This work received State support via the French National Research Agency (ANR) as part of the Investissement d’avenir (Investments for the Future) programme, under reference no. ANR-17-CONV-0004
1Many consider drawing to be a children’s activity. I never stopped, even when I grew up, even as an adult. I draw on holiday, on the train, in bars, outside, at home. For a long time, drawing was on the fringe of my university work. While I continued to draw during lectures, meetings and seminars, it was often in secret, always “on the side” and around the “real” content, which was a serious, academic and valid output in words. For example, my thesis was 764 pages long, with over 200 figures, but only two drawings.
2After this stage, I gave myself permission to explore my graphic propensities and discovered that this hidden practice was a reality shared by other researchers, especially geographers. The brilliant column, “Le dessin du géographe” (Geographer’s drawing), published by Les Cafés géographiques, is proof of this, stating in its introduction that it intends to take this practice out of the shadows, stressing its current lack of visibility (Courtot and Sivignon, 2006). However, this has not always been true. Drawing, especially, but not limited to, map drawing, has supported the development of geography as a scientific discipline (Courtot, 2010). The field notebooks of early explorers during military and scientific expeditions were filled with drawings, which were also a valuable tool for mainstream geography in the French tradition, and considered to be “the description and rational explanation of landscapes” (Courtot, 2011). Before the existence of photography, or alongside it, geographers like Vidal de La Blache, Pierre Deffontaines (Courtot, 2010) and Alexander von Humboldt (Péaud, 2020) considered drawing in situ or from photos to be a tool for understanding territories and passing on knowledge. Graphic innovations deriving from this geographical theory, such as Emmanuel de Martonne’s block diagram, continue to be used to this day for their explanatory function (Courtot, 2010 ; Davodeau and Toublanc, 2010). Other less-known, but equally creative, solutions like Franz Schrader’s circular panoramas (“tours d’horizon”), prove that drawing used to be a field of research in its own right and an area of scientific exploration (Le Coeur, 2020).
- 1 Who worked with Marie Gloris Bardiaux-Vaïente (historian and comic book writer) to coordinate an is (...)
- 2 Sociologist who creates sociology cartoons in her thesis (Nocerino, 2020) and on her blog Emile, on (...)
3After being cast aside for a while by digital and quantitative geography, drawing appear to have been making a come-back in academia in recent years. From Simon Estrangin’s (2012) beautiful watercolours to Elise Olmedo’s sensitive mapping experiments alone and with hiking artists, illustrators and choreographers (2017; 2018; 2019), drawing is now used by some geographers for its inherent qualities, including its subjectivity, expressivity, flexibility, spontaneity and corporality. It is held up as an instrument for an experiential approach to geography, capable of analysing but also experiencing and apprehending a territory (Courtot and Estrangin, 2017; Olmedo, 2017). Graphic and mapping experiments by Frédérique Aït-Touati, Alexandra Arènes and Axelle Grégoire in Terra Forma (2019) contribute to this renewed interest in graphical representation, its epistemological dimension and its ability to usher in major changes in perspective in terms of both theory and action. In this same movement, a renewed interest in research cartoons has been observed, which is supported by researchers such as Nicolas Labarre1 or Pierre Nocerino2 in France (Baudry, 2015).
4My own (recent) practice of drawing in the world of academia both echoes and differs from these many experiences. It is not really cartoon or field drawing. Instead, I am exploring the didactic and analytical potential of drawing through graphic experiments somewhat further removed from this rich history of drawn geography. In this paper, I will be presenting this ongoing development in order to identify its scope and interest. I will do this in two stages. First, by drawing up an inventory of the different sorts of drawings I have produced, in the form of a typology. Second, by analysing these productions as a unique output so that I can identify the heuristic characteristics and shortcomings.
5Until now, I have developed three main uses for drawing within a university context: illustration, science popularisation drawings, and sketchnoting.
6During my thesis, I had the opportunity to illustrate two academic publications by the Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes: a manual on mobility and a collective publication on urban projects.
