• Barta, Kristen
  • Neff, Gina


Quantified Self (QS) is a group that coordinates a global set of in-person meetings for sharing personal experiences and experiments with self-tracking behaviours, moods, and activities. Through participation in US-based QS events and watching online QS presentations from around the globe, we identify a function of ambiguous valuation for supporting sharing communities. Drawing on Stark’s (2011) theory of heterarchy, we argue that the social and technical platforms supporting sharing within the QS community allow for multiple, sometimes conflicting, sets of community and commercial values. Community cohesion benefits from ambiguity over which values set is most important to QS members. Ambiguity is promoted by sharing practices through at least two means, the narrative structure of members’ presentations, and what counts as tracking. By encouraging members to adhere to a three-question outline, the community ensures that multiple values are always present. Thus, it becomes a question of which values this sharing community emphasizes, not which value sets members present, at any given time. By leaving the tools and methods of tracking open − from sophisticated wearables and data analysis to pen-and-paper and storytelling − the community creates space for and embraces self-trackers with a broad spectrum of technological proficiency and interest. QS as a group capitalizes on circulation of knowledge valued somewhat ambiguously to sustain and grow the community, both encouraging and supporting the commercialization of self-tracking technologies while keeping technology developer interests from overwhelming community-building interests. This, we argue, has implications for researchers hoping to understand online communities and the ‘sharing economy’ more generally.


  1. Anon. (2012). About Quantified Self. Quantified Self. Retrieved from[Google Scholar]
  2. Anon. (n.d.). Quantified self meetups. Meetup. Retrieved from[Google Scholar]
  3. Baym, N. K. (2011). The Swedish model: Balancing markets and gifts in the music industry. Popular Communication, 9(1), 22–38. doi: 10.1080/15405702.2011.536680 [Taylor & Francis Online][Google Scholar]
  4. Belk, R. W. (2010). Sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5), 715–734. doi: 10.1086/612649 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  5. Belk, R. W., & Coon, G. S. (1993). Gift giving as agapic love: An alternative to the exchange paradigm based on dating experiences. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 393–417. doi: 10.1086/209357 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  6. Boesel, W. (2013, May 22). What is the quantified self now? Cyborgology. Retrieved from[Google Scholar]
  7. Eckstein, S. (2001). Community as gift-giving: Collectivtistic roots of volunteerism. Sociological Review, 66(6), 829–851. doi: 10.2307/3088875 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  8. Ferriss, T. (2013, April 3). The first-ever quantified self notes. Retrieved from[Google Scholar]
  9. Fiore-Gartland, B., & Neff, G. (2015). Communication, mediation, and the expectations of data: Data valences across health and wellness communities. International Journal of Communication, 9, 33–55.[Google Scholar]
  10. Fiore-Gartland, B. & Neff, G. (forthcoming). Disruption and the political economy of self-tracking data. D. Nafus (Ed.), Quantified:Biosensing technologies in everyday life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
  11. Gillespie, T. (2010). The politics of ‘platforms’. New Media & Society, 12(3), 347–364. doi: 10.1177/1461444809342738 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  12. Hemetsberger, A. (2012). ‘Let the source be with you!’ – practices of sharing in free and open-source communities. In W. Sützl, F. Stalder, R. Maier, & T. Hug (Eds.), Media, knowledge and education: Cultures and ethics of sharing (pp. 117–128). Innsbruck: University Press. [Google Scholar]
  13. Jenkins, H., Ford, S., & Green, J. (2013). Spreadable media: Creating value and meaning in a networked culture. New York: New York University Press. [Google Scholar]
  14. John, N. A. (2012). Sharing and Web 2.0: The emergence of a keyword. New Media & Society, 15(2), 167–182. doi: 10.1177/1461444812450684 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  15. John, N. A. (2013). The social logics of sharing. The Communication Review, 16(3), 113–131. doi: 10.1080/10714421.2013.807119 [Taylor & Francis Online][Google Scholar]
  16. Lupton, D. (2013). Quantifying the body: Monitoring and measuring health in the age of mHealth technologies. Critical Public Health, 23(4), 393–403. doi: 10.1080/09581596.2013.794931 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  17. Lupton, D. (2014, August 19). Self-tracking modes: Reflexive self-monitoring and data practices. Retrieved from[Google Scholar]
  18. Moschel, M. (2013, April). The beginner’s guide to Quantified Self (plus, a list of the best personal data tools out there). Technori. Retrieved from 4281-the-beginners-guide-to-quantified-self-plus-a-list-of-the-best-personal-data-tools-out-there/ [Google Scholar]
  19. Nafus, D., & Sherman, J. (2014). This one does not go up to eleven: The Quantified Self movement as an alternative big data practice. International Journal of Communication, 8, 1784–1794. [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  20. Neff, G. (2012). Venture labor: Work and the burden of risk in innovative industries. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [Crossref][Google Scholar]
  21. Neff, G., & Nafus, D. (in press). Self-Tracking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
  22. Quantified Self (Producer). (2012, December 31). Amelia Greenhall on Gold Star Experiments [Video webcast]. Retrieved from[Google Scholar]
  23. Quantified Self Producer. (2013a, March 27). Dave Marvit on Tracking Stress and PTSD [Video webcast]. Retrieved from[Google Scholar]
  24. Quantified Self Producer. (2013b, July 2). Mark Leavitt on Tracking and Hacking Sitting [Video webcast]. Retrieved from[Google Scholar]
  25. Ruckenstein, M. (2014). Visualized and interacted life: Personal analytics and engagements with data doubles. Societies, 4(1), 68–84. doi: 10.3390/soc4010068 [Crossref][Google Scholar]
  26. Schor, J. B., Walker, E. T., Lee, C. W., Parigi, P., & Cook, K. (2015). On the Sharing Economy. Contexts, 14(1), 12–19. doi: 10.1177/1536504214567860 [Crossref][Google Scholar]
  27. Sinnreich, A. (2013). The piracy crusade: How the music industry’s war on sharing destroys markets and erodes civil liberties. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press. [Google Scholar]
  28. Stark, D. (1996). Heterarchy: Asset ambiguity, organizational innovation, and the postsocialist firm (CAHRS Working Paper #96-21). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies. Retrieved from[Google Scholar]
  29. Stark, D. (2011). The sense of dissonance: Accounts of worth in economic life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar]
  30. Turner, F. (2009). Burning man at Google: A cultural infrastructure for new media production. New Media & Society, 11(1&2), 73–94. doi: 10.1177/1461444808099575 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  31. Wittel, A. (2011). Introduction. International Review of Information Ethics, 15(2), 4–8. [Google Scholar]
  32. Wolf, G. (2011, March 3). What is the quantified self? Quantified Self. Retrieved from[Google Scholar]
  33. Wolf, G. (2015, August 18). Oura ring on kickstarter: Sleep and activity tracking on a finger. Quantified Self. Retrieved from[Google Scholar]

The SELF Institute