a framework to identify research gaps

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
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Framework for Determining Research Gaps During Systematic Review: Evaluation

Methods Research Reports

Investigators: Karen A Robinson , PhD, Oluwaseun Akinyede , MPH, Tania Dutta , MS, MPP, Veronica Ivey Sawin , BA, Tianjing Li , MD, PhD, Merianne Rose Spencer , BS, Charles M Turkelson , PhD, and Christine Weston , PhD.

Affiliations

• Copyright and Permissions

Structured Abstract

Background:.

Research gaps prevent systematic reviewers from making conclusions and, ultimately, limit our ability to make informed health care decisions. While there are well-defined methods for conducting a systematic review, there has been no explicit process for the identification of research gaps from systematic reviews. In a prior project we developed a framework to facilitate the systematic identification and characterization of research gaps from systematic reviews. This framework uses elements of PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, Setting) to describe the gaps and categorizes the reasons for the gaps as (A) insufficient or imprecise information, (B) biased information, (C) inconsistent or unknown consistency results, and/or (D) not the right information.

To further develop and evaluate a framework for the identification and characterization of research gaps from systematic reviews.

We conducted two types of evaluation: (1) We applied the framework to existing systematic reviews, and (2) Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs) applied the framework either during a systematic review or during a future research needs project (FRN). EPCs provided feedback on the framework using an evaluation form.

Our application of the framework to 50 systematic reviews identified about 600 unique research gaps. Key issues emerging from this evaluation included the need to clarify instructions for dealing with multiple comparisons (lumping vs. splitting) and need for guidance on applying the framework retrospectively. We received evaluation forms from seven EPCs. EPCs applied the framework in 8 projects, five of which were FRNs. Challenges identified by the EPCs led to revisions in the instructions including guidance for teams to decide a priori whether to limit the use of the framework to questions for which strength of evidence has been assessed, and the level of detail needed for the characterization of the gaps.

Conclusions:

Our team evaluated a revised framework, and developed guidance for its application. A final version is provided that incorporates revisions based on use of the framework across existing systematic reviews and feedback from other EPCs on their use of the framework. Future research is needed to evaluate the relative costs and benefits of using the framework, for review authors and for users of the systematic reviews.

• Collapse All
• Acknowledgments
• Peer Reviewers
• Introduction
• Review and Revise Framework and Develop Detailed Instructions
• Test Framework and Instructions Through Application to Existing Systematic Reviews
• Evaluate Implementation of Framework
• Revise and Finalize Framework and Instructions
• Peer Review and Public Commentary
• Key Findings
• Limitations
• Future Research
• Implications for Practice
• Conclusions
• Appendix A JHU EPC Frameworks Project: Research Gaps Worksheet and Instructions (Original)
• Appendix B JHU EPC Framework Evaluation Form
• Appendix C JHU EPC Frameworks Project: Research Gaps Worksheet and Instructions
• Appendix D Listing of Reviews Included in Retrospective Application of Framework
• Appendix E Detailed Analysis of Evaluation of the Use of the Research Gaps Framework by Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs)
• Appendix F JHU EPC Frameworks Project: Research Gaps Worksheet and Instructions (Final)

Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 1 , Contract No. 290-2007-10061-I. Prepared by: Johns Hopkins University Evidence-based Practice Center, Baltimore, MD

Suggested citation:

Robinson KA, Akinyede O, Dutta T, Sawin VI, Li T, Spencer MR, Turkelson CM, Weston C. Framework for Determining Research Gaps During Systematic Review: Evaluation. Methods Research Report. (Prepared by Johns Hopkins University Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2007-10061-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 13-EHC019-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Health care Research and Quality. February 2013. www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm .

This report is based on research conducted by the Johns Hopkins University Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. 290-2007-10061-I). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the authors, who are responsible for its contents; the findings and conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. Therefore, no statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The information in this report is intended to help health care decisionmakers—patients and clinicians, health system leaders, and policymakers, among others—make well informed decisions and thereby improve the quality of health care services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for the application of clinical judgment. Anyone who makes decisions concerning the provision of clinical care should consider this report in the same way as any medical reference and in conjunction with all other pertinent information, i.e., in the context of available resources and circumstances presented by individual patients.

This report may be used, in whole or in part, as the basis for development of clinical practice guidelines and other quality enhancement tools, or as a basis for reimbursement and coverage policies. AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of such derivative products may not be stated or implied.

None of the investigators have any affiliations or financial involvement that conflicts with the material presented in this report.

