User:Marshallsumter/Original research

The theory of original research is focused on what is or what it takes for an effort to be original research. The phrase "theory of original research" has no citations on Google scholar. Even on the full web, there are only eleven cites of which eight are correctly phrased and one of these directs to this resource.

Notation
Notation: let the symbol Def. indicate that a definition is following.

Universals
To help with definitions, their meanings and intents, there is the learning resource theory of definition.

Def. evidence that demonstrates that a concept is possible is called proof of concept.

For the theory of original research, the proof of concept is that there is a theory of original research.

Def. "new research, as opposed to review or synthesis of earlier research", per Wiktionary original research, is called original research.

Attribution
To demonstrate that you are adding OR, you must be unable to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented.

All material added to articles that is not original research or original synthesis must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed. "The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged."

Original
On Wiktionary, original usually means first in time. But, what about synonymy? Suppose someone creates a synonymy for an original sentence. Is this truly a synonym or is it original research? Usually, the idea of putting the sentence into your own words indicates synonymy. And, the proof is left to the reader. Should it be?

In the Wikipedia article persuasive definition: "A persuasive definition is a form of definition which purports to describe the 'true' or 'commonly accepted' meaning of a term, while in reality stipulating an uncommon or altered use, usually to support an argument for some view, or to create or alter rights, duties or crimes. " I cannot confirm that this definition is in the references indicated.

Consider the following sentence from the Wikipedia article persuasive definition: "A persuasive definition is a form of definition which purports to describe the 'true' or 'commonly accepted' meaning of a term, while in reality stipulating an uncommon or altered use, usually to support an argument for some view, or to create or alter rights, duties or crimes."

In the history of the Wikipedia article definition, there is "Definitions should avoid being what C.L. Stevenson calls 'persuasive'. A persuasive definition is one which purports to describe the 'true' or 'commonly accepted' meaning of a term, while in reality stipulating an altered use, perhaps as an argument for some view, for example that some system of government is democratic. Stevenson also notes that some definitions are 'legal' or 'coercive', whose object is to create or alter rights, duties or crimes."

While I do not have ready access to Stevenson's publication, which synonymy is the exact synonymy and are any relative synonymy. "In his Ethics and Language, Stevenson defines the term 'persuasive definition' as follows: "In any 'persuasive definition' the term defined is a familiar one, whose meaning is both descriptive and strongly emotive. The purport of the definition is to alter the descriptive meaning of the term, usually by giving it greater precision within the boundary of its customary vagueness; but the definition does not make any substantial change in the term's emotive meaning. And the definition is used, consciously or unconsciously, in an effort to secure, by this interplay between emotive and descriptive meaning, a redirection of people's attitudes" (Stevenson, 1944)"

If these are not all exact, perhaps the authors between Stevenson and the present have varied slightly from exact synonymy. Relative synonymy may be a form of original research.

Primary source
Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used. Any exceptional claim may be original research.

Research
"Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources."

Synthesis
Def. "[t]he formation of something complex or coherent by combining simpler things", per Wiktionary synthesis, is called synthesis.

Combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources is considered synthesis (a variety of original research). If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, then joining A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources is synthesis.

Def. new synthesis, as opposed to review or synthesis of earlier research, that is not mentioned by earlier research or synthesis and is unciteable to earlier research or synthesis is called original synthesis.

Test of term
Several different tests or learning packets (lessons) may be generated from the original research project focused on the term "dominant group". Currently under development in resource space is Dominant group/Metagenome/Term test. The term "dominant group" is an interesting example and possible test for original research vs. ordinary usage. It has no ordinary usage dictionary definition. But, there are several technical or theoretical definitions in use for scholarly use. Curiously, if an author uses the term in a sentence, for example:

"The course of evolution has been changed several times by mass extinctions that wiped out previously dominant groups and allowed other to rise from obscurity to become major components of ecosystems.", from Paleontology,

the author may be speculating or engaging in original research.

This example is close to the cited statements in dominant group/paleontology. But, there is a distinct difference: "The course of evolution has been changed several times" is not the same meaning as the authors indicate in "dominant group/paleontology".

Additional aids in determining what each student should or could do can be found in these wikiversity articles:
 * 1) Dominant group/Classes
 * 2) Test of term.

Unattributed but attributable
"That "Paris is the capital of France" needs no source, because no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it. The statement is attributable, even if not attributed."

Wikipedia
"The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources."