Authors
Sarah, Michelle, and Kris are also co-founders of The Anthrozoology Podcast AnthrozooPod
The adage ‘a picture speaks a thousand words’ underscores the profound ability of how an image can convey a wealth of information to an observer, that often surpasses the capacity of words alone. The decision of which image best conveys a message to an audience is a subjective process, rooted in the presenter’s personal experiences and the intended message they wish to convey. However, the effects of the viewed image are also influenced by the viewer’s subjective experiences, and the intended message may not align with the message received. Furthermore, when an image features a representation of a living being, the potential consequences for that individual are often overlooked. Images possess the ability to captivate an audience and invoke an emotional response. In the realms of journalism and advocacy, striking and often shocking visuals are employed to engage readers and illuminate the plight of suffering beings. As researchers and educators, we face a critical question: do we need to do likewise? Should we? How can we navigate the fine line between drawing attention to important issues and the potential for inadvertently causing trauma to ourselves, the observers, and those captured in our images?
Here we focus on ‘more-than-human' animals. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that comparable ethical principles also apply when it comes to distributing images portraying human suffering. As researchers we carry a collective responsibility to ourselves, our audiences, and the subjects or participants in our research endeavours, which compels us to exercise caution when using distressing images. Particularly when images portray scenes of suffering and death, it arguably becomes imperative to shield ourselves and other researchers from unnecessary trauma. This is especially so if our intended audience is already acquainted with a distressing reality. Continuing to expose individuals already engaged in improving a situation to distressing images is unnecessary and can lead to desensitization, burnout, and mental health challenges. Instead, it's crucial to strike a balance that respects their well-being and motivation while promoting effective problem-solving. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that individuals have varying sensitivities, and we must carefully consider both our target audience, the more-than-human animal being represented, and the rationale behind sharing such images.
Drawing from four case studies rooted in our personal experiences, we address the pivotal question of whether to incorporate a particular image into our presentations, papers, or lectures. Our approach entails a comprehensive evaluation of the repercussions upon ourselves and other researchers, our audience, and the potential ramifications for the subjects in question.
CASE studies
Sarah
Image 1: A Street-Living Cat’s Suffering - Image Altered to Reduce Unnecessary Audience Trauma
Copyright: Anonymous Research Participant
Q. What is the context?
The image portrays a street-living cat in Saudi Arabia, visibly suffering from disease, malnutrition, dehydration, and an inability to care for her/himself. My initial use of this image for my dissertation resulted in me obscuring the original image somewhat to avoid unnecessary trauma to the reader. For this blog, I have obscured the image even further. However, my ultimate target audience encompasses various groups, including Saudi stakeholders with the power to drive change; individuals unaware of the issues cats face; those who adhere to the notion that cats belong on the streets; global animal rescuers, and supporters of rescue and rehoming efforts. Therefore, considering my objective of catalysing change, in presentations to those individuals, the original image will likely not undergo any significant alteration, as its primary aim remains to shed light on the dire conditions faced by street-living cats in Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, I hope my research reaches out to other academics who then include the voices of these animals in their writings and considerations. Therefore, how images are portrayed within my work will entirely depend upon my immediate audience, taking into account expected cultural expectations and sensitivities for each presentation.
Q. What is your point?
The image serves to amplify the voice of street-living and abandoned cats in Saudi Arabia. Its purpose is multifaceted, it elicits empathy, incites action, and offers a realistic portrayal of the lived experiences of these animals. By presenting the stark reality, I aim to motivate change in the treatment and well-being of street-living cats. My ultimate goal is for these street-living voices to be heard and for those who can create a vast positive change in their lives, to do so.
Q. What might be the impact on your audience?
For those unaware of the situation, the image could evoke shock and disbelief, opening their eyes to a prevalent issue. Saudi stakeholders with influence might experience a desire to create positive change; some may be upset, while others could initially feel apathetic due to the scale and prevalence of the suffering. I am cognisant of the delicate balance of trying to highlight the desperate need for coordinated care and compassion to be afforded to street-living more-than-human animals, without provoking ire towards them through any insensitivity my presentations may unintentionally provoke towards cultural institutions. The image, depending upon how it is presented, has the power to provoke a range of emotional responses, potentially foster a deeper understanding of the challenges faced by street cats or unintentionally create conflict between stakeholders.
