what is research gap identification

• 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...

Identifying Research Gaps to Pursue Innovative Research

This article is an excerpt from a lecture given by my Ph.D. guide, a researcher in public health. She advised us on how to identify research gaps to pursue innovative research in our fields.

What is a Research Gap?

Today we are talking about the research gap: what is it, how to identify it, and how to make use of it so that you can pursue innovative research. Now, how many of you have ever felt you had discovered a new and exciting research question , only to find that it had already been written about? I have experienced this more times than I can count. Graduate studies come with pressure to add new knowledge to the field. We can contribute to the progress and knowledge of humanity. To do this, we need to first learn to identify research gaps in the existing literature.

A research gap is, simply, a topic or area for which missing or insufficient information limits the ability to reach a conclusion for a question. It should not be confused with a research question, however. For example, if we ask the research question of what the healthiest diet for humans is, we would find many studies and possible answers to this question. On the other hand, if we were to ask the research question of what are the effects of antidepressants on pregnant women, we would not find much-existing data. This is a research gap. When we identify a research gap, we identify a direction for potentially new and exciting research.

How to Identify Research Gap?

Considering the volume of existing research, identifying research gaps can seem overwhelming or even impossible. I don’t have time to read every paper published on public health. Similarly, you guys don’t have time to read every paper. So how can you identify a research gap?

There are different techniques in various disciplines, but we can reduce most of them down to a few steps, which are:

• Identify your key motivating issue/question
• Identify key terms associated with this issue
• Review the literature, searching for these key terms and identifying relevant publications
• Review the literature cited by the key publications which you located in the above step
• Identify issues not addressed by  the literature relating to your critical  motivating issue

It is the last step which we all find the most challenging. It can be difficult to figure out what an article is  not  saying. I like to keep a list of notes of biased or inconsistent information. You could also track what authors write as “directions for future research,” which often can point us towards the existing gaps.

Different Types of Research Gaps

Identifying research gaps is an essential step in conducting research, as it helps researchers to refine their research questions and to focus their research efforts on areas where there is a need for more knowledge or understanding.

1. Knowledge gaps

These are gaps in knowledge or understanding of a subject, where more research is needed to fill the gaps. For example, there may be a lack of understanding of the mechanisms behind a particular disease or how a specific technology works.

2. Conceptual gaps

These are gaps in the conceptual framework or theoretical understanding of a subject. For example, there may be a need for more research to understand the relationship between two concepts or to refine a theoretical framework.

3. Methodological gaps

These are gaps in the methods used to study a particular subject. For example, there may be a need for more research to develop new research methods or to refine existing methods to address specific research questions.

4. Data gaps

These are gaps in the data available on a particular subject. For example, there may be a need for more research to collect data on a specific population or to develop new measures to collect data on a particular construct.

5. Practical gaps

These are gaps in the application of research findings to practical situations. For example, there may be a need for more research to understand how to implement evidence-based practices in real-world settings or to identify barriers to implementing such practices.

Examples of Research Gap

Limited understanding of the underlying mechanisms of a disease:.

Despite significant research on a particular disease, there may be a lack of understanding of the underlying mechanisms of the disease. For example, although much research has been done on Alzheimer’s disease, the exact mechanisms that lead to the disease are not yet fully understood.

Inconsistencies in the findings of previous research:

When previous research on a particular topic has inconsistent findings, there may be a need for further research to clarify or resolve these inconsistencies. For example, previous research on the effectiveness of a particular treatment for a medical condition may have produced inconsistent findings, indicating a need for further research to determine the true effectiveness of the treatment.

Limited research on emerging technologies:

As new technologies emerge, there may be limited research on their applications, benefits, and potential drawbacks. For example, with the increasing use of artificial intelligence in various industries, there is a need for further research on the ethical, legal, and social implications of AI.

How to Deal with Literature Gap?

Once you have identified the literature gaps, it is critical to prioritize. You may find many questions which remain to be answered in the literature. Often one question must be answered before the next can be addressed. In prioritizing the gaps, you have identified, you should consider your funding agency or stakeholders, the needs of the field, and the relevance of your questions to what is currently being studied. Also, consider your own resources and ability to conduct the research you’re considering. Once you have done this, you can narrow your search down to an appropriate question.

Tools to Help Your Search

There are thousands of new articles published every day, and staying up to date on the literature can be overwhelming. You should take advantage of the technology that is available. Some services include  PubCrawler ,  Feedly ,  Google Scholar , and PubMed updates. Stay up to date on social media forums where scholars share new discoveries, such as Twitter. Reference managers such as  Mendeley  can help you keep your references well-organized. I personally have had success using Google Scholar and PubMed to stay current on new developments and track which gaps remain in my personal areas of interest.

The most important thing I want to impress upon you today is that you will struggle to  choose a research topic  that is innovative and exciting if you don’t know the existing literature well. This is why identifying research gaps starts with an extensive and thorough  literature review . But give yourself some boundaries.  You don’t need to read every paper that has ever been written on a topic. You may find yourself thinking you’re on the right track and then suddenly coming across a paper that you had intended to write! It happens to everyone- it happens to me quite often. Don’t give up- keep reading and you’ll find what you’re looking for.

Class dismissed!

How do you identify research gaps? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

Frequently Asked Questions

A research gap can be identified by looking for a topic or area with missing or insufficient information that limits the ability to reach a conclusion for a question.

Identifying a research gap is important as it provides a direction for potentially new research or helps bridge the gap in existing literature.

Gap in research is a topic or area with missing or insufficient information. A research gap limits the ability to reach a conclusion for a question.

Thank u for your suggestion.

Very useful tips specially for a beginner

Thank you. This is helpful. I find that I’m overwhelmed with literatures. As I read on a particular topic, and in a particular direction I find that other conflicting issues, topic a and ideas keep popping up, making me more confused.

I am very grateful for your advice. It’s just on point.

The clearest, exhaustive, and brief explanation I have ever read.

Thanks for sharing

Thank you very much.The work is brief and understandable

Thank you it is very informative

Thanks for sharing this educative article

Thank you for such informative explanation.

Great job smart guy! Really outdid yourself!

Nice one! I thank you for this as it is just what I was looking for!😃🤟

Thank you so much for this. Much appreciated

Thank you so much.

Thankyou for ur briefing…its so helpful

Thank you so much .I’ved learn a lot from this.❤️

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Reporting Research

Choosing the Right Analytical Approach: Thematic analysis vs. content analysis for data interpretation

In research, choosing the right approach to understand data is crucial for deriving meaningful insights.…

Comparing Cross Sectional and Longitudinal Studies: 5 steps for choosing the right approach

The process of choosing the right research design can put ourselves at the crossroads of…

• Career Corner

Unlocking the Power of Networking in Academic Conferences

Embarking on your first academic conference experience? Fear not, we got you covered! Academic conferences…

Research Recommendations – Guiding policy-makers for evidence-based decision making

Research recommendations play a crucial role in guiding scholars and researchers toward fruitful avenues of…

• AI in Academia

Disclosing the Use of Generative AI: Best practices for authors in manuscript preparation

The rapid proliferation of generative and other AI-based tools in research writing has ignited an…

Intersectionality in Academia: Dealing with diverse perspectives

Meritocracy and Diversity in Science: Increasing inclusivity in STEM education

Avoiding the AI Trap: Pitfalls of relying on ChatGPT for PhD applications

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

What should universities' stance be on AI tools in research and academic writing?

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

How to identify research gaps

Anthony Newman

About this video

Researching is an ongoing task, as it requires you to think of something nobody else has thought of before. This is where the research gap comes into play.

We will explain what a research gap is, provide you with steps on how to identify these research gaps, as well as provide you several tools that can help you identify them.

About the presenter

Senior Publisher, Life Sciences, Elsevier

Anthony Newman is a Senior Publisher with Elsevier and is based in Amsterdam. Each year he presents numerous Author Workshops and other similar trainings worldwide. He is currently responsible for fifteen biochemistry and laboratory medicine journals, he joined Elsevier over thirty years ago and has been Publisher for more than twenty of those years. Before then he was the marketing communications manager for the biochemistry journals of Elsevier.  By training he is a polymer chemist and was active in the surface coating industry before leaving London and moving to Amsterdam in 1987 to join Elsevier.

How to locate key publications

How to find relevant and authoritative research

How to integrate sex, gender, and intersectional analysis into research

How to enhance your chances of serendipitous research discovery

Data Repositories to store your data

Researcher Academy on Twitter

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

How to Identify a Research Gap

5-minute read

• 10th January 2024

If you’ve been tasked with producing a thesis or dissertation, one of your first steps will be identifying a research gap. Although finding a research gap may sound daunting, don’t fret! In this post, we will define a research gap, discuss its importance, and offer a step-by-step guide that will provide you with the essential know-how to complete this critical step and move on to the rest of your research project.