7In both cases, it was an exercise in traditional illustration where drawing occurred at a distance and in parallel to the construction of scientific content. For both publications, I drew illustrations for chapter headers (ten for the first and three for the second), using only the chapter titles (Illustration 1). Similarly, I had very little or no contact with the authors of the texts I was illustrating. My knowledge of the subject matter no doubt helped me to produce these illustrations despite the separation between textual and graphic content creation.
Illustration 1 – Have urban tolls modified mobility behaviours? Illustration for Bierlaire, Kaufmann and Rérat (2017)
Author: L. Herrmann, 2017.
8I then wanted to increase the potential interactions between drawing and scientific production by using drawing as a tool for outreach and mainstreaming. Through two post-docs, I sought to use drawing to share findings and scientific concepts with the general public.
9During a first experiment, I produced a kind of miniature exhibition, entitled “Les coulisses de la recherche” (Research: Behind the Scenes), with seven large panels featuring a mix of illustrations and texts (Illustration 2) for sharing the results of a sociological survey which I myself had conducted with residents. I designed this exhibition as one of the formats for sharing the results of my research, alongside the report and oral presentation, all three of which worked together in a complementary manner. The aim was to use drawing to communicate on the methodological process used to develop the different steps in the research project, which is a dimension that I did not have time to address during the oral presentation of the survey results. Here, although drawing is less disconnected from the research than in the previous examples of illustration, it still occurred after the development of the scientific protocol.
Illustration 2 – Extracts of panels from the Les coulisses de la recherche exhibition
Author: L. Herrmann, 2018.
10During a second post-doc at the École urbaine de Lyon (EUL), I experimented with a more integrated type of relationship between research and drawing during a participatory research workshop. The purpose of the workshop was to organise a meeting between a group of children and a researcher on the subject of air pollution in cities. The idea behind this innovative event was based on the belief that, due to children’s inquisitive and observant nature, they can contribute to the advancement of research by offering a new and different perspective on research subjects. On the other hand, the children learn from researchers and develop their skills and knowledge on a specific specialised scientific subject. Here, they were actively made aware of the phenomenon of atmospheric pollution, how it is measured and perceived, and the associated challenges. They were asked to think in a fun and creative way about solutions to improve air quality. During the workshop, I produced a graphic frieze under the watchful eye of the participants, creating a live account of the morning’s events and the solutions the children identified to protect themselves from air pollution in cities (Illustration 3). Here, drawing played a mediating role alongside other tools used by the organisers to structure the workshop (games, post-it notes, journalistic role-playing, etc.).
Illustration 3 – Graphic frieze from the participatory research workshop on air pollution
Author: H. Rivano, 2019.
11This experiment was an opportunity to measure the role of drawing in promoting sociability (Terrenoire, 1985), facilitating encounters and interaction, as an object of interest with an inoffensive appearance. The graphic frieze was drawn gradually throughout the discussions and as reflection progressed, it created a very concrete and visible representation of the ideas the children were building. I believe that the children’s frequent movements between their desks and the frieze is proof that it motivated their progress, feeding into the creative and learning process. Moreover, here, drawing leaves a tangible trace of the morning’s content, which can be presented directly at the end of the workshop, in particular to parents, which also helps promote their work.
12Sketchnoting is the third main use of drawing that I have developed until now in academic practice. It simply involves taking notes using a blend of images and text (Illustration 4). This drawn note-taking method is very popular at the moment, thanks to a number of tutorials and training courses that directly target the academic community, for example, at the Université de Lyon in 2020.
Illustration 4 – Sketchnote of the conference, Comment lire un rapport du GIEC ? (How to read an IPCC report) by Stéphane Labranche
Author: L. Herrmann, 2020, in Anthropocene 2050.
