• Is this legit? Research reality check with Dr. Kirsten Lee Hill

  • 著者： Kirsten Lee Hill
  • ポッドキャスト

Is this legit? Research reality check with Dr. Kirsten Lee Hill

著者： Kirsten Lee Hill
無料で聴く

  • サマリー

  • Join your host, Dr. Kirsten Lee Hill, as she dives into the viral stats and facts sweeping the internet. Each week, she’ll check out into a new ‘research shows’ or ‘study finds’ making waves in the headlines and uncover whether it’s legit or not. Along the way, you’ll learn how to conduct better research, spot misleading claims, gather credible data, and make better decisions. Whether you’re a fellow data geek, an entrepreneur, a student, or just someone who loves a good data mystery, tune in to explore the power of data, the importance of transparency, and how to make sure you never get duped by “research” again.
    2024 Kirsten Lee Hill
    続きを読む 一部表示

あらすじ・解説

Join your host, Dr. Kirsten Lee Hill, as she dives into the viral stats and facts sweeping the internet. Each week, she’ll check out into a new ‘research shows’ or ‘study finds’ making waves in the headlines and uncover whether it’s legit or not. Along the way, you’ll learn how to conduct better research, spot misleading claims, gather credible data, and make better decisions. Whether you’re a fellow data geek, an entrepreneur, a student, or just someone who loves a good data mystery, tune in to explore the power of data, the importance of transparency, and how to make sure you never get duped by “research” again.
2024 Kirsten Lee Hill
社会科学 科学
続きを読む 一部表示
エピソード
  • Do husbands = more housework?

    Do husbands = more housework?
    2025/03/18

    Have you seen or heard the viral claim: “Having a husband adds 7 hours of housework per week for women?” It feels right—but is it? In this episode of Is This Legit?, I track down the source of this stat, dig into what the research actually says, and uncover why outdated data keeps going viral.

    Along the way, we’ll talk about:

    • The 2008 University of Michigan press release behind this claim (and why it’s not a study).
    • What more recent research says about gender, marriage, and housework.
    • How social media algorithms push misinformation.
    • Why cuts to research funding are making it harder to get real answers.

    If you’ve ever questioned where viral stats actually come from, wondered whether we’re using outdated data when better research exists, or just want to know the truth about who’s really doing the housework, this episode is for you.

    Referenced:

    • University of Michigan article
    • 2023 American Time Use Survey Results
    • 2024 Gender Equity Policy Institute Report
    • 2013 PEW research report
    • 2022 meta-analysis
    • ABC news article
    続きを読む 一部表示
    24 分
  • Is ChatGPT’s Deep Research as Smart as It Looks?

    Is ChatGPT’s Deep Research as Smart as It Looks?
    2025/03/04

    The internet is buzzing—ChatGPT’s Deep Research feature is here, and people are calling it a game-changer. Some even say it could replace researchers altogether. (Eek!)

    But is it really that good? Or does it just look good?

    In this episode, I put Deep Research to the test, running my own experiments on two widely shared statistics. What I found raised some serious questions about how AI gathers information, whether it can be trusted, and why looking "legit" doesn’t always mean being accurate.

    If you’ve ever wondered whether AI can actually do research—or if it’s just like really good at Googling—this episode is for you.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    22 分
  • Have We Lost Our Ability to Focus?

    Have We Lost Our Ability to Focus?
    2025/02/25
    A New York Times bestseller. Big, dramatic stats. And a research scavenger hunt that left me questioning everything (except my ability to focus). This week, we’re breaking down a 2022 book that recently went viral: the viral book Stolen Focus: Why You Can't Pay Attention--and How to Think Deeply Again—a book that claims to be “beautifully researched” and endorsed by some of the biggest names in media and politics. But when I started looking into the statistics being repeated on TikTok, I ran into a problem: no one seemed to know where they actually came from… other than the book. So, in rare form, I bought the book and set off on a citation scavenger hunt—and let me tell you, things got weird. 🔎 In this episode, we’ll uncover: A bizarrely confusing citation system that makes fact-checking as you read insanely frustrating (and wondering what the author is hiding)How a claim about “23 minutes to refocus after an interruption” leads to a study where… that number isn’t actually there.A controversial stat about teenagers’ attention spans used in marketing the book that is… well definitely different than what you’re thinking.A “5.4 hours on phones vs. 17 minutes reading” claim that falls apart under scrutiny.The absurd research trail behind claims that people speak and walk faster today. More importantly, we’ll ask: Why major publishers let research-based books use cherry-picked, out-of-context studies to push a narrative? Why media outlets repeat these claims without verifying them. And, Why does the burden of fact-checking always fall on us—the readers? This episode is a deep dive into misleading research, bad citations, and how viral misinformation thrives. Listen in, and remember: Just because a stat goes viral doesn’t mean it’s true. Referenced: The Book: Stolen Focus: Why You Can't Pay Attention--and How to Think Deeply Again23-minute refocus stat (cited in Stolen Focus): Gloria Mark’s 2015 conference paper (This paper cites 23 minutes but does not contain original research for this number.)23-minute refocus stat (earlier source cited in the 2015 paper): Gloria Mark’s 2005 conference paper (This paper does not contain the 23-minute stat at all—stat appears to have drifted.)Teenagers’ 65-second stat source: Journal of Communication study on media multitasking (Focused on college students, not teenagers)5.4 hours on their phone stat: Survey by Provision Living, cited by Zdnet (Limited sample of millennials & baby boomers; no full report available.)17-minute reading stat: American Time Use Survey (Varies by age and reading type; does not necessarily include digital reading.)Speaking faster stat: Study of Norwegian parliamentary stenographers (Measured stenography speed, not natural speech; limited scope.)Walking faster stat: Discussed in this article and also in this blog (Sampled 70 people per city; outdated and narrow scope.)
    続きを読む 一部表示
    29 分

Is this legit? Research reality check with Dr. Kirsten Lee Hillに寄せられたリスナーの声

カスタマーレビュー：以下のタブを選択することで、他のサイトのレビューをご覧になれます。

Audible.co.jp

Amazon.co.jp
レビューはまだありません。