how does literature review support to find out research gap

info This is a space for the teal alert bar.

notifications This is a space for the yellow alert bar.

Research Process

• Brainstorming
• Explore Google This link opens in a new window
• Explore Web Resources
• Explore Background Information
• Explore Books
• Explore Scholarly Articles
• Narrowing a Topic
• Primary and Secondary Resources
• Academic, Popular & Trade Publications
• Scholarly and Peer-Reviewed Journals
• Grey Literature
• Clinical Trials
• Evidence Based Treatment
• Scholarly Research
• Database Research Log
• Search Limits
• Keyword Searching
• Boolean Operators
• Phrase Searching
• Truncation & Wildcard Symbols
• Proximity Searching
• Field Codes
• Subject Terms and Database Thesauri
• Reading a Scientific Article
• Website Evaluation
• Article Keywords and Subject Terms
• Cited References
• Citing Articles
• Related Results
• Search Within Publication
• Database Alerts & RSS Feeds
• Personal Database Accounts
• Persistent URLs
• Literature Gap and Future Research
• Web of Knowledge
• Annual Reviews
• Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses
• Finding Seminal Works
• Exhausting the Literature
• Finding Dissertations
• Researching Theoretical Frameworks
• Research Methodology & Design
• Tests and Measurements
• Organizing Research & Citations This link opens in a new window
• Scholarly Publication
• Learn the Library This link opens in a new window

Research Articles

These examples below illustrate how researchers from different disciplines identified gaps in existing literature. For additional examples, try a NavigatorSearch using this search string: ("Literature review") AND (gap*)

• Addressing the Recent Developments and Potential Gaps in the Literature of Corporate Sustainability
• Applications of Psychological Science to Teaching and Learning: Gaps in the Literature
• Attitudes, Risk Factors, and Behaviours of Gambling Among Adolescents and Young People: A Literature Review and Gap Analysis
• Do Psychological Diversity Climate, HRM Practices, and Personality Traits (Big Five) Influence Multicultural Workforce Job Satisfaction and Performance? Current Scenario, Literature Gap, and Future Research Directions
• Entrepreneurship Education: A Systematic Literature Review and Identification of an Existing Gap in the Field
• Evidence and Gaps in the Literature on HIV/STI Prevention Interventions Targeting Migrants in Receiving Countries: A Scoping Review
• Homeless Indigenous Veterans and the Current Gaps in Knowledge: The State of the Literature
• A Literature Review and Gap Analysis of Emerging Technologies and New Trends in Gambling
• A Review of Higher Education Image and Reputation Literature: Knowledge Gaps and a Research Agenda
• Trends and Gaps in Empirical Research on Open Educational Resources (OER): A Systematic Mapping of the Literature from 2015 to 2019
• Where Should We Go From Here? Identified Gaps in the Literature in Psychosocial Interventions for Youth With Autism Spectrum Disorder and Comorbid Anxiety

What is a ‘gap in the literature’?

The gap, also considered the missing piece or pieces in the research literature, is the area that has not yet been explored or is under-explored. This could be a population or sample (size, type, location, etc.), research method, data collection and/or analysis, or other research variables or conditions.

It is important to keep in mind, however, that just because you identify a gap in the research, it doesn't necessarily mean that your research question is worthy of exploration. You will want to make sure that your research will have valuable practical and/or theoretical implications. In other words, answering the research question could either improve existing practice and/or inform professional decision-making (Applied Degree), or it could revise, build upon, or create theoretical frameworks informing research design and practice (Ph.D Degree). See the Dissertation Center  for additional information about dissertation criteria at NU.

For a additional information on gap statements, see the following:

• How to Find a Gap in the Literature
• Write Like a Scientist: Gap Statements

How do you identify the gaps?

Conducting an exhaustive literature review is your first step. As you search for journal articles, you will need to read critically across the breadth of the literature to identify these gaps. You goal should be to find a ‘space’ or opening for contributing new research. The first step is gathering a broad range of research articles on your topic. You may want to look for research that approaches the topic from a variety of methods – qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods. 

See the videos below for further instruction on identifying a gap in the literature.

Identifying a Gap in the Literature - Dr. Laurie Bedford

How Do You Identify Gaps in Literature? - SAGE Research Methods

Literature Gap & Future Research - Library Workshop

This workshop presents effective search techniques for identifying a gap in the literature and recommendations for future research.

Where can you locate research gaps?

As you begin to gather the literature, you will want to critically read for what has, and has not, been learned from the research. Use the Discussion and Future Research sections of the articles to understand what the researchers have found and where they point out future or additional research areas. This is similar to identifying a gap in the literature, however, future research statements come from a single study rather than an exhaustive search. You will want to check the literature to see if those research questions have already been answered.

Roadrunner Search

Identifying the gap in the research relies on an exhaustive review of the literature. Remember, researchers may not explicitly state that a gap in the literature exists; you may need to thoroughly review and assess the research to make that determination yourself.

However, there are techniques that you can use when searching in NavigatorSearch to help identify gaps in the literature. You may use search terms such as "literature gap " or "future research" "along with your subject keywords to pinpoint articles that include these types of statements.

Was this resource helpful?

• << Previous: Resources for a Literature Review
• Next: Web of Knowledge >>
• Last Updated: Apr 14, 2024 12:14 PM
• URL: https://resources.nu.edu/researchprocess

© Copyright 2024 National University. All Rights Reserved.

Privacy Policy | Consumer Information

How To Find A Research Gap, Quickly

A step-by-step guide for new researchers

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Reviewer: Eunice Rautenbach (DTech) | April 2023

If you’ve got a dissertation, thesis or research project coming up, one of the first (and most important) things you’ll need to do is find a suitable research gap . In this post, we’ll share a straightforward process to help you uncover high-quality, original research gaps in a very time-efficient manner.

Overview: Finding Research Gaps

• What exactly is a research gap?
• Research gap vs research topic
• How to find potential research gaps
• How to evaluate research gaps (and topics)
• Key takeaways

What is a research gap?

As a starting point, it’s useful to first define what we mean by research gap, to ensure we’re all on the same page. The term “research gap” gets thrown around quite loosely by students and academics alike, so let’s clear that up.

Simply put, a research gap is any space where there’s a lack of solid, agreed-upon research regarding a specific topic, issue or phenomenon. In other words, there’s a lack of established knowledge and, consequently, a need for further research.

Let’s look at a hypothetical example to illustrate a research gap.

Within the existing research regarding factors affect job satisfaction , there may be a wealth of established and agreed-upon empirical work within a US and UK context , but very little research within Eastern nations such as Japan or Korea . Given that these nations have distinctly different national cultures and workforce compositions compared to the West, it’s plausible that the factors that contribute toward job satisfaction may also be different. Therefore, a research gap emerges for studies that explore this matter.

This example is purely hypothetical (and there’s probably plenty of research covering this already), but it illustrates the core point that a research gap reflects a lack of firmly established knowledge regarding a specific matter . Given this lack, an opportunity exists for researchers (like you) to go on and fill the gap.

So, it’s the same as a research topic?

Not quite – but they are connected. A research gap refers to an area where there’s a lack of settled research , whereas a research topic outlines the focus of a specific study . Despite being different things, these two are related because research gaps are the birthplace of research topics. In other words, by identifying a clear research gap, you have a foundation from which you can build a research topic for your specific study. Your study is unlikely to resolve the entire research gap on it’s own, but it will contribute towards it .

If you’d like to learn more, we’ve got a comprehensive post that covers research gaps (including the different types of research gaps), as well as an explainer video below.

How to find a research gap

Now that we’ve defined what a research gap is, it’s time to get down to the process of finding potential research gaps that you can use as a basis for potential research topics. Importantly, it’s worth noting that this is just one way (of many) to find a research gap (and consequently a topic). We’re not proposing that it’s the only way or best way, but it’s certainly a relatively quick way to identify opportunities.

