Seriously, am I the only one who sees a problem here?


The 37% for biofuels is the only one that looks ok to me. But food crops are listed as 25% in the paragraph but on the chart, it looks more like 12%. Livestock reads as 3% in the paragraph but barely registers on the chart. Non-food crops read as 5% in the paragraph, but at about 1.5 / 2% on the chart.

I re-read this several times, just to be sure, but the paragraph clearly refers to fig 2,1 (which it is, even if it does not show up on the photo).

This is from a serious book, published by a serious academic publisher, and written by one of my favorite (really serious) sociologist, so, this bothers me a lot even though it looks like first world problem.

2 thoughts on “Bad Graphic!

  1. Quit using an inequality text by well regarded sociologist with similar sorts of problems. In one chapter none of the tables matched the text. Wrote to publisher but heard nothing.

    • Dang, now I’m curious to know who it is and which text.

      Do you think dataviz is a problem in academic publishing / sociology? I think it is, both in terms of esthetics and substance.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *