Previous research has shown that the level of graph use in science journals is linearly related to the hardness of disciplines, confirming Bruno Latour’s “graphism” thesis that graphs are central to science. To determine whether the same is true of other visual displays, journals in seven disciplines were surveyed for their use of nongraph illustrations (NGIs) along with other inscriptions, both visual and nonvisual. Like graphs, NGIs were used more by the harder sciences. Among NGI types, photographs were used most in the biomedical fields and conceptual diagrams most in the soft sciences. Neither the use of tables nor the use of equations was systematically related to hardness, suggesting that the scientificity of disciplines may be more closely related to their visuality than to their mathematization. The uneven distribution of visual displays across the sciences is discussed in terms of their ease of comprehension, rhetorical power, and role in consensus formation.
Amann, K., and K. Knorr Cetina. 1990. The fixation of (visual) evidence. In Representation in scientific practice, edited by M. Lynch and S. Woolgar, 86-121. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2.
Ashar, H., and J. Z. Shapiro. 1990. Are retrenchment decisions rational? The role of information in times of budgetary stress. Journal of Higher Education61:123-141.
3.
Bastide, F.1990. Iconography of scientific texts: Principles of analysis (G. Myers, trans.). In Representation in scientific practice, edited by M. Lynch and S. Woolgar, 187-229. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4.
Bazerman, C.1988. Theoretical integration in experimental reports in twentieth-century physics: Spectroscopic articles in Physical Review, 1893-1980.In Shaping written knowledge, by C. Bazerman, 153-186. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
5.
Best, L. A., L. D. Smith, and D. A. Stubbs. 2001. Graph use in psychology and other sciences. Behavioural Processes54:155-165.
6.
Biagioli, M., ed. 1999. The science studies reader. London: Routledge.
7.
Biglan, A.1973. Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology57:204-213.
8.
Butler, D. L.1992. Frog skin, time series, and other kinds of data: Nonisomorphic representation and analysis. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers24:265-268.
9.
Butler, D. L.1993. Graphics in psychology: Pictures, data, and especially concepts. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers25:81-92.
10.
Cheng, P. C., and H. A. Simon. 1995. Scientific discovery and creative reasoning with diagrams. In The creative cognition approach, edited by S. M. Smith, T. B. Ward, and R. A. Finke, 205-228. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11.
Cleveland, W. S.1984. Graphs in scientific publications. American Statistician38:261-269.
12.
Cleveland, W. S.1993. Visualizing data. Summit, NJ: Hobart.
13.
Cleveland, W. S., and R. McGill. 1985. Graphical perception and graphical methods for analyzing scientific data. Science229:828-833.
14.
Cole, S.1992. Making science: Between nature and society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
15.
Collins, R.1994. Why the social sciences won’t become high-consensus, rapid-discovery science. Sociological Forum9:155-177.
16.
Davis, J. A., and A. M. Jacobs. 1968. Tabular presentation. In International encyclopedia of the social sciences, vol. 15, 497-509. New York: Macmillan.
17.
De Mey, M.1992. The cognitive paradigm. 2nd ed.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
18.
Friedman, H.2003. Methodolatry and graphicacy. American Psychologist58:817-818.
19.
Friendly, M., and D. Denis. 2000. The roots and branches of modern statistical graphics. Journal de la Société Française de Statistique141:51-60.
20.
Funkhouser, H. G.1937. Historical development of the graphical representation of statistical data. Isis3:269-404.
21.
Galison, P.1997. Image and logic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
22.
Giere, R. N.1988. Explaining science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
23.
Giere, R. N.1999. Science without laws. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
24.
Golinski, J.1998. Making natural knowledge: Constructivism and the history of science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
25.
Gooding, D.1989. “Magnetic curves” and the magnetic field: Experimentation and representation in the history of a theory. In The uses of experiment: Studies in the natural sciences, edited by D. Gooding, T. Pinch, and S. Schaffer, 183-223. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
26.
Goslow, G. E., Jr., H. J. Seeherman, C. R. Taylor, M. N. McCutchin, and N. C. Heglund. 1981. Electrical activity and relative length changes of dog limb muscles as a function of speed and gait. Journal of Experimental Biology94:15-42.
27.
