|
For research to be of PhD standard, all institutional regulations require it be 'original', but the concept of originality is often misunderstood. This page offers suggestions, advice, tips and general help. |
A useful way to appreciate the scope of originality is through an analogy, where the research programme can be likened to an exploration into a wilderness at a time in history when the world was still largely unexplored and when explorers still had considerable personal autonomy. In the analogy, the explorer may have certain visions in mind concerning what he or she hopes the expedition will achieve, but appreciates that these may not materialize and is open to alternatives. To avoid cumbersome repetition, the explorer and student will be taken as having different sexes, arbitrarily male and female respectively. ... |
... In the analogy the explorer uses all the information he can to firm up on why he wants to explore the wilderness and how he might do so within the resources at his command and within any constraints that may exist. He uses this information to plan and organize what background knowledge, procedures, tools, equipment and personnel he will need, tailored to the available resources and constraints. Some procedures may have to be specially designed, some tools and equipment may have to be specially made and some personnel may have to be specially trained or brought in. Similarly, the student studies the literature, talks to experts and attends relevant training to get background knowledge and to develop an appropriate research methodology. The latter must include decisions about the procedures, tools and techniques, and possibly also the people to be involved. These may be fairly standard in the field of study, but if she uses them in new untested ways, this would justify a claim for originality. Or if she develops new procedures, tools and techniques for a specific purpose, this, too would justify a claim for originality. If neither is the case, her claim for originality must lie in later stages of the work, as suggested in the next few sections. |
| In the analogy the expedition begins along the pre-planned route. If this is previously unexplored, the mere exploration is original work.
Similarly, if the student is conducting a major investigation on something which has never been investigated before, such as a recently discovered insect, star, poem, etc., the work will necessarily be original. Although ‘originality’ in some types of research is built in, in many fields of study it is not, and its pre-existence should never be taken entirely for granted. So students undertaking research have to learn to live with a certain amount of uncertainty. Living with uncertainty may be difficult, but it is a fact of life for researchers, and can be ameliorated to some extent by welcoming the uncertainty as a precursor of creativity; thinking of the uncertainty as fascination with the unknown; and realizing that committed students do normally manage to complete their programmes of research and earn the award for which they are registered. |
| In the analogy the main route may already have been broadly explored. However, the explorer will, from time to time, come across unexpected and unexplored sidetracks. He may not notice them; or he may continue on the planned route anyway, in which case nothing original is involved. If, however, he does notice the sidetracks, he has to make decisions about whether to explore any of them, and if so, which ones. These decisions may be difficult, because he cannot know whether anything of interest will turn out to lie along them without at least partially exploring them, and doing so will use resources of time and equipment which will delay the expedition on its main route. Yet, one or more of the sidetracks could contain something of such great interest and importance that it would be worth abandoning the expedition as first planned and putting all the resources into exploring the sidetrack.
Similarly, in fairly mundane research, one phase of the work can open up alternative ways forward which have never previously been researched, and it is often these that can provide ‘originality’, as well as the fascination with the unknown that ought to accompany research. They can, on the other hand, equally turn out to be dead-ends which consume time and effort fruitlessly. Researchers cannot know without devoting some time to looking, and even if nothing worthwhile results, a research student can at least claim to have searched for something original. |
| In the analogy the explorer may make notes and observations along the way which cannot be processed at the time. So he packs them up for carrying back home where they can be examined properly.
Similarly, the student may find herself collecting much unprocessed data which she hopes may provide something usefully ‘original’ later when processed or analysed. This is a perfectly possible way of incorporating originality into work, but it is not at all safe. To do it successfully, students need either good hunches about how the data might be used to advantage or considerable creative abilities. |
| The explorer may collect all manner of goodies along the way, ranging from what he hoped for when planning the expedition to the entirely unanticipated. These goodies may have an obvious uniqueness, beauty or value, like gold or precious stones. More likely, though, the goodies are commonplace where they were found, but unknown back home, like the potato which Sir Walter Raleigh brought to England from America.
Similarly, originality in research need not be new in absolute terms. It can merely be new to the situation or the discipline. Even data need not be new, in that it is both feasible and acceptable for researchers to make something original and significant with secondary data, i.e. data that they did not gather themselves. This is a route to originality that is often overlooked by research students. |
| Things may go so badly wrong on the expedition that it has to be abandoned with seemingly nothing achieved. Yet, the illnesses of the team could be used to testify to the diseases that are rampant in the area. Or the torrential storms that washed away the collections of specimens could be monitored for interpretation in terms of what is already known about storms in that type of terrain. Neither of these would have been the purpose of the expedition, but they would be none the less valuable and count as original work.
Similarly, the student may be able to capitalize on things that seems to go wrong. Important equipment may not work; crucial resources may not be available; people may not agree to be interviewed; funding may be withdrawn; or there may be other serious and unforeseen obstacles. Just as in the analogy, a little creative thinking can rescue the situation, which is the primary reason for the third role in which students need to operate. There are almost always byproducts during any research, perhaps the development of a certain piece of equipment or some interesting secondary findings in the literature. These can be moved into the mainstream, focused on or developed further. When the thesis is written, the research problem, theme or focus merely needs to be reformulated to reflect the new nature of the work. |
| Whatever happens on the expedition, the explorer should, provided that he did not give up and return home early, have some interesting stories to tell.
Similarly students who stay the course with their research should be able to tease out something worthwhile from an academic or scholarly standpoint. The creative thinking techniques of Chapter 20 should help. |
| Departing from the analogy, another useful way to stimulate thinking about originality is through the concept of ‘potentially publishable’ in a peer-reviewed journal. This is increasingly being equated to ‘originality’ for students’ research. The work does not necessarily have to be published, only to be worthy of publication, in principle, if suitably written up at a later stage. ‘Potentially publishable’ is a useful notion, because most research, particularly at PhD level, ought to be able to generate at least one, and probably several, journal articles. The focus of any such article would provide an acceptable claim for originality. If, by the time of the examination, the work has already been accepted for publication in a peer reviewed journal, that is a considerable plus. |
| It is not very difficult to develop new and original twists to research, and Box 21.1[see
book]
gives some examples of how real students have done so. You should be able to do it too.
...
|
HOME | For supervisors | For management and training personnel | contact | site map
