Professionalization of Donation in Reproduction: A Narrative Analysis of Life Stories
Research Article
How to Cite
Gramatchikova N.A., Polyakova I.G. (2023) Professionalization of Donation in Reproduction: A Narrative Analysis of Life Stories. Zhurnal sotsiologii i sotsialnoy antropologii (The Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology), 26(3): 149-180 (in Russian). DOI: https://doi.org/10.31119/jssa.2023.26.3.6 EDN: ZGHRKE
Abstract
The formation of the institution of donation in the field of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) leads to the fact that some women participate in the procedure of oocyte donation and surrogacy (or both) repeatedly, i.e., they receive a certain experience of professionalization in this area. The material of the article is 9 in-depth semi-structured interviews with women who had more than two-time experience of oocyte donation and/or surrogacy, as well as 4 expert interviews with specialists in the field of ART. The authors focus on two research questions: how do donors construct an autobiographical narrative in which the history of regular donation fits in, and how do donors see the parameters of the emerging professional field that they must comply with, i.e. how donor narratives correlate and interact with external discursive frameworks. Finding answers to these questions involves a qualitative analysis of interviews with donors and physicians. The internal dynamics of the situation with professional donation today is also determined by the fact that the interest in the stability and predictability of “donors with good experience”, which has a material expression (reward), turns into a “conveyor belt effect” for the participants themselves, contrary to the values of increasing self-esteem and social status, which, in addition to money, serve as a powerful incentive for long-term participation in the program for female donors. The material and conclusions of the article are of interest to all specialists working in the field of reproductive medicine, as well as to specialists in the field of promoting this product on the market.
Keywords:
oocyte donation, reproductive medicine, surrogacy, professional donor, narrative, interview
References
Bauman Z. (2005) Individualizirovannoe obshchestvo [The Individualized Society]. Moscow: Logos (in Russian).
Bashmakova N.V., Polyakova I.G., Mazurov D.O., Symanyuk E.E (2023) Osobennosti motivacii i rekruting donorov oocitov: klinika vs donor [Characteristics of motivation and recruitment of oocyte donors: clinic vs donor]. Voprosy ginekologii, akusherstva i perinatologii, 22(1): 40–45. https://doi.org/10.20953/1726-1678-2023-1-40-45 (in Russian).
Berdysheva E.S. (2012) Ot kritiki k analitike: kommodifikatsiya zhiznenno vazhnykh blag kak aktual'naya issledovatel'skaya problema v novoi ekonomicheskoi sotsiologii [From criticism to analytics: commodification of vital goods as a current research problem in the new economic sociology]. Ekonomicheskaya sotsiologiya [Economic Sociology], 13(1): 67–85 (in Russian).
Blyth E., Crawshaw M., Frith L., van den Akker O. (2017) Gamete donors’ reasons for, and expectations and experiences of, registration with a voluntary donor linking register. Human Fertility, 20(4): 268–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/14647273.2017.1292005.
Foret F., Bolzonar F. (2021) How the European union deals with surrogacy. Birth without borders as a driver of value conflicts? Gender, Technology and Development, 25(2): 131–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/09718524.2021.1933347.
Golofast V. (1997) Tri sloya biograficheskogo povestvovaniya [Three layers of biographical narrative]. In: Voronkov V., Zdravomyslova E. (eds.) Biograficheskii metod v izuchenii postsotsialisticheskikh obshchestv [Biographical method in the study of post-socialist societies]. St. Petersburg: CISR: 23–26; 130–143 (in Russian).
Gotlib A.S. (2013) Analiz narrativov v sotsiologii: vozmozhnosti i problemy issledovaniya. [Analysis of narratives in sociology: research opportunities and challenges]. Mezhdunarodnyi zhurnal issledovanii kul'tury [International Journal of Cultural Studies], 1(10): 9–14 (in Russian).
Gramatchikova N.B., Polyakova I.G. (2023) «Tango vdvoem»: zhenskie intervyu v klinicheskoj reproduktivnoj praktike. [“Tango for two”: Women's Interviews in Clinical Reproductive Practice]. Quaestio Rossica (in print) (in Russian).
Hogan R.G., Hammarberg K., Wang A.Y., Sullivan E.A. (2021) “Battery hens” or “nuggets of gold”: a qualitative study on the barriers and enablers for altruistic egg donation. Human Fertility, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/14647273.2021.1873430.
Isupova O.G. (2014) Rody kak tsennost' v internet-diskurse subfertil'nykh zhenshchin o donorstve yaitsekletok i surrogatnom materinstve [Childbirth as a value in the online discourse of subfertile women about egg donation and surrogacy]. Zhurnal issledovanii sotsial'noi politiki [Journal of Social Policy Research], 12(3): 381–395 (in Russian).
