Author: R. M. Benjamin

In Dougherty et al. “Sheff v O’Neill: Weak Desegregation Remedies,” the following data is given to show the progress toward the Sheff I  goal during in the years 2003-2007.

When plotted on a line chart, the data can show a progression either minor or significant. All depends on how the chart is formed.

This first chart portrays the data in a way that shows minor progress with a relatively flat line. The effect is created by using a large range of percentages along the vertical axis, fixing the minimum at .0 (0%) and the maximum at 1.0 (100%).

In contrast, this chart portrays the data in a way that shows significant progress with a more steeply sloped line. The effect is achieved by using a small range of percentages along the vertical axis, fixing the minimum at .1 (10%) and the maximum at .3 (30%).

Both charts represent the same set of data. However, their difference in showing the progress, either minor or significant, is an example of how charts can be used to lie or otherwise give the reader a false impression of what the data means.

I started my search for sources on www.courant.com to look for a Hartford-related news article on the web. After trying a couple of keywords, I finally found one that interested me. I chose “In Hartford, A Map To A Better Way Of Life” (Kovner 2012) because it was relevant to the topic I wanted to delve into. The article discusses the conditions of Hartford’s neighborhoods as well as how, and what, people in governmental positions are doing to fix it. I like the article because it pertained to the concept of opportunity and opportunity mapping. The article also points out where opportunity is lacking within these neighborhoods.

My second source I acquired from doing a search on www.amazon.com. After sampling a few introductions to various books, I found one I particularly liked: Children in the City: Home Neighbourhood and Community (Christensen and O’Brian 2002). The book addresses the life of children in modern cities and how growing up in a city is made unique by this experience. Learning about life in a city relates to opportunity mapping as well. It addresses the advantages and disadvantages for children living in a city like Hartford.

A Google search brought me to my next source. Neighborhoods of Hartford, CT (O’Maxfield 2001) provides a great map of the neighborhoods in Hartford. In addition, each neighborhood has a link to its own webpage with pictures and history about the neighborhood. The website is useful because it provides background knowledge for someone who wishes to compare Hartford’s neighborhoods.

My final source is an article from EBSCOhost. Searching for scholarly articles with the keywords “Connecticut” and “neighborhoods,” I found an article entitled “Neighborhood Diversity, Metropolitan Constraints, and Household Migration” (Crowder et al. 2012). The scholarly article addresses a topic similar to that of the previous three sources I acquired. Interest in learning more about the opportunities found in urban neighborhoods, I thought the article useful because it addresses these topics.

 

Works Cited

Christensen, Pia, and Margaret O’Brien, eds. Children in the City: Home Neighbourhood and Community. 1st ed. Routledge, 2002. Print.

Crowder, Kyle1, Jeremy2 Pais, and Scott J.3 South. “Neighborhood Diversity, Metropolitan Constraints, and Household Migration.” American Sociological Review 77.3 (2012): 325–353. eft. Web.

Kovner, Josh. “In Hartford, A Map To A Better Way Of Life.” Courant.com. 30 May 2011. Web. 21 Sept. 2012.

O’ Maxfield, Karen. “The Neighborhoods of Hartford, Connecticut.” 2001. Web. 22 Sept. 2012.