Data for life: Wearable technology and the design of self-care

Abstract

Over the last 5 years, wearable technology – comprising devices whose embedded sensors and analytic algorithms can track, analyze and guide wearers’ behavior – has increasingly captured the attention of venture capitalists, technology startups, established electronics companies and consumers. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork conducted 2 years running at the Consumer Electronics Show and its Digital Health Summit, this article explores the vision of technologically assisted self-regulation that drives the design of wearable tracking technology. As key artifacts in a new cultural convergence of sensor technology and self-care that I call ‘data for life’, wearables are marketed as digital compasses whose continuous tracking capacities and big-data analytics can help consumers navigate the field of everyday choice making and better control how their bites, sips, steps and minutes of sleep add up to affect their health. By offering consumers a way to simultaneously embrace and outsource the task of lifestyle management, I argue, such products at once exemplify and short-circuit cultural ideals for individual responsibility and self-regulation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Figure 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    The seed for this article was a short piece in the MIT Technology Review titled “Obamacare meets wearable technology” (Schüll, 2014).

  2. 2.

    The US government’s Obama administration has taken a keen interest in the power of big data to transform health care. The US Department of Health and Human Services, the US National Institutes of Health’s Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research, and government-funded entities such as the National Science Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation have invested in mHealth (or “mobile health”) initiatives as a way to address wide-scale population health problems. Projects include smoker cessation apps, health text messaging, digital tools for the management of diabetes or for medication compliance, and the like. Market research shows that over one third of doctors recommend health or medical apps for their patients (MobiHealthNews, 2014). (See also Goetz, 2010; Topol, 2012, 2015).

  3. 3.

    For more on the rise of chronic disease, see the accounts of historians of medicine Weisz (2014), Armstrong (2014) and Greene (2007) who writes of “a shift in the basic conception of chronic disease from a model of inexorable degeneration to a model of surveillance and early detection” (p. 84). For analyses of the idea of “lifestyle” see Friedman (1994), Giddens (1991) and Dumit (2012).

  4. 4.

    In 1980, the sociologist Robert Crawford described an early version of lifestyle management linked to the simultaneous depoliticization and privatization of health then taking place in America: collective struggles for wellbeing were being replaced by an emphasis on individual self-care in the form of lifestyle modification (1980, p. 365). Solutions to bad diet, for instance, were located “within the realm of individual choice”, in the ability to resist advertising and overcome bad habits (p. 368).

  5. 5.

    Unlike acute diseases that arise suddenly, lifestyle diseases pose “a more sinister threat, another type of mortal hazard with slower effects that go stealthily into the blood one cancerous bacon sandwich or poisonous drink at a time, potential killers by degrees that might catch up with us later in life” (Blastand and Speigelhafter, 2014).

  6. 6.

    Scholars of the “Internet of things” (Halpern et al, 2013) and “sensor society” (Andrejevic and Burdon, 2014) have called attention to the importance of sensor technology to contemporary life. Dramatic increases in the sensitivity and sophistication of sensors along with decreases in their size means they can be loaded into clothing, pillboxes, toothbrushes and smartphones – which are becoming wearable tracking devices in themselves. Algorithms operating on the tracked data “can analyze data along multiple lines – time, frequency, episode, cycle and systemic variables”, writes Swan (2013) , a science and technology innovator and philosopher, and in this way detect “elements that are not clear in traditional time-linear data”: patterns, cycles, exceptions, the emergence of new trends, episodic triggers, variability, correlations and early warning signs (p. 90).

  7. 7.