Krikhtova T.M. (2020) Religioznaya sostavlyayushchaya vnemeditsinskoi instrumentalizatsii reproduktsii: Zachatevskii monastyr v narrativakh polzovatel'nits roditelskogo foruma «Bebiblog» [The Religious Component of Non-Medical Instrumentalization of Reproduction: The Conception Monastery in the Narratives of Users of the Bebiblog Parent Forum]. Zhurnal sotsiologii i sotsialnoy antropologii [The Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology], 23(1): 198–222. http://doi.org/10.31119/jssa.2020.23.1.7 (in Russian).
Kurlenkova A.S. (2016) Kogda yazyk imeet znachenie: ot donorstva yaitsekletok k rynkam ootsitov [When Language Matters: From Egg Donation to Oocyte Markets]. Sotsiologiya vlasti [Sociology of Power], 1(28): 107–140 (in Russian).
Lomakin I.V. (2019) Chaildfri ili dobrovol'no bezdetnye? K pereopredeleniyu kontseptual'nogo polya issledovanii ne-roditel'stva v Rossii [Childfree or voluntarily childless? Toward a redefinition of the conceptual field of non-parenting research in Russia]. Monitoring obshchestvennogo mneniya: Ekonomicheskie i sotsial'nye peremeny [Monitoring public opinion: Economic and social changes], 6: 394–436. https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2019.6.20 (in Russian).
Morgan S., Movius L., Cody M. (2009) The power of narratives: The effect of entertainment television organ donation storylines on the attitudes, knowledge and behaviors of donors and nondonors. Journal of communication, 59(1): 135–151.
Pennings G., de Mouzon J., Shenfield F., Ferraretti A.P., Mardesic T., Ruiz A., Goossens V. (2014) Socio-demographic and fertility-related characteristics and motivations of oocyte donors in eleven European countries. Human Reproduction, 29(5): 1076–1089. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu048.
Platts S., Bracewell-Milnes T., Saso S., Jones B., Parikh R., Thum M.-Y. (2019) Investigating attitudes towards oocyte donation amongst potential donors and the general population: a systematic review. Human Fertility, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/14647273.2019.1602736.
Purewal S., van den Akker O.B.A. (2009) Systematic review of oocyte donation: investigating attitudes, motivations and experiences. Human Reproduction Update, 15(5): 499–515. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmp018.
Quale S. (2003) Issledovatel'skoe interv'yu [Research interview]. Moscow: Meaning (in Russian).
Resnik D.B. (2015) Bioethical issues in providing financial incentives to research participants. Medicolegical. Bioethics, 5: 35–41. https://doi.org/10.2147/MB.S70416.
Rusanova N.E. (2008) Reproduktivnye vozmozhnosti demograficheskogo razvitiya [Reproductive possibilities of demographic development]. Moscow: Sputnik (in Russian).
Salomé Lima N., Álvarez Plaza C., Cubillos Vega C. (2019) Donantes de ovocitos: análisis comparativo de dos muestras de Argentina y España sobre perfil de donantes, motivaciones y anonimato. Política y Sociedad, 56(3): 603–622. https://doi.org/10.5209/poso.59726.
Samorinha C., de Freitas C., Silva S. (2021) Donor-centred care: the facilitating and constraining factors experienced by gamete donors in a public bank. Human Fertility, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/14647273.2021.1962987.
Shirokov A. (2019) «Po-russki govorite»: soobshchenie informatsii i obratnaya svyaz' vo vzaimodeistvii vracha-genetika i patsienta [“Speak Russian”: communication of information and feedback in the interaction between a geneticist and a patient]. Laboratorium: zhurnal sotsial'nykh issledovanii [Laboratorium: Journal of Social Research], 11(2): 125–148. https://doi.org/10.25285/2078-1938-2019-11-2-125-148 (in Russian).
Tkach O.A. (2013) «Napolovinu rodnye»? Problematizatsiya rodstva i sem'i v gazetnykh publikatsiyakh o vspomogatel'nykh reproduktivnykh tekhnologiyakh [“Half family”? Problematization of kinship and family in newspaper publications on assisted reproductive technologies]. The Journal of Social Policy Studies, 11(1): 50–8 (in Russian).
Voronina O.A. (2018) «Novoe» materinstvo: filosofsko-antropologicheskii vzglyad. ["New" motherhood: a philosophical and anthropological view]. Filosofskaya shkola. Gendernye issledovaniya [Philosophical school. Gender Studies], 6: 104–109. https://doi.org/10.24411/2541-7673-2018-10647 (in Russian).
