IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v69y2009i7p1010-1017.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

"We only did it because he asked us": Gendered accounts of participation in a population genetic data collection

Author

Listed:
  • Haddow, Gillian

Abstract

This article draws upon findings from an interview study with twenty-three families about participation in a large-scale population genetic database called, "Generation Scotland: The Scottish Family Health Study" (GS: SFHS). GS: SFHS aspires to become a DNA identification vehicle for the discovery of genetic contributions to diseases that affect the Scottish population e.g., cancer, heart disease and mental illness. Little is known about why families invited to take part in this type of research do so, especially when a family member is acting as a 'proxy' recruiter and is healthy with no known genetic (or otherwise) disease. Who will agree to be such a 'proxy recruiter' (or 'proband'), who GS: SFHS will recruit and why has been shown to be dependent on the existence of family disease, proband use of indirect and direct coercion, and the status of family relationships more generally. This study adds to these findings demonstrating that participation is limited by family history affecting the numbers of family members who can be recruited and enhanced by gender affecting who will be recruited. Although not mutually exclusive, the reasons for participation by probands were tied to leaving a 'healthy legacy,' whereas for the family members it was because they were asked and felt obliged to or were persuaded to by the proband. This research concludes: 1) biology is a choice not a given; 2) yet the biological basis of family relationships can give rise to a gendering of recruitment to the clinical study; and 3) women continue to be 'kin-keepers'.

Suggested Citation

  • Haddow, Gillian, 2009. ""We only did it because he asked us": Gendered accounts of participation in a population genetic data collection," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1010-1017, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:69:y:2009:i:7:p:1010-1017
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(09)00487-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:69:y:2009:i:7:p:1010-1017. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.