research gap definition pdf

The Research Gap (Literature Gap)

I f you’re just starting out in research, chances are you’ve heard about the elusive research gap (also called a literature gap). In this post, we’ll explore the tricky topic of research gaps. We’ll explain what a research gap is, look at the four most common types of research gaps, and unpack how you can go about finding a suitable research gap for your dissertation, thesis or research project.

Overview: Research Gap 101

• What is a research gap
• Four common types of research gaps
• Practical examples
• How to find research gaps
• Recap & key takeaways

What (exactly) is a research gap?

Well, at the simplest level, a research gap is essentially an unanswered question or unresolved problem in a field, which reflects a lack of existing research in that space. Alternatively, a research gap can also exist when there’s already a fair deal of existing research, but where the findings of the studies pull in different directions , making it difficult to draw firm conclusions.

For example, let’s say your research aims to identify the cause (or causes) of a particular disease. Upon reviewing the literature, you may find that there’s a body of research that points toward cigarette smoking as a key factor – but at the same time, a large body of research that finds no link between smoking and the disease. In that case, you may have something of a research gap that warrants further investigation.

Now that we’ve defined what a research gap is – an unanswered question or unresolved problem – let’s look at a few different types of research gaps.

Types of research gaps

While there are many different types of research gaps, the four most common ones we encounter when helping students at Grad Coach are as follows:

• The classic literature gap
• The disagreement gap
• The contextual gap, and
• The methodological gap

Need a helping hand?

1. The Classic Literature Gap

First up is the classic literature gap. This type of research gap emerges when there’s a new concept or phenomenon that hasn’t been studied much, or at all. For example, when a social media platform is launched, there’s an opportunity to explore its impacts on users, how it could be leveraged for marketing, its impact on society, and so on. The same applies for new technologies, new modes of communication, transportation, etc.

Classic literature gaps can present exciting research opportunities , but a drawback you need to be aware of is that with this type of research gap, you’ll be exploring completely new territory . This means you’ll have to draw on adjacent literature (that is, research in adjacent fields) to build your literature review, as there naturally won’t be very many existing studies that directly relate to the topic. While this is manageable, it can be challenging for first-time researchers, so be careful not to bite off more than you can chew.

2. The Disagreement Gap

As the name suggests, the disagreement gap emerges when there are contrasting or contradictory findings in the existing research regarding a specific research question (or set of questions). The hypothetical example we looked at earlier regarding the causes of a disease reflects a disagreement gap.

Importantly, for this type of research gap, there needs to be a relatively balanced set of opposing findings . In other words, a situation where 95% of studies find one result and 5% find the opposite result wouldn’t quite constitute a disagreement in the literature. Of course, it’s hard to quantify exactly how much weight to give to each study, but you’ll need to at least show that the opposing findings aren’t simply a corner-case anomaly .

3. The Contextual Gap

The third type of research gap is the contextual gap. Simply put, a contextual gap exists when there’s already a decent body of existing research on a particular topic, but an absence of research in specific contexts .

For example, there could be a lack of research on:

• A specific population – perhaps a certain age group, gender or ethnicity
• A geographic area – for example, a city, country or region
• A certain time period – perhaps the bulk of the studies took place many years or even decades ago and the landscape has changed.

The contextual gap is a popular option for dissertations and theses, especially for first-time researchers, as it allows you to develop your research on a solid foundation of existing literature and potentially even use existing survey measures.

Importantly, if you’re gonna go this route, you need to ensure that there’s a plausible reason why you’d expect potential differences in the specific context you choose. If there’s no reason to expect different results between existing and new contexts, the research gap wouldn’t be well justified. So, make sure that you can clearly articulate why your chosen context is “different” from existing studies and why that might reasonably result in different findings.

4. The Methodological Gap

Last but not least, we have the methodological gap. As the name suggests, this type of research gap emerges as a result of the research methodology or design of existing studies. With this approach, you’d argue that the methodology of existing studies is lacking in some way , or that they’re missing a certain perspective.

For example, you might argue that the bulk of the existing research has taken a quantitative approach, and therefore there is a lack of rich insight and texture that a qualitative study could provide. Similarly, you might argue that existing studies have primarily taken a cross-sectional approach , and as a result, have only provided a snapshot view of the situation – whereas a longitudinal approach could help uncover how constructs or variables have evolved over time.

Practical Examples

Let’s take a look at some practical examples so that you can see how research gaps are typically expressed in written form. Keep in mind that these are just examples – not actual current gaps (we’ll show you how to find these a little later!).

Context: Healthcare

Despite extensive research on diabetes management, there’s a research gap in terms of understanding the effectiveness of digital health interventions in rural populations (compared to urban ones) within Eastern Europe.

Context: Environmental Science

While a wealth of research exists regarding plastic pollution in oceans, there is significantly less understanding of microplastic accumulation in freshwater ecosystems like rivers and lakes, particularly within Southern Africa.

Context: Education

While empirical research surrounding online learning has grown over the past five years, there remains a lack of comprehensive studies regarding the effectiveness of online learning for students with special educational needs.

As you can see in each of these examples, the author begins by clearly acknowledging the existing research and then proceeds to explain where the current area of lack (i.e., the research gap) exists.

How To Find A Research Gap

Now that you’ve got a clearer picture of the different types of research gaps, the next question is of course, “how do you find these research gaps?” .

Well, we cover the process of how to find original, high-value research gaps in a separate post . But, for now, I’ll share a basic two-step strategy here to help you find potential research gaps.

As a starting point, you should find as many literature reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses as you can, covering your area of interest. Additionally, you should dig into the most recent journal articles to wrap your head around the current state of knowledge. It’s also a good idea to look at recent dissertations and theses (especially doctoral-level ones). Dissertation databases such as ProQuest, EBSCO and Open Access are a goldmine for this sort of thing. Importantly, make sure that you’re looking at recent resources (ideally those published in the last year or two), or the gaps you find might have already been plugged by other researchers.

Once you’ve gathered a meaty collection of resources, the section that you really want to focus on is the one titled “ further research opportunities ” or “further research is needed”. In this section, the researchers will explicitly state where more studies are required – in other words, where potential research gaps may exist. You can also look at the “ limitations ” section of the studies, as this will often spur ideas for methodology-based research gaps.