What Is a Research Gap?

Simply put, a research gap is an area that hasn’t been explored in the existing literature. This could be an unexplored population, an untested method, or a condition that hasn’t been investigated yet. 

Why Is Identifying a Research Gap Important?

Identifying a research gap is a foundational step in the research process. It ensures that your research is significant and has the ability to advance knowledge within a specific area. It also helps you align your work with the current needs and challenges of your field. Identifying a research gap has many potential benefits.

1. Avoid Redundancy in Your Research

Understanding the existing literature helps researchers avoid duplication. This means you can steer clear of topics that have already been extensively studied. This ensures your work is novel and contributes something new to the field.

2. Guide the Research Design

Identifying a research gap helps shape your research design and questions. You can tailor your studies to specifically address the identified gap. This ensures that your work directly contributes to filling the void in knowledge.

3. Practical Applications

Research that addresses a gap is more likely to have practical applications and contributions. Whether in academia, industry, or policymaking, research that fills a gap in knowledge is often more applicable and can inform decision-making and practices in real-world contexts.

4. Field Advancements

Addressing a research gap can lead to advancements in the field . It may result in the development of new theories, methodologies, or technologies that push the boundaries of current understanding.

5. Strategic Research Planning

Identifying a research gap is crucial for strategic planning . It helps researchers and institutions prioritize areas that need attention so they can allocate resources effectively. This ensures that efforts are directed toward the most critical gaps in knowledge.

6. Academic and Professional Recognition

Researchers who successfully address significant research gaps often receive peer recognition within their academic and professional communities. This recognition can lead to opportunities for collaboration, funding, and career advancement.

How Do I Identify a Research Gap?

1. clearly define your research topic .

Begin by clearly defining your research topic. A well-scoped topic serves as the foundation for your studies. Make sure it’s not too broad or too narrow; striking the right balance will make it easier to identify gaps in existing literature.

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

2. Conduct a Thorough Literature Review

A comprehensive literature review is a vital step in any research. Dive deep into the existing research related to your topic. Look for patterns, recurring themes, and consensus among scholars. Pay attention to areas where conflicting opinions or gaps in understanding emerge.

3. Evaluate Existing Studies

Critically evaluate the studies you encounter during your literature review. Assess the paradigms , methodologies, findings, and limitations of each. Note any discrepancies, unanswered questions, or areas where further investigation is warranted. These are potential indicators of research gaps.

4. Identify Unexplored Perspectives

Consider the perspectives presented in the existing literature. Are there alternative viewpoints or marginalized voices that haven’t been adequately explored? Identifying and incorporating diverse perspectives can often lead to uncharted territory and help you pinpoint a unique research gap.

Additional Tips

Stay up to date with emerging trends.

The field of research is dynamic, with new developments and emerging trends constantly shaping the landscape. Stay up to date with the latest publications, conferences, and discussions in your field and make sure to regularly check relevant academic search engines . Often, identifying a research gap involves being at the forefront of current debates and discussions.

Seek Guidance From Experts

Don’t hesitate to reach out to experts in your field for guidance. Attend conferences, workshops, or seminars where you can interact with seasoned researchers. Their insights and experience can provide valuable perspectives on potential research gaps that you may have overlooked. You can also seek advice from your academic advisor .

Use Research Tools and Analytics

Leverage tech tools to analyze patterns and trends in the existing literature. Tools like citation analysis, keyword mapping, and data visualization can help you identify gaps and areas with limited exploration.

Identifying a research gap is a skill that evolves with experience and dedication. By defining your research topic, meticulously navigating the existing literature, critically evaluating studies, and recognizing unexplored perspectives, you’ll be on your way to identifying a research gap that will serve as the foundation for your paper, thesis, or dissertation topic .

If you need any help with proofreading your research paper , we can help with our research paper editing services . You can even try a sample of our services for free . Good luck with all your research!

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

2-minute read

How to Cite the CDC in APA

If you’re writing about health issues, you might need to reference the Centers for Disease...

Six Product Description Generator Tools for Your Product Copy

Introduction If you’re involved with ecommerce, you’re likely familiar with the often painstaking process of...

3-minute read

What Is a Content Editor?

Are you interested in learning more about the role of a content editor and the...

4-minute read

The Benefits of Using an Online Proofreading Service

Proofreading is important to ensure your writing is clear and concise for your readers. Whether...

6 Online AI Presentation Maker Tools

Creating presentations can be time-consuming and frustrating. Trying to construct a visually appealing and informative...

What Is Market Research?

No matter your industry, conducting market research helps you keep up to date with shifting...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

•   [email protected]
• Shapiro Library
• SNHU Library Frequently Asked Questions

FAQ: What is a research gap and how do I find one?

• 7 Academic Integrity & Plagiarism
• 64 Academic Support, Writing Help, & Presentation Help
• 27 Access/Remote Access
• 7 Accessibility
• 9 Building/Facilities
• 7 Career/Job Information
• 26 Catalog/Print Books
• 26 Circulation
• 129 Citing Sources
• 14 Copyright
• 311 Databases
• 24 Directions/Location
• 18 Faculty Resources/Needs
• 7 Hours/Contacts
• 2 Innovation Lab & Makerspace/3D Printing
• 25 Interlibrary Loan
• 43 IT/Computer/Printing Support
• 3 Library Instruction
• 37 Library Technology Help
• 6 Multimedia
• 17 Online Programs
• 19 Periodicals
• 25 Policies
• 8 RefWorks/Citation Managers
• 4 Research Guides (LibGuides)
• 216 Research Help
• 23 University Services

Last Updated: Jun 27, 2023 Views: 467100

What is a research gap.

A research gap is a question or a problem that has not been answered by any of the existing studies or research within your field. Sometimes, a research gap exists when there is a concept or new idea that hasn't been studied at all. Sometimes you'll find a research gap if all the existing research is outdated and in need of new/updated research (studies on Internet use in 2001, for example). Or, perhaps a specific population has not been well studied (perhaps there are plenty of studies on teenagers and video games, but not enough studies on toddlers and video games, for example). These are just a few examples, but any research gap you find is an area where more studies and more research need to be conducted. Please view this video clip from our Sage Research Methods database for more helpful information: How Do You Identify Gaps in Literature?

How do I find one?

It will take a lot of research and reading.  You'll need to be very familiar with all the studies that have already been done, and what those studies contributed to the overall body of knowledge about that topic. Make a list of any questions you have about your topic and then do some research to see if those questions have already been answered satisfactorily. If they haven't, perhaps you've discovered a gap!  Here are some strategies you can use to make the most of your time:

• One useful trick is to look at the “suggestions for future research” or conclusion section of existing studies on your topic. Many times, the authors will identify areas where they think a research gap exists, and what studies they think need to be done in the future.
• As you are researching, you will most likely come across citations for seminal works in your research field. These are the research studies that you see mentioned again and again in the literature.  In addition to finding those and reading them, you can use a database like Web of Science to follow the research trail and discover all the other articles that have cited these. See the FAQ: I found the perfect article for my paper. How do I find other articles and books that have cited it? on how to do this. One way to quickly track down these seminal works is to use a database like SAGE Navigator, a social sciences literature review tool. It is one of the products available via our SAGE Knowledge database.
• In the PsycINFO and PsycARTICLES databases, you can select literature review, systematic review, and meta analysis under the Methodology section in the advanced search to quickly locate these. See the FAQ: Where can I find a qualitative or quantitative study? for more information on how to find the Methodology section in these two databases.
• In CINAHL , you can select Systematic review under the Publication Type field in the advanced search. 
• In Web of Science , check the box beside Review under the Document Type heading in the “Refine Results” sidebar to the right of the list of search hits.
• If the database you are searching does not offer a way to filter your results by document type, publication type, or methodology in the advanced search, you can include these phrases (“literature reviews,” meta-analyses, or “systematic reviews”) in your search string.  For example, “video games” AND “literature reviews” could be a possible search that you could try.

Please give these suggestions a try and contact a librarian for additional assistance.

Content authored by: GS

• Share on Facebook

Was this helpful? Yes 375 No 152

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) are a self-serve option for users to search and find answers to their questions. 

Use the search box above to type your question to search for an answer or browse existing FAQs by group, topic, etc.

Tell Me More

Link to Question Form

More assistance.

