Russia is undergoing a digital boom, with technology becoming embedded in daily life and driving business efficiency. Yet this transformation brings significant challenges: a surge in fraud and social engineering, alongside a reshaping labor market. Will automation, including AI interviewers, displace human roles? Where is the “golden” balance between safety and efficiency in AI adoption? And can sociological research reliably forecast future trends? Valery Fyodorov, Dean of Social Sciences and Mass Communications at the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation and CEO of the VTsIOM Analytical Center, the largest surveying and consulting agency in Russia and other post-Soviet countries, addressed these questions in an interview with Invest Foresight. The questions were prepared by Professor Artem Genkin, Doctor of Economics.
– Mr. Fyodorov, are people still willing to participate in public opinion surveys today?
– Not really. There are several reasons. First, people have less free time, and many are unwilling to spend it on unpaid surveys. Second, the volume of surveys has exploded! They’re now conducted by around 200 pollsters in Russia alone, not just VTsIOM. Third, public faith that survey participation leads to tangible improvements to their own lives has waned. And, of course, the proliferation of scammers posing as pollsters has made people wary of answering calls.
As a result, the survey industry is facing a “perfect storm.” Respondent cooperation rates (the willingness to engage – Ed.) are declining steadily. This is damaging not just for sociologists, but for society as a whole. Surveys are a vital feedback mechanism. We still haven’t invented a more effective technique for understanding what people think, want, or fear. Considerable resources have been invested in building a robust public opinion research system in Russia, and it has functioned effectively. But now the landscape is deteriorating.
– Are there techniques to encourage a reluctant or “closed” respondent to open up?
– First, you have to get them to answer the phone, which is half the battle. Even that is a challenge. We do use certain conversational techniques, though I won’t reveal all our trade secrets. One I can share is that the interviewer should smile. A smile disarms, signaling a lack of aggression. You can hear a smile over the phone! That’s how human hearing works. I actually learned that secret from Gallup in the United States.
– Can a sociologist, drawing on extensive polling data, reliably predict future events? And in what areas might predictions fall short?
– Forecasting is an extremely important and uniquely compelling, yet incredibly complex, endeavor. There are numerous forecasting methodologies, but none are perfect. Forecasting based on sociological polls works when predicting election results – of course, provided we are talking about a system without two political forces that are practically equal in strength. Take the United States, where the system is precisely like that: predicting election outcomes is very difficult, and polling often fails at this task. However, if the situation is different – meaning there are several parties of varying popularity in a country – forecasting will work significantly better. To engage in it professionally, one needs an extensive observational database and must cross-verify data.
After all, it is an illusion that people always tell the truth. Just as it is an illusion that they constantly lie. Today they might think one thing, tomorrow another, and by the time they arrive at polling stations, their opinion may change again. Such effects must be accounted for, using methodologies that help circumvent them. We have such a methodology and model in Russia, which is why we forecast elections quite effectively here.
– In your opinion, do anxious or optimistic tones dominate the image of the future being formed today?
– In Russia, the image of the future is currently predominantly bright and optimistic. This hasn’t always been the case: only in the last year and a half to two years has there been a significant shift for the better. There is now much greater interest in the future, as well as optimism about it. Today, two-thirds of us feel that tomorrow we will live better than today – and perhaps even better the day after. This sets us apart from Western countries, where people are currently viewing the future with greater anxiety and pessimism.
– You defended your dissertation on Russians’ electoral behavior. Are there any national characteristics or patterns typical of our compatriots, including in terms of economic and financial behavior?
– Every nation has its own patterns of economic, financial, and even marital behavior. However, it is not entirely accurate to say these patterns are definitive. For example, in the case of electoral behavior, a lot – including the patterns themselves – depends on the structure of the political system.
Let me give an example: in post-war Japan, for several decades, only the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan won competitive elections. However, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the opposition began to win more seats and eventually even came to power. This shift occurred not because voting patterns had changed, but because the electoral system itself was reformed, moving from single-member to multi-member constituencies.
Socioeconomic context is another equally important factor. In the 1990s it played one role in Russia, in the 2000s a different one, and today yet another. It is therefore unsurprising that election outcomes differ from those of the 1990s: at that time the opposition dominated, whereas today its position is far more modest.
Other factors also exist, including national characteristics, but they are not decisive. Taken together, these elements shape the overall picture of Russian electoral behavior. This picture is complex, dynamic, and multilayered, and it deserves serious, professional study.
– Why do people place trust in the opinions of influencers outside their areas of expertise?
