Baby monitoring technologies (BMTs) are increasingly sophisticated and marketed as essential tools for responsible parenting, reinforcing expectations of constant vigilance and care. This study investigates how parents domesticate BMTs and how responsibilisation manifests in this process. The study draws on in-depth interviews with 15 Flemish families and employs constructivist grounded theory analysis. Findings show this domestication is an agentic negotiation where parents balance elements of reassurance, autonomy, rationality, peace of mind, cost considerations and the ideal of letting go. This negotiation, however, is framed by a process of moral responsibilisation which manifests through three distinct but interconnected pathways: the self-guided, social and technologically imposed pathways. This process challenges the delegation of care to trusted caregivers and calls for a critical assessment of the expansion of monitoring technologies. As these technologies enable parental omnipresence, the choice not to monitor one’s child may shift from a personal decision to a political act.
Andelsman AlvarezVMeleshkoSK (2024) Going above and beyond? How parent-daycare mobile communication reconfigures the time and space dimensions of parenting. Mobile Media & Communication12(1): 112–130.
2.
BarassiV (2017) BabyVeillance? Expecting parents, online surveillance and the cultural specificity of pregnancy apps. Social Media + Society3(2): 1–10.
3.
BeckUBeck-GernsheimE (1995) The Normal Chaos of Love. Cambridge: Polity Press.
4.
BrownRCHMaslenHSavulescuJ (2019) Against moral responsibilisation of health: prudential responsibility and health promotion. Public Health Ethics12(2): 114–129.
CinoDMascheroniGWartellaE (2020) ‘The kids hate it, but we love it!’ Parents’ reviews of circle. Media and Communication8(4): 208–217.
8.
CradockA (2004) Risk, morality, and child protection: risk calculation as guides to practice. Science, Technology, & Human Values29(3): 314–331.
9.
DangerfieldMIWardKDavidsonL, et al. (2017) Initial experience and usage patterns with the Owlet smart sock monitor in 47,495 newborns. Global Pediatric Health4: 1–8.
10.
DereymaekerJSchokkenbroekJMMartensM, et al. (2024) Smarter homes, smarter surveillance? Exploring intimate surveillance practices in modern day households. New Media & Society. Epub ahead of print 31 July. DOI: 10.1177/14614448241263757.
11.
De WolfRDereymaekerJMazzocchiG, et al. (2025) Exploring children’s perspectives on parental surveillance in Belgium. Journal of Children and Media: 1–19. DOI: 10.1080/17482798.2025.2511712.
12.
EnnisLR (2014) Intensive Mothering: The Cultural Contradictions of Modern Motherhood. Bradford, ON, Canada: Demeter Press.
13.
HaddonL (2007) Roger Silverstone’s legacies: domestication. New Media & Society9(1): 25–32.
14.
HammersleyM (2018) What is ethnography? Can it survive? Should it?Ethnography and Education13(1): 1–17.
15.
HasanMNUNegulescuI (2020) Wearable technology for baby monitoring: a review. Journal of Textile Engineering and Fashion Technology6(4): 112–120.
16.
HasanMNUStannardCR (2022) Exploring online consumer reviews of wearable technology: the owlet smart sock. Research Journal of Textile and Apparel27(2): 157–173.
17.
HaysS (1996) The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
18.
HerzfeldM (2014) Serendipitous sculpture: ethnography does as ethnography goes. Anthropology and Humanism39(1): 3–9.
19.
HollowayDMascheroniGInglisS (2020) The quantified baby: discourses of consumption. In: TsalikiLChronakiD (eds) Discourses of Anxiety Over Childhood and Youth across Cultures. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 99–118.
20.
JohnsonSA (2014) ‘Maternal devices’, social media and the self-management of pregnancy, mothering and child health. Societies4: 330–350.
21.
KinneyHCThachBT (2009) The sudden infant death syndrome. New England Journal of Medicine361(8): 795–805.
22.
LeaverT (2015) Born digital? Presence, privacy, and intimate surveillance. In: HartleyJQuW (eds) Re-Orientation: Translingual Transcultural Transmedia. Studies in Narrative, Language, Identity, and Knowledge. Shanghai, China: Fudan University Press, pp. 149–160.
23.
LeaverT (2017) Intimate surveillance: mormalizing parental monitoring and mediation of infants online. Social Media + Society3(2): 1–10.
24.
LightBBurgessJDuguayS (2018) The walkthrough method: an approach to the study of apps. New Media & Society20(3): 881–900.
25.
LimSS (2018) Transcendent parenting in digitally connected families: when the technological meets the social. In: MascheroniGPonteCJorgeA (eds) Digital Parenting: The Challenges for Families in the Digital Age. Nordicom: The International Clearinghouse on Children, Youth and Media, pp. 31–39.
26.
LuptonD (2013) Infant embodiment and interembodiment: a review of sociocultural perspectives. Childhood20(1): 37–50.
27.
LuptonD (2020) Caring dataveillance: women’s use of apps to monitor pregnancy and children. In: GreenLHollowayDStevensonK, et al. (eds) The Routledge Companion to Digital Media and Children. New York: Routledge, pp. 393–402.
28.
LuptonDThomasGM (2015) Playing pregnancy: the ludification and gamification of expectant motherhood in Smartphone apps. M/C Journal18(5): 1012.
29.
LuptonDWilliamsonB (2017) The datafied child: the dataveillance of children and implications for their rights. New Media & Society19(5): 780–794.
30.
MannellKSefton-GreenJErstadO (2025) Conclusion: towards further research into the platformization of the family. In: Sefton-GreenJMannellKErstadO (eds) The Platformization of the Family. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 93–109.
31.
NelsonMK (2008) Watching children: describing the use of baby monitors on Epinions.com. Journal of Family Issues29(4): 516–538.
32.
PangrazioLLangtonKSiibakA (2025) How the family makes itself: the platformization of parenting in early childhood. In: Sefton-GreenJMannellKErstadO (eds) The Platformization of the Family. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 47–68.
33.
PeilCRöserJ (2023) Conceptualizing re-domestication: theoretical reflections and empirical findings to a neglected concept. In: HartmannM (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Media and Technology Domestication. London: Routledge, pp. 42–54.
34.
SilverstoneR (2005) Domesticating domestication. Reflections on the life of concept. In: BerkerTHartmannMPunieY, et al. (eds) Domestication of Media and Technology. Maidenhead: Open University Press, pp. 229–248.
35.
SilverstoneRHirschEMorleyD (1992) Information and communication technologies and the moral economy of the household. In: SilverstoneRHirschE (eds) Consuming Technologies: Media and Information in Domestic Spaces. London: Routledge, pp. 115–131.
36.
SolingerR (2005) Pregnancy and Power: A Short History of Reproductive Politics in America. New York: New York University Press.
37.
SongFWWestJELundyL, et al. (2012) Women, pregnancy, and health information online: the making of informed patients and ideal mothers. Gender & Society26(5): 773–798.
38.
WakefieldAFlemingJ (2009) The Sage Dictionary of Policing. London: Sage.
39.
WangJO’KaneAANewhouseN, et al. (2017) Quantified baby: parenting and the use of a baby wearable in the wild. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-computer Interaction1(108): 1–19.
40.
WidmerSAlbrechtslundA (2021) The ambiguities of surveillance as care and control: struggles in the domestication of location-tracking applications by Danish parents. Nordicom Review42(4): 79–93.
41.
WilliamsB (1981) Moral Luck: Philosophical Papers 1973-1980. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
