Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Science Communication
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Arsenault, D. J.
Right arrow Articles by Beauchamp, E. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Visual Inscriptions in the Scientific Hierarchy

Mapping the "Treasures of Science"

Darin J. Arsenault

Alliant International University

Laurence D. Smith

University of Maine, ldsmith{at}maine.edu

Edith A. Beauchamp

University of Maine

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.

Key Words: inscriptions • graphs • graphism • tables • Latour • hard and soft science

Science Communication, Vol. 27, No. 3, 376-428 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/1075547005285030
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?