MaxSpeak is continually amazed at the gulf between evidence and what people take as evidence. For instance, a study lauding outsourcing commissioned by the IT trade association. All that you can get on the web is the conclusions of the study. There is nothing about how the conclusions were arrived at. To get the study, you have to pay $450 or something like that.
Yet people sit around talking about the study as if they are evaluating it. There was a similar flurry some months ago over a McKinsey study that also touted outsourcing, where the report itself lacked an iota of detail on how the very precise numerical results were derived.
You might as well put credence in the email you got this morning on how to make your balls bigger, assuming you have any to begin with.
Posted by maxbsawicky at March 31, 2004 11:49 AM | TrackBackMy experience tells me that research that you have to pay to see (except for the conclusions) is generally bad research. I'm sure this is true in this case.
They should have had Indian economists do it for a hell of a lot cheaper.
Posted by: a different chris at March 31, 2004 01:43 PMMax, there's a pathology in the media that seems to compel it to regurgitate studies based on little more than press releases. The question is: why? What's the rush? Can't they slow down, read the damn things, make some calls, and figure out how good they are?
Posted by: praktike at March 31, 2004 02:39 PMAs director of marketing for a Fortune 250 company, I have found that most of the "research" is actually performed by interns or fresh-out-of-college young folks -- the older hands are on the road drumming up new business.
Posted by: DianneC at March 31, 2004 04:32 PMObviously, the point of such studies is to get them in the hands of lobbyists, so that they can provide our busy, but dedicated legislators with the evidence they need to pass effective legislation!
Posted by: john c. halasz at March 31, 2004 06:13 PMThis "study" has about the same credibility as those put out by the tobacco companies claiming that smoking did not cause cancer, and for about the same reasons.
Posted by: Firebug at March 31, 2004 09:19 PMOther Chris: the research was supervised by a Dr Nariman Behravesh...
Posted by: john b at April 1, 2004 10:20 AMMy experience tells me that research that you have to pay to see (except for the conclusions) is generally bad research. I'm sure this is true in this case.
Yep all that crap at NBER is just junk.
Please. Try a slightly more sophisticated decision rule.
Posted by: Steve at April 1, 2004 02:20 PM