Submit a Question

Related FAQs

Advertisement

Methods for Identifying Health Research Gaps, Needs, and Priorities: a Scoping Review

• Systematic Review
• Published: 08 November 2021
• Volume 37 , pages 198–205, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Eunice C. Wong PhD   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8640-4548 1 ,
• Alicia R. Maher MD 1 ,
• Aneesa Motala BA 1 , 2 ,
• Rachel Ross MPH 1 ,
• Olamigoke Akinniranye MA 1 ,
• Jody Larkin MS 1 &
• Susanne Hempel PhD 1 , 2  

3012 Accesses

8 Citations

5 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Well-defined, systematic, and transparent processes to identify health research gaps, needs, and priorities are vital to ensuring that available funds target areas with the greatest potential for impact.

The purpose of this review is to characterize methods conducted or supported by research funding organizations to identify health research gaps, needs, or priorities.

We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and the Web of Science up to September 2019. Eligible studies reported on methods to identify health research gaps, needs, and priorities that had been conducted or supported by research funding organizations. Using a published protocol, we extracted data on the method, criteria, involvement of stakeholders, evaluations, and whether the method had been replicated (i.e., used in other studies).

Among 10,832 citations, 167 studies were eligible for full data extraction. More than half of the studies employed methods to identify both needs and priorities, whereas about a quarter of studies focused singularly on identifying gaps (7%), needs (6%), or priorities (14%) only. The most frequently used methods were the convening of workshops or meetings (37%), quantitative methods (32%), and the James Lind Alliance approach, a multi-stakeholder research needs and priority setting process (28%). The most widely applied criteria were importance to stakeholders (72%), potential value (29%), and feasibility (18%). Stakeholder involvement was most prominent among clinicians (69%), researchers (66%), and patients and the public (59%). Stakeholders were identified through stakeholder organizations (51%) and purposive (26%) and convenience sampling (11%). Only 4% of studies evaluated the effectiveness of the methods and 37% employed methods that were reproducible and used in other studies.

To ensure optimal targeting of funds to meet the greatest areas of need and maximize outcomes, a much more robust evidence base is needed to ascertain the effectiveness of methods used to identify research gaps, needs, and priorities.

Similar content being viewed by others

A protocol for ongoing systematic scoping reviews of World Trade Center Health research

Thomas W. Concannon, Ramya Chari, … Laura J. Faherty

What do we know about evidence-informed priority setting processes to set population-level health-research agendas: an overview of reviews

Audrey Tan, Sumanth Kumbagere Nagraj, … Tanja Kuchenmüller

Lack of systematicity in research prioritisation processes — a scoping review of evidence syntheses

Hans Lund, Lars Tang, … Thomas Maribo

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Well-defined, systematic, and transparent methods to identify health research gaps, needs, and priorities are vital to ensuring that available funds target areas with the greatest potential for impact. 1 , 2 As defined in the literature, 3 , 4 research gaps are defined as areas or topics in which the ability to draw a conclusion for a given question is prevented by insufficient evidence. Research gaps are not necessarily synonymous with research needs , which are those knowledge gaps that significantly inhibit the decision-making ability of key stakeholders, who are end users of research, such as patients, clinicians, and policy makers. The selection of research priorities is often necessary when all identified research gaps or needs cannot be pursued because of resource constraints. Methods to identify health research gaps, needs, and priorities (from herein referred to as gaps, needs, priorities) can be multi-varied and there does not appear to be general consensus on best practices. 3 , 5

Several published reviews highlight the diverse methods that have been used to identify gaps and priorities. In a review of methods used to identify gaps from systematic reviews, Robinson et al. noted the wide range of organizing principles that were employed in published literature between 2001 and 2009 (e.g., care pathway, decision tree, and patient, intervention, comparison, outcome framework,). 6 In a more recent review spanning 2007 to 2017, Nyanchoka et al. found that the vast majority of studies with a primary focus on the identification of gaps (83%) relied solely on knowledge synthesis methods (e.g., systematic review, scoping review, evidence mapping, literature review). A much smaller proportion (9%) relied exclusively on primary research methods (i.e., quantitative survey, qualitative study). 7

With respect to research priorities, in a review limited to a PubMed database search covering the period from 2001 to 2014, Yoshida documented a wide range of methods to identify priorities including the use of not only knowledge synthesis (i.e., literature reviews) and primary research methods (i.e., surveys) but also multi-stage, structured methods such as Delphi, Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI), James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership (JLA PSP), and Essential National Health Research (ENHR). 2 The CHNRI method, originally developed for the purpose of setting global child health research priorities, typically employs researchers and experts to specify a long list of research questions, the criteria that will be used to prioritize research questions, and the technical scoring of research questions using the defined criteria. 8 During the latter stages, non-expert stakeholders’ input are incorporated by using their ratings of the importance of selected criteria to weight the technical scores. The ENHR method, initially designed for health research priority setting at the national level, involves researchers, decision-makers, health service providers, and communities throughout the entire process of identifying and prioritizing research topics. 9 The JLA PSP method convenes patients, carers, and clinicians to equally and jointly identify questions about healthcare that cannot be answered by existing evidence that are important to all groups (i.e., research needs). 10 The identified research needs are then prioritized by the groups resulting in a final list (often a top 10) of research priorities. Non-clinical researchers are excluded from voting on research needs or priorities but can be involved in other processes (e.g., knowledge synthesis). CHNRI, ENHR, and JLA PSP usually employ a mix of knowledge synthesis and primary research methods to first identify a set of gaps or needs that are then prioritized. Thus, even though CHNRI, ENHR, and JLA PSP have been referred to as priority setting methods, they actually consist of a gaps or needs identification stage that feeds into a research prioritization stage.

Nyanchoka et al.’s review found that the majority of studies focused on the identification of gaps alone (65%), whereas the remaining studies focused either on research priorities alone (17%) or on both gaps and priorities (19%). 7 In an update to Robinson et al.’s review, 6 Carey et al. reviewed the literature between 2010 and 2011 and observed that the studies conducted during this latter period of time focused more on research priorities than gaps and had increased stakeholder involvement, and that none had evaluated the reproducibility of the methods. 11

The increasing development and diversity of formal processes and methods to identify gaps and priorities are indicative of a developing field. 2 , 12 To facilitate more standardized and systematic processes, other important areas warrant further investigation. Prior reviews did not distinguish between the identification of gaps versus research needs. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-based Practice Center (AHRQ EPC) Program issued a series of method papers related to establishing research needs as part of comparative effectiveness research. 13 , 14 , 15 The AHRQ EPC Program defined research needs as “evidence gaps” identified within systematic reviews that are prioritized by stakeholders according to their potential impact on practice or care. 16 Furthermore, Nyanchoka et al. relied on author designations to classify studies as focusing on gaps versus research priorities and noted that definitions of gaps varied across studies, highlighting the need to apply consistent taxonomy when categorizing studies in reviews. 7 Given the rise in the use of stakeholders in both gaps and prioritization exercises, a greater understanding of the range of practices involving stakeholders is also needed. This includes the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders (e.g., consultants versus final decision-makers), the composition of stakeholders (e.g., non-research clinicians, patients, caregivers, policymakers), and the methods used to recruit stakeholders. The lack of consensus of best practices also highlights the importance of learning the extent to which evaluations to determine the effectiveness of gaps, needs, and prioritization exercises have been conducted, and if so, what were the resultant outcomes.

To better inform efforts and organizations that fund health research, we conducted a scoping review of methods used to identify gaps, needs, and priorities that were linked to potential or actual health research funding decision-making. Hence, this scoping review was limited to studies in which the identification of health research gaps, needs, or priorities was supported or conducted by funding organizations to address the following questions 1 : What are the characteristics of methods to identify health research gaps, needs, and priorities? and 2 To what extent have evaluations of the impact of these methods been conducted? Given that scoping reviews may be executed to characterize the ways an area of research has been conducted, 17 , 18 this approach is appropriate for the broad nature of this study’s aims.

Protocol and Registration

We employed methods that conform to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. 19 See Appendix A in the Supplementary Information. The scoping review protocol is registered with the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/5zjqx/ ).

Eligibility Criteria

Studies published in English that described methods to identify health research gaps, needs, or priorities that were supported or conducted by funding organizations were eligible for inclusion. We excluded studies that reported only the results of the exercise (e.g., list of priorities) absent of information on the methods used. We also excluded studies involving evidence synthesis (e.g., literature or systematic reviews) that were solely descriptive and did not employ an explicit method to identify research gaps, needs, or priorities.

Information Sources and Search Strategy

We searched the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. Our database search also included an update of the Nyanchoka et al. scoping review, which entailed executing their database searches for the time period following 2017 (the study’s search end date). 7 Nyanchoka et al. did not include database searches for research needs. The electronic database search and scoping review update were completed in August and September 2019, respectively . The search strategy employed for each of the databases is presented in Appendix B in the Supplementary Information.

Selection of Sources of Evidence and Data Charting Process

Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts and full-text publications. Citations that one or both reviewers considered potentially eligible were retrieved for full-text review. Relevant background articles and scoping and systematic reviews were reference mined to screen for eligible studies. Full-text publications were screened against detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data was extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion by the review team.

