The 35mm Solution: Photography, Scientists, and Whales

Frank Nutch

doi:10.18778/1733-8077.2.2.09

Authors

Frank Nutch Trent University, Canada

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/1733-8077.2.2.09

Keywords:

Animal studies, anthropomorphism, fieldwork, naming, photographic identification of cetacean, reliability and validity, sociology of science and scientific knowledge

Abstract

The field technique of photographic identification enabled scientists to individually identify and follow cetacea (whales, dolphins, and porpoises) through their life-cycle. Photographic identification relies on portable, highquality photographic equipment and the naturally occurring markings of individual whales. Being able to identify cetacea individually has enabled scientists to engage in long-term field studies comparable to field studies of land mammals. Further, carrying out long-term field studies has contributed to an exponential growth of scientific knowledge of cetacea and has significantly altered the public’s connection(s) to scientists and cetacea.

This article is based on interviews, published material, and observations made by the author at different research settings. It describes how photography and the use of naturally occurring markings of individual cetacea combined to produce photographic identification as a research technique.

As a study within the sociology of science and scientific knowledge, this article highlights the emergent character of scientific research; that is, the emergent confluence of cumulative knowledge, theory, method, and empirical observation.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Frank Nutch, Trent University, Canada

Frank Nutch (PhD) teaches sociology of science and the sociology of everyday life at Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada. He received his MA from the University of Hawaii–Manoa and his PhD from York University, Toronto, Ontario. His main research focus in the sociology of science and scientific knowledge has been in investigating the use, history, and development of the scientific field research technique of photographic identification of cetecea (whales, dolphins, and porpoises). He is currently writing a book based on his two decades of participant observation research with marine field scientists, tentatively titled: Scientists at Work: Reflections on doing fieldwork with marine scientists.

References

Alia, Valerie (1994) Names, Numbers, and Northern Policy. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing.

Baker, C. Scott, Anjanette Perry and Gary Vequist (1988) “Humpback Whales of Glacier Bay, Alaska.” Whalewatcher 22(3):13-17.

Becker, Howard (1982) Art Worlds. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Bigg, Michael A, Graeme M. Ellis and Kenneth C. Balcomb (1986) “The Photographic Identification of Individual Cetaceans.” Whalewatcher 20(2): 10-12.

Bigg, Michael, Ian MacAskie and Graeme Ellis (1983) “Photo-Identification of Individual Killer Whales.” Whalewatcher 17(3): 3-5.

Childerhouse, John, and S.M. Dawson (1996) “Stability of Fluke Marks used in Individual Photo Identification of Male Sperm Whales at Kaikoura, New Zealand.” Marine Mammal Science 12(3): 447-451. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.1996.tb00597.x

Clapham, Phil (1994) “What’s in a Name?” Coastwatch 3(May/June): 4.

Clarke, Adele E. and Joan H. Fujimura, editors (1992) The Right Tools for the Job: At work in Twentieth-Century Life Sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400863136

Collins, H.M. (1983) “The Sociology of Scientific Knowledge: Studies of Contemporary Science.” Annual Review of Sociology 9:265-285. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.09.080183.001405

Collins, H.M. and Robert Evans (2002) “The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience.” Social Studies of Science 32(2): 235-296. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312702032002003

Daston, Lorraine and Peter Galison (1992) “The Image of Objectivity.” Representations 40 (Autumn): 81-128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2928741

Davis, Susan G. (1997) Spectacular Nature: Corporate Culture and the Sea World Experience. Berkeley: University of California Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520919532

Dewey, John and Arthur F. Bentley (1960) Knowing and the Known. Boston: Beacon Press.

Flukeprints (1995) April – March. Gloucester, Massachusetts.

Flukeprints (1994) April - March. Gloucester, Massachusetts.

Ford, John K. (1985) “Acoustic traditions of killer whales.” Whalewatcher 19(3): 3-6.

Ford, John K.B., Graeme M. Ellis and Kenneth C. Balcomb (1997) Killer Whales. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.

Fujimura, Joan (1987) “Constructing ‘Do-able’ Problems in Cancer Research: Articulating alignment.” Social Studies of Science 17:257-293. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/030631287017002003

Goffman, Erving (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

Katona, Steven and Scott Kraus (1979) “Photographic Identification of Individual Humpback Whales (Megaptera novaeangliae): Evaluation and Analysis of the Technique.” Report No.MMC-77/17, Marine Mammal Commission, Washington, D.C.

Kennedy, John S. (1992) The New Anthropomorphism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511623455

Knorr-Cetina, Karin D. (1983) “New developments in science studies: The ethnographic challenge.” Canadian Journal of Sociology 8: 153-177. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3340124

Latour, Bruno and Steven Woolgar (1986) Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400820412

Lynch, Michael (1997) Scientific practice and ordinary action: Ethnomethodology and social studies of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lynch, Michael (1985) Art and Artifact in Laboratory Science: A study of shop talk and shop talk in a Research Laboratory. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Maynard, Douglas W. and Nora Cate Schaeffer (2000) “Toward a Sociology of Social Scientific Knowledge.” Social Studies of Science 30 (3): 323-370. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/030631200030003001

Mulkay, Michael (1983) Science and the Sociology of Knowledge. London: George Allen and Unwin.

Mulkay, Michael (1978) “Consensus in Science.” Social Science Information 17(1):107-122. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/053901847801700106

Nutch, Frank (1996) “Gadgets, Gizmos, and Instruments: Science for the Tinkering.” Science, Technology, and Human Values 2 (Spring): 214-228. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399602100205

Obee, Bruce (1996) “Mysterious Orcas.” Beautiful British Columbia 38 (3): 14-21.

Obee, Bruce (1992) “The Great Killer Whale Debate: Should Captive Orcas Be Set Free” Canadian Geographic 112 (1): 20-31.

Phillips, Mary T. (1994) “Proper Names and the Social Construction of Biography: The Negative Case of Laboratory Animals.” Qualitative Sociology 17 (2):119-142. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02393497

Roth, Wolff-Michael and G. Michael Bowen (2001) “Creative Solution and Fibbing Results: Enculturation in Field Ecology.” Social Studies of Science 31 (4): 533- DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/030631201031004003

Roth, Wolff-Michael and G. Michael Bowen (1999) “Digitizing Lizards: The Topology of ‘Vision’ in Ecological Fieldwork.” Social Studies of Science 29 (5): 719-764. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/030631299029005003

Scarce, Rik (2000) Fishy Business: Salmon, biology, and the social construction of nature. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Strauss, Anselm L. (1969) Mirrors and Masks. The Sociology Press.

Wajcman, Judy (2002) “Addressing Technological Change: The Challenge to Social Theory.” Current Sociology 50 (3): 347-363. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392102050003004

Zenzen, Michael and Sal Restivo (1982) “The mysterious morphology of immiscible liquids: A study of scientific practice.” Social Science Information 21: 447-473. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/053901882021003004