Post Your Answer
2 years ago in Scholarly Contribution By Shobha
Is replicating a classic study a valid scholarly contribution for a PhD thesis, or is it seen as unoriginal "student work"?
My PhD involves a direct replication and extension of a foundational experiment in my field. My committee supports it, but I'm getting pushback from external colleagues who say it's "not a real contribution" and I should aim for something more novel. Are they right?
All Answers (1 Answers In All)
By Aaqib Answered 3 weeks ago
In the current climate emphasizing reproducibility, a rigorous replication is a profound contribution—if framed correctly. The contribution is not the finding but the verification and contextualization of a foundational claim. For a PhD, this is excellent training in meticulous methodology. To elevate it, don't just replicate; extend. Test the finding in a new population, with modern equipment, or under different conditions. Your contribution becomes: "Providing the first direct, high-powered test of Classic Finding X in 30 years, confirming effect Y but revealing its dependence on Condition Z, thereby refining the theory's boundary conditions." This demonstrates deep understanding of the field's foundations while actively participating in its necessary process of self-correction—a mature and highly respected scholarly activity.
Reply to Aaqib
Related Questions