Information on study characteristics were extracted from each article including the aims of the exercise (i.e., gaps, needs, priorities, or a combination) and health condition (i.e., physical or psychological). Based on definitions in the literature, 3 , 4 , 5 the aims of the exercise were coded according to the activities that were conducted, which may not have always corresponded with the study authors’ labeling of the exercises. For instance, the JLA PSP method is often described as a priority exercise but we categorized it as a needs and priority exercise. Priority exercises can be preceded by exercises to identify gaps or needs, which then feed into the priority exercise such as in JLA PSP; however, standalone priority exercises can also be conducted (e.g., stakeholders prioritize an existing list of emerging diseases).

For each type of exercise, information on the methods were recorded. An initial list of methods was created based on previous reviews. 9 , 12 , 20 During the data extraction process, any methods not included in the initial list were subsequently added. If more than one exercise was reported within an article (e.g., gaps and priorities), information was extracted for each exercise separately. Reviewers extracted the following information: methods employed (e.g., qualitative, quantitative), criteria used (e.g., disease burden, importance to stakeholders), stakeholder involvement (e.g., stakeholder composition, method for identifying stakeholders), and whether an evaluation was conducted on the effectiveness of the exercise (see Appendix C in the Supplementary Information for full data extraction form).

Synthesis of results entailed quantitative descriptives of study characteristics (e.g., proportion of studies by aims of exercise) and characteristics of methods employed across all studies and by each type of study (e.g., gaps, needs, priorities).

The electronic database search yielded a total of 10,548 titles. Another 284 articles were identified after searching the reference lists of full-text publications, including three systematic reviews 21 , 22 , 23 and one scoping review 24 that had met eligibility criteria. Moreover, a total of 99 publications designated as relevant background articles were also reference mined to screen for eligible studies. We conducted full-text screening for 2524 articles, which resulted in 2344 exclusions (440 studies were designated as background articles). A total of 167 exercises related to the identification of gaps, needs, or priorities that were supported or conducted by a research funding organization were described across 180 publications and underwent full data extraction. See Figure 1 for the flow diagram of our search strategy and reasons for exclusion.

Literature flow

Characteristics of Sources of Evidence

Among the published exercises, the majority of studies (152/167) conducted gaps, need, or prioritization exercises related to physical health, whereas only a small fraction of studies focused on psychological health (12/167) (see Appendix D in the Supplementary Information).

Methods for Identifying Gaps, Needs, and Priorities

As seen in Table 1 , only about a quarter of studies involved a singular type of exercise with 7% focused on the identification of gaps only (i.e., areas with insufficient information to draw a conclusion for a given question), 6% on needs only (i.e., knowledge gaps that inhibit the decision-making of key stakeholders), and 14% priorities only (i.e., ranked gaps or needs often because of resource constraints). Studies more commonly conducted a combination of multiple types of exercises with more than half focused on the identification of both research needs and priorities, 14% on gaps and priorities, 3% gaps, needs, and priorities, and 3% gaps and needs.

Across the 167 studies, the three most frequently used methods were the convening of workshops/meetings/conferences (37%), quantitative methods (32%), and the JLA PSP approach (28%). This was followed by methods involving literature reviews (17%), qualitative methods (17%), consensus methods (13%), and reviews of source materials (15%). Other methods included the CHNRI process (7%), reviews of in-progress data (7%), consultation with (non-researcher) stakeholders (4%), applying a framework tool (4%), ENHR (1%), systematic reviews (1%), and evidence mapping (1%).

The criterion most widely applied across the 167 studies was the importance to stakeholders (72%) (see Table 2 ). Almost one-third (29%) considered the potential value and 18% feasibility as criteria. Burden of disease (9%), addressing inequities (8%), costs (6%), alignment with organization’s mission (3%), and patient centeredness (2%) were adopted as criteria to a lesser extent.

About two-thirds of the studies included researchers (66%) and clinicians (69%) as stakeholders (see Appendix E in the Supplementary Information). Patients and the public were involved in 59% of the studies. A smaller proportion included policy makers (20%), funders (13%), product makers (8%), payers (5%), and purchasers (2%) as stakeholders. Nearly half of the studies (51%) relied on stakeholder organizations to identify stakeholders (see Appendix F in the Supplementary Information). A quarter of studies (26%) used purposive sampling and some convenience sampling (11%). Few (9%) used snowball sampling to identify stakeholders. Only a minor fraction of studies, seven of the 167 (4%), reported some type of effectiveness evaluation. 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31

Our scoping review revealed that approaches to identifying gaps, needs, and priorities are less likely to occur as discrete processes and more often involve a combination of exercises. Approaches encompassing multiple exercises (e.g., gaps and needs) were far more prevalent than singular standalone exercises (e.g., gaps only) (73% vs. 27%). Findings underscore the varying importance placed on gaps, needs, and priorities, which reflect key principles of the Value of Information approach (i.e., not all gaps are important, addressing gaps do not necessarily address needs nor does addressing needs necessarily address priorities). 32

Findings differ from Nyanchoka et al.’s review in which studies involving the identification of gaps only outnumbered studies involving both gaps and priorities. 7 However, Nyanchoka et al. relied on author definitions to categorize exercises, whereas our study made designations based on our review of the activities described in the article and applied definitions drawn from the literature. 3 , 4 Lack of consensus on definitions of gaps and priority setting has been noted in the literature. 33 , 34 To the authors’ knowledge, no prior scoping review has focused on methods related to the identification of “research needs.” Findings underscore the need to develop and apply more consistent taxonomy to this growing field of research.

More than 40% of studies employed methods with a structured protocol including JLA PSP, ENHR, CHRNI, World Café, and the Dialogue model. 10 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 The World Café and Dialogue models particularly value the experiential perspectives of stakeholders. The World Café centers on creating a special environment, often modeled after a café, in which rounds of multi-stakeholder, small group, conversations are facilitated and prefaced with questions designed for the specific purpose of the session. Insights and results are reported and shared back to the entire group with no expectation to achieve consensus, but rather diverse perspectives are encouraged. 36 The Dialogue model is a multi-stakeholder, participatory, priority setting method involving the following phases: exploratory (informal discussions), consultation (separate stakeholder consultations), prioritization (stakeholder ratings), and integration (dialog between stakeholders). 39 Findings may indicate a trend away from non-replicable methods to approaches that afford greater transparency and reproducibility. 41 For instance, of the 17 studies published between 2000 and 2009, none had employed CHNRI and 6% used JLA PSP compared to the 141 studies between 2010 and 2019 in which 8% applied CHNRI and 32% JLA PSP. However, notable variations in implementing CHNRI and JLA PSP have been observed. 41 , 42 , 43 Though these protocols help to ensure a more standardized process, which is essential when testing the effectiveness of methods, such evaluations are infrequent but necessary to establish the usefulness of replicable methods.

Convening workshops, meetings, or conferences was the method used by the greatest proportion of studies (37%). The operationalization of even this singular method varied widely in duration (e.g., single vs. multi-day conferences), format (e.g., expert panel presentations, breakout discussion groups), processes (e.g., use of formal/informal consensus methods), and composition of stakeholders. The operationalization of other methods (e.g., quantitative, qualitative) also exhibited great diversity.

The use of explicit criteria to determine gaps, needs, or priorities is a key component of certain structured protocols 40 , 44 and frameworks. 9 , 45 In our scoping review, the criterion applied most frequently across studies (71%) was “importance to stakeholders” followed by potential value (31%) and feasibility (18%). Stakeholder values are being incorporated into the identification of gaps, needs, and exercises across a significant proportion of studies, but how this is operationalized varies widely across studies. For instance, the CHNRI typically employs multiple criteria that are scored by technical experts and these scores are then weighted based on stakeholder ratings of their relative importance. Other studies totaled scores across multiple criteria, whereas JLA PSP asks multiple stakeholders to rank the top ten priorities. The importance of involving stakeholders, especially patients and the public, in priority setting is increasingly viewed as vital to ensuring the needs of end users are met, 46 , 47 particularly in light of evidence demonstrating mismatches between the research interests of patients and researchers and clinicians. 48 , 49 , 50 In our review, clinicians (69%) and researchers (66%) were the most widely represented stakeholder groups across studies. Patients and the public (e.g., caregivers) were included as stakeholders in 59% of the studies. Only a small fraction of studies involved exercises in which stakeholders were limited to researchers only. Patients and the public were involved as stakeholders in 12% of studies published between 2000 and 2009 compared to 60% of studies between 2010 and 2019. Findings may reflect a trend away from researchers traditionally serving as one of the sole drivers of determining which research topics should be pursued.

