Happy Accidents in Research

I have on my bookshelf a copy of a 1996 book entitled Novel to Film, written by a professor named Brian McFarlane. I discovered this book rather recently, but I wish I’d had it years ago.

When I was an undergraduate I did a research project, basically my senior thesis, on novel to film adaptation. My approach was simple and direct, and coincidentally, very similar to the approach taken by McFarlane. I was surprised to discover that what I had done, someone else had done years before. There were, of course, substantial differences: different films and criteria for selecting them, and different terminology; but the theory, the approach, and the premise of my study and his book parallelled one another.

When I learned this I was disappointed, but not because I saw a piece of work with a similar premise much better than mine. I was just disappointed I didn't have this book years ago when I did that study. if I’d had this book at my disposal, I could have spent my time and energy developing upon McFarlane's ideas rather than unknowingly presenting a variation.


It may not seem like it but coincidences like this are something to be happy about. Research has twists and turns, and sometimes projects need to be significantly diverted from where they were originally expected to go. Some research projects are undone because something new is discovered, and other projects are enhanced by it. Yet no matter, what a researcher, regardless of skill or experience, can't get discouraged by changes or new information. It is better to use it to further develop your thoughts and ideas. Just as you ought to with any other piece of research.


Had I found McFarlane's book back then, I wouldn't have changed my project much. I still had something worth saying despite the similarities. I still had something worth adding to this academic discussion. If I am to be upset about anything, it isn’t my work becoming redundant but that I missed an opportunity to do more with a subject that I care deeply about.


There's a lot of information out there. Young researchers taking their first serious steps away from Wikipedia and into the academic writing deluge may find their ideas, or some variation thereof, have already been tackled by another. Someone else's work on a similar premise is merely an opportunity to further your own research, to put your own spin on it, to find something they overlooked, misinterpreted, or to test their premise in a new and different way. That's really all I did with McFarlane's work. I just didn't know it until years later.