I just saw the most amazingly corporate expression of "we did what the bosses wanted us to do, even though the research didn't support that."
-
I just saw the most amazingly corporate expression of "we did what the bosses wanted us to do, even though the research didn't support that." The actual phrase was:
The research employed a methodology that prioritized stakeholder voice over researcher interpretation.
I wonder if a data scientist slipped that in to make it clear to other folks how this happened. You don't have to write stuff like this if the boss wants to do what the research says is a good idea. You only have to write this if the research says one thing and the boss says another.
@paco Ouch, that's low-key vicious and pretty clearly someone was *furious* about the whole thing but didn't have sufficient leverage to do anything about it.
-
@paco Ouch, that's low-key vicious and pretty clearly someone was *furious* about the whole thing but didn't have sufficient leverage to do anything about it.
@wordshaper That’s most of us. It’s also funny because we know the bosses don’t read anything this detailed. It sailed right past them.
-
I just saw the most amazingly corporate expression of "we did what the bosses wanted us to do, even though the research didn't support that." The actual phrase was:
The research employed a methodology that prioritized stakeholder voice over researcher interpretation.
I wonder if a data scientist slipped that in to make it clear to other folks how this happened. You don't have to write stuff like this if the boss wants to do what the research says is a good idea. You only have to write this if the research says one thing and the boss says another.
In other words, the company made up shit to please its know-nothing shareholders, and ignored facts its own researchers discovered that disagree with it.
It's as if Trump's persona were metastasizing across the corporatesphere.
-
I just saw the most amazingly corporate expression of "we did what the bosses wanted us to do, even though the research didn't support that." The actual phrase was:
The research employed a methodology that prioritized stakeholder voice over researcher interpretation.
I wonder if a data scientist slipped that in to make it clear to other folks how this happened. You don't have to write stuff like this if the boss wants to do what the research says is a good idea. You only have to write this if the research says one thing and the boss says another.
@paco just for giggles I am going to a Google search for weekly results.
-
@wordshaper That’s most of us. It’s also funny because we know the bosses don’t read anything this detailed. It sailed right past them.
I think that the researcher writing that line knew full well that even if their boss read that, they would not understand it.
-
I just saw the most amazingly corporate expression of "we did what the bosses wanted us to do, even though the research didn't support that." The actual phrase was:
The research employed a methodology that prioritized stakeholder voice over researcher interpretation.
I wonder if a data scientist slipped that in to make it clear to other folks how this happened. You don't have to write stuff like this if the boss wants to do what the research says is a good idea. You only have to write this if the research says one thing and the boss says another.
@paco How sure are you that “stakeholder” means “boss” here? In my research world, “stakeholder” often means “community member” where “community” is some underrepresented group or other and the work is participatory, i.e. not fully scientist-led. Obviously you read this paper and I didn’t, of course…
-
@paco How sure are you that “stakeholder” means “boss” here? In my research world, “stakeholder” often means “community member” where “community” is some underrepresented group or other and the work is participatory, i.e. not fully scientist-led. Obviously you read this paper and I didn’t, of course…
@emjonaitis it was an internal web page describing an internal initiative carried out by some company data scientists. It was not “research” in an academic sense.
The context suggests that the “stakeholders” were leaders pushing to incorporate GenAI into a business process. They had the internal researchers analyse results or data in that process and it looks like the researchers produced results that didn’t support doing that.
I really shouldn’t be more specific. There is ample room for me to be a bit wrong. But “stakeholder” in this case was definitely not a community member or underrepresented person.
-
@emjonaitis it was an internal web page describing an internal initiative carried out by some company data scientists. It was not “research” in an academic sense.
The context suggests that the “stakeholders” were leaders pushing to incorporate GenAI into a business process. They had the internal researchers analyse results or data in that process and it looks like the researchers produced results that didn’t support doing that.
I really shouldn’t be more specific. There is ample room for me to be a bit wrong. But “stakeholder” in this case was definitely not a community member or underrepresented person.
@paco *wincing* yeah, very different context, yikes!!
-
I think that the researcher writing that line knew full well that even if their boss read that, they would not understand it.
@JeffGrigg @paco @wordshaper the boss is probably happy and feeling powerful. Lol
-
I just saw the most amazingly corporate expression of "we did what the bosses wanted us to do, even though the research didn't support that." The actual phrase was:
The research employed a methodology that prioritized stakeholder voice over researcher interpretation.
I wonder if a data scientist slipped that in to make it clear to other folks how this happened. You don't have to write stuff like this if the boss wants to do what the research says is a good idea. You only have to write this if the research says one thing and the boss says another.
