Refining Methodological Reflection: Exploring the Interviewing Experience of Oocyte Donors


The article reflects on the collaborative experience between a practicing psychologist actively involved in the oocyte donation protocol (participating in guide development, conducting interviews, and drawing conclusions for the clinic) and a philologist who interprets the interview transcripts using narrative and communicative situation analyses. The article begins by describing the interviewing process, the structure of the oocyte-donor guide, and the profile of a “stable donor,” drawing from Russian-language materials. Through narrative analysis of 21 transcripts, the roles of the interviewer and informant at each stage of the interview process are identified, along with their contributions to the discussion and testing of the communicative situation. The paper investigates both the instances of cooperation and discrepancies observed among the participants as they strive to construct a credible and value-consistent autobiographical narrative that comprehensively encompasses their donation experience. The article analyzes both explicit and hidden narrative motives placed by informants in a conversation unfolding from the respondent’s past into a projected future. The authors aim to situate this experience within a broader personal value context, which includes compensatory aspects related to the pressing concerns of potential donors.

Author Biographies

Natalya B. Gramatchikova, Institute of History and Archaeology, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Yekaterinburg, Russia

Natalia B. Gramatchikova, Cand. Sc. (Philology), Senior Researcher at the Center for Literary History, Institute of History and Archaeology, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences; former Associate Professor, Department of Russian and Foreign Literature, Ural Federal University. Her research interests include ego-documents, autobiographies, memory studies, folklore, anthropology, regional literature, and periodicals of the 19th–20th centuries. She is a co-author of six collective monographs and author of over 50 publications, including publications in journals indexed in WOS and SCOPUS databases.

Irina G. Polyakova, Ural Federal University, Yekaterinburg, Russia

Irina G. Polyakova, Cand. Sc. (Sociology), Researcher at the Ural Interregional Institute of Social Sciences, Ural Federal University. Her research interests encompass psychological support for assisted reproductive technologies, sperm and egg donors’ motivations, the donor-recipient dyad (spousal couple), and methods of psychological support for participants of reproductive donation. She is the author (co-author) of fourteen publications in journals indexed in the WOS and SCOPUS databases.


  • Aronson, P. (2009). Strategii obrashcheniia za meditsinskoi pomoshch’iu i sotsial’noe neravenstvo v sovremennoi Rossii [Health care-seeking strategies and social inequality in modern Russia]. In E. Zdravomyslova & A. Temkina (Eds.), Zdorov'e i doverie: Gendernyi podkhod k reproduktivnoi meditsine [Health and trust: A genderbased approach to reproductive medicine] (pp. 155–178). EUSP Press.

  • Barri, P. N., Coroleu, B., Clua, E., Tur, R., Boada, M., & Rodriguez, I. (2014). Investigations into implantation failure in oocyte-donation recipients. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 28(1), 99–105.

  • Bashmakova, N. V., Polyakova, I. G., Mazurov, D. O., & Symanyuk, E. E. (2023). Osobennosti motivatsii i rekruting donorov ootsitov: Klinika vs donor [Characteristics of motivation and recruitment of oocyte donors: Clinic vs donor]. Gynecology, Obstetrics and Perinatology, 22(1), 40–45.

  • Beeson, D., Darnovsky, M., & Lippman, A. (2015). What’s in a name? Variations in terminology of third-party reproduction. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 31(6), 805–814.

  • Blyth, E., & Frith, L. (2009). Donor-conceived people’s access to genetic and biographical history: An analysis of provisions in different jurisdictions permitting disclosure of donor identity. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 23(2), 174–191.

  • Golofast, V. B. (1995). Mnogoobrazie biograficheskikh povestvovanii [Diversity of biographical narratives]. Sotsiologicheskiy Zhurnal=Sociological Journal, 1, 71–88.

  • Golofast, V. B. (2000). Veter peremen v sotsiologii [Wind of change in sociology]. Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology, 3(4), 122–139.

  • Golombok, S., Murray, C., Jadva, V., Lycett, E., MacCallum, F., & Rust, J. (2006). Non-genetic and non-gestational parenthood: Consequences for parent-child relationship and the psychological well-being of mothers, fathers and children at age 3. Human Reproduction, 21(7), 1918−1924.

  • Gorrill, M. J., Johnson, L. K., Patton, P. E., & Burry, K. A. (2001). Oocyte donor screening: The selection process and cost analysis. Fertility and Sterility, 75(2), 400–404.

  • Graham, S., Jadva, V., Freeman, T., Ahuja, K., & Golombok, S. (2016). Being an identity-release donor: A qualitative study exploring the motivations, experiences and future expectations of current UK egg donors. Human Fertility, 19(4), 230–241.

