Skip to content

The pursuit of objectivity

September 16, 2012

There has been controversy recently over the use of spectrograms to analyse the spectral (frequency) features of birdsong. This greatly unsettled me. Using spectrograms to analyse birdsong is the basis of my PhD. A spectrogram is a visual representation of sound and has been used for decades to analyse the characteristics of animal (and human) vocalisations. But when it is used in the field, there are certain aspects to that use that require a great deal of care. Field conditions cannot be standardised in the same way that laboratory conditions can be. The weather, ambient noise, the sounds of other animals, wind, the rustle of vegetation, all can distort or mask the sound of interest. Furthermore, the bird of interest, the focal individual as we say in the business, may be at varying distances, orientations or heights, so all these factors contribute to a less than perfect recording situation, which could potentially undermine valid comparisons between individuals of the same species, never mind individuals of different species.


Fortunately, my work has been experimental, so the treatment I expose the birds to, is, at the very least, the greatest if not the only immediate change in their environment during the recording session. Also, the acoustic analysis software that I use is nothing short of miraculous, in its ability to adjust to varying quality of recordings while nonetheless allowing a fair comparison between them. However, there is inevitably a degree of subjectivity to the assessment. Firstly, the software has to be set up, its boundaries of acceptability and sensitivity are decided and determined upon by a human, ie, me. Secondly, even with the software being set up to near perfection for a given set of recordings, it still can’t reliably distinguish the differences in species or individual song, especially when birds sing over the top of each other. That depends on my visual recognition system, not the computer’s. However, these issues can be addressed statistically as well as by the precaution of regularly getting my assessments checked.  Additionally, with another student, I’ve also run validation experiments on the accuracy of the assessment process. In other words, in keeping with the literature, I’ve put into practice all the precautions I possibly can to ensure that I’m measuring what I’m supposed to and to allow a valid comparison across recordings.


Last week there was a bombshell. A paper was published taking issue with the objectivity of such measurements. While a good deal of what the authors said made sense, and may be, in the strictest sense, correct, it also called into question just the sort of “measuring” issues I’ve been dealing with. I felt scared and somewhat defeated. It boiled down to an issue that has actually plagued me for much of my life: does a thing have to be perfect to be good enough? Does measurement, assessment, have to be so specifically spot-on, that any slippage renders the whole thing meaningless? Meaning. Reality. It comes down to that. What is statistically meaningful? What is biologically meaningful? What is real? What actually matters?


This being me, I lost sleep. I worried that the entire basis of my PhD was a nonsense. Until this week. Hey la, a reply has been published, which while conceding some minor points, is wholly robust in arguing back. And utterly convincing. Sighs of relief all round. Fieldworkers in avian acoustics world-wide – relax! It’s ok. We can still rise in the pre-dawn! We can deal with the shortcomings. We can deal with the ambiguities. With the right care, consistency, and by addressing the limitations appropriately, we can still formulate hypotheses, get data, find meaning within it. Asking the right questions, we can still get good enough answers.


From → Uncategorized

  1. Hey la, Dawnriser’s back 🙂
    I’m glad I’m not a perfectionist. Good enough is good!

  2. 😉

    I forgot to say, I knew you’d recognise the quote!

  3. I’m so glad to read that you felt supported in your work–a bit vindicated! I don’t think a day goes by that I don’t hear someone with “revelation” in their research attempting to bump down someone else’s claims. I can’t always discern the facts even as described, but I do know that all of life is rarely in absolutes! I thnk of all the pioneer scientists who have gone before us. What would many of them say about the technology we use today. And what would science be today without the pioneers. So take pride in your work, Dawnriser! You’re a trail blazer in your own exceptional scientific research and don’t question it! Add to it, surely, but don’t ever let anyone pull you down! You’ve done great work to get this far! Debra

  4. Debra, thank you so much for your unequivocal and absolute support! It means so much. Accuracy in measurement is so often a matter of perspective or scale, and all scientists can do is be as consistent as possible where there are ambiguities or possible different perspectives or levels of scale. Anyway, it’s good to be reminded that the debate of these issues is a common thing. Mary

  5. This perfect thing in science – eg lots of great work is being clobbered by the current [over] emphasis on evidence base [which has to cover all possible…] etc etc – comes from the context of justification, important yes. There is another equally important aspect of science, the heuristic context, where you are not trying to justify, where the personal experience of search is paramount. Look up philosophy of science most of which I forget. They both belong, both …and … [not either or…] On your great posts I hear the inner world reflection on personal experience, the compass sometimes covered in layers of doubt, takes you forward on the journey… go, and keep going. Your work rings true.

    • Thanks elspethc. I do feel that objectivity is something we can strive towards but perhaps never quite reach, in that sense is asymptotic. Of course it is a vital part of science, it the baseline, but we can’t cover all bases, and if we try, it can lead to paralysis. So much can be missed by striving for absolutes, which are themselves contextual. The philosophy of science angle is a good recommendation, it’s years since I’ve read any myself, but I do think there are far more overlaps between art & science than some of their (absolutist) practitioners would have you believe. Anyway, I’ll keep trying to maintain both the accuracy and the validity of my measurements and we’ll see what patterns emerge …

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Setting priorities « chasingavianvoices
  2. Coming home to a future | chasingavianvoices
  3. Coming home to a future | chasingavianvoices

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: