Discipline and the Material Form of Images: An Analysis of Scientific Visibility

Abstract

This paper is about how natural objects are made visible and analyzable in scientific research. It is argued that the objects scientists actually work upon are highly artificial, in that their visibility depends upon complex instruments and careful preparatory procedures. Instruments and laboratory procedures do more than provide a window to the world; they lay the groundwork for specific analytic operations which utilize literary resources to represent phenomena graphically. Two specific cases from biology are discussed. The first is from a popular field manual, and is used to introduce themes for analyzing a more complex case, a neuroscience project using electron microscopy of brain tissue. The discussion of both cases concerns how specimens are modified into `docile objects' for purposes of investigation. These modifications are summarized under the headings of `marking', `constituting graphic space', and `normalizing observations'. Finally, it is claimed that these practices make up an `externalized retina' for scientific perception — a `retina' that depends upon disciplined conduct within the laboratory setting.

Ethnomethodological Studies of Visuality

“…В результате модель выглядит для других ученых натуралистично и по-зволяет читать ее как демонстрацию одних свойств объекта в противовес другим. Линч рассматривает несколько техник превращения научных изображений в «на-туралистичный объект» (Lynch, 1985b, но общая идея состоит в том, что об-ласть видимого и способы восприятия научного объекта опосредованы практика-ми работы с ним, которые воплощены в изображениях 6. В работах Линча 1980-х годов изображения -это «долингвистические способы производства порядка», определяющие те стороны объекта, которые потом становятся различимы в сло-весных объяснениях ученых (Lynch, 1985b: 52) 7.…”

On Adaptive Optics: The Historical Constitution of Architectures for Expert Perception in Astronomy

“…The observatory is no longer a contingent enclosure housing congeries of astronomical inscription devices and stores of data, to be assembled and reconfigured at will and as needed by the astronomers in residence. Instead, the contemporary observatory is a thoroughly integrated, if modular, material assemblage; a critical component of the "externalized retina" of the academic astronomer, who generally resides and works elsewhere (Lynch 1985). This paper seeks to chart this historical shi, paying particular aention to the role played therein by the introduction of digital technologies in general and adaptive optics in particular.…”

Identifying textual silence in scientific research articles. Recontextualizations of the field account in Geology

“…As we know from diachronic research, scientific discourse has evolved greatly over the course of the twentieth century (e.g., Bazerman 1988; SalagerMeyer 2000) and the research narrative has largely disappeared from scientific discourse, accompanied by an ever-growing increase in "authorial invisibility" (Salager-Meyer 1998). In this sense, one can talk about an evolution of communicative practice in which the scientist's methodological discourse has been silenced in written texts, such as we can see in biology (Gilbert & Mulkay 1984;Myers 1990), physics (Bazerman 1988), medical discourse (Salager-Meyer 2000) or neurochemistry (Lynch 1985). Reporting on the non-empirical, experiential or "contingent" (Gilbert & Mulkay 1984) details of research activities or events is today considered irrelevant.…”

“…Lynch (1985) has observed this specific cultural orientation in visuals from neurobiology, where the researcher reorients the research account to retain only what he and his research community consider to be the most important aspects. Although the researcher purports to paint a picture of reality, the "rendering process" of the graph or chart in fact allows him to conceal various methodological glitches in the road and to discard them as irrelevant (Lynch 1985). Similarly, geological observations made in the field are immediately framed within a conventionalized "visual language" (Rudwick 1976), and what geologists "see" -and don't see -is the product of a learned and communally-shared observational technique.…”