Step 1: Identify your broad area of interest

The very first step to finding a research gap is to decide on your general area of interest . For example, if you were undertaking a dissertation as part of an MBA degree, you may decide that you’re interested in corporate reputation, HR strategy, or leadership styles. As you can see, these are broad categories – there’s no need to get super specific just yet. Of course, if there is something very specific that you’re interested in, that’s great – but don’t feel pressured to narrow it down too much right now.

Equally important is to make sure that this area of interest is allowed by your university or whichever institution you’ll be proposing your research to. This might sound dead obvious, but you’ll be surprised how many times we’ve seen students run down a path with great excitement, only to later learn that their university wants a very specific area of focus in terms of topic (and their area of interest doesn’t qualify).

Step 2: Do an initial literature scan

Once you’ve pinned down your broad area (or areas) of interest, the next step is to head over to Google Scholar to undertake an initial literature scan . If you’re not familiar with this tool, Google Scholar is a great starting point for finding academic literature on pretty much any topic, as it uses Google’s powerful search capabilities to hunt down relevant academic literature. It’s certainly not the be-all and end-all of literature search tools, but it’s a useful starting point .

Within Google Scholar, you’ll want to do a few searches using keywords that are relevant to your area of interest. Sticking with our earlier example, we could use the key phrase “job satisfaction”, or we may want to get a little more specific – perhaps “job satisfaction for millennials” or “job satisfaction in Japan”.

It’s always a good idea to play around with as many keywords/phrases as you can think up.  Take an iterative approach here and see which keywords yield the most relevant results for you. Keep each search open in a new tab, as this will help keep things organised for the next steps.

Once you’ve searched for a few different keywords/phrases, you’ll need to do some refining for each of the searches you undertook. Specifically, you’ll need to filter the results down to the most recent papers . You can do this by selecting the time period in the top left corner (see the example below).

Filtering to the current year is typically a good choice (especially for fast-moving research areas), but in some cases, you may need to filter to the last two years . If you’re undertaking this task in January or February, for example, you’ll likely need to select a two-year period.

Need a helping hand?

Step 3: Review and shortlist articles that interest you

Once you’ve run a few searches using different keywords and phrases, you’ll need to scan through the results to see what looks most relevant and interesting to you. At this stage, you can just look at the titles and abstracts (the description provided by Google Scholar) – don’t worry about reading the actual article just yet.

Next, select 5 – 10 articles that interest you and open them up. Here, we’re making the assumption that your university has provided you with access to a decent range of academic databases. In some cases, Google Scholar will link you directly to a PDF of the article, but in most cases, you’ll need paid access. If you don’t have this (for example, if you’re still applying to a university), you can look at two options:

Open-access articles – these are free articles which you can access without any journal subscription. A quick Google search (the regular Google) will help you find open-access journals in your area of interest, but you can also have a look at DOAJ and Elsevier Open Access.

DeepDyve – this is a monthly subscription service that allows you to get access to a broad range of journals. At the time of shooting this video, their monthly subscription is around $50 and they do offer a free trial, which may be sufficient for your project.

Step 4: Skim-read your article shortlist

Now, it’s time to dig into your article shortlist and do some reading. But don’t worry, you don’t need to read the articles from start to finish – you just need to focus on a few key sections.

Specifically, you’ll need to pay attention to the following:

• The abstract (which you’ve probably already read a portion of in Google Scholar)
• The introduction – this will give you a bit more detail about the context and background of the study, as well as what the researchers were trying to achieve (their research aims)
• The discussion or conclusion – this will tell you what the researchers found

By skimming through these three sections for each journal article on your shortlist, you’ll gain a reasonable idea of what each study was about, without having to dig into the painful details. Generally, these sections are usually quite short, so it shouldn’t take you too long.

Step 5: Go “FRIN hunting”

This is where the magic happens. Within each of the articles on your shortlist, you’ll want to search for a few very specific phrases , namely:

• Future research
• Further research
• Research opportunities
• Research directions

All of these terms are commonly found in what we call the “FRIN” section . FRIN stands for “further research is needed”. The FRIN is where the researchers explain what other researchers could do to build on their study, or just on the research area in general. In other words, the FRIN section is where you can find fresh opportunities for novel research . Most empirical studies will either have a dedicated FRIN section or paragraph, or they’ll allude to the FRIN toward the very end of the article. You’ll need to do a little scanning, but it’s usually pretty easy to spot.

It’s worth mentioning that naturally, the FRIN doesn’t hand you a list of research gaps on a platter. It’s not a silver bullet for finding research gaps – but it’s the closest thing to it. Realistically, the FRIN section helps you shortcut the gap-hunting process  by highlighting novel research avenues that are worth exploring.

This probably sounds a little conceptual, so let’s have a look at a few examples:

The impact of overeducation on job outcomes: Evidence from Saudi Arabia (Alzubaidi, 2020)

If you scroll down to the bottom of this article, you’ll see there’s a dedicated section called “Limitations and directions for future research”. Here they talk about the limitations of the study and provide suggestions about how future researchers could improve upon their work and overcome the limitations.

Perceived organizational support and job satisfaction: a moderated mediation model of proactive personality and psychological empowerment (Maan et al, 2020)

In this article, within the limitations section, they provide a wonderfully systematic structure where they discuss each limitation, followed by a proposal as to how future studies can overcome the respective limitation. In doing so, they are providing very specific research opportunities for other researchers.

Medical professionals’ job satisfaction and telemedicine readiness during the COVID-19 pandemic: solutions to improve medical practice in Egypt (El-Mazahy et al, 2023)

In this article, they don’t have a dedicated section discussing the FRIN, but we can deduct it based on the limitations section. For example, they state that an evaluation of the knowledge about telemedicine and technology-related skills would have enabled studying their independent effect on the perception of telemedicine.

Follow this FRIN-seeking process for the articles you shortlisted and map out any potentially interesting research gaps . You may find that you need to look at a larger number of articles to find something interesting, or you might find that your area of interest shifts as you engage in the reading – this is perfectly natural. Take as much time as you need to develop a shortlist of potential research gaps that interest you.

Importantly, once you’ve developed a shortlist of potential research gaps, you need to return to Google Scholar to double-check that there aren’t fresh studies that have already addressed the gap. Remember, if you’re looking at papers from two years ago in a fast-moving field, someone else may have jumped on it . Nevertheless, there could still very well be a unique angle you could take – perhaps a contextual gap (e.g. a specific country, industry, etc.).

Ultimately, the need for originality will depend on your specific university’s requirements and the level of study. For example, if you’re doing an undergraduate research project, the originality requirements likely won’t be as gruelling as say a Masters or PhD project. So, make sure you have a clear understanding of what your university’s expectations are. A good way to do this is to look at past dissertations and theses for your specific programme. You can usually find these in the university library or by asking the faculty.

How to evaluate potential research gaps

Once you’ve developed a shortlist of potential research gaps (and resultant potential research topics) that interest you, you’ll need to systematically evaluate  them  to choose a winner. There are many factors to consider here, but some important ones include the following:

• Originality and value – is the topic sufficiently novel and will addressing it create value?
• Data access – will you be able to get access to the sample of interest?
• Costs – will there be additional costs involved for data collection and/or analysis?
• Timeframes – will you be able to collect and analyse the data within the timeframe required by your university?
• Supervisor support – is there a suitable supervisor available to support your project from start to finish?

To help you evaluate your options systematically, we’ve got a topic evaluation worksheet that allows you to score each potential topic against a comprehensive set of criteria. You can access the worksheet completely free of charge here .

Recap: Key Takeaways

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

• A research gap is any space where there’s a lack of solid, agreed-upon research regarding a specific topic/issue/phenomenon.
• Unique research topics emerge from research gaps , so it’s essential to first identify high-quality research gaps before you attempt to define a topic.
• To find potential research gaps, start by seeking out recent journal articles on Google Scholar and pay particular attention to the FRIN section to identify novel opportunities.
• Once you have a shortlist of prospective research gaps and resultant topic ideas, evaluate them systematically using a comprehensive set of criteria.

If you’d like to get hands-on help finding a research gap and research topic, be sure to check out our private coaching service , where we hold your hand through the research journey, step by step.

