<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE root>
<article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/" article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.2" xml:lang="en"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">RUDN Journal of Sociology</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title xml:lang="en">RUDN Journal of Sociology</journal-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="ru"><trans-title>Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Серия: Социология</trans-title></trans-title-group></journal-title-group><issn publication-format="print">2313-2272</issn><issn publication-format="electronic">2408-8897</issn><publisher><publisher-name xml:lang="en">Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia named after Patrice Lumamba</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">50943</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.22363/2313-2272-2026-26-2-540-554</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="edn">XZMPYG</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="toc-heading" xml:lang="en"><subject>Contemporary society: the urgent issues and prospects for development</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="toc-heading" xml:lang="ru"><subject>Современное общество: актуальные проблемы и перспективы развития</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="article-type"><subject>Research Article</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title xml:lang="en">Kinship in reproductive donation: Anonymity vs openness</article-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="ru"><trans-title>Родство в репродуктивном донорстве: анонимность или открытость</trans-title></trans-title-group></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><name-alternatives><name xml:lang="en"><surname>Polyakova</surname><given-names>I. G.</given-names></name><name xml:lang="ru"><surname>Полякова</surname><given-names>Ирина Геннадьевна</given-names></name></name-alternatives><bio xml:lang="ru">кандидат социологических наук, заместитель директора по общим вопросам Уральского гуманитарного института</bio><email>irinapolykova@yandex.ru</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name-alternatives><name xml:lang="en"><surname>Shvetsova</surname><given-names>A. V.</given-names></name><name xml:lang="ru"><surname>Швецова</surname><given-names>Анастасия Владимировна</given-names></name></name-alternatives><bio xml:lang="ru">кандидат социологических наук, доцент кафедры социологии и технологий государственного и муниципального управления</bio><email>shvetsovaav@mail.ru</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name-alternatives><name xml:lang="en"><surname>Valeeva</surname><given-names>M. V.</given-names></name><name xml:lang="ru"><surname>Валеева</surname><given-names>Марина Владимировна</given-names></name></name-alternatives><bio xml:lang="ru">кандидат социологических наук, старший научный сотрудник Лаборатории наукометрии, доцент кафедры прикладной социологии</bio><email>m.v.shcherbakova@urfu.ru</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/></contrib></contrib-group><aff-alternatives id="aff1"><aff><institution xml:lang="en">Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin</institution></aff><aff><institution xml:lang="ru">Уральский федеральный университет имени первого Президента России Б.Н. Ельцина</institution></aff></aff-alternatives><pub-date date-type="pub" iso-8601-date="2026-07-18" publication-format="electronic"><day>18</day><month>07</month><year>2026</year></pub-date><volume>26</volume><issue>2</issue><issue-title xml:lang="en"/><issue-title xml:lang="ru"/><fpage>540</fpage><lpage>554</lpage><history><date date-type="received" iso-8601-date="2026-07-01"><day>01</day><month>07</month><year>2026</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement xml:lang="en">Copyright ©; 2026, Polyakova I.G., Shvetsova A.V., Valeeva M.V.</copyright-statement><copyright-statement xml:lang="ru">Copyright ©; 2026, Полякова И.Г., Швецова А.В., Валеева М.В.</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2026</copyright-year><copyright-holder xml:lang="en">Polyakova I.G., Shvetsova A.V., Valeeva M.V.</copyright-holder><copyright-holder xml:lang="ru">Полякова И.Г., Швецова А.В., Валеева М.В.