Yakimova E.V. (2014) Al'truizm kak forma prosotsial'nogo povedeniya v kontekste zapadnoi sotsial'no-psikhologicheskoi teorii XXI v. [Altruism as a form of prosocial behavior in the context of Western socio-psychological theory of the 21st century]. In: Yefremenko D.V. (ed.) Sotsial'naya solidarnost' i al'truizm: sotsiologicheskaya traditsiya i sovremennye mezhdistsiplinarnye issledovaniya [Social Solidarity and Altruism: A Sociological Tradition and Contemporary Interdisciplinary Research]. Moscow: INION: 222–247 (in Russian).
Bashmakova N.V., Polyakova I.G., Mazurov D.O., Symanyuk E.E (2023) Osobennosti motivacii i rekruting donorov oocitov: klinika vs donor [Characteristics of motivation and recruitment of oocyte donors: clinic vs donor]. Voprosy ginekologii, akusherstva i perinatologii, 22(1): 40–45. https://doi.org/10.20953/1726-1678-2023-1-40-45 (in Russian).
Berdysheva E.S. (2012) Ot kritiki k analitike: kommodifikatsiya zhiznenno vazhnykh blag kak aktual'naya issledovatel'skaya problema v novoi ekonomicheskoi sotsiologii [From criticism to analytics: commodification of vital goods as a current research problem in the new economic sociology]. Ekonomicheskaya sotsiologiya [Economic Sociology], 13(1): 67–85 (in Russian).
Blyth E., Crawshaw M., Frith L., van den Akker O. (2017) Gamete donors’ reasons for, and expectations and experiences of, registration with a voluntary donor linking register. Human Fertility, 20(4): 268–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/14647273.2017.1292005.
Foret F., Bolzonar F. (2021) How the European union deals with surrogacy. Birth without borders as a driver of value conflicts? Gender, Technology and Development, 25(2): 131–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/09718524.2021.1933347.
Golofast V. (1997) Tri sloya biograficheskogo povestvovaniya [Three layers of biographical narrative]. In: Voronkov V., Zdravomyslova E. (eds.) Biograficheskii metod v izuchenii postsotsialisticheskikh obshchestv [Biographical method in the study of post-socialist societies]. St. Petersburg: CISR: 23–26; 130–143 (in Russian).
Gotlib A.S. (2013) Analiz narrativov v sotsiologii: vozmozhnosti i problemy issledovaniya. [Analysis of narratives in sociology: research opportunities and challenges]. Mezhdunarodnyi zhurnal issledovanii kul'tury [International Journal of Cultural Studies], 1(10): 9–14 (in Russian).
Gramatchikova N.B., Polyakova I.G. (2023) «Tango vdvoem»: zhenskie intervyu v klinicheskoj reproduktivnoj praktike. [“Tango for two”: Women's Interviews in Clinical Reproductive Practice]. Quaestio Rossica (in print) (in Russian).
Hogan R.G., Hammarberg K., Wang A.Y., Sullivan E.A. (2021) “Battery hens” or “nuggets of gold”: a qualitative study on the barriers and enablers for altruistic egg donation. Human Fertility, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/14647273.2021.1873430.
Isupova O.G. (2014) Rody kak tsennost' v internet-diskurse subfertil'nykh zhenshchin o donorstve yaitsekletok i surrogatnom materinstve [Childbirth as a value in the online discourse of subfertile women about egg donation and surrogacy]. Zhurnal issledovanii sotsial'noi politiki [Journal of Social Policy Research], 12(3): 381–395 (in Russian).
Krikhtova T.M. (2020) Religioznaya sostavlyayushchaya vnemeditsinskoi instrumentalizatsii reproduktsii: Zachatevskii monastyr v narrativakh polzovatel'nits roditelskogo foruma «Bebiblog» [The Religious Component of Non-Medical Instrumentalization of Reproduction: The Conception Monastery in the Narratives of Users of the Bebiblog Parent Forum]. Zhurnal sotsiologii i sotsialnoy antropologii [The Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology], 23(1): 198–222. http://doi.org/10.31119/jssa.2020.23.1.7 (in Russian).
Kurlenkova A.S. (2016) Kogda yazyk imeet znachenie: ot donorstva yaitsekletok k rynkam ootsitov [When Language Matters: From Egg Donation to Oocyte Markets]. Sotsiologiya vlasti [Sociology of Power], 1(28): 107–140 (in Russian).
