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 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 expected to be 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 listener.

Second rule: The interesting piece of work can be defended

The scientific debate is one of constant analysis and interference. Any statement you make is vulnerable. If you offer information Wikipedia will offer your audience will interrupt you and tell you that this is already common knowledge. If you offer knowledge without any further statement about why we should follow your presentation - you will be interrupted with the question: What do you want to say? Does this lead us any further?

Write with a notion of why you do what you do and anticipate critical interruptions.

Third rule: The interesting work is critical with itself

Evaluate your own work. The beginner offers his or her personal views as great statements without even listening to the debate. We are happy if you have understood why we are having this debate and if you can bring the last statements of the debate into a logical connection. If you understand your own statement in its limitations, that will be noted with respect - if not with constructive ideas about how you might develop this statement.