    Founded by two former editors of Wired magazine in 2007, Quantified Self currently claims 45 000 members in 40 countries. In online forums and in meetings around the world, quantified selfers share their attempts to experiment with diet and meditation, monitor drug side effects, correlate hormone levels with mood fluctuations and relationship dynamics, or even evaluate semantic content in daily email correspondence for clues to stress and unhappiness. Social studies of quantified self include Lupton, 2015, 2013a, 2016; Albrechtslund, 2013; Boesel (see her blog, http://www.thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/author/whitneyerinboesel/), Mackenzie, 2008; Nafus and Neff, 2016; Nafus and Sherman, 2014; Oxlund, 2012; Pantzar and Ruckenstein, 2015; Ruckenstein, 2014; Potts, 2010; Schüll, forthcoming; Till, 2014; Berson, 2015; Watson, 2013. While journalists typically cast those who live by numbers as narcissistic and obsessive in their zeal for personal data, digital health pundits hold them up as beacons of a sensible tracking future. At the same time, they recognize that mass-market users are not as responsive to quantification as the typical QS member and that technology must be designed in a way that makes it “automated, easy, inexpensive, and comfortable” (Swan, 2013, p. 93).

  8. 8.

    “People living with chronic conditions”, the authors of the report write, “are significantly more likely to track a health indicator or symptom” (Fox and Duggan, 2013, p. 2). They go on to note that two-thirds of US adults are considered overweight or obese and half are living with at least one chronic condition – most often high blood pressure and diabetes (ibid., p. 6).

  9. 9.

    According to recent reports by industry analysts, a third of people discontinue tracking within the first 6 months (Ledger, 2014; Ledger and McCaffrey, 2014). Nafus and Sherman (2014) have shown how trackers frequently switch between devices, interrupting data streams and amounting to a form of “soft resistance”.

  10. 10.

    Dumit (2012) has observed (personal communication) that what I call ‘data for life’ is becoming a part of the “drugs for life” agenda; although “changes in lifestyle such as exercising more and watching one’s diet are rendered secondary” to the administration of pharmaceuticals (p. 127), drug companies are increasingly looking to self-tracking technology to help solve the problem of medication compliance. As in the case of diabetes, it is suggested that ongoing glucose monitoring, exercise and diet be combined with a lifetime of drug-taking.

  11. 11.

    One of Fitbit’s chief officers chairs the newly formed Health and Fitness Technology Division of the Consumer Electronics Association, which oversees the presence of digital health technology at each year’s Consumer Electronics Show.

  12. 12.

    Although comical to some ears, the HAPIfork is not marketed in jest. Many journalists have mocked the product, including Stephen Colbert who called the fork an “un-American” product because of its effort to slow consumption. Some have critiqued the fork for addressing a first-world problem.

  13. 13.

    ‘Big data’ has come to mean many things. Typically the phrase characterizes the continuous collection of data streams and the convergence of multiple streams and types of data such that previously undetectable patterns can be discerned – with the right tools. Some definitions of big data include the novel analytic tools that are brought to bear on vast data sets, such as advanced mining techniques, predictive modeling, dynamic systems modeling and new machine learning algorithms.

  14. 14.

    Microcomputational data-gathering and “passive” sensing, writes Hansen (2014, p. 24), gives us “digital insight” into our lives to which we would not otherwise have access; they grant us “a sort of sixth sense, a datasense,” write Kang and Cuff (2005, p. 110).

  15. 15.

    It should be noted that personal data streams can be bought, sold, transferred and mined for insight in comparison with those of others, and in this sense holds value as a kind of bioeconomic capital or “biocapital” that government-sponsored researchers or multinational corporations can harness and exploit (Rabinow and Rose, 2006, p. 203; Beer and Burrows, 2013; Lupton, 2014; Till, 2014).

  16. 16.

    Data collected by individuals for their own health or fitness projects can be recombined with that of others to draw population-wide correlations and inferences (Cukier and Mayer-Schönberger, 2013; Mayer-Schönberger and Cukier, 2013, Chapter 6). Steve Downs of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has commented that personal informatics “creates new opportunities to roll data up on an aggregate level and really look at the population, bringing the potential to find really interesting connections among the data” (RWJF Website).

  17. 17.

