PaolaShreider
New member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2026
- Messages
- 19
Got my research paper back with a note in the margin that said "competent synthesis but lacks original contribution to the literature" and I've been staring at it for two days trying to understand what I was supposed to do differently 
I'm a junior in political science. The assignment was a research paper, not a thesis. I found good sources, synthesized the arguments accurately, structured the analysis logically, and made a clear claim. What exactly is the "original contribution" I was supposed to be making in a 15-page undergraduate paper?
When I asked my professor to clarify, she said something about how even synthetic papers should "advance the conversation" rather than just summarize it. I understand the words but I'm having trouble translating them into something I could actually do on the page.
My current theory about what she means: the paper should have a perspective on the existing debate, not just a description of it. Like, I should be arguing that the current literature is missing something, or that two bodies of research should be connected that haven't been, or that a common assumption in the field deserves scrutiny. Rather than just asking "what do scholars think about X" and answering it, I should be asking "what is wrong or incomplete about what scholars currently think about X."
Does that sound right to those of you further along in your programs? And if so — how do you find that angle without having spent years immersed in a literature the way actual researchers have? Is that a realistic expectation for undergraduate work?
I'm a junior in political science. The assignment was a research paper, not a thesis. I found good sources, synthesized the arguments accurately, structured the analysis logically, and made a clear claim. What exactly is the "original contribution" I was supposed to be making in a 15-page undergraduate paper?
When I asked my professor to clarify, she said something about how even synthetic papers should "advance the conversation" rather than just summarize it. I understand the words but I'm having trouble translating them into something I could actually do on the page.
My current theory about what she means: the paper should have a perspective on the existing debate, not just a description of it. Like, I should be arguing that the current literature is missing something, or that two bodies of research should be connected that haven't been, or that a common assumption in the field deserves scrutiny. Rather than just asking "what do scholars think about X" and answering it, I should be asking "what is wrong or incomplete about what scholars currently think about X."
Does that sound right to those of you further along in your programs? And if so — how do you find that angle without having spent years immersed in a literature the way actual researchers have? Is that a realistic expectation for undergraduate work?