</copyright-holder><ali:free_to_read xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/"/><license><ali:license_ref xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0</ali:license_ref></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://journals.rudn.ru/sociology/article/view/50943">https://journals.rudn.ru/sociology/article/view/50943</self-uri><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>Deterioration of reproductive health is one of the pressing issues of our time, and assisted reproductive technologies are increasingly used to address it. However, technological progress has far outpaced social adaptation, complicating the definition of new kinship structures determined by reproductive donation. The article considers the relationship between kinship and anonymity in the context of reproductive donation and is based on a complex approach that expands the theoretical framework of social sciences and presents an interdisciplinary understanding of reproductive donation practices by integrating sociological and anthropological perspectives. The authors analyze social aspects of kinship and anonymity to identify the significance of genetic kinship within the broader context of personal identity and kinship development. The empirical study consisted of 14 in-depth semi-structured interviews with recipients of donor reproductive material: their narratives reveal personal and social aspects of the perception of genetic kinship in ART (Assisted Reproductive Technologies) programs involving third parties in parenting, and attitudes toward anonymity of donation and issues related to disclosing information about such conception. The study focuses on how donor anonymity shapes understanding of kinship, influencing social norms, identity patterns, family and genealogical ties. The authors argue that anonymity affects how kinship is perceived, strengthening boundaries between biological and social dimensions. Despite arguments for openness driven by medical reasoning and the right to know one’s genetic origins, Russian society in general and traditional family models in particular remain unready for full transparency in this sphere.</p></abstract><trans-abstract xml:lang="ru"><p>Ухудшение репродуктивного здоровья - одна из тревожных тенденций современности, механизмом корректировки которой все чаще становятся вспомогательные репродуктивные технологии (ВРТ). Однако технологические новшества значительно опережают социальные изменения, что обуславливает сложности в определении новых структур родства, возникающих в результате репродуктивного донорства. Цель статьи - проанализировать взаимосвязь концептов «родство» и «анонимность» в ситуации репродуктивного донорства. Предложен комплексный подход к анализу родства, который не только расширяет теоретическую рамку социальных наук, но и углубляет понимание российских практик репродуктивного донорства, рассматривая их на пересечении философских, социологических и антропологических перспектив. Авторы изучают соотношение родства и анонимности, чтобы показать значение проблемы генетического родства в контексте экзистенциальных вопросов об идентичности и развитии родственных связей. Эмпирическая основа статьи - 14 глубинных полуструктурированных интервью с реципиентами донорского репродуктивного материала. На основе данных нарративов обозначены личные и социальные аспекты восприятия генетического родства в программах ВРТ с привлечением в родительский проект третьих лиц, а также нюансы отношения к анонимности донорства и раскрытию информации об особенностях зачатия ребенка. Статья подчеркивает влияние анонимности доноров на концепцию родства в российском обществе, учитывая как социальные нормы и философские вопросы идентичности, так и антропологические аспекты формирования семейных и генеалогических связей. Основной вывод исследования заключается в том, что анонимность донорства оказывает значительное влияние на восприятие и поддержание родства, создавая границы между его биологическим и социальным измерениями. Несмотря на призывы к открытости, основанные на медицинской логике и праве личности знать о своем происхождении, российское общество в целом и традиционные семейные модели в частности не готовы к полной открытости в этой сфере.</p></trans-abstract><kwd-group xml:lang="en"><kwd>reproductive donation</kwd><kwd>assisted reproductive technologies</kwd><kwd>ART (Assisted Reproductive Technologies)</kwd><kwd>kinship</kwd><kwd>values</kwd><kwd>family</kwd><kwd>anonymity</kwd></kwd-group><kwd-group xml:lang="ru"><kwd>репродуктивное донорство</kwd><kwd>вспомогательные репродуктивные технологии</kwd><kwd>ВРТ (вспомогательные репродуктивные технологии)</kwd><kwd>родство</kwd><kwd>ценности</kwd><kwd>семья</kwd><kwd>анонимность</kwd></kwd-group><funding-group><award-group><funding-source><institution-wrap><institution xml:lang="ru">Исследование выполнено за счет гранта Российского научного фонда. Проект № 25-28-00478, https://rscf.ru/project/25-28-00478/</institution></institution-wrap><institution-wrap><institution xml:lang="en">The study was funded by the Russian Science Foundation. Project No. 25-28-00478, https://rscf.ru/project/25-28-00478/.