We recommend clicking here or the "Source" tab below the visualization which will open the network in a separate browser window for easier viewing. Users can hover the cursor over terms of interest. Clicking on nodes will bring up additional information. Users can also zoom in and out to areas of interest in the network using the magnifying glass icons at the bottom of the visualization. A search option allows users to search for terms of interest (if a given keyword is in the underlying network data, it will be highlighted in the visualization). Labeling of nodes was done to maintain legibility of the graph. If a given node or cluster of nodes appears without a label, users can simply zoom-in and the labels will appear automatically.
The network is visualized using an algorithm that puts the keywords with the most connections to one another towards the center of the network. The least connected keywords are pushed to the peripheries of the network. The full procedure for generating this visualization can be found here.
A visualization like this one offers another tool for users to orient themselves in the complex landscape of scholarly work associated with the controversy. We can note, for example, the prominence of terms of art such as "e-waste". Given the search procedure that generated the underlying data, its prominence is not itself surprising. Instead, what is useful and interesting is the way that term is situated with other keywords. The easiest way to illustrate the utility of the graph is via a contrast in what parts of the graph are highlighted when different keywords are selected. For example, using the search pane on the left of the graph to search the word "transboundary" brings up several iterations of that keyword such as "transboundary illegal shipment", "transboundary movement", and several others. Clicking on each result of this search highlights different parts of the graph. In other words, we can find our way to different parts of the overall scholarly literature on transboundary movement using the graph. We can see how different keywords or concepts relate to the overall conversation, whether they are more central or more peripheral to the debates.
We encourage users to explore this and other graphs to help orient themselves in the controversy and to ask questions about how the issue is shaped or framed by actors in the scholarly literature. For example, click on different nodes. Use the search pane to look for keywords of interest. What keywords appear and do not appear in the underlying data? What is the relative prominence of a given keyword? What other keywords does a given keyword connect (and not connect) to?