Abstract
Menstrual Cycle Tracking Applications (MCTAs), like other FemTech applications, are marketed as tools of empowerment. They claim to help menstruators to better understand their cycle and (re)gain control over their bodies by datafication of physical processes and mental states. However, despite technological solutionist promises, the development of such applications is shaped by discourses and knowledge situated in traditional and interlinked biomedical, neoliberal, and patriarchal power systems and archaic taboos. This study answers the research question through both quantitative and qualitative research. For the quantitative part of the research, an automated content analysis of 139 posts and 1988 comments from three different subreddits—r/Periods, r/TwoXChromosomes, and r/birthcontrol—was conducted using R and its RedditExtractoR package. The qualitative part of the study includes the execution of two focus groups with six and seven women, living in the Netherlands, between the ages of 22 and 26 in December 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The research pointed out that both focus group participants and Reddit users use MCTAs to track both their menstruation and associated bodily and mental states and paradoxically experience them as both liberating and controlling. Participants primarily view menstrual cycle tracking applications (MCTAs) as liberating and empowering, as users believe these apps help them to (1) increase their menstrual literacy, (2) be more considerate of themselves during different phases of the menstrual cycle, and (3) generally regain control over their natural cycle. Participants felt controlled in two ways: (1) through the menstrual taboo that is still present in their everyday lives, and (2) through patriarchal notions of femininity and sexuality that are embedded into the design apps. Even though participants are less attentive to neoliberal and biomedical power systems, subtle nudges given by MCTAs make them incorporate these power systems into their data sense.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Before the start of the focus groups, participants were asked to fill in a consent form, in which they consented to the voluntary nature of the research, the recording and transcription of the focus groups, and the usage of anonymized quotes. The audio files and transcripts were encrypted and stored on a separate USB drive in order to limit the risk of a data breach as much as possible. During transcription, the names of participants were changed to keep the data anonymous. As the focus groups dealt with a sensitive topic, there was a chance that participants might over-share, referring to a situation where respondents present more information, express views or mention experiences in the group setting that they eventually feel uncomfortable about sharing with the group. While it provides reassurance to individuals that others may express the same feelings, behaviors, and uncertainties, it can also make them feel very uncomfortable (Bloor et al., 2001). Therefore, in the same form of consent, the purpose of the research was clearly stated and its voluntary nature was emphasized. Next to that, it was noted that if participants wanted a specific part of the interview to be deleted from the transcript, they had the power to do so.
References
Ayo, N. (2012). Understanding health promotion in a neoliberal climate and the making of health conscious citizens. Critical Public Health, 22(1), 99–105.
Balsamo, A. (1996). Introduction. In Technologies of the Gendered Body (pp. 1–16). Duke University Press.
Bartky, S. L. (2014). Foucault, femininity, and the modernization of patriarchal power. In R. Weitz & S. Kwan (Eds.), The politics of women’s bodies: Sexuality, appearance, and behavior (4th ed., pp. 64–85). Oxford University Press.
Benoit et al. (2018). Quanteda: An R package for the quantitative analysis of textual data. Journal of Open Source Software, 3(30), 774, https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00774
Best, K. (2010). Living in the control society; Surveillance, users, and digital screen technologies. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 13(1), 5–24.
Bhimani, A. (2020, May 4). Period-tracking apps: How femtech creates value for users and platforms. LSE Business Review. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/104770/1/businessreview_2020_05_04_period_tracking_apps_how_femtech_creates.pdf
Bloor M., Frankland J., Thomas M., & Robson K. (2001). Focus groups in social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bobel, C. (2010). New blood: Third-wave feminism and the politics of menstruation. Rutgers University Press.
Buckley, T., & Gottlieb, A. (1988). Blood magic: The anthropology of menstruation. University of California Press.
Epstein, D. A., Lee, N. B., Kang, J. H., Agapie, E., Schroeder, J., Pina, L. R., Fogarty, J., Kientz, J. A., & Munson, S. A. (2017). Examining Menstrual Tracking to Inform the Design of Personal Informatics Tools. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. CHI Conference, 2017, 6876–6888. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025635
Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality volume 1: The will to knowledge (R. Hurley, Trans.). Penguin Random House.
Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Vintage.
Foucault, M. (1997). Technologies of the self. In M. Foucault & P. Rabinow (Eds.), Ethics: Subjectivity and truth. The essential works of Michel Foucault, 1954–1984 (pp. 223–252). The New Press.
Foucault, M. (2000). Governmentality. In J. D. Faubion (Ed.), Power: The essential works of Foucault, 1954–1984 (pp. 201–222). The New Press.
Fox, S., & Epstein, D. A. (2020). Monitoring menses: Design-based investigations of menstrual tracking applications. In C. Bobel, I. T. Winkler, B. Fahs, et al. (Eds.), Handbook of critical menstruation studies (pp. 733–750). Palgrave Macmillan.