    Koopman (2014) suggests the term “infopower” as a way to extend Foucault’s concept of biopower, noting that “if biopower in its first functioning made heavy use of technologies of statistics and recordkeeping, then those very technologies have in the century since developed a gravity of their own in part due to the contributions of electrification, digitization, and other processes at the heart of our contemporary information societies” (p. 89). The concept of biopower, he suggests, “cannot fully exhaust the new modes of information surveillance, aggregation, and distribution in our midst” (p. 106; see also Koopman, 2015, n.p.).

  18. 18.

    Nudge philosophers Thaler and Sunstein (2008) mark the tension of freedom and submission in the name they give to the governance rationality of the nudge: “libertarian paternalism”. See also Sunstein’s, 2015 book, Choosing not to choose.

References

  1. Adams, V., Murphy, M. and Clarke, A.E. (2009) Anticipation: Technoscience, life, affect, temporality. Subjectivity 28(1): 246–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Albrechtslund, A. (2013) Self-Surveillance: How Quantification Practices and Monitoring Technologies Produce Subjectivity. Annual Meeting of the Society for Social Studies of Science (4S), 9–12 October, San Diego, CA. Unpublished conference paper.

  3. Andrejevic, M. and Burdon, M. (2014) Defining the Sensor Society. University of Queensland. TC Beirne School of Law Research Paper No. 14–21.

  4. Armstrong, D. (2014) Chronic illness: A revisionist account. Sociology of Health and Illness 36(1): 15–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Beer, D. and Burrows, R. (2013) Popular culture, digital archives and the new social life of data. Theory, Culture & Society 30(4): 47–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Berson, Josh. (2015) Computable Bodies: Instrumented Life and the Human Somatic Niche. London: Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Blastland, M. and Spiegelhalter, D. (2014) Measuring microlives. Slate 8(September), http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2014/09/calculating_life_expectancy_on_the_micro_level_the_impact_of_smoking_red.html, accessed 16 October 2014.

  8. Boesel, W. (2012a) The woman vs. The stick: Mindfulness at quantified Self 2012 Cyborgology blog, 20 September, http://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2012/09/20/the-woman-vs-the-stick-mindfulness-at-quantified-self-2012/, accessed 9 September 2013.

  9. Boesel, W. (2012b) Meaning-making through numbers: Emotional self-quantification. Cyborgology blog, 13 September, http://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2012/09/13/meaning-making-through-numbers-emotional-self-quantification/, accessed 9 September 2013.

  10. Cheney-Lippold, J. (2011) A new algorithmic identity: Soft biopolitics and the modulation of control. Theory, Culture & Society 28(6): 164–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Consumer Electronics Association (2015) The U.S. Consumer Electronic Sales and Forecast 2010–2015. Arlington, VA: Consumer Electronics Association.

  12. Crawford, R. (1980) Healthism and the medicalization of everyday life. International Journal of Health Services 10(3): 365–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Crawford, K., Lingel, J. and Karppi, T. (2015) Our metrics, our-selves: A hundred years of self-tracking from the weight scale to the wrist wearable device. European Journal of Cultural Studies 18(4–5): 479–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cukier, K. and Mayer-Schönberger, V. (2013) The rise of big data: How it’s changing the way we think about the world. Foreign Affairs 92(3): 28–40.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Deleuze, G. (1992 [1990]) Postscript on the Societies of Control. October 59, Winter: 3–7.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Dumit, J. (2012) Drugs for Life: How Pharmaceutical Companies Define our Health. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Foucault, M. (1973) The Birth of The Clinic: An Archaeology of Medical Perception. London: Tavistock.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Foucault, M. (1980) The History of Sexuality Volume 1: An Introduction. Translated by Robert Hurley. New York: Vintage Books.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Fox, S. and Duggan, M. (2013) Tracking for Health. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Washington DC: Pew Research Center.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Friedman, L.M. (1994) Republic of Choice: Law, Authority, and Culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Goetz, T. (2010) The Decision Tree: Taking Control of Your Health in the New Era of Personalized Medicine. New York: Rodale.

