Advertisement

Manufacturing Invisibility in “the Field”: Distributed Ethics, Wearable Technologies, and the Case of Exercise Physiology

  • Andi JohnsonEmail author
Chapter
  • 62 Downloads

Abstract

Exercise physiology has been reflecting and reconfiguring science and sport for over a century. Since the late nineteenth century, physiologists have investigated “exercising” motions, like running, walking, and bicycling, in both laboratory and field studies. Because these scientists move between their labs and what they consider “the field,” including spaces of athletic training and competition, exercise physiology offers an exciting case to answer questions relevant to both Science and Technology Studies (STS) and Sport Studies: How do exercise physiologists transform sporting spaces into sites of scientific experiment? How are competing athletes enrolled as research subjects, and how do they experience the research encounter? Do scientists consider the knowledge produced about human physiology in sporting spaces more or less “real” than their laboratory-generated data? Drawing from seven months of transnational ethnographic research, this chapter follows physiologists within and between their labs and their fields. Ethnographic data suggest that, in contrast to inhabiting a rather dramatic role in the laboratory, exercise physiologists manufacture their own invisibility in the field—such that athletes may not sense they are subjects of scientific research. The chapter illustrates how exercise physiologists manufacture this “invisibility” through two distinct mechanisms, one social and the other technical.

Notes

Acknowledgments

I thank the scientists, physicians, and subjects who permitted me to enter the laboratory—and field!—with them and to observe their work. I am particularly grateful to “Kara,” who gave helpful feedback on previous versions of this chapter, as did Rob Kohler, Mary Mitchell, Taylor Dysart, and Jon Johnson. Thank you to Mary McDonald and Jennifer Sterling for organizing the 4S panel, editing this book, and helping to bring the worlds of Science and Technology Studies and Sport Studies together. I am also extraordinarily grateful for the way they pushed me to clarify the argument and writing in this chapter. A Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Research Grant from the National Science Foundation and a Helfand Graduate Fellowship in the History of Medicine and Health helped support the research.

