what to write in research contribution

• Privacy Policy

Home » Significance of the Study – Examples and Writing Guide

Significance of the Study – Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

The significance of the study is a crucial section in research that explains the relevance and importance of the research topic. It outlines how the study contributes to the existing body of knowledge, benefits stakeholders, and addresses real-world problems. Writing a clear and compelling significance of the study ensures that readers and evaluators understand the value of your research.

This article provides examples, practical tips, and a step-by-step guide to effectively write the significance of the study.

Significance of the Study

The significance of the study is a brief section that highlights:

• Theoretical Contributions: How the study advances knowledge in the field.
• Practical Applications: The real-world implications and uses of the research findings.
• Beneficiaries: Who will benefit from the study (e.g., students, professionals, policymakers).

Example: In a study about mental health among teenagers, the significance might include providing data to improve school counseling services and contributing to mental health policy reforms.

Why is the Significance of the Study Important?

• Highlights Relevance: Demonstrates why the research is worth conducting.
• Engages Stakeholders: Attracts interest from those who can benefit from the findings.
• Enhances Credibility: Shows the study’s alignment with academic and practical needs.
• Guides Future Research: Lays the groundwork for further investigations.

How to Write the Significance of the Study

Follow these steps to craft an impactful significance of the study:

1. Identify the Research Problem

• Clearly state the issue your research addresses.
• Explain why this problem is important.
• Example: “Teenage mental health issues are increasing, yet many schools lack adequate counseling resources.”

2. Highlight the Research Gap

• Point out what is missing in the existing literature.
• Describe how your study fills this gap.
• Example: “While studies focus on adult mental health, there is limited research on school-based interventions for teenagers.”

3. Specify Contributions to Knowledge

• Explain how your findings will advance theoretical or academic understanding.
• Example: “This study provides new insights into the correlation between academic pressure and anxiety among teenagers.”

4. Explain Practical Applications

• Detail how the research findings can be applied in real-world settings.
• Example: “Findings will help schools develop effective counseling programs tailored to teenage needs.”

5. Identify Beneficiaries

• Highlight who will benefit from the study and how.
• Example: “Educators, mental health professionals, and policymakers can use this research to improve support systems for students.”

6. Use Clear and Concise Language

• Write in a straightforward manner to ensure accessibility to a broad audience.
• Avoid jargon or overly technical terms.

Examples of the Significance of the Study

Example 1: education research.

Title: The Impact of Digital Tools on Student Engagement in Online Learning Significance of the Study: This research aims to address the gap in understanding how digital tools influence student engagement in online learning environments. It contributes to the growing field of educational technology by identifying effective strategies for integrating digital tools in virtual classrooms. The findings will benefit educators, administrators, and policymakers by providing actionable insights to improve online learning experiences, especially in post-pandemic education systems.

Example 2: Healthcare Research

Title: Assessing the Effectiveness of Telemedicine in Rural Healthcare Delivery Significance of the Study: This study is significant as it evaluates the role of telemedicine in improving healthcare access in rural areas, where traditional healthcare services are often limited. By analyzing patient satisfaction and health outcomes, the research contributes to the growing body of evidence supporting telemedicine as a viable healthcare model. The findings will guide healthcare providers and policymakers in developing effective telehealth programs, reducing healthcare disparities in underserved communities.

Example 3: Environmental Science

Title: The Role of Urban Green Spaces in Reducing Air Pollution Significance of the Study: The study addresses the increasing issue of urban air pollution by investigating the effectiveness of green spaces in mitigating air quality problems. It bridges the gap in literature regarding the specific types of vegetation most effective at capturing pollutants. The findings will aid urban planners, environmental policymakers, and community organizations in designing greener cities, contributing to public health and environmental sustainability.

Tips for Writing an Effective Significance of the Study

• Understand Your Audience: Tailor the content to address the interests of academic and practical stakeholders.
• Focus on Impact: Emphasize how your research makes a difference, whether in advancing theory or solving practical problems.
• Be Specific: Avoid vague statements and provide concrete details about your contributions.
• Align with Objectives: Ensure the significance aligns with your research goals and questions.
• Use Realistic Claims: Avoid exaggerating the potential impact of your research.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

• Being Too General: Failing to specify contributions or beneficiaries reduces credibility.
• Overemphasis on Limitations: While acknowledging limitations is important, the significance section should focus on the study’s strengths.
• Using Technical Jargon: Make sure the section is understandable even to non-specialists.
• Ignoring Practical Relevance: Highlight how the findings can be applied, not just theoretical contributions.

