
2/22

K. Rodger et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 645666


3/22

Pectun maximus) and scientic colleagues in an attempt to pre-serve a population of scallops. The achievement of this was only possi-ble with the co-operation of the other actors: the shermen, theirscientic colleagues, along with the role that the scallops played. This

example was used to illustrate how the actor-network, which was con-structed by the three researchers, failed once other actors dissented from the network ( allon 1986; Woods 1997 ). Most importantly thestudy highlighted how power is in the relations, not in the actors them-selves, as power is dependent upon the actions of others ( Latour 1986).

Actor-network theory therefore, relies on a large number of con-cepts including actors, networks, intermediaries and the elements of

K. Rodger et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 645666 647


4/22

Wildlife Tourism Research and the Australian Antarctic Division

overnance of Antarctica is a complex issue and falls under theAntarctic Treaty System (ATS). In 1961 there were 12 signatory nationsto the ATS but this has increased over the years to 43 nations ( Maher,Steel and McIntosh 2003 ). Australia, who has claimed national sover-eignty in the Antarctic, helped to broker the ATS, which establishedgovernance for this area as no country has sole ownership. The ATS

was ofcially passed on June 23, 1961. Australia has claimed 42% of Ant-arctica as sovereign territory and has had a continuous presence in thisregion since 1947 ( Antarctic Science Advisory Committee 1997). Tosupport the Treaty, the Protocol on Environmental Protection (TheMadrid Protocol) was negotiated. This is an agreement between ATSnations focusing specically on environmental managementincluding regulations, impacts, protection, and adverse effects on the

5. Mobilisation

Principal actor

represents the

network

2. OPP

Obligatory passagepoint defined by

focal actor

4. Enrolment

Other actors accept

interests defined by

focal actor

1. ProblemisationFocal actor/s

identifies interests

3. Interessement

Convincing other

actors to accept

definition

6. Black-box

Ideas become

entrenched

Figure 1. The Phases of Translation

6 K. Rodger et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 645666


5/22

and expeditioners, the term

visitors, rather than tourists is used to encompass both groups, i.e. visitor-wildlife

interactions.

http://-/?-http://-/?-


6/22



7/22



8/22

Formation of the Wildlife Tourism Research Actor-network

Problemisation, the rst step in establishing an actor-network ( Figure1), denes the nature of the problem and identies the involved actors,both human and non-human ( Law 1986). As actor-network theory isconcerned with how an idea is conceived and then developed with orwithout resistance by those actors involved ( Woods 1997 ), the variousactors and their relationships need to be identied ( Martin 2000).The relationships between the different actors contribute to under-standing why some networks are successful and others fail. However,one needs to remember that the actors within the network discussedhere also have roles in other overlapping networks.

The success of problemisation relies upon the principal actor den-ing the issue in such a compelling way it ensures the other actors ac-cept their denition of the problem ( Arksey 1998; Callon 1986a;Woods 1997 ). Problemisation for this network involved the wildlifetourism scientists becoming concerned about the possible effects of vis-itor-wildlife interactions in the Antarctic region:

Antarctic tourism was increasing, expeditions to visit wildlife wereincreasing and we needed to understand what impact this could orwould have. Wildlife is vulnerable to start with so we needed to studythe cause and effect of tourism. (Scientist)

If the wildlife tourism scientists were to achieve their aim of under-taking wildlife tourism research, they needed to construct the problemin a certain way in order to engage the interests of other actors to be inline with their goalthe obligatory passage point (OPP) ( Figure 1).owever, for the wildlife tourism research network to eventuate, thewildlife tourism scientists needed their scientic research to become

Figure 2. Wildlife Tourism Science Actor-Network



9/22



10/22



11/22

. . .f e

y t c

d t y n e

n n y .

e s n g a

t t o p e t e b s o f

.

t e e

r r a

h r

n t .

d t e l m n t

t r o e n .

g m e d

s f l d e

o e e s f g

e . t s t h

e s . a

d e y . . .(

s d o e s

e

s h .

n a 4 w f e s f

s , 5

s e r

d r e g

d y n .

s d m d

n s r t %

. e

C y e

t f

s s .

C s h

e f s

e n e

.

e s a y d e

e A y C e h i s a

l e t

e . d t y s

, so i n t e Ac D

] k y y h

e d n g

c , e n s y

n h ] o l e k

h .



12/22



13/22

Mirounga leonina); and population monitoring of Adelie penguins (Pygoscelis adeliae).

