Why do academic research papers always seem to find something groundbreaking - and data scientists tend to make boring findings sound revolutionary? As an academic turned data scientist, I first felt the pressure to produce "interesting" statistical findings as far back as my honours year. It was my first research project and the capstone to my Bachelors degree. I was determined to make a splash with my debut into the academic world. I imagined publishing my first research paper before starting my first real job. 9 months later, when my ultimate findings showed "no statistically significant evidence" to support my hypothesis, I was devastated. No matter how much my supervisor tried to convince me otherwise, a null result just didn't seem to cut it. Fortunately, I was eventually able to swallow my pride and accept my disappointing findings - which still led to me graduating with a First Class degree. However, a quick Google search is enough to find numerous examples of misleading statistics in academic research. Years later, I discovered I wasn't alone in this struggle. As Nicholas Kelly, author of How to Interpret Data, recently shared with me, there's often pressure in academia to find "interesting" results - leading to statistical analysis that's... let's say... creatively interpreted. The problem, though, is that this erodes trust faster than you can say "p-hacking" and turns you into the researcher who cried "significance". Here's the thing... This same pressure exists in the corporate world. Data scientists feel the need to find something impressive to justify their role, especially when executives keep asking "Why can't ChatGPT just do this?". The temptation to make boring data sound revolutionary is real. Nicholas's advice? Be honest when the data is boring. Trust is your most valuable currency, and once it's gone, you won't get those cool, impactful projects in the future. Nicholas joined me in the latest episode of Value Driven Data Science to tackle the critical challenge of data interpretation. Our conversation reveals:
Ready to transform how you interpret data? 🎧 Listen now on Apple Podcasts or Spotify, or click the link below: Talk again soon, Dr Genevieve Hayes First published: July 2, 2025 |
Twice weekly, I share proven strategies to help data scientists get noticed, promoted, and valued. No theory — just practical steps to transform your technical expertise into business impact and the freedom to call your own shots.
How do you extract trustworthy insights from data you know has been deliberately manipulated? It's a challenge most data scientists never face. We're used to cleaning messy data, but deliberately manipulated data? That's completely next level. Yet if you're working with social media data, manipulation is the reality you're dealing with. Tim O'Hearn, a reformed social media hacker who generated millions of followers through bot manipulation, recently shared with me the harsh reality: "During...
Before we begin: Next month, I'm teaching 3-5 data scientists my complete process for creating your own high-value data science opportunities in the Data Science Impact Sprint - a 4-week, 1-on-1 coaching program that will boost your strategic influence and help position you for career advancement. Scroll down to learn more... They say you should start the job you want before you have it. Back in 2015, I wanted to be a data science manager. The problem? Data science was new. Data science...
What can ethical data scientists learn from a social media hacker? More than you might think. Tim O'Hearn is a software engineer who spent years circumventing anti-botting measures and gaining millions of followers for clients - experiences he's chronicled in the recently published Framed: A Villain’s Perspective on Social Media. Not exactly the typical guest you'd expect on a data science podcast. Here's the thing... Understanding how systems can be exploited makes you better at building...