The intersection of visualization and the humanities (VIS*H) is marked by a tension between chasing analytical "insight" and interpretive "meaning." The effectiveness of visualization techniques hinges on established evaluation frameworks that assess both analytical utility and communicative efficacy, creating a potential mismatch with the non-positivist, interpretive aims of humanities scholarship. To examine how this tension manifests in practice, we systematically surveyed 171 VIS*H design studies to analyze their evaluation workflows and rigor according to standard practice. Our findings reveal recurring flaws, such as an over-reliance on monomethod approaches, and show that higher-quality evaluations emerge from workflows that effectively triangulate diverse evidence. From these findings, we derive recommendations to refine quality and validation criteria for humanities visualizations, and juxtapose them to ongoing critical debates in the field, ultimately arguing for a paradigm shift that can reconcile the advantages of established validation techniques with the interpretive depth required for humanistic inquiry.

翻译：可视化与人文学科的交叉领域（VIS*H）存在一种张力：一方面追求分析的“洞见”，另一方面追求阐释的“意义”。可视化技术的有效性依赖于既有的评估框架，这些框架同时评估分析效用与传播效能，这可能与人文学术的非实证主义、阐释性目标存在潜在错配。为探究这种张力在实践中的具体表现，我们系统性地综述了171项VIS*H设计研究，依据标准实践分析了其评估工作流程与严谨性。我们的研究结果揭示了反复出现的缺陷，例如过度依赖单一方法，并表明更高质量的评估源于那些能有效整合多元证据的工作流程。基于这些发现，我们提出改进人文学科可视化质量与验证标准的建议，并将其与该领域持续存在的批判性讨论并置对照。最终，我们主张一种范式转变，以期调和既有验证技术的优势与人文学术探究所需的阐释深度。