@paco
no notes -
I just saw the most amazingly corporate expression of "we did what the bosses wanted us to do, even though the research didn't support that." The actual phrase was:
The research employed a methodology that prioritized stakeholder voice over researcher interpretation.
I wonder if a data scientist slipped that in to make it clear to other folks how this happened. You don't have to write stuff like this if the boss wants to do what the research says is a good idea. You only have to write this if the research says one thing and the boss says another.
@paco Reminds me of a line from a doc an engineering manager wrote, explaining why we needed to kill off a popular project that everyone liked because it wasn't making enough money:
"Despite good year-over-year performance, the value proposition remains unclear, beyond topline contributions."Craziest thing I ever read.
-
I just saw the most amazingly corporate expression of "we did what the bosses wanted us to do, even though the research didn't support that." The actual phrase was:
The research employed a methodology that prioritized stakeholder voice over researcher interpretation.
I wonder if a data scientist slipped that in to make it clear to other folks how this happened. You don't have to write stuff like this if the boss wants to do what the research says is a good idea. You only have to write this if the research says one thing and the boss says another.
@paco Well, that's much easier then. Back when I was a lad, companies had to hire researchers to do studies with very small sample sizes. Once they got a result they liked, they plastered it all over their advertising.
Of course, back then lawyers and drug companies were forbidden to advertise. Congress felt that might tend to flood the courts with worthless lawsuits, or encourage people to take meds they didn't need. Silly Congress.
-
I just saw the most amazingly corporate expression of "we did what the bosses wanted us to do, even though the research didn't support that." The actual phrase was:
The research employed a methodology that prioritized stakeholder voice over researcher interpretation.
I wonder if a data scientist slipped that in to make it clear to other folks how this happened. You don't have to write stuff like this if the boss wants to do what the research says is a good idea. You only have to write this if the research says one thing and the boss says another.
@paco not surprising in the slightest.
-
@paco Reminds me of a line from a doc an engineering manager wrote, explaining why we needed to kill off a popular project that everyone liked because it wasn't making enough money:
"Despite good year-over-year performance, the value proposition remains unclear, beyond topline contributions."Craziest thing I ever read.
@prism Wow. “It’s not clear why we should keep this thing. All it does is make money for us.”
-
@prism Wow. “It’s not clear why we should keep this thing. All it does is make money for us.”
@paco "You did the thing, and it was good, but it wasn't good enough. Next time, backstroke."
-
@JeffGrigg @paco @wordshaper the boss is probably happy and feeling powerful. Lol
@ATLeagle @JeffGrigg @paco @wordshaper Especially businessy businessman upon that day.
-
I just saw the most amazingly corporate expression of "we did what the bosses wanted us to do, even though the research didn't support that." The actual phrase was:
The research employed a methodology that prioritized stakeholder voice over researcher interpretation.
I wonder if a data scientist slipped that in to make it clear to other folks how this happened. You don't have to write stuff like this if the boss wants to do what the research says is a good idea. You only have to write this if the research says one thing and the boss says another.
@paco The customer is always rAIght, huh
-
I just saw the most amazingly corporate expression of "we did what the bosses wanted us to do, even though the research didn't support that." The actual phrase was:
The research employed a methodology that prioritized stakeholder voice over researcher interpretation.
I wonder if a data scientist slipped that in to make it clear to other folks how this happened. You don't have to write stuff like this if the boss wants to do what the research says is a good idea. You only have to write this if the research says one thing and the boss says another.
@paco i see way too many arXiv papers where there's a step they run the data through a chatbot, and quite often I suspect "stakeholder voice" is the reason
-
I just saw the most amazingly corporate expression of "we did what the bosses wanted us to do, even though the research didn't support that." The actual phrase was:
The research employed a methodology that prioritized stakeholder voice over researcher interpretation.
I wonder if a data scientist slipped that in to make it clear to other folks how this happened. You don't have to write stuff like this if the boss wants to do what the research says is a good idea. You only have to write this if the research says one thing and the boss says another.
@paco "all I got is a red guitar / 3 chords / and the truth" -- all along the watchtower
-
@paco Well, that's much easier then. Back when I was a lad, companies had to hire researchers to do studies with very small sample sizes. Once they got a result they liked, they plastered it all over their advertising.
Of course, back then lawyers and drug companies were forbidden to advertise. Congress felt that might tend to flood the courts with worthless lawsuits, or encourage people to take meds they didn't need. Silly Congress.
@agreeable_landfall @paco I remember one former customer regularly published somewhat pompous “research has shown” type articles.
The research in question being a poll on the website that would get maybe 150 responses sometimes but usually fewer.
I knew this because I wrote that poll system.
-
R relay@relay.infosec.exchange shared this topic