540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850; www ​.ahrq.gov

• Cite this Page Robinson KA, Akinyede O, Dutta T, et al. Framework for Determining Research Gaps During Systematic Review: Evaluation [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2013 Feb.
• PDF version of this title (425K)

Other titles in these collections

• AHRQ Methods for Effective Health Care
• Health Services/Technology Assessment Texts (HSTAT)

Related information

• NLM Catalog Related NLM Catalog Entries

Similar articles in PubMed

• Review Frameworks for Determining Research Gaps During Systematic Reviews [ 2011] Review Frameworks for Determining Research Gaps During Systematic Reviews Robinson KA, Saldanha IJ, Mckoy NA. 2011 Jun
• Review Development of a framework to identify research gaps from systematic reviews. [J Clin Epidemiol. 2011] Review Development of a framework to identify research gaps from systematic reviews. Robinson KA, Saldanha IJ, McKoy NA. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Dec; 64(12):1325-30. Epub 2011 Sep 19.
• Review Prioritization Criteria Methodology for Future Research Needs Proposals Within the Effective Health Care Program: PiCMe-Prioritization Criteria Methods [ 2013] Review Prioritization Criteria Methodology for Future Research Needs Proposals Within the Effective Health Care Program: PiCMe-Prioritization Criteria Methods Andrews J. 2013 Jan
• How has the impact of 'care pathway technologies' on service integration in stroke care been measured and what is the strength of the evidence to support their effectiveness in this respect? [Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2008] How has the impact of 'care pathway technologies' on service integration in stroke care been measured and what is the strength of the evidence to support their effectiveness in this respect? Allen D, Rixson L. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2008 Mar; 6(1):78-110.
• Review Grading the Strength of a Body of Evidence When Assessing Health Care Interventions for the Effective Health Care Program of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: An Update. [Methods Guide for Effectivenes...] Review Grading the Strength of a Body of Evidence When Assessing Health Care Interventions for the Effective Health Care Program of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: An Update. Berkman ND, Lohr KN, Ansari M, McDonagh M, Balk E, Whitlock E, Reston J, Bass E, Butler M, Gartlehner G, et al. Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. 2008

Recent Activity

• Framework for Determining Research Gaps During Systematic Review: Evaluation Framework for Determining Research Gaps During Systematic Review: Evaluation

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

The Research Gap (Literature Gap)

Everything you need to know to find a quality research gap

By: Ethar Al-Saraf (PhD) | Expert Reviewed By: Eunice Rautenbach (DTech) | November 2022

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

Overview: Research Gap 101

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

What (exactly) is a research gap?

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

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

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

Types of research gaps

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

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

Need a helping hand?

1. The Classic Literature Gap

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

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

2. The Disagreement Gap

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

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

3. The Contextual Gap

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

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

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

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

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

4. The Methodological Gap

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

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

Practical Examples

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

Context: Healthcare

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

Context: Environmental Science

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

Context: Education

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

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

How To Find A Research Gap

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s Recap

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

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

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

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:

30 Comments

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

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

I found it very helpful article. Thank you.

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

Very helpful and well-explained. Thank you

VERY HELPFUL

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

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

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

How to cite the author of this?

your explanation very help me for research paper. thank you

Very important presentation. Thanks.

Best Ideas. Thank you.

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

Kindly explain to me how to generate good research objectives.

This is very helpful, thank you

Very helpful, thank you.

Thanks a lot for this great insight!

This is really helpful indeed!

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

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

Very helpful Thanks a lot.

Thank you very much

This was very timely. Kudos

Great one! Thank you all.

Thank you very much.

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

How do I Cite this document please?

Research gap about career choice given me Example bro?

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

• eLibrary Home
• eLibrary Login
• Next Event >

Home > Conferences > ICIS > ICIS2015 > PROCEEDINGS > RESEARCHMETHODS > 2

A Framework for Rigorously Identifying Research Gaps in Qualitative Literature Reviews

Presenter Information

Christoph Müller-Bloch , Copenhagen Business School Follow Johann Kranz , University of Goettingen Follow

Description

Identifying research gaps is a fundamental goal of literature reviewing. While it is widely acknowledged that literature reviews should identify research gaps, there are no methodological guidelines for how to identify research gaps in qualitative literature reviews ensuring rigor and replicability. Our study addresses this gap and proposes a framework that should help scholars in this endeavor without stifling creativity. To develop the framework we thoroughly analyze the state-of-the-art procedure of identifying research gaps in 40 recent literature reviews using a grounded theory approach. Based on the data, we subsequently derive a framework for identifying research gaps in qualitative literature reviews and demonstrate its application with an example. Our results provide a modus operandi for identifying research gaps, thus enabling scholars to conduct literature reviews more rigorously, effectively, and efficiently in the future.

Recommended Citation

Müller-Bloch, Christoph and Kranz, Johann, "A Framework for Rigorously Identifying Research Gaps in Qualitative Literature Reviews" (2015). ICIS 2015 Proceedings . 2. https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2015/proceedings/ResearchMethods/2

Since November 24, 2015

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS
• All Content

Author Corner

• eLibrary FAQ

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

• Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » Research Gap – Types, Examples and How to Identify

Research Gap – Types, Examples and How to Identify

Table of Contents

Research Gap

Definition:

Research gap refers to an area or topic within a field of study that has not yet been extensively researched or is yet to be explored. It is a question, problem or issue that has not been addressed or resolved by previous research.

How to Identify Research Gap

Identifying a research gap is an essential step in conducting research that adds value and contributes to the existing body of knowledge. Research gap requires critical thinking, creativity, and a thorough understanding of the existing literature . It is an iterative process that may require revisiting and refining your research questions and ideas multiple times.

Here are some steps that can help you identify a research gap:

• Review existing literature: Conduct a thorough review of the existing literature in your research area. This will help you identify what has already been studied and what gaps still exist.
• Identify a research problem: Identify a specific research problem or question that you want to address.
• Analyze existing research: Analyze the existing research related to your research problem. This will help you identify areas that have not been studied, inconsistencies in the findings, or limitations of the previous research.
• Brainstorm potential research ideas : Based on your analysis, brainstorm potential research ideas that address the identified gaps.
• Consult with experts: Consult with experts in your research area to get their opinions on potential research ideas and to identify any additional gaps that you may have missed.
• Refine research questions: Refine your research questions and hypotheses based on the identified gaps and potential research ideas.
• Develop a research proposal: Develop a research proposal that outlines your research questions, objectives, and methods to address the identified research gap.

Types of Research Gap

There are different types of research gaps that can be identified, and each type is associated with a specific situation or problem. Here are the main types of research gaps and their explanations:

Theoretical Gap

This type of research gap refers to a lack of theoretical understanding or knowledge in a particular area. It can occur when there is a discrepancy between existing theories and empirical evidence or when there is no theory that can explain a particular phenomenon. Identifying theoretical gaps can lead to the development of new theories or the refinement of existing ones.

Empirical Gap

An empirical gap occurs when there is a lack of empirical evidence or data in a particular area. It can happen when there is a lack of research on a specific topic or when existing research is inadequate or inconclusive. Identifying empirical gaps can lead to the development of new research studies to collect data or the refinement of existing research methods to improve the quality of data collected.

Methodological Gap

This type of research gap refers to a lack of appropriate research methods or techniques to answer a research question. It can occur when existing methods are inadequate, outdated, or inappropriate for the research question. Identifying methodological gaps can lead to the development of new research methods or the modification of existing ones to better address the research question.

Practical Gap

A practical gap occurs when there is a lack of practical applications or implementation of research findings. It can occur when research findings are not implemented due to financial, political, or social constraints. Identifying practical gaps can lead to the development of strategies for the effective implementation of research findings in practice.

Knowledge Gap

This type of research gap occurs when there is a lack of knowledge or information on a particular topic. It can happen when a new area of research is emerging, or when research is conducted in a different context or population. Identifying knowledge gaps can lead to the development of new research studies or the extension of existing research to fill the gap.

Examples of Research Gap

Here are some examples of research gaps that researchers might identify:

• Theoretical Gap Example : In the field of psychology, there might be a theoretical gap related to the lack of understanding of the relationship between social media use and mental health. Although there is existing research on the topic, there might be a lack of consensus on the mechanisms that link social media use to mental health outcomes.
• Empirical Gap Example : In the field of environmental science, there might be an empirical gap related to the lack of data on the long-term effects of climate change on biodiversity in specific regions. Although there might be some studies on the topic, there might be a lack of data on the long-term effects of climate change on specific species or ecosystems.
• Methodological Gap Example : In the field of education, there might be a methodological gap related to the lack of appropriate research methods to assess the impact of online learning on student outcomes. Although there might be some studies on the topic, existing research methods might not be appropriate to assess the complex relationships between online learning and student outcomes.
• Practical Gap Example: In the field of healthcare, there might be a practical gap related to the lack of effective strategies to implement evidence-based practices in clinical settings. Although there might be existing research on the effectiveness of certain practices, they might not be implemented in practice due to various barriers, such as financial constraints or lack of resources.
• Knowledge Gap Example: In the field of anthropology, there might be a knowledge gap related to the lack of understanding of the cultural practices of indigenous communities in certain regions. Although there might be some research on the topic, there might be a lack of knowledge about specific cultural practices or beliefs that are unique to those communities.

