It is unusual for MSc./M.Litt./MPhil. postgraduate students to be challenged on how their work has contributed to new knowledge. Usually such a requirement is reserved for a special type of postgraduate dissertation: the PhD. If you are
studying for a PhD, then you will need to confront the question of how your research has enhanced existing knowledge. If you are studying for a Master’s but wish to progress your work to PhD level, or if you believe that your Master’s work is exceptional, then you should understand how to answer the question:
‘So, what’s different about your work?’ One way to tackle this question is to have a sub-section in the concluding chapter devoted to how your work has contributed to the field of x, y or z. ‘Contribution to knowledge’ is as good a title as any. But how do you deal with this issue?
Let us look at what a ‘contribution to knowledge’ means. Implicit is the idea that you are required to make an original contribution to knowledge, that there is something unique about aspects of your work, either what you studied, or how you researched something, or the specific problems that you addressed, or the angle from which you approached a subject area, or the light that you have shed in a rarely researched subject, and so on. Doing the same research, in the same way, and coming to the same conclusions as others is unlikely to be viewed as making an (original) contribution to knowledge.
However, it is almost impossible to produce completely unique research. In some way, however distant, original work owes much to what has gone before.
Even Albert Einstein’s work on relativity was built on the shoulders of giants.
Do not panic that you might be expected to invent a new branch of physics or Figure 7.3 Relationship between conclusion(s) and recommendations
emerge with the meaning of life. Here lies the clue to managing your approach to writing about your contribution to knowledge: articulate how your research compares and contrasts with research done by others in your field, eliciting what is different about your work.
Be bold. Do not try and avoid the issue of your contribution. Meet the matter head on: ‘How has this research work contributed to knowledge? In terms of . . .’. There are two areas where you can look for an original contribu-tion to knowledge: in your Literature Review and in your empirical research.
For example, if in your Literature Review you explored a facet of an important subject area that had hitherto been neglected or treated superficially, or erro-neously, and your detailed study of secondary sources revealed new insights, then you can claim to have made an original contribution to knowledge. In which case, say so:
The review of literature made it clear that e-Learning usage is fragmentary in the world of education and that there is an acute lack of in-depth research of e-Learning practices. This study has redressed that anomaly in a number of valuable ways. First, the review of literature provides a critical investigation of e-Learning theory pertinent to institutions, dovetailing into a critique of guidelines and frameworks as they relate to preparing academic staff for e-Learning. Knowledge derived from this review of lit-erature can educate and further inform debate on the drivers and barriers to becoming involved in e-Learning (too often, literature uncritically lists drivers and barriers, failing to give a more rounded, research-based picture).
Second, . . .
Your main contribution to knowledge, however, probably lies in your empirical work. It is less common, although not unheard of, for the Literature Review to be the principal source of your original contribution. If your experiment/
survey/case study/action research/etc. is unique, then you could be making an original contribution to knowledge. Even if you do the same type of study as someone else, you still might be making an original contribution to know-ledge. For example, suppose that a previous researcher implemented a survey looking at student debt. Suppose further, that his study was done in the USA.
You use the same, or very similar, survey questions, but your target population is UK students. Your work compares and contrasts the two sets of results, pro-ducing new knowledge. At a simple level, even if you think up, for example, a case study from scratch, designing your own questions and selecting a specific target population, then it is statistically unlikely that someone else has carried out the exact same study as you. So, if your empirical work is unique then say why that is the case, as in the example:
The empirical research work is unique: no other researcher has carried out a study of such depth within Inverclyde University, interviewing elite staff on strategic e-Learning issues and academic staff on e-Learning prepar-ation, including issues surrounding drivers and barriers to e-Learning. The
lack of empirical data to support research theory was recognized as a par-ticular failing in much of the current e-Learning literature. In that respect this research offers an insight into the views of two important university stakeholder groups on e-Learning that other institutions can relate to and learn from, allowing practice to be fed back into theory. The richness of material provided is, without doubt, fascinating. The themes addressed, in terms of their collectivity, are unique in one case study in Learning: e-Learning strategy, drivers, barriers, preparation, IT infrastructure, aca-demic staff motivation, and future directions. The findings help in under-standing issues related to these themes, and provide other researchers with a unique spotlight on two different types of stakeholders within an institution.