Fredrickson, B., & Roberts, T. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experience and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173–206.
Friedan, B. (1963). The feminine mystique. Norton.
Garamvolgyi, F. (2022, June 28). The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/28/why-us-woman-are-deleting-their-period-tracking-apps
Goodman, L. A. (1961). Snowball sampling. Annual Mathematical Statistics, 32(1), 148–170.
Hanisch, C. (1970). The personal is political. In S. Firestone & A. Koedt (Eds.), Notes from the second year: Women’s literation: Major writings of the radical feminists (pp. 76–78). Radical Feminism.
Haraway, D. (1991). A cyborg manifesto: Science, technology and socialist-feminism in the late twentieth century. In Simians, cyborgs and women: The reinvention of nature (pp. 149–181). Routledge.
Healy, R. L. (2021). Zuckerberg, get out of my uterus! An examination of fertility apps, data-sharing, and remaking the female body as a digitized reproductive citizen. Journal of Gender Studies, 30, 400–416.
Hohmann-Marriott, B. (2021). Periods as powerful data: User understandings of menstrual app data and information. New Media & Society, 1–19.
Houppert, K. (1999). The curse: Confronting the last unmentionable taboo: Menstruation. Faraar, Strauss, and Giroux.
Karlsson, A. (2019). A room of one’s own? Using period trackers to escape menstrual stigma. Nordicom Review, 40, 111–123.
Kissling, E. A. (2006). Capitalizing on the curse: The business of menstruation. Lynne Rienner.
Kressbach, M. (2021). Period hacks: Menstruating in the big data paradigm. Television and New Media, 22(3), 241–261.
Levy, J., & Romo-Avilés, N. (2019). “A good little tool to get to know yourself a bit better”: A qualitative study on users’ experiences of app-supported menstrual tracking in Europe. BMC Public Health, 19(12–13), 1–11.
Lupton, D. (2015). Quantified sex: A critical analysis of sexual and reproductive self-tracking using apps. Culture, Health and Sexuality, 17, 440–453.
Lupton, D. (2016). The quantified self. Polity Press.
Lupton, D. (2018). How do data come to matter? Living and becoming with personal data. Big Data & Society, July–December, 1–11.
Lupton, D. (2019). Data selves: More-than-human perspectives. Polity Press.
Lupton, D. (2020). Data mattering and self-tracking: What can personal data do? Continuum, 34, 1–13.
Lupton, D., & Michael, M. (2017). ‘Depends on who’s got the data’: Public understandings of personal digital dataveillance. Surveillance and Society, 15(2), 254–268.
Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research. Sage Publications.
Nissenbaum, H. (2010). Privacy in context: Technology, policy and integrity of social life. Stanford University Press.
Ostherr, K., Borodina, S., & Bracken, R. C. (2017). Trust and privacy in the context of user-generated health data. Big Data & Society, 4(1), 1–11.
Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society. Harvard University Press.
Sanders, R. (2017). Self-tracking in the digital era: Biopower, patriarchy, and the new biometric body projects. Body & Society, 23(1), 36–63.
Schooler, D., Ward, M. L., Merriwether, A., & Caruthers, A. S. (2005). Cycles of shame: Menstrual shame, body shame, and sexual decision-making. The Journal of Sex Research, 42(4), 324–334.
Schwartz, H. A., & Ungar, L. H. (2015). Data-driven content analysis of social media: A systematic overview of automated methods. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 659, 78–94.
Torchinsky, R. (2022, June 24). NPR. https://www.npr.org/2022/05/10/1097482967/roe-v-wade-supreme-court-abortion-period-apps
Ussher, J. M. (2006). Managing the monstrous feminine: Regulating the reproductive body. Routledge.
Van Dijck, J. (2014). Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big Data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance and Society, 12(2), 197–208.
Verstappen, I. J. (2018). Qualitative health and quantified cycles: The use of menstrual self-tracking apps in a neoliberal context. University of Utrecht. https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/369202
Webster, S. B. (2017). The history of the curse: A comparative look at the religious and social taboos of menstruation and the influence they have on American society today. The University of North Carolina.
Wolf, G. (2010, April 28). The data-driven life. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/magazine/02self-measurement-t.html
Wood, J. M. (2020). (In)visible bleeding: The menstrual concealment imperative. In C. Bobel, I. T. Winkler, B. Fahs, et al. (Eds.), Handbook of critical menstruation studies (pp. 319–336). Palgrave Macmillan.
Woolf, V. (1929). A room of one’s own. Harcourt Brace & Co.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Stuifzand, L., Smit, R. (2023). Between Liberation and Control: Mixing Methods to Investigate How Users Experience Menstrual Cycle Tracking Applications. In: Balfour, L.A. (eds) FemTech. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5605-0_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5605-0_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-99-5604-3
Online ISBN: 978-981-99-5605-0
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)