Article published In:
Information VisualizationEdited by Isabel Meirelles, Marian Dörk and Yanni Loukissas
[Information Design Journal 27:1] 2022
► pp. 85–101
Edited by Isabel Meirelles, Marian Dörk and Yanni Loukissas
[Information Design Journal 27:1] 2022
► pp. 85–101
“This figure could be better, but how?”
Advancing design critique in STEM research labs
This paper considers whether scientists can improve their visual design abilities by participating in critiques. In design education, a critique is a class session where designers present their work-in-progress and receive feedback from faculty, peers, and invited critics. In this study, we show that an intervention consisting of (1) an introduction to visual principles, (2) an explanation of critique methodology, and (3) participation in a group critique led to a significant increase in both the quantity and quality of feedback that scientists provided on a set of figures. These findings indicate that critiques can be a valuable practice for scientists to integrate into their research labs.
Keywords: scientific visualization, design critique, communicating science, visual communication in science, graphic design for scientists
Article outline
- A potential solution: Design critiques
- Method
- The critique intervention
- Assessing the critique intervention
- Results
- Increased feedback quantity in both problems and suggestions
- Discussion
- Nature of the Improvements
- 1.Scientists progressed from merely identifying visual problems to actively proposing design solutions
- 2.Scientists increased the specificity in both their suggestions and problem identifications, including more references to visual principles as supporting rationale
- 3.Scientists became more focused on using visual attributes to direct attention to a “key message”
- 4.Scientists increased the number of suggestions that employed visual attributes rather than text editing
- 5.Scientists expect figures to communicate specific kinds of content
- Nature of the Improvements
- Conclusions
- Implementing critique in STEM lab groups
- Acknowledgements
-
References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].
References
Bargh, J. A., & Schul, Y.
(1980) On the cognitive benefits of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology,
72
(5), 593–604. 
Belknap, G.
(2019) 150 years of scientific illustration. Nature,
575
(7781), 25–28.
Berkun, S. [HIVE 2011
Bierut, Michael
Bisra, K., Liu, Q., Nesbit, J. C., Salimi, F., & Winne, P. H.
(2018) Inducing Self-Explanation: A Meta-Analysis. Educational Psychology Review,
30
(3), 703–725.
Borkin Gajos, K., Peters, A., Mitsouras, D., Melchionna, S., Rybicki, F., Feldman, C., & Pfister, H.
(2011) Evaluation of Artery Visualizations for Heart Disease Diagnosis. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 17(12), 2479–2488.
Buster, K., & Crawford, P.
(2009) Critique Handbook, The: The Art Student’s Sourcebook and Survival Guide (2nd edition). Pearson.
Cairo, A.
(2012) Functional Art, The: An introduction to information graphics and visualization (1st edition). New Riders.
Cho, K., & MacArthur, C.
(2010) Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction,
20
(4), 328–338.
Clarkson, M. D.
(2014) Learning how to teach visual communication design skills to scientists and engineers. 2014 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference (IPCC), 1–9.
Cleveland, & Mcgill, R.
(1985) Graphical Perception and Graphical Methods for Analyzing Scientific Data. Science (American Association for the Advancement of Science), 229(4716), 828–833.
Connor, A., & Irizarry, A.
(2015) Discussing Design: Improving Communication and Collaboration through Critique (1st edition). O’Reilly Media.
Christiansen, J.
(2020) Illustrating Complex Science Stories. Hatch, J. and Jackson, N., (Ed.). Knight Science Journalism (KSJ) Science Editing Handbook 168–189). Cambridge, Mass: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. [URL]
Dannels, D. P., & Martin, K. N.
(2008) Critiquing Critiques: A Genre Analysis of Feedback Across Novice to Expert Design Studios. Journal of Business and Technical Communication,
22
(2), 135–159.
Frankel, F. C.
(2020) Picturing science and engineering. MRS Bulletin,
45
(12), 994–998.
Frankel, F. C., & DePace, A. H.
(2012) Visual Strategies: A Practical Guide to Graphics for Scientists and Engineers. Yale University Press.
Hunnicutt, & Krzywinski, M.
(2016) Points of View: Pathways. Nature Methods, 13(1), 5–5.
Iwasa, J. H.
(2016) The Scientist as Illustrator. Trends in Immunology,
37
(4), 247–250.
Khoury, C. K., Kisel, Y., Kantar, M., Barber, E., Ricciardi, V., Klirs, C., Kucera, L., Mehrabi, Z., Johnson, N., Klabin, S., Valiño, Á., Nowakowski, K., Bartomeus, I., Ramankutty, N., Miller, A., Schipanski, M., Gore, M. A., & Novy, A.
(2019) Science–graphic art partnerships to increase research impact. Communications Biology,
2
(1), 1–5.
Lerman, L., & Borstel, J.
(2003) Liz Lerman’s Critical Response Process: A method for getting useful feedback on anything you make, from dance to dessert (1st edition). Dance Exchange, Inc.
Lin Fortuna, J., Kulkarni, C., Stone, M., & Heer, J.
(2013) Selecting Semantically-Resonant Colors for Data Visualization. Computer Graphics Forum, 32(3pt4), 401–410.
Manzoni, J.-F.
McInerny, G. J., Chen, M., Freeman, R., Gavaghan, D., Meyer, M., Rowland, F., Spiegelhalter, D. J., Stefaner, M., Tessarolo, G., & Hortal, J.
(2014) Information visualisation for science and policy: Engaging users and avoiding bias. Trends in Ecology & Evolution,
29
(3), 148–157.
O’Mahony Petz, J., Cook, J., Cheng, K., & Rolandi, M.
(2019) The Design Help Desk: A collaborative approach to design education for scientists and engineers. PloS One, 14(5), e0212501–e0212501.
Ostergren, M.
(2013) How scientists develop competence in visual communication. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Rodríguez Estrada, F. C., & Davis, L. S.
(2015) Improving Visual Communication of Science Through the Incorporation of Graphic Design Theories and Practices Into Science Communication. Science Communication,
37
(1), 140–148.
Rolandi, M., Cheng, K., & Pérez-Kriz, S.
(2011) A Brief Guide to Designing Effective Figures for the Scientific Paper. Advanced Materials,
23
(38), 4343–4346.
Roscoe, R. D., & Chi, M. T. H.
(2007) Understanding Tutor Learning: Knowledge-Building and Knowledge-Telling in Peer Tutors’ Explanations and Questions. Review of Educational Research,
77
(4), 534–574.
Rougier Droettboom, M., & Bourne, P. E.
(2014) Ten Simple Rules for Better Figures. PLoS Computational Biology, 10(9), e1003833–e1003833.
Schrand, T., & Eliason, J.
(2012) Feedback practices and signature pedagogies: What can the liberal arts learn from the design critique? Teaching in Higher Education,
17
(1), 51–62.
Shute, V. J.
(2008) Focus on Formative Feedback. Review of Educational Research,
78
(1), 153–189.
Smith AK, Elias LJ.
Native Reading Direction and Corresponding Preferences for Left- or Right-Lit Images. Perceptual and Motor Skills 2013;116(2):355–367.
Walsh, L., & Ross, A.
(2015) The Visual Invention Practices of STEM Researchers: An Exploratory Topology. Science Communication,
37
1, 118–139.
Whitesides, G. M.
(2004) Whitesides’ Group: Writing a Paper. Advanced Materials,
16
(15), 1375–1377.
Wong Shoresh, N., Gehlenborg, N., Nielsen, C., Schmidt Kjaergaard, R., Krzywinski, M., Savig, E., Cairo, A., Streit, M., & Lex, A.