INTRODUCTION
Originality in an assignment means performing one’s own work; not relying overmuch on outside sources or previously established information. There is a difference between a review and an original work – in a review, you are merely reassembling and reorganizing already discovered information; there is no new topic to broach. However, in the instance of original works, you are contributing something new to your discipline (Cohen, 2007). When performing an assignment, you can achieve originality through coming up with your own unique idea for which there is no precedent, and executing it publicly to establish that you pursued this line of reasoning first.
Originality has its precedence in law as well. In these instances, it relates primarily to copyright infringement cases; it is brought up in instances of theft of intellectual property. When someone creates something new, it is thought to be their own idea; copyrighting it allows them to claim it as their own for the purposes of selling or profiting from it. Intellectual property can range anywhere from physical products to stories and ideas. Copyrights are meant to protect only the original authored works – any other attempts to capitalize on an existing piece of intellectual property is illegal under copyright law.
There are six primary criteria for establishing originality in a work: 1) the work is empirical, and has not been done before; 2) you have synthesized something that has not been combined previously; 3) this particular piece of intellectual property has not been copyrighted in this country; 4) you are examining topics your colleagues in the same discipline have not investigated; 5) you are testing existing knowledge in an original way, and 6) you are adding previously unknown facts or data to an established piece of property. In this essay, we will explore all six of these concepts and determine exactly how they relate to originality.
1. You do empirical work which has not been done before.
Empirical work is defined as work which is gained via experimentation. When you perform empirical work, it starts with a hypothesis – something you would like to prove or disprove. Often, this is where the originality of your work begins, as your work must be something no one else has thought of or covered before.
Once the hypothesis is determined, you can go about it any way you like. You must, however, perform your own experiment, with your own methods and samples. You are the one going through the actual work – this ensures that you are not merely co-opting someone else’s previously performed experiment. Even if it were to be an existing hypothesis, you could still claim originality for this particular experiment, as the results would turn out differently than the previous attempts. Furthermore, you could reach the same conclusion, but through different means.
The originality for this work must come from the fact that you are the first person to be coming up with these results. You cannot have the exact same data as someone else, or use someone else’s data instead of recording it yourself. At the same time, you must ensure that it is recorded accurately and quickly, not relying on guesswork or memory to create your original work. When performing empirical work, the nature of the experiment itself makes it original – no one else but you is doing this particular experiment, and you are not pretending the data is from any previous study. Therefore, as long as you simply do the work, you can rest assured that it is original.
2. You synthesize things which have not been put together before.
Originality can also occur even when one has not collected the original data for the experiment or assignment. Original connections can be made between already existing pieces, concepts, etc., and still be considered an original work. An integral part of academia and science is piecing together things that already exist to bring new dimension to them or point out similarities or differences between the two.
Synthesis is the combining of two alike or unlike elements to create a new entity. In the case of academia, you can find connections or similarities between multiple existing pieces of data or studies, and create a new paper or work comparing them. That is then an original work – provided the works on which you based your work are properly credited, it is perfectly acceptable to consider it original.
When you are synthesizing data, you are looking at it from an entirely new lens or angle, creating the opportunity for new things to come to light and be discovered about it. These insights or connections are not found in the original study, and as such do not belong to the original authors. They were likely making an entirely different point than you are making; noting and observing this connection and reporting it is your responsibility, and your right as the discoverer of this new synthesis (McKenzie, 2009).
Performing synthesis in an assignment is easy to do while still remaining original. First, you must merely look at the things you wish to synthesize, whether they be scientific studies or law cases. Search for the connections, and once you’ve found them, be sure to articulate your new, original points, using what was previously created by others as a springboard. These new thoughts on previously existing material absolutely count as original work.
3. You do something in this country which has only been done elsewhere.
There are a wide variety of scientific studies and the like being performed around the world. Many of them have to do with unique circumstances that are specific to that country. However, you can take that previously performed research and apply it in your country, and it would be perfectly original. For one, the circumstances are entirely different; the geography is likely very different, as well as the laws regarding scientific ethics. You may be working with fewer or more restrictions than the original researchers. These freedoms or added restrictions add a whole new dimension to the work, as you are verifying or determining exactly how the process would be performed by anyone after you in your own country. This sets a precedent for behavior, and therefore can be counted as an original work.
Also, copyright laws and intellectual property laws might be different between countries, and it may be more difficult to enforce any potential infringement. This would make it, by default, your own original work. In this way, you are bringing those same findings to your country in an official manner that is accredited, verifiable, and applicable to those who would be reading it. It always helps to check, however, before performing any of this work on your own in your home country.