By following this process, you’ll orient yourself with the current state of research , which will lay the foundation for you to identify potential research gaps. You can then start drawing up a shortlist of ideas and evaluating them as candidate topics . But remember, make sure you’re looking at recent articles – there’s no use going down a rabbit hole only to find that someone’s already filled the gap 🙂

Let’s Recap

We’ve covered a lot of ground in this post. Here are the key takeaways:

• A research gap is an unanswered question or unresolved problem in a field, which reflects a lack of existing research in that space.
• The four most common types of research gaps are the classic literature gap, the disagreement gap, the contextual gap and the methodological gap.
• To find potential research gaps, start by reviewing recent journal articles in your area of interest, paying particular attention to the FRIN section .

If you’re keen to learn more about research gaps and research topic ideation in general, be sure to check out the rest of the Grad Coach Blog . Alternatively, if you’re looking for 1-on-1 support with your dissertation, thesis or research project, be sure to check out our private coaching service .

You Might Also Like:

How To Review & Understand Academic Literature Quickly

Learn how to fast-track your literature review by reading with intention and clarity. Dr E and Amy Murdock explain how.

Dissertation Writing Services: Far Worse Than You Think

Thinking about using a dissertation or thesis writing service? You might want to reconsider that move. Here’s what you need to know.

Triangulation: The Ultimate Credibility Enhancer

Triangulation is one of the best ways to enhance the credibility of your research. Learn about the different options here.

The Harsh Truths Of Academic Research

Dr. Ethar Al-Saraf and Dr. Amy Murdock dive into the darker truths of academic research, so that you’re well prepared for reality.

Dissertation Paralysis: How To Get Unstuck

In this episode of the podcast, Dr. Ethar and Dr. Amy Murdock dive into how to get unstuck when you’re facing dissertation paralysis

📄 FREE TEMPLATES

Research Topic Ideation

Proposal Writing

Literature Review

Methodology & Analysis

Academic Writing

Referencing & Citing

Apps, Tools & Tricks

The Grad Coach Podcast

42 Comments

This post is REALLY more than useful, Thank you very very much

Very helpful specialy, for those who are new for writing a research! So thank you very much!!

I found it very helpful article. Thank you.

it very good but what need to be clear with the concept is when di we use research gap before we conduct aresearch or after we finished it ,or are we propose it to be solved or studied or to show that we are unable to cover so that we let it to be studied by other researchers ?

Just at the time when I needed it, really helpful.

Very helpful and well-explained. Thank you

VERY HELPFUL

We’re very grateful for your guidance, indeed we have been learning a lot from you , so thank you abundantly once again.

hello brother could you explain to me this question explain the gaps that researchers are coming up with ?

Am just starting to write my research paper. your publication is very helpful. Thanks so much

How to cite the author of this?

your explanation very help me for research paper. thank you

Very important presentation. Thanks.

Very helpful indeed

Best Ideas. Thank you.

I found it’s an excellent blog to get more insights about the Research Gap. I appreciate it!

Kindly explain to me how to generate good research objectives.

This is very helpful, thank you

How to tabulate research gap

Very helpful, thank you.

Thanks a lot for this great insight!

This is really helpful indeed!

This article is really helpfull in discussing how will we be able to define better a research problem of our interest. Thanks so much.

Reading this just in good time as i prepare the proposal for my PhD topic defense.

Very helpful Thanks a lot.

Thank you very much

This was very timely. Kudos

Great one! Thank you all.

Thank you very much.

This is so enlightening. Disagreement gap. Thanks for the insight.

How do I Cite this document please?

Research gap about career choice given me Example bro?

I found this information so relevant as I am embarking on a Masters Degree. Thank you for this eye opener. It make me feel I can work diligently and smart on my research proposal.

This is very helpful to beginners of research. You have good teaching strategy that use favorable language that limit everyone from being bored. Kudos!!!!!

This plat form is very useful under academic arena therefore im stil learning a lot of informations that will help to reduce the burden during development of my PhD thesis

This information is beneficial to me.

Insightful…

I have found this quite helpful. I will continue using gradcoach for research assistance

Doing research in PhD accounting, my research topic is: Business Environment and Small Business Performance: The Moderating Effect of Financial Literacy in Eastern Uganda. I am failing to focus the idea in the accounting areas. my supervisor tells me my research is more of in the business field. the literature i have surveyed has used financial literacy as an independent variable and not as a moderator. Kindly give me some guidance here. the core problem is that despite the various studies, small businesses continue to collapse in the region. my vision is that financial literacy is still one of the major challenges hence the need for this topic.

An excellent work, it’s really helpful

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Submit Comment

• Print Friendly

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Development of a framework to identify research gaps from systematic reviews

Affiliation.

• 1 Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, 1830 East Monument Street, Baltimore, MD, USA. [email protected]
• PMID: 21937195
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.06.009

Objective: Our objective was to develop a framework to identify research gaps from systematic reviews.

Study design and setting: We reviewed the practices of (1) evidence-based practice centers (EPCs), and (2) other organizations that conduct evidence syntheses. We developed and pilot tested a framework for identifying research gaps.

Results: Four (33%) EPCs and three (8%) other organizations reported using an explicit framework to determine research gaps. Variations of the PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcomes) framework were most common. We developed a framework incorporating both the characterization of the gap using PICOS elements (also including setting) and the identification of the reason(s) why the gap exists as (1) insufficient or imprecise information, (2) biased information, (3) inconsistency or unknown consistency, and (4) not the right information. We mapped each of these reasons to concepts from three common evidence-grading systems.

Conclusion: Our framework determines from systematic reviews where the current evidence falls short and why or how the evidence falls short. This explicit identification of research gaps will allow systematic reviews to maximally inform the types of questions that need to be addressed and the types of studies needed to address the research gaps.

Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

PubMed Disclaimer

• Prioritization of systematic reviews leads prioritization of research gaps and needs. Nasser M, Welch V. Nasser M, et al. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 May;66(5):522-3. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.09.007. Epub 2012 Dec 20. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013. PMID: 23265604 No abstract available.