Gould, S. J.1995. Ladders and cones: Constraining evolution by canonical icons. In Hidden histories of science, edited by R. B. Silver, 37-67. New York: New York Review of Books.
28.
Gross, A. G.1990. The rhetoric of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
29.
Gross, A. G., J. E. Harmon, and M. Reidy. 2002. Communicating science: The scientific article from the 17th century to the present. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
30.
Hacking, I.1983. Representing and intervening. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
31.
Hankins, T. L.1999. Blood, dirt, and nomograms: A particular history of graphs. Isis90:50-80.
32.
Hanson, N. R.1958. Patterns of discovery. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
33.
Hedges, L. V.1987. How hard is hard science, how soft is soft science?American Psychologist42:443-455.
34.
Hempel, C. G.1966. Philosophy of natural science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
35.
Holmes, F. L., and K. M. Olesko. 1995. The images of precision: Helmholtz and the graphical method in physiology. In The values of precision, edited by M. N. Wise, 198-221. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
36.
Jacoby, W. G.1998. Statistical graphics for visualizing multivariate data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
37.
Killeen, P. R.1985. Reflections on a cumulative record. Behavior Analyst8:177-183.
38.
Kosslyn, S. M.1994. Elements of graph design. New York: Freeman.
39.
Krohn, R.1991. Why are graphs so central in science?Biology and Philosophy6:181-203.
40.
Kruskal, W.1978. Taking data seriously. In Toward a metric of science, edited by Y. Elkana, J. Lederberg, R. Merton, A. Thackray, and H. Zuckerman, 139-169. New York: John Wiley.
41.
Kuhn, T. S.1970. Reflections on my critics. In Criticism and the growth of knowledge, edited by I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave, 231-278. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
42.
Latour, B.1983. Give me a laboratory and I will raise the world. In Science observed, edited by K. D. Knorr-Cetina and M. Mulkay, 141-170. London: Sage Ltd.
43.
Latour, B.1987. Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
44.
Latour, B.1990. Drawing things together. In Representation in scientific practice, edited by M. Lynch and S. Woolgar, 19-68. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
45.
Latour, B., and S. Woolgar. 1986. Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Rev. ed.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
46.
Legge, G. E., Y. Gu, and A. Luebker. 1989. Efficiency of graphical perception. Perception and Psychophysics46:365-374.
47.
Le Grand, H. E.1990. Is a picture worth a thousand experiments? In Experimental inquiries: Historical, philosophical and social studies of experimentation in science, edited by H. E. Le Grand, 241-270. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
48.
Lemke, J.1998. Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science, edited by J. R. Martin and R. Veel, 87-113. New York: Routledge.
49.
Lindsey, D.1978. The scientific publication system in social science. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
50.
Lodahl, J. B., and G. Gordon. 1972. The structure of scientific fields and the functioning of university graduate departments. American Sociological Review37:57-72.
51.
Lynch, M.1985. Discipline and the material form of images: An analysis of scientific visibility. Social Studies of Science15:37-66.
52.
Lynch, M.1990. The externalized retina: Selection and mathematization in the visual documentation of objects in the life sciences. In Representation in scientific practice, edited by M. Lynch and S. Woolgar, 153-186. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
53.
Lynch, M., and S. Woolgar. 1990. Introduction: Sociological orientations to representational practice in science. In Representation in scientific practice, edited by M. Lynch and S. Woolgar, 1-18. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
54.
Machado, A., and F. J. Silva. 1998. Greatness and misery in the teaching of the psychology of learning. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior70:215-234.
55.
Machlup, F.1961. Are thesocial sciences really inferior?Southern Economic Journal27:173-184.
56.
McGuire, W. J.1989. A perspectivist approach to the strategic planning of programmatic scientific research. In Psychology of science: Contributions to metascience, edited by B. Gholson, W. R. Shadish, Jr., R. A. Neimeyer, and A. C. Houts, 214-245. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
57.
McNamee, S. J., and C. L. Willis. 1994. Stratification in science: A comparison of publication patterns in four disciplines. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization15:396-416.
58.
Miles, M. B., and A. M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. 2nd ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
59.
Monmonier, M. S.1995. Drawing the line: Tales of maps and cartocontroversy. New York: H. Holt.
60.
Montgomery, S. L.2003. Chicago guide to communicating science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
61.
Morgan, M. S.1990. The history of econometric ideas. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
62.
Myers, G.1990. Every picture tells a story: Illustrations in E. O. Wilson’s Sociobiology.In Representation in scientific practice, edited by M. Lynch and S. Woolgar, 231-265. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
63.
Peden, B. F., and S. E. Hausmann. 2000. Data graphs in introductory psychology textbooks: A content analysis. Teaching of Psychology27:93-97.
64.
Popper, K. R.1963. Conjectures and refutations. New York: Harper-Row.
65.
Roth, W.-M., and G. M. Bowen. 1999. Of cannibals, missionaries, and converts: Graphing competencies from grade 8 to professional science inside (classrooms) and outside (field/laboratory). Science, Technology, and Human Values24:179-212.
66.
Roth, W.-M., G. M. Bowen, and M. K. McGinn. 1999. Differences in graph-related practices between high school biology textbooks and scientific ecology journals. Journal of Research in Science Teaching36:977-1019.
67.
Roth, W.-M., and M. K. McGinn. 1997. Graphing: Cognitive ability or practice?Science Education81:91-106.
68.
Roth, W.-M., and M. K. McGinn. 1998. Inscriptions: Toward a theory of representing as social practice. Journal of Educational Research68:35-59.
69.
Rudwick, M. J. S.1985. The great Devonian controversy: The shaping of scientific knowledge among gentlemanly specialists. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
70.
Shapin, S., and S. Schaffer. 1985. Leviathan and the air-pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
71.
Shiffrin, R. M., and W. Schneider. 1977. Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. Psychological Review84:127-190.
72.
Simonton, D. K.2004. Psychology’s status as a scientific discipline: Its empirical placement within an implicit hierarchy of the sciences. Review of General Psychology8:59-67.
73.
Smith, L. D.2005. Graphical methods pre-twentieth century. In Encyclopedia of statistics in behavioral science, vol.2, edited by B. S. Everitt and D. C. Howell, 758-762. London: Wiley.
74.
Smith, L. D., L. A. Best, V. A. Cylke, and D. A. Stubbs. 2000. Psychology without p values: Data analysis at the turn of the 19th century. American Psychologist55:260-263.
75.
Smith, L. D., L. A. Best, and D. A. Stubbs. 1999. Psychology’s history of graph use: A survey of inscription practices. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, August, Boston.
76.
Smith, L. D., L. A. Best, D. A. Stubbs, A. B. Archibald, and R. Roberson-Nay. 2002. Constructing knowledge: The role of graphs and tables in hard and soft psychology. American Psychologist57: 749-761.
77.
Smith, L. D., L. A. Best, D. A. Stubbs, J. Johnston, and A. B. Archibald. 2000. Scientific graphs and the hierarchy of the sciences: A Latourian survey of inscription practices. Social Studies of Science30:73-94.
78.
Stafford, B. M.1994. Good looking: Essays on the virtue of images. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
79.
Stafford, B. M.1996. Artful science: Enlightenment entertainment and the eclipse of visual education. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
80.
Storer, N. W.1967. The hard sciences and the soft: Some sociological observations. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association55:75-84.
81.
Tilling, L.1975. Early experimental graphs. British Journal for the History of Science8:193-213.
82.
Wainer, H.1992. Understanding graphs and tables. Educational Researcher21:14-23.
83.
Wainer, H.2005. Graphic discovery: A trout in the milk and other visual adventures. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
84.
Wainer, H., and D. Thissen. 1981. Graphicaldata analysis. Annual Review of Psychology32:191-241.
85.
Wainer, H., and P. F. Velleman. 2000. Statistical graphics: Mapping the pathways of science. Annual Review of Psychology52:305-335.
86.
Wilkinson, L.1999. Graphs for research in counseling psychology. Counseling Psychologist27:384-407.
87.
Wilkinson, L., and the Task Force on Statistical Inference. 1999. Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist54:594-604.
88.
Woolgar, S.1988. Science: The very idea. London: Tavistock.
89.
Ziman, J.1978. Reliable knowledge: An exploration of the grounds for belief in science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