</institution></institution-wrap></funding-source></award-group></funding-group></article-meta><fn-group/></front><body></body><back><ref-list><ref id="B1"><label>1.</label><mixed-citation>Andreassen R. Mediated Kinship: Gender, Race and Sexuality in Donor Families. London: Routledge; 2019.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B2"><label>2.</label><mixed-citation>Barnwell A. The genealogy craze: Authoring an authentic identity through family history research. Life Writing. 2013; 10 (3).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B3"><label>3.</label><mixed-citation>Crawshaw M. Direct-to-consumer DNA testing: The fallout for individuals and their families unexpectedly learning of their donor conception origins. Human Fertility. 2018; 21 (4).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B4"><label>4.</label><mixed-citation>Darroch F., Smith I. Establishing identity: How direct-to-consumer genetic testing challenges the assumption of donor anonymity. Family Court Review. 2021; 59 (1).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B5"><label>5.</label><mixed-citation>Dempsey D., Nordqvist P., Kelly F. Beyond secrecy and openness: Telling a relational story about children’s best interests in donor-conceived families. BioSocieties. 2022; 17.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B6"><label>6.</label><mixed-citation>Edwards J. Born and Bred: Idioms of Kinship and New Reproductive Technologies in England. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B7"><label>7.</label><mixed-citation>Edwards J., Franklin S., Hirsch E., Price F., Strathern M. Technologies of Procreation: Kinship in the Age of Assisted Conception. London: Routledge; 1999.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B8"><label>8.</label><mixed-citation>Franklin S. Biological Relatives: IVF Stem Cells and the Future of Kinship. Durham: Duke University Press; 2013.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B9"><label>9.</label><mixed-citation>Franklin S. Embodied Progress: A Cultural Account of Assisted Conception. London: Routledge; 2022.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B10"><label>10.</label><mixed-citation>Giddens A. Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Cambridge: Polity Press; 1991.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B11"><label>11.</label><mixed-citation>Gilman L. Tracing pathways of relatedness: How identity-release gamete donors negotiate biological (non-) parenthood. Families, Relationships and Societies. 2020; 9 (2).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B12"><label>12.</label><mixed-citation>Gurko T.A. Development of the institution of parenthood: Analysis of empirical indicators. Woman in Russian Society. 2022; 4. (In Russ.).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B13"><label>13.</label><mixed-citation>Harper J.C., Kennett D., Reisel D. The end of donor anonymity: How genetic testing is likely to drive anonymous gamete donation out of business. Human Reproduction. 2016; 31 (6).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B14"><label>14.</label><mixed-citation>Hertz R. Single mothers as bricoleurs: Crafting embryos and kin. Journal of Family Issues. 2021; 42 (1).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B15"><label>15.</label><mixed-citation>Isupova O.G. Childbirth as a value in the online discourse of subfertile women about egg donation and surrogacy. Journal of Social Policy Studies. 2014; 12 (3). (In Russ.).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B16"><label>16.</label><mixed-citation>Kendal E. Whose (germ) line is it anyway? Reproductive technologies and kinship. Bioethics. 2024; 38.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B17"><label>17.</label><mixed-citation>Kramer A.M. Kinship, affinity and connectedness: Exploring the role of genealogy in personal lives. Sociology. 2011; 45 (3).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B18"><label>18.</label><mixed-citation>Kretser I.Yu. In search of kinship: On the issue of kinship relations in contemporary Western studies. Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology. 2016; 19 (1). (In Russ.).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B19"><label>19.</label><mixed-citation>Kretser I.Yu. What happened to “kinship”? Contemporary perspectives on kinship studies in sociology and social anthropology. Bulletin of the Saint-Petersburg University. 2014; 12 (2). (In Russ.).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B20"><label>20.</label><mixed-citation>Lam R.X.-H. Rethinking “family”: A call for conceptual amelioration. Bioethics. 2024; 38.