When performing work that has been done in another country in your own, there are a number of guidelines you want to follow in order to keep it as an original work. First of all, you must make sure to credit the original researchers from whom you are taking inspiration from. Next, you must be sure to quantify the differences encountered in performing the experiment in your country in your work, so that you can make sure to establish the circumstances requiring your performing it here.
4. You examine topics that people in your discipline have not looked at.
Another way in which you can make sure you have an original work is to ensure that you are investigating an aspect of your discipline that none of your colleagues have covered. This allows the entire field as a whole to benefit from an answer to an as-yet-untouched question; it also permits you to further your own understanding of the work through dedicated investigation and research.
There are most certainly patches of uncharted ground in whatever discipline you might find yourself in. There would be little to no point in having researchers and investigators (and teaching new ones) if there was not more to learn. Originality comes in finding the one question that has not been asked yet – the diamond in the rough. Once you find some new topics to explore, there is nothing stopping you from pursuing, investigating, and publishing your findings.
Investigating a new work also permits you to keep in touch with your fellow researchers and others in your discipline, and instruct them as to a previously unmentioned aspect to their field (Martin, 1999). New types of cases, new sicknesses or organisms and the like must be brought before one’s colleagues in some way; this permits them to learn from you as you may have learned from them. It furthers the pursuit of scientific or academic discovery, and it makes the field as a whole a more comprehensively explored one. There will be new topics to explore all the time; making sure to find new ones, and avoiding the pitfalls of treading over old ground, will ensure that your work stays original.
5. You test existing knowledge in an original way.
You may already be treading on existing ground – a subject that people have explored and investigated for a long time. However, you may have something new to bring to the table. You may have a new method of investigating. You might even have a new theory or hypothesis that complements or contradicts common knowledge about that topic. If you feel you can alter the prevailing wisdom regarding an existing subject, you should absolutely do that. It will result in an intriguing and informative original work that contributes more greatly to the overall discipline you are studying or researching.
You may doubt the findings of a previous colleague, or wonder if the same results would happen under current circumstances (time having passed between the studies). You might even think you have a better way of getting the same conclusion the existing work tried to find. These are perfectly legitimate reasons to consider your work original – it has not been done in this way before. You might even find some incredible new data that proves the existing knowledge wrong (University of Melbourne, 2007).
All of this comes from a place of attempting to determine the accuracy of previously established information. Your initial aim is often trying to prove whether this existing information is accurate or not; either way, it is a helpful practice for the field. Either the assertions are proven right or they are thrown into question. As you look at existing information in a new way, make sure you are taking a truly original angle to the project. Do not simply replicate the experiment or finding you are challenging; be sure to implement a signature method or approach that has no precedent for this particular case. In this way, you can make sure your work is original and merited.
6. You add knowledge in a way that has not been done before.
When doing an assignment, it might not even be an issue of looking at things in a new way, or synthesizing information. You may simply want to append to someone else’s work. They have laid the foundation for your continued effort, and you believe there is more to discover. While you cannot take the credit for what the previous researcher has done already, it is certainly within your power to flesh out what they already started, if you have something to contribute. That addition is then yours; original and new, and you can lay claim to it if you choose (Eisner et al., 2008).
CONCLUSION
There are many reservations that people have when attempting to create an original work – they fear that there is nothing new to say about the discipline, and therefore they would absolutely run out of topics. The existence of original work, however, is in the hands of the creator and the researcher – there is always something that can be appended, synthesized, split or examined further. You can find ways to enhance the work of others, or come up with something entirely new yourself. It has a great deal to do with your level of passion for the field and your penchant for exploration. Would you rather expand upon existing findings, or branch out on your own and start a whole new subject? Regardless of your preference, these are both options that provide a great deal of originality.
References
Eisner, C., & Vicinus, M. (2008). Originality, imitation, and plagiarism: teaching writing in the digital age. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Cohen, R. (Director) (2007, March 8). Faculty Tracks in the College of Medicine. Intro. Lecture conducted from University of Illinois at Chicago, IL.
Martin, L. (1999). The Contributions of Rational Choice: A Defense of Pluralism. International Security, 24(2), 74-83.
McKenzie, J. (2009, May 9). Taxonomy of Synthesis. From Now On. Retrieved June 22, 2011, from http://www.fno.org/may09/synthesis.html
University of Melbourne. (2007). Developing originality. University of Melbourne, 1-4.