    Google Scholar 

  23. GovLab (2014) The GovLab index: The networked public. 20 June, http://thegovlab.org/the-govlab-index-the-networked-public-updated-and-expanded-2/, accessed 23 August 2014.

  24. Greene, Jeremy. (2007) Prescribing by Numbers: Drugs and the Definition of Disease. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Halpern, O., LeCavalier, J., Calvillo, N. and Pietsch, W. (2013) Test-bed urbanism. Public Culture 25(2): 272–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hansen, M. (2014) Feed-Forward: On the Future of Twenty-First-Century Media. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hunt, A. (2003) Risk and moralization in everyday life. In: R.V. Ericson and A. Doyle (eds.) Risk and Morality. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press, pp. 165–192.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kang, J. and Cuff, D. (2005) Pervasive Computing: Embedding the Public Square. 62 WASH. & LEE L. REv. 93, 94.

  29. Koopman, C. (2014) Michel Foucault’s critical empiricism today: Concepts and analytics in the critique of biopower and infopower. In: J.D. Faubion (ed.) Foucault Now: Current Perspectives in Foucault Studies. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, pp. 88–111.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Koopman, C. (2015) The Algorithm and the watchtower. The New Inquiry, 29 September, http://thenewinquiry.com/essays/the-algorithm-and-the-watchtower/.

  31. Lawler, R. (2013) In defense of the HAPIfork. TechCrunch, http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/12/in-defense-of-the-hapifork/, accessed 21 September 2014.

  32. Ledger, D. (2014) Inside wearables, Part 2. Cambridge, MA: Endeavour Partners. Industry Report.

  33. Ledger, D. and McCaffrey, D. (2014) Inside wearables: How the science of human behavior change offers the secret to long-term engagement. Cambridge, MA: Endeavour Partners. Industry Report.

  34. Levina, M. (2012) Healthymagination: Anticipating health of our future selves. The Fibreculture Journal 20: 143–157.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Lupton, D. (2012) M-health and health promotion: The digital cyborg and surveillance society. Social Theory & Health 10(3): 229–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Lupton, D. (2013a) The digitally engaged patient: Self-monitoring and self-care in the digital health era. Social Theory and Health 11(3): 256–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Lupton, D. (2013b) Understanding the Human Machine. IEEE Technnol. Soc. Mag 32: 25–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Lupton, D. (2013c) Quantifying the body: Monitoring and measuring health in the age of mHealth technologies. Critical Public Health 23(4): 393–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Lupton, D. (2014) Apps as artefacts: Towards a critical perspective on mobile health and medical apps. Societies 4(4): 606–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Lupton, D. (2015) Managing and materialising data as part of self-tracking. Blog post, 22 March, https://simplysociology.wordpress.com/2015/03/22/managing-and-materialising-data-as-part-of-self-tracking/.

  41. Lupton, D. (2016) The Quantified Self: A Sociology of Self-Tracking. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Mackenzie, A. (2008) The affect of efficiency: Personal productivity equipment encounters the multiple. Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization 8(2): 137–156.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Mayer-Schönberger, V. and Cukier, K. (2013) Big Data: A revolution That will Transform How we Live, Work, and Think. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Melichar, L. (2014) Sparking Behavior Change to Create a Culture of Health. Talked delivered to MIT Media Lab Seminar “Tools for Wellbeing,” 11 April.

  45. Mobihealth (2014) In-depth: Q2 2014 digital health state of the industry, http://mobihealthnews.com/36044/in-depth-q2-2014-digital-health-state-of-the-industry, accessed 20 December 2014.

