• Austad, Kirsten, Anita Chary, Alejandra Colom, Rodrigo Barillas, Danessa Luna, Cecilia Menjívar, Brent Metz, Amy Petrocy, Anne Ruch, and Peter Rohloff. 2016. “Fertility Awareness Methods Are Not Modern Contraceptives: Defining Contraception to Reflect Our Priorities.” Global Health: Science and Practice 4 (2): 342–345. doi:https://doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-16-00044. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Azzarito, Laura. 2009. “The Rise of the Corporate Curriculum: Fatness, Fitness, and Whiteness.” In Biopolitics and the “Obesity Epidemic”: Governing Bodies, edited by Jan Wright and Valerie Harwood, 183–196. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
• Bell, Susan, Paula Garbarino, Jeanne Hubbuch, Adrienne Ingrum, Lyn Koehnline, and Jill Wolhandler. 1980. “Reclaiming Reproductive Control: A Feminist Approach to Fertility Consciousness.” Science for the People 12 (1): 30–35. [Google Scholar]
• Berg, Martin. 2017. “Making Sense with Sensors: Self-Tracking and the Temporalities of Wellbeing.” Digital Health 3: 1–11. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/2055207617699767. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• CB Insights. 2017. “The Femtech Market Map: 45+ Startups Focused On Women’s Healthcare & Sexual Wellness.” January 26. https://www.cbinsights.com/blog/femtech-market-map/. [Google Scholar]
• Cussins, Charis. 1996. “Ontological Choreography: Agency Through Objectification in Infertility Clinics.” Social Studies of Science 26: 575–610. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Danesi, Giada, Mélody Pralong, Francesco Panese, Bernard Burnand, and Michèle Grossen. 2020. “Techno-Social Reconfigurations in Diabetes (Self-) Care.” Social Studies of Science 50 (2): 198–220. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Decuypere, Mathias. 2019. “Researching Educational Apps: Ecologies, Technologies, Subjectivities and Learning Regimes.” Learning, Media and Technology 44 (4): 414–429. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2019.1667824. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Della Bianca, Laetitia. 2021. “The Cyclic Self: Menstrual Cycle Tracking as Body Politics.” Catalyst: Feminism, Theory, Technoscience 7 (1): 1–21. doi:https://doi.org/10.28968/cftt.v7i1.34356. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• DeNora, Tia. 1996. “From Physiology to Feminism. Reconfiguring Body, Gender and Expertise in Natural Fertility Control.” International Sociology: Journal of the International Sociological Association 11 (3): 359–383. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Depper, Annaleise, and P. David Howe. 2017. “Are We Fit Yet? English Adolescent Girls’ Experiences of Health and Fitness Apps.” Health Sociology Review 26 (1): 98–112. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/14461242.2016.1196599. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Deville, Joe, Michael Guggenheim, and Zuzana Hrdličková. 2016. “Introduction: The Practices and Infrastructures of Comparison.” In Practising Comparison: Logics, Relations, Collaborations, edited by Joe Deville, Michael Guggenheim, and Zuzana Hrdličková, 17–41. Manchester: Mattering Press. [Google Scholar]
• Duane, Marguerite, Alison Contreras, Elizabeth T. Jensen, and Amina White. 2016. “The Performance of Fertility Awareness-Based Method Apps Marketed to Avoid Pregnancy.” Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine 29 (4): 508–511. doi:https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2016.04.160022. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Earle, Sarah, Hannah R. Marston, Robin Hadley, and Duncan Banks. 2021. “Use of Menstruation and Fertility App Trackers: A Scoping Review of the Evidence.” BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health 47 (2): 90–101. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsrh-2019-200488. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Epstein, Daniel A, Nicole B. Lee, Jennifer H. Kang, Elena Agapie, Jessica Schroeder, Laura R. Pina, James Fogarty, Julie A. Kientz, and Sean A. Munson. 2017. “Examining Menstrual Tracking to Inform the Design of Personal Informatics Tools.” Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2017), 1–13, Denver, CO, USA. doi:https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025635. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Fors, Vaike, and Sarah Pink. 2017. “Pedagogy as Possibility: Health Interventions as Digital Openness.” Social Sciences 6 (59): 1–12. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/SOCSCI6020059. [Google Scholar]
• Fors, Vaike, Sarah Pink, Martin Berg, and Tom O’Dell. 2020. Imagining Personal Data: Experiences of Self-Tracking. Abingdon: Rootledge. [Google Scholar]
• Fotopoulou, Aristea, and Kate O’Riordan. 2017. “Training to Self-Care: Fitness Tracking, Biopedagogy and the Healthy Consumer.” Health Sociology Review 26 (1): 54–68. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/14461242.2016.1184582. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Fox, Sarah, and Daniel A. Epstein. 2020. “Monitoring Menses: Design-Based Investigations of Menstrual Tracking Applications.” In The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Menstruation Studies, edited by Chris Bobel, Inga T. Winkler, Breanne Fahs, Katie Ann Hasson, Elizabeth Arveda Kissling, and Tomi-Ann Roberts, 733–750. Singapore: Springer. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0614-7_54. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Frost, Erin A., and Angela M. Haas. 2017. “Seeing and Knowing the Womb: A Technofeminist Reframing of Fetal Ultrasound Toward a Decolonization of Our Bodies.” Computers and Composition 43: 88–105. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2016.11.004. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Fucile, Bianca, Erica Bridge, Charlene Duliban, and Madelyn Law. 2017. “Experience-Based Co-Design: A Method for Patient and Family Engagement in System-Level Quality Improvement.” Patient Experience Journal 4 (2): 53–60. doi:https://doi.org/10.35680/2372-0247.1209. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Haraway, Donna. 1991. Simians, Cyborgs, and Women. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
