User:Olaf Simons:Sandbox

First Rule: The interesting piece of work is designed to contribute to the ongoing scholarly discussion

There is more than one way to contribute to a scientific debate - some works offer new theories, others analyse the existing debate with the aim to show where id ended in predictable problems (and show how these have been solved elsewhere). There are works which widen our text base - a commented bibliography of primary sources can be a valuable contribution to the ongoing scholarly discussion, a commented new edition of a book designed to support views or to change them can be such a contribution.

Before you hand in your work ask yourself the questions your reader is going to ask:

• Have I given a summary of the debate - not the general debate but the scientific debate?
• Did I make it clear in what way my work is to be seen as a contribution?

It is sufficient if you can answer one of the following questions:

• Did I offer knowledge that has not been offered so far?
• Did I offer perspectives that have not been offered that far?
• Did I offer a summary of the debate that will be of help?
• Did I support a certain view?
• Did I reject a certain view?
• Have I helped to understand why certain answers have turned out to be problematic?

It is sufficient if you can answer at least one of these questions, yet this must be clear: you have tried to understand the scholarly debate (not a debate and you have created for yourself) and you have tried to make a statement participants of this debate could evaluate as a potentially interesting contribution. You do not have to revolutionise research. The beginner does already make a respectable move if he or she can competently summarise a debate and understand where the solution is searched at the moment. It is enough to make proposals of research. The beginner whose contribution an expert can comment with: "you have understood our problem" has already become a respected participant of the debate.