3 ms·

This is a really important point. Executive-land is all about image and framing, so I can totally see how execs think it's not a big deal to "just make the case

This is a really important point. Executive-land is all about image and framing, so I can totally see how execs think it's not a big deal to "just make the case" or frame things less negatively. But while that's ok in a slide deck, it's _not_ ok in a research paper. Researchers aren't (shouldn't be) accountable to business outcomes, but rather the truth of what they argue. It's tough to see this play out real time.

tomcam 6y ago
Grant-land is very very often about image and framing. How often are grant administrators interested in pure research and let the chips fall where they may vs getting results that yield happy articles, then more grants?
- ludamad 6y ago
  Agreed, the bias towards culling negative results is not unique to Google, although the mechanism may be
  - silexia 6y ago
    There is a witch hunt against Google that is politically motivated happening now. If Google is funding its own research, it should be able to look at whatever it wants. Why do we hold Google to a standard that most other companies are far worse at following? The appropriate place for independent critical research is outside of the company itself. Google is actually a pretty well intentioned entity to put out as much self critical research as it does.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
koheripbal 6y ago
Remember, it's all about the "optics". This isn't relegated to science or management - we're seeing it all across society these days. Nuance is dead. If the message cannot be delivered in a 120 character tweet, and cannot self-gratify 50 million teenage viewers with only a superficial understanding of the topic, then it shouldn't be a public position at all. Of course, I'm slightly exaggerating. But the consequence is very real - organizations, whether corporate or scientific, whether public or private have had to drop an iron curtain around their honest nuanced internal strategies in order to avoid the attention of the hyperbolic and outrage-fueled social media world.
chii 6y ago
> Researchers aren't (shouldn't be) accountable to business outcomes, but rather the truth of what they argue. if a business funds research, they expect the funding to have a positive ROI. Therefore, the business will pressure research towards this, and thus, will inevitably make the research accountable for an outcome. This is why fundamental research should be publicly funded, and publicly available.

tomcam 6y ago

Grant-land is very very often about image and framing. How often are grant administrators interested in pure research and let the chips fall where they may vs getting results that yield happy articles, then more grants?

ludamad 6y ago
Agreed, the bias towards culling negative results is not unique to Google, although the mechanism may be
- silexia 6y ago
  There is a witch hunt against Google that is politically motivated happening now. If Google is funding its own research, it should be able to look at whatever it wants. Why do we hold Google to a standard that most other companies are far worse at following? The appropriate place for independent critical research is outside of the company itself. Google is actually a pretty well intentioned entity to put out as much self critical research as it does.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

koheripbal 6y ago

Remember, it's all about the "optics". This isn't relegated to science or management - we're seeing it all across society these days. Nuance is dead. If the message cannot be delivered in a 120 character tweet, and cannot self-gratify 50 million teenage viewers with only a superficial understanding of the topic, then it shouldn't be a public position at all. Of course, I'm slightly exaggerating. But the consequence is very real - organizations, whether corporate or scientific, whether public or private have had to drop an iron curtain around their honest nuanced internal strategies in order to avoid the attention of the hyperbolic and outrage-fueled social media world.

chii 6y ago

> Researchers aren't (shouldn't be) accountable to business outcomes, but rather the truth of what they argue. if a business funds research, they expect the funding to have a positive ROI. Therefore, the business will pressure research towards this, and thus, will inevitably make the research accountable for an outcome. This is why fundamental research should be publicly funded, and publicly available.