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

You Might Also Like:

Very useful for me, but i am still confusing review of literature review, how to find out topic related previous research.

Powerful notes! Thanks a lot.

This is helpful. Thanks a lot.

Thank you very much for this. It is really a great opportunity for me to learn the research journey.

Very Useful

It nice job

You have sharpened my articulations of these components to the core. Thanks so much.

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.

• Print Friendly

Research to Action

The Global Guide to Research Impact

Social Media

Framing challenges

• Gap analysis for literature reviews and advancing useful knowledge

By Steve Wallis and Bernadette Wright 02/06/2020

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?

Imagine you are videoconferencing a colleague who is showing you the results of their project. Suddenly, the screen and sound cut out for a minute. After pressing some keys, you manage to restore the link; only to have your colleague ask, ‘What do you think?’. Of course, you know that you missed something from the presentation because of the disconnection. You can see that something is missing, and you know what to ask for to get your desired results, ‘Sorry, could you repeat that last minute of your presentation, please’. It’s not so easy when we’re looking at research results, proposals, or literature reviews.

While all research is, to some extent, useful, we’ve seen a lot of research that does not have the expected impact. That means wasted time, wasted money, under-served clients, and frustration on multiple levels. A big part of that problem is that directions for research are often chosen intuitively; in a sort of ad-hoc process. While we deeply respect the intuition of experts, that kind of process is not very rigorous.

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.

The first step is to choose your source material. That can be one or more articles, reports, or other study results. Of course, you want to be sure that the material you use is of high quality . Next, you want to create a causal map of your source material.

We’re going to go a bit abstract on you here because people sometimes get lost in the ‘content’ when what we are looking at here is more about the ‘structure’. Think of it like choosing how to buy a house based on how well it is built, rather than what color it is painted. So, instead of using actual concepts, we’ll refer to them as concepts A, B, C… and so on.

So, the text might say something like: ‘Our research shows that A causes B, B causes C, and D causes less C. Oh yes, and E is also important (although we’re not sure how it’s causally connected to A, B, C, or D)’.

When we draw causal maps from the source material we’ve found, we like to have key concepts in circles, with causal connections represented by arrows.

Figure 1. Abstract example of a causal map of a theory

There are really three basic kinds of gaps for you to find: relevance/meaning, logic/structure, and data/evidence. Starting with structure, there is a gap any place where there are two circles NOT connected by a causal arrow. It is important to have at least two arrows pointing at each concept/circle for the same reason we like to have multiple independent variables for each dependent variable (although, with more complex maps, we’re learning to see these as interdependent variables).

For example, there is no arrow between A and D. Also, there is no arrow between E and any of the other concepts. Each of those is a structural gap – an opening for additional research.

You might also notice that there are two arrows pointing directly at C. Like having two independent variables and one dependent variable, it is structurally better to have at least two arrows pointing at each concept.

So, structurally , C is in good shape. This part of the map has the least need for additional research. A larger gap exists around B, because it has only one arrow pointing at it (the arrow from A to B). Larger still is the gap around A, D, and E; because they have no arrows pointing at them.

To get the greatest leverage for your research dollar, it is generally best to search for that second arrow. In short, one research question would be: What (aside from A) has a causal influence on B? Other good research questions would be (a) Is there a causal relationship between A and D? (b) Is there a causal relationship between E and any of the other concepts? (c) What else besides A helps cause B? (d) What are the causes of A, D, and E?

Now, let’s take a look at gaps in the data, evidence, or information upon which each causal arrow is established.

From structure to data

Here, we add to the drawing by making a note showing (very briefly) the kind of data supporting each causal arrow. We like to have that in a box – with a loopy line ‘typing’ the evidence to the connection. You can also use different colors to more easily differentiate between the concepts and the evidence on your map. You can also write the note along the length of the arrow.

Figure 2. Tying the data to the structure

From data to stakeholder relevance

Finally, the gap in meaning (relevance) asks if those studies were done with the ‘right’ people. By this, we mean people related to the situation or topic you are studying. Managers, line workers, clients, suppliers, those providing related services; all of those and more should be included. Similarly, you might look to a variety of academic disciplines, drawing expertise from psychology, sociology, business, economics, policy, and others.

Which participants or stakeholders are actually part of your research depends on the project. However, in general, having a broader selection of stakeholder groups results in a better map. This applies to both choosing what concepts go on the map and also who to contact for interviews and surveys.

Visualizing the gaps

All of these three gaps – gaps in structure, data, and stakeholder perspectives – can (and should) be addressed to help you choose more focused directions for your research – to generate research results that will have more impact. As a final note, remember that many gaps may be filled with secondary research; a new literature review that fills the gaps in the logic/structure, data/information, and meaning/relevance of your map so that your organisation can have a greater impact.

Figure 3. Visualizing the gaps (shown in green)

Some deeper reading on literature reviews may be found here:

• Practical Mapping for Applied Research and Program Evaluation (SAGE) provides a ‘jargon free’ explanation for every phase of research:

https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/practical-mapping-for-applied-research-and-program-evaluation/book261152   (especially Chapter 3)

• This paper uses theories for addressing poverty from a range of academic disciplines and from policy centers from across the political spectrum as an example of interdisciplinary knowledge mapping and synthesis:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/K-03-2018-0136/full/html

• Restructuring evaluation findings into useful knowledge:

http://journals.sfu.ca/jmde/index.php/jmde_1/article/download/481/436/

This approach helps you to avoid fuzzy understandings and the dangerous ‘pretence of knowledge’ that occasionally crops up in some reports and recommendations. Everyone can see that a piece is missing and so more easily agree where more research is needed to advance our knowledge to better serve our organisational and community constituents.

Contribute Write a blog post, post a job or event, recommend a resource

Partner with Us Are you an institution looking to increase your impact?

Most Recent Posts

• Post-Doctoral Researcher, IDS – Deadline 30 April
• Ten guidelines for an effective research impact assessment
• How is the communication landscape changing?
• How to Drive Impact: Insights from the RDI Network
• Senior Website and Digital Officer: Girls not Brides, London – Deadline 21 April

This Week's Most Read

• What do we mean by ‘impact’?
• How to write actionable policy recommendations
• Outcome Mapping: A Basic Introduction
• 12ft Ladder: Making research accessible
• How to develop input, activity, output, outcome and impact indicators 
• Stakeholder Engagement a Tool to Measure Public Policy
• AEN Evidence 23 – Online Access Registration now open!
• Policymaker, policy maker, or policy-maker?
• Pre-announcement: upcoming funding opportunity on addressing neglected areas of sexual and reproductive health and rights in sub-Saharan Africa (ANSRHRA)

Research To Action (R2A) is a learning platform for anyone interested in maximising the impact of research and capturing evidence of impact.

The site publishes practical resources on a range of topics including research uptake, communications, policy influence and monitoring and evaluation. It captures the experiences of practitioners and researchers working on these topics and facilitates conversations between this global community through a range of social media platforms.

R2A is produced by a small editorial team, led by CommsConsult . We welcome suggestions for and contributions to the site.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

Our contributors

Browse all authors

Friends and partners

• Global Development Network (GDN)
• Institute of Development Studies (IDS)
• International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie)
• On Think Tanks
• Politics & Ideas
• Research for Development (R4D)
• Research Impact

How to find and fill gaps in the literature [Research Gaps Made Easy]

As we dive deeper into the realm of research, one term repeatedly echoes in the corridors of academia: “gap in literature.”

But what does it mean to find a gap in the literature, and why is it so crucial for your research project?

A gap in the literature refers to an area that hasn’t been studied or lacks substantial inquiry in your field of study. Identifying such gaps allows you to contribute fresh insights and innovation, thereby extending the existing body of knowledge.

It’s the cornerstone for every dissertation or research paper, setting the stage for an introduction that explicitly outlines the scope and aim of your investigation.

This gap review isn’t limited to what has been published in peer-reviewed journals; it may also include conference papers, dissertations, or technical reports, i.e., types of papers that provide an overview of ongoing research. 

This step is where your detective work comes in—by spotting trends, common methodologies, and unanswered questions, you can unearth an opportunity to explore an unexplored domain, thereby finding a research gap. 