Sample Template for Writing the Significance of the Study

Here’s a structured template to guide your writing:

1. Introduction:

• Briefly state the research topic and problem.
• Highlight its importance or urgency.

2. Research Gap:

• Explain what is missing in the existing literature.

3. Theoretical Contributions:

• Describe how the study advances knowledge or understanding in the field.

4. Practical Applications:

• Detail how findings will be applied in real-world scenarios.

5. Beneficiaries:

• Identify specific groups or individuals who will benefit from the research.

The significance of the study is a vital component of any research paper or thesis, as it communicates the value and impact of the work. By clearly outlining its theoretical contributions, practical applications, and potential beneficiaries, researchers can effectively justify the relevance of their study. Following a structured approach ensures that this section is compelling and aligns with the broader research objectives.

• Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches . Sage Publications.
• Kumar, R. (2019). Research Methodology: A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners . Sage Publications.
• Punch, K. F. (2014). Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches . Sage Publications.
• Bryman, A. (2015). Social Research Methods . Oxford University Press.
• Bell, J., & Waters, S. (2018). Doing Your Research Project: A Guide for First-Time Researchers . McGraw-Hill Education.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Thesis Outline – Example, Template and Writing...

Assignment – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Thesis Statement – Examples, Writing Guide

APA Table of Contents – Format and Example

Survey Instruments – List and Their Uses

What is a Hypothesis – Types, Examples and...

SciENcv: Section C: Contributions to Science

• Create a Profile
• Link Your ORCID ID
• Assigning Delegates
• Education/Training
• Section A: Personal Statement
• Section B: Positions, Scientific Appointments and Honors

Section C: Contributions to Science

• Section D: Scholastic Performance
• Download Your CV

All senior/key persons should complete the "Contributions to Science" section except candidates for research supplements to promote diversity in health-related research who are high school students, undergraduates, and post-baccalaureates.

1. In the Contributions to Science section, Click 'Edit section.' 

2. Click 'edit' to open the field where you can write your contribution. 

3. Briefly describe up to five of your most significant contributions to science. The description of each contribution should be no longer than one half page, including citations. To save your work, click the checkmark under the text box. 

4. For each contribution, indicate the following:

• The historical background that frames the scientific problem;
• The central finding(s);
• The influence of the finding(s) on the progress of science or the application of those finding(s) to health or technology; and
• Your specific role in the described work.
• Figures, tables, or graphics are not allowed.

5. To add another contribution, select 'Add another contribution' to open a new tab. 

For each contribution, you may cite up to four publications or research products that are relevant to the contribution. To add a citation, click 'select citations.' 

If you are not the author of the product, indicate what your role or contribution was. Note that while you may mention manuscripts that have not yet been accepted for publication as part of your contribution, you may cite only published papers to support each contribution. Research products can include audio or video products (see the  NIH Grants Policy Statement, Section 2.3.7.7: Post-Submission Grant Application Materials ); conference proceedings such as meeting abstracts, posters, or other presentations; patents; data and research materials; databases; educational aids or curricula; instruments or equipment; models; protocols; and software or netware. Use of hyperlinks and URLs to cite these items is not allowed.

You are allowed to cite interim research products. Note: interim research products have specific citation requirements. See related  Frequently Asked Questions  for more information.

You may provide a hyperlinked URL to a full list of your published work. This hyperlinked URL must be to a Federal Government website (a .gov suffix). NIH recommends using  My Bibliography . Providing a URL to a list of published work is not required.  For more information on adding URLs for published work, please see the Populating Publications box.

Descriptions of contributions may include a mention of research products under development, such as manuscripts that have not yet been accepted for publication. These contributions do not have to be related to the project proposed in this application.

if you are submitting a Non-Fellowship biosketch, your biosketch is complete after Section C and may be downloaded . If you are applying for an NIH Fellowship, please move forward to Section D: Scholastic Performance. 