Similar articles

• Frameworks for Determining Research Gaps During Systematic Reviews [Internet]. Robinson KA, Saldanha IJ, Mckoy NA. Robinson KA, et al. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2011 Jun. Report No.: 11-EHC043-EF. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2011 Jun. Report No.: 11-EHC043-EF. PMID: 21977524 Free Books & Documents. Review.
• Framework for Determining Research Gaps During Systematic Review: Evaluation [Internet]. Robinson KA, Akinyede O, Dutta T, Sawin VI, Li T, Spencer MR, Turkelson CM, Weston C. Robinson KA, et al. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2013 Feb. Report No.: 13-EHC019-EF. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2013 Feb. Report No.: 13-EHC019-EF. PMID: 23487868 Free Books & Documents. Review.
• Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management, part I: introduction and general considerations. Manchikanti L. Manchikanti L. Pain Physician. 2008 Mar-Apr;11(2):161-86. Pain Physician. 2008. PMID: 18354710 Review.
• AHRQ series paper 5: grading the strength of a body of evidence when comparing medical interventions--agency for healthcare research and quality and the effective health-care program. Owens DK, Lohr KN, Atkins D, Treadwell JR, Reston JT, Bass EB, Chang S, Helfand M. Owens DK, et al. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 May;63(5):513-23. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.03.009. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010. PMID: 19595577
• [Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany]. Bekkering GE, Kleijnen J. Bekkering GE, et al. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2008 Dec;133 Suppl 7:S225-46. doi: 10.1055/s-0028-1100954. Epub 2008 Nov 25. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2008. PMID: 19034813 German.
• Gambling Harm-Minimisation Tools and Their Impact on Gambling Behaviour: A Review of the Empirical Evidence. Riley BJ, Oakes J, Lawn S. Riley BJ, et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2024 Jul 30;21(8):998. doi: 10.3390/ijerph21080998. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2024. PMID: 39200609 Free PMC article. Review.
• A MTA2-SATB2 chromatin complex restrains colonic plasticity toward small intestine by retaining HNF4A at colonic chromatin. Gu W, Huang X, Singh PNP, Li S, Lan Y, Deng M, Lacko LA, Gomez-Salinero JM, Rafii S, Verzi MP, Shivdasani RA, Zhou Q. Gu W, et al. Nat Commun. 2024 Apr 27;15(1):3595. doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-47738-y. Nat Commun. 2024. PMID: 38678016 Free PMC article.
• Bridging, Mapping, and Addressing Research Gaps in Health Sciences: The Naqvi-Gabr Research Gap Framework. Naqvi WM, Gabr M, Arora SP, Mishra GV, Pashine AA, Quazi Syed Z. Naqvi WM, et al. Cureus. 2024 Mar 8;16(3):e55827. doi: 10.7759/cureus.55827. eCollection 2024 Mar. Cureus. 2024. PMID: 38590484 Free PMC article. Review.
• Machine Learning-Based Approach for Identifying Research Gaps: COVID-19 as a Case Study. Abd-Alrazaq A, Nashwan AJ, Shah Z, Abujaber A, Alhuwail D, Schneider J, AlSaad R, Ali H, Alomoush W, Ahmed A, Aziz S. Abd-Alrazaq A, et al. JMIR Form Res. 2024 Mar 5;8:e49411. doi: 10.2196/49411. JMIR Form Res. 2024. PMID: 38441952 Free PMC article.
• Unlocking digital potential: Exploring the drivers of employee dynamic capability on employee digital performance in Chinese SMEs-moderation effect of competitive climate. Wang G, Niu Y, Mansor ZD, Leong YC, Yan Z. Wang G, et al. Heliyon. 2024 Feb 11;10(4):e25583. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25583. eCollection 2024 Feb 29. Heliyon. 2024. PMID: 38379974 Free PMC article.

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

Related information

• Cited in Books

Grants and funding

• HHSA 290-2007-10061-I/PHS HHS/United States

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Elsevier Science

Miscellaneous

• NCI CPTAC Assay Portal
• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

THE IMPORTANCE OF RESEARCH GAPS

2019, Tshidi M Wyllie

There is usually a number of reasons why research is carried out. One of such being to find answers and close existing research limitations or gaps. Every research project addresses or closes a knowledge gap; i.e. research has to answer an existing question that may or may not have emanated from previous research. The purpose of conducting research mostly is to close an existing research gap by providing a new body of knowledge which is why it’s important for researchers to identify research gaps in their area of interest. In a nutshell, research attempts to contribute new scientific research literature rather than duplicate what already exists (Miles, 2017).

Related Papers

IRA International Journal of Education and Multidisciplinary Studies

Ragneel Chand

Wang, Wang, Chen, and Yang (2016) defined research gaps as a region where the ability to infer a particular question is constrained by a lack of knowledge. It is an area where the methods and insufficient research data have limited the capacity to get to a fully reliable judgment on a research subject. Therefore, academics need to situate their objectives in the research gap of the subject field. Particularly research gaps are those research questions that have not been addressed properly beforehand. This not only indicates the study's relevancy but also the considerable contribution it could bring to the field of study (Issah, Hamza, & Prosper, 2022). According to Ajemba and Arene (2022) posing questions and finding new research areas based on previous studies are the first steps in doing research. The limitations of the study's design, the use of inadequate instruments, or other factors that the researcher could or could not control led to the development of a research gap...

Journal of Research Methods and Strategies

D. Anthony Miles

One of the most prevailing issues in the craft of research is to develop a research agenda and build the research on the development of the research gap. Most research of any endeavor is attributed to the development of the research gap, which is a primary basis in the investigation of any problem, phenomenon or scientific question. Given this accepted tenet of engagement in research, surprising in the research fraternity, we do not train researchers on how to systematically identify research gaps as basis for the investigation. This is has continued to be a common problem with novice researchers. Unfailingly, very little theory and research has been developed on identifying research gaps as a basis for a line in inquiry. The purpose of this research is threefold. First, the proposed theoretical framework builds on the five-point theoretical model of Robinson, Saldanhea, and McKoy (2011) on research gaps. Second, this study builds on the six-point theoretical model of Müller-Bloch and Franz (2014) on research gaps. Lastly, the purpose of this research is to develop and propose a theoretical model that is an amalgamation of the two preceding models and re-conceptualizes the research gap concepts and their characteristics. Thus, this researcher proposes a seven-point theoretical model. This article discusses the characteristics of each research and the situation in which its application is warranted in the literature review The significance of this article is twofold. First, this research provides theoretical significance by developing a theoretical model on research gaps. Second, this research attempts to build a solid taxonomy on the different characteristics of research gaps and establish a foundation. The implication for researchers is that research gaps should be structured and characterized based on their functionality. Thus, this provides researchers with a basic framework for identifying them in the literature investigation.

