I really appreciated the emphasis on process in all of these articles. They clearly illustrated the work that went into each visualization, as well as the inspirations, complications, and collaborations involved in that work. It was evident that everyone working on these projects had thought seriously about the users and implications of their work, and they explained it very clearly for someone unfamiliar with these projects, data or institutions. I was especially impressed by the honesty in which they discussed their evolution throughout the working process, as they learned which factors to consider more and which to leave behind.

I do feel that maps at this scale somehow leave something behind, even when claiming to focus so heavily on the individual, although I don’t know how to articulate what that is. I think this mostly comes to light in the discussion of possible affinities, as it seems impossible to truly map on this scale while still representing actual human connection in all of its forms. They address this by emphasizing that their work only utilizes that which leaves a digital trace, but I was still left feeling that the possible affinities were not complete representations. That said, I don’t think any of the visualizations are claiming to represent everything about an institution, nor are they attempting to craft truly individual narratives.

I’m curious about how these visualizations work in practice, especially on the level of a poster or a printed image. In the printed articles, it was clear that zooming would be necessary to understand all the information provided by the visualization, so I don’t see how all of that would information would be accessible in a static image. I appreciated the idea of balconies above a static image on the floor, but that still basically only allows for two levels, whereas a dynamic, digital visualization allows the user to engage with levels and layers of information with much more nuance. I also was wondering whether such maps would work in non-academic settings, and if so, what sort of parameters and digital traces would be necessary to create them. Even in my own field, I find that people collaborate with others who work on very different topics from their own, and I don’t know that this would be represented in the sort of visualization that focuses on things such as keywords, institutions, and publications.

As I mentioned before, I felt uneasy with some of the ideas of representing individuals through large-scale visualizations. The authors addressed it at some level, but I think the implications of such maps could be not entirely positive. As far as I know, publishing and collaboration are still connected with bias in many institutions. I’m worried that in such a graphic, they would be emphasized even more than they are already, so members of an institution could be affected negatively for not having access to them. Of course, the article pointed out ways in which bias could be minimized through the use of their visualizations, and I’m sure there are many benefits, but with anything that represents nuanced activities through visualization, I’m worried about what can’t be represented.

These articles worked very well together to give a historical and theoretical understanding of the methods used, an exploration of their usage in this project, and a very clear explanation of their implementation and implications. I previously knew very little about any of the techniques or technologies mentioned, and they definitely succeeded in provoking my interest in them.