Source:  General Application Guide for NIH and Other PHS Agencies: G.240-R&R Senior/Key Person Profile (Expanded) Form. (2022). NIH Grants & Funding.  https://grants.nih.gov/grants/how-to-apply-application-guide/forms-h/general/g.240-r&r-seniorkey-person-profile-(expanded)-form.htm#Instructions

Population Publications

In the 'Contributions of Science' section of the biosketch, applicants may submit a full list of publications. The full publication list is supplemental and not required when submitting the research proposal. 

When submitting a publication list with URLs, the NIH requires that the hyperlink URLs come from a Federal Government website (.gov suffix). The NIH recommends applicants use My Bibliography to fulfill this requirement. 

There are four options to populate a My Bibliography collection with author-specific citations:

• Adding citations directly from PubMed
• Adding PubMed citations in My Bibliography
• Adding citations from a file
• Adding citations manually

Source:  MY NCBI Help: My Bibliography. (n.d.).  National Library of Medicine .  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK53595/#mybibliography.Creating_a_Bibliography

• << Previous: Section B: Positions, Scientific Appointments and Honors
• Next: Section D: Scholastic Performance >>

• Last Updated: Dec 13, 2024 2:48 PM
• URL: https://guides.himmelfarb.gwu.edu/sciencv

• Himmelfarb Intranet
• Privacy Notice
• Terms of Use
• GW is committed to digital accessibility. If you experience a barrier that affects your ability to access content on this page, let us know via the Accessibility Feedback Form .
• Himmelfarb Health Sciences Library
• 2300 Eye St., NW, Washington, DC 20037
• Phone: (202) 994-2962
• [email protected]
• https://himmelfarb.gwu.edu

Writing about Design

Principles and tips for design-oriented research.

Typology of possible research findings (i.e., “contributions”)

Introduction.

A good academic text delivers a clear and interesting message. That is often described as “contribution”. Good contributions teach something to the text’s readers: they change the reader’s way of thinking or acting, and increase their understanding and knowledge about an interesting subject. Thus, “a contribution is made when a manuscript clearly adds, embellishes, or creates something beyond what is already known” (Ladik & Stewart, 2008, p. 157). Such findings therefore present something that the researchers did not know so far; that is what makes the research article interesting.

Also a BA or a MA thesis deliver contributions. But their requirements for significant contribution are lower, as it is not crucial that a finding of a thesis should be a considered as a research contribution that generates novel understanding in the scientific community.

So, what are the possible findings and contributions that academic texts can make? Understanding what a contribution can be becomes easier over time, as one reads more literature and sees more examples of academic publications. But to get started more quickly, this article presents some classifications that I have found from other researchers’ writings, and finally presents a longer list that I have tailored for the fields of design and HCI.

The presentation of contributions in this article is in two parts: first I will discuss academic articles, and then I will add notes about BA/MA theses in HCI and design.

Types of findings and contributions in academic articles

Contributions can be classified along several dimensions. Some of the existing classifications are oriented to theoretical contributions. For example, Ladik and Stewart’s (2008) “contribution continuum”, written for a marketing research audience, divides the possible contributions to 8 classes, organized from minor to fundamental scientific impacts:

• Straight replications: studies that verify whether a finding that has been already published can be repeated.
• Replication and extension: similar to the one above, but with an adjustment.
• Extension of a new theory/method in a new area.
• Integrative review (e.g., meta-analysis).
• New theories to explain an old phenomenon, possibly also including a comparison between an existing and the new theory against each other to find out which one works better.
• Identifications of new phenomena worth of attention.
• Grand syntheses that integrate earlier theories together.
• New theories that predict new phenomena.

In addition to presenting the continuum, Ladik and Stewart’s (2008) text is great also in emphasizing many other characteristics of good academic texts too, such as a need to think about the target reader audience, need to emphasise surprise, and demonstrate passion and relevance of the topic that has been studied.

