上下文中的Femtech:一个批判性的概念(重新)观点。

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Health Pub Date : 2025-09-18 DOI:10.1177/13634593251371327
Danica Facca, Jodi Hall, Gail Teachman, Joanna Redden, Lorie Donelle
{"title":"上下文中的Femtech:一个批判性的概念(重新)观点。","authors":"Danica Facca, Jodi Hall, Gail Teachman, Joanna Redden, Lorie Donelle","doi":"10.1177/13634593251371327","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Emerging as a commercial category in 2016, 'femtech' has been publicly celebrated as a category of consumer-based digital health technologies designed to support the unmet and systemically marginalized health needs of women in areas such as menstruation, fertility, pregnancy, postpartum, and menopause, through data-driven apps, wearables, and self-diagnostic tools. Since its emergence, the term femtech has become culturally significant and has taken on a life of its own across commercial, public, and healthcare discourses. Despite the growth of femtech scholarship, clarity is lacking on how different disciplines have challenged the assumptions about sex, gender, health, technology, and innovation that shape dominant understandings of 'who' femtech is for (i.e. fem) and 'what' it constitutes (i.e. tech). Motivated by this research gap, a critical conceptual review was conducted to provide new entry points into critical debates. This article novelly adapts 'diffractive reading' as a methodological approach to bring disciplinary perspectives on femtech into conversation with one another across anthropology, computer science, cultural studies, gender studies, information studies, law, media studies, medicine, and science and technology studies. This article focuses on insights drawn between critiques of femtech which trouble the ideologies, discourses, and practices that shape dominant understandings of 'fem' and 'tech'. In thinking through and with the conceptual boundaries of femtech, this review underscores the ongoing need to examine femtech's role in shaping global dynamics of reproductive, labor, and environmental justice, in addition to neoliberal approaches to healthcare more broadly.</p>","PeriodicalId":12944,"journal":{"name":"Health","volume":" ","pages":"13634593251371327"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Femtech in context: A critical conceptual (re)view.\",\"authors\":\"Danica Facca, Jodi Hall, Gail Teachman, Joanna Redden, Lorie Donelle\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/13634593251371327\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Emerging as a commercial category in 2016, 'femtech' has been publicly celebrated as a category of consumer-based digital health technologies designed to support the unmet and systemically marginalized health needs of women in areas such as menstruation, fertility, pregnancy, postpartum, and menopause, through data-driven apps, wearables, and self-diagnostic tools. Since its emergence, the term femtech has become culturally significant and has taken on a life of its own across commercial, public, and healthcare discourses. Despite the growth of femtech scholarship, clarity is lacking on how different disciplines have challenged the assumptions about sex, gender, health, technology, and innovation that shape dominant understandings of 'who' femtech is for (i.e. fem) and 'what' it constitutes (i.e. tech). Motivated by this research gap, a critical conceptual review was conducted to provide new entry points into critical debates. This article novelly adapts 'diffractive reading' as a methodological approach to bring disciplinary perspectives on femtech into conversation with one another across anthropology, computer science, cultural studies, gender studies, information studies, law, media studies, medicine, and science and technology studies. This article focuses on insights drawn between critiques of femtech which trouble the ideologies, discourses, and practices that shape dominant understandings of 'fem' and 'tech'. In thinking through and with the conceptual boundaries of femtech, this review underscores the ongoing need to examine femtech's role in shaping global dynamics of reproductive, labor, and environmental justice, in addition to neoliberal approaches to healthcare more broadly.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12944,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"13634593251371327\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/13634593251371327\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13634593251371327","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

“femtech”于2016年成为一个商业类别,作为一种基于消费者的数字健康技术,它被公开推崇,旨在通过数据驱动的应用程序、可穿戴设备和自我诊断工具,支持女性在月经、生育、怀孕、产后和更年期等领域未得到满足和系统边缘化的健康需求。自出现以来,femtech一词在文化上具有重要意义,并在商业、公共和医疗保健话语中占据了自己的生命。尽管femtech学术研究有所增长,但不同学科如何挑战有关性别、性别、健康、技术和创新的假设,这些假设塑造了对femtech为“谁”(即fem)和它构成“什么”(即技术)的主流理解,目前尚不清楚。在这一研究缺口的推动下,进行了一项批判性的概念回顾,为批判性辩论提供了新的切入点。本文新颖地将“衍射阅读”作为一种方法论方法,将femtech的学科观点引入人类学、计算机科学、文化研究、性别研究、信息研究、法律、媒体研究、医学和科学技术研究等学科之间的对话。本文重点关注femtech批评之间的见解,这些批评困扰着塑造“fem”和“tech”主流理解的意识形态、话语和实践。在思考femtech的概念边界时,本综述强调了持续需要研究femtech在塑造生殖,劳动和环境正义的全球动态方面的作用,以及更广泛地采用新自由主义方法进行医疗保健。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Femtech in context: A critical conceptual (re)view.

Emerging as a commercial category in 2016, 'femtech' has been publicly celebrated as a category of consumer-based digital health technologies designed to support the unmet and systemically marginalized health needs of women in areas such as menstruation, fertility, pregnancy, postpartum, and menopause, through data-driven apps, wearables, and self-diagnostic tools. Since its emergence, the term femtech has become culturally significant and has taken on a life of its own across commercial, public, and healthcare discourses. Despite the growth of femtech scholarship, clarity is lacking on how different disciplines have challenged the assumptions about sex, gender, health, technology, and innovation that shape dominant understandings of 'who' femtech is for (i.e. fem) and 'what' it constitutes (i.e. tech). Motivated by this research gap, a critical conceptual review was conducted to provide new entry points into critical debates. This article novelly adapts 'diffractive reading' as a methodological approach to bring disciplinary perspectives on femtech into conversation with one another across anthropology, computer science, cultural studies, gender studies, information studies, law, media studies, medicine, and science and technology studies. This article focuses on insights drawn between critiques of femtech which trouble the ideologies, discourses, and practices that shape dominant understandings of 'fem' and 'tech'. In thinking through and with the conceptual boundaries of femtech, this review underscores the ongoing need to examine femtech's role in shaping global dynamics of reproductive, labor, and environmental justice, in addition to neoliberal approaches to healthcare more broadly.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health
Health Multiple-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Health: is published four times per year and attempts in each number to offer a mix of articles that inform or that provoke debate. The readership of the journal is wide and drawn from different disciplines and from workers both inside and outside the health care professions. Widely abstracted, Health: ensures authors an extensive and informed readership for their work. It also seeks to offer authors as short a delay as possible between submission and publication. Most articles are reviewed within 4-6 weeks of submission and those accepted are published within a year of that decision.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信