  • Hogan, R. G., Hammarberg, K., Wang, A. Y., & Sullivan, E. A. (2022). “Battery hens” or “nuggets of gold”: A qualitative study on the barriers and enablers for altruistic egg donation. Human Fertility, 25(4), 688–696.

  • Hogan, R. G., Wang, A. Y., Li, Z., Hammarberg, K., Johnson, L., Mol, B. W., & Sullivan, E. A. (2020). Having a baby in your 40s with assisted reproductive technology: The reproductive dilemma of autologous versus donor oocytes. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 60(5), 797–803.

  • Instruktsiia i putevoditel’ dlia zhenshchin-klientok/patsientok meditsinskikh uchrezhdenii sfery reproduktivnogo zdorov’ia [Instruction and guide for female clients/patients of reproductive health care facilities]. (2009). In E. Zdravomyslova & A. Temkina (Eds.), Zdorov'e i doverie: Gendernyi podkhod k reproduktivnoi meditsine [Health and trust: A gender-based approach to reproductive medicine] (pp. 423–426). EUSP Press.

  • Kuragina, G. S. (2019). K voprosu ob utochnenii poniatii “sem’ia gruppy riska”, “deti gruppy riska” [On the question of clarifying the concepts of “family at risk”, “children at risk”]. In Yu. Yu. Ivashkina & O. V. Kosteychuk (Eds.), Profilaktika beznadzornosti i pravonarushenii nesovershennoletnikh. Opyt Sankt-Peterburga [Prevention of child neglect and juvenile delinquency. The experience of St. Petersburg] (pp. 11–18). Gorodskoi informatsionno-metodicheskii tsentr “Sem’ia”.

  • Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. SAGE.

  • Levy, D., Minjarez, D. A., Weaver, T., Keller, J., Surrey, E., & Schoolcraft, W. B. (2007). Oocyte donor screening a retrospective analysis of selection process and prospective donor exclusions. Fertility and Sterility, 88(Suppl. 1), S266–S267.

  • Lima N. S., 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 [Oocyte donors: Comparative analysis of two samples from Argentina and Spain on donor’s profile, motivations and anonymity]. Política y Sociedad, 56(3), 603–622.

  • Luhmann, N. (2009). Samoopisaniia [Self-descriptions] (A. Antonovsky, B. Skuratov & K. Timofeeva, Trans.). Logos, Gnozis. (Originally published in German 1997)

  • McWhinnie, A. (2001). Gamete donation and anonymity: Should offspring from donated gametes continue to be denied knowledge of their origins and antecedents? Human Reproduction, 16(5), 807−817.

  • O poriadke ispol’zovaniia vspomogatel’nykh reproduktivnykh tekhnologii, protivopokazaniiakh i ogranicheniiakh k ikh primeneniiu [On the procedure of the use of assisted reproduction technologies, contraindications and limitations of their application]. The Order of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation No. 803n. (2020, July 31).

  • Obstoiatel’stva, kotorye mogut vystupat’ osnovaniem dlia priznaniia sotsial’no opasnogo polozheniia [Circumstances that may serve as grounds for recognition of a socially dangerous situation]. (n.d.). Official website of the Ministry of Labor and Social Protection of the Tula Region.

  • 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.

  • Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine & Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. (2008). 2008 Guidelines for gamete and embryo donation: A Practice Committee report. Fertility & Sterilization, 90(Suppl. 5), S30–S44.

  • Winter, А., & Daniluk, J. C. (2004). A gift from the heart: The experiences of women whose egg donations helped their sisters become mothers. Journal of Counseling & Development, 82(4), 483–495.

  • Zdravomyslova, E., & Temkina, A. (2009a). “Vracham ia ne doveriaiu”, no … Preodolenie nedoveriia k reproduktivnoi meditsine [“I don’t trust doctors”, but … Overcoming distrust of reproductive medicine]. In E. Zdravomyslova & A. Temkina (Eds.), Zdorov'e i doverie: Gendernyi podkhod k reproduktivnoi meditsine [Health and trust: A gender-based approach to reproductive medicine] (pp. 179–210). EUSP Press.

  • Zdravomyslova, E., & Temkina, A. (2009b). Vvedenie. Gendernyi podkhod v issledovanii reproduktivnykh praktik [Introduction. Gender-based approach in research on reproductive practices]. In E. Zdravomyslova & A. Temkina (Eds.), Zdorov'e i doverie: Gendernyi podkhod k reproduktivnoi meditsine [Health and trust: A gender-based approach to reproductive medicine] (pp. 7–20). EUSP Press.

How to Cite
Gramatchikova, N., & Polyakova, I. (2023). Refining Methodological Reflection: Exploring the Interviewing Experience of Oocyte Donors. Changing Societies & Personalities, 7(3), 141–164. doi:10.15826/csp.2023.7.3.245