One other source of evidence to support your ‘contribution to knowledge’, other than your Literature Review and your actual practical work, can be found in your recommendations. It is likely that your recommendations contain proposals that are different in some respects from what has been produced before. If, for example, you have developed some sort of model or paradigm which you believe, if implemented, can resolve a problem that you identified earlier, then your model/paradigm itself becomes part of your original contri-bution to knowledge. Imagine that in the e-Learning case study example, two models were produced in the Recommendations sub-section: a Pedagogical Training Framework as well as an e-Learning Preparation Model. These models could be argued as making an important contribution to knowledge:
The specific e-Learning models produced at the end of this research – the e-Learning Preparation Model and the Pedagogical Training Framework – encapsulate what needs to be done to encourage academic staff to engage meaningfully with e-Learning initiatives, ranging from the need to develop an e-Learning strategy that is clear, defines e-Learning, and justifies the rationale for introducing e-Learning and the approach adopted, to the communication of this strategy to elite staff and academic staff, and the crucial importance of pedagogical training on specific areas. In effect, a collective framework has been created that is specifically devoted to e-Learning preparation and based on in-depth research. This has been a highly successful piece of research with many points of learning for both theory into practice and practice into theory, resulting in a significant contribution to knowledge.
An obvious way to show your contribution to knowledge is to identify what other researchers have done and how your work builds on theirs; but importantly in what respects your work differs:
How has this research made a contribution to knowledge? To date, the work produced by other researchers has concentrated on . . . This research,
on the other hand, differs in the following respects . . . The importance of this work, compared to what has been produced hitherto, lies in . . .
It would also be worthwhile, prior to your viva (if you are subject to one) to attend a conference – or if you cannot afford that, then try and get hold of the conference proceedings – and obtain up-to-date evidence that continues to offer support on the need for your research. For example:
At the recent Ed-Media 2004 Conference (attended by this researcher), Zellweger (2004: 161) complained that anecdotal advice can be found on how to use e-Learning in universities but that ‘so far there is a lack of systematized scientific knowledge’. The lack of methodical research into e-Learning in Higher Education continues to this day to be an area of concern, but this research study, by adopting a highly disciplined and structured research-based approach to acquiring knowledge on e-Learning, has made an important and unique contribution, as discussed above, to an understanding of e-Learning in Higher Education. As more researchers adopt a research-based approach to e-Learning, then less will we hear the sentiments expressed by concerned researchers such as Zellweger.
Finally, if you have published aspects of your research in journals or confer-ence proceedings then that in itself can support the claim that you are making a contribution to knowledge:
Furthermore, research publications produced as a result of this research have contributed to the field of e-Learning in that the opportunity to publish and discuss e-Learning issues with one’s peers has not only engendered fruitful debate but also allowed other researchers to have access to research deemed by conference committees as making a contri-bution to the e-Learning academic community. These publications are listed below:
1. Burns, J. (2004). ‘Students are not the only ones who need Guidance on e-Learning’, in Proceedings of the AACE Ed-Media 2004 Conference, Lugano, Switzerland, June.
2. Burns, J. (2003). ‘Toward a Conceptual Framework for the Develop-ment of Online Learning Systems’, in Proceedings of the AACE Ed-Media 2003 Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, June.
3. Burns, J. (2003). ‘Identifying and capturing knowledge for website usage: a platform for progress’, in International Journal of Electronic Business, 1(3): 225–236.
4. Burns, J. (2002). ‘The Drive for Virtual Environments in Higher Educa-tion: University Initiatives and the Need for Student Support Infra-structures’, in Proceedings of the BEST Conference, Edinburgh, Scotland.
5. Burns, J. (2002). ‘Quality Guidelines and Virtual Learning Environ-ments: Supporting Academic Staff in Meeting New Challenges’, in Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Assessing Quality in Higher Education, Vienna, Austria, July.
As you can see, the question of how to cope with writing about your contribu-tion to knowledge is not as problematic as it first appears. Basically, look to see what aspects of your Literature Review are unique, or different, from what others have done; look at how your empirical work contributes to knowledge;
and look to your recommendations in terms of making a contribution. In short, look at what other research has been done in your field and how your contribution differs, and if you have publications to boast of then your work has already achieved peer recognition!