Self-defined as ‘an online social network of people sharing biodiversity information to help each other learn about nature’, iNaturalist is a mobile application whose primary goal is ‘to connect people to nature’, closely followed by the secondary goal of ‘generating scientifically valuable biodiversity data from these personal encounters’, which the founders believe can be achieved simultaneously with the primary goal in a self-reinforcing logic. Following an approach informed by media studies on wildlife photography and film, and science and technology studies as well as insights from interviews with users and participant observation in the Los Angeles area, this article makes the case that mobile applications such as iNaturalist sit at a tension because while they can ignite interest in the natural environment, they also prescriptively describe and normalize a ‘nature’ and an epistemology that are particular to the natural sciences.
ArmbrusterK (1998) Creating the world we must save: the paradox of television nature documentaries. In: KerridgeRSammellsN (eds) Writing the Environment: Ecocriticism and Literature. London and New York: Zed Books, pp. 218–238.
2.
BakerS (1993) Picturing the Beast: Animals, Identity, and Representation. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
BrowerM (2011) Developing Animals: Wildlife and Early American Photography. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
10.
BurtJ (2002) Animals in Film. London: Reaktion Books.
11.
BurtJ (2005) John Berger’s “why look at animals?”: a close reading. Worldviews: Global Religions, Culture, and Ecology9(2): 203–218.
12.
ByrneJWolchJ (2009) Nature, race, and parks: past research and future directions for geographic research. Progress in Human Geography33(6): 743–765.
13.
ChrisC (2006) Watching Wildlife. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
14.
CohnJP (2008) Citizen science: can volunteers do real research?BioScience58(3): 192–197.
15.
CooperC (2016) Citizen Science: How Ordinary People Are Changing the Face of Discovery. New York: The Overlook Press.
16.
CrononW (1995) The trouble with wilderness: or, getting back to the wrong nature. In: CrononW (ed) Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature. New York: W.W. Norton, pp. 69–90.
17.
DastonLGalisonP (1992) The image of objectivity. Representations40(40): 81–128.
18.
DebordG (1967) The Society of the Spectacle. New York: Zone Books.
19.
DickinsonJLShirkJBonterD, et al. (2012) The current state of citizen science as a tool for ecological research and public engagement. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment10(6): 291–297.
20.
DickinsonJLZuckerbergBBonterDN (2010) Citizen science as an ecological research tool: challenges and benefits. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics41(1): 149–172.
HarawayD (1991) Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. In: HarawayD (ed) Simians, Cyborgs, and Women. The Reinvention of Nature. New York: Routledge, pp. 183–201.
25.
HarawayD (2003) The Companion Species Manifesto: Dogs, People, and Significant Otherness. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press.
26.
HarawayD (2008) When Species Meet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
JabrF (2017) Letter of recommendation: iNaturalist. The New York Times Magazine, 10 December 2017, pp. 30–32.
33.
JeffriesM (2003) BBC natural history versus science paradigms. Science as Culture12(4): 527–545.
34.
LatimerJMieleM (2013) Naturecultures? Science, affect and the non-human. Theory, Culture & Society30(7–8): 5–31.
35.
LatourB (1993) We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
36.
LawJLynchM (1998) Lists, field guides and the descriptive organization of seeing: birdwatching as an exemplary observational activity. Human Studies11(2/3): 271–303.
McKibbenB (2006) The End of Nature. New York: Random House.
40.
MillsB (2017) Animals on Television: The Cultural Making of the Non-Human. London: Palgrave MacMillan.
41.
MitmanG (2012) Reel Nature: America’s Romance with Wildlife on Film. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
42.
NicolsonMH (1997) Mountain Gloom and Mountain Glory: The Development of the Aesthetics of the Infinite. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
43.
O’NeillJ (1993) Science, wonder and the lust of the eyes. Journal of Applied Philosophy10(2): 139–146.
44.
PriceJ (2005) Thirteen ways of seeing nature in LA. In: DeverellWHiseG (eds) Land of Sunshine: An Environmental History of Metropolitan Los Angeles. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 220–244.
45.
SchultzWP (2002) Inclusion with nature: The psychology of human-nature relations. In: SchmuckPSchultzWP (eds) Psychology of Sustainable Development. Boston, MA: Springer, pp. 61–78.
46.
ScottKD (2003) Popularizing science and nature programming: the role of “spectacle” in contemporary wildlife documentary. Journal of Popular Film and Television31(1): 29–35.
47.
SilvertownJ (2009) A new dawn for citizen science. Trends in Ecology & Evolution24(9): 467–471.
48.
StormerN (2004) Addressing the sublime: space, mass representation, and the unpresentable. Critical Studies in Media Communication21(3): 212–240.
49.
WilliamsR (2014) Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. England: Oxford University Press.
50.
WynnJ (2017) Citizen Science in the Digital Age. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.
51.
YoonCK (2009) Naming Nature: The Clash Between Instinct and Science. New York: W.W. Norton.
52.
ZelenskiJMNisbetEK (2014) Happiness and feeling connected: The distinct role of nature relatedness. Environment and Behavior46(1): 3–23.