Q. What is the impact on YOU (the researcher/advocate)?
As the researcher and advocate behind this image, I find purpose in actively addressing the issue. I refuse to be simply a passive observer, and I try to take steps to make a difference. Given my exposure to similar distressing situations, I have developed a protective, empathetic shell that allows me to channel my emotions toward generating change. My familiarity with such scenarios and commitment to action, help me navigate the emotional toll.
Q. What might be the outcome of sharing?
Sharing this image can catalyse various outcomes. It may prompt individuals to take immediate action, such as reaching out to rescue organisations or supporting street-living cat guardianship initiatives. My ultimate hope is that it drives policy changes that improve the lives of street-living cats. This image brings the suffering cat into the spotlight, amplifying her or his story and representing countless other street-living cats facing similar challenges. By showcasing the reality, I contribute to the awareness of the cat’s plight and potentially expedite actions that lead to their rescue, rehabilitation, and improved quality of life. Beyond the individual, by giving a voice to abandoned cats through this image, I am contributing to a larger movement advocating for better treatment and understanding of more-than-human animals.
Final musing
Through this image, I intend to bridge the gap between awareness, research and action. It's a potent tool for change, enabling me to reach individuals who might otherwise remain unaware or unmoved. As a researcher and advocate, I try to foster empathy, drive change, and stand up for those who cannot speak for themselves. My 18 years of rescue efforts and 5 years of scholarly activism have the potential to continue to transform lives and inspire a collective shift in attitudes towards street-living more-than-human animals in need.
Kris
Image 2: A cat carrying a dead bird in their mouth
The image is a stock photo of a cat carrying a dead bird. I used this image in one of my research surveys to elicit responses from participants. Early on in my doctoral studies, I have also shown it in some of my academic talks (to researchers and students). I no longer do so. People don’t like it (based on survey responses) and it serves no purpose in academic talks, other than to get attention.
Q. What is the context?
I used this image in a survey to gauge responses from participants - for example, did they see a cat engaging in natural hunting behaviours or express concerns about predation by cats? In the survey this image was followed by a similar image, but with the cat carrying a rodent rather than a bird. I also showed the image of the cat carrying a dead bird in academic talks given to students and researchers, primarily to gain attention.
Q. What is your point?
My point was to illustrate how people generally dislike the predation of birds but are more accepting of the predation of rodents. These findings were prominent themes that emerged from my analysis of discourses surrounding roaming cats. However, in hindsight, the point could be made without the image being shown in the presentation.
Q. What might be the impact on your audience?
Something I had not initially considered was how those who dislike cats may feel vindicated. For those who work in wildlife protection or related fields, such images might also be triggering as they represent a real problem in many areas where roaming cats are abundant.
Q. What is the impact on YOU (the researcher/teacher)?
This particular image did not impact me directly, but comments calling cats “evil” or “wanton murders” for engaging in natural predation habits did.
Q. What might be the outcome of sharing?
The image portrays the cat as a villain because of people’s affinity towards birds (or at least garden birds). I no longer see a positive outcome for sharing. Even if the image helps keep the attention of students, it can be counter-productive toward the tolerance of roaming cats. However, I still believe it has value in surveys such as the one described above.
Final musing
I no longer feel sharing this image (or similar) serves a purpose unless specifically talking about that particular survey design or conducting similar surveys.
Michelle
Image 3: (image not provided due to ethical concerns, but described below)
Description: Kajol Kali, one of my research participants, just before she died (photo sent to me a few months after I left the country). She is lying on her side in the mud, surrounded by trash. She is emaciated, and clearly in pain.
Q. What is the context?
I have only used this photo once in a presentation to a professional pachyderm caregiving group. While I initially did not wish to share it, because it shows very private suffering, I chose to in order to highlight the “hidden pain” that is faced by elephants working in tourism.
Q. What is your point?
There are four main misconceptions among US/EU/Canadian zookeepers. One is that captive elephant use is “traditional” in all Southeast Asian countries. The second is that any attempt to question elephant management methods is inherently neocolonial. The third is that the conditions and management of elephants in range states are consistent, meaning that Nepal is “just like” Thailand, India, or Myanmar. Fourth, what you see “in practice” is representative of what happens behind the scenes. None of these is true.
Q. What might be the impact on your audience?
The audience, hopefully, would find it disturbing as people who work daily with elephants and have a commitment to their flourishing. This is an elephant who has access to veterinary care and is known to NGOs, locals, etc. Interestingly, at least one viewer took it as a “shock value” PETA-type move (which was the opposite of my intention).
