Humanitarian Wearables: Digital Bodies, Experimentation and Ethics

  • Kristin Bergtora SandvikEmail author
Part of the Military and Humanitarian Health Ethics book series (MHHE)


This chapter reflects on the ethical challenges raised by humanitarian technology experimentation, as illustrated through the topical example of ‘humanitarian wearables’. Humanitarian wearables are conceptualized as smart devices that can be placed on or inside the bodies of aid beneficiaries for many purposes, including tracking and protecting health, safety and nutrition. This type of technology development and the prospect of its mass-distribution in the humanitarian space raises significant questions for the field of humanitarian ethics. The analytical point the chapter seeks to make is that wearables – and the discourses surrounding them at this point in time—represent a form of experimentation with the nature and direction of aid. With a product whose main purpose is to collect and return large amounts of intimate personal data, the product is not the wearable but rather the data being returned to humanitarian actors and their private sector partners. As a contribution to the growing body of scholarship on humanitarian technology ethics, the chapter fleshes out three possible approaches to wearables: the top-down humanitarian imperatives and principles framework; a proposed revisited version of the bottom-up rights-based approaches—now involving an RBA to data—and the emergent data justice approach, where stakeholders relationship to the key resource—data—is at the center of the analysis.



Research for this chapter was funded by the PRIO-hosted project ‘Do No Harm: Ethical Humanitarian Innovation’ (EtHumIn), and the UiO-hosted project ‘Vulnerability in the Robot Society (VIROS), both funded by the Research Council of Norway.