Translation successfully occurred resulting in the wildlife tourismresearch network being black-boxed as all actors identied were

enrolled. Complete stabilization of the wildlife tourism researchactor-network could be seen in 2004 when not only were projects intothe effects of visitor-wildlife interactions being undertaken, but manag-ers were using the derived knowledge for management purposes:

Information arising from this research is being used to develop theAustralian Antarctic Divisions guidelines for managing human inter-actions with wildlife. This includes codes of conduct for pedestrianvisits to wildlife breeding groups and guidelines for use of helicoptersaround aggregations of animals. Results from this research are alsobeing made available to commercial tour operators and other Treaty

Nations. (Australian Antarctic Division 2004b)

Disbanding of the Wildlife Tourism Research Network

Actor-networks are only possible while all the actors remain enrolled.Despite the increased number of projects and the uptake of knowledgefor guidelines and management, the wildlife tourism research networkcame to what allon (1986) referred to as dissidence. Dissidence re-sulted in the wildlife tourism research network disbanding and illus-trates how changing identities and relationships can result in thedisbanding of established networks ( Jakku 2004).

From 19952004, the Antarctic Science Strategies included wildlifetourism research. However, in a recent Antarctic Science Strategy2004/0508/09 ( Australian Antarctic Division 2004c ), launched in2004, wildlife tourism research was no longer a priority, aim or theme.

From the 2004/05 season onwards, the AAD approved only one wildlifetourism research project which involved monitoring for long-term orcumulative impacts on Southern Ocean seabirds ( Australian Antarctic

Division 2005).Networks are only as stable as their alliances. Although the wildlife

tourism scientists and wildlife remained enrolled in the network, dissi-dence came from scientic colleagues and the broader communitywho in turn affected the alliance with the ANARE Strategic Plansand ASAC. The wildlife tourism research network was reliant on theirscientic colleagues remaining enrolled as the latter have inuenceand power in deciding the direction of future research by the AAD:



14/22

Exploring the Wildlife Tourism Science Network

The above section used actor-network theory and a narrative style toexplain the role of various actors in the development and decline of wildlife tourism research in the Australian Antarctic Division. This al-lowed for the inuence of the actors in the development and disband-ing of the wildlife tourism research network to be described. Thissection, with the use of extensive theoretical and empirical work from

within the sociology of science, further explores the formation and dis-banding of the wildlife tourism science network.

The establishment of the wildlife tourism research network at theAAD and afliated organisations in 1995 was possible for a variety ofreasons. The network developed at an opportune time when boththe human and non-human actors were receptive to such research.In part this was due to concerns regarding increasing numbers of tour-ists and associated impacts. Therefore, translation of the network wasstraightforward. Additional explanations lie with scientists normativebeliefs, particularly with respect to the scientic method and profes-

sional recognition, and a changing environmental external to butimpinging on the networks focus and research activities.

Scientists use the scientic method to ensure value free experi-ments are undertaken that use replication, quantication and statisti-cal analysis to ensure data and ndings are free from contextuality(Altrichter 1986 ). Empiricism and objectivity are fundamental tothe positivistic Western notion of the scientic method. These con-cepts, especially empirical research, were used by the wildlife tourismscientists to interesse and enrol other actors into their network. Thewildlife tourism scientists built an association with their scientic col-leagues in large part due to the empirical approach they sought toapply to their work. This was needed because many of their scienticcolleagues were from the natural sciences and held strong views onthe importance of the scientic method and quantitative research.As one scientist commented It is good solid science, so there isno scientic weakness to it.



15/22

. . . [] k s e n t t s

t k t d e .

r e e m h k o e o

, e e m h d o e

d t e . l n s e

d e f l e r d i

d s e n f h s d

n s h s c s d

g h e e f n f e e o

, t s d g

r d i . , n s e l

n s t e r e e m h

. g r s n e k

n .

r s e y f e r n a l

g n a n o y t r l e e

. r s d h , d k

y is h w t e ue o f pr d s un te a s of o

n e k r . o e d r

s e e m s d o e r a f

h d e e e f r s o

c s d e m . , n y s

s t e s f e c , h

s o n d d e r ;

f . d f g o e l a o t

e f r s d e y f r , e

e m s d n e g r k h

e l f e s .

r e t s t e m h s g

, w s e d t e D d e

a f e n . e s d o a

n e . e f e w , n n l

, d m e . o d s r

n e . e t s r s f e



16/22



17/22



18/22

AcknowledgmentsThe Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre, established andsupported under the Australian Governments ooperative Research Centres Program,funded this research. Those interviewed as part of this research gave willingly of their timeand this is gratefully acknowledged. All views presented are the authors own and are notattributable to any one of those interviewed. The authors would like to acknowledge andthank Professor Frank Vanclay for his insightful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.The helpful comments of the three anonymous reviewers are also gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES

Altrichter, H.1986 Visiting Two Worlds: An Excursion into the Methodological Jungle

Including an Optional Evenings Entertainment at the Rigour Club. Cam-bridge Journal of Education 16:131143.