• Hayhurst, Lyndsay M. C., Audrey R. Giles, and Jan Wright. 2016. “Biopedagogies and Indigenous Knowledge: Examining Sport for Development and Peace for Urban Indigenous Young Women in Canada and Australia.” Sport, Education and Society 21 (4): 549–569. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2015.1110132. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Healy, Rachael Louise. 2020. “Zuckerberg, Get out of My Uterus! An Examination of Fertility Apps, Data-Sharing and Remaking the Female Body as a Digitalized Reproductive Subject.” Journal of Gender Studies 30 (4): 406–416. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2020.1845628. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Hendl, Tereza, Bianca Jansky, and Verina Wild. 2019. “From Design to Data Handling. Why MHealth Needs a Feminist Perspective.” In Feminist Philosophy of Technology, edited by Janina Loh and Mark Coeckelbergh, 77–103. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-476-04967-4_5. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Henwood, Flis, and Benjamin Marent. 2019. “Understanding Digital Health: Productive Tensions at the Intersection of Sociology of Health and Science and Technology Studies.” Sociology of Health & Illness 41 (S1): 1–15. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Google Scholar]
• Jasanoff, Sheila. 2007. “Technologies of Humility.” Nature 450 (7166): 33–33. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/450033a. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Jimenez, Marc. 2016. “Sur quelques questions épistémologiques à propos de l’épistèmê aisthêtikê.” Le Philosophoire n 45 (1): 207–216. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Karasti, Helena, and Jeanette Blomberg. 2018. “Studying Infrastructuring Ethnographically.” Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 27 (2): 233–265. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-017-9296-7. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Lupton, Deborah. 2014. “The Commodification of Patient Opinion: The Digital Patient Experience Economy in the Age of Big Data.” Sociology of Health & Illness 36 (6): 856–869. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.12109. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Lupton, Deborah. 2016a. “‘Mastering Your Fertility’: The Digitised Reproductive Citizen.” In Negotiating Digital Citizenship: Control, Contest and Culture, edited by Anthony Mccosker, Sonja Vivienne, and Amelia Johns, 81–93. London: Rowman and Littlefield. [Google Scholar]
• Lupton, Deborah. 2016b. “Digital Companion Species and Eating Data: Implications for Theorising Digital Data–Human Assemblages.” Big Data & Society 3 (1): 1–5. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Lupton, Deborah. 2020. “Data Mattering and Self-Tracking: What Can Personal Data Do?” Continuum 34 (1): 1–13. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10304312.2019.1691149. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar]
• Lynch, Tom Liam. 2015. The Hidden Role of Software in Educational Research: Policy to Practice. New York: Routledge. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Marcus, George E. 1995. “Ethnography in/of the World System: The Emergence of Multi-Sited Ethnography.” Annual Review of Anthropology 24: 95–117. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• McNeil, Maureen, and Celia Roberts. 2011. “Feminist Science and Technology Studies.” In Theories and Methodologies in Postgraduate Feminist Research, edited by Rosemarie Buikema, Gabriele Griffin, and Nina Lykke, 29–42. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
• Merriam-Webster. s.v. “Tweak.” Accessed 5 August 2021. https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/tweak. [Google Scholar]
• Mol, Annemarie. 2002. The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• NFP Online. 2021. “Die Arbeitsgruppe Natürliche Familienplanung.” Accessed 5 August 2021. https://www.nfp-online.com/?page_id=3742. [Google Scholar]
• Novotny, Maria, and Les Hutchinson. 2019. “Data Our Bodies Tell: Towards Critical Feminist Action in Fertility and Period Tracking Applications.” Technical Communication Quarterly 28 (4): 332–360. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2019.1607907. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Oudshoorn, Nelly, and Trevor Pinch. 2003. “Introduction: How Users and Non-Users Matter.” In How Users Matter: The Co-Construction of Users and Technologies, edited by Nelly Oudshoorn and Trevor Pinch, 1–25. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Oudshoorn, Nelly, Els Rommes, and Marcelle Stienstra. 2004. “Configuring the User as Everybody: Gender and Design Cultures in Information and Communication Technologies.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 29 (1): 30–63. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243903259190. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Pichon, Adrienne, Kasey B. Jackman, Inga T. Winkler, Chris Bobel, and Noémie Elhadad. 