Using Graphics to Report Evaluation Data: A Social Work Review
This paper reviews "Using Graphics to Report Evaluation Data" by Ed Minter and Mary Michaud (2003), examining the authors' recommendations for selecting and designing effective graphic formats in social work evaluation contexts. The review covers key graphic types — bar charts, pie charts, line graphs, illustrations, and photographs — and summarizes the authors' guidance on keeping visuals simple, selecting graphics that communicate the most important message, and supplementing visuals with appropriate contextual information. The paper also highlights the checklist framework the authors provide for practitioners preparing evaluation graphics, and discusses the importance of audience awareness, message clarity, and peer feedback in producing meaningful data presentations.
- Introduction: Identifies source article and its core claim
- Key Principles for Presenting Data Graphically: Three guiding principles for effective graphic design
- Bar Charts and Pie Charts: Guidance on bar and pie chart construction and limitations
- Line Graphs and Illustrations: How line graphs and illustrations convey trends and context
- Photographs and the Evaluation Checklist: Photographs for comparison and checklist for planning graphics
- Conclusion: Final design principles and peer feedback recommendations
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The review closely tracks the source article's argument, summarizing each graphic type in sequence while raising genuine evaluative observations, such as the misleading potential of unsupported pie chart data.
- The writer uses concrete examples from the article — such as the Ozaukee County smoking data — to ground abstract points about graphic design in specific, memorable cases.
- The paper maintains a focused, critical voice appropriate to a brief article review, offering commentary rather than merely restating the source.
Key academic technique demonstrated
This paper demonstrates source-engaged critical summary: the writer paraphrases the authors' recommendations while interjecting evaluative observations, such as noting when authors contradict their own earlier advice (e.g., recommending additional text beneath pie charts despite earlier warnings against extraneous information). This technique shows active reading and analytical engagement with a primary source.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a brief introduction identifying the source and its core claim. The body moves through each graphic type discussed in the article — bar charts, pie charts, line graphs, illustrations, and photographs — in roughly the same order as the source. It closes by summarizing the authors' practical checklist and design principles. The structure is linear and article-driven, making it a clear example of an organized article review format.
Introduction
The authors of the article Using Graphics to Report Evaluation Data purposefully explain that data derived from various graphic styles can and should "tell a story" and provide a great deal more, including putting "a human face on a project" (Minter et al.). This review examines the authors' key recommendations and the range of graphic formats they discuss for communicating evaluation data effectively.
Key Principles for Presenting Data Graphically
The graphics the authors present include bar charts, line graphs, pie charts, and illustrations such as diagrams, maps, drawings, and photographs. The main ideas to be taken into consideration when presenting data through graphics are: (a) keep it simple; (b) pick a graphic that "communicates the most important message"; and (c) never presume that others will read the text prepared as an accompaniment to a graphic (Minter et al.). These three principles serve as the foundation for all the specific guidance that follows in the article.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.