Lomakin I.V. (2019) Chaildfri ili dobrovol'no bezdetnye? K pereopredeleniyu kontseptual'nogo polya issledovanii ne-roditel'stva v Rossii [Childfree or voluntarily childless? Toward a redefinition of the conceptual field of non-parenting research in Russia]. Monitoring obshchestvennogo mneniya: Ekonomicheskie i sotsial'nye peremeny [Monitoring public opinion: Economic and social changes], 6: 394–436. https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2019.6.20 (in Russian).
Morgan S., Movius L., Cody M. (2009) The power of narratives: The effect of entertainment television organ donation storylines on the attitudes, knowledge and behaviors of donors and nondonors. Journal of communication, 59(1): 135–151.
Pennings G., de Mouzon J., Shenfield F., Ferraretti A.P., Mardesic T., Ruiz A., Goossens V. (2014) Socio-demographic and fertility-related characteristics and motivations of oocyte donors in eleven European countries. Human Reproduction, 29(5): 1076–1089. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu048.
Platts S., Bracewell-Milnes T., Saso S., Jones B., Parikh R., Thum M.-Y. (2019) Investigating attitudes towards oocyte donation amongst potential donors and the general population: a systematic review. Human Fertility, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/14647273.2019.1602736.
Purewal S., van den Akker O.B.A. (2009) Systematic review of oocyte donation: investigating attitudes, motivations and experiences. Human Reproduction Update, 15(5): 499–515. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmp018.
Quale S. (2003) Issledovatel'skoe interv'yu [Research interview]. Moscow: Meaning (in Russian).
Resnik D.B. (2015) Bioethical issues in providing financial incentives to research participants. Medicolegical. Bioethics, 5: 35–41. https://doi.org/10.2147/MB.S70416.
Rusanova N.E. (2008) Reproduktivnye vozmozhnosti demograficheskogo razvitiya [Reproductive possibilities of demographic development]. Moscow: Sputnik (in Russian).
Salomé Lima N., Álvarez Plaza C., Cubillos Vega C. (2019) Donantes de ovocitos: análisis comparativo de dos muestras de Argentina y España sobre perfil de donantes, motivaciones y anonimato. Política y Sociedad, 56(3): 603–622. https://doi.org/10.5209/poso.59726.
Samorinha C., de Freitas C., Silva S. (2021) Donor-centred care: the facilitating and constraining factors experienced by gamete donors in a public bank. Human Fertility, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/14647273.2021.1962987.
Shirokov A. (2019) «Po-russki govorite»: soobshchenie informatsii i obratnaya svyaz' vo vzaimodeistvii vracha-genetika i patsienta [“Speak Russian”: communication of information and feedback in the interaction between a geneticist and a patient]. Laboratorium: zhurnal sotsial'nykh issledovanii [Laboratorium: Journal of Social Research], 11(2): 125–148. https://doi.org/10.25285/2078-1938-2019-11-2-125-148 (in Russian).
Tkach O.A. (2013) «Napolovinu rodnye»? Problematizatsiya rodstva i sem'i v gazetnykh publikatsiyakh o vspomogatel'nykh reproduktivnykh tekhnologiyakh [“Half family”? Problematization of kinship and family in newspaper publications on assisted reproductive technologies]. The Journal of Social Policy Studies, 11(1): 50–8 (in Russian).
Voronina O.A. (2018) «Novoe» materinstvo: filosofsko-antropologicheskii vzglyad. ["New" motherhood: a philosophical and anthropological view]. Filosofskaya shkola. Gendernye issledovaniya [Philosophical school. Gender Studies], 6: 104–109. https://doi.org/10.24411/2541-7673-2018-10647 (in Russian).
Yakimova E.V. (2014) Al'truizm kak forma prosotsial'nogo povedeniya v kontekste zapadnoi sotsial'no-psikhologicheskoi teorii XXI v. [Altruism as a form of prosocial behavior in the context of Western socio-psychological theory of the 21st century]. In: Yefremenko D.V. (ed.) Sotsial'naya solidarnost' i al'truizm: sotsiologicheskaya traditsiya i sovremennye mezhdistsiplinarnye issledovaniya [Social Solidarity and Altruism: A Sociological Tradition and Contemporary Interdisciplinary Research]. Moscow: INION: 222–247 (in Russian).
Article
Received: 28.01.2023
Accepted: 21.09.2023
Citation Formats
Other cite formats:
ACM
[1]
Gramatchikova, N.A. and Polyakova, I.G. 2023. Professionalization of Donation in Reproduction: A Narrative Analysis of Life Stories. Zhurnal sotsiologii i sotsialnoy antropologii (The Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology). 26, 3 (Sep. 2023), 149-180. DOI:https://doi.org/10.31119/jssa.2023.26.3.6.
Section
Sociology of Health
" />