In human–computer interaction (HCI), which is more oriented to human-created objects, other kinds of contributions can be recognized. Wobbrock (2012) and Wobbrock and Kientz (2016) do not define the contributions based on their magnitude, but in terms of types of outcomes. As we can see, the theoretical contributions that were listed above are only one possibility in applied fields such as HCI and design:

• empirical research findings (e.g., what factors and phenomena play an important role in different situations where people use technologies)
• artefacts (i.e., designs and technologies)
• surveys and reviews of existing research

In this classification, Wobbrock and Kientz’s papers themselves could be best classified as survey-like contributions, since their focus is on reviewing the kinds of research contributions in a research field as a whole. In this sence they synthesize together and explicate the practices in the field. In addition to being more directly useful also for HCI/design, Wobbrock’s suggestions are also great because both texts list papers from HCI research that exemplify these contribution types.

What is particular in the list above is the role of artifacts as research contributions. This is particular since it highlight’s HCI’s (and also design’s) nature as a “problem-solving” science (Oulasvirta and Hornbæk, 2016): in addition to producing the traditionally well-acknowledged empirical and conceptual (theoretical) contributions, HCI researchers also make constructive contributions by developing new technologies and designs.

Final distinction between contributions is their level of critical stance towards earlier research and practice. Most contributions are knowledge-increasing : they present new findings, expand the research to new areas, make existing theories and methods more detailed, accurate or more appropriate for some context, for example. These contributions are really common: with my colleagues we found, for example, that 94% of research papers in information systems research are knowledge-increasing (Salovaara et al., 2020). Many of the contribution classes presented in the lists above are like these too.

Other contributions are knowledge-contesting : they identify problems in the existing theories and methods, or in the practices by which they are used (Salovaara et al., 2020). They may also identify limits (“boundary conditions”) to the extent to which earlier contributions can be applied. In the spirit of science and research being a self-correcting process, the purpose of these knowledge-contesting contributions is to correct earlier mistakes in research and keep the research on the right track.

To summarise the considerations above, the following table presents a synthesis of possible contributions in HCI and design. A vast majority of the papers represent one (or sometimes several) of these contributions:

This list is not comprehensive, and some areas have been covered in more detail than others. What is however notable in this list’s items is that papers about these contributions can be written using the same narrative format. That is because most of these contributions require a study: some method by which some material is analysed so that findings can be presented. Such papers can be readily written following the IMRaD-style narrative . Only the last two contributions – recommendations/guidelines and research agendas/manifestos – may need a different kind of a narrative and can therefore be harder to write well.

Examples of non-contributions in academic research

Notably, there are also certain types of papers that are often submitted for publication but which are often rejected and will therefore be rarely found in academic literature. When one is writing an article, it is a good idea to make sure that one is not writing one of those types of papers. Four common non-contributions are following:

• Presentation of a well-designed system and its design process.  These papers present well-designed systems and include evaluations that demonstrate the high quality of the outcome. The problem with these kinds of papers is that for a researcher looking for novel information, such papers offer very little to learn: they “only” describe well-conducted design process that already uses well-known methods. Only if these design processes solve hard problems in some contexts, and that these problems and their solutions generalise to other contexts too, the papers start to have value in terms of an academic contribution. That is because then the academic reader may conclude that the authors have found a way to address a problem that previously has been considered difficult to tackle. This kind of a study can be turned into an academic contribution by identifying a “design problem” that was solved in the process, and explaining why this problem is difficult and in what design situations similar problems can be encountered (i.e., where does the design problem and solution generalise to).
• Case study report.  Papers of this kind present observations or interview-based findings from field studies, and describe carefully methods that were used in these studies. A lot of effort may have been put into gathering all the data and to analyse it. Unfortunately, despite all the effort spent, also in this case, the conclusion by a reader may be that the story is interesting but lacks novelty: papers of this kind may be a well-conducted research projects but which only have applied rigorous methods without yielding novel findings. This kind of a study can be turned into an academic contribution by identifying an interesting and novel finding, and deepening the literature research so that it convinces the reader about the novelty and the need for this finding in the research field (e.g., a “research gap”).
• Mappings of findings to a framework.  Some papers present analyses from a complex settings and map these findings to a well-known theoretical framework (e.g. activity theory). The problem with such a finding is that it counts mostly as a demonstration that the framework can be used to make sense of observational data. This may not be surprising, if the same has been shown in numerous earlier studies too. This can be turned into an academic contribution, for example, by finding out that the framework cannot be used to make sense of some parts of the data, or that the framework needs adaptation because of the novel findings.
• Landscaping and clustering studies without conclusions . Some automatic data analysis methods nowadays allow researchers to generate elaborate descriptive visualizations and groupings that can summarise complex phenomena in a neat manner. Examples of these methods include social network analysis, clustering methods of multidimensional data (e.g., factor analysis, k-means clustering and topic modeling), and sentiment analysis about natural language. If a paper only presents the outputs of such analyses, without identifying non-obvious patterns or conclusions, the paper easily lacks a clear contribution. An academic contribution would include an actionable message to the research field: a call for changing the research focus, or think about a common phenomenon in a new way. Typically this requires that the researchers interpret their clusters and identify something unexpected from them.