ISSAH BAAKO

Various researchers have established the need for researchers to position their research problem in the research gap of the study area. This does not only indicate the relevance of the study but it demonstrates the significant contribution it would make in the field of study. The purpose of this paper is to conduct a systematic literature review on the concept of research gaps and provoke a discussion on the contemporary literature on types of research gaps. The paper discusses the various approaches for researchers to identify, align and position research problems, research design, and methodology in the research gaps to achieve relevance in their findings and study. A systematic review of the current literature on research gaps might assist beginning researchers in the justification of research problems. Given the acceptable tenet of developing a research agenda, design, and development on a research gap, many early career researchers especially (post)graduate students have difficulties in systematically identifying research gaps as a basis for conducting research work. The significance of this paper is twofold. First, it provides a systematic review of literature on the identification of research gaps to undertake research that would challenge assumptions and underlying existing theories in a significant way. Second, it provides a theoretical discussion on the importance of developing research problems on research gaps to structure their study.

Sid Ahmed KHETTAB

A research gap is generally any problem a scientific article, an academic book or a thesis may contain. In the previous article [https://discourse.clevious.com/2019/12/how-to-come-up-with-research-idea.html], based on Dr. Anthony Miles' article on research gaps, I summarized the 7 research gaps into three main categories: theoretical problems, reasoning problems, and empirical problems.

Kayode Oyediran

Problem in a research as well as human body calls for perfect diagnosis of illness. This is important to avoid treating the symptoms instead of the actual disease. A research problem could be identified through professional or/and academic efforts. This poses a lot of problems to students, both at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels, as this determines the title of their articles or research works. Many of them have to submit many topics to their supervisors before one could be reframed and approved. At times, students appealed to their supervisors to provide them with researchable topics. This to the supervisor(s) almost writing the dissertations/theses for them. The argument of this paper is to let students understand "problem identification" using an analogy from the Holy Bible. The study employed a conversation analysis methodology, which is empirically grounded, exploratory in process and inferential. This involves using every conversation between two or more parties to explore facts/lesson. It was recommended that seasoned lecturers should explain to students how to identify research problems using what are familiar to them to make them understand this important aspect of research.

UNICAF University - Zambia

Ivan Steenkamp

In this second part of The Reason to Replicate Research, I develop with more details and explanations the Reasoning Gaps idea I briefly discussed in the article “How to Come Up with Research Question Easily Like a Pro”. (https://discourse.clevious.com/2019/12/how-to-come-up-with-research-idea.html) And just like in Part I (https://discourse.clevious.com/2020/01/the-empirical-gap-to-replicate-research.html), I will try to pivot the explanation around an example and show why they are important to fill.

Aljamar Muhallus

Research to Action: The Global Guide to Research Impact

Steven E Wallis, PhD

The basics of research are seemingly clear. Read a lot of articles, see what’s missing, and conduct research to fill the gap in the literature. Wait a minute. What is that? “See what’s missing?” How can we see something that is not there? In this post, we will show you how to “see the invisible;” How to identify the missing pieces in any study, literature review, or program analysis. With these straight-forward techniques, you will be able to better target your research in a more cost-effective way to fill those knowledge gaps to develop more effective theories, plans, and evaluations.

Mira Scharff

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

ghassan aldaleen

David Nicholas

Omini Akpang

jpma.pakcyber.biz

Junaid RAza

Stephen Harwood

Organization

Jörgen Sandberg

Journal of Advanced …

Nick Allcock

Joseph KK Ho

Graeme Sullivan , Min Gu

Azeez T Fatimo

Radiography

Value in a Changing Built Environment

Auroop Ganguly

mahrukh fatima

The Counselling and Psychotherapy Research Handbook

Naomi Moller

Manchester Medical Journal

Beryl De Souza

Journal of General Internal Medicine

Susanne Hempel

Sivadas Madhavan

Olutoye Olutayo

Technological Forecasting and Social Change

Hans Stavleu

Kambidima Wotela

F1000Research

ISABEL CRISTINA RIVERA Lozada

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

34 Methods for identifying and displaying research gaps

• BMJ evidence-based medicine 23(Suppl 1):A17.2-A18
• 23(Suppl 1):A17.2-A18
• Conference: Evidence Live Abstracts, June 2018, Oxford, UK

• University of Oslo

• University of Liverpool

• Université Paris Cité
• This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.

Abstract and Figures

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• Sharon E. Straus

• Toshi A Furukawa

• Leanne Metcalfe

• BMC BIOINFORMATICS

• Ludovic Trinquart
• GYNECOL ONCOL

• Rachel Beverley-Stevenson
• Daloni Carlisle

• Marco Ghassemi
• OMEGA-INT J MANAGE S

• Jian-Bo Yang
• Sandra Rees
• Rati Chadha
• Lois Donovan
• Jeffrey A Johnson

• Francine Ntoumi

• Aust Crit Care

• Fiona Coyer

• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.10(11); 2020

Original research

Key stakeholders’ perspectives and experiences with defining, identifying and displaying gaps in health research: a qualitative study, linda nyanchoka.

1 Universite de Paris, Paris, Île-de-France, France

2 Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool Institute of Translational Medicine, Liverpool, UK

3 Hôpital Hôtel-Dieu, Center for Clinical Epidemiology, Paris, France

Catrin Tudur-Smith

Raphaël porcher.

4 Assistance Publique—Hopitaux de Paris, Paris, Île-de-France, France

5 University of Split Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Split, Croatia

Associated Data

bmjopen-2020-039932supp001.pdf

Introduction

Mapping the current body of evidence including what is missing helps provide a better understanding of what research is available, ongoing and needed and should be prioritised. Identifying research gaps can inform the design and conduct of health research by providing additional context information about the body of evidence in a given topic area. Despite the commonly used term ‘research gap’ in scientific literature, little is written on how to find a ‘research gap’ in the first place. Moreover, there is no clear methodological guidance to identify and display gaps.

This study aimed to explore how key stakeholders define research gaps and characterise methods/practices used to identify and display gaps in health research to further advance efforts in this area.

This was an exploratory qualitative study using semistructured in-depth interviews. The study sample included the following stakeholder groups: researchers, funders, healthcare providers, patients/public and policy-makers. Interview transcripts were subjected to thematic analysis.

