You are Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell, a young physician-scientist who has just completed medical training and begun your first research position at Oxford University. As you settle into your new role, your mentor Dr. Ronald Fisher approaches you with an intriguing proposition. He explains that several prominent statisticians across the UK have gone missing under mysterious circumstances. Authorities suspect foul play and believe the cases may be connected.
Dr. Fisher believes only someone with your medical knowledge and passion for statistics can get to the bottom of this mystery. He reveals that each missing statistician was researching a pioneering statistical method when they disappeared. He asks you to retrace their steps, uncover their work, and find out what really happened to them. Are you up for the challenge?
Initiate Investigation
Initiate Investigation
Eager for the challenge, you accept Dr. Fisher's proposition. After all, you've always fancied yourself a bit of a detective, and what better way to flex your statistical muscles? Dr. Fisher hands you a dossier containing background information on each of the missing statisticians.
The first is William Sealy Gosset, who disappeared from the Guinness Brewery in Dublin where he worked. Gosset was developing new methods for small sample sizes under the pseudonym "Student."
The second is Gertrude Cox, who vanished from her office at North Carolina State University. Cox pioneered techniques for experimental design and regression analysis.
Finally, Frank Wilcoxon disappeared from his Maryland home. Wilcoxon had been doing promising work on nonparametric statistical tests.
These three trailblazing statisticians all disappeared within weeks of each other earlier this year. Authorities have found no trace of them since.
Dr. Fisher believes if you can uncover their work and recreate their steps in the days before they went missing, you may find clues to what really happened to them. He suggests you start your investigation by visiting the archives of the Royal Statistical Society in London, which holds documents on many pioneering statisticians.
Where will you begin?
London
London
You decide to start your investigation at the Royal Statistical Society archives in London. Upon arrival, the archivist provides you with access to documents on all three missing statisticians.
Reviewing Gosset's files, you learn he developed the t-distribution and t-test for small sample sizes while working for the Guinness Brewery. His papers suggest he was on the verge of expanding the methods further when he disappeared.
Cox's records show her pioneering work on experimental design using randomized blocks and Latin squares. She had recently written about using regression analysis to relate multiple predictor variables to an outcome.
Wilcoxon's documents highlight his work developing nonparametric tests as an alternative to parametric tests when data is not normally distributed. His last writings indicate he was close to finalizing what would become the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
As you pore over the historic documents, you begin to see connections forming between the statisticians' work. All three were developing methods to advance the field of statistical analysis and expand the toolbox available to researchers.
Near closing time, the archivist lets you know they are locking up for the evening. He recommends visiting the nearby dining club where many prominent statisticians gather to discuss new developments in the field. Perhaps someone there can provide more clues?
What will you do next?
Dining Club
Dining Club
You decide to head to the statisticians' dining club near the Royal Statistical Society. Inside the wood-paneled room, you spot several preeminent researchers engaged in lively discussion. As you approach, they welcome you to join them.
You explain the mysterious disappearances you are investigating and ask if they have any insights. The eminent statistician Sir Austin Bradford Hill reveals he was a close friend of Gertrude Cox. He says Cox had recently told him about new experimental design methods she was developing using randomized complete block designs.
Another renowned researcher, Sir Harold Jeffreys, mentions that Frank Wilcoxon had spoken excitedly about finalizing his new nonparametric statistical tests at an upcoming conference.
As for William Gosset, the geneticist Sir Ronald Fisher recounts that Gosset's prolific research for Guinness afforded him access to large datasets ideal for pioneering small sample size methods.
Thanking them for the information, you exit the dining club pondering your next move. If Gosset was close to expanding small sample methods, visiting the Guinness Brewery could provide critical clues. Alternatively, Cox's experimental design research and Wilcoxon's upcoming conference could hold promise as well.
Where do you go from here?
Dublin
Dublin
Eager to follow the trail, you take the first train to Dublin. Arriving at the sprawling Guinness Brewery, you marvel at the complex system of production lines filling keg after keg with the dark, beloved brew.
You make your way to the onsite statistics office where Gosset conducted his research. Finding it deserted, you comb through documents strewn about the lab. Gosset's notebooks
funky intro music
Welcome back to "How to Write a Terrible Research Paper!" I'm your host, Arcanus the Adept. Today my apprentice Snagglescale joins me to share more tips for truly terrible research.
Snagglescale, what's the first step after a poorly conceived idea?
Snagglescale: Why, a botched proposal of course! Leave out details, waffle aimlessly, and by all means avoid addressing reviewers' concerns from prior failures. Which brings us to our first activity - compose the world's worst research proposal in under 3 minutes! Go!muffled scrambling sounds
Time's up! Let's peer at these proposals. My, my, meticulously vague and utterly unfeasible - you've certainly got a gift for gibberish. On to protocols! Ensure yours is needlessly complex, excludes key information, and most importantly, doesn't follow procedures. Aim to baffle, not edify!
