A good research contributes
From all of the paper writing workshops I have attended and paper writing guidelines I have read, it seems that the firstly mentioned attributes of a good research is always its contribution. A good research must have solid contribution to theory, or practice, or both (e.g. Schminke, Rynes).
According to Rynes, the contribution of a research would be low if it has:
· Low incremental contribution, or
· Overly narrow contribution, or
· Not very surprising (results), or
· Unclear importance.
‘Low incremental contribution’ means the results of the research have been documented by some others. ‘Overly narrow contribution’ means the contribution is insufficiently large. When submitting a paper to a journal, reviews typically judge the results against common sense rather than against documented findings in prior research. Thus, a boring or anticipated reported finding may render the entire research ‘not very surprising’ as it does not trigger further and deeper thoughts and arguments. In addition, in some cases, authors may concentrate on describing what has been done in the research while forgetting to articulate clearly and strongly why the research is an interesting or significant one.
From my point of view, the first two dot points, ‘low incremental contribution’ and ‘overly narrow contribution’ can be avoided before undertaking the research. Researchers should have developed a solid understanding about the potential contribution of the research in mind if they have done a good literature review. ‘Not very surprising results’ seems to be more difficult to anticipate at the beginning, but I still attribute it to an insufficiently good literature review. The hypothesis development section in each paper, by providing a logical reasoning, should serve a good starting point for studying and thinking about the inherent relations between related variables of interest. One could certainly ask in their mind: why A (not C) should affect B (not D). Moreover, the literature review section in each paper should provide a broad view of the development of the research area (similar topic) so far, and one could broaden it through accumulation.
However, different from the above three, ‘unclear importance’ may result from authors being unclear about who their potential readers are and what these readers care. In other words, the research may be a significant one per se, it is just the authors who have not done a sufficient job to articulate its importance and/or to convey its essential messages to the right audience. It is crucial to bear in mind that while writing, the authors should always imagine that they are talking to their audience (not themselves) and trying to sell their story to their audience. In order to successfully sell the story, authors may sometimes need to try to frame their stories differently to find the best fit.
In short, a good research contributes, and it should yell its contribution clearly, loudly and proudly.
A good research is well-written (well-argued)
My supervisor has always reminded me that a good research must have good argument.
Argument exists almost everywhere in a paper. For instance, in the literature review, authors should be able to summarise precisely of what have been done in prior research and to critique reasonably and critically of what have not done enough. And for me, maybe personally, I would be happy if the authors could build a broad yet comprehensive picture for me (I am a bit lazy to do it myself). This requires the authors to have a good understanding of the relevant literature in general and also deep insights of the closely related research in particular. Equally importantly, the authors should also be clear regarding which parts of prior research are adopted in the current study and why.
In the hypothesis development section, good argument is also essential for readers to follow and understand the research design which addresses the research question. Sometimes, and I made such mistakes myself when I was writing my Honours thesis, authors forget to connect or link the hypotheses with the research question. Perhaps only a few sentences or words can solve the problem. The key to remember is to make sure that the whole writing moves smoothly rather than breaks into parts or becomes isolated. Another common mistake that authors may make is that the logic or reasoning of hypotheses is not as good as they perceive.
For example, I have been recently reading two related papers, one written by A and B, and the other one written by A, B, and C. Interestingly, for both papers, I could not follow and even not fully agree with their hypotheses development. I always need to come back and forth to understand the logic behind and to check what they really mean by saying something by looking at the research design. I also need to make notes to remind myself of some critical points what I may miss out. It is not a joyful reading and studying experience. Even though these two researches provide significant contribution, I still view them not good research.
In addition to literature review and hypotheses development, argument is also important when presenting and explaining results. It is possible that the empirical results do not support, or even go against the hypotheses. However, it is not uncommon to see authors saying “…does not support Hypothesis X…’ without explaining why. No feasible explanation may make readers wonder if the unsupported hypothesis is actually not logically developed, or if the measurement of variables or data is not appropriate.
A good research is well-designed
A well-designed research addresses its research question, employs the appropriate measures and data. The research design is so important that once the research is completed and submitted for revision, it cannot be fixed (Schminke).
If the hypotheses developed address the research question well, then the research design can just address the hypotheses. With regards to measurements of variables, it would be good if they are adopted from those in prior research, as the authors do not have to argue for the appropriateness of such measurements. However, if new measurements are introduced, the authors need to show why, and better do robustness checks.
