Using the “cleaned” dataset of the content within issues of The Crisis in Flourish allows for a variety of research questions to be answered, particularly within the Network Graph function.
This particular tool allows for the relative connection and comparison between the content included in The Crisis to be analyzed, as specified by which columns of data are selected to create a visualization.
Reviewing this tool, I thought it would be interesting to examine the following research question:
How does Flourish’s Network Graph tool allow for an analysis of the overall contributions of various authors between 1910 and 1922?
To answer this question, I utilized the two spreadsheets and organized them in the “Select Columns to Visualize” box:
For Links, “A” refers to “source,” “B” refers to “author,” and “C” refers to “weight.”
For Points, “A” refers to “author,” “B” refers to “most_common_genre,” and “C” refers to “total_extent.”
I selected and ordered these columns as listed to focus the visualization on the authors and how many total pages, within the issues published in the specified timeframe, did they write.
Using this tool, with this selection of data columns, allows for a few analyses to take place in response to the research question.
Figure 1. Visualization of author contributions
Figure 2. Primary: W.E.B. Du Bois
Figure 3. Primary: Madeline G. Allison
Figure 4. Primary: Jessie Fauset
First, the visualization creates points that are sized in order to display the amount, in this case the total pages written by specific authors. In the visualization, the three largest appear as W.E.B. Du Bois, Madeline G. Allison, and Jessie Fauset. Not only does this visualization indicate to readers that these three authors are included the most (in terms of pages) in the issues of The Crisis between 1910 and 1922, but the color of each informs readers of their most common genres. In the case of these three authors, they each contributed articles the most over other genres.
While these three are the highest contributors in terms of page count, within the data, there remains roughly 420 other authors who were also published within the time frame. Next to these three authors, the following highest contributors (Vincent Saunders, Georgia Douglas Johnson, John Henry Adams) published works outside of the article genres, including images and poetry.
Figure 5. Primary: Vincent Saunders
Figure 6. Primary: Georgia Douglas Johnson
Figure 7. Primary: John Henry Adams
I note this because the visualization here, while informing users of those who contributed the most in page count, it could be misleading in that users may deduce that each issue was primarily filled with articles versus other genre content. Furthermore, this visualization is also skewed, in my opinion, since these three authors are the most visible points on the graph but by emphasizing their points, the remaining contributors are less visible, which makes it hard to make comparisons. Whereas, if you focus on the following three highest contributors, only then can you identify what genre they are and their overall contribution. I must also note that finding each of these names, given that their points were not quite as large, required spending more time trying to find their location in the visualization, which is another drawback of this tool.
Overall, while I find the Flourish tool to be useful in answering very specific research questions, when it is used, in particular this network graphing visualization tool, creators and users alike should consider the various ways that the visualization may not be as wholly representative as desired and could in fact produce misleading conclusions and take-aways. When working with data such as issues of The Crisis (which includes a variety of page lengths and content genres) in the aggregate as in this visualization, the aspects that made each issue unique (such as the inclusion of varied materials), may get lost in the visualization.