  1. Barick, Uttam, et al. 2016. Harnessing real world data from wearables and self-monitoring devices: Feasibility, confounders and ethical considerations. MEFANET Journal 4 (1): 44–49.Google Scholar
  2. Benelli, P. 2013. Human rights in humanitarian action and development cooperation and the implications of rights-based approaches in the field, Scholar
  3. Borchgrevink, Kaja, and Kristin Bergtora Sandvik forthcoming. The afterlife of buzzwords: The journey of right-based approaches through the humanitarian sector (manuscript on file with authors).Google Scholar
  4. Burns, Ryan. 2014. Moments of closure in the knowledge politics of digital humanitarianism. Geoforum 53: 51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Calhoun, Craig. 2010. The idea of emergency: Humanitarian action and global (dis) order. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
  6. Carter, Simon, Judith Green, and Ewen Speed. 2018. Digital technologies and the biomedicalisation of everyday activities: The case of walking and cycling. Sociology Compass 12 (4): e12572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Casselman, Jamin, Nicholas Onopa, and Lara Khansa. 2017. Wearable healthcare: Lessons from the past and a peek into the future. Telematics and Informatics 34 (7): 1011–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Comes, Tina, Kristin Bergtora Sandvik, and Bartel Van de Walle. 2018. Cold chains, interrupted: The use of technology and information for decisions that keep humanitarian vaccines cool. Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management 8 (1): 49–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cornwall, Andrea, and Celestine Nyamu-Musembi. 2004. Putting the ‘rights-based approach’ to development into perspective. Third World Quarterly 25 (8): 1415–1437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Darcy, J. 2004. Human rights and humanitarian action: A review of the issues, HPG background paper 12. London: Humanitarian Policy Group Overseas Development Institute.Google Scholar
  11. Duffield, M. 2001. Global governance and the new wars: The merging of development and security. London: ZED Books.Google Scholar
  12. Dufour, C., V. de Geoffroy, H. Maury, and F. Grünewald. 2004. Rights, standards and quality in a complex humanitarian space: Is sphere the right tool? Disasters 28 (2): 124–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fast, Larissa. 2017. Diverging data: Exploring the epistemologies of data collection and use among those working on and in conflict. International Peacekeeping 24 (5): 706–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fox, F. 2001. New humanitarianism: Does it provide a moral banner for the 21st century? Disasters 25 (4): 275–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Givoni, Michal. 2011. Beyond the humanitarian/political divide: Witnessing and the making of humanitarian ethics. Journal of Human Rights 10 (1): 55–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heeks, Richard, and Jaco Renken. 2018. Data justice for development: What would it mean? Information development 2018. Manchester: Global Development Institute, SEED, University of Manchester.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hunt, Matthew, et al. 2016. Ethics of emergent information and communication technology applications in humanitarian medical assistance. International Health 8 (4): 239–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jacobsen, Katja Lindskov. 2017. On humanitarian refugee biometrics and new forms of intervention. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding 11 (4): 529–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jacobsen, Katja Lindskov, and Kristin Bergtora Sandvik. 2018. UNHCR and the pursuit of international protection: Accountability through technology? Third World Quarterly 39 (8): 1508–1524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaplan, Josiah, and Evan Easton-Calabria. 2015. Military medical innovation and the Ebola response: A unique space for humanitarian civil–military engagement. Humanitarian Exchange Magazine 64: 7–9.Google Scholar
  21. Kristensen, Dorthe Brogård, and Minna Ruckenstein. 2018. Co-evolving with self-tracking technologies. New Media & Society 2018: 1461444818755650.Google Scholar
  22. Leebaw, B. 2007. The politics of impartial activism: Humanitarianism and human rights. Perspectives on Politics 5 (2): 223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Levine, J.A. 2017. The application of wearable technologies to improve healthcare in the world’s poorest people. Technology and Investment 8: 83–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lohne, Kjersti, and Kristin Bergtora Sandvik. 2017. Bringing law into the political sociology of humanitarianism. Oslo Law Review 4 (1): 4–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lupton, Deborah. 2016. The quantified self. Cambridge: Wiley.Google Scholar
  26. Minear, Larry. 2002. The humanitarian enterprise, dilemmas & discoveries. Bloomfield: Kumarian Press.Google Scholar
  27. Narkunas, J.Paul. 2015. Human rights and states of emergency: Humanitarians and governmentality. Culture, Theory and Critique 56 (2): 208–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. OCHA. 2013. Humanitarianism in the network age (HINA), OCHA policy and studies series. Available at Accessed 30 Sept 2019.
  29. OHCHR. 2018. A human rights-based approach to data. Geneva: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Scholar
  30. Read, Róisín, Bertrand Taithe, and Roger Mac Ginty. 2016. Data hubris? Humanitarian information systems and the mirage of technology. Third World Quarterly 37 (8): 1314–1331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Redfield, Peter. 2012. Bioexpectations: Life technologies as humanitarian goods. Public Culture 24.1 (66): 157–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ruckenstein, Minna, and Natasha Dow Schüll. 2017. The datafication of health. Annual Review of Anthropology 46 (2017): 261–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sandvik, Kristin Bergtora. 2010. Rapprochement and misrecognition: Humanitarianism as human rights practice. The New International Law: 139–157.Google Scholar
  34. ———. 2016. The humanitarian cyberspace: Shrinking space or an expanding frontier? Third World Quarterly 37 (1): 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. ———. 2017. Now is the time to deliver: Looking for humanitarian innovation’s theory of change. Journal of International Humanitarian Action 2 (1): 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. ———. 2019. Technologizing the fight against sexual violence: A critical scoping. PRIO paper. Accessed 30 Sept 2019.
  37. ———. 2020. Making wearables in aid: Bodies, data and gifts. The Journal of Humanitarian Affairs.Google Scholar
  38. Sandvik, Kristin Bergtora, and Kjersti Lohne. 2014. The rise of the humanitarian drone: Giving content to an emerging concept. Millennium 43 (1): 145–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sandvik, Kristin Bergtora, and N. Raymond. 2017. Beyond the protective effect: Towards a theory of harm for information communication technologies in mass atrocity response. Genocide Studies and Prevention 11 (1): 9–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sandvik, Kristin Bergtora, et al. 2014. Humanitarian technology: A critical research agenda. International Review of the Red Cross 96 (893): 219–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sandvik, Kristin Bergtora, Katja Lindskov Jacobsen, and Sean Martin McDonald. 2017. Do no harm: A taxonomy of the challenges of humanitarian experimentation. International Review of the Red Cross 99 (1): 319–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Scarnecchia, Daniel P., et al. 2017. A rights-based approach to information in humanitarian assistance. PLoS Currents 9.
  43. Scott-Smith, Tom. 2016. Humanitarian neophilia: The ‘innovation turn’and its implications. Third World Quarterly 37 (12): 2229–2251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Slim, Hugo. 2002. Not philanthropy but rights: The proper politicisation of humanitarian philosophy. The International Journal of Human Rights 6 (2): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. ———. 2015. Humanitarian ethics: A guide to morality of aid in war and disaster. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Smith, Alister, John Pringle, and Matthew Hunt. this volume. Value-sensitive design for humanitarian action: Integrating ethical analysis in the development and implementation of information and communication technology innovations. In Ethics of medical innovation, experimentation, and enhancement in military and humanitarian contexts, ed. Daniel Messelken and David Winkler. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  47. Taylor, Linnet. 2017. What is data justice? The case for connecting digital rights and freedoms globally. Big Data & Society 4 (2): 2053951717736335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wagner, Ben. 2018. Ethics as an escape from regulation: From ethics-washing to ethics-shopping. In Being profiled: Cogitas ergo, 84–90. Amsterdam: Sum Amsterdam University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Whitson, Jennifer R., and Kevin D. Haggerty. 2008. Identity theft and the care of the virtual self. Economy and Society 37 (4): 572–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wissinger, Elizabeth. 2017. Wearable tech, bodies, and gender. Sociology Compass 11 (11): e12514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. ———. 2018. Blood, sweat, and tears: Navigating creepy versus cool in wearable biotech. Information, Communication & Society 21 (5): 779–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Woodlock, Delanie. 2017. The abuse of technology in domestic violence and stalking. Violence Against Women 23 (5): 584–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of LawUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
  2. 2.Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO)OsloNorway

Personalised recommendations