13In sketchnoting, drawing portrays a demonstration or discussion in a visual and often non-linear way. More so than in the previous formats, drawing works in hybrid with the text. It is very time-limited and must be quick as it is produced in real time. To meet this requirement for efficiency, the technique is often minimalist (in Illustration 4: black pen with touches of watercolour added later). Drawing is used here as a means of summarising an external scientific discourse, with the potential aim of disseminating it.
14Given the historical use of drawing in geography and its current use, often in the field or to record a field experiment, an important use of drawing in academia is missing from my repertoire: drawing as an investigative tool in order to collect and portray field data, whether landscape data (Franz Schrader, Pierre Deffontaines), geomorphological data (Emmanuel de Martonne), subjective data (Alexander von Humboldt) or memory and emotional data (Elise Olmedo). I have not yet used drawing during the empirical research phase. This is a field to be explored.
15Following on from this inventory, the interest in drawing for academic purposes still needs to be explored. Why draw? Does drawing have specific attributes that justify sometimes preferring it to other more traditional and more established forms of expression? The retrospective perspective that I have attempted to give my “artistic/academic” productions leads me to believe so. I believe that drawing is a useful and effective tool for researchers in many ways. I will expand on five purposes that I believe are the most important: translation, attracting attention, summary, investigation and thought.
16Drawing is an accessible language without a dissuasive vocabulary or complicated sentence structure, which is capable of mainstreaming complex scientific concepts. To this end, I believe that it is a powerful instrument for translating scientific knowledge and disseminating it to the general public, which is an important objective. I experienced the explanatory power of images in a project about measuring urban heat islands with children aged 9 and 10. One of the aims of the project was to discuss together the notions of “sensors”, “data” and data representation so that they could then work on temperature data collected in their school playground. Drawing proved to be a valuable and effective resource to discuss these very abstract notions with them and promote understanding through images (Illustration 5).
Illustration 5 – Support sketch for the workshop on data and sensors
Author: L. Herrmann, 2019.
17This project convinced me of the didactic effectiveness of drawing due to its ability to represent reality and make abstract concepts tangible. However, this explanatory power of drawing does not seem to be universally accepted in academia. I experienced this with a drawing inspired by a scientific text on urban microbiology (Illustration 6).
18This had been commissioned by the text editor. It initially received a fairly negative response from the authors, who criticised it, in particular, for “imprecisions that could trigger specialists” and for its “tongue-in-cheek” nature which may create a “bad buzz on the Internet”, comparing it to the preservation of “cutting-edge scientific knowledge” in the text.
Illustration 6 – Drawing inspired by a text on the development of a new field of study: urban microbiology
Author: L. Herrmann, 2019, in Anthropocene 2050.
19I find this controversy very interesting, beyond my surprise at this reaction to a drawing which I had imagined to be very inoffensive and explicitly comedic. I believe that it reveals two specific attributes of drawing, which, no doubt, partially explain its difficulty in finding a place in scientific publishing: its subjectivity and its openness to interpretation.
20Drawing inevitably introduces a perspective and therefore a point of view on the phenomenon it seeks to address. In this way, it is fundamentally different from traditional academic scientific outputs, which often consider themselves to be objective and therefore without any point of view (Mandel and Pagis, 2020), which is obviously untrue as all science is also a matter of point of view. I believe that the rejection of my drawing by the authors stems from a misinterpretation of the very nature of drawing. Given the arguments levelled against it (“imprecisions”, “tongue-in-cheek”), they appear to have expected this drawing to have embodied the weakest form of illustration, i.e. an exact and tautological transposition of the textual discourse it is illustrating (Labarre and Gloris, 2017). In my opinion, drawing loses its purpose if it expresses precisely the same thing as the text, in which case it becomes a mere visual repetition. Moreover, I am not even sure that this is possible given that subjectivity is an essential characteristic of drawing. As I outlined earlier, drawing always consists of looking at something from a limited and fixed point of view. I did not design my drawing as a graphic transposition of their text but as a (somewhat quirky) view of it.
