A Survey of Visualisation Tools in the Social Sciences
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A Survey of Visualisation Tools in the Social Sciences Paul S. Ell Department of Economic and Social History, The Queen’s University of Belfast, Belfast, BT7 1NN Telephone: 01232 273883. Facsimile: 01232 314768, E-mail: [email protected] Project WWW site: http://qub.ac.uk/ss/esh/visual/ Project E-mail discussion group: [email protected] 1. Introduction This report details a project jointly funded by the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) through the Advisory Group on Computer Graphics (AGOCG) and the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) to produce a survey of computer graphics and visualisation tools in use in the Social Sciences. Several imperatives were identified to be addressed by the survey. • To discover current visualisation practice in different subject areas across the social sciences • To identify specific software packages in use together with the advantages and disadvantages of using these packages • To relay current general and subject specific technological limitations • To attempt to establish a dialog with software vendors to discuss how technological problems might be resolved • To engender a debate amongst social scientists on current visualisation practice. 2. Approach In order to realise these objectives a number of steps were taken including the design of a questionnaire, the construction of a series of project web pages, the use of e-mail discussion groups, letters to software manufacturers and the development of a dedicated project discussion list. 2.1 Questionnaires First, we wrote to the Heads of Department of all social science units in the United Kingdom enclosing multiple copies of a questionnaire to be forwarded to all interested staff. It was our belief that the full merits and limitations of particular software could only be fully established through the use of the software with real data, involving real questions and real problems. We, therefore, consulted the real experts in the use of computer graphics and visualisation software in the social sciences - the user, in third-level institutions. Each questionnaire (See Appendix 1 for a copy of the proforma) requested the following information for each software product used • Basic information including the name of the package, version, address of the manufacturer/producer, operating system etc 1 • Use to which the software was put including whether used in teaching or research, specific uses and generic uses • An assessment of the value of the software and how easy it was to use • The advantages of the software • Problems in the use of the software • Possible areas of development for the software In addition each person completing one or more questionnaires was asked to also complete one Cover Sheet including contact information and their subject area. They were also invited to make general observations on the use, or potential use, of visualisation techniques in their work Any survey is only as good as the information upon which it is based. We therefore encouraged the widest cross-section of academics to complete our survey on the use of visualisation software. In mid-January a letter containing details of the project together with multiple copies of the questionnaire were sent to 780 Arts and Social Science departments in third-level teaching institutions throughout the United Kingdom. The list of departments was drawn from current prospectuses held by the Queen's University Main Library and supplemented through further searches over the World Wide Web. Mindful that it was quite possible, and indeed likely, that many academics might be using computer graphics but not be aware that they were using visualisation tools, in the covering letter we specifically invited responses from users of the software groups listed below. • Spreadsheet software such as Excel and Quattro Pro • Statistical software such as Minitab, SAS and SPSS • Image processing software such as Adobe Photoshop, Imagetool, LView, and Paint Shop Pro • Computer graphics software such as Corel Draw, UNIRAS and XMGR • Cartographic software such as GIMMS • Geographical Information System software such as ARCINFO, ARCVIEW and SPANS • Any other computer graphics or visualisation software 2.2 World Wide Web Service In addition a World Wide Web service (http://www.qub.ac.uk/ss/esh/visual/) was established to publicise the survey and encourage participation. The early service included the opportunity to complete a questionnaire online using a cgi form or download a form in WORD 2.0, ASCII or HTML format to be printed and sent through the post. An e-mail service was also devised to allow either a paper or electronic copy of the questionnaire to be sent. This service has now grown and includes full details of the project, lists of related projects and other relevant sites including software vendors’ home pages. Full project results based on the questionnaires received and replies sent by software manufacturers are now also available online. These pages will remain available on the Queen’s University server for at least the next 12 months. 2.3 E-mail lists In addition to the Institutions contacted through traditional means, extensive use was also made of existing e-mail discussion groups. Details of the project together with relevant URLs to the 2 project's World Wide Web pages were sent to around 40 discussion groups. Subscribers to these lists were encouraged to visit the project home page and complete a questionnaire and, further, to forward the message to other lists to which they felt the survey might be relevant, and to individual colleagues. 2.4 E-mail Discussion Group – visualisation-tools We also established an e-mail discussion group, visualisation-tools, under the Mailbase system. Mailbase provides electronic discussion lists for the UK higher education community. They currently have 1,874 discussion lists, and 129,745 members worldwide. This list provides a forum for social scientists to discuss the use of visualisation in their teaching and research. In the short-term the list was intended to augment our review of visualisation tools in the social sciences. Traffic on the list so far has been limited although subscribers have been encouraged to visit the project home page and comment on the questionnaire responses posted. Nonetheless membership of the list has increased steadily and now stands at around 50. It is intended to continue to operate visualisation-tools and it may become an important forum for discussion in the future. Details of how to joint the group are available from the project’s home page. 2.5 Manufacturers contacted Following initial survey results, software manufacturers were advised of the existence of the survey and web site, containing comments on their software. They were invited, in turn, to comment on the comments of academics using their software. In total we contacted suppliers of 27 different software packages. The list was largely self- selecting based on the number of questionnaire replies received for each product (if only one questionnaire was received with limited comments there was little point in asking the software producer for their views) and the ease of obtaining an address for the manufacturer/distributor. In many instances software reviewers supplied contact details. The distributors or authors of the following software packages were contacted. 1. Adobe Illustrator 2. Adobe Photoshop 3. ARC/INFO 4. Claris Works 5. ER Mapper 6. ERDAS 7. Microsoft Excel 8. GLIM 9. IDRISI 10. MapInfo 11. ARCVIEW 12. Quattro Pro 13. Minitab 14. L-View 15. Microsoft PowerPoint 16. Microsoft Word 3 17. Microsoft Publisher 18. Corel Draw 19. Corel Xara 20. Paintshop Pro 21. SAS 22. G-Sharp 23. SPSS 24. Auto Cad 25. Toolbook 26. 3D Studio Max 27. Harvard Graphics The response from manufacturers has been very disappointing - possibly a mark of the limited commercial importance that they place on sales to the academic, and more specifically, social science market. By early August 1998 only two manufacturers had replied to our letter, ERDAS (UK) Limited and the Claris Corporation. Their comments are included under the relevant software headings in section 3. 3. Results The response rate to questionnaires has been limited, but not disappointingly so. We have received over 200 completed questionnaires. Of these almost 70 per cent were completed using the on-line form, many in response to messages posted to e-mail discussion groups. The number of replies to the questionnaires sent by post has been disappointing. Only 76 questionnaires were returned through the post, a response rate of less than 10 per cent bearing in mind the number sent out. It is worth pointing out that, despite personal letters, very few members of related projects, funded under this initiative, have themselves completed questionnaires! Whilst we welcome the response to the on-line questionnaire, the result is that we have a rather greater proportion of questionnaires from academics from outside the UK and from outside the social sciences - although only social scientists were asked to participate. The limited response rate may be the result of a number of factors. • Relevant literature suggests that a response rate to questionnaire surveys of around 20 to 25 per cent is good. The response rate here is just over 25 per cent. However, a small number of these come from academics from outside the social sciences. Further, the response rate here is based on the number of academic units contacted by letter. More were contacted through e-mail discussion groups and, of course, units contain more than one member of staff. • Some respondents simply advised us that they did not consider themselves, or their units, to fall within the Social Sciences. We were aware of this problem but did not wish to pre- judge, on the basis of limited information, those units that were within the social sciences. • We did not request replies from units or academics that were not using visualisation tools in their work.