– The phenomenon of idols and influencers is widespread. People turn to them in part because modern life requires constant decision-making – whether about investments, marriage, or voting. Often, individuals lack the time, knowledge, or motivation to make fully informed choices. In such situations, they grasp at familiar reference points, following the crowd or relying on the guidance of a well-known figure.
The outcomes of this reliance vary. An investment recommended by an influencer may succeed, but more often it does not. Transferring authority and credibility from one field to another is therefore risky and usually benefits no one except the influencer themselves. While famous athletes or successful businesspeople sometimes enter politics, there is no guarantee they will succeed electorally, and even if they do, it does not necessarily mean they will serve their district, region, or country effectively. There are, of course, rare and welcome exceptions.
– Is there a reliable way to protect oneself from the harmful effects of social engineering?
– Unfortunately, no such universal protection exists. The most effective defense comes from personal experience. When someone has suffered losses due to fraud, or when this happens to people close to them, they tend to become more attentive and cautious. Mere theoretical knowledge is not sufficient; in fact, it often has the opposite effect. The more confident a person is that they understand everything, the less vigilant they become, which makes them easier to deceive.
This situation can be compared to financial literacy. The more financial knowledge a person possesses, the more inclined they often are to take risks. Therefore, although fear is usually viewed negatively, it can sometimes play a constructive role, helping us remain alert to manipulation and to what is commonly referred to as social engineering.
– In a 2019 interview with our publication, you spoke about the growing trend of sociological research digitalization. How far has this process progressed, and have robots replaced human interviewers?
– Today, digitalization affects far more than just sociological research; it is fundamentally transforming all spheres, including science, everyday life, and business. Recently, I presented the Top 1000 Russian Managers award in the Best Director of Digital Transformation category. This position now exists in virtually every major company. I would compare digitalization to the Japanese concept of kaizen, which views work as an endless source of innovation, change, and optimization. In other words, it involves the constant search for improvements, cost reductions, and increased efficiency.
From this perspective, we have made immense progress over the past six years and continue moving forward. As for robots, they are very rarely used as interviewers in our work. Otherwise, the already low level of respondent cooperation would decline even further. People simply do not like talking to machines; they prefer interacting with other people. I don’t rule out that this may change in the future – but for now, this remains the reality.
– Where do you see the balance between safety and efficiency when introducing artificial intelligence into social processes?
– At this stage, I do not see artificial intelligence being truly implemented in social processes – and that is a positive thing. In its current state, AI makes mistakes all the time. If it is introduced into social systems without leaving final decisions to humans, the outcome will be negative. Indeed, many routine tasks will be completed faster, but this will also generate a large number of dissatisfied people and lead to completely absurd situations that are impossible to predict.
The modern world is already characterized by an unjust social system, and artificial intelligence, with its rigidity and speed, will only reinforce and solidify this injustice. AI will not make social systems more honest or fair; on the contrary, widespread “AI-ization” will trap people inside a digital cage. That is why such technologies must be approached with extreme caution.
– Since February 2025, you have served as Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences and Mass Communications at the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, and you likely communicate with students often. What motivates them to study sociology?
– There is a paradox here. On the one hand, a large number of students choose to study sociology. On the other hand, conversations with them often reveal that they don’t really understand why they made this choice. Recently, one of our students defended a dissertation on motivation. He identified two types: professional motivation, where a student aims to acquire a profession to support themselves and their family, and academic motivation, which is driven by the desire for discovery and the pursuit of new knowledge. In the latter case, even with little hope of earning a stable income, the excitement of scientific discovery outweighs material considerations. The problem is that both professional and academic motivation among today’s sociology students is quite low. This is a serious issue that requires careful attention, and we are currently searching for a solution.
– Who was your favorite professor while you were studying at the Department of Philosophy of Lomonosov Moscow State University?
– My favorite professor was Nikolai Bochkaryov, who headed the Department of History of Sociopolitical Doctrines. He later became my academic advisor. He was the one who sparked my interest in sociology. I studied the works of Alexis de Tocqueville, the outstanding 19th-century French sociologist, and later moved on to the writings of the 20th-century American sociologist and futurologist Alvin Toffler. I would like to take this opportunity to express my deep gratitude to all of my teachers.
– Do you engage in sports, and which ones do you prefer?
– I don’t participate in team sports; I prefer individual ones. I work out three times a week, and I enjoy swimming and riding my motorcycle. These activities captivate me and provide a way to disconnect and recharge.