21Furthermore, their criticism is based on discrediting the chosen registered, which held “imprecisions”, making them fear a “bad buzz”. Human-sized bacteria are cycling across the city... this is not an imprecision; it is fiction. Obviously my drawing does not formally say what it is and give its status as a drawing that uses humour to address a serious subject. Therefore, as for most drawings, how it is received is a matter of interpretation. In this sense, drawing is more open to interpretation than textual scientific arguments, which generally have more rigid limits on how it is to be understood. The method used and scientific protocol developed frame the scope of validity of the results presented and the potential generalisation of the discourse. However, I do not believe that being open to interpretation is as dangerous as the authors seemed to suggest (a “bad buzz”). When drawing tries to say something about reality, as in this illustration which sought to discuss the link between bacteria and the urban environment, the illustrator is bound by a sort of ethical pact with the reader. The difference between what is true and what is “fiction” must be visible, without any ambiguity, such as to avoid falsehood (Peeters, 2020). Providing that this pact is respected, the drawing is appropriate. I do not think that I failed in this ethical duty in my drawing. The comedic register and intentional caricature are evident, despite remaining open to interpretation like in any drawing. Moreover, in my opinion, the use of fiction is one of the reasons drawing is so interesting as it can contribute to multiple objectives, especially teaching. This is true for Figure 5: a temperature sensor does not look anything like the little box with antennae that I drew. I chose to sketch this iconic sensor figure, removed from reality in its physical resemblance, as it seemed more meaningful than a realistic drawing to express the concept of a sensor.
22Drawing reality is therefore an operation to visibly recreate a represented reality, with the aim of promoting understanding (Labarre and Gloris, 2017). It is based on a perspective, graphic choices (omitting certain aspects and accentuating others), and often, to a certain extent, fiction. All these attributes can contribute to the purpose of translating science, even if the methods used are not those of normal textual outputs.
23Sketchnoting is a clear example of another quality of drawing: its ability to summarise. Unlike traditional formats to publish scientific results (especially in academic journals where the formatting and style are highly standardised), drawing makes it possible to control the form and visual ranking of information (Labarre and Gloris, 2017). Anything is possible in sketchnoting. There can be extreme variations in font size, type shapes, the use of colour in letters and backgrounds, underlining and emphasis, etc. By controlling the visual form in this way, it can contribute to the effectiveness of the message as much as the content (choice of words and forms drawn).
24Sketchnoting is also a way of breaking free from the rules of textual composition, which contain expression within a certain linearity. Sketchnoting, on the other hand, uses arrows, speech bubbles, symbols and other visual mechanisms to point to multiple items, creating an effective and space-saving way of transcribing complex non-linear reasoning (Illustration 7).
Illustration 7 – Sketchnoting from the podcast Quelle ville intelligente est possible? (What smart city is possible?)
Author: L. Herrmann, 2020, in Anthropocene 2050.
25Moreover, the use of drawing covers a broad spectrum of possibilities for portraying reality, on a scale ranging from faithful resemblance to iconic abstraction, which discards resemblance in favour of significant simplification (Mc Cloud, 1993). The ability of drawing to summarise is especially prevalent in this second example, in particular through the use of symbols. For example, I use the “different” (≠) sign a lot in my sketchnotes. This very easily identifies the tensions inherent in the scientific approach to complex problems. This example is not anecdotic. Symbols are an effective means of recording “dialectical tensions at the heart of many research subjects” within the output itself (Labarre and Gloris, p. 16). Drawing is teeming with similar semiotic items (symbols, pictograms), capable of explaining concepts and abstract links between ideas using limited resources (Illustration 8).
Illustration 8 – Library of symbols and pictograms developed for my sketchnotes
Author: L. Herrmann, 2020.
26I also believe that drawing works as an instrument for attracting attention as it draws and holds the eye. First, because it has greater appeal than reading. In a text, the quality of the style will obviously also contribute to disseminating the discourse by making it easier to read. However, individuals need to start reading to discover this appeal. This “initial investment” is absent in drawing. A single glance is sufficient to identify the form and attract the reader’s attention. For example, this quality is present in sketchnotes (Illustration 9), which, at first glance, seem to be a picture, and it only becomes apparent later that they have content.
