Introduction
Images and other forms of visualisation are a central part of communicating research. However, the choices we make about what we depict and how we depict it can reinforce negative perceptions and embed implicit assumptions. To maintain the quality of our research—and to help make research spaces more inclusive—it is essential to consider these issues when designing visual materials.
One clear example is how we depict people. By only representing a narrow demographic (often white, cisgender men), we exclude the majority of the world’s population from being represented in or connected to research. This is an issue of representation that can have significant real-world consequences. For example, many medical conditions present differently on darker skin tones, yet are frequently illustrated only on lighter skin, leading to adverse healthcare outcomes for People of Colour.
- Have a look at the Black and Brown Skin website, particularly their medical resource ‘Mind The Gap’.
- Listen to How Diversity in Medical Illustrations Can Improve Healthcare Outcomes by Chidiebere Ibe, a TED talk by the illustrator of the dark-skinned foetus.
Another example is how we construct maps of the world. Different map projections distort different features of the globe, each carrying implicit messages about the world. The widely used Mercator projection significantly distorts the relative size of landmasses, often exaggerating the prominence of Europe and North America. This can reinforce neo-colonial ideas of global north superiority.
- Read The Problem With Our Maps by Nick Routley, an article on about the issues with different map projections.
- Explore the Map Projection Playground by Florian Ledermann and reflect on how different a world map can appear—how might this influence how we think about different places?
Humans also exhibit bias based on the positioning of information in lists—we tend to favour the first and last items. This unconscious ordering bias affects how we perceive information and can influence our understanding of categories such as race, gender, or nationality when presented in tables or lists. Often, dominant identities of the global north are prioritised, reinforcing the idea that these are the ‘default’ or ‘norm’ while marginalising others. This can perpetuate harmful assumptions and structural inequalities.
Ultimately, the way we design and present visual information matters. Our choices can either challenge or reinforce exclusionary norms, shaping who feels seen, included, and valued in research. By being intentional and reflective in how we communicate visually, we can help make research more equitable, representative, and impactful.
Practical Steps and Tools
When listing information in your communications, consider what the order suggests. Try alphabetising or randomising the list to avoid implying a hierarchy.
When depicting people, use varied and diverse imagery. Don’t just replicate the dominant or ‘default’ category.
Ask yourself: Are there stereotypes or assumptions embedded in your visualisations? If so, should they be there?
Think creatively about how to visualise research. Engage with end-users, public stakeholders or PPI groups.
References and Further Resources
- The Effect of Map Bias on Developing Countries by Aiden Sun discusses how map bias can affect perceptions of other people and places.
- Why Your View of the World May be Completely Wrong by Caitlin Posillico explores map bias and the implications of different projections.