More than half of the studies reported relying on stakeholder organizations to identify participants. Partnering with stakeholder organizations has been noted as one of the primary methods for identifying stakeholders for priority setting exercises. 34 Purposive sampling was the next most frequently used stakeholder identification method. In contrast, convenience sampling (e.g., recommendations by study team) and snowball sampling (e.g., identified stakeholders refer other stakeholders who then refer additional stakeholders) were not as frequently employed, but were documented as common methods in a prior review conducted almost a decade ago. 14 The greater use of stakeholder organizations than convenience or snowball sampling may be partly due to the more recent proliferation of published studies using structured protocols like JLA PSP, which rely heavily on partnerships with stakeholder organizations. Though methods such as snowball sampling may introduce more bias than random sampling, 14 there are no established best practices for stakeholder identification methods. 51 Nearly a quarter of studies provided either unclear or no information on stakeholder identification methods, which has been documented as a barrier to comparing across studies and assessing the validity of research priorities. 34

Determining the effectiveness of gaps, needs, and priority exercises is challenging given that outcome evaluations are rarely conducted. Only seven studies reported conducting an evaluation. 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 Evaluations varied with respect to their focus on process- (e.g., balanced stakeholder representation, stakeholder satisfaction) versus outcome-related impact (e.g., prioritized topics funded, knowledge production, benefits to health). There is no consensus on what constitutes optimal outcomes, which has been found to vary by discipline. 52

More than 90% of studies involved exercises related to physical health in contrast to a minor portfolio of work being dedicated to psychological health, which may be an indication of the low priority placed on psychological health policy research. Understanding whether funding decisions for physical versus psychological health research are similarly or differentially governed by more systematic, formal processes may be important to the extent that this affects the effective targeting of funds.

Limitations

By limiting studies to those supported or conducted by funding organizations, we may have excluded global, national, or local priority setting exercises. In addition, our scoping review categorized approaches according to the actual exercises conducted and definitions provided in the scientific literature rather than relying on the terminology employed by studies. This resulted in instances in which the category assigned to an exercise within our scoping review could diverge from the category employed by the study authors. Lastly, this study’s findings are subject to limitations often characteristic of scoping reviews such as publication bias, language bias, lack of quality assessment, and search, inclusion, and extraction biases. 53

Conclusions

The diversity and growing establishment of formal processes and methods to identify health research gaps, needs, and priorities are characteristic of a developing field. Even with the emergence of more structured and systematic approaches, the inconsistent categorization and definition of gaps, needs, and priorities inhibit efforts to evaluate the effectiveness of varied methods and processes, such efforts are rare and sorely needed to build an evidence base to guide best practices. The immense variation occurring within structured protocols, across different combinations of disparate methods, and even within singular methods, further emphasizes the importance of using clearly defined approaches, which are essential to conducting investigations of the effectiveness of these varied approaches. The recent development of reporting guidelines for priority setting for health research may facilitate more consistent and clear documentation of processes and methods, which includes the many facets of involving stakeholders. 34 To ensure optimal targeting of funds to meet the greatest areas of need and maximize outcomes, a much more robust evidence base is needed to ascertain the effectiveness of methods used to identify research gaps, needs, and priorities.

Chalkidou K, Whicher D, Kary W, Tunis SR . Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: Identifying Critical Gaps in Evidence for Clinical and Health Policy Decision Making. International journal of technology assessment in health care . 2009;25(3):241-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462309990225

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Yoshida S . Approaches, Tools and Methods Used for Setting Priorities in Health Research in the 21(st) Century. Journal of global health . 2016;6(1):010507-010507. doi: https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.06.010507

Robinson KA, Saldanha IJ, McKoy NA . Development of a Framework to Identify Research Gaps from Systematic Reviews. Journal of clinical epidemiology . 2011;64(12):1325-30. [Comment in: J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 May;66(5):522-3; [ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23265604 ]]. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.06.009

Saldanha IJ, Wilson LM, Bennett WL, Nicholson WK, Robinson KA . Development and Pilot Test of a Process to Identify Research Needs from a Systematic Review. J Clin Epidemiol . May 2013;66(5):538-45. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.07.009

Viergever RF, Terry R, Matsoso M . Health research prioritization at WHO: an overview of methodology and high level analysis of WHO led health research priority setting exercises. Geneva: World Health Organization . 2010;

Google Scholar  

Robinson KA, Akinyede O, Dutta T, et al. Framework for Determining Research Gaps During Systematic Review: Evaluation . 2013. AHRQ Methods for Effective Health Care .

Nyanchoka L, Tudur-Smith C, Thu VN, Iversen V, Tricco AC, Porcher R . A Scoping Review describes Methods Used to Identify, Prioritize and Display Gaps in Health Research. J Clin Epidemiol . Jan 30 2019;doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.01.005

Rudan I, Gibson JL, Ameratunga S, et al. Setting priorities in global child health research investments: guidelines for implementation of CHNRI method. Croatian medical journal . 2008;49(6):720-33.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Viergever RF, Olifson S, Ghaffar A, Terry RF . A Checklist for Health Research Priority Setting: Nine Common Themes of Good Practice. Health Res Policy Syst . Dec 15 2010;8:36. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-8-36

James Lind Alliance. The James Lind Alliance Guidebook . March 2020. http://www.jla.nihr.ac.uk/jla-guidebook/downloads/JLA-Guidebook-V9-download-March-2020.pdf

Carey TY, A.; Beadles, C.; Wines, R . Prioritizing Future Research through Examination of Research Gaps in Systematic Reviews . 2012.

Carey T, Yon A, Beadles C, Wines R . Prioritizing future research through examination of research gaps in systematic reviews. Prepared for the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute . 2012;

Carey TS, Sanders GD, Viswanathan M, Trikalinos TA, Kato E, Chang S . Framework for Considering Study Designs for Future Research Needs. Methods Future Research Needs Paper No. 8 (Prepared by the RTI–UNC Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2007- 10056-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 12-EHC048-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality . March 2012. Framework for Considering Study Designs for Future Research Needs . https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22624168

O’Haire C, McPheeters M, Nakamoto E, et al. Methods for Engaging Stakeholders To Identify and Prioritize Future Research Needs. Methods Future Research Needs Report No. 4. (Prepared by the Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center and the Vanderbilt Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2007-10057-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 11-EHC044-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality . Vol. Methods Future Research Needs Reports. 2011. June 2011. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK62571/

Trikalinos T, Dahabreh I, Lee J, Moorthy D . Methods Research on Future Research Needs: Defining an Optimal Format for Presenting Research Needs. Methods Future Research Needs Report No. 3. (Prepared by the Tufts Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2007-10057-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 11-EHC027-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality . June 2011. www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm .

Kane RL, Guise JM, Hartman K, Rothenberg B, Trikalinos T, Wilt T . Presentation of Future Research Needs . 2012. AHRQ Methods for Effective Health Care .

Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E . Systematic Review or Scoping Review? Guidance for Authors When Choosing Between a Systematic or Scoping Review Approach. journal article. BMC Medical Research Methodology . November 19 2018;18(1):143. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x

Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB . Guidance for Conducting Systematic Scoping Reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc . Sep 2015;13(3):141-6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/xeb.0000000000000050

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. The PRISMA-ScR Statement. Annals of Internal Medicine . 2018;169(7):467-473. doi: https://doi.org/10.7326/m18-0850

Tomlinson M, Chopra M, Hoosain N, Rudan I . A review of selected research priority setting processes at national level in low and middle income countries: towards fair and legitimate priority setting. Health Research Policy and Systems . 2011;9(1):19.

Rylance J, Pai M, Lienhardt C, Garner P . Priorities for tuberculosis research: a systematic review. Lancet Infect Dis . 2010;10(12):886-892.

Tong A, Chando S, Crowe S, et al. Research priority setting in kidney disease: a systematic review. American journal of kidney diseases: the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation . 2015;65(5):674-83. [Comment in: Am J Kidney Dis. 2015 May;65(5):641-3; [ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25919496 ]]. doi: https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2014.11.011

Article   Google Scholar  

Tong A, Sautenet B, Chapman JR, et al. Research priority setting in organ transplantation: a systematic review. Transplant international: official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation . 2017;30(4):327-343. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/tri.12924

Bourne AM, Johnston RV, Cyril S, et al. Scoping Review of Priority Setting of Research Topics for Musculoskeletal Conditions Review. BMJ Open . 2018;8(12):9 e023962. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023962

Bennett WL, Nicholson WK, Saldanha IJ, Wilson LM, McKoy NA, Robinson KA . Future Research Needs for the Management of Gestational Diabetes. 2010. AHRQ Future Research Needs Papers .

Buckley BS, Grant AM, Glazener CMA . Case study: a patient-clinician collaboration that identified and prioritized evidence gaps and stimulated research development. Journal of clinical epidemiology . 2013;66(5):483-9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.03.016

Elberse JE, Pittens CACM, de Cock Buning T, Broerse JEW . Patient Involvement in a Scientific Advisory Process: Setting the Research Agenda for Medical Products. Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands) . 2012;107(2-3):231-42. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2012.05.014

Fun WH, Sararaks S, Tan EH, et al. Research funding impact and priority setting - advancing universal access and quality healthcare research in Malaysia. BMC Health Services Research . Apr 24 2019;19(1):248.

Husereau D, Boucher M, Noorani H . Priority Setting for Health Technology Assessment at CADTH. Article. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care . 2010;26(3):341-347. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462310000383

Mador RL, Kornas K, Simard A, Haroun V . Using the Nine Common Themes of Good Practice Checklist as a Tool for Evaluating the Research Priority Setting Process of a Provincial Research and Program Evaluation Program. Health research policy and systems . 2016;14:22. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-016-0092-5

Sanders GD, Powers B, Crowley M, et al. Future Research Needs for Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors or Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers Added to Standard Medical Therapy for Treating Stable Ischemic Heart Disease: Identification of Future Research Needs from Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 18. Future Research Needs for Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors or Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers Added to Standard Medical Therapy for Treating Stable Ischemic Heart Disease: Identification of Future Research Needs from Comparative Effectiveness Review No 18 . 2010. AHRQ Future Research Needs Papers .

Minelli C, Baio G . Value of Information: a Tool to Improve Research Prioritization and Reduce Waste. PLos Med . 2015;12(9):e1001882-e1001882. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001882

Bryant J, Sanson-Fisher R, Walsh J, Stewart J . Health Research Priority Setting in Selected High Income Countries: a Narrative Review of Methods Used and Recommendations for Future Practice. Cost Eff Resour Alloc . 2014;12:23. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-7547-12-23

Tong A, Synnot A, Crowe S, et al. Reporting Guideline for Priority Setting of Health Research (REPRISE). BMC Med Res Methodol . Dec 28 2019;19(1):243. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0889-3

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Uneke CJ, Ezeoha AE, Ndukwe CD, Oyibo PG, Onwe F, Aulakh BK . Research Priority Setting for Health Policy and Health Systems Strengthening in Nigeria: the Policymakers and Stakeholders Perspective and Involvement. The Pan African medical journal . 2013;16:10. doi: https://doi.org/10.11604/pamj.2013.16.10.2318

MacFarlane A, Galvin R, O’Sullivan M, et al. Participatory Methods for Research Prioritization in Primary Care: an Analysis of the World Cafe Approach in Ireland and the USA. Family practice . 2017;34(3):278-284. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmw104

Nelson ML, McKellar KA, Munce S, et al. Addressing the Evidence Gap in Stroke Rehabilitation for Complex Patients: a Preliminary Research Agenda. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation . 2018;99(6):1232-1241. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2017.08.488

Restall GJ, Carnochan TN, Roger KS, Sullivan TM, Etcheverry EJ, Roddy P . Collaborative Priority Setting for Human Immunodeficiency Virus Rehabilitation Research: a Case Report. Canadian journal of occupational therapy Revue canadienne d’ergotherapie . 2016;83(1):7-13. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0008417415577423

Abma TA, Broerse JEW . Patient Participation as Dialogue: Setting Research Agendas. Health expectations: an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy . 2010;13(2):160-73. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00549.x

Rudan I . Setting Health Research Priorities Using the CHNRI Method: IV. Key conceptual advances. J Glob Health . 2016;6(1):010501. doi: https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh-06-010501

Yoshida S, Wazny K, Cousens S, Chan KY . Setting Health Research Priorities Using the CHNRI Method: III Involving Stakeholders. J Glob Health. Jun 2016;6(1):010303. doi: https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.06.010303

Rudan I, Yoshida S, Chan KY, et al. Setting Health Research Priorities Using the CHNRI Method: VII. A Review of the First 50 Applications of the CHNRI Method. J Glob Health . 2017;7(1):011004. doi: https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.07.011004

Nygaard A, Halvorsrud L, Linnerud S, Grov EK, Bergland A . The James Lind Alliance Process Approach: Scoping Review. BMJ Open . 2019;9(8):e027473. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027473

Okello D, Chongtrakul P , The COHRED Working Group on Priority Setting. A Manual for Research Priority Setting using the ENHR Strategy. Reference mining. Accessed July 24, 2019. http://www.cohred.org/downloads/578.pdf

Fadlallah R, El-Harakeh A, Bou-Karroum L, et al. A Common Framework of Steps and Criteria for Prioritizing Topics for Evidence Syntheses: a Systematic Review. J Clin Epidemiol . 2020;120:67-85. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.12.009

Natale CV, Gross D . The ROI of engaged patients. Healthc Financ Manage . 2013;67(8):90-7.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Clavisi O, Bragge P, Tavender E, Turner T, Gruen RL . Effective Stakeholder Participation in Setting Research Priorities Using a Global Evidence Mapping Approach. Journal of clinical epidemiology . 2013;66(5):496-502.e2. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.04.002

Tallon D, Chard J, Dieppe P . Relation Between Agendas of the Research Community and the Research Consumer. Lancet . 2000;355(9220):2037-40. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02351-5

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Crowe S, Fenton M, Hall M, Cowan K, Chalmers I . Patients’, Clinicians’ and the Research Communities’ Priorities for Treatment Research: There is an Important Mismatch. Res Involv Engagem . 2015;1:2. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-015-0003-x

Kapiriri L, Tomlinson M, Gibson J, et al. Setting priorities in global child health research investments: addressing values of stakeholders. Croatian medical journal . 2007;48(5):618-627.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Guise J-M, O’Haire C, McPheeters M, et al. A Practice-Based Tool for Engaging Stakeholders in Future Research: a Synthesis of Current Practices. Journal of clinical epidemiology . 2013;66(6):666-74. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.12.010

Sibbald SL, Singer PA, Upshur R, Martin DK . Priority Setting: What Constitutes Success? A Conceptual Framework for Successful Priority Setting. Article. Bmc Health Services Research . 2009;9:12. 43. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-9-43

Pham MT, Rajić A, Greig JD, Sargeant JM, Papadopoulos A, McEwen SA . A Scoping Review of Scoping Reviews: Advancing the Approach and Enhancing the Consistency. Research synthesis methods . 2014;5(4):371-385. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1123

Download references

Acknowledgements

This scoping review is part of research that was sponsored by Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury (now Psychological Health Center of Excellence).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA

Eunice C. Wong PhD, Alicia R. Maher MD, Aneesa Motala BA, Rachel Ross MPH, Olamigoke Akinniranye MA, Jody Larkin MS & Susanne Hempel PhD

Department of Population and Public Health Sciences, University of Southern California Gehr Family Center for Health Systems Science & Innovation, Los Angeles, USA

Aneesa Motala BA & Susanne Hempel PhD

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eunice C. Wong PhD .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

(PDF 1205 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Wong, E.C., Maher, A.R., Motala, A. et al. Methods for Identifying Health Research Gaps, Needs, and Priorities: a Scoping Review. J GEN INTERN MED 37 , 198–205 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-021-07064-1

Download citation

Received : 01 March 2021

Accepted : 21 July 2021

Published : 08 November 2021

Issue Date : January 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-021-07064-1

Share this article

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

• research gaps
• research needs
• research priorities
• priority setting
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Interesting
• Scholarships
• UGC-CARE Journals

How to Identify Research Gap

Tips to Identify Research Gap

Table of contents

What is a research gap, how do find gaps in research, tips to identify the research gap.

Identification of the research gap is important for the smooth and successful completion of the research effort. Identifying a research gap is always a critical phase in a researcher’s study process. It is always regarded as a challenging task for a researcher. As a result, iLovePhD highlighted how to identify the research gap and provide advice for doing so in this article.

• A research gap is a key problem or a question that has not been answered by any of the existing studies within your area of research.
• A research gap exists when there is a new idea that hasn’t been studied before and identification of a good research problem and adopting a clear methodology will lead to breakthrough results.
• The very first step in gap analysis is to do a systematic review of existing literature relevant to your area of research.
• A comprehensive literature survey would definitely provide a clear understanding of existing works and the gap in your area of research.
• Reading review articles on a particular area of research is important and also it is the easiest way to understand the gap in research in a short time.
• Make note of the questions or gaps that arise while reviewing literature and with that start your research with a clear methodology.
• Another useful way to find the research gap is to focus on the “recommendations for future research” or conclusion section of existing studies in the research or review article.