Why Looking for Research Gaps is Essential

Looking for research gaps is essential as it enables the discovery of novel and unique contributions to a particular field.

By identifying these gaps, found through methods such as analyzing concluding remarks of recent papers, literature reviews, examining research groups’ non-peer-reviewed outputs, and utilizing specific search terms on Google Scholar, one can discern the trajectory of ongoing research and unearth opportunities for original inquiry.

These gaps highlight areas of potential innovation, unexplored paths, and disputed concepts, serving as the catalyst for valuable contributions and progression in the field. Hence, finding research gaps forms the basis of substantial and impactful scientific exploration.

Then your research can contribute by finding and filling the gap in knowledge. 

Method 1: Utilizing Concluding Remarks of Recent Research

When embarking on a quest to find research gaps, the concluding remarks of recent research papers can serve as an unexpected treasure map.

This section of a paper often contains insightful comments on the limitations of the work and speculates on future research directions.

These comments, although not directly pointing to a research gap, can hint at where the research is heading and what areas require further exploration.

Consider these remarks as signposts, pointing you towards uncharted territories in your field of interest.

For example, you may come across a conclusion in a recent paper on artificial intelligence that indicates a need for more research on ethical considerations. This gives you a direction to explore – the ethical implications of AI. 

However, it’s important to bear in mind that while these statements provide valuable leads, they aren’t definitive indicators of research gaps. They provide a starting point, a clue to the vast research puzzle.

Your task is to take these hints, explore further, and discern the most promising areas for your investigation. It’s a bit like being a detective, except your clues come from scholarly papers instead of crime scenes!

Method 2: Examining Research Groups and Non-peer Reviewed Outputs

If concluding remarks are signposts to potential research gaps, non-peer reviewed outputs such as preprints, conference presentations, and dissertations are detailed maps guiding you towards the frontier of research.

These resources reflect the real-time development in the field, giving you a sense of the “buzz” that surrounds hot topics.

These materials, presented but not formally published, offer a sneak peek into ongoing studies, providing you with a rich source of information to identify emerging trends and potential research gaps.

For instance, a presentation on the impact of climate change on mental health might reveal a new line of research that’s in its early stages.

One word of caution: while these resources can be enlightening, they have not undergone the rigorous peer review process that published articles have.

This means the quality of research may vary and the findings should be interpreted with a critical eye. Remember, the key is to pinpoint where the research is heading and then carve out your niche within that sphere.

Exploring non-peer reviewed outputs allows you to stay ahead of the curve, harnessing the opportunity to investigate and contribute to a burgeoning area of study before it becomes mainstream.

Method 3: Searching for ‘Promising’ and ‘Preliminary’ Results on Google Scholar

With a plethora of research at your fingertips, Google Scholar can serve as a remarkable tool in your quest to discover research gaps. The magic lies in a simple trick: search for the phrases “promising results” or “preliminary results” within your research area. Why these specific phrases? Scientists often use them when they have encouraging but not yet fully verified findings.

To illustrate, consider an example. Type “promising results and solar cell” into Google Scholar, and filter by recent publications.

The search results will show you recent studies where researchers have achieved promising outcomes but may not have fully developed their ideas or resolved all challenges.

These “promising” or “preliminary” results often represent areas ripe for further exploration.

They hint at a research question that has been opened but not fully answered. However, tread carefully.

While these findings can indeed point to potential research gaps, they can also lead to dead ends. It’s crucial to examine these leads with a critical eye and further corroborate them with a comprehensive review of related research.

Nevertheless, this approach provides a simple, effective starting point for identifying research gaps, serving as a launchpad for your explorations.

Method 4: Reading Around the Subject

Comprehensive reading forms the bedrock of effective research. When hunting for research gaps, you need to move beyond just the preliminary findings and delve deeper into the context surrounding these results.

This involves broadening your view and reading extensively around your topic of interest.

In the course of your reading, you will start identifying common themes, reoccurring questions, and shared challenges in the research.

Over time, patterns will emerge, helping you recognize areas where research is thin or missing.

For instance, in studying autonomous vehicles, you might find recurring questions about regulatory frameworks, pointing to a potential gap in the legal aspects of this technology.

However, this method is not about scanning through a huge volume of literature aimlessly. It involves strategic and critical reading, looking for patterns, inconsistencies, and areas where the existing literature falls short.

It’s akin to painting a picture where some parts are vividly detailed while others remain sketchy. Your goal is to identify these sketchy areas and fill in the details.

So grab your academic reading list, and start diving into the ocean of knowledge. Remember, it’s not just about the depth, but also the breadth of your reading, that will lead you to a meaningful research gap.

Method 5: Consulting with Current Researchers

Few methods are as effective in uncovering research gaps as engaging in conversations with active researchers in your field of interest.

Current researchers, whether they are PhD students, postdoctoral researchers, or supervisors, are often deeply engaged in ongoing studies and understand the current challenges in their respective fields.

Start by expressing genuine interest in their work. Rather than directly asking for research gaps, inquire about the challenges they are currently facing in their projects.

You can ask, “What are the current challenges in your research?”

Their responses can highlight potential areas of exploration, setting you on the path to identifying meaningful research gaps.

Moreover, supervisors, particularly those overseeing PhD and Master’s students, often have ideas for potential research topics. By asking the right questions, you can tap into their wealth of knowledge and identify fruitful areas of study.

While the act of discovering research gaps can feel like a solitary journey, it doesn’t have to be.

Engaging with others who are grappling with similar challenges can provide valuable insights and guide your path. After all, the world of research thrives on collaboration and shared intellectual curiosity.

Method 6: Utilizing Online Tools

The digital age has made uncovering research gaps easier, thanks to a plethora of online tools that help visualize the interconnectedness of research literature.

Platforms such as:

• Connected Papers,
• ResearchRabbit, and

allow you to see how different papers in your field relate to one another, thereby creating a web of knowledge.

Upon creating this visual web, you may notice that many papers point towards a certain area, but then abruptly stop. This could indicate a potential research gap, suggesting that the topic hasn’t been adequately addressed or has been sidelined for some reason.

By further reading around this apparent gap, you can understand if it’s a genuine knowledge deficit or merely a research path that was abandoned due to inherent challenges or a dead end.

These online tools provide a bird’s eye view of the literature, helping you understand the broader landscape of research in your area of interest.

By examining patterns and relationships among studies, you can effectively zero in on unexplored areas, making these tools a valuable asset in your quest for research gaps.

Method 7: Seeking Conflicting Ideas in the Literature

In scientific research, areas of conflict can often be fertile ground for finding research gaps. These are areas where there’s a considerable amount of disagreement or ongoing debate among researchers.

If you can bring a fresh perspective, a new technique, or a novel hypothesis to such a contentious issue, you may well be on your way to uncovering a significant research gap.

Take, for instance, an area in psychology where there is a heated debate about the influence of nature versus nurture.

If you can introduce a new dimension to the debate or a method to test a novel hypothesis, you could potentially fill a significant gap in the literature.

Investigating areas of conflict not only opens avenues for exploring research gaps, but it also provides opportunities for you to make substantial contributions to your field. The key is to be able to see the potential for a new angle and to muster the courage to dive into contentious waters.

However, engaging with conflicts in research requires careful navigation.

Striking the right balance between acknowledging existing research and championing new ideas is crucial.

In the end, resolving these conflicts or adding significant depth to the debate can be incredibly rewarding and contribute greatly to your field.

The Right Perspective Towards Research Gaps

The traditional understanding of research gaps often involves seeking out a ‘bubble’ of missing knowledge in the sea of existing research, a niche yet to be explored. However, in today’s fast-paced research environment, these bubbles are becoming increasingly rare.

The paradigm of finding research gaps is shifting. It’s no longer just about seeking out holes in existing knowledge, but about understanding the leading edge of research and the directions it could take. It involves not just filling in the gaps but extending the boundaries of knowledge.

To identify such opportunities, develop a comprehensive understanding of the research landscape, identify emerging trends, and keep a close eye on recent advancements.

Look for the tendrils of knowledge extending out into the unknown and think about how you can push them further. It might be a challenging task, but it offers the potential for making substantial, impactful contributions to your field. 

Remember, every great innovation begins at the edge of what is known. That’s where your research gap might be hiding.

Wrapping up – Literature and research gaps

Finding and filling a gap in the literature is a task crucial to every research project. It begins with a systematic review of existing literature – a quest to identify what has been studied and more importantly, what hasn’t.

You must delve into the rich terrain of literature in their field, from the seminal, citation-heavy research articles to the fresh perspective of conference papers. Identifying the gap in the literature necessitates a thorough evaluation of existing studies to refine your area of interest and map the scope and aim of your future research.

The purpose is to explicitly identify the gap that exists, so you can contribute to the body of knowledge by providing fresh insights. The process involves a series of steps, from consulting with faculty and experts in the field to identify potential trends and outdated methodologies, to being methodological in your approach to identify gaps that have emerged.

Upon finding a gap in the literature, we’ll ideally have a clearer picture of the research need and an opportunity to explore this unexplored domain.

It is important to remember that the task does not end with identifying the gap. The real challenge lies in drafting a research proposal that’s objective, answerable, and can quantify the impact of filling this gap. 

It’s important to consult with your advisor, and also look at commonly used parameters and preliminary evidence. Only then can we complete the task of turning an identified gap in the literature into a valuable contribution to your field, a contribution that’s peer-reviewed and adds to the body of knowledge.

To find a research gap is to stand on the shoulders of giants, looking beyond the existing research to further expand our understanding of the world.

Dr Andrew Stapleton has a Masters and PhD in Chemistry from the UK and Australia. He has many years of research experience and has worked as a Postdoctoral Fellow and Associate at a number of Universities. Although having secured funding for his own research, he left academia to help others with his YouTube channel all about the inner workings of academia and how to make it work for you.

Thank you for visiting Academia Insider.

We are here to help you navigate Academia as painlessly as possible. We are supported by our readers and by visiting you are helping us earn a small amount through ads and affiliate revenue - Thank you!

2024 © Academia Insider

• Academic Skills
• Reading, writing and referencing
• Literature reviews

Writing a literature review

Find out how to write a lit review.

What is a literature review ?

A literature review explores and evaluates the literature on a specific topic or question. It synthesises the contributions of the different authors, often to identify areas that need further exploration.

You may be required to write a literature review as a standalone document or part of a larger body of research, such as a thesis.

• The point of a standalone literature review is to demonstrate that you have read widely in your field and you understand the main arguments.
• As part of a thesis or research paper, the literature review defines your project by establishing how your work will extend or differ from previous work and what contribution it will make.

What are markers looking for?

In the best literature reviews, the writer:

• Has a clear understanding of key concepts within the topic.
• Clarifies important definitions and terminology.
• Covers the breadth of the specific topic.
• Critically discusses the ideas in the literature and evaluates how authors present them.
• Clearly indicates a research gap for future enquiry.

How do I write a literature review?

This video outlines a step by step approach to help you evaluate readings, organise ideas and write critically. It provides examples of how to connect, interpret and critique ideas to make sure your voice comes through strongly.

Tips for research, reading and writing

You may be given a specific question to research or broad topics which must be refined to a question that can be reasonably addressed in the time and word limit available.

Use your early reading to help you determine and refine your topic.

• Too much literature? You probably need to narrow your scope. Try to identify a more specific issue of interest.
• Not enough literature? Your topic may be too specific and needs to be broader.

Start with readings suggested by your lecturers or supervisors. Then, do your own research - the best place to go is the Library Website .

You can also use the Library Guides or speak to a librarian to identify the most useful databases for you and to learn how to search for sources effectively and efficiently.

Cover the field

Make sure your literature search covers a broad range of views and information relevant to your topic. Focussing on a narrow selection of sources may result in a lack of depth. You are not expected to cover all research and scholarly opinions on your topic, but you need to identify and include important viewpoints. A quality literature review examines and evaluates different viewpoints based on the evidence presented, rather than providing only material that reinforces a bias.

Use reading strategies

Survey, skim and scan to find the most relevant articles, and the most relevant parts of those articles. These can be re-read more closely later when you have acquired an overview of your topic.

Take notes as you read

This helps to organise and develop your thoughts. Record your own reactions to the text in your notes, perhaps in a separate column. These notes can form the basis of your critical evaluation of the text. Record any facts, opinions or direct quotes that are likely to be useful to your review, noting the page numbers, author and year.

Stop reading when you have enough

This depends on the word count required of this literature review. A review of one thousand words can only cover the major ideas and probably less than ten references. Longer reviews that form part of a large research paper will include more than fifty. Your tutor or supervisor should be able to suggest a suitable number.

As you read, ask yourself these questions:

• Have I answered my question without any obvious gaps?
• Have I read this before? Are there any new related issues coming up as I search the literature?
• Have I found multiple references which cover the same material or just enough to prove agreement?

There are many possible ways to organise the material. For example:

• chronologically
• by theoretical perspective
• from most to least important
• by issue or theme

It is important to remember that you are not merely cataloguing or describing the literature you read. Therefore, you need to choose an organisation that will enable you to compare the various authors' treatment of ideas. This is often best achieved by organising thematically, or grouping ideas into sets of common issues tackled in the various texts. These themes will form the basis of the different threads that are the focus of your study.

A standalone literature review

A standalone literature review is structured much like an academic essay.

• Introduction - establish the context for your topic and outline your main contentions about the literature
• Main body - explain and support these inferences in the main body
• Conclusion - summarise your main points and restate the contention.

The main difference between an essay and this kind of literature review is that an essay focuses on a topic and uses the literature as a support for the arguments. In a standalone literature review, the literature itself is the topic of discussion and evaluation. This means you evaluate and discuss not only the informational content but the quality of the author’s handling of the content.

A literature review as part of a larger research paper?

As part of a larger research paper, the literature review may take many forms, depending on your discipline, your topic and the logic of your research. Traditionally, in empirical research, the literature review is included in the introduction, or a standalone chapter immediately following the introduction. For other forms of research, you may need to engage more extensively with the literature and thus, the literature review may spread over more than one chapter, or even be distributed throughout the thesis.

Start writing early. Writing will clarify your thinking on the topic and reveal any gaps in information and logic. If your ideas change, sections and paragraphs can be reworked to change your contentions or include extra information.

Similarly, draft an overall plan for your review as soon as you are ready, but be prepared to rework sections of it to reflect your developing argument.

The most important thing to remember is that you are writing a review . That means you must move past describing what other authors have written by connecting, interpreting and critiquing their ideas and presenting your own analysis and interpretation.

Looking for one-on-one advice?

Get tailored advice from an Academic Skills Adviser by booking an Individual appointment, or get quick feedback from one of our Academic Writing Mentors via email through our Writing advice service.

Go to Student appointments

• Library databases
• Library website

Library Guide to Capstone Literature Reviews: Role of the Literature Review

The role of the literature review.

Your literature review gives readers an understanding of the scholarly research on your topic.

In your literature review you will:

• demonstrate that you are a well-informed scholar with expertise and knowledge in the field by giving an overview of the current state of the literature
• find a gap in the literature, or address a business or professional issue, depending on your doctoral study program; the literature review will illustrate how your research contributes to the scholarly conversation
• provide a synthesis of the issues, trends, and concepts surrounding your research

Be aware that the literature review is an iterative process. As you read and write initial drafts, you will find new threads and complementary themes, at which point you will return to search, find out about these new themes, and incorporate them into your review.

The purpose of this guide is to help you through the literature review process. Take some time to look over the resources in order to become familiar with them. The tabs on the left side of this page have additional information.

Short video: Research for the Literature Review

Short Video: Research for the Literature Review

(4 min 10 sec) Recorded August 2019 Transcript 

Literature review as a dinner party

To think about the role of the literature review, consider this analogy:  pretend that you throw a dinner party for the other researchers working in your topic area. First, you’d need to develop a guest list.

• The guests of honor would be early researchers or theorists; their work likely inspired subsequent studies, ideas, or controversies that the current researchers pursue.
• Then, think about the important current researchers to invite. Which guests might agree with each other?  Which others might provide useful counterpoints?
• You likely won’t be able to include everyone on the guest list, so you may need to choose carefully so that you don’t leave important figures out. 
• Alternatively, if there aren’t many researchers working in your topic area, then your guest list will need to include people working in other, related areas, who can still contribute to the conversation.

After the party, you describe the evening to a friend. You’ll summarize the evening’s conversation. Perhaps one guest made a comment that sparked a conversation, and then you describe who responded and how the topic evolved. There are other conversations to share, too. This is how you synthesize the themes and developments that you find in your research. Thinking about your literature research this way will help you to present your dinner party (and your literature review) in a lively and engaging way.

Short video: Empirical research

Video: How to locate and identify empirical research for your literature review

(6 min 16 sec) Recorded May 2020 Transcript 

Here are some useful resources from the Writing Center, the Office of Research and Doctoral Services, and other departments within the Office of Academic Support. Take some time to look at what is available to help you with your capstone/dissertation.

• Familiarize yourself with Walden support
• Doctoral Capstone Resources website
• Capstone writing resources
• Office of Student Research Administration
• Office of Research and Doctoral Services
• Visit the Writing Center

You can watch recorded webinars on the literature review in our Library Webinar Archives .

• Next Page: Scope
• Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

• Academic Residencies
• Academic Skills
• Career Planning and Development
• Customer Care Team
• Field Experience
• Military Services
• Student Success Advising
• Writing Skills

Centers and Offices

• Center for Social Change
• Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services
• Office of Degree Acceleration
• Office of Student Affairs

Student Resources

• Doctoral Writing Assessment
• Form & Style Review
• Quick Answers
• ScholarWorks
• SKIL Courses and Workshops
• Walden Bookstore
• Walden Catalog & Student Handbook
• Student Safety/Title IX
• Legal & Consumer Information
• Website Terms and Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Accessibility
• Accreditation
• State Authorization
• Net Price Calculator
• Contact Walden

Walden University is a member of Adtalem Global Education, Inc. www.adtalem.com Walden University is certified to operate by SCHEV © 2024 Walden University LLC. All rights reserved.

• Research Process

What is a Research Gap

• 3 minute read
• 284.3K 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:

• Manuscript Review

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.

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
• Lippincott Open Access

Identifying Research Gaps and Prioritizing Psychological Health Evidence Synthesis Needs

Susanne hempel.

* RAND Corporation, Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC), Santa Monica

† University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA

Kristie Gore

‡ RAND, National Security Research Division, Arlington

Bradley Belsher

§ Defense Health Agency, Psychological Health Center of Excellence (PHCoE), Falls Church, VA

Associated Data

Supplemental Digital Content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal's website, www.lww-medicalcare.com .

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Background:

Evidence synthesis is key in promoting evidence-based health care, but it is resource-intense. Methods are needed to identify and prioritize evidence synthesis needs within health care systems. We describe a collaboration between an agency charged with facilitating the implementation of evidence-based research and practices across the Military Health System and a research center specializing in evidence synthesis.

Scoping searches targeted 15 sources, including the Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense Guidelines and National Defense Authorization Acts. We screened for evidence gaps in psychological health management approaches relevant to the target population. We translated gaps into potential topics for evidence maps and/or systematic reviews. Gaps amenable to evidence synthesis format provided the basis for stakeholder input. Stakeholders rated topics for their potential to inform psychological health care in the military health system. Feasibility scans determined whether topics were ready to be pursued, that is, sufficient literature exists, and duplicative efforts are avoided.

We identified 58 intervention, 9 diagnostics, 12 outcome, 19 population, and 24 health services evidence synthesis gaps. Areas included: posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (19), suicide prevention (14), depression (9), bipolar disorder (9), substance use (24), traumatic brain injury (20), anxiety (1), and cross-cutting (14) synthesis topics. Stakeholder input helped prioritize 19 potential PTSD topics and 22 other psychological health topics. To date, 46 topics have undergone feasibility scans. We document lessons learned across clinical topics and research methods.

Conclusion:

We describe a transparent and structured approach to evidence synthesis topic selection for a health care system using scoping searches, translation into evidence synthesis format, stakeholder input, and feasibility scans.

Evidence synthesis is an essential step in promoting evidence-based medicine across health systems; it facilitates the translation of research to practice. A systematic review of the research literature on focused review questions is a key evidence synthesis approach that can inform practice and policy decisions. 1 However, systematic reviews are resource-intense undertakings. In a resource-constrained environment, before an evidence review is commissioned, the need and the feasibility of the review must be established.

Establishing the need for the review can be achieved through a research gap analysis or needs assessment. Identification of a gap serves as the first step in developing a new research question. 2 Research gaps in health care do not necessarily align directly with research needs. Research gaps are only critical where knowledge gaps substantially inhibit the decision-making ability of stakeholders such as patients, health care providers, and policymakers, thus creating a need to fill the knowledge gap. Evidence synthesis enables the assessment of whether a research gap continues to exist or whether there is adequate evidence to close the knowledge gap.

Furthermore, a gap analysis often identifies multiple, competing gaps that are worthwhile to be pursued. Given the resource requirements of formal evidence reviews, topic prioritization is needed to best allocate resources to those areas deemed the most relevant for the health system. Regardless of the topic, the prioritization process is likely to be stakeholder-dependent. Priorities for evidence synthesis will vary depending on the mission of the health care system and the local needs of the health care stakeholders. A process of stakeholder input is an important mechanism to ensure that the evidence review will meet local needs as well to identify a receptive audience of the review findings.

In addition to establishing the need for an evidence review, the feasibility of conducting the review must also be established. In conducting primary research, feasibility is often mainly a question of available resources. For evidence reviews, the resources, the availability of primary research, and the presence of existing evidence reviews on the topic need to be explored. Not all topics are amenable for a systematic review which focus on a specific range of research questions and rely heavily on published literature. Furthermore, evidence review synthesizes the existing evidence; hence, if there is insufficient evidence in the primary research literature, an evidence review is not useful. Establishing a lack of evidence is a worthwhile exercise since it identifies the need for further research. However, most health care delivery organizations will be keen to prioritize areas that can be synthesized, that is, investing in synthesizing a body of research sizable enough to derive meaningful results. For evidence reviews, the presence of existing evidence syntheses is also an important consideration, in particular, to determine the incremental validity of a new review. Although primary research benefits profoundly by replication, secondary literature, in particular in the context of existing high-quality reviews and/or limited evidence, may not add anything to our knowledge base. 3

This work describes a structured and transparent approach to identify and prioritize areas of psychological health that are important and that can be feasibly addressed by a synthesis of the research literature. It describes a collaboration between an agency charged with facilitating the implementation of evidence-based research and practices across the Military Health System (MHS) and a research center specializing in evidence synthesis.

This project is anchored in the relationship between the Defense Health Agency Psychological Health Center of Excellence (PHCoE) and the RAND Corporation’s National Defense Research Institute (NDRI), one of the Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDC) dedicated to providing long-term analytic support to the Defense Health Agency. PHCoE, an agency charged with facilitating the implementation of evidence-based research and practices across the Military Health System funded a series of systematic reviews and evidence maps synthesizing psychological research. The project draws on the expertise of the Southern California Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) located at RAND, a center specializing in evidence synthesis. The project included scoping searches, stakeholder input, and feasibility scans. The project is ongoing; this manuscript describes methods and results from June 2016 to September 2018. The project was assessed by our Human Subject Protection staff and determined to be exempt (date July 7, 2016, ID ND3621; August 6, 2017, ID ND3714).

The following describes the process, Figure ​ Figure1 1 provides a visual overview.

Process of identifying research gaps and prioritizing psychological health evidence synthesis needs.

Scoping Searches to Identify Evidence Synthesis Gaps

Scoping searches targeted pertinent sources for evidence gaps. The searches focused on clinical conditions and interventions relevant to psychological health, including biological psychiatry, health care services research, and mental health comorbidity. Proposed topics and study populations were not limited by deployment status or deployment eligibility, but the topic section considered the prevalence of clinical conditions among Department of Defense active duty military personnel managed by the MHS. The scoping searches excluded evidence gaps addressing children and adolescents and clinical conditions exclusively relevant to veterans managed by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Scoping Search Sources

We screened 15 sources in total for evidence synthesis gaps.

Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense clinical practice guidelines were a key source for documented evidence gaps. 4 – 9 Recently updated guidelines were screened only for evidence gaps that indicated a lack of synthesis of existing research or content areas that were outside the scope of that guideline (guidelines rely primarily on published systematic reviews and can only review a limited number of topic areas).

We consulted the current report of the committee on armed services of the House of Representatives regarding the proposed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and the report for the upcoming fiscal year. 10 , 11 We specifically screened the report for research priorities identified for psychological health. We also screened the published National Research Action Plan designed to improve access to mental health services for veterans, service members, and military families. 12

We conducted a literature search for publications dedicated to identifying evidence gaps and research needs for psychological health and traumatic brain injury. We searched for publications published since 2000–2016 in the most relevant databases, PubMed and PsycINFO, that had the words research gap, knowledge gap, or research priority in the title and addressed psychological health (Supplemental Digital Content, http://links.lww.com/MLR/B836 ). The search retrieved 203 citations. Six publications were considered potentially relevant and obtained as full text, 1 source was subsequently excluded because the authors conducted a literature search <3 years ago and it was deemed unlikely that a new review would identify substantially more eligible studies. 13 – 19

We also used an analysis of the utilization of complementary and alternative medicine in the MHS 20 to identify interventions that were popular with patients but for which potentially little evidence-based guidance exists. We focused our scoping efforts on complementary approaches such as stress management, hypnotherapy, massage, biofeedback, chiropractic, and music therapy to align with the funding scope. In the next step, we reviewed the existing clinical practice guidelines to determine whether clinicians have guidance regarding these approaches. The Department of Defense Health Related Behaviors Survey of Active Duty Military Personnel 21 is an anonymous survey conducted every 3 years on service members with the aim of identifying interventions or health behaviors patients currently use. To address evidence gaps most relevant to patients, we screened the survey results, and then matched the more prevalent needs identified with guidance provided in relevant clinical practice guidelines.

We consulted the priority review list assembled by the Cochrane group to identify research needs for systematic reviews. We screened the 2015–2017 lists for mental health topics that are open to new authors, that is, those that do not have an author team currently dedicated to the topic. None of the currently available topics appeared relevant to psychological health and no topics were added to the table. We also consulted with ongoing federally funded projects to identify evidence gaps that were beyond the scope of the other projects. In addition, we screened a list of psychological health research priorities developed at PHCoE for knowledge gaps that could be addressed in systematic reviews or evidence maps. Finally, we screened resources available on MHS web sites for evidence gaps.

Gap Analysis Procedure and Approach to Translating Gaps into Evidence Review Format

We first screened these sources for knowledge gaps, regardless of considerations of whether the gap is amenable to evidence review. However, we did not include research gaps where the source explicitly indicated that the knowledge gap is due to the lack of primary research. We distinguished 5 evidence gap domains and abstracted gaps across pertinent areas: interventions or diagnostic questions, treatment outcomes or specific populations, and health services research and health care delivery models.

We then translated the evidence gaps into potential topics for evidence maps and/or systematic reviews. Evidence maps provide a broad overview of large research areas using data visualizations to document the presence and absence of evidence. 22 Similar to scoping reviews, evidence maps do not necessarily address the effects of interventions but can be broader in scope. Systematic reviews are a standardized research methodology designed to answer clinical and policy questions with published research using meta-analysis to estimate effect sizes and formal grading of the quality of evidence. We considered systematic reviews for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness questions regarding specific intervention and diagnostic approaches.

Stakeholder Input

Evidence synthesis gaps that were determined to be amenable to systematic review or evidence map methods provided the basis for stakeholder input. Although all topics were reviewed by project personnel, we also identified psychological health service leads for Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines within the Defense Health Agency as key stakeholders to be included in the topic selection process. To date, 2 rounds of formal ratings by stakeholders have been undertaken.

The first round focused on the need for systematic review covering issues related to posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The second round focused on other potential psychological health topics determined to be compatible with the MHS mission. Represented clinical areas were suicide prevention and aftercare, depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, traumatic brain injury, substance use disorder including alcohol and opioid use disorder, and chronic pain. All of the potential topics addressed either the effects of clinical interventions or health service research questions.

Stakeholders rated the topics based on their potential to inform psychological health care in the military health system. The raters used a scale 5-point rating scale ranging from “No impact” to “Very high impact.” In addition, stakeholders were able to add additional suggestions for evidence review. We analyzed the mean, the mode, and individual stakeholder rating indicating “high impact” for individual topics.

Feasibility Scans

Feasibility scans provided an estimate of the volume and the type of existing research literature which is informative for 3 reasons. First, this process determined whether sufficient research was available to inform a systematic review or an evidence map. Second, feasibility scans can provide an estimate of the required resources for an evidence review by establishing whether only a small literature base or a large number of research studies exists. Finally, feasibility scans identify existing high-profile evidence synthesis reports that could make a new synthesis obsolete.

Feasibility scans for potential evidence maps concentrated on the size of the body of research that would need to be screened and the relevant synthesis questions that can inform how this research should be organized in the evidence map. Feasibility scans for systematic reviews aimed to determine the number of relevant studies, existing high-quality reviews, and the number of studies not covered in existing reviews. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the focus of most of the systematic review topics, that is, strong research evidence that could inform clinical practice guideline committees to recommend either for or against interventions. An experienced systematic reviewer used PubMed, a very well-maintained and user-friendly database for biomedical literature, developed preliminary search strategies, and applied database search filters (eg, for RCTs or systematic reviews) in preliminary literature searches to estimate the research volume for each topic.

Scans also identified any existing high-quality evidence review published by agencies specializing in unbiased evidence syntheses such as the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)’s Evidence-based Practice Center program, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Campbell Collaboration, the Evidence Synthesis Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Federal Health Technology Assessment program. We used the databases PubMed and PubMed Health to identify reports. We appraised the scope, relevance and publication year of the existing high-profile evidence reviews. The research base for psychological health develops rapidly and evidence syntheses need to ensure that current clinical policies reflect the best available evidence. When determining the feasibility and appropriateness of a new systematic review, we took the results of the original review and any new studies that had been published subsequent to the systematic review on the same topic into account.

The following results are described: the results of the scoping searches and gap analysis, the translation of gaps into evidence synthesis format, the stakeholder input ratings, and the feasibility scans.

Scoping Searches and Gap Analysis Results

The scoping search and gap analysis identified a large number of evidence gaps as documented in the gap analysis table in the Appendix (Supplemental Digital Content, http://links.lww.com/MLR/B836 ). Across sources, we identified 58 intervention, 9 diagnostics, 12 outcome, 19 population, and 24 health services evidence synthesis gaps. The evidence gaps varied considerably with regard to scope and specificity, for example, highlighting knowledge gaps in recommendations for medications for specific clinical indications or treatment combinations 4 to pointing out to gaps in supporting caregivers. 11 The largest group of evidence gaps were documented for interventions. This included open questions for individual interventions (eg, ketamine) 12 as well as the best format and modality within an intervention domain (eg, use of telehealth). 6 Diagnostic evidence gaps included open questions regarding predictive risk factors that could be used in suicide prevention 8 and the need for personalized treatments. 12 Outcome evidence gaps often pointed to the lack of measured outcomes to include cost-effectiveness as well as the lack of knowledge on hypothesized effects, such as increased access or decreased stigma associated with technology-based modalities. 23 Population evidence gaps addressed specific patient populations such as complex patients 5 and family members of service members. 11 The health services evidence gaps addressed care support through technology (eg, videoconferencing 23 ) as well as treatment coordination within health care organizations such as how treatment for substance use disorder should be coordinated with treatment for co-occurring conditions. 4

Potential Evidence Synthesis Topics

The gaps were translated into potential evidence map or systematic review topics. This translation process took into account that some topics cannot easily be operationalized as an evidence review. For example, knowledge gaps regarding prevalence or utilization estimates were hindered by the lack of publicly available data. In addition, we noted that some review questions may require an exhaustive search and a full-text review of the literature because the information cannot be searched for directly, and hence were outside the budget restraints.