References

  1. Bale, J. (1994). Landscapes of modern sport. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bale, J., & Vertinsky, P. (Eds.). (2004). Sites of sport: Space, place, and experience. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Bangham, J., & Kaplan, J. (2016). Editorial: (In)visibility and labour in the human sciences. In J. Bangham & J. Kaplan (Eds.), Invisibility and labour in the human sciences (pp. 3–9). Berlin: Max-Planck-Institut für Wissenschaftsgeschichte.Google Scholar
  4. Benson, E. (2010). Wired wilderness: Technologies of tracking and the making of modern wildlife. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Berryman, J. W. (1995). Out of many, one: A history of the American College of Sports Medicine. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Press.Google Scholar
  6. Berryman, J. (2010). Exercise is medicine: A historical perspective. Current Sports Medicine Reports, 9(4), 195–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berryman, J. W., & Park, R. J. (Eds.). (1992). Sport and exercise science: Essays in the history of sports medicine. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bonneuil, C., Joly, P.-B., & Marris, C. (2008). Disentrenching experiment: The construction of GM-crop field trials as a social problem. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 33(2), 201–229.Google Scholar
  9. Bourguet, M.-N., Licoppe, C., & Sibum, H. O. (Eds.). (2002). Instruments, travel, and science: Itineraries of precision from the seventeenth to the twentieth century. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Brain, R. (2015). The pulse of modernism. Physiological aesthetics in fin-de-siècle Europe. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
  11. Brain, R. M., & Wise, M. N. (1994). Muscles and engines: Indicator diagrams and Helmholtz’s graphical methods. In L. Krüger (Ed.), Universalgenie Helmholtz – rückblick naar 100 jahren (pp. 124–149). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chapman, C. B. (1990). The long reach of Harvard’s Fatigue Laboratory, 1926–1947. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 34(1), 17–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Daston, L. (1992). Objectivity and the escape from perspective. Social Studies of Science, 22(4), 597–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Delheye, P. (2014). Statistics, gymnastics and the origins of sport science in Belgium (and Europe). European Journal of Sport Sciences, 14(7), 652–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dumit, J. (2004). Picturing personhood: Brain scans and biomedical identity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Fouché, R. (2017). Game changer: The technoscientific revolution in sports. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Gibson, K. (2018). Laboratory production of health and performance: An ethnographic investigation of an exercise physiology laboratory. Sport in Society.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2018.1435002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gieryn, T. F. (2006). City as truth-spot: Laboratories and field-sites in urban studies. Social Studies of Science, 36(1), 5–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Guttmann, A. (1978). From ritual to record. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hale, T. (2008). History of developments in sport and exercise physiology: A.V. Hill, maximal oxygen uptake, and oxygen debt. Journal of Sports Sciences, 26(4), 365–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hankins, T. (1999). Blood, dirt, and nomograms: A particular history of graphs. Isis, 90(1), 50–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heggie, V. (2010). A century of cardiomythology: Exercise and the heart c. 1880–1980. Social History of Medicine, 23(2), 280–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Heggie, V. (2011). A history of British sports medicine. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Heggie, V. (2013). Experimental physiology, Everest and oxygen: From the ghastly kitchens to the gasping lung. British Journal for the History of Science, 46(1), 123–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Heggie, V. (2016a). Bodies, sport and science in the nineteenth century. Past and Present, 231(1), 169–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Heggie, V. (2016b). Higher and colder: The success and failure of boundaries in high altitude and Antarctic research stations. Social Studies of Science, 46(6), 809–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Henke, C. R. (2000). Making a place for science: The field trial. Social Studies of Science, 30(4), 483–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Henne, K. E. (2015). Testing for athlete citizenship: Regulating doping and sex in sport. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Herzig, R. (2005). Suffering for science: Reason and sacrifice in modern America. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hevly, B. (1996). The heroic science of glacier motion. Osiris, 11, 66–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hoberman, J. (1992). Mortal engines: The science of performance and the dehumanization of sport. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  32. Johnson, A. (2013a). The athlete as model organism: The everyday practice of the science of human performance. Social Studies of Science, 43(6), 878–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Johnson, A. (2013b). Measuring fatigue: The politics of innovation and standardization in a South African lab. Biosocieties, 8(3), 289–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Johnson, A. (2015). ‘They sweat for science’: The Harvard Fatigue Laboratory and self-experimentation in American exercise physiology. Journal of the History of Biology, 48(3), 425–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kasperowski, D. (2009). Constructing altitude training for the 1968 Mexico Olympics: The impacts of ideals of certainty and uncertainty. The International Journal of the History of Sport, 26, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kingsland, S. E. (2009). Frits Went’s atomic age greenhouse: The changing labscape on the lab-field border. Journal of the History of Biology, 42(2), 289–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Kohler, R. E. (2002). Landscapes and labscapes: Exploring the lab-field border in biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kohler, R. E. (2011). Paul Errington, Aldo Leopold, and wildlife ecology: Residential science. Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences, 41(2), 216–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kohlstedt, S. G. (2016). Accounting for knowledge production. In J. Bangham & J. Kaplan (Eds.), Invisibility and labour in the human sciences (pp. 137–141). Berlin: Max-Planck-Institut für Wissenschaftsgeschichte.Google Scholar