Keeping track of all the new literature being published every day is a difficult task. So, to make it easy you can check for online literature search tools available for free. Some of the tools are:

• Elsevier’s Scope
• Google Scholar
• SAGE Navigator

When you read a research or review article, you may come across the following sentences:

…investigation on this is still required/needed….

…it is important to understand this…

…has/have not been reported…

…the key question remains unanswered…

…it is important to address…

These expressions indicate the gaps or issues related to the main question that still needs extensive scientific study. Therefore, it is important to take notice of them and in this way, you can identify the gap in your area of research.

I hope, this article on “How to identify research gap” helps you to find the gap in your research easily.

• Find Gaps in Research
• Identify Research Gap
• research gap
• Research Problem

10 ideas to get 10x more Google Scholar Citations

Top scopus indexed computer science & engineering journals for fast publication – 2024, postdoctoral fellowships in medicinal chemistry at the university of cape town, leave a reply cancel reply.

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Email Subscription

iLovePhD is a research education website to know updated research-related information. It helps researchers to find top journals for publishing research articles and get an easy manual for research tools. The main aim of this website is to help Ph.D. scholars who are working in various domains to get more valuable ideas to carry out their research. Learn the current groundbreaking research activities around the world, love the process of getting a Ph.D.

WhatsApp Channel

Join iLovePhD WhatsApp Channel Now!

Contact us: [email protected]

Copyright © 2019-2024 - iLovePhD

• Artificial intelligence

Methodological research gap: definition, identification and examples

On this page, types of methodological research gaps.

What is methodological Research gap?

1.1 Definition

Methodological research gap is the missing gap of knowledge on a more appropriate underlying method(s) which can be used in research instead of the previously one. This implies that the researcher or you as a postgraduate student may propose a method in research to address a particular aspect in life or research which is more fitting to realize improved research findings than before.

Remember that in research, there are diverse methods utilized to arrive at valid research findings. That is, from the stage of formulating a research problem up to presentation of research findings, there are several methods that a researcher can adopt to come up with better and more reliable research results. Therefore, in each stage of research process, a researcher such as you and me is expected to identify methodological knowledge gap which should result to more reliable research outcome as aforementioned. This calls for two things;

One, identification of the applicable type of method at each stage in the research process and

Two, devising steps to be followed by the researcher to establish the methodological knowledge gap to be filled in the current study as compared to the one used by your predecessors as per past studies.

To achieve the two objectives above, Table 1.1 below summarizes the common stages in research and the corresponding aspects of methods utilized by the researchers and the examples of those methods and then a detailed explanation on how to identify the specific methodological knowledge gap follow suit.

From Table 1.1 above, we can identify the different types of methodological knowledge gaps that are found in research and that you as a researcher/ postgraduate student need to be familiar with and also apply.

STAGE 1: RESEARCH PROBLEM

In research process, the first step is the formulation of a research problem which is the critical matter at hand to the researcher. It is the question that the researcher need to get an answer through scientific investigation or inquiry.

NOTE-that when writing an academic research proposal or dissertation, this is the aspect we indicate mostly in chapter three under research methodology. Yes, down the line as we carry out our research assignment, there are many methods that cut across all the stages. But when we are addressing chapter three of our research proposal, the sub-title on research design refers to the method we consider when identifying the research problem. It is then at this point based on the nature of the research question to be answered that a particular method is selected to answer the question at hand. The relevant methods at this stage are;

2.1.1 Descriptive Research Design

If the researcher adopts a descriptive research design, the aim is to answer research questions of “what” nature which pertain to the respondent who is expected to provide data for the study.

NB: To describe the characteristics of the study variables, the researcher use statistic tools such as mean, standard deviation, variance, minimum and maximum values, frequency and percentages. It is also common in research to use likert scale approach where opinion of the respondent is ranked as SA=Strongly Agree; A=Agree; N=Neutral; D=Disagree and SD=Strongly Disagree or any other connotation is also applicable.

Applicability

Used when answering research questions of ‘ What’ nature of the respondents.

Used where the researcher want to describe or label characteristics of the study variable.

Used where the researcher does not manipulate the study variables-He/she just does physical observations. E.g. variables such as age , sex , education level e.t.c which are all demographic characteristics and you cannot alter or twist them.

Used where primary data is collected for the study using a questionnaire or interview schedule.

Used where the research problem is clear.

The following are extracts of past studies where the descriptive method was used to enquire on the characteristics of the study variables.

Description of Demographic Characteristics of firms

Table 1: Ownership Structure of firms

So you see, the researcher is able to describe the characteristics of the study variable, namely ownership structure of firms without any manipulations. That is, the fact remains that if it is sole ownership, it was observed to be 102 out of 223 and the percentage was 46%. Same with description of the other aspects of ownership structure.

Description of Characteristics of Firm Performance (The Variable)

Table 2: Financial Performance of a firms

So the question is, how do we identify the methodological knowledge gap at this stage of research question? This is explained below

Identification of Methodological Knowledge Gaps

Under descriptive research design , the researcher need to consider the following steps

Step 1: Confirm if the research question is of “WHAT” nature

The researcher need to ensure that the research question at hand is clear and that it is aimed at answering the WHAT kind of perspective

Step 2: Review of past studies

The researcher need to consider similar studies undertaken by other researchers to find out the nature or type of the study variables used in the concept under investigation. The aim being to find out how the study variables were described. For instance, did past studies use mean, standard deviation, variance, minimum and maximum values or they used range to describe the study variable.

Step 3: Assess the appropriateness of the statistics used to describe the characteristics of the study variables.

 At this step, do your own critique on the statistics used to justify or disqualify why they were used to describe the characteristics of the study variables.

Step 4: Develop a Descriptive Based Methodological Knowledge Gap

At step 4, you should pinpoint or rather build up the methodological knowledge gap. This can be achieved by;

-Evaluate if the WHAT question in the past studies was effectively answered or not.

-Find out if the research design adopted is qualitative or not. In other words, is the data source primary or secondary?

-Assessing if past studies used appropriate statistics to describe the study variables in a manner that it is clear as pertain their characteristics being described.

-Find out if the descriptive research design used resulted to the appropriate sampling method or and data collection method in the past studies.

Now, based on those indicators and any other strategy which is appropriate, you as a researcher/or postgraduate student should pinpoint the gaps thereof and suggest a more appropriate method of describing the study variables to be able to answer the research question more correctly.

Illustration1

Researchers in the past literature may have used mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum values, range and variance to describe the study variables. This can be problematic for apart from mean which is a measure of central tendency, the rest of the statistics are measures of dispersion. That is standard deviation, minimum and maximum values, range and variance are all measures of dispersion and serve the same purpose.

Therefore, in your current study, you can portray the methodological knowledge gap of descriptive nature by using standard deviation only instead of incorporating all the other measures of dispersion. You can then justify your new methodology by arguing that, one; all the other statistics serve the same purpose like standard deviation . Two, use of standard deviation help in avoiding all the other measures of dispersion which eliminates congestion in your write up. Three, the approach/methodology is economical for less time and financial resources are utilized for data to be collected will be for only standard deviation and not for all statistics as in the past studies.

2.1.2 Exploratory Research Design

If the researcher adopts exploratory research design, the aim is to answer research questions of;

Why a research study has been undertaken,

How the research problem has been defined,

What way and why the hypothesis has been formulated,

What data have been collected and

What particular method has been adopted and

Why particular technique of analyzing data has been used and a spectrum of related other enquiries are usually answered.

Used where the research question is not clear.

Used where the area of study is a new one and the researcher is trying to answer questions such as;

What is the problem?

What is the purpose of the study?

What topics could be studied?

Used where generally there is no prior research done or the existing ones do not answer the problem in a more satisfying manner.

Used where there are no set of rules to carry out the research as such, so they are stretchy/more open ended or wide-ranging.

Used where the research is of great importance or value.

Used where there are few theories which can support its findings.

Used where qualitative data is available and can be collected using data collection tools such as interview schedules or questionnaires.

Identification of Methodological knowledge gaps

Under exploratory research design , the researcher is investigating on a new field and past studies are missing. So in this case, it is not easy to identify the methodological knowledge gap for the findings gotten are inconclusive.

However, still the researcher may have a loophole to take advantage of and identify the exploratory based methodological knowledge gap at the initial stages of research process. How can this be done? Very simple;

Illustration 2

A researcher starts with a general idea and uses this research as intermediary to identify issues that can be the focus for future research. If then the researcher(s) from the past exploratory research did not identify a solid rock that further studies in future may be anchored on, then this represents a methodological knowledge gap that can be filled. You as a researcher can pinpoint the weaknesses of the base set by your predecessor researchers and re-do a similar exploratory to provide a better research anchorage in the future.

2.1.3 Explanatory Research Design

Explanatory research design sounds like Exploratory research design as discussed in 2.1.2 above, but they are distinctly dissimilar.

An explanatory research design aims at “exploring a new” on existing phenomena, which is not well explained due to lack of previous research on it. It is a design which is helpful for furtherance of research on the same area or phenomenon for its main purpose is to discover the why and what of a subject under investigation. In short, it is a type of research design which is responsible for finding the  why  of the events through the establishment of cause-effect relationships.

Used where the researcher want to further substantiate an already existing relationship by providing the cause-effect perspective.

Used where there is lack of or there is less information pertaining the relationship at hand.

Used where the researcher has to justify why relationship is of a certain nature.

Used when it is necessary to lay a foundational source of information for the phenomena under investigation.

Identification of Methodological knowledge gaps.

Under explanatory research design , the researcher need to consider the following steps

Step 1: Identify the immediate cause factors.

As a researcher be concerned with the express characteristics and existing social problems, by endeavoring to find out association between direct causes of an outcome.

Step 2: Establish research Problem.

Design an accurate research problem translating to appropriate research objective(s) so as to precisely state the principal areas of investigation to be properly linked.

Step 3: Develop a research hypothesis

In this step, establish a hypothesis with consideration of the most suspected causing study variables, which will be used in hypothesis testing to approve or disapprove the cause of the problem.

Step 4: Data collection.

In this step actual data collection process is undertaken so as to create more information to support the suggested hypothesis.

Step 5: Develop an Explanatory Based Methodological Knowledge Gap

Step 5, is the point where you should pinpoint the methodological knowledge gap. This can be achieved by;

-Evaluating past studies to identify the exiting conceptual framework established by scholars or/researchers.

-Check the level of plausibility of the variables previously used in the aforementioned conceptual framework.

-Critique positively the research findings from past studies pertaining that particular conceptual framework by highlighting the most probable factors further explaining the changes in the outcome variable. And hence suggest your own way of approach.

Illustration 3

Researchers in the past literature may have ignored critical study variables. Therefore, in your current study, you can portray the methodological knowledge gap of explanatory nature by using more critical or specific factors that can explain the changes in outcome variable (ie dependent variable) of the matter at hand. This will represent a methodological knowledge gap to your study.

From economics point of view, the quantity demanded is determined by the changes in price levels. Hence the relationship between the price and quantity demanded of the commodity is negatively related for a normal good. Holding other factors constant. Graphically, the demand curve is up down slopping. This shows that price dictate the changes in quantity demanded.

The conceptual framework is as follows;

In Economics, it is further proven that price of the commodity may not necessary be the direct cause of change in quantity demanded of a commodity but the Utility or level of satisfaction derived from the product by the consumer may be more predicting than just a decreasing price level. Therefore, an explanatory research design can be adopted to explain the reason as to why demand of a commodity is more tied to the utility derived by the customer and not necessarily the price per se’ . This presents an explanatory methodological knowledge gap for the current study to fill.

The new conceptual framework turns to be as follows;

In conclusion, you can see utility is the predictor which explains more of the phenomenon of changes in demand amongst consumers than the price of the commodity.

2.1.4 Correlational Research Design

If the researcher adopts a correlational research design, the aim is to answer research questions of “How” nature which pertain to determination of how two variables relate with one another.

Used when answering research questions of the level of strength of a relationship

Used where one wish to determine the direction of a relationship

Used where the researcher does not control the study variables

Used where the research problem is clear

Used where the relationship being tested is at a natural state

NB: A coefficient of between -1 up to +1 is used to describe the strength of the relationship.

The following are extracts of past studies where the correlation method was used to demonstrate the relationship between variables.

So the question that you have is, how do we identify the correlational methodological knowledge gap at this stage of research question? This is explained in below

Identification of Methodological  Knowledge Gaps

Under correlational research design, the researcher need to consider the following steps.

Step 1: Confirm if the research question is of “HOW” nature

The researcher need to ensure that the research question at hand is clear and that it is aimed at answering the HOW kind of perspective.

The researcher need to consider similar studies undertaken by other researchers to find out the level of correlational strength or weakness between the study variables under investigation. For instance, if the correlation between the two variables is weak, average or strong.

Step 3: Assess the appropriateness of the concept or conceptual framework used

 At this step, do your own critique on the level of correlating between study variables so as to know whether there are high chances of one variable causing the other.

Step 4: Develop a Correlational Based Methodological Knowledge Gap

In step 4, you should pinpoint the methodological knowledge gap. This can be achieved by;

-Evaluating if the HOW question in the past studies was effectively answered or not.

-Find out if the research design adopted is quantitative or not. In other words, is the data source primary or secondary?

-Assessing if past studies used right concept by selecting study variables that are fairly highly correlated (orthogonal).

-Find out if the correlation strength guarantees the researcher to further carry out regression analysis to test the hypothesis thereof.

Now, based on those indicators and any other strategy which is appropriate, you as a researcher/or postgraduate student should pinpoint the gaps thereof.

Illustration 4

Researchers in the past studies may have found no correlation (ie coefficient=0.00) between two variables. This may imply that wrong variables were chosen for the study and hence you as a researcher need to consider other more suitable variables to represent the concept of your focus. This can be achieved if the ones chosen portrays plausibility or logical relationship. This will represent a methodological knowledge gap.

Also, equally, past studies may portray a very high correlation . If that be the case, it means the variables are suffering from a multicollinearity problem and this calls for a replacement of the variables of concern. That is you as a researcher can use less number of the variables previously used by eliminating the ones which are highly correlated or replace the highly correlated variables with others with fair correlation. This again will represent a methodological knowledge gap.

Lastly and not the least, as a researcher, you can consider classification of level of strength or weakness of the correlation between two variables. From past studies, the researchers or scholars could have ignored that perspective. In your case, you can consider the proposition of Cohen of 1988 who suggested that for the purposes of interpreting the magnitude of a correlation, as well as estimating power; r = 0.10, r = 0.30, and r = 0.50 were recommended to be considered small, medium , and large in magnitude, respectively. You can rely on the same argument for sometimes past research findings have similar correlations of 0.10 up to 0.50 which is termed as weak. But you see, this could have been due to use of a small sample. This becomes a methodological knowledge gap for the end results will entail appreciation of the fact that data may be scarce in some cases and this cannot stop one from carrying out a study on a particular field.

2.1.5 Experimental Research Design

An experimental research design, is a scientific method of establishing changes in the variable being studied when another variable is manipulated. The manipulated variable is referred to as the predictor or predator or independent variable.

Used when two or more variables are used in the study

Used where the researcher uses quantitative data

Used where the researcher is in control of one variable, namely the independent variable

Used where cause-effect relationship between or amongst several variables exist

The following are extracts of past studies where the experimental method was used to enquire on the study variables.

So you see, the researcher is able to portray the cause-effect relationship between the independent variable(s) and the outcome or response variable. This is achieved by manipulating the predictor variable so as to determine the value change in the dependent variable.

Under experimental research design also referred to as causal-effect relationship, the researcher need to consider the following steps so as to develop the gap thereof.

Step 1: Review of past studies

The researcher need to consider similar studies undertaken by other researchers to find out the hypothesis which was tested and the research findings thereof.

Step 2: Re-hypothesize the research problem if in step 1 you realized that the cause-effect relationship was not statistically significant

In experimental research design, the aim is to test the degree of statistical significance one variable referred to as independent variable influence another variable referred to as response/outcome variable. Therefore, if the stated hypothesis was empirically disapproved due to the relationship not being statistically significant, then it means that the concept lacked plausibility or logical sense. This calls for re-defining the research problem and of course re-defining the research hypothesis.

Step 3: Develop Experimental Based Methodological Knowledge Gap

In step 3, you should pinpoint the methodological knowledge gap. This can be achieved by;

-Considering similar conceptual framework from past studies to find out the significant level of the relationship between and or amongst study variables used.

-Investigate further on the sample size used in comparison to the population size . This will guide you to conclude if the sample size was a true representation of the population or not. For if it is not a true representation, this may be the cause of research findings with no statistical significance.

-Interrogate on the perspective of plausibility of the study variables used-if they do not represent logic in their natural/physical relationship, then the regression results will not portray statistically significant relationship.

Illustration 5

Past literature may lack study variables with plausibility or logical relationship-the researcher then can further consider other variables which have a relationship in the natural phenomenon.

Past studies could have used small sample size hence adversely affecting the level of cause-effect relationship. You as a researcher need to consider a large ‘in quotes’ sample size that truly represent the entire population.

2.1.6 Diagnostic Research Design

Diagnostic research is a type of design that aims to examine the original cause of a certain circumstances or occurrence. That is the design can help you to discover more on an issue at hand. For example, the number of “return” customers as compared to new ones could have been reducing for the last three months. The question is, what other causes could be contributing to