“Tango for Two”: Women’s Interviews in Clinical Reproductive Practice
Keywords:guide, narrative, reproduction, infertility, donors, autobiography, selfdescription
This article attempts to combine data obtained through interviews by a psychologist of female donors participating in an assisted reproductive technology program and interpret them through narrative analysis and communicative situation analysis. The article describes the structure of an oocyte-donor which has never been done before with reference to Russian-language material. An ethical platform for the study is openness to a new type of scientific knowledge that results from the interpretation of the informants’ answers who try to comprehend their motives to donate. The narrative analysis of 21 transcripts helps determine the roles of the interviewer and the informant at each stage and their contribution to the discussion-testing communicative situation. The interview includes several stages, such as “a window to the past”, at which the autobiographical narrative is recorded as comprehensively as possible; a description of the donor’s current state which focuses on strategies for solving problem situations; the interview ends with a series of thought experiments that allow the psychologist to assess the emotional stability of the potential donor and make a forecast regarding the prospects for long-term cooperation with the reproductive medicine clinic. The paper outlines the cases of participants’ cooperation and mismatches in building a credible and value-consistent autobiographical narrative that includes the donation experience. The authors seek to fit this experience into a broader value context, including a compensatory one related to the urgent problems of potential donors. Women’s answers help specify the concept of donor ‘multi-motivation’. The ambiguity of public opinion regarding donation as a reproductive medicine phenomenon is expressed in the fact that the availability of information for those who are aware of the issue co-exists with donors’ persistent reluctance to display their activity outside the inner circle. Research perspectives include the need to consider the narrative contribution of each participant in the situation of reproduction, i. e. physicians, donors, and recipient parents, and its further use in practice.
Aronson, P. (2009). Strategii obrashcheniya za meditsinskoi pomoshch’yu i sotsial’noe neravenstvo v sovremennoi Rossii [Strategies for Seeking Medical Care and Social Inequality in Modern Russia]. In Zdravomyslova, E., Temkina, A. (Eds.). Zdorov’e i doverie: gendernyi podkhod k reproduktivnoi meditsine. Sbornik statei. St Petersburg, Izdatel’stvo Evropeiskogo universiteta v Sankt-Peterburge, pp. 155–178.
ASRM Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, and the Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. 2008. Guidelines for Gamete and Embryo Donation : A Practice Committee Report. (N. d.). In NIH National Library of Medicine. National Center of Biotechnology Information [website]. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19007645/ (accessed: 12.03.2023).
Barri, P. N., Coroleu, B., Clua, E., Tur, R., Boada, M., Rodriguez, I. (2014). Investigations into Implantation Failure in Oocyte-Donation Recipients. In Reproductive BioMedicine Online. Vol. 28. No. 1, pp. 99–105. DOI 10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.08.012.
Beeson, D., Darnovsky, M., Lippman, A. (2015). What’s in a Name? Variations in Terminology of Third-Party Reproduction. In Reproductive BioMedicine Online. Vol. 31 (6), pp. 805–814. DOI 10.1016/j.rbmo.2015.09.004.
Golofast, V. B. (1995). Mnogoobrazie biograficheskikh povestvovanii [The Diversity of Biographical Narratives]. In Sotsiologicheskii zhurnal. No. 1, pp. 71–88.
Gorrill, M. J., Johnson, L. K., Patton, P. E., Burry, K. A. (2001). Oocyte Donor Screening: The Selection Process and Cost Analysis. In Fertility and Sterility. Vol. 75. No. 2, pp. 400–404. DOI 10.1016/s0015-0282(00)01711-8.
Graham, S., Jadva, V. et al. (2016). Being an Identity-Release Donor: A Qualitative Study Exploring the Motivations, Experiences, and Future Expectations of Current UK Egg Donors. In Human Fertility. Vol. 19. No. 4, pp. 230–241. DOI 10.1080/14647273.2016.1221148.
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. In Human Fertility. Vol. 1. No. 15. DOI 10.1080/14647273.2021.1873430.
Hogan, R. G., Wang, A. Y. et al. (2020). Having a Baby in Your 40s with Assisted Reproductive Technology: The Reproductive Dilemma of Autologous Versus Donor Oocytes. In The Australian & New Zealand J. of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. Vol. 60. No. 5, pp. 797–803. DOI 10.1111/ajo.13179.
Kuragina, G. S. (2019). K voprosu ob utochnenii ponyatii “sem’ya gruppy riska”, “deti gruppy riska” [On the Issue of Clarifying the Concepts of “Family at Risk”, “Children at Risk”]. In Sotsial’noe obsluzhivanie semei i detei. Nauchno-metodicheskii sbornik. No. 18, pp. 11–18.
Kvale, S. (2003). Issledovatel’skoe interv’yu [Research Interview]. Moscow, Smysl. 301 p.
Levy, D., Minjarez, D., Weaver, T., Keller, J., Surrey, E., Schoolcraft, W. (2007). Oocyte Donor Screening: A Retrospective Analysis of Selection Process and Prospective Donor Exclusions. In Fertility and Sterility. Vol. 88. No. 1 (Suppl.), pp. 266–267. DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.07.905.
Luman, N. (2009). Samoopisaniya [Self-Descriptions] / transl. by A. Antonovskii, B. Skuratov, K. Timofeeva. Moscow, Logos, ITDGK “Gnozis”. 320 p.
Winter, А., Daniluk, J. C. (2004). A Gift from the Heart: The Experiences of Women Whose Egg Donations Helped Their Sisters Become Mothers. In J. of Counseling & Development. Vol. 82. No. 4, pp. 483–495. DOI 10.1002/j.1556-6678.2004.tb00337.x.
Zdravomyslova, E., Temkina, A. (2009). “Vracham ya ne doveryayu”, no… Preodolenie nedoveriya k reproduktivnoi meditsine [“I Don’t Trust Doctors”, but… Overcoming Distrust in Reproductive Medicine]. In Zdravomyslova, E., Temkina, A. (Eds.). Zdorov’e i doverie: gendernyi podkhod k reproduktivnoi meditsine. Sbornik statei. St Petersburg, Izdatel’stvo Evropeiskogo universiteta v Sankt-Peterburge, pp. 179–210.