Contributions and findings in BA and MA theses in HCI and design

In BA and MA theses, the requirements are slightly different than in academic articles. The difference lies in the need for presenting a contribution vs another, more modest kind of a finding. A thesis does not need to demonstrate novelty to an entire research field; it only needs to demonstrate the ability to apply the relevant methods, theories and analytical thinking with respect to a meaningful problem of practical importance. Therefore the three last above-presented examples of non-contributions are, in fact, good candidates for excellent BA or MA theses even if they lack an academic contribution.

One may therefore conclude that in BA and MA theses, the goals can be more practically determined: They may orient to finding good designs or solutions for specific design problems. They may be reflections about the nature of a design process, such as explorations whether a certain design approach yields findings that satisfy the designer. They may also be oriented towards a designer or practitioner community than the researchers. Therefore they may deliver a call or message to those communities to start addressing issues or become aware of matters that are being neglected. Such issues do not need to relate to academic activities, but to societal issues, for example.

One or many contributions?

There can be one or many contributions in a paper. Some contribution types also go naturally together. For example, sometimes the most interesting contributions appear in the Discussion, after the answers to the research question(s) have already been presented. Thus a paper about an exploratory study may be sense-making in its Findings (e.g., by identifying an interesting underlying pattern or concept in the findings and by giving a name for it), but a manifesto-like contribution in its Discussion if it then shows how that concept may be crucial to remember in other situations too. Many readers may find that this manifesto-like contribution is actually more important than the text’s original finding.

However, many instructions on academic writing recommend that every text focuses on delivering only one “contribution”. For example, instructions published in Nature’s web page recommend to “Keep your message clear” (Gewin, 2018). There is a good reason for this: To offer a clear and interesting message, different contributions usually require different investigations. If one tries to combine several contributions together, they may require different methods, and these methods may conflict with each other, leading to biased and compromised results. Another problem is the need to reach a high clarity with the paper: if there are several intended contributions, explaining them clearly can be difficult. Jumping from talking about one contribution to another may be necessary, but this may confuse the reader. It is important to remember that it is the author’s responsibility to demonstrate that the findings are significant and interesting (e.g., Ladik and Stewart, 2008). Confusions should be avoided at all cost.

To conclude, to offer a clear contribution or a finding, it is a good idea to identify early on what kind of a story one wants to tell with their text. Following the recommendations of the IMRaD structure , for instance, all the attention of the paper’s argumentation can then be directed to delivering that message as clearly and convincingly as possible. This helps the readers – evaluators, reviewers, and others – appreciate the work that the author has done.

Acknowledgments

Thanks for Oscar Person for tipping me about Ladik & Stewart’s paper on research continuum.

Bardzell, J. & Bardzell, S. (2011). Pleasure is your birthright: Digitally enabled designer sex toys as a case of third-wave HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2011) (pp. 257–266). New York, NY: ACM Press.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1978979

Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology , 3 , 77–101.   https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Gewin, V. (2018). The write stuff: How to produce a first-class paper that will get published, stand out from the crowd and pull in plenty of readers. Nature, Vol. 555, pp. 129-130. Available at:  https://media.nature.com/original/magazine-assets/d41586-018-02404-4/d41586-018-02404-4.pdf.  Also available, with a different title, at  https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-02404-4  (retrieved 11 November 2020).

Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies , 25 (5), 427–441.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2004.06.002

Gould, J. D., Conti, J., & Hovanyecz, T. (1983). Composing letters with a simulated listening typewriter. Communications of the ACM , 26 (4), 295–308.   https://doi.org/10.1145/2163.358100

Gustafson, S., Baudisch, P., Gutwin, C., & Irani, P. (2008). Wedge: Clutter-free visualization of off-screen locations. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2008) (pp. 787–796). New York, NY: ACM Press.. https://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357179

Hardaker, C. (2013). “Uh….not to be nitpicky,,,, but…the past tense of drag is dragged, not drug.” – An overview of trolling strategies. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict , 1 (1), 58–86.   https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.1.1.04har

Ladik, D. M. & Stewart, D. W. (2008). The contribution continuum. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 36 , 157–165.   https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-008-0087-z

Nardi, B. A., Whittaker, S., & Bradner, E. (2000). Interaction and outeraction: Instant messaging in action. In Proceedings of the 2000 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW 2000) (pp. 79–88). New York, NY: ACM Press.  https://doi.org/10.1145/358916.358975

Oulasvirta, A., Tamminen, S., Roto, V., & Kuorelahti, J. (2005). Interaction in 4-second bursts: The fragmented nature of attentional resources in mobile HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2005) (pp. 919–928). New York, NY: ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/1054972.1055101

Oulasvirta, A. & Hornbæk, K. (2016). HCI research as problem-solving. In J. Kaye, A. Druin, C. Lampe, D. Morris, & J. P. Hourcade (Eds.), Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing (CHI 2016) (pp. 4956–4967). New York, NY: ACM Press.   https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858283

Pirolli, P. & Card, S. (1995). Information foraging in information access environments. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 1995) (pp. 51–58). New York, NY: ACM Press/Addison-Wesley.  https://doi.org/10.1145/223904.223911

Salovaara, A., Upreti, B. R., Nykänen, J. I., & Merikivi, J. (2020). Building on shaky foundations? Lack of falsification and knowledge contestation in IS theories, methods, and practices. European Journal of Information Systems , 29 (1), 65–83.   https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2019.1685737

Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human–Machine Communication . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Todi, K., Weir, D., & Oulasvirta, A. (2016). Sketchplore: Sketch and explore with a layout optimiser. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (CHI 2016) (pp. 543–555). New York, NY: ACM Press.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2901790.2901817

Torenvliet, G. (2003). We can’t afford it! The devaluation of a usability term. Interactions , 10 (4), 12–17.   https://doi.org/10.1145/838830.838857

Wobbrock, J. O. (2012). Seven Research Contributions in HCI . The Information School, DUB Group, University of Washington.   http://faculty.washington.edu/wobbrock/pubs/Wobbrock-2012.pdf  (retrieved 12 November 2020).

Wobbrock, J. O. & Kientz, J. A. (2016). Research contributions in human–computer interaction. Interactions  (May–June), 38–44.   https://doi.org/10.1145/2907069

2 thoughts on “ Typology of possible research findings (i.e., “contributions”) ”

Pingback: From table of contents to a finished text | Writing about Design

Pingback: Co wnosi mój artykuł? O rodzajach wkładów do literatury – Akademickie Pisanie

Comments are closed.

How to write a PhD in a hundred steps (or more)

A workingmumscholar's journey through her phd and beyond, contributions to knowledge and the ‘knowledge gap’.

If you have spent any time reading advice or ‘how to’ books on writing a thesis at any level, you will almost certainly have come across some version of this concept: the ‘knowledge gap’. And you will likely have been told that you have to create a research project or study that will find knowledge to fill a gap in your specific field or discipline’s knowledge base . This idea of filling a gap or hole in what your field knows or does freaks out many students, at all levels. The idea that you have to say something new when you are still learning your field and what it knows and does can be overwhelming.

But, after a conversation with colleagues who work with researcher development starting from senior undergraduate level all the way through Masters to PhD level, I have begun to wonder whether this concept of a knowledge ‘gap’ is actually not all that accurate or helpful as a starter about the purpose or goal of postgraduate research and knowledge creation, even at doctoral level. Maybe, we need to actively reframe the conversations we have with students doing research about how we can and do make different kinds of contributions to knowledge that grow and challenge knowledge in our fields.