Antarctic Science Advisory Committee1987 Report on Australias Antarctic Science Program. Department of the Art,

Sport, The Environment, Tourism and Territories, Hobart: Commonwealth ofAustralia.

1997 Australias Antarctic Program Beyond 2000: A Framework for the Future: AReport to the Parliamentary Secretary for the Antarctic. Department of the Environment, Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

2003 Report on Australias Antarctic Science Program. Department of the Environment, Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Arksey, H.1998 RSI and the Experts: The Construction of Medical Knowledge. London:

L Press.Ashmore, M., R. Wooftt, and S. Harding

1994 Humans and Others, Agents and Things. The American BehaviouralScientist 37:733740.

Australian Antarctic Division

1994 ANARE Strategic Plans 19952000. Department of the Environment, Sportand Territories, Hobart: Commonwealth of Australia.2000 Looking South: The Australian Antarctic Program into the 21st Century.

Environment Australia, Hobart: Commonwealth of Australia.2001 Human Impacts in Antarctica: What are We Doing? Australian Antarctic

Magazine. Australian Antarctic Division, Kingston, Tasmania.2004a Antarctica and Australia. Department of the Environment and Heritage,

Kingston, Tasmania.



19/22

In Power, Action, Belief: A NewSociology of Knowledge?, J. Law, ed., pp. 196233. London: Routledge andKegan Paul.

1986a The Sociology of an Actor-Network: The Case of the Electric Vehicle. In Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology, M. Callon, J. Law and A.

Rip, eds., pp. 1934. Basingstoke, England: Macmillan Press.ortner, H. J.

2000 Making Science Relevant to Environmental Policy. Environmental Scienceand Policy 3:2130.

rotty, M.1998 The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the

Research Process. St Leonards: Allen & Unwin. Engelhard, G. .

1996 Impact of Disturbance on Breeding Behaviour and Physiology of Southern Elephant Seals Mirounga leonina. Circumpolar Journal 11:6568.

Engelhard, G. ., A. N. J. Baarspul, M. Broekman, J. C. S. Creuwels, and P. J. G.Reijnders

2002 Human Disturbance, Nursing Behaviour and Lactational Pup Growth in a Declining Southern Elephant Seal ( Mirounga leonina) Population. CanadianJournal of Zoology 80:18761886.

Enzenbacher, D. J.1994 Antarctic Tourism: An Overview of 1992/93 Season Activity, Recent

Developments, and Emerging Issues. Polar Record 30(173):105116. Fountain, R.

1999 Socio-Scientic Issues Via Actor Network Theory. Journal of CurriculumStudies 31(3):339358.

Frankfort-Nachmias, C., and D. Nachmias1996 Research Methods in the Social Sciences. London: Arnold.

Franklin, A.

2004 Tourism as Ordering: Towards a New Ontology of Tourism. TouristsStudies 4:277301.

arrety, K.1997 Social Worlds, Actor-Networks and Controversy: The Case of Choles-

terol, Dietary Fat and Heart Disease. Social Studies of Science 27:727773.

ibbs, G. R.2002 Qualitative Data Analysis: Explorations with Nvivo. Buckingham: Open

niversity Press.iese, M.

1996 Effects of Human Activity on Ade lie Penguin Pygoscelis Adeliae BreedingSuccess. Biological Conservation 75:157164.

1998 Guidelines for People Approaching Breeding Groups of Adeilie Penguins(Pygoscelis adeliae). Polar Record 34(191):287292.

1999 Eco-Tourism and Seabirds: Antarctica as a Case Study. World Birdwatch21(1):1215.

iese, M., and M. Riddle1999 Disturbance of Emperor Penguin Aptenodytes forsteri Chicks by Helicopters.

Polar Biology 22:366371.

http://www.aad.gov.au/http://www.aad.gov.au/


20/22

Eudyptes schlegeli. Biodiversity Conservation 126:339350.olmes, N. D., M. Giese, H. Achurch, S. Robinson, and L. K. Kriwoken

2006 Behaviour and Breeding Success of Gentoo Penguins Pygoscelis papua inAreas of Low and High Human Activity. Polar Biology 29:399412.