Illustration 9 – Sketchnote of the podcast “Usages de l’eau” (Uses of water) by Les Mercredis de l’Anthropocène
Author: L. Herrmann, 2020, in Anthropocene 2050.
27Additionally, drawing attracts attention by bringing knowledge to life. This ability is based on the inherent subjectiveness of drawing, which was discussed above. Introducing a point of view and therefore perspective is a means of embodying the discourse. This embodiment is often even literal as drawings are simply a way of showing the body of researchers, populations or other living organisms that exist in the world studied. This corporal dimension is very present in all my sketchnoting. Humans are at the centre of the little scenes I sketch in order to make sometimes abstract concepts and discourses tangible.
Illustration 10 – Sketchnote of the podcast “Corps soupçonnés, confinés, séparés” (Suspicious, confined and separated bodies) by Les Mercredis de l’Anthropocène
Author: L. Herrmann, 2020, in Anthropocene 2050.
28In this sense, I realised that drawing could be an effective tool for coordination, especially when used live. This was true for the participatory research workshop on pollution that I described above (Illustration 11). The recent development of a new professional field for illustration, known as “graphic facilitation”, is proof of the mediating qualities of drawing. The mobilising quality of drawing is well known to landscapers who use the “undeniable appeal” of this tool as a means of expressing the project and as a tool for consultation (Davodeau and Toublanc, 2010), which is capable of “producing a shared understanding of a territory” (Henry, 2004). Live drawing as an ongoing process therefore becomes a space for confrontation between designers and residents.
Illustration 11 – Graphic frieze produced live during a participatory research workshop
Author: L. Herrmann, 2019.
29On the other hand, drawing can also be an instrument for attracting the attention of the person drawing. This is no different from writing. I find drawing during a lesson or lecture to take notes is a good way of keeping a trace of what has been said and a means of active listening and remembering.
30Although I, personally, have very little experience in this field, drawing is also an incredible tool for investigation. The short inventory presented in the introduction demonstrates the extensive use of drawing in geography. Beyond this, a sketchbook is a sort of field notebook present in numerous disciplines, from biology to anthropology, geography, architecture, archaeology or even landscaping. This drawing practice is part of an empirical approach to observation and field reporting, drawing on the explanatory and informative functions of images (Argod, 2017).
31Like the geographers mentioned above, using drawing as an investigative tool is found in the English-speaking school of thought of townscapes, which considers the urban form through the human gaze, as a succession of spaces that are connected by moving perspectives and bodies in the city (Herrmann, 2017). The champions of this school, such as G. Cullen, have developed a sequential analysis method for the urban landscape, based on in situ city drawings (Illustration 12).
Illustration 12 – Sequential analysis: serial vision of the townscape, series of drawn landscape sequences to record a moving perception
Source: Cullen, 1961, p. 17.
32Using drawing for investigation or surveys, especially during the empirical observation phases, feeds off the medium’s unique qualities. First, let us recall that drawing is neither an imitation of observed reality nor a passive recording (Terrenoire, 1985). It is based on a series of choices (angle, scale, what is drawn, what is not, the size of the strokes, the colours, exaggerated aspects, etc.) that derive from an established view, which is sometimes already analytical, of an observed situation. Drawing therefore helps people to see (Causey, 2016) as it is the result of active exploration (Terrenoire, 1985) from the eyes to the hands and from the hands to the eyes. Through the choices associated with perspective and gestures, drawing is a way of taking some essential distance in order to develop analytical and scientific thinking. It stems from an intentional inventory that has already been thought through, making it a great tool for field scientists, especially geographers (Courtot and Estrangin, 2017).
