Dr. Fred Kemp of Texas Tech University calls such opportunities within the collective mind "disturbed knowledge," as opposed to the "shared knowledge," or the ideas we mostly agree upon.
This disturbed knowledge, according to Kemp, generally originates from one of five sources, or a combination of these:
1. There's a gap in the disciplinary knowledge;
2. Something about the disciplinary knowledge is just wrong;
3. Something about the disciplinary knowledge needs explanation, expansion, or further defense;
4. Some notable person in the field needs a revised or enlightened assessment;
5. The field itself needs a new branch or corollary or peripheral addition.
If your academic paper doesn't offer disturbed knowledge, then it probably is time to question again why you are bothering.
- Tools in my digital toolbox (today)
- Putting a theoretical foundation under mobile stor...
- Workspace and its story
- Where do interesting academic paper prospects come...
- Digital or media literacy
- "Writing for Scholarly Publication" by Anne Sigism...
- Walter Ong's Secondary Orality and its relationshi...
- Does the Internet make you smarter or dumber?
- ▼ June (8)
- ► 2009 (68)