.
9.
DutwinDet al. (2014) Current Knowledge and Considerations Regarding Survey Refusals: AAPOR Task Force Report on Survey Refusals. AAPOR.
10.
GrabowskaM (2016) Kondycja badań sondażowych – widziana z góry i z dołu. Communication présentée au XVIe Congrès national de sociologie, Gdańsk.
11.
GrovesRM (1989) Survey Errors and Survey Costs. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
12.
GrovesRMCouperMP (1998) Nonresponse in Household Interview Surveys. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
13.
KurczewskiJRusekH (2007) Życie obywatelskie po obu stronach Olzy. In: ZielińskaMTrzopBLisowskiK (eds) Transgraniczność w perspektywie socjologicznej. Zielona Góra: Lubuskie Towarzystwo Naukowe, pp. 267–94.
14.
LavrakasPJ (2008) Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15.
LewisTGorsakMYountN (2019) An automated refusal conversion strategy for web surveys. Field Methods31(4): 309–27.
16.
LutyńskaK (1989) Analiza odmów w polskich badaniach kwestionariuszowych w latach 1982–1985. Przegląd Socjologiczny37: 209–34.
17.
MayerTSO’BrienE (2001) Interviewer refusal aversion training to increase survey participation. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Statistical Association.
18.
MenoldNZüllC (2010) Reasons for refusals, their collection in surveys and interviewer impact. GESIS Working Papers.
19.
MichalskaM (2006) Religijność na pograniczu. Polacy na Zaolziu. Czeski Cieszyn: Kongres Polaków w Republice Czeskiej.
20.
MulryMH (2008) Coverage error. In: LavrakasPJ (ed.) Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 161–62.
21.
NunanDBankheadCAronsonJ (2017) Attrition bias. In: Olson KM (2013) Do non-response follow-ups improve or reduce data quality?Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A176(1):129–45.
22.
OrzechowskiP (2024) Przyczyny odmów w wywiadach kwestionariuszowych przeprowadzonych face-to-face. Kultura i Społeczeństwo68: 235–58.
23.
RobertsCVandenplasCStähliME (2014) Evaluating the impact of response enhancement methods on the risk of nonresponse bias and survey costs. Survey Research Methods8(2): 67–80.
24.
Rocznik demograficzny (2022) Demographic Yearbook. Warszawa: Główny Urząd Statystyczny.
25.
RószkiewiczM (2015) Próba diagnozy uwarunkowań poziomu wskaźnika braku odpowiedzi w środowisku polskich gospodarstw domowych. In: Taksonomia 25. Klasyfikacja i analiza danych. Prace Naukowe UE Wrocław385: 219–28.
26.
SztabińskiPB (2006) Dlaczego respondenci uczestniczą lub nie uczestniczą w badaniach? ASK. Społeczeństwo, Badania, Metody15(1): 7–28.
27.
SzymeczekJ (2012) Ewangelicy na Śląsku Cieszyńskim a polsko-niemiecko-czeskie pojednanie. In: KurczewskiJ (ed.) Socjologia pojednania. Kraków: Nomos, pp. 87–96.
28.
VoorpostelM (2019) Refusal conversion. FORS Guide4. Version I.1: 1–7.
29.
WesternBBragaAHureauDSiroisC (2016) Study retention as bias reduction in a hard-to-reach population. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences113(20): 5477–85.
30.
YanTCurtinR (2010) The relation between unit nonresponse and item nonresponse: A response continuum perspective. International Journal of Public Opinion Research22(4): 535–51.
31.
ZenderowskiR (2022) Preferencje polityczne zaolziańskich Polaków po, aksamitnej rewolucji”. Czeski Cieszyn: Ośrodek Rozwoju Społeczeństwa Obywatelskiego.
