Visual Inscriptions in the Scientific Hierarchy

Abstract

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.