What do you think?

While I was studying for the GRE last week, I ran across an issue topic that's been running through my head ever since:

"In order to produce successful original work, scholars and scientists must first study the successful work of others to learn what contributions remain to be made."

In other words, as I research and write my thesis, my main objective should be to discern areas that have been overlooked or questions that have not been answered. Realistically, of course, you need to have an idea or area already in mind, and then look to see if there are holes to be filled in that area or with that idea. So you must start at least with a tentative direction and not with an exhaustive--and exhausting!--review of an entire body of literature. Then you can look for weak spots or holes that you think you can address in an original and thought-provoking way.

This general idea strikes a chord with me, both in terms of guiding my research and in terms of how I present my research (rationale for the method and topic, especially). What's curious to me is that no one I've spoken with has couched academic contributions in this manner. Instead, it seems that the underlying idea is just to present your take on something and hope someone else jumps on it as a timely or brilliant piece of work (hopefully, both!). In retrospect, this approach seems incredibly un-strategic (is that even a word?) and not a terribly efficient approach to something that's going to swallow a good part of your life, be it thesis or dissertation. The thought of jumping into such a project without some strategic thinking suddenly gives me the chills!

All I can think is that I've stumbled onto a basic principle that either everyone knows and doesn't talk about (because they assume everyone knows), or I've just discovered the way people should have been thinking about research and presentation all along! What do you think?