Kiev International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) is one of the leading research companies in Ukraine offering its clients a full spectrum of research solutions.
KIIS is a private Ukrainian company which works in collaboration with the National University of “Kiev-Mohyla Academy”. KIIS was founded in 1990 as a research center of Sociological Association of Ukraine and transformed into private enterprise in 1992. We were a pioneer in the establishment of sociological research standards in Ukraine. Our innovations in Ukrainian sociological research are: the first manual for interviewers and interviewer’s training in 1992; the first face-to-face interviews and focus-groups in 1992; the first national software for statistical data analysis in 1990; the first software for sample design in 1993.
KIIS has membership of major research associations, among others, the Sociological Association of Ukraine, European Society for Opinion and Marketing Research (ESOMAR), AAPOR and WAPOR. Professor Volodymyr Paniotto, the Director General of KIIS, was the first national representative of ESOMAR in Ukraine in 1996–2005.
KIIS is specialized in providing a full scope of services in such directions as:
For our clients we offer the following types of research:
KIIS applies contemporary methods of data processing and analysis, in particular, apart from standard software for research data analysis (SPSS, OCA), a special software for sample design, design effect estimation, linear structural equations (LISREL), and computer modelling of social processes is applied.
Authors of handbooks on data collection methods and statistical data analysis methods with experience of work in USA universities work in KIIS.
KIIS has extensive experience in conducting qualitative and quantitative research, and also complex quantitative-qualitative projects: we annually implement 100–150 projects for commercial clients as well as our own scientific research. The most demanded types of research we apply are: face-to-face interviews, phone, mail, and internet surveys, expert and elite polls, focus-groups, in-depth interviews, desk research.
KIIS’S CLIENTS WERE:
Research and consulting firms:
Embassies, political parties, foundations, NGOs, etc.
KIIS consists of a small permanent scientific and administrative staff, as well as temporary research groups, formed whenever there is a need. The staff consists of 37 full-time and about 600 part-time employees (CATI interviewers, focus group moderators, regional supervisors, and interviewers).
FIELD NETWORK STRUCTURE:
KIIS’s interviewers’ network includes 26 teams of interviewers totaling about 500 people. It allows conducting representative research in Ukraine as a whole and in its separate regions. The KIIS field network consists of Head of Department in Kiev; 5 Central Office supervisors in Kiev; 26 part-time team leaders in each region; about 500 part-time field interviewers; and the independent network of fieldwork control. All KIIS’ interviewers are fluent in both Ukrainian and Russian and conduct interview in one of them according to respondent’s choice.
Our standard nationwide sample is representative for the adult population of Ukraine and provides the high-quality sociological information. The sample covers all regions of Ukraine (24 oblasts) and AR Crimea. We apply stratification by region, type and size of settlement. Then we select settlements/rayons using PPS (probability proportional to the size) method and apply random or systematic selection of respondents at the final stage. The sampling approach was developed with the help of well-known American experts L. Kish and S. Heeringa. For specific tasks we utilize quota sample, respondent-driven sample (RDS), time location sample (TLS), capture-recapture sample (CRC), snowball technique, purposive sample, and other, if required.
QUALITY CONTROL STANDARDS:
Our company pays special attention to ensure high level of research implementation. Specifically, in quantitative research we apply a multi-stage quality control system, which includes careful selection and training of interviewers, provision of detailed manuals to interviewers; close supervision of data collection; review of interviewer’s field documentation, recontact with selected respondents by independent Department of data quality control, check of logical data consistency and data distribution. In qualitative research we make thematic briefings and trainings; conduct accompaniment of interviews; analyze transcripts; apply methodological and analytical triangulation.
COMMENTARY ABOUT THE STANDARDS FOR THE PUBLICATION OF THE SOCIOLOGICAL RATINGS
It turns out that many people interpret the sociological ratings incorrectly. Partly it is the fault of sociologists because they can not agree on the standards for the publication of ratings (actually they have agreed on some but not all). This comment is ought to help the readers of our site to understand this matter.
The first thing that is always made public is the percentage of those who will vote for a particular party (or candidate) WITH THE RESPECT TO ALL RESPONDENTS. This is the direct results of the survey, and in relation to these indicators, the sampling errors are calculated. These data are needed to compare different studies, but THEY DO NOT SHOW WHAT PARTIES WILL BE ELECTED TO THE PARLIAMENT. It is absolutely INCORRECT to interpret these indicators as a percentage that the parties will receive in elections because among them there is a large percentage of those who will not come and of those who are undecided. For example, the sum of the percentages for the each party in our September survey (look here) was only 40%, while in the elections it will be 100%. That is, on average, they can be a half of the percentages that party will receive in the election. We can say that this is the minimal percentage that party will receive in the elections.
To give a better idea of the possible outcome of the election some sociologists, for example, CEO of "Democratic Initiatives" Fund Irina Bekeshkina offer to give also THE PERCENTAGE IN RELATION TO THOSE WHO SAID THEY WOULD COME TO VOTE. This brings the results closer to the percentages that parties will receive in elections, however among the percentages there might be 20-30% of those undecided, what means that the total percentage of votes for all parties is 70-80%, and not 100. But in the elections the ratings of parties, which are the basis for calculating the passing score, is a total of 100%. That is, on average, with this method of calculating, all the percentages might be understated by 20-30%, so if the party has, for example, a rating of 6%, it will decrease by 1-2 percentage points, and that can be critical for some parties.
So the third option is to give THE PERCENTAGES IN RESPECT TO THOSE WHO SAID THAT WOULD COME TO VOTE AND HAVE ALREADY DECIDED WITH THE CHOICE. This is KIIS standard, that is used for many years. Its advantage is that the total percentage of votes obtained by the parties is 100, likewise in the elections. Its disadvantage is that in this case it is believed that those who are undecided will either not come or will come and vote the same way as those who came. Various other mathematical models and different additional information for another distribution of undecided (for example, the question about the second choice, or about whom they will never vote, or about the intentions of voters) can be used, that is why some companies gave 4-5 variants of possible voting results. Unfortunately, at the moment, sociologists (both in our country and abroad) do not have a reliable mathematical model to predict the election results, what is illustrated by the wrong predictions about the results of the UK exit from EU, and about the outcome of the elections in the US.
The calculations of KIIS President, NaUKMA professor, V.Hmelko show that a simpler approach in the research held just before the elections, give better matches with the election results than other models, that is why we adopted the following standard for press releases - to provide two types of ratings: 1) percentages in the respect to all and 2) to those who will come and have already decided with the choice at the time of the survey. The second rating gives a better idea of the possible outcome of the election but has a bigger stochastic error owing to the smaller sample. For example, if the sample consist of 2000 respondents and 50% are either not going to come or are undecided, then the basis for the calculation of the rating is only 1000 respondents. It is a certain estimated rating at the time of the survey (those who were undecided did not give his assessment) rather than the prognosis of the results of future elections.
Providing the high quality information to the society about its political, social, and socio-economic state and about opinions of various social groups and categories of the population on this state. Our slogan is «REPUTATION IS MORE IMPORTANT, THAN PROFIT!»