  46. Mol, A. (2009) Living with diabetes: Care beyond choice and control. Lancet 373(9677): 1756–1757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Nafus, D. and Neff, G. (2016) Quantified Self. In Essential Knowledge Series. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Nafus, D. and Sherman, J. (2014) This one does not go up to 11: The quantified self movement as an alternative big data practice. International Journal of Communication 8: 1784–1794.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Oudshoorn, N. (2011) Telecare Technologies and the Transformation of Healthcare. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Oxlund, B. (2012) Living by numbers: The dynamic interplay of asymptotic conditions and low cost measurement technologies in the cases of two women in the danish provinces. Suomen Antropologi 37(3): 42–56.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Pantzar, M. and Ruckenstein, M. (2015) The heart of everyday analytics: Emotional, material and practical extensions in self-tracking market. Consumption Markets & Culture 18(1): 92–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Potts, T. (2010) Life hacking and everyday rhythm. In: T. Edensor (ed.) Geographies of Rhythm: Nature, Place, Mobilities, and Bodies. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Rabinow, P. and Rose, N. (2006) Biopower today. BioSocieties 1(2): 195–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Rahns, R.G. et al (2013) Mobile Health Market Trends and Figures 2013–2017. Report on the Commercialization of mHealth Applications, Vol. 3. Berlin, Germany: Research2Guidance.

  55. Rich, E. and Miah, A. (2014) Understanding digital health as public pedagogy: A critical framework. Societies 4(2): 296–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Rose, N. (1999) Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Rose, N. (2007) The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power, And Subjectivity in The Twenty-First Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Rose, N. (2001) The politics of life itself. Theory, Culture and Society 18(6): 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Ruckenstein, M. (2014) Visualized and interacted life: Personal analytics and engagements with data doubles. Societies 4(1): 68–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Schüll, N. (2014) Obamacare meets wearable technology. MIT Technology Review, 6 May.

  61. Schüll, N. (Forthcoming) Keeping Track: Sensor Technology, Self-Regulation, and the Data-Driven Life. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

  62. Schwartz, B. (2005) The Paradox of Choice: Why more is Less. New York: Ecco.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Singer, N. (2015) Technology that prods you to take change, not just collect data (an interview with Natasha Dow Schüll). New York Times, Business Section (Technophoria) 19 April, p. B3.

  64. Sunstein, C.R. (2015) Choosing Not to Choose: Understanding the Value of Choice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Swan, M. (2012) Health 2050: The realization of personalized medicine through crowdsourcing, the quantified self, and the participatory biocitizen. Journal of Personalized Medicine 2(3): 93–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Swan, M. (2013) The quantified self: Fundamental disruption in big data science and biological discovery. Big Data 1(2): 85–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Thaler, R.H. and Sunstein, C. (2008) Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Till, C. (2014) Exercise as labour: Quantified Self and the transformation of exercise into labour. Societies 4(4): 446–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Topol, E.J. (2012) The Creative Destruction of Medicine: How the Digital Revolution will Create Better Health Care. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Topol, E.J. (2015) The Patient will See You Now: The Future of Medicine is in your Hands. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  71. van Dijck, J. (2014) Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance and Society 12(2): 197–208.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Viseu, A. (2013) Wearable computers and the informed informational body. In: D. Bulatov (ed.) Evolution and Haute Couture: Art and Science in the Post-Biological Age. Karliningrad: The National Centre for Contemporary Arts, Baltic Branch, pp. 122–135.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Viseu, A. and Suchman, L. (2010) Wearable augmentations: Imaginaries of the informed body. In: J. Edwards, P. Harvey and P. Wade (eds.) Technologized Images, Technologized Bodies. New York: Berghahn Books, pp. 161–184.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Watson, S. (2013) Living with Data: Personal Data Uses of the Quantified Self. Thesis completed in requirement of M.Phil at Oxford University.

  75. Weisz, G. (2014) Chronic Disease in the Twentieth Century: A History. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Paul Gardner, Richard Fadok, Linda Hogle and Rayna Rapp for their close readings and helpful suggestions as I worked to develop my initial ideas into a full-length article, and to Colin Koopman and three anonymous reviewers for their valuable revision pointers.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Natasha Dow Schüll.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schüll, N. Data for life: Wearable technology and the design of self-care. BioSocieties 11, 317–333 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1057/biosoc.2015.47

Download citation

Keywords

  • digital health
  • wearable technology
  • self-tracking
  • self-care
  • big data