International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO) 2006 Availableonline world wide web: http://www.iaato.org . Accessed 22/08/06.

Jakku, E.2004 Murky Waters? Science, Politics and Environmental Decision-Making in the

risbane River Dredging Dispute. PhD Dissertation. Grifth niversity,risbane, Australia.

Johannesson, G.2005 Tourism Translations. Actor-network Theory and Tourism Research.

Tourist Studies 5(2):133150.Kitchen, L.

2000 Environmental Policy and the Differentiation of Rural Space: An Actor-Network Perspective. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning2:135147.

Latour, B.1983 Give Me a Laboratory and I Will Raise the World. In Science Observed:

Perspectives on the Social Study of Science. K. D. Knorr-Cetina and M. Mulkay,eds., London: Sage Publications.

Latour, B.1986 The Powers of Association. In Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology

of Knowledge, J. Law, ed., pp. 264280. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.1987 Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society.

ambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

1996 Aramis or the Love of Technology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Law, J.

1986 The Heterogeneity of Texts. In Mapping the Dynamics of Science andTechnology, M. Callon, J. Law and A. Rip, eds., pp. 6783. Basingstoke,

England: Macmillan Press.1991 Introduction: Monsters, Machines and Sociotechnical Relations. In A

Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination, J. Law,ed., pp. 125. London: Routledge.

1994 Organising Modernity. Oxford, UK: lackwell Publishers.1999 After ANT: Complexity, Naming and Topology. In Actor Network Theory

and After, J. Law and J. Hassard, eds., pp. 114. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers/The Sociological Review.

Law, J., and J. Hassard1999 Actor Network Theory and After. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers/The

Sociological Review.Maher, P. T., G. Steel and A. McIntosh

2003 Antarctica: Tourism, Wilderness, And Ambassadorship. SDA ForestService Proceedings RMRS-P-27.

http://www.iaato.org/http://www.iaato.org/http://www.iaato.org/


21/22

In Wildlife Tourism. D. Newsome, S.A. Moore and R. K. Dowling, eds., C levedon, UK: hannel View Publications.

Rodger, K., and S. A. Moore2004 Bringing Science to Wildlife Tourism: The Inuence of Managers and

Scientists Perceptions. Journal of Ecotourism 3:119.Rodger, K., S.A. Moore and D. Newsome

In press Wildlife Tourism Science and Scientists: Barriers and Opportunities.Society and Natural Resources.

Roe, D., N. Leader-Williams and B. Dalal-Clayton1997 Take Only Photographs, Leave Only Footprints: The Environmental

Impacts of Wildlife Tourism. London, UK, IIED Wildlife and DevelopmentSeries No. 10: International Institute for Environment and Development.

Splettstoesser, J., and M. C. Folks1994 Environmental Guidelines for Tourism in Antarctica. Annals of Tourism

Research 21(2):231244.Storer, N. W.

1966 The Social System of Science. New York: Rinehart and Winston.Strauss, A., and J. Corbin

1990 Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Tech-niques. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.



22/22

In Wildlife Tourism: Impacts, Manage-

ment and Planning, K. Higginbottom, ed., pp. 145163. Altona, Victoria:ommon Ground Publishing.

Van der Duim, R.2007 Tourismscapes: An Actor-Network Perspectives. Annals of Tourism

Research 34:961976.Van der Duim, R., and R. van Marwijk

2006 The Implementation of an Environmental Management System for DutchTour O perators: An Actor-network Perspective. Journal of SustainableTourism 14:449472.

van Polanen Petel, T.D.2005 Measuring the Effect of Human Activity on Weddell Seals (Leptonychotes

weddellii) in Antarctica. PhD Dissertation, University of Tasmania: Hobart.

Weber, M.1964 The Theory of Social and Economic Organisation. New York: Free Press.

Wetherell, M., S. Taylor, and S. J. Yates2001 Discourse as Data: A Guide for Analysis. London: Sage Publications.

Woehler, E. J., and J. P. Croxall1996 The Status and Trends of Antarctic and Sub-Antarctic Seabirds. Marine

rnithology 25:4366.Woods, M.

1997 Researching Rural Conicts: Hunting, Local Politics and Actor-networks.Journal of Rural Studies 14:321340.

iman, J.1984 An Introduction to Science Studies: The Philosophical and Social Aspects

of Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Submitted 17 July 2008. Final Version 6 April 2009. Accepted 15 April 2009. Refereedanonymously. Coordinating Editor: Irena Ateljevic

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com


Documents

Actor Network Theory 17 Nov 2009