Highlights from "Bad research doesn’t stink"

I’ve heard the saying “bad research doesn’t stink” multiple times, and I’ve finally come across its source.

However, I feel like the article can benefit from an update, now that AI is adding its own fragrance to code, design and research.

Highlights (if any)#

“Bad engineering stinks. Anyone can tell when something is poorly engineered because it fails or breaks in an obvious manner.”

“Bad design doesn’t smell as much as bad engineering – there’s more subjectivity involved in design than engineering.”

“A research project’s output can look nearly identical when a study is designed well or poorly. Unlike engineering, when a screen simply goes black if the code is broken, bad UX research can still have a shiny, coherent research artifact at the end. It just won’t have valid insights (as in, not truly answering the research question).”

“Bad UX research does not stink. Anyone without training can create poor research and the output looks just as convincing to the untrained eye.”

“Repeatable, effective impact tracking is the best way researchers can show how research expertise leads to better business outcomes.”