The Politics of Science

Some work is starting to hit the health disparity journals that looks very similar to my PhD research. A group of researchers from Ohio, U.S. have published a couple of things in recent months that address questions and issues of health disparities amongst different generations of women that are worryingly similar to those questions that initially motivated and shaped my project. Theoretically and methodologically our work is disparate, but is producing similar results, which is actually a remarkably positive thing for the field.

The selfish concern is that with their work already published, it reduces the "novel contribution to the field" that my work offers, which is the number 1 criteria for earning the doctoral degree. Further, given their work has only very recently hit the public sphere, and my research is already completed (minus the actual thesis bit), there is no opportunity for shaping or presenting my work around what they have already offered. Essentially what has happened is we've produced very similar data, and thus very similar contributions to knowledge, simultaneously. They published first, which means they did it first, and now my project won't be seen to have forged as much new ground, despite the fact that I've done all my work up to this point independent of their research.

I should be discouraged I suppose, but I feel only a mild concern. I'm actually excited that other people care about this work too. I'd like to meet and work with these people. I emailed them to ask for a job.

The challenge now is incorporating their work into my thesis in a way that makes it look like their work complements mine, and vice versa. If all goes to plan my date of submission will be the same date as their publication (2009), so my examiners will be able to clearly see we've done this work simultaneously and independently.

And that, my friends, has been the discovery of the week.