Among the 20 interviews conducted (20 participants), a variety of research gap definitions were expressed (ie, five main themes, including gaps in information, knowledge/evidence gaps, uncertainties, quality and patient perspective). We identified three main themes for methods used to identify gaps (primary, secondary and both primary and secondary) and finally six main themes for the methods to display gaps (forest plots, diagrams/illustrations, evidence maps, mega maps, 3IE gap maps and info graphics).

This study provides insights into issues related to defining research gaps and methods used to identify and display gaps in health research from the perspectives of key stakeholders involved in the process. Findings will be used to inform methodological guidance on identifying research gaps.

Strengths and limitations of this study

• This study used qualitative methodology that provided an in-depth understanding of key stakeholders’ perspectives and experiences in identifying, describing and displaying gaps in health research.
• The study benefited from having a variety of different stakeholders participating in semistructured interviews, which provided a wider scope of perspectives and experiences in identifying, describing and displaying gaps in health research.
• This study could have benefited from involving patient/public perspectives to inform the design of the study to improve the importance and relevance of the findings for this population.

Identifying research gaps can help inform the design and conduct of health research, practice and policies by providing a better understanding of the current body of evidence. Healthcare decisions for individual patients, public health policies and clinical guidelines should be informed by the best available research while taking into account research gaps.

The identification of research gaps has no well-defined process, although research gaps serve as the basis in developing a new research question and informing future research, healthcare delivery and health policies. In addition, research gaps in healthcare do not necessarily align directly with research needs. Hence, research gaps are critical in that knowledge gaps substantially inhibit the decision-making ability of stakeholders such as patients, healthcare providers and policy-makers, thus creating a need to fill the knowledge gap. 1

Moreover, identifying and characterising research gaps often highlight multiple competing gaps that are worthwhile to be explored. 1 Initiatives such as the James Lind Alliance (JLA), UK Database of Uncertainties about the Effects of Treatments, Cochrane Agenda and Priority Setting Methods Group, and Evidence-based Research Network are some examples of existing efforts to identify and prioritise research gaps in health. 2

The term ‘research gap’ is not well defined, and its meaning can differ depending on the researcher and research context. A recent scoping review of methods used to identify, prioritise and display gaps in health research reported 12 different definitions related to gaps in health research, each describing research gaps differently. 2 This finding shows the ambiguity of the term ‘research gap’ and the different practices it may relate to.

As a basis for further exploring and understanding ‘research gaps’, we start from the definition given by the National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools in Canada based on the work by Robinson et al , whereby a research gap is defined as a topic or area for which missing or insufficient information limits the ability to reach a conclusion for a question. 3 Given the different meanings and definitions of research gaps identified in the scoping review, 2 we considered it important to further explore key stakeholders’ perspectives to better understand the topic area. Clearly defining the type of research gap can help determine how to better identify, characterise, prioritise and address research gaps.

Different methods for identifying research gaps reported include scoping reviews and umbrella reviews for mapping and summarising evidence. These methods have an explicit aim of identifying research gaps in a broad area compared with systematic reviews, which focus on answering a specific research question. 4–8 Furthermore, investigating experiences with practices/methods used to identify research gaps can inform explicit methodological approaches in identifying and describing research gaps. This investigation can enhance practices of different stakeholder groups (ie, health professionals, health commissioners, researchers, patients/public and decision-makers) when addressing areas of uncertainty within the research problem and topic area. 9

The specific objectives of the study were to (1) investigate key stakeholders’ knowledge and perceptions of and experiences with defining research gaps and (2) characterise methods/practices used to identify and display gaps in health research.

Methods and analysis

Qualitative study design.

We conducted an exploratory qualitative study using semistructured interviews. This method was selected to provide an in-depth understanding of key stakeholders’ perspectives, experiences and practices in defining, identifying and displaying research gaps. This method also ensured that we explored key stakeholders’ understanding and practices related to identifying research gaps through a variety of lenses from different stakeholder groups. In turn, this process provided multiple facets of research gap definitions and methodological practices to identify and display gaps. 10

Study sample and recruitment

We used purposive sampling to ensure that the perspectives of all identified stakeholder groups were represented. Purposive sampling is widely used in qualitative research to identify and select information-rich cases. The study sample included the following stakeholder groups: researchers, funders, healthcare providers, patients/public and policy-makers. The stakeholder groups were determined according to the findings of a previously conducted scoping review 2 and organised into three main categories focusing on the use of evidence to inform health policy, health practice and health research ( table 1 ). A detailed description of participant categories was given in the previously published study protocol. 11 Study participants were recruited via contacts and organisations identified in the scoping review, relevant scientific publications, existing professional networks (eg, H2020 International Training Network ‘Methods in Research on Research’) and contacts from conference attendance (eg, Evidence Live and Cochrane Colloquium).

Participant characteristics (n=20)

The main inclusion criteria for the study were as follows:

• Adults aged ≥18 years (researchers, funders, healthcare providers, patients/public and policy-makers).
• Experience with the use of evidence to inform health decisions/choices, policy, practice or research.
• Ability to converse in English.
• Consent for research.

The sample size for qualitative studies usually depends on the point when data saturation is reached (ie, the point when new data do not add to a better understanding of the studied phenomenon but rather repeat what was previously expressed 12 ). Considering that the point of saturation cannot be specified in advance, we planned to conduct between 14 and 28 interviews, owing to usual points of data saturation reported in qualitative studies. 11 The point of data saturation was determined based on the seven parameters identified by Hennink et al , 13 14 including the study purpose, population, sampling strategy, data quality, type of codes, code book and saturation goal, and focus retrieved from the study. These parameters were discussed throughout the study primarily between the lead researcher (LN) and the senior researcher (DH).

Data collection and recording

Semistructured interviews were used for this study. The main reason for selecting semi-structured interviews was to allow for specific areas to be addressed while giving the interviewees the opportunity to reflect on their experiences and perspectives related to defining, identifying and presenting research gaps that are relevant to them and that may not have been explored or anticipated by the researcher(s). 15

The guide was developed by focusing on exploring key stakeholders’ perspectives and experiences with the following key areas:

• Participant background information.
• Definitions of research gaps.
• Knowledge and perceptions of and experiences with methods/practices used to identify and display gaps in health research to inform further health policy, practice and research.

These three categories were developed with information from the scoping review to guide the questions. The interview topic guide was piloted before data collection. It was also adapted according to key stakeholder groups to ensure that it was meaningful to their background and to gather more relevant information based on their experiences and knowledge. 16

The semistructured interview guide contained two levels of questions: main themes and follow‐up questions. The main themes covered the general content of the research gaps aimed at encouraging participants to speak freely about their perceptions, experiences and practices. The follow-up questions were used as prompts and probes aiming to follow respondents’ answers and to investigate the issues raised more in depth. The interview guide covered the main topics of the study, providing a focused structure for the discussion during the interview. 17

We conducted in-person, telephone and teleconference interviews. In-person interviews were conducted with participants residing or reachable in London, UK, and other participants were interviewed via telephone or teleconference (for the interview guide for both in-person and teleconference interviews, see online supplemental appendix ).

Supplementary data

All interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim and anonymised. The lead researcher (LN) transcribed two interviews to help inform the analytical process, and the other audio files were transcribed by a professional transcription agency licensed from the University of Liverpool.

Data analysis

We used analytical categories to describe and explain definitions, experiences and practices reported among the groups of participants. All data relevant to each category (defining research gaps, experiences with methods/practices used to identify and display gaps in health research) were identified and examined to ensure that each data item was checked accordingly.

Our approach was based on the thematic analysis outlined by Braun and Clarke. 18 The steps included the following: (1) transcription and checking transcripts with recordings for accuracy, (2) open coding from interview responses performed by two researchers independently (LN and DH), (3) agreement of initial codes discussed among the researchers and an initial codebook developed, (4) developing the code structure used for analysing the remaining responses with openness that included new codes and refined existing ones and (5) themes and subthemes identified from the final code structure and their relationships presented. 18

The initial coding framework for our analysis started from broad categories identified in the previous scoping review with which the interviews were structured. Within these broad categories (ie, defining research gaps, experiences with methods/practices used to identify and display gaps in health research), analytical categories were inductively derived from the data. In this sense, our approach includes both top-down and bottom-up development of analytical categories and themes.

QSR International’s NVivo V.12 qualitative data analysis software was used for data management and analysis.

Ensuring study quality

To further ensure rigour and trustworthiness, the study was guided by Lincoln and Guba ’s concepts for defining and investigating quality in qualitative research that can be considered parallel to quantitative research concepts of validity and reliability. 13 19 20 The concepts include credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability, audit trails and reflexivity. They are interrelated, and thinking through them from the onset and incorporating them into a study improve the study’s rigour.

The main researcher’s (LN) past experience as a Public Health Advisor at a National Institute of Public Health in Europe influenced the conceptualisation and conduct of this study, including the interviews. Her previous role focused on knowledge production for the health sector and providing knowledge about the health status of the population, influencing factors and how the status can be improved. She recognised the need for evidence to inform research planning, implementation and evaluation. Therefore, the design and conduct of this study were informed by her previous role and influenced the development of the interview guide, and interpretation and reporting of study findings. Throughout the different steps of the study, she consulted a senior researcher (DH) to discuss all matters related to the study design, conduct and reporting.

Patient and public involvement

Patients and the public were not involved in the design or analysis of this study. However, we involved them as study participants and will disseminate the study findings that pertain to them using a patient/public online platform, peopleinresearch.org.

Among the 30 key stakeholders contacted, 20 agreed to participate in the study. Hence, we conducted 20 interviews with 20 participants involved in using evidence for informing health policy, practice or future research ( table 1 ).

Definitions of gaps in health research

We first explored what participants reported as gaps in health research. Given the nature of our interest, all participants’ answers were grouped under a single theme ‘Definitions of Gaps in Health Research’. However, the focus of the definitions differed, and within this main theme, we identified five subthemes related to gaps in health research described by the participants (ie, gaps in information, knowledge/evidence-related gaps, quality of evidence, uncertainties and patient-related gaps; summarised in figure 1 ). The discrepancies and similarities of terms used are further illustrated in the online supplemental appendix . Terms ranged from lack of information/insufficient information, known unknowns/unanswered research questions and evidence uncertainty to treatment uncertainty, among others.

Reported descriptions of gaps in health research.

We identified some similarities among the participants on how they defined research gaps, for example, researchers and oversight bodies mainly defined gaps in health research as a lack of information/insufficient information, known unknowns and no primary studies (more information can be found in online supplemental appendix ). Patient/public participants defined research gaps in a much more literal manner, for example, ‘The gap is to get more patients involved in doing … clinical trials; have [someone] at the beginning introduce me, [educate me], [provide] awareness [because] I didn’t know what [a clinical trial] was. I [didn’t] know what they’re talking about’ (patient/public person, PPI01) and ‘Get me involved in co-production. That is the gap that is missing in clinical research’ (patient/public person, PPI01). The most common description research participants provided was the absence of scientific information to answer a research question, for example,

An area where there is missing or … insufficient information. And because of this … you cannot reach a conclusion for a question. So … it is a field, it is an area, a question an issue to which you don’t have an appropriate answer because there is missing … information or the research that still needs to be done in that particular area. (Funding body, F01)

One participant related research gaps to quality of evidence by use of Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE), an approach for rating the quality of evidence and grading the strength of recommendations in healthcare. 21 Another participant emphasised the importance of public and community involvement in gap identification to ensure that it takes into account their perspectives and contributions to the research ecosystem:

existing knowledge but not documented is of key importance in understanding the current body of knowledge on a particular topic area …. Evidence gaps need to be defined not only by [the] research community but also according to the key stakeholders including community members. Community knowledge is of key importance to inform the evidence base. Further evaluation on research findings to characterise the nature of research gaps can be carried out by evaluating community perspectives and local evidence to confirm scientific evidence. (Health research PhD student, R01)

We identified variability in participant responses on how to define gaps in health research; this variability was mainly observed in individual responses for the three main categories (research, practice, and policy and funding).

Methods to identify gaps in health research

Participants reported a range of applicable methods to identify gaps in health research (eg, surveys, reviews, syntheses, priority-setting partnerships and assessments) as shown in figure 2 . The methods were also characterised by the different research methodologies used (ie, primary, secondary and both). Participants also expressed their difficulty in identifying research gaps, for example,

Methods used to identify gaps in health research.

It is really difficult to identify research gaps. Lots of people you know will try and use the discussion section from research, [whereas] other authors have asked for further research, but in my experience that has not been a very useful method because sometimes authors will write that you know without really seeing or understanding that there has been something similar done in that field. (Health research methodologist, R02)

The variety of identified methods reflected the state of the field in the sense of the wide array of methods currently used, in line with the variety of specific goals of studies on research gaps ( figure 1 ). The difficulty in identifying research gaps raised by participants, together with the plurality of definition of gaps and range of methodologies, may, however, also reflect a possible lack of consensus and guidance on what method would be best suited for a given objective.

Methods to display gaps in health research

Participants referred to a number of different methods used to display gaps in health research (ie, forest plots, diagrams/illustrations, evidence maps, mega maps, 3IE gap maps and info graphics) ( figure 3 ). Participant perspectives varied; one of the interviewees pointed out,

Methods used to display gaps in health research.

I think with the growth of technology, it is very important to use sophisticated methods to better communicate evidence for policy-making and decision-making. I think the availability of evidence is not enough on its own and finding different methods to communicate is important, not only the analysis and findings but also sharing it in different platforms online for a greater audience. (Health policy and guideline developer, P02)

Another participant highlighted that one of the key benefits of visually presenting research is being able to immediately see what information is available and missing.

The participants mainly expressed the importance of using data visualisation in research; there was a common understanding on the use of data visualisation as a whole, particularly with the growth of technology and the need to capitalise on it. The main challenges expressed were how to identify an appropriate visualisation to present the research and also how to effectively present data. We summarise these general experiences with data visualisation in health research in figure 3 and the online supplemental appendix .

This study provides insight into issues related to defining, identifying and displaying research gaps in health from the perspectives of key stakeholders. The findings indicate several definitions of gaps in health research and methods used to identify and display research gaps.

Our study confirmed the ambiguity in defining research gaps and methodological approaches to identify 3 22 and display research gaps. 2 The methods used to identify research gaps were closely linked to the definition of research gaps. For example, the JLA method of gap identification and setting priorities for research begins by clearly defining what the alliance refers to as evidence uncertainty, that is, there is no up-to-date, reliable systematic review of research evidence addressing the uncertainty or showing that uncertainty. 23 This step further informs the rest of the methodology used and is critical in identifying treatment uncertainties and determining future research priorities. This method combines both primary and secondary approaches and not only identifies research gaps but also verifies them across different relevant stakeholders, including researchers, patients, their carers and clinicians, to ensure the relevance and potential benefit to them. 23 This verification is important, given that some research gaps may be of key interest to researchers but have little relevance and importance to patients or the public, who should be the main beneficiaries of research to improve their health and well-being.

The overall method to identify research gaps involved primary, secondary or both approaches ( figure 2 ). Most of the participants mentioned the use of secondary research methods; this is in accordance with the research that has been conducted on research gaps, which has also primarily focused on the use of secondary research and developed frameworks for identifying research gaps. 2 3 8 24 25 The most commonly adopted framework involves identifying research gaps from systematic reviews using the Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome framework to characterise a research gap. 3 The other framework involves identifying research gaps in qualitative literature reviews. 25 In addition, the GRADE approach for rating the quality of evidence and grading the strength of recommendations in healthcare 21 presents the use of a prominent framework for evaluating the certainty of evidence that can inform the research gap and characterise it. 26 Moreover, scoping reviews are commonly used, and the definition includes aiming to identify research gaps by mapping the current body of evidence. These examples focus on the use of secondary research methods, but we lack studies that specifically explore the use of primary or both primary and secondary methods to identify research gaps, yet these methods equally exist and are being used. Additional exploration of applicable methods for identifying gaps can improve their usefulness and relevance in health research.

In summary, this study showed that research gaps need to be defined by researchers and confirmed by different research stakeholders such as patients and the public to ensure societal relevance and importance. 1 We also found that clearly defining research gaps can provide information on the most appropriate methodological approach to adopt in identifying and displaying gaps, for example, for exploring research gaps in a specific or broad area. For a specific area, a systematic review can be considered, and within a broad area, an umbrella review can be considered. The study also showed that the use of both primary and secondary methods (JLA method) to identify gaps is the most robust method for gap identification. The main reported advantage of this method is that it identifies gaps (treatment uncertainties) and involves different stakeholders, including patients and the public, to confirm and prioritise gaps. The main disadvantage is that it is labor-intensive (requires a team of different specialists) and expensive (administrative support, meeting rooms and catering, among others) compared with secondary methods (evidence synthesis) or primary methods (survey).

Participants mainly expressed the importance of data visualisation in communicating research; no specific methods or formats to present gaps were expressed. Thus, the use of data visualisation is desirable among different stakeholders, particularly researchers, when communicating research, although we found few examples of experiences with developing and using data visualisation. The participants mainly expressed their difficulty in finding the right tool to use to present research findings.

Finally, although scientific articles often refer to the existence of research gaps in studies, few respondents were able to define research gaps, unless contextualising them within a specific study or area, or methods of identification. Fully understanding research gaps in health research and adequately addressing them are difficult. In this study, we highlighted three key items on the topic: (1) clearly defining research gaps provides a context to understand better what the gaps are and what they are caused by; (2) a clear definition of research gaps can inform the methods used to identify research gaps, similar to how a clear research question can inform the research study methodology; and (3) on adopting the most appropriate methods to identify research gaps, finding the right visualisation to communicate them effectively is important. Last but not least, public involvement, when applicable, is needed to verify that gaps are important and relevant to the public.

To conclude, our study found that various methods can be used to identify gaps (ie, primary, secondary and both primary and secondary). Of all the methods used to identify gaps, secondary methods are the most common, specifically systematic reviews, which are considered the gold standard in that they address a highly focused question related to the existing evidence and thus present difficulties for explicitly identifying research gaps in a general area. 3 8 27 Other secondary research methods reported were overviews of reviews, also known as umbrella reviews, scoping reviews and evidence mapping. Overviews of reviews focus on a much broader area, compiling evidence from multiple reviews into one accessible and usable document and highlighting other reviews within the specified topic area. 28 29 Given the resource requirements of formal evidence reviews, topic prioritisation is needed to best allocate resources to those areas deemed the most relevant for the health system. Regardless of the topic, the prioritisation process is likely to be stakeholder-dependent. Priorities for evidence synthesis will vary depending on the mission of the healthcare system and the local needs of the healthcare stakeholders. 1 Hence, using both primary and secondary methods is the most robust because it involves the participation of patients, caregivers and healthcare and social care professionals in identifying research questions and then prioritising them using a combination of primary and secondary research. 30–49

To advance efforts in identifying research gaps, further work and different study designs are needed to take this work to the next step, to find consensus on definitions and different practices for methods in identifying research gaps. Subsequently, also assessing the best methods according to different stakeholders will be informative and important.

One of the main challenges of this study was that because the topic area is still very vague and unclear, the recruitment and interview process was challenging. Therefore, this study was primarily limited to what participants were familiar with and not necessarily representative of the full scope of the status of health researchers, health practitioners, oversight bodies and patients/public. A more generalisable understanding of this topic area would require a larger sample of participants and methodology, such as a Delphi survey, and/or a priority-setting partnership with representatives using evidence to inform policy, practice and research. This study would also have benefited from widening the scope of the stakeholder categories (use of evidence to inform health policy, health practice and health research). 2 This would have enriched our study findings and provided a wider view of stakeholder experiences outside our categories. Another limitation of this study is not including patients/public in designing the study. Including patient/public perspectives would have benefited the study design by being able to improve the importance and relevance of the findings for this population.

One of the main strengths of the study is improving the definition of research gaps and subsequently improving the accurate reporting of research gaps to elucidate the characteristics, which can help in evidence-based decisions. For example, a decision based on a research gap contributing to lack of primary research on a specific health problem can differ from the one based on a research gap related to lack of secondary research summarising the research. Hence, all these factors regarding research gaps need to be highlighted if they are known and made explicit when disseminating and communicating research. In addition, providing more information on what the gap represents may inform users of evidence of more specific information about the research gap and how it can be addressed more accurately.

Supplementary Material

Acknowledgments.

The authors thank the interviewees for their time and input. They also thank Laura Smales (BioMedEditing, Toronto, ON) for editing the manuscript.

Twitter: @LindaNyanchoka

Contributors: LN and DH conceived the study with guidance and feedback from RP and CT-S. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding: This project is a part of an MiRoR (Methods in Research on Research)-funded PhD undertaken by LN. MiRoR received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under a Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant (agreement no. 676207).

Competing interests: None declared.

Patient consent for publication: Not required.

Ethics approval: Informed consent was obtained in accordance with the University of Liverpool Ethics Committee board requirements. Verbal consent was sought for phone interviews and written consent for in-person interviews. Confidentiality and data protection will be ensured in accordance with the University of Liverpool Ethics Committee board. All participant information will be anonymised, and hard-copy data will be stored in a locked unit. Soft-copy material will be stored in a password-protected file. On completion of the study and publication of the study results, all study material will be stored and disposed of according to the rules and regulations of the University of Liverpool. The study protocol was stored in the data repository Zenodo. The research obtained ethical approval from the University of Liverpool, UK. This research project is part of a doctoral thesis of the PhD fellow (LN).

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Data availability statement: All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplemental information. Supporting data items can be found on Zenodo, https://zenodo.org/record/3664981%23.X4g7otAzY2y .

Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

• Research Process
• Manuscript Preparation
• Manuscript Review
• Publication Process
• Publication Recognition
• Language Editing Services
• Translation Services

What is a Research Gap

• 3 minute read
• 294.3K views

Table of Contents

If you are a young researcher, or even still finishing your studies, you’ll probably notice that your academic environment revolves around certain research topics, probably linked to your department or to the interest of your mentor and direct colleagues. For example, if your department is currently doing research in nanotechnology applied to medicine, it is only natural that you feel compelled to follow this line of research. Hopefully, it’s something you feel familiar with and interested in – although you might take your own twists and turns along your career.

Many scientists end up continuing their academic legacy during their professional careers, writing about their own practical experiences in the field and adapting classic methodologies to a present context. However, each and every researcher dreams about being a pioneer in a subject one day, by discovering a topic that hasn’t been approached before by any other scientist. This is a research gap.

Research gaps are particularly useful for the advance of science, in general. Finding a research gap and having the means to develop a complete and sustained study on it can be very rewarding for the scientist (or team of scientists), not to mention how its new findings can positively impact our whole society.

How to Find a Gap in Research

How many times have you felt that you have finally formulated THAT new and exciting question, only to find out later that it had been addressed before? Probably more times than you can count.

There are some steps you can take to help identify research gaps, since it is impossible to go through all the information and research available nowadays:

• Select a topic or question that motivates you: Research can take a long time and surely a large amount of physical, intellectual and emotional effort, therefore choose a topic that can keep you motivated throughout the process.
• Find keywords and related terms to your selected topic: Besides synthesizing the topic to its essential core, this will help you in the next step.
• Use the identified keywords to search literature: From your findings in the above step, identify relevant publications and cited literature in those publications.
• Look for topics or issues that are missing or not addressed within (or related to) your main topic.
• Read systematic reviews: These documents plunge deeply into scholarly literature and identify trends and paradigm shifts in fields of study. Sometimes they reveal areas or topics that need more attention from researchers and scientists.

Keeping track of all the new literature being published every day is an impossible mission. Remember that there is technology to make your daily tasks easier, and reviewing literature can be one of them. Some online databases offer up-to-date publication lists with quite effective search features:

• Elsevier’s Scope
• Google Scholar

Of course, these tools may be more or less effective depending on knowledge fields. There might be even better ones for your specific topic of research; you can learn about them from more experienced colleagues or mentors.

Find out how FINER research framework can help you formulate your research question.

Literature Gap

The expression “literature gap” is used with the same intention as “research gap.” When there is a gap in the research itself, there will also naturally be a gap in the literature. Nevertheless, it is important to stress out the importance of language or text formulations that can help identify a research/literature gap or, on the other hand, making clear that a research gap is being addressed.

When looking for research gaps across publications you may have noticed sentences like:

…has/have not been… (studied/reported/elucidated) …is required/needed… …the key question is/remains… …it is important to address…

These expressions often indicate gaps; issues or topics related to the main question that still hasn’t been subject to a scientific study. Therefore, it is important to take notice of them: who knows if one of these sentences is hiding your way to fame.

Language Editing Services by Elsevier Author Services:

Systematic Review VS Meta-Analysis

Literature Review in Research Writing

You may also like.

Descriptive Research Design and Its Myriad Uses

Five Common Mistakes to Avoid When Writing a Biomedical Research Paper

Making Technical Writing in Environmental Engineering Accessible

To Err is Not Human: The Dangers of AI-assisted Academic Writing

When Data Speak, Listen: Importance of Data Collection and Analysis Methods

Choosing the Right Research Methodology: A Guide for Researchers

Why is data validation important in research?

Writing a good review article

Input your search keywords and press Enter.