The most common starting point for students beginning a research process is in the field itself, reading other studies, papers, research findings and so on. This enables them to see what research is being done, what the current trends are around theory and methodology, substantive findings that support or challenge their own research problem and so on. The literature review is almost always the first thing we ask students to focus on when they are developing a research proposal, especially at doctoral level where there is a firm requirement of a ‘novel’ contribution to knowledge. So, you kind of are looking for a gap, of sorts. But you’re not looking for it in terms of a total silence on your own research problem.

The first problem with the notion of a ‘gap’ or hole in the field that your study can fill, conceptually or empirically or methodologically, is that many students seeing this as meaning exactly that: silence, as in no one has ever done this research before. They feel they must claim that there are no existing studies like theirs for their study to be ‘novel’ and to fill the identified knowledge gap legitimately . In most fields, it is almost never the case that no one has ever done your kind of study before, or asked a similar kind of research question. And you really don’t want that either, because what you are really trying to do with your research is join a field that exists, and push it a tiny bit further; you’re not trying to strike out on your own.

This leads me to the second problem with talking about knowledge gaps and the need to fill them with original or novel claims to knowledge: in essence this can prevent many students from really seeing that they are writing about their research in relation to the field, to join an ongoing conversation , rather than writing about their research as an extended proof of claims that are completely new. We need to reframe teaching about the aim of research as being focused on joining an existing conversation as a new voice that has something of value to add to the field, rather than needing to say something radically new that has not yet ever been said. I think this may help student researchers in two main ways.

The first is with the way they read . Rather than reading every paper looking for a hole or a gap or silence and zeroing in on this, they may begin to read with a greater consciousness of how the field has already addressed similar questions, but perhaps from different angles, or with different theory, or with different methodology. They can then consider how this helps them to build and substantiate a space in which to position their own emerging claims to knowledge . Keeping a reading journal to keep track of these arguments, how they are made, and how they speak to one another or challenge one another (this bit is crucial) may then help students to begin to see the conversation emerging, and where they might be able to join in . Who is saying what, how, and why? Who is critiquing the dominant positions and why? How? Where does my work fit into all of this? What is this ongoing conversation all about?

Thinking and reading like this may then feed into a different, less defensive form of writing . Rather than trying to address every paper or article included in the literature review by showing what it doesn’t say to shore up a claim to the originality of their own research, student research writers may begin rather to craft literature reviews, and perhaps also theoretical and methodological frameworks in their thesis writing, from a different position: as one who is joining an existing field and conversation, unthreatened by all the work that is currently being or has been done. Rather, these sections will be written with the understanding that all the existing work is a resource for substantiating our own claims to knowledge, so that we can show how what we have to add builds on, e xtends, and may perhaps critique the current arguments dominating the conversation in the field.

Reframing the ‘knowledge gap’ as joining a conversation with a new voice and a small contribution to the field may also help researchers at other, lower, levels of study, such as Masters, Honours and senior undergraduate levels , where the knowledge gap can be particularly alarming. This is perhaps mainly because these students typically do less reading, and are not required to make a novel contribution to knowledge to attain their degree. Obviously, the more you read the field, the deeper and more nuanced your sense of the conversations in your field will be, as well as how they connect to and challenge one another. But students can join a conversation even at the lower levels, in a more modest form, if they are enabled to see this as what they are doing, rather than using their study to fill a gap that their reading load will not show them adequately.

Making a contribution to knowledge and filling knowledge gaps is spoken about a great deal in postgraduate and researcher education, but I wonder how often we stop and think about how students hear this, and what impact this has on their reading and writing behaviours and choices. I hope this post will help that process along, and help us find different ways to talk to students we work with about their own research purposes and goals.

Share this:

This is a fantastic article and it’s helped alleviate a lot of the anxieties I had about approaching a PhD. Thank you so much for your insight!

Thank you for this feedback, Victoria! All the best for the PhD 🙂

Quite insightful a post. Many thanks.

This is motivating indeed.It answers all questions I had about registering for a PhD.Thanks a lot.

A fantastic stuff. It sheds a lot of light in one of the most intimidating aspects pursuing PhD studies.

Your post is enlightening, thanks.

very informative

Leave a comment Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar