Book review - Visualizing social science research: Maps, methods, and meaning

Abstract

Given the assumed purpose of enhancing the use of visuals in social science research, we expected the authors to model [Tufte]'s (2001) graphical excellence through revealing complex ideas with clarity, precision, and efficiency. The authors briefly identify the in- fluence of Tufte on visual representations; yet fail to heed his instruction. We found both simple and cluttered displays that lack substance, progression, and aesthetic appeal. For example, the book includes simple visuals containing information more suited to an in- text list or table (e.g., Seven rules for social science research). The book does include useful examples of concept maps, particularly when related to decision-making in the research process (e.g., Are you interested in a relationship between variables or differ- ences between groups?). Yet we generally found that concept maps, though often used to display a lot of information, can overwhelm a reader if some in-text direction is not pro- vided. Ironically, one cluttered example provides a pictorial overview of the traditional features of concept maps. Cluttered examples make it difficult for a reader to understand, which contradicts the purpose set out by the authors: to "quickly and easily scan [the] picture [and] identify key words" (p. 46). We also found duplicates of visuals: figures in Chapter 1 are duplicated in Chapter 5 and 6. Exploring and implementing Tufte's (2001, 2006) ideas further may have provided the depth and direction needed to fully develop the visual representations that served as models through the text. We appreciate the focused commitment throughout the book to two mapping strate- gies (concept maps and mind maps) and the connections made to methods. Yet we did not find the presentation useful for furthering the quality of visual displays across diverse methodological approaches within the social sciences - especially within the current digi- tal age. As represented through Figure 1, the use of concept maps is primarily connected to quantitative methods (Chapter 3), while the mind map strategy appears reserved for qualitative methods (Chapter 4). We find this forced dichotomy simplistic and particu- larly problematic when transitioning to mixed methods research (Chapter 5) - namely, when considering mixed methods as a legitimate third methodological approach (Cre- swell & Piano-Clark, 2011). Moreover, the authors fail to deliver on the promise of focus- ing on a third visual strategy throughout the book: Vee diagrams only appear at the end of Chapter 6.