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B21"><label>21.</label><mixed-citation>Lassalzede T., Paci M., Rouzier J., Carez S., Gnisci A., Saias-Magnan J., Deveze C., Perrin J., Metzler-Guillemain C. Sperm donor conception and disclosure to children: A 10-year retrospective follow-up study of parental attitudes in one French center for the study and preservation of eggs and sperm (CECOS). Fertility and Sterility. 2017; 102 (2).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B22"><label>22.</label><mixed-citation>Levinas E. Totality and Infinity. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press; 1961.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B23"><label>23.</label><mixed-citation>Macmillan C.M., Allan S., Johnstone M., Stokes M.A. The motivations of donor-conceived adults for seeking information about, and contact with, sperm donors. Reproductive BioMedicine. 2021; 43 (1).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B24"><label>24.</label><mixed-citation>Mason J. Affinities: Potent Connections in Personal Life. Hoboken: Wiley; 2018.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B25"><label>25.</label><mixed-citation>Mason J. Tangible affinities and the real life fascination of kinship. Sociology. 2008; 42 (1).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B26"><label>26.</label><mixed-citation>Newton G., Drysdale K., Zappavigna M., Newman C.E. Truth, proof, sleuth: Trust in direct-to-consumer DNA testing and other sources of identity information among Australian donor-conceived people. Sociology. 2023; 57 (1).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B27"><label>27.</label><mixed-citation>Nordqvist P. Origins and originators: Lesbian couples negotiating parental identities and sperm donor conception. Culture, Health &amp; Sexuality. 2012; 14 (3).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B28"><label>28.</label><mixed-citation>Nordqvist P. Genetic thinking and everyday living: On family practices and family imaginaries. Sociological Review. 2017; 56 (4).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B29"><label>29.</label><mixed-citation>Nordqvist P., Gilman L. A sense of connectedness in reproductive donation. Contrasting policy with donor and donor kin lived experience. Journal of Family Issues. 2024; 45 (8).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B30"><label>30.</label><mixed-citation>Petersen L.M. Finding the “appropriate distance” in egg donor kinship relations. Lambda Nordica. 2020; 24 (2-3).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B31"><label>31.</label><mixed-citation>Ravitsky V. The right to know one’s genetic origins and cross-border medically assisted reproduction. Israel Journal of Health Policy Research. 2017; 6 (3).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B32"><label>32.</label><mixed-citation>Ricoeur P. Oneself as Another. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1992.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B33"><label>33.</label><mixed-citation>Schneider D. A Critique of the Study of Kinship. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press; 1984.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B34"><label>34.</label><mixed-citation>Strathern M. Reproducing the Future: Essays on Anthropology, Kinship and the New Reproductive Technologies. Manchester: Manchester University Press; 1992.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B35"><label>35.</label><mixed-citation>Symanyuk E.E., Polyakova I.G., Menshikov A.S. Transformation of family ties under the influence of assisted reproductive technologies. Quaestio Rossica. 2022; 10 (2). (In Russ.).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B36"><label>36.</label><mixed-citation>Tallandini M.A., Zanchettin L., Gronchi G., Morsan V. Parental disclosure of assisted reproductive technology (ART) conception to their children: A systematic and meta-analytic review. Human Reproduction. 2016; 31 (6).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B37"><label>37.</label><mixed-citation>Taylor C. Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1989.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B38"><label>38.</label><mixed-citation>Tkach O.A. Half-related? Problematization of kinship and family in newspaper articles on assisted reproductive technologies. Journal of Social Policy Studies. 2013; 11 (1). (In Russ.).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B39"><label>39.</label><mixed-citation>Turkmendag I., Dingwall R., Murphy T. The removal of donor anonymity in the UK: The silencing of claims by would-be parents. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family. 2008; 22 (3).</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>