Examples of Research Gap In Literature Review, Thesis, and Research Paper might be:

• Literature review : A literature review on the topic of machine learning and healthcare might identify a research gap in the lack of studies that investigate the use of machine learning for early detection of rare diseases.
• Thesis : A thesis on the topic of cybersecurity might identify a research gap in the lack of studies that investigate the effectiveness of artificial intelligence in detecting and preventing cyber attacks.
• Research paper : A research paper on the topic of natural language processing might identify a research gap in the lack of studies that investigate the use of natural language processing techniques for sentiment analysis in non-English languages.

How to Write Research Gap

By following these steps, you can effectively write about research gaps in your paper and clearly articulate the contribution that your study will make to the existing body of knowledge.

Here are some steps to follow when writing about research gaps in your paper:

• Identify the research question : Before writing about research gaps, you need to identify your research question or problem. This will help you to understand the scope of your research and identify areas where additional research is needed.
• Review the literature: Conduct a thorough review of the literature related to your research question. This will help you to identify the current state of knowledge in the field and the gaps that exist.
• Identify the research gap: Based on your review of the literature, identify the specific research gap that your study will address. This could be a theoretical, empirical, methodological, practical, or knowledge gap.
• Provide evidence: Provide evidence to support your claim that the research gap exists. This could include a summary of the existing literature, a discussion of the limitations of previous studies, or an analysis of the current state of knowledge in the field.
• Explain the importance: Explain why it is important to fill the research gap. This could include a discussion of the potential implications of filling the gap, the significance of the research for the field, or the potential benefits to society.
• State your research objectives: State your research objectives, which should be aligned with the research gap you have identified. This will help you to clearly articulate the purpose of your study and how it will address the research gap.

Importance of Research Gap

The importance of research gaps can be summarized as follows:

• Advancing knowledge: Identifying research gaps is crucial for advancing knowledge in a particular field. By identifying areas where additional research is needed, researchers can fill gaps in the existing body of knowledge and contribute to the development of new theories and practices.
• Guiding research: Research gaps can guide researchers in designing studies that fill those gaps. By identifying research gaps, researchers can develop research questions and objectives that are aligned with the needs of the field and contribute to the development of new knowledge.
• Enhancing research quality: By identifying research gaps, researchers can avoid duplicating previous research and instead focus on developing innovative research that fills gaps in the existing body of knowledge. This can lead to more impactful research and higher-quality research outputs.
• Informing policy and practice: Research gaps can inform policy and practice by highlighting areas where additional research is needed to inform decision-making. By filling research gaps, researchers can provide evidence-based recommendations that have the potential to improve policy and practice in a particular field.

Applications of Research Gap

Here are some potential applications of research gap:

• Informing research priorities: Research gaps can help guide research funding agencies and researchers to prioritize research areas that require more attention and resources.
• Identifying practical implications: Identifying gaps in knowledge can help identify practical applications of research that are still unexplored or underdeveloped.
• Stimulating innovation: Research gaps can encourage innovation and the development of new approaches or methodologies to address unexplored areas.
• Improving policy-making: Research gaps can inform policy-making decisions by highlighting areas where more research is needed to make informed policy decisions.
• Enhancing academic discourse: Research gaps can lead to new and constructive debates and discussions within academic communities, leading to more robust and comprehensive research.

Advantages of Research Gap

Here are some of the advantages of research gap:

• Identifies new research opportunities: Identifying research gaps can help researchers identify areas that require further exploration, which can lead to new research opportunities.
• Improves the quality of research: By identifying gaps in current research, researchers can focus their efforts on addressing unanswered questions, which can improve the overall quality of research.
• Enhances the relevance of research: Research that addresses existing gaps can have significant implications for the development of theories, policies, and practices, and can therefore increase the relevance and impact of research.
• Helps avoid duplication of effort: Identifying existing research can help researchers avoid duplicating efforts, saving time and resources.
• Helps to refine research questions: Research gaps can help researchers refine their research questions, making them more focused and relevant to the needs of the field.
• Promotes collaboration: By identifying areas of research that require further investigation, researchers can collaborate with others to conduct research that addresses these gaps, which can lead to more comprehensive and impactful research outcomes.