The clinical areas and number of topics were: PTSD (n=19), suicide prevention (n=14), depression (n=9), bipolar disorder (n=9), substance use (n=24), traumatic brain injury (n=20), anxiety (n=1), and cross-cutting (n=14) evidence synthesis topics. All topic areas are documented in the Appendix (Supplemental Digital Content, http://links.lww.com/MLR/B836 ).

Stakeholder Input Results

Stakeholders rated 19 PTSD-related research gaps and suggested an additional 5 topics for evidence review, addressing both preventions as well as treatment topics. Mean ratings for topics ranged from 1.75 to 3.5 on a scale from 0 (no impact potential) to 4 (high potential for impact). Thus, although identified as research gaps, the potential of an evidence review to have an important impact on the MHS varied across the topics. Only 2 topics received a mean score of ≥3 (high potential), including predictors of PTSD treatment retention and response and PTSD treatment dosing, duration, and sequencing . In addition, raters’ opinions varied considerably across some topics with SDs ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 across all topics.

The stakeholders rated 22 other psychological health topics, suggested 2 additional topics for evidence review, and revised 2 original topics indicating which aspect of the research gap would be most important to address. Mean scores for the rated topics ranged from 0.25 to 3.75, with the SDs for each item ranging from 0 to 1.4. Six topics received an average score of ≥3, primarily focused on the topics of suicide prevention, substance use disorders, and telehealth interventions. Opinions on other topics varied widely across service leads.

Feasibility Scan Results

Evidence review topics that were rated by stakeholders as having some potential for impact (using a rating cutoff score>1) within the MHS were selected for formal feasibility scans. To date, 46 topics have been subjected to feasibility scans. Of these, 11 were evaluated as potential evidence map, 17 as a systematic review, and 18 as either at the time of the topic suggestion. The results of the feasibility scans are documented in the table in the Appendix (Supplemental Digital Content, http://links.lww.com/MLR/B836 ).

The feasibility scan result table shows the topic, topic modification suggestions based on literature reviews, and the mean stakeholder impact rating. The table shows the employed search strategy to determine the feasibility; the estimated number of RCTs in the database PubMed; the number and citation of Cochrane, Evidence Synthesis Program, and Health Technology Assessment reviews, that is, high-quality syntheses; and the estimated number of RCTs published after the latest existing systematic review that had been published on the topic.

Each potential evidence review topic was discussed in a narrative review report that documented the reason for determining the topic to be feasible or not feasible. Reasons for determining the topic to be not feasible included the lack of primary research for an evidence map or systematic review, the presence of an ongoing research project that may influence the evidence review scope, and the presence of an existing high-quality evidence review. Some topics were shown to be feasible upon further modification; this included topics that were partially addressed in existing reviews or topics where the review scope would need to be substantially changed to result in a high-impact evidence review. Topics to be judged feasible met all outlined criteria, that is, the topic could be addressed in a systematic review or evidence map, there were sufficient studies to justify a review, and the review would not merely replicate an existing review but make a novel contribution to the evidence base.

The project describes a transparent and structured approach to identify and prioritize evidence synthesis topics using scoping reviews, stakeholder input, and feasibility scans.

The work demonstrates an approach to establishing and evaluating evidence synthesis gaps. It has been repeatedly noted that research gap analyses often lack transparency with little information on analytic criteria and selection processes. 24 , 25 In addition, research need identification may not be informed by systematic literature searches documenting gaps but primarily rely on often unstructured content expert input. 26 , 27 Evidence synthesis needs assessment is a new field that to date has received very little attention. However, as health care delivery organizations move towards providing evidence-based treatments and the existing research continue to grow, both evidence reviews and evidence review gap identification and prioritization will become more prominent.

One of the lessons learned is that the topic selection process added to the timeline and required additional resources. The scoping searches, translation into evidence synthesis topics, stakeholder input, and feasibility scans each added time and the project required a longer period of performance compared to previous evidence synthesis projects. The project components were undertaken sequentially and had to be divided into topic areas. For example, it was deemed too much to ask for stakeholder input for all 122 topics identified as potential evidence review topics. Furthermore, we needed to be flexible to be able to respond to unanticipated congressional requests for evidence reviews. However, our process of identifying synthesis gaps, checking whether topics can be translated into syntheses, obtaining stakeholder input to ensure that the gaps are meaningful and need filling, and estimating the feasibility and avoiding duplicative efforts, has merit considering the alternative. More targeted funding of evidence syntheses ensures relevance and while resources need to be spent on the steps we are describing, these are small investments compared to the resources required for a full systematic review or evidence map.

The documented stakeholder engagement approach was useful for many reasons, not just for ensuring that the selection of evidence synthesis topics was transparent and structured. The stakeholders were alerted to the evidence synthesis project and provided input for further topic refinement. This process also supported the identification of a ‘customer’ after the review was completed, that is, a stakeholder who is keen on using the evidence review is likely to take action on its results and ready to translate the findings into clinical practice. The research to practice gap is substantial and the challenges of translating research to practice are widely documented. 28 – 30 Inefficient research translation delays delivery of proven clinical practices and can lead to wasteful research and practice investments.

The project had several strengths and limitations. The project describes a successful, transparent, and structured process to engage stakeholders and identifies important and feasible evidence review topics. However, the approach was developed to address the specific military psychological health care system needs, and therefore the process may not be generalizable to all other health care delivery organizations. Source selection was tailored to psychological health synthesis needs and process modifications (ie, sources to identify gaps) are needed for organizations aiming to establish a similar procedure. To keep the approach manageable, feasibility scans used only 1 database and we developed only preliminary, not comprehensive searches. Hence, some uncertainty about the true evidence base for the different topics remained; feasibility scans can only estimate the available research. Furthermore, the selected stakeholders were limited to a small number of service leads. A broader panel of stakeholders would have likely provided additional input. In addition, all evaluations of the literature relied on the expertise of experienced systematic reviewers; any replication of the process will require some staff with expertise in the evidence review. Finally, as outlined, all described processes added to the project timeline compounding the challenges of providing timely systematic reviews for practitioners and policymakers. 31 , 32

We have described a transparent and structured approach to identify and prioritize areas of evidence synthesis for a health care system. Scoping searches and feasibility scans identified gaps in the literature that would benefit from evidence review. Stakeholder input helped ensure the relevance of review topics and created a receptive audience for targeted evidence synthesis. The approach aims to advance the field of evidence synthesis needs assessment.

Supplementary Material

Acknowledgments.

The authors thank Laura Raaen, Margaret Maglione, Gulrez Azhar, Margie Danz, and Thomas Concannon for content input and Aneesa Motala and Naemma Golshan for administrative assistance.

Supported by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Psychological Health Center of Excellence. The findings and conclusions in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Psychological Health Center of Excellence, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, or the United States government.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Literature Review and Research Gap

• First Online: 28 October 2020

Cite this chapter

• Oliver Holtkemper 3  

Part of the book series: Controlling und Rechnungslegung - Managerial and Financial Accounting ((CRMFA))

735 Accesses

In this section, after describing the review methodology, the relevant literature is analyzed, and the research questions are thereby derived.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Coesfeld, Germany

Oliver Holtkemper

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oliver Holtkemper .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Holtkemper, O. (2020). Literature Review and Research Gap. In: Digitization of the Management Accounting Function. Controlling und Rechnungslegung - Managerial and Financial Accounting. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-31509-2_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-31509-2_2

Published : 28 October 2020

Publisher Name : Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden

Print ISBN : 978-3-658-31508-5

Online ISBN : 978-3-658-31509-2

eBook Packages : Business and Management Business and Management (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research