Deconstructing Implicit Beliefs in Visual Data Journalism: Unstable Meanings Behind Data as Truth & Design for Insight
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conduct a deconstructive reading of a qualitative interview study with 17 visual data journalists from newsrooms across the globe. We borrow a deconstruction approach from literary critique to explore the instability of meaning in language and reveal implicit beliefs in words and ideas. Through our analysis we surface two sets of opposing implicit beliefs in visual data journalism: objectivity/subjectivity and humanism/mechanism. We contextualize these beliefs through a genealogical analysis, which brings deconstruction theory into practice by providing a historic backdrop for these opposing perspectives. Our analysis shows that these beliefs held within visual data journalism are not self-enclosed but rather a product of external societal forces and paradigm shifts over time. Through this work, we demonstrate how thinking with critical theories such as deconstruction and genealogy can reframe "success" in visual data storytelling and diversify visualization research outcomes. These efforts push the ways in which we as researchers produce domain knowledge to examine the sociotechnical issues of today's values towards datafication and data visualization. All supplemental materials for this work are available at osf.io/5fr48.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it