For literary loathing, shun style guides. Embrace verbosity, eschew editing. Let convolutions, cacophony, and circumlocutions run wild! Spurn structure; flout formatting. Verify vitiation, not virtue! And never annotate, else risk losing face when flaws are found.
When reviewing tomes, shun Boolean outright. Scoff at keywords, disregard domains. Then tout your findings, few though they be. Garble summaries, graft false quotes - in short, don't study stoically!
As for instructions, incinerate STROBE, torpedo TRIPOD. Your work needs no rules; care not a jot for core or clarity. Introduce intricacies, ignore integration. Methodically mistreat methodology with mystery not merit in mind.
On the subject of authordom: insist on first, refuse responsibilities. Deny contributions, demand disproportionate dues. Confound co-creators, conceal cruelties. Steal ship and credit; care not for cooperation!
This has been "How to Write a Terrible Research Paper" with Arcanus and Snagglescale. Tune in next week for more heinous how-tos! Same bat time, same bat channel!funky outro music
funky intro music plays
Welcome noble listeners to “How to Write a Terrible Research Paper”, a joint production of NGUMA SCOME and RSD. I’m your host, Arcanus the Adept, a year 4 mage, and your local RSDD.
Today we’ll be exploring the fine art of botching research from conception to publication. But first, a word from our sponsors: Don’t try this at homekids! We’re professionals - or at least we flunked out of being professionals.
Let’s start with the basics of being a bad researcher. First up, the Author - also known as the Abominator. As an Abominator, your goal is confusion, not elucidation. Spread misinformation, don’t illuminate. Bafflegab is your medium, not clear communication. Remember, if they can’t understand you, they can’t criticize you!
Next, the Investigator. Also called the Indagater - your job is to not find answers, but sow doubt and distrust. Question everything except your own biases. Fail to consider alternative hypotheses. And above all, remember: correlation never proved causation, but it makes for great clickbait!
The Analyst is another title to aim low for. Forget rigorous analysis - just conjure conclusions from thin air! No need for facts when you’ve got falsity. Spreadsheets? Bah - a calculator and imagination will do!
And an educator? Please. True evil means filling young minds with error, not empowering them with truth. Think propaganda, not pedagogy. If they can't think for themselves, they'll have no choice but to believe you!
When ideating research topics, apply the FINER criteria backwards: are your ideas Fuzzy, Irrelevant, Not credible, Evasive and Ridiculous? Wonderful! You're well on your way.funky music interlude
It's time for an activity break before we delve deeper into proposal fumbles and putrid protocols. Let's play a round of "Don't Do This Jeopardy!" Contestants, your clue is "Ways to botch ethics board approval". You there in the Flaming Fedora - let's hear your non-answer!"I apologize master Arcanus, upon further evil reflection I must withdraw my suggestion, as intentionally harming participants would be unethical." Drat, foiled again by ethics! Back to the show then.
Listeners, stay tuned after the break for more top tips on trash talking everything from bibliographies to reviews. And remember: the lower the quality, the higher the hilarity! This has been "How to Write a Terrible Research Paper". Same evil time next week!funky outro music
Here is a revised draft episode covering the specified sections:funky intro music
Welcome back to "How to Write a Terrible Research Paper!" I'm your host, Arcanus the Adept. Today my apprentice Snagglescale joins me to share more tips for truly terrible research.
Snagglescale, what's the first step after a poorly conceived idea?
Snagglescale: Why, a botched proposal of course! Leave out details, waffle aimlessly, and by all means avoid addressing reviewers' concerns from prior failures. Which brings us to our first activity - compose the world's worst research proposal in under 3 minutes! Go!muffled scrambling sounds
Time's up! Let's peer at these proposals. My, my, meticulously vague and utterly unfeasible - you've certainly got a gift for gibberish. On to protocols! Ensure yours is needlessly complex, excludes key information, and most importantly, doesn't follow procedures. Aim to baffle, not edify!
For literary loathing, shun style guides. Embrace verbosity, eschew editing. Let convolutions, cacophony, and circumlocutions run wild! Spurn structure; flout formatting. Verify vitiation, not virtue! And never annotate, else risk losing face when flaws are found.
When reviewing tomes, shun Boolean budlight. Scoff at keywords, disregard domains. Then tout your findings, few though they be. Garble summaries, graft false quotes - in short, don't study stoically!
As for instructions, incinerate STROBE, torpedo TRIPOD. Your work needs no rules; care not a jot for core or clarity. Introduce intricacies, ignore integration. Methodically mistreat methodology with mystery not merit in mind.
On the subject of authordom: insist on first, refuse responsibilities. Deny contributions, demand disproportionate dues. Confound co-creators, conceal cruelties. Steal ship and credit; care not for cooperation!
This has been "How to Write a Terrible Research Paper" with Arcanus and Snagglescale. Tune in next week for more heinous how-tos! Same bat time, same bat channel!funky outro music
funky intro music Welcome back to "How to Write a Terrible Research Paper ! " I 'm your host , Arcanus the Adept . Today m...