Network Literacy
How to Understand, Design, and Read Visual Relational Models
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.82068/pgjournal.2025.22.41.08Keywords:
Network Literacy, Information Design, Data Visualization, Relational Models, Cultural ComplexityAbstract
Models help us navigate the complexity of social life, offering simplified structures that make invisible dynamics legible. Networks stand out for their ability to represent relations directly: nodes and links reduce society to actors and their connections, exposing patterns that often remain hidden in linear accounts. Since the eighteenth century, networks have evolved from mathematical curiosities to essential tools across disciplines. Early sociograms revealed classroom friendships, sociological diagrams exposed social reproduction and inequality, and computational studies now map everything from recipes to scientific collaborations.
With their visual grammar, networks invite comparison, clustering, and interpretation across diverse domains. Yet their ubiquity also introduces risks: layouts may be mistaken for objective spaces, central nodes assumed to be more important, and dense graphs admired more for aesthetics than insight. To address these challenges, a new form of literacy is required. Network literacy can be defined as the ability to understand, design, and read visual relational models, combining conceptual knowledge of complex systems with practical skills of visualization and critical interpretation.
This paper develops the notion of network literacy as a civic and professional competency, bridging traditions of data literacy and visual literacy. It traces the history of networks from their mathematical and sociological origins to their integration into digital media and design, showing how they reconfigure the codex into a relational mode of reading. It then explores three dimensions: design choices that shape meaning, spatial thinking that guides interpretation, and experimental projects that turn visualization into performative practice. By situating networks at the intersection of information design, critical inquiry, and cultural practice, the paper argues that cultivating network literacy is essential for engaging responsibly with the relational fabric of contemporary knowledge.
References
Barabási, A.-L. (2002). Linked: The new science of networks. Perseus Pub.
Barabási, A.-L., Bello, M., Kluge-Fabényi, J., Stang, A., & Weibel, P. (Eds.). (2020). Hidden patterns: Visualizing networks at BarabásiLab. Hatje Cantz Verlag.
Bastian, M., Heymann, S., & Jacomy, M. (2009). Gephi: An open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. Proceedings of the Third International ICWSM Conference.
Blasius, J., & Schmitz, A. (2014). Empirical construction of Bourdieu’s social space. In Visualization and verbalization of data. CRC Press.
Bostock, M. (2017, April 28). A better way to code. Introducing D3.Express: The integrated discovery environment. Medium. https://medium.com/@mbostock/a-better-way-to-code-2b1d2876a3a0
Bostock, M., Ogievetsky, V., & Heer, J. (2011). D3: Data-driven documents. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 17(12), 2301–2309. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2011.185
Boullier, D. (2018). Médialab stories: How to align actor network theory and digital methods. Big Data & Society, 5(2), 205395171881672. https://doi.org/10/gfpmxh
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1979)
D’Ignazio, C. (2017). Creative data literacy: Bridging the gap between the data-haves and data-have nots. Information Design Journal, 23(1), 6–18. https://doi.org/10.1075/idj.23.1.03dig
Dondis, D. A. (1975). A primer of visual literacy. MIT Press. (Original work published 1973)
Duhaime, D. (2021). PixPlot (Version 2.0) [Computer software]. Yale Digital Humanities Lab. https://github.com/YaleDHLab/pix-plot
Eco, U. (2009). Vertigine della lista. Bompiani.
Euler, L. (1953). Leonhard Euler and the Koenigsberg bridges. Scientific American, 189(1), 66–72. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24944279
Ficozzi, M., Jacomy, M., Rodighiero, D., Beaulieu, A., & Munk, A. K. (2025). Grounding AI map: The consequences of living with the trouble of an irreductionist map. Design et Abstractions, Revue Design Arts Medias. https://journal.dampress.org/issues/design-et-abstractions/grounding-ai-map-the-consequences-of-living-with-the-trouble-of-an-irreductionist-map
Grandjean, M. (2014). La connaissance est un réseau. Perspective sur l’organisation archivistique et encyclopédique. Les Cahiers Du Numérique, 10(3), 37–54. https://doi.org/10.3166/lcn.10.3.37-54
Grandjean, M. (2015). GEPHI – Introduction to network analysis and visualization. http://www.martingrandjean.ch/gephi-introduction
Grandjean, M. (2021, June 30). Introduction to social network analysis: Basics and historical specificities [Conference presentation]. HNR+ResHist Conference. https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-03351755/document
Gray, J., Gerlitz, C., & Bounegru, L. (2018). Data infrastructure literacy. Big Data & Society, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951718786316
Harman, G. (2009). Prince of networks: Bruno Latour and metaphysics. Re.press. https://re-press.org/title/prince-of-networks-bruno-latour-and-metaphysics/
Hobbs, R. C. (2004). Mark Lombardi: Global networks. Independent Curators International.
