Deconstructing Implicit Beliefs in Visual Data Journalism: Unstable Meanings Behind Data as Truth & Design for Insight
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.066 | 0.097 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".