The Value of Visualisation and the Responsibilities of the Visualiser

“The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of many things . . .”

Our discussion focused particularly on a defense of the value of visualisation, bearing in mind the very legitimate questions and concerns regarding it which have been raised over the course of the conference, together with an awareness of the responsibilities which come with producing a valuable visualisation.  Without attempting to reduce our several, perhaps disjointed ideas to any too regulated form, we raised the following issues:

Defense of the Value of Visualisation

We seem defensive or apologetic in describing the way we approach digital humanities, but this way of engaging with data has critical potential beyond previous approaches.  For example, a national point of view leaves one liable to misconceptions.  If you have a tool that generates sources which do not underly this restriction, you can automatically come to a more open point of view.  All the advantages of transnational history come out in a digital approach.  The great flood of St. Petersburg in the nineteenth century is an example.  Using Rolf and Anna’s newspaper project completely undermines the traditional historiography on the topic.  For nations where national identity creation is still important in particular this offers us a dramatic and powerfully different way of understanding material.  The potential for deconstructing historical myths and legends is very strong.

So why should we use visualisation?  Why not just present material in text form?  Rolf pointed out that you can see it at a glance and Michael added that while text is serial, visualisation gives you simultaneous data.  Could these different ways of receiving the information (serial vs. simultaneous be an argument for visualisation as a heuristic tool?  The rapidity of visualisations is also an argument for their use.  While complexity could be reduced, if we are careful about the types of data we can employ, we should still be able to accurately and responsibly present complex data.
Finally, visualisations serve as an international language.  They allow us to make sense of material like Erdim’s census lists which would otherwise be inaccessible to anyone other than specialists.

Responsible Visualisations

What about vs. bar graphs or pie charts?  The potential to lie with statistics is the same in visualisations is in bar graphs, pie charts, and other more traditional forms of analysis.  The persistent use of a Mercator projection, for example, represents a continuing problem.  For this reason, an explanatory text accompanying the visualisation is particularly important, one which makes the process of its creation as fully transparent as possible.

What are the purposes of visualisations?  Scott pointed out that from the technology side of things the questions we as historians ask advance the technological development itself.  We also wondered about the fundamental differences between text and visualisation.  Is one finished and the other ongoing or is that an illusory distinction?

We were also concerned about the potential sacrifices of quality in producing a large quantity of data.  To what extent can we responsibly use data mining or crowd-sourcing which introduces noise into the material?

How can we present both qualitative and quantitative data in visualisations?

It was suggested that a historical library/lexicon might facilitate further work in this area.  Could an open-source library of historical maps and categories be developed?  On a related note, should we perhaps not worry about relating historical maps to present-day projections but just use the spatial actors’ categories of our subjects?
We collect the data, interpret the data, then reformulate hypothesis — the iteration process.  But sometimes we collect data and then realise everything must be changed.  The flexibility of one’s tools then becomes very important.  Responsible visualisation tools must take this into account.
We should bear in mind the cultural context of the visualisation, just as we would with a book or article.  What are the ramifications of centering a particular continent in a map?  Would a visualisation be interpreted in the same way in different cultures?  How do people see colours in different cultures?  What about selective or entire colour-blindness?  Visualisations have limits in terms of their interpretation across cultures just as texts do; they make accessible otherwise difficult-to-access material, but they are not a panacea.
The long-term consequences of a striking visualisation should also be considered.  It may be reproduced in very different contexts if it’s very powerful, which should encourage us to be cautious and responsible in visualising controversial data.
General Observations
We wondered what the special problems of history vs. other disciplines in producing a visualisation are?  Compared to say physics or sociology.  For example, we interrogate primary documents, but unlike sociology we can’t ask further, clarifying questions which inevitably conditions how we can interpret that data.
We concluded by agreeing that it’s okay to experience failure.  Learning this process is just like learning any other technical skill, whether a new language or a difficult script.  We shouldn’t expect instant success, but we shouldn’t allow our initial failure to discourage us from making the most of these new possibilities.
Rolf, Michael, Scott, and Kelsey

Comments are closed.