Q. What is the impact on YOU (the researcher/teacher)?
When I received the photo, I was horrified. There is no way to explain the depth of my anger, disappointment, sadness, feelings of loss, empathy for her suffering, etc.
Q. What might be the outcome of sharing?
That professionals question what they “know” or are told by other experts. Look behind the curtain and try to find the truth. I didn’t use this photo in front of activists–I did not want her to become a “battle cry” against evil owners, vets who couldn’t or wouldn’t help, or misinformed locals. I wanted her suffering to remind caregivers that their charges are more than just biological machines.
Final musing
Out of respect for Kajol, I removed the photo from the slide show before allowing it to be shared in the professional organisation’s conference proceedings. I did not want it to become internet fodder (although, an activist from Switzerland got the photo elsewhere and used it to promote funding), and did not want Kajol to be a “symbol” instead of a loving, suffering, individual. I am not sharing the photo here, simply a description of it for the same reason.
Jes
Image 4: An infant palm civet (Paradoxurus hermaphroditus) standing on the back of a tourist who poses next to a Hollywood-style sign that reads “Bali Cat Poo Chino”
This photo was taken from a tourist review written for the world's most popular tourist review site, TripAdvisor.com. The review was written for a popular tourist destination in Bali, wherein tourists can see how the famous civet coffee is produced. Civets are on display for tourists to feed coffee cherries to, and often there are civets available for civets to pose with. The photo is, therefore, within the public domain and so is freely available to see by anyone who looks at the reviews for that particular civet coffee tour. On TripAdvisor.com the human face has not been anonymised. Neither is the photograph accompanied by the educational message in white text.
Q. What is the context?
I recently elected to use this photograph to illustrate the ease at which animal suffering can occur due to the human intention to take a photograph. In particular, I chose this photograph for a public social media campaign that my non-profit organisation The Civet Project is running in a bid to inform the public about the ethical and welfare consequences of posing with wildlife for photographs. To me, this image sums up not only the act of taking wildlife selfies and the lack of wildlife consent, but the framing of the image to include the Hollywood-style sign 'Bali Cat Poo Chino' also purveys the commodity fetishism at play within the product’s marketing.
Q. What is your point?
I initially sought to anonymise the human within the photograph on the basis that this person had not given me permission to use his (albeit publicly shared) image for this particular educational campaign. It was also fairly likely, as my research participants have often attested to, that this person may have been unaware of the implications of their actions for the animal involved. However, in anonymising the human, I believe the photograph then became even more provocative. By covering the facial features of the human, the audience is invited instead to concentrate their gaze on that of the civet. Thus, the civet's resistance to being handled is immediately placed at centre stage of the photograph.
Q. What might be the impact on your audience?
My intention in sharing this photograph was to invite the audience to question the ethics of wildlife selfies, and to reflect on their own experiences of handling or observing animals in contexts when consent may have been absent from the animal's perspective.
Q. What is the impact on YOU (the researcher/teacher)?
As a researcher who specialises in animal behaviour, I find these images distressing. Whilst I try to be conscious of and sensitive to the pitfalls of anthropomorphism in my work, I find images that capture animal stress to be powerful tools to bring in the animal perspective.
Q. What might be the outcome of sharing?
Whilst my hope with this image is that it ignites increased public engagement in animal ethics and awareness of animal consent, I fear images like this can be misinterpreted. Research has shown that tourists typically fail to recognise signs of poor animal welfare, and so sharing images of wildlife with humans, and in touristic settings, could further normalise such interactions. This is why I endeavour to address the content of the image with an embedded educational message, one which further asks the audience to stop, look, and reflect on what they are witnessing.
Discussion points
Navigating Sensitive Topics: Balancing Ethics, Research, and Audience Impact
In the realm of research involving more-than-human animals, there's a complex interplay between ethical considerations, the interests of researchers, and the reactions of the audience. This intricate web becomes even more intricate when we delve into the concept of "sensitive topics." What might be sensitive or triggering to an audience member might also have far-reaching consequences for the more-than-human animals under study, the researchers themselves, and the broader audience. It is important to consider the nuances of handling sensitive content, the potential impact on all stakeholders, and the delicate balance researchers must strike.
Sensitivity's Multifaceted Impact:
When it comes to more-than-human animals as research subjects, discussions often revolve around ethical treatment, consent, and privacy. Yet, the concept of sensitivity extends beyond these realms. In an age of information overload, certain topics or imagery can trigger emotional responses or even distress in audiences. These could range from explicit images of animal suffering to discussions on contentious topics such as animal testing, hunting, or captivity.
Navigating Audience Responses:
The audience's reaction to sensitive content is a key consideration. While it's crucial to treat the audience ethically and consider potential triggers, this approach must be balanced with the need to present reality as accurately as possible. For example, omitting distressing images might protect the audience, but it risks sanitising the truth about the challenges more-than-human animals face. This selective portrayal could inadvertently undermine the urgency of more-than-human animal welfare issues. It's a dilemma: how to create awareness without exploiting more-than-human animals in distress or potentially alienating a sensitive audience?
Consequences for Research Subjects:
Protecting more-than-human animals from distressing images or topics is essential, but it's equally crucial to protect them from undue harm by preserving their agency and dignity. Limiting the depiction of their reality to fit audience sensitivities might inadvertently rob them of their authentic experiences, turning them into objects of pity rather than participants in their own right. It's a tightrope walk, ensuring ethical treatment while avoiding skewed representation.
Researchers' Balancing Act:
Researchers bear the weight of these considerations. They must adhere to ethical guidelines while also grappling with the potential impact of their findings on the more-than human animals, the audience, and their own work. Moreover, researchers must contend with their own biases, i.e., the appeal of "cute" imagery or anecdotes that might inadvertently undermine the more-than-human animals' plight or the importance of their research.
Acknowledging Distress: Bridging the Gap Between Human Sensitivities and More-Than-Human Animal Realities:
In the realm of research involving more-than-human animals, it's easy to fall into the trap of viewing sensitive topics through the lens of human sensitivities alone. As human researchers and audiences react to research findings, it's imperative to recognise that what we consider distressing or sensitive might only scratch the surface of what truly affects more-than-human animals.
Human Sensitivities vs. More-Than-Human Animal Realities:
Research findings that tug at human heartstrings can be deeply distressing or emotionally charged. However, it's vital to realise that our emotional responses to these findings can inadvertently shape how we present the research. In an effort to shield ourselves from discomfort, we might sanitise data or withhold information, but this approach can blur the lines between reporting and storytelling, masking the truth of the more-than-human animals' experiences.
The Hidden Dimension: More-Than-Human Animal Distress:
While we grapple with our own reactions, we must remember that more-than-human animals are not immune to the distress caused by research methodologies. Intrusive observation, geolocation tracking, and even dissemination of distressing images can have profound impacts on more-than-human animals, disrupting their natural behaviours and infringing upon their right to privacy. What humans might consider "sensitive" topics might be the lived reality for these more-than-human animals.
Recognising the Limits of Human Empathy:
Empathy is a powerful tool for connecting with the world around us, but it has its limits. As humans, we might struggle to fully comprehend the emotional and cognitive experiences of other species. Our sensitivities might inadvertently lead us to underestimate the emotional range and resilience of more-than-human animals or overestimate their ability to tolerate distressing situations.
Shifting the Focus:
As researchers and as part of the audience, we must shift our focus from our own sensitivities to the well-being of the more-than-human animals under study. Striving for truthfulness and accuracy in research findings is paramount, even if it means facing uncomfortable realities. While we might consider certain images or topics too distressing for human consumption, we cannot allow our own discomfort to cloud the more-than-human-animals' lived experiences.
Balancing Sensitivities: The More-Than-Human Animal-Centred Approach:
Acknowledging the impact of sensitive content on more-than-human animals requires an animal-centred approach. This approach places the more-than-human animal’s well-being and agency at the forefront. It prompts us to consider what respectful representation and truthful portrayal look like for more-than-human and human participants. It compels us to find ways to communicate reality without exploiting or sanitising the more-than-human animals' experiences.
Final Reflections:
Research involving more-than-human animals holds a dual responsibility: to recognise and address the sensitivities of human researchers and audiences while honouring the truth of animal experiences. As we navigate the intricacies of sensitivity, it's essential to remember that our discomfort and distress are temporary, while the consequences for the more-than-human animals are far-reaching. By acknowledging the impact on both human and other-than-human participants, we can bridge the gap between human sensitivities and more-than-human animal realities, ultimately striving for a more authentic and compassionate approach to research dissemination.