33On the other hand, drawing has social qualities (Terrenoire, 1985) that can prove valuable in the field. Anyone drawing outside of their room will have already experienced the curiosity piqued by this practice. People look over your shoulder, children stop and passers-by make comments. Some look at it without saying anything and others stay for a long time. Lisa Mandel, a comic book artist who has worked with researchers on multiple occasions for the Sociorama collection by Casterman, has spoken of the “friendly image” of drawing, allowing the investigator to remain hidden behind a mask and easily form alliances in the field (Mandel and Pagis, 2020). Drawing is less intrusive than cameras and appears to be shrouded in a mysterious aura that generates opportunities for collaboration (Whatelet, 2018).
34I was able to verify this during an observation exercise at a demolition site. The drawing of the site attracted workers and very easily brought about interviews, allowing me to sketch portraits of some of them (Illustration 13).
Illustration 13 – Observational sketch of a demolition site
Author: L. Herrmann, in Cheval and Herrmann, 2019.
35To finish, I would like to suggest that drawing can go beyond the mere role of illustration to become a scientific output in its own right and a medium of original knowledge (Labarre and Gloris, 2017). The idea here is that elaborating thought via drawing is not just a process of disseminating external discourse. Drawing can be a means of creating and enabling unique reflection; it can be, in and of itself, a thinking process.
36Writing this article gave me the opportunity to carry out an exhaustive inventory of my visual productions within academic practice. I noticed that a series of drawings I produced for a research report into portrayals of air pollution did not fit into my initial typology (illustration, mainstreaming, sketchnoting and investigation) (Illustration 14). In this project, I wanted to understand the impact of an application providing information on air quality (Air To Go) on the way in which this was viewed by residents. The assumption was that access to this information could modify their views of atmospheric pollution. The survey showed major divergencies in how the information provided by the application was received.
Illustration 14 – Analysis of views of air pollution: seven modes of receiving the information provided by the Air To Go application
Author: L. Herrmann, 2018 in Herrmann, Aschan-Leygonie and Harpet, 2018.
37The drawings in Illustration 14 represent the seven modes of receiving information identified. The green line represents the boundary of the perceptual content; the red and yellow circles symbolise pre-existing ideas on air pollution before access to the application; the red squares are the new ideas provided by Air To Go. In each case, residents either reject the information, fully accept it (substitution) or add it to existing information (juxtaposition), take ownership of it even at the risk of being wrong, doubt it, hide its existence, or receive it critically to extend the scope of their perception (openness).
38Here, drawing is used as a conceptual output where it generated analytical categories. I used drawing to build this typology, which constitutes one of the main results of our research. In this instance, drawing was therefore not just a means of visualising thought; it was at the origin of its development. I therefore believe that drawing has strong abstractive qualities that make it a powerful tool for developing notions or categories for conceptual analysis.
39The aspects outlined above lead me to believe that it is possible to find a place for drawing at university. Similar to the comeback of drawing observed in geography and, in recent years, architecture, the experiences shared here have demonstrated that drawing could be a scientific tool; a tool for dissemination and investigation, but also a tool for creation thanks to its qualities for translation, summary, attracting attention, observation and abstraction. Drawing could therefore not only be considered an output created for science, but, given this final aspect, a scientific output in its own right. This hypothesis is part of a broader movement to identify new forms of academic output, considerably extending the tools available to researchers (video, photography, fiction, photomontage, staging, theatre, etc.). This has given rise to exciting experiments, such as La fabrique des écritures3 focusing on sensory narration. Another example is the experimental mapping workshops by Anne-Christine Bronner, Philippe Rekacewicz and Florence Troin (2018) where the pedagogical and thought-provoking potential of a manual, personal and collective approach to mapping through Identity maps is explored in participatory mapping workshops4 developed by the authors of Terra Forma (Aït-Touati, Arènes and Grégoire, 2019). Here, drawing and viewpoints for mapping are reinvented to think about the territories as living beings. A final example is the work of Lise Landrin (2019) on theatrical practice as a means of participatory and creative research that revisits the field approach, which is no longer about populations but with populations.