2021. “The Messiness of the Menstruator: Assessing Personas and Functionalities of Menstrual Tracking Apps.” Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association: 1–17. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocab212. [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Rail, Geneviève, and Shannon Jette. 2015. “Reflections on Biopedagogies and/of Public Health: On Bio-Others, Rescue Missions, and Social Justice.” Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies 15 (5): 327–336. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708615611703. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Rice, Carla, Eliza Chandler, Kirsty Liddiard, Jen Rinaldi, and Elisabeth Harrison. 2016. “Pedagogical Possibilities for Unruly Bodies.” Gender and Education 30 (5): 663–682. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2016.1247947. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar]
• Rich, Emma, and Andy Miah. 2014. “Understanding Digital Health as Public Pedagogy: A Critical Framework.” Societies 4 (2): 296–315. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/soc4020296. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Roberts, Celia, and Catherine Waldby. 2021. “Incipient Infertility: Tracking Eggs and Ovulation Across the Life Course.” Catalyst: Feminism, Theory, Technoscience 7 (1): 1–25. doi:https://doi.org/10.28968/cftt.v7i1.34614. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Rosental, Claude. 2007. Les Capitalistes de la science. Enquête sur les démonstrateurs de la Silicon Valley et de la NASA. Paris: CNRS Editions. [Google Scholar]
• Rosner, Lisa. 2004. The Technological Fix. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
• Ruckenstein, Minna, and Natasha Dow Schüll. 2017. “The Datafication of Health.” Annual Review of Anthropology 46 (1): 261–278. doi:https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102116-041244. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Setton, Robert, Christina Tierney, and Tony Tsai. 2016. “The Accuracy of Web Sites and Cellular Phone Applications in Predicting the Fertile Window.” Obstetrics and Gynecology 128 (1): 58–63. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000001341. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Sharon, Tamar. 2017. “Self-Tracking for Health and the Quantified Self: Re-Articulating Autonomy, Solidarity, and Authenticity in an Age of Personalized Healthcare.” Philosophy & Technology 30: 93–121. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-016-0215-5. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Sørensen, Estrid, Alison Marlin, and Jörg Niewöhner. 2018. “From Scholastic to Emic Comparison: Generating Comparability and Handling Difference in Ethnographic Research.” In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Collection, edited by Uwe Flick, 148–163. London: SAGE. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Stanković, Biljana. 2017. “Situated Technology in Reproductive Health Care: Do We Need a New Theory of the Subject to Promote Person-Centred Care?” Nursing Philosophy 18 (1): 1–6. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/nup.12159. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Star, Susan Leigh. 1990. “Power, Technology and the Phenomenology of Conventions: On Being Allergic to Onions.” The Sociological Review 38 (S1): 26–56. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1990.tb03347.x. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Suchman, Lucy. 2002. “Located Accountabilities in Technology Production.” Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 14 (2): 91–105. https://aisel.aisnet.org/sjis/vol14/iss2/7. [Google Scholar]
• Suchman, Lucy. 2007. “Reconfigurations.” Chap. 15. In Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions, 2nd ed., 259–286. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
• Suchman, Lucy. 2013. “Configuration.” In Inventive Methods: The Happening of the Social, edited by Celia Lury and Nina Wakeford, 48–60. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
• Till, Chris. 2014. “Exercise as Labour: Quantified Self and the Transformation of Exercise into Labour.” Societies 4 (3): 446–462. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/soc4030446. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Tin, Ida. 2016. “The Rise of a New Category: Femtech.” Hello Clue, September 15. https://blog.helloclue.com/post/150446304286/the-rise-of-a-new-category-femtech. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Ward, Pamela, Karen Sirna, Anne Wareham, and Erin Cameron. 2018. “Embodied Display: A Critical Examination of the Biopedagogical Experience of Wearing Health.” Fat Studies 7 (1): 93–104. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/21604851.2017.1360674. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar]
• Weiner, Kate, Catherine Will, Flis Henwood, and Rosalind Williams. 2020. “Everyday Curation? Attending to Data, Records and Record Keeping in the Practices of Self-Monitoring.” Big Data & Society 7 (1): 1–15. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Wilkinson, Joann, Celia Roberts, and Maggie Mort. 2015. “Ovulation Monitoring and Reproductive Heterosex: Living the Conceptive Imperative?” Culture, Health & Sexuality 17 (4): 454–469. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2015.1005671. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Williamson, Ben. 2015. “Algorithmic Skin: Health-Tracking Technologies, Personal Analytics and the Biopedagogies of Digitized Health and Physical Education.” Sport, Education and Society 20 (1): 133–151. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2014.962494. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]