I have found researchers often
confuse with respect to their final research contribution. I do not see it
necessary to always have a completely new solution of a problem. Despite, it is
always beneficial as in most of the cases it is taken as one of the solid
contribution to a chosen field. In other words, it might be a challenge if you
do modification to an existing solution, therefore it may become difficult to
defend final outcome. The same could true for a new solution where there is some
previous work is conducted. However, it might not be as problematic as in the
case of former one. There are many reasons, referring back to what is explained
as a purpose for background research where you build up a research format
through background study of an area. In this format, you first defend your
proposal that there is a problem. In-fact, there is no point of researching an
area if there is no problem. Here problem does not mean as problem, rather it
could be taken as NEED OF WORK. Once that has been justified off-course through
analyzing existing schemes and pointing out weaknesses in them. These weaknesses
then provide a ground to final findings. Your findings could take one of
many form i.e. a complete structure or a semi structure.
On the other hand you are a fortunate one if you work in an area where no
previous work is reported. Therefore, what you produce could be taken as final
as long as it makes sense. Here you meet different challenges then the above
mentioned two scenarios. Since no short comings of previously proposed solutions
are available, examinee need to explore relevant or potential challenges by his
or herself. One should take extra precaution as if you mentioned some of the
issue completely relevant to your own area then an examiner might conclude that
your work has not finished yet. Therefore, it is important that such points are
raised in a manner where they look like potential areas emerges from conduced
researcher rather then entirely connected and needs resolving alongside.
In a general sense researcher has already obtained basic knowledge of his or her
selected area of specialization. At this level one should focus more in going to
the standard details prior to reading any of other proposed solutions. Unless
you are sure that you know the problem fully well it is not recommended to
proceeds further. It is in view of several reasons such as one might have
selected a particular area on some one’s advise rather then his or her own
effort. Some other possibilities could be potential of securing a position or
too much have been said about a particular area in Media. In addition, without
building up a solid understanding of the topic you might not be able to grip
technical depth of other thoughts. Ultimately, you might come up with a solution
with weaknesses which are harder to defend. It some time sounds as a time
wastage idea though in reality it is not.
The answer to question how to have detail knowledge is quite simple. Rather then
focusing on too much technicality initially focus on non-technical articles.
There are lot of magazine which other wise are not regarded as solidly academic,
can help you in doing that. Once the essential knowledge has been developed it
is the right time for you to expand your information further. Please make a list
of weak and strong points of the examined area. In addition, write own thoughts
as to why do you see this problem exists. Irrespective weather such thought
sound silly, it will help you building a researcher within you. Moreover, a sort
of confidence is developed with the passage of time which helps in presenting
your view in a much better way.
About the Author
Dr. Humayun Bakht has been a researcher and a lecturer in the field of Computing
Sciences. He is a regular author of academic and non academic articles. This
presented article is a reflection of his forth coming book “Road Map to PhD”.
Dr. Bakht could be reached at [email protected]