Disadvantages of Research Gap

While research gaps can be advantageous, there are also some potential disadvantages that should be considered:

• Difficulty in identifying gaps: Identifying gaps in existing research can be challenging, particularly in fields where there is a large volume of research or where research findings are scattered across different disciplines.
• Lack of funding: Addressing research gaps may require significant resources, and researchers may struggle to secure funding for their work if it is perceived as too risky or uncertain.
• Time-consuming: Conducting research to address gaps can be time-consuming, particularly if the research involves collecting new data or developing new methods.
• Risk of oversimplification: Addressing research gaps may require researchers to simplify complex problems, which can lead to oversimplification and a failure to capture the complexity of the issues.
• Bias : Identifying research gaps can be influenced by researchers’ personal biases or perspectives, which can lead to a skewed understanding of the field.
• Potential for disagreement: Identifying research gaps can be subjective, and different researchers may have different views on what constitutes a gap in the field, leading to disagreements and debate.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Institutional Review Board – Application Sample...

Evaluating Research – Process, Examples and...

Ragneel Chand ORCID iD Assistant Lecturer at Fiji National University Fiji

Published by IRA Academico Research, a publisher member of the Publishers International Linking Association, Inc. (Crossref), USA.

This paper is reviewed in accordance with the Peer Review Program of IRA Academico Research

Framework for Identifying Research Gaps for Future Academic Research

Wang, Wang, Chen, and Yang (2016) defined research gaps as a region where the ability to infer a particular question is constrained by a lack of knowledge. It is an area where the methods and insufficient research data have limited the capacity to get to a fully reliable judgment on a research subject. Therefore, academics need to situate their objectives in the research gap of the subject field. Particularly research gaps are those research questions that have not been addressed properly beforehand. This not only indicates the study's relevancy but also the considerable contribution it could bring to the field of study (Issah, Hamza, & Prosper, 2022). According to Ajemba and Arene (2022) posing questions and finding new research areas based on previous studies are the first steps in doing research. The limitations of the study's design, the use of inadequate instruments, or other factors that the researcher could or could not control led to the development of a research gap. For new and inexperienced researchers, it might be challenging to explore the research gap due to a limited amount of criteria or established methodologies, making research gap analysis confusing and equivocal. For example, if the researcher is investigating a broad region and then going to pick a more specific field might contribute to the description of a statement of the problem. This study's goal is to offer a methodology for determining research gaps. It will make recommendations based on each aspect of the research gap analysis framework.

Abass, H., Banjo, H., & Abosede, A. (2020). Research Gaps: Sources and Methods of Identification. In (pp. 150-157).

Ajemba, M. N., & Arene, E. C. (2022). Research gaps for future research and their identification. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 16(1), 575-579. https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2022.16.1.1062

Carley, K. (1993). Coding choices for textual analysis: A comparison of content analysis and map analysis. Sociological Methodology, 75-126. https://doi.org/10.2307/271007

Duriau, V. J., Reger, R. K., & Pfarrer, M. D. (2007). A content analysis of the content analysis literature in organization studies: Research themes, data sources, and methodological refinements. Organizational research methods, 10(1), 5-34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106289252

Farooq, R. (2017). A framework for identifying research gap in social sciences: Evidence from the past. IUP Journal of Management Research, 16(4), 66-75.

Gheyle, N., & Jacobs, T. (2017). Content Analysis: a short overview.

Hoffmann, K., & Doucette, L. (2012). A review of citation analysis methodologies for collection management. College & Research Libraries, 73(4), 321-335. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl-254

Issah, B., Hamza, A., & Prosper, G. (2022). Understanding and spotting research gaps through a systematic literature review. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), 6(III), 549-554.

Nunn, J., & Chang, S. (2020). What are Systematic Reviews? WikiJournal of Medicine, 7, 5. doi:10.15347/WJM/2020.005

Pigott, T. D., & Polanin, J. R. (2020). Methodological guidance paper: High-quality meta-analysis in a systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 90(1), 24-46.

Price, J. H., & Murnan, J. (2004). Research Limitations and the Necessity of Reporting Them. American Journal of Health Education, 35(2), 66-67. https://doi.org/10.1080/19325037.2004.10603611

Robinson, K. A., Saldanha, I. J., & Mckoy, N. A. (2011). Development of a framework to identify research gaps from systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64(12), 1325-1330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.06.009

Rousseau, R. (2008). Social information systems: Emerging technology and applications for searching the web effectively. Information Science Reference, 13, 252-267.

Smith, L. C. (1981). Citation analysis.

Wang, Q., Wang, X., Chen, Y., & Yang, K. (2016). Research gap of guidelines might be an important approach to prioritization (Letter commenting on: J Clin Epidemiol. 2015; 68: 341-6). Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 69, 251-252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.05.013

The published works in  Journal  except the content of the website are licensed under a  Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License .

(ISSN: 2455-2526)

Reviewed & Published by IRA Academico Research | ©2012-2024, All Rights Reserved.

• Twitter (X)

Research identifies barriers and enablers to effective truth-telling initiatives

A new report highlights the need for significant capacity building to enable meaningful and safe participation in truth-telling.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples highlight truth-telling as a much-needed step toward recognition and reconciliation. But new research highlights uncertainty among non-Indigenous Australians about truth-telling, how it is conducted, and how to participate.

The report,  Coming to terms with the past? Identifying barriers and enablers to truth-telling , undertaken by UNSW Arts, Design & Architecture researchers on behalf of Reconciliation Australia, explores attitudes towards, barriers to and enablers of truth-telling in Australia. Launched today, it finds significant gaps in the understanding of truth-telling between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and non-Indigenous Australians. It also highlights the need to carefully consider the aims of community truth-telling initiatives, establish protocols for safe and inclusive events, and build truth-telling and truth-listening capacity among participants.

“Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and non-Indigenous Australians don’t always share a common understanding of what truth-telling involves, what it might achieve, and how to go about it,” says Dr Anne Maree Payne , co-lead researcher from the Indigenous Land and Justice Research Group in the UNSW School of Humanities & Languages . “This research identifies a need to demystify truth-telling and address some of the critical barriers to participation in truth-telling for both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and non-Indigenous Australians that were identified.”

Reconciliation Australia Chief Executive Officer, Karen Mundine, welcomed the UNSW report as an important contribution to the evidence-base necessary to inform community truth-telling.

“At its heart, reconciliation is about strengthening relationships between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous peoples, for the benefit of all of us,” she says. “And the foundation of any strong relationship is a shared understanding and appreciation of what has come before, and how this affects us all in the present.

“Truth-telling is a core pillar of reconciliation, a fact tirelessly advocated by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

“The referendum revealed to us that under the bedrock of mainstream Australian society’s good intentions, is a dangerous lack of knowledge about the impact of colonisation on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

“But community truth-telling processes must be informed by evidence, and the importance of this new research is in identifying barriers and enablers to truth-telling and strategies to promote historical acceptance,” says Ms Mundine. “Critically, the report finds that truth-telling must be an ongoing process of dialogue and engagement, not a ‘one-off’ event or activity and that truth-telling must be led by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

“The research emphasises that any processes must be trauma-informed and guided by culturally safe protocols,” says Ms Mundine.

“Truth-telling offers a pathway to address the gaps we have in understanding and engaging with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories,” says Prof. Heidi Norman, co-lead researcher from the Indigenous Land and Justice Research Group in the UNSW School of Humanities & Languages. “This report advances our understanding of truth-telling and provides best-practice guidance for successful truth-telling community events to motivate genuine and meaningful participation.”

Identifying barriers and enablers to truth-telling

The research involved a literature review, media analysis of six weeks of news reporting about truth-telling, a survey (225 responses) and ten in-depth interviews to uncover truth-telling perspectives. A quarter of survey respondents identified as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander people and 20 per cent of those interviewed were Aboriginal people, and most participants saw themselves as supporters of reconciliation and truth-telling, and who were already highly engaged with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories.

The report found that for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, the impact of trauma and the need for cultural safety in truth-telling were significant concerns. They were also more likely to identify that truth-telling might emphasise divisions between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and non-Indigenous Australians and that participants might question or challenge the accuracy of the perspectives shared.

Truth-telling offers a pathway to address the gaps we have in understanding and engaging with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories. Prof. Heidi Norman

Although seeing themselves as highly engaged with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander history and truth-telling, non-Indigenous people in the study still indicated significant uncertainty about how to participate in truth-telling.

“Even among non-Indigenous people who see themselves as highly supportive of Indigenous issues, there is significant anxiety about participating in truth-telling,” Dr Payne says. “This uncertainty was around not knowing what truth-telling involves or lack of opportunity to participate, which highlights the need for basic literacy in the wider population about truth-telling.”

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were highly committed to truth-telling, although less likely than non-Indigenous people to agree that truth-telling might lead to justice. They also identified a range of motivations for participating in truth-telling, not just education of non-Indigenous people.

“Non-Indigenous people were interested in attending truth-telling to learn about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and to listen to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’s stories,” Prof. Norman says. “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were more interested in truth-telling about their local community than non-Indigenous people and were also much more likely to be motivated to participate in truth-telling to share their own personal or family history or perspective.”

Both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and non-Indigenous people said the main benefit of truth-telling would be a shared understanding of Australian history, which could potentially improve relations and deliver healing. Respondents agreed that truth-telling should involve Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’s perspectives and recognise the diversity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

“The strong consensus emerging from our research participants was that truth-telling in Australia must be led and supported by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities,” says Prof. Norman. “It’s important truth-telling not only engages with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’s perspectives and recognises the continuing impacts of the past on their lives today but is something that is ongoing to achieve the changes needed.”

Building truth-telling capacity and engagement

The findings also highlight that community-based truth-telling initiatives need to include public education about what truth-telling encompasses and practical information about where, when, and how it will take place.

“To be effective, truth-telling processes must be realistic about the benefits and limits of truth-telling and build truth-telling and truth-listening capacity amongst both Indigenous and non-Indigenous participants,” says Prof. Norman. “It needs to recognise that truth-telling may involve difficult emotions and the potential for conflict, and strategies need to be put in place to manage these.”

The report also highlighted the three dominant understandings of truth-telling: truth-telling to achieve justice for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, truth-telling to promote reconciliation and healing, truth-telling to challenge and change historical understanding, and a fourth category about the ‘how to’ of truth-telling.

“While acknowledging the interconnections between these categories, we believe this framework is useful for considering the wide range of initiatives and events currently taking place in Australia under the umbrella of ‘truth-telling’,” Dr Payne says. It also helps to distinguish what cannot meaningfully be described as truth-telling.”

“Truth-telling is not a panacea that will fix every problem facing Indigenous communities,” Dr Payne says. “It’s one step that is part of a bigger journey towards recognition and reconciliation, not a destination in itself.”

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Gender pay gap in U.S. hasn’t changed much in two decades

The gender gap in pay has remained relatively stable in the United States over the past 20 years or so. In 2022, women earned an average of 82% of what men earned, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of median hourly earnings of both full- and part-time workers. These results are similar to where the pay gap stood in 2002, when women earned 80% as much as men.

As has long been the case, the wage gap is smaller for workers ages 25 to 34 than for all workers 16 and older. In 2022, women ages 25 to 34 earned an average of 92 cents for every dollar earned by a man in the same age group – an 8-cent gap. By comparison, the gender pay gap among workers of all ages that year was 18 cents.

While the gender pay gap has not changed much in the last two decades, it has narrowed considerably when looking at the longer term, both among all workers ages 16 and older and among those ages 25 to 34. The estimated 18-cent gender pay gap among all workers in 2022 was down from 35 cents in 1982. And the 8-cent gap among workers ages 25 to 34 in 2022 was down from a 26-cent gap four decades earlier.

The gender pay gap measures the difference in median hourly earnings between men and women who work full or part time in the United States. Pew Research Center’s estimate of the pay gap is based on an analysis of Current Population Survey (CPS) monthly outgoing rotation group files ( IPUMS ) from January 1982 to December 2022, combined to create annual files. To understand how we calculate the gender pay gap, read our 2013 post, “How Pew Research Center measured the gender pay gap.”

The COVID-19 outbreak affected data collection efforts by the U.S. government in its surveys, especially in 2020 and 2021, limiting in-person data collection and affecting response rates. It is possible that some measures of economic outcomes and how they vary across demographic groups are affected by these changes in data collection.

In addition to findings about the gender wage gap, this analysis includes information from a Pew Research Center survey about the perceived reasons for the pay gap, as well as the pressures and career goals of U.S. men and women. The survey was conducted among 5,098 adults and includes a subset of questions asked only for 2,048 adults who are employed part time or full time, from Oct. 10-16, 2022. Everyone who took part is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

Here are the questions used in this analysis, along with responses, and its methodology .

The  U.S. Census Bureau has also analyzed the gender pay gap, though its analysis looks only at full-time workers (as opposed to full- and part-time workers). In 2021, full-time, year-round working women earned 84% of what their male counterparts earned, on average, according to the Census Bureau’s most recent analysis.

Much of the gender pay gap has been explained by measurable factors such as educational attainment, occupational segregation and work experience. The narrowing of the gap over the long term is attributable in large part to gains women have made in each of these dimensions.