Jacomy, M., Venturini, T., Heymann, S., & Bastian, M. (2014). ForceAtlas2, a continuous graph layout algorithm for handy network visualization designed for the Gephi software. PLoS ONE, 9(6), e98679. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0098679
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press.
Latour, B. (2013). An inquiry into modes of existence: An anthropology of the moderns. Harvard University Press.
Lazer, D. M. J., Pentland, A., Adamic, L., Aral, S., Barabási, A.-L., Brewer, D., Christakis, N., Contractor, N., Fowler, J., Gutmann, M., Jebara, T., King, G., Macy, M., Roy, D., & Van Alstyne, M. (2009). Computational social science. Science, 323(5915), 721–723. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1167742
Lévy, J., Maitre, O., & Romany, T. (2016). Rebattre les cartes: Topographie et topologie dans la cartographie contemporaine. Réseaux, 195(1), 17–48. https://doi.org/10/ghqdk7
Lima, M. (2011). Visual complexity: Mapping patterns of information. Princeton Architectural Press.
Löwgren, J., & Stolterman, E. (2004). Thoughtful interaction design: A design perspective on information technology. MIT Press.
Maaten, L. van der, & Hinton, G. (2008). Visualizing data using t-SNE. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 9(86), 2579–2605. http://jmlr.org/papers/v9/vandermaaten08a.html
Manovich, L. (2018). Can we think without categories? Digital Culture & Society, 4(1), 17–27. https://doi.org/10/gjt7qq
Marres, N. (2017). Digital sociology: The reinvention of social research. Polity.
McInnes, L. (2025). Toponymy [Computer software]. GitHub. https://github.com/TutteInstitute/toponymy
McInnes, L., Healy, J., & Melville, J. (2018). UMAP: Uniform manifold approximation and projection for dimension reduction. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1802.03426
Moreno, J. L. (1934). Who shall survive? Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing Co.
Mounier, P. (2001). Pierre Bourdieu, une introduction. Pocket/La Découverte.
Munk, A. K., Jacomy, M., Ficozzi, M., & Jensen, T. E. (2024). Beyond artificial intelligence controversies: What are algorithms doing in the scientific literature? Big Data & Society, 11(3), 20539517241255107. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517241255107
Noichl, M. (2019). Modeling the structure of recent philosophy. Synthese, 198(7), 6631–6661. https://doi.org/10/ghp7f4
Ricci, D., De Mourat, R., Leclercq, C., & Latour, B. (2017). Clues. Anomalies. Understanding. Detecting underlying assumptions and expected practices in the digital humanities through the AIME project. In E. Reyes-Garcia & N. Bouhaï (Eds.), Designing interactive hypermedia systems. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119388272.ch6
Rodighiero, D. (2021). Mapping affinities: Democratizing data visualization. Métis Presses. https://doi.org/10.37866/0563-99-9
Rodighiero, D., Derry, L., Duhaime, D., Pietsch, C., Senier, S., Walsh, M., & Schnapp, J. (2022). Surprise machines: Revealing Harvard Art Museums’ image collection. Information Design Journal, 27(1), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1075/idj.22013.rod
Romele, A. (2020). Digital hermeneutics: Philosophical investigations in new media and technologies. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Romele, A., & Rodighiero, D. (2020). Digital habitus or personalization without personality. HUMANA.MENTE Journal of Philosophical Studies, 13(37), 98–126. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3950030
Sachs, H., Stiebitz, M., & Wilson, R. J. (1988). An historical note: Euler’s Königsberg letters. Journal of Graph Theory, 12(1), 133–139. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgt.3190120114
Scott, J. (2000). Social network analysis: A handbook (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Shields, R. (2012). Cultural topology: The seven bridges of Königsburg, 1736. Theory, Culture & Society, 29(4–5), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276412451161
Venturini, T., Jacomy, M., Baneyx, A., & Girard, P. (2016). Hors champs. La multipositionnalité par l’analyse des réseaux. Réseaux, 199(5), 11–42. https://doi.org/10/ghmsrh
Venturini, T., Jacomy, M., & Jensen, P. (2021). What do we see when we look at networks: Visual network analysis, relational ambiguity, and force-directed layouts. Big Data & Society, 8(1), 20539517211018488. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211018488
Venturini, T., Munk, A. K., & Jacomy, M. (2019). Actor-network vs network analysis vs digital networks: Are we talking about the same networks? In J. Vertesi & D. Ribes (Eds.), DigitalSTS: A field guide for science & technology studies. Princeton University Press.
Windhager, F., Salisu, S., Leite, R. A., Filipov, V., & Miksch, S. (2020). Many views are not enough: Designing for synoptic insights in cultural collections. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 40(3), 58–71.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Progetto Grafico Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
