Using graphs and diagrams to explain

I recently had a discussion with a colleague about how we should represent the findings of an evaluation study. I am a big fan of using graphs and diagrams to explain the findings – as they say a “picture tells a thousand words”.

But we often see many misuses of graphs and diagrams that can provide an incorrect idea for the reader. I came across an example from a report recently which I have reproduced here:

This is an interesting example of a pictogram or scatter chart to represent two variables: 1) level of opportunity/risk (vertical scale) and 2) size of share value (size of bubbles).

But examing this chart, it made me wonder – what does the horizontal scale represent? In other words, on what basis are the bubbles placed left to right? I cannot see any logical basis in the chart for the horizontal location of the bubbles. I think that’s unfortunate as such a chart could use the horizontal scale to reinforce the share value variable or distribute the bubbles on another basis (e.g. sector of interest).

For those interested in graphic presentation of information, some key texts to read are found on the website of Edward Tufte, a leading specialist in this area.

Glenn

conference evaluation and network mapping

Often we attend conferences where one of the stated objectives is “increase/build/create networking” and I always found it odd that there is never any attempt to measure if networking really took place.

A possible solution is to map networks created by participants at conferences – and compare these networks to those that existed before the conferences.

This is exactly what I have done recently in a network mapping study that you can view here (pdf – 1 MB) and the above image is from. From the LIFT conference of 2007, we mapped the networks of 28 participants (out of 450 total participants) before and after the conferences. We found some quite surprising results:

• These 28 participants had considerable networks prior to the conference – reaching some 30% of all participants.
• These networks increased after the conference -the 28 people were then connected to some 50% of all participants.
• Based on the sample of 28 participants, most participants doubled their networks at LIFT07 – e.g. if you went to the conference knowing five people, you would likely meet another five people at the conference – thus doubling your network to ten.

Although this is only a mapping of 28 participants, it provides some insight into conferences and how networks develop – it’s also quite interesting that 28 people can reach 50% (225 people) of the total conference participants in this case.

View the full report here (pdf – 1 MB).

If you are after further information on network mapping, I recommend Rick Davies’ webpage on network mapping. Although it focuses on development projects it contains a lot of useful information on network mapping in general.

Glenn

Measuring social media

An interesting post from the Buzz Bin which provides a good summary of current thoughts on how to measure social media such as blogs, social networks and podcasts. Well worth a read…

Glenn