Related: The Enduring Grip of the Gender Pay Gap

Even though women have increased their presence in higher-paying jobs traditionally dominated by men, such as professional and managerial positions, women as a whole continue to be overrepresented in lower-paying occupations relative to their share of the workforce. This may contribute to gender differences in pay.

Other factors that are difficult to measure, including gender discrimination, may also contribute to the ongoing wage discrepancy.

Perceived reasons for the gender wage gap

When asked about the factors that may play a role in the gender wage gap, half of U.S. adults point to women being treated differently by employers as a major reason, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted in October 2022. Smaller shares point to women making different choices about how to balance work and family (42%) and working in jobs that pay less (34%).

There are some notable differences between men and women in views of what’s behind the gender wage gap. Women are much more likely than men (61% vs. 37%) to say a major reason for the gap is that employers treat women differently. And while 45% of women say a major factor is that women make different choices about how to balance work and family, men are slightly less likely to hold that view (40% say this).

Parents with children younger than 18 in the household are more likely than those who don’t have young kids at home (48% vs. 40%) to say a major reason for the pay gap is the choices that women make about how to balance family and work. On this question, differences by parental status are evident among both men and women.

Views about reasons for the gender wage gap also differ by party. About two-thirds of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (68%) say a major factor behind wage differences is that employers treat women differently, but far fewer Republicans and Republican leaners (30%) say the same. Conversely, Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say women’s choices about how to balance family and work (50% vs. 36%) and their tendency to work in jobs that pay less (39% vs. 30%) are major reasons why women earn less than men.

Democratic and Republican women are more likely than their male counterparts in the same party to say a major reason for the gender wage gap is that employers treat women differently. About three-quarters of Democratic women (76%) say this, compared with 59% of Democratic men. And while 43% of Republican women say unequal treatment by employers is a major reason for the gender wage gap, just 18% of GOP men share that view.

Pressures facing working women and men

Family caregiving responsibilities bring different pressures for working women and men, and research has shown that being a mother can reduce women’s earnings , while fatherhood can increase men’s earnings .

Employed women and men are about equally likely to say they feel a great deal of pressure to support their family financially and to be successful in their jobs and careers, according to the Center’s October survey. But women, and particularly working mothers, are more likely than men to say they feel a great deal of pressure to focus on responsibilities at home.

About half of employed women (48%) report feeling a great deal of pressure to focus on their responsibilities at home, compared with 35% of employed men. Among working mothers with children younger than 18 in the household, two-thirds (67%) say the same, compared with 45% of working dads.

When it comes to supporting their family financially, similar shares of working moms and dads (57% vs. 62%) report they feel a great deal of pressure, but this is driven mainly by the large share of unmarried working mothers who say they feel a great deal of pressure in this regard (77%). Among those who are married, working dads are far more likely than working moms (60% vs. 43%) to say they feel a great deal of pressure to support their family financially. (There were not enough unmarried working fathers in the sample to analyze separately.)

About four-in-ten working parents say they feel a great deal of pressure to be successful at their job or career. These findings don’t differ by gender.

Gender differences in job roles, aspirations

Overall, a quarter of employed U.S. adults say they are currently the boss or one of the top managers where they work, according to the Center’s survey. Another 33% say they are not currently the boss but would like to be in the future, while 41% are not and do not aspire to be the boss or one of the top managers.

Men are more likely than women to be a boss or a top manager where they work (28% vs. 21%). This is especially the case among employed fathers, 35% of whom say they are the boss or one of the top managers where they work. (The varying attitudes between fathers and men without children at least partly reflect differences in marital status and educational attainment between the two groups.)

In addition to being less likely than men to say they are currently the boss or a top manager at work, women are also more likely to say they wouldn’t want to be in this type of position in the future. More than four-in-ten employed women (46%) say this, compared with 37% of men. Similar shares of men (35%) and women (31%) say they are not currently the boss but would like to be one day. These patterns are similar among parents.

Note: This is an update of a post originally published on March 22, 2019. Anna Brown and former Pew Research Center writer/editor Amanda Barroso contributed to an earlier version of this analysis. Here are the questions used in this analysis, along with responses, and its methodology .

What is the gender wage gap in your metropolitan area? Find out with our pay gap calculator

• Gender & Work
• Gender Equality & Discrimination
• Gender Pay Gap
• Gender Roles

Women have gained ground in the nation’s highest-paying occupations, but still lag behind men

Diversity, equity and inclusion in the workplace, the enduring grip of the gender pay gap, more than twice as many americans support than oppose the #metoo movement, women now outnumber men in the u.s. college-educated labor force, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy