In the following, we'll explore what it means to say that one's research makes a contribution to one's field. Before we start, let me outline the objectives.
Once you have read through this document, you should be able to discuss these points intelligently:
You should also be able to apply these questions to your own Scientific Merit Review (SMR) Form in items:
There is no clear definition of what constitutes a field of study, although it is often used to mean:
By convention, in the department of psychology we refer to one's specialization as being one's "field." Be aware that other departments or institutions may use the term in one of the senses described above.
Although the final contribution depends on the methodology, both qualitative and quantitative studies must do the following:
As you can tell, this is covered in your research problem statement, which is section 1 of the SMR.
To contribute to the field, studies also need to:
Here, the answer depends on the design or approach chosen. For example:
Let's look at the contribution of quantitative studies.
According to item 4.2 of the Quantitative SMR, quantitative studies contribute to the field in one of these ways:
There are basically two types of implications asked for by the SMR (in items 3.2 and 3.3): theoretical implications and practical implications.
"Implications" differ from "contributions." Perhaps an example will make this clear. Suppose a dissertation study finds that after therapy, families felt that it helped but did not improve communication or interactions. This is a contribution. We have some new knowledge about this population that we did not have before.
Some might argue from the finding that therapists need to work more directly on communication change. This is a practical implication.
Other scholars might argue from the finding that effectiveness in family therapy is based on unknown factors. This is a theoretical implication.
These are the two kinds of implications of one's findings. Let's look at them a bit more closely.
Remember that theory is an explanation of some phenomenon based on empirical data. So a theoretical implication of a finding would be anything that, if substantiated by further study, alters or affects an existing theory. Let's use an example.
Piaget's theory of cognitive development explains children's intellectual development as occurring in well-marked stages—sensorimotor, pre-operational, concrete operational, and formal operational. His theory was based on extensive observational and experimental evidence gathered over many years, and has not been shown false in any culture where it has been studied.
Suppose a new study discovered that these four stages in fact do not occur in that order, based on observations of a previously unstudied tribe in Central Asia. (This has not been discovered, by the way.) The new finding—which is a contribution to the field—would be revolutionary, because it would have profound theoretical implications for Piaget's theory; namely, that the theory might not be as cross-cultural as was thought.
As a rule of thumb, theoretical implications apply to the:
What might be a practical implication of the finding?
Given the widespread findings that Piaget's stages seem to occur across most cultures, a new finding that they do not occur in an unstudied, very small population in Central Asia might not have many practical implications. But one practical implication would apply to research practitioners: They might find it useful to begin looking at other previously unstudied, small populations to see if the new finding is confirmed in other tribal groups.
As a rule of thumb, practical implications apply to:
Your literature review justifies the claim by showing:
Thank you for your attention. This concludes our review on contributions to the field.
Doc. reference: phd_t3_u02s2_studyfield.html