Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Why do people cooperate with medical research? Findings from three studies

By Mary Dixon-Woods and Carolyn Clare Tarrant


In this paper, we distinguish decisions about cooperation with medical research from decisions about research participation. We offer an empirical and theoretical exploration of why people in three different UK-based medical research projects chose to cooperate. Data analysis of the accounts of 128 participants across the three studies was based on the constant comparative method. Participants' cooperation was engaged by a perception that they would be contributing to the ‘public good’, but they also wanted to justify their decision as sensible and safe. Critical to their cooperation was their belief that researchers would fulfil their side of the cooperative bargain, by not exposing participants to risks of harm or exploitation. Although participants were generally unaware of the details of the regulatory regime for research, they demonstrated a generalised reliance on regulation as a feature of everyday life that would provide a safe context for cooperation. In their assessment of particular projects, participants made judgements about whether to cooperate based on more specific cues, which acted as signs to assure them that researchers shared their cooperative intentions. These cues included organisational and professional credentials, the role identities and perceived trustworthiness of those involved in recruiting to research, and visible signs of reasonable practice mandated by regulatory systems. Thus participants drew on their understandings of an institutional field that was much broader than that of research alone. We propose that the social organisation of research is fundamental to the judgements people make about cooperation with research. Cooperation may be a more useful way of thinking about how people come to engage in collaboratively oriented actions such as research participation, rather than currently dominant individualistic models. Attention to the institutional context of research is critical to understanding what makes cooperation possible, and has important implications for the design of regulatory regimes for research.Peer-reviewedPost-prin

Publisher: Elsevier
Year: 2009
DOI identifier: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.03.034
OAI identifier:

Suggested articles


  1. (2004). Accountability, trust and informed consent in medical practice and research. doi
  2. (2000). Attitudes towards and participation in randomised clinical trials in oncology: A review of the literature.
  3. (2007). Beyond ‘misunderstanding’: written information and decisions about taking part in a genetic epidemiology study. doi
  4. (1987). Discourse and social psychology : Beyond attitudes and behaviour. doi
  5. (1999). Economic and sociological theories of individual charitable giving: Complementary or contradictory? Voluntas:
  6. (1993). Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic remedies for trust/distrust. doi
  7. (2001). For love or money? an exploratory study of why injecting drug users participate in research. doi
  8. (1994). Foundations of social theory Cambridge, Mass: doi
  9. (2008). Human tissue and ‘the public’: the case of childhood cancer tumour banking. doi
  10. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. doi
  11. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. doi
  12. (2006). Last best gifts: Altruism and the market for human blood and organs. Chicago ; London: doi
  13. (2008). Microfoundations of institutional theory. In: Greenwood doi
  14. (1952). On cooling the mark out: Some aspects of the adaptation to failure.
  15. (2006). Participating in a trial in a critical situation: a qualitative study in pregnancy.
  16. (2004). Re-thinking accountability: Trust versus confidence in medical practice. doi
  17. (2000). Reasons for accepting or declining to participate in randomised clinical trials for cancer therapy. doi
  18. (2008). Regulation and the social licence for medical research. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy, doi
  19. (1985). Risk management, assessment, and acceptability. doi
  20. (2000). Situational trust and co-operative partnerships between physicians and their patients: A theoretical explanation transferable from business practice. QJM : doi
  21. (2004). Social norms and human cooperation Trends doi
  22. (2005). Streetwise: How taxi drivers establish their customers' trustworthiness. doi
  23. (1996). Swift trust and temporary groups. In doi
  24. (1999). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford: doi
  25. (1990). The consequences of modernity California: doi
  26. (1984). The division of labour in society. doi
  27. (2007). The growth of donor control: revisiting the social relations of philanthropy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector doi
  28. (1983). The logic and limits of trust. doi
  29. (1971). The logic of collective action: public goods and the theory of groups. doi
  30. (1996). The mask of intimacy: Advertising and the quality of life. In A. Offer (Ed.) In pursuit of quality of life Oxford: doi
  31. (2001). The report of the Royal Liverpool children’s inquiry. London: Stationery Office.
  32. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empircal investigations.
  33. (2008). Tissue samples as ‘‘gifts’’ for research: a qualitative study of families and professionals. doi
  34. (2005). Trials and tribulations: Understanding motivations for clinical research participation amongst adults with cystic fibrosis. doi
  35. (2001). Trust and confidence: Possibilities for social work in 'high modernity'. doi
  36. (2004). Trust and moral motivation: Redundant resources in health and social care? doi
  37. (2007). Trust in science: Robert K. Merton's inspirations. doi
  38. (1999). Trust, confidence and voluntary organisations: between values and institutions. doi
  39. (2006). Undermining trust and cooperation: The paradox of sanctioning systems in social dilemmas. doi
  40. Volunteers or victims: Patients' views of randomised cancer clinical trials. doi
  41. (2007). Written work: The social functions of research ethics committee letters. doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.