How to demonstrate that my work goes beyond existing Literature?

Introduction

The most important, and at the same time, demanding aspect of doctoral and advanced academic writing is to prove that a research project is not a replication of the existing literature. The basic question of examiners, peer reviewers, and editors is always What is new here? Although a large number of researchers use appropriate literature reviews, not all of them effectively demonstrate how their research contributes to the existing knowledge base instead of reviewing the already existing information.

Extending the current literature does not imply that one has to find something completely new. Rather, it entails a contribution of a clear and defendable contribution- theoretical, empirical, methodological or contextual- which transforms the comprehension in an area. This paper describes how scholars may strategically justify novelty and value, starting with the framing of concepts, and concluding with the composition process.

Knowing What It Means to Go Beyond

One of the myths is that originality is one which needs complete newness. In practice, the majority of scholarly work is an incremental growth of previous work. To prove that your research is more than the literature, you need to demonstrate that:

• Raises an issue or a controversy that has not been settled.
• Modifies, tests or develops existing theories. 
• Presents new evidence, contexts and procedures.
• Combines points of view in a manner never before tried. 
• The key is positioning. Your work has to be found in the current scholarship but obviously you have to go beyond the boundaries of it.

The transition between Literature Summary and Critical Engagement

 A large number of research studies lack originality as the literature reviews are too descriptive. The summary of what was said even in a comprehensive way does not imply contribution.

In order to transcend the available literature, the researchers should be able to: 

• Determining discrepancies or conflicts between previous research. Illuminating a methodological weakness or gap.
• Challenging the mainstream beliefs.
• Unveiling under-theorized aspects of an issue.
• Critical literature review is not just a mapping of the field, but the intellectual space upon which your research is going to be doing its business.

The Gap in the Research is clearly stated

The gap in the research is the one between the existing literature and your input. Nevertheless, not every gap is equal. Saying that there are not many studies on X is hardly enough.

A strong research gap:

• Explains why the gap exists
• Elucidates the significance of why it is significant in theory or practice. 
• Shows what happens when it is not tackled.
• By defining the gap as a problematic issue with ramifications, you create the need to do your research.

Developing Contribution-Driven Research questions 

Research questions are great indicators of novelty. The questions which are just repetitions of the previous research in different contexts are unlikely to show any progress unless the context in which they are applied is relevant in terms of theory. 

Contribution based research questions:

• Contend with prevailing explanations.
• Add new variables or associations. 
• Test assumptions in various circumstances.
• Aim at explanatory profundity and not description. 

Properly formulated questions also lead the readers to the correct path of knowing how your study contributes to knowledge.

Placing Your Work in Academic Discourses

The best way of displaying originality is by being involved in the on-going scholarly debates. Instead of making your work look detached, make it a reaction to certain debates within the domain. 

This can be done by:

• Hitching your work to one side of an argument and providing new evidence. 
• Suggesting synthesis that would solve conflicting findings.
• Bringing in the alternative framework to redefine the debate.
• Claims of contribution are fortified by expressly stating the way your findings contribute to current debates.

Experiencing Theoretical Progress

One of the strongest approaches to surpass the existing literature is the theoretical contribution. This need not entail an all new theory, it may entail: 

• Application of an existing theory to new areas. 
• Rationalization of theoretical constructs.
• Advancing novel relations among concepts.
• Determining boundary conditions of given models. 

It is important to clearly explain the manner in which theory will evolve due to your findings. General statements of theorizing implications should be avoided.

By creating Originality Empirically. 

Empirical contribution has received little attention but when they are placed in the proper position, they are well appreciating. Your work is an empirical work which transcends literature when it: 

• Utilizes data of populations or regions that have not been studied extensively.
• Measures phenomena in time, and not at one point. 
• Discovers tendencies that break prevailing assumptions.
• Gives strong evidence in cases where the release of earlier findings was inconclusive.
• Notably, the empirical originality should be linked with theory so as to show its expanded relevance.

Emphasizing the Methodological Innovation

Another strong method of demonstrating progress is methodological contribution. This may involve: 

1. Using new approaches to old issues.
2. New combinations of qualitative and quantitative methods. 
3. Adjusting procedures to situations in which it did not work before. 
4. Development of better measures or analysis methods. 

The methodological originality is to be conceptualized in terms of what it allows scholars to know that they could not comprehend before.

Contribution Expression Not Impression

 Among the errors that most researchers commit is the assumption that a contribution will be evident to the readers. It rarely is. Contribution should be pronounced clearly, constantly and repeatedly.

Strategies that can be put in place are: 

• Clearly stated contribution in the introduction. 
• Contributing to the discussion section afresh. 
• Applying signposting language (e.g., this study contributes to the existing body of literature by)

Precisely differentiating your results and previous research. Being clear is not being arrogant but it is an academic duty.

Evidence of Practical and Policy Relevance

In practical areas, it may be important to go beyond literature by demonstrating practical effect. The practical or policy contributions are most effective when they: 

• Overcome constraints of current practices.
• Provide evidence-based recommendations. 
• Set theory into practice.

Theoretical advancement should not be replaced by such contributions, but rather complemented.

Making Revisions by the Reviewer in Mind

In order to make sure that your work will not be viewed as the one that is seen as a copy, edit it through the prism of a reviewer who will be skeptical about the material. Ask:

•  And what is new here, would be told by an intelligent reader? 
• Would my research be confused with a replication? 
• Have I been clear enough in my contribution?

The contribution-centered revision can be very powerful to enhance the academic effect of your piece of writing.

Top Ten Fallacies to Watch out of Originality

Researchers tend to undermine their assertions with unintentional attempts of: 

• Making excessive claims of novelty. 
• Burying the woods with the contribution.
• Contributing with no consideration of context.
• Fearing to be criticized, it is better to avoid making strong claims.
• The awareness of such pitfalls assists in preserving credibility.

Conclusion

 It is not the matter of exaggerating novelty, but making it clear what contribution is being made to existing literature. Through critical analysis of previous studies, making relevant gaps, situating your study in the context of existing scholarly discourse, and clearly describing how your results contribute to the body of knowledge, you can easily demonstrate through your work that your study is significant.

Finally, originality is not an episode in a thesis or an article- it is an umbilical cord that goes through the whole research process. And as soon as that thread is turned out of the ground, your work ceases to be competent, and becomes contributive.