Sounding Ecologies

  • Mickey Vallee
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Sound book series (PASTS)


This chapter explores the infrastructures of audibility in bioacoustics field research, along with the transacoustic objects and communities that contribute towards catching an event, towards the capture of the imaginary organ. Grounded in field research with bioacoustics researchers and research technicians, the chapter explores two modalities of a familiar technical sounding object, the microphone, to illustrate the ways in which data collected morph into the shape of the instrument(s) used to collect data. That is, at once capturing a world and contributing towards its creation, new research instruments combine with old to make new multi-temporal worlds that fuse meaning between animals, technology, and researchers. I use the term “transacoustic community” to describe the technologies that carve out the edges of empirical data, crystallizing it in a moment of collective individuation.


  1. Adams, J. L. (2010). The place where you go to listen: In search of an ecology of music. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Berlant, L. (2011). Cruel optimism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brentari, C. (2015). Jakob von Uexküll: The discovery of the umwelt between biosemiotics and theoretical biology. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bruyninckx, J. (2012). Sound sterile: Making scientific field recordings in ornithology. In T. Pinch & K. Bijsterveld (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of sound studies (pp. 127–150). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bruyninckx, J. (2018). Listening in the field: Recording and the science of birdsong. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chion, M. (1999). The voice in cinema (C. Gorbman, Trans.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Gabrys, J. (2016). Program earth: Environmental sensing technology and the making of a computational planet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  8. Gallagher, M. (2015a). Field recording and the sounding of spaces. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 33(3), 560–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gallagher, M. (2015b). Sounding ruins: Reflections on the production of an “audio drift.” Cultural Geographies, 22(3), 467–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gill, L. F., D’Amelio, P. B., Adreani, N. M., Sagunsky, H., Gahr, M. C., & ter Maat, A. (2016). A minimum-impact, flexible tool to study vocal communication of small animals with precise individual-level resolution. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 7(11), 1349–1358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grosz, E. (2008). Chaos, territory, art: Deleuze and the framing of the earth. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hutto, R. L., & Stutzman, R. J. (2009). Humans versus autonomous recording units: A comparison of point-count results. Journal of Field Ornithology, 80(4), 387–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Laiolo, P. (2010). The emerging significance of bioacoustics in animal species conservation. Biological Conservation, 143(7), 1635–1645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Mair, M., Greiffenhagen, C., & Sharrock, W. W. (2015). Statistical practice: Putting society on display. Theory, Culture & Society, 33(3), 51–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mesaros, A., Heittola, T., & Virtanen, T. (2016, August). TUT database for acoustic scene classification and sound event detection. In 2016 24th European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO) (pp. 1128–1132). IEEE.Google Scholar
  17. Sterne, J. (2003). The audible past: Cultural origins of sound reproduction. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Stowell, D., Benetos, E., & Gill, L. F. (2017). On-bird sound recordings: Automatic acoustic recognition of activities and contexts. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 25(6), 1193–1206.Google Scholar
  19. Sueur, J., & Farina, A. (2015). Ecoacoustics: The ecological investigation and interpretation of environmental sound. Biosemiotics, 8(3), 493–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Thoreau, D. (1885). The writings of Henry David Thoreau (Vol. 6). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  21. Truax, B. (2001). Acoustic communication (Vol. 1). Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  22. Vallee, M. (2018, September 17). Tour de Frank. Field notes at the Frank Slide site.Google Scholar
  23. Viel, J. M. (2014). Habitat preferences of the common nighthawk (Chordeiles minor) in cities and villages in southeastern Wisconsin (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
  24. von Uexküll, J. J. (1934/2010). A foray into the worlds of animals and humans: With a theory of meaning (J. D. O’Neil, Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  25. Watson, M. C. (2016). On multispecies mythology: A critique of animal anthropology. Theory, Culture & Society, 33(5), 159–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Westerkamp, H. (2001). Speaking from inside the soundscape. In D. Rothenberg & M. Ulvaeus (Eds.), The book of music and nature: An anthology of sounds, words, thoughts. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Zak, A. (2001). The poetics of rock: Cutting tracks, making records. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mickey Vallee
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Interdisciplinary StudiesAthabasca UniversityAthabascaCanada

Personalised recommendations