  41. Kuklick, H. (2011). Personal equations: Reflections on the history of fieldwork, with special reference to sociocultural anthropology. Isis, 102(1), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kuklick, H., & Kohler, R. E. (1996). Introduction. Osiris, 11, 585–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Lupton, D. (2013). Understanding the human machine. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 32(4), 25–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Massengale, J. D., & Swanson, R. A. (Eds.). (1997). The history of exercise and sport science. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Press.Google Scholar
  47. Nielsen, K. H., Harbsmeier, M., & Ries, C. J. (2012). Studying scientists and scholars in the field: An introduction. In K. H. Nielsen, M. Harbsmeier, & C. J. Ries (Eds.), Scientists and scholars in the field: Studies in the history of fieldwork and expeditions (pp. 9–28). Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Oakes, J. (2015). Alliances in human biology: The Harvard Committee on Industrial Physiology, 1929–1939. Journal of the History of Biology, 48(3), 365–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Oreskes, N. (1996). Objectivity or heroism? On the invisibility of women in science. Osiris, 11, 87–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Oreskes, N. (2003). A context of motivation: US Navy oceanographic research and the discovery of sea-floor hydrothermal vents. Social Studies of Science, 33(5), 697–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Park, R. J. (2007). Physiologists, physicians, and physical educators. The International Journal of the History of Sport, 24(12), 1637–1673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Park, R. J. (2011). Physicians, scientists, exercise and athletics in Britain and America from the 1867 boat race to the four-minute mile. Sport in History, 31(1), 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Park, R. J. (2012). Soldiers may fall but athletes never!: Sport as an antidote to nervous diseases and national decline in America, 1865–1905. Journal of the History of Sport, 29(6), 792–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Petryna, A. (2006). Globalizing human subjects research. In A. Petryna, A. Lakoff, & A. Kleinman (Eds.), Global pharmaceuticals: Ethics, markets, practices (pp. 33–60). Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Powell, R. C. (2007). “The rigours of an Arctic experiment”: The precarious authority of field practices in the Canadian high Arctic, 1958–1970. Environment and Planning A, 39(8), 1794–1811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rabinbach, A. (1990). Human motor: Energy, fatigue, and the origins of modernity. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  57. Rees, A. (2006). A place that answers questions: Primatological field sites and the making of authentic observations. Studies in the History and Philosophy of the Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 37(2), 311–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rees, A. (2007). Reflections on the field: Primatology, popular science, and the politics of personhood. Social Studies of Science, 37(6), 881–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rich, E., & Miah, A. (2017). Mobile, wearable, and ingestible health technologies: Towards a critical research agenda. Health Sociology Review, 26(1), 84–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Ries, C. J. (2012). Armchairs, dogsleds, ships, and airplanes: Field access, scientific credibility, and geological mapping in northern and north-eastern Greenland 1900–1939. In K. H. Nielsen, M. Harbsmeier, & C. J. Ries (Eds.), Scientists and scholars in the field: Studies in the history of fieldwork and expeditions (pp. 329–361). Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Scheffler, R. W. (2011). The fate of a Progressive science: The Harvard Fatigue Laboratory, athletes, the science of work, and the politics of reform. Endeavor, 35(2), 48–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Scheffler, R. W. (2015). The power of exercise and the exercise of power: The Harvard Fatigue Laboratory, distance running, and the disappearance of work, 1919–1947. Journal of the History of Biology, 48(3), 391–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schumaker, L. (1996). A tent with a view: Colonial officers, anthropologists, and the making of the field of northern Rhodesia, 1937–1960. Osiris, 11, 237–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Shapin, S. (1989). The invisible technician. American Scientist, 77(6), 554–563.Google Scholar
  65. Star, S. L., & Strauss, A. (1999). Layers of silence, arenas of voice: The ecology of visible and invisible work. Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, 8, 9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Stark, L. (2016). The bureaucratic ethic and the spirit of bio-capitalism. In J. Bangham & J. Kaplan (Eds.), Invisibility and labour in the human sciences (pp. 13–23). Berlin: Max-Planck-Institut für Wissenschaftsgeschichte.Google Scholar
  67. Svensson, D. (2013). How much sport is there in sport physiology? Practice and ideas in the Stockholm School of Physiology at GCI, 1941–1969. The International Journal of the History of Sport, 20(8), 892–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Svensson, D., & Sörlin, S. (2018). The ‘physiologization’ of skiing: The lab as an obligatory passage point for elite athletes. Sport in Society.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2018.1435031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tipton, C. (Ed.). (2011). Exercise physiology: People and ideas. Oxford: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  70. Tipton, C. (Ed.). (2014). History of exercise physiology. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Press.Google Scholar
  71. Tracy, S. W. (2012). The physiology of extremes: Ancel keys and the international high altitude expedition of 1935. Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 86(4), 627–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Traweek, S. (1992). Beamtimes and lifetimes: The world of high-energy physicists. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Vetter, J. (2011). Labs in the field? Rocky Mountain biological stations in the early twentieth century. Journal of the History of Biology, 45(4), 587–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. von Oertzen, C. (2016). Hidden helpers: Gender, skill, and the politics of workforce management for census compilation in late nineteenth-century Prussia. In J. Bangham & J. Kaplan (Eds.), Invisibility and labour in the human sciences (pp. 47–50). Berlin: Max-Planck-Institut für Wissenschaftsgeschichte.Google Scholar
  75. Wissinger, E. (2017). Wearable tech, bodies, and gender. Sociology Compass, 11.  https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wrynn, A. (2010). The athlete in the making: The scientific study of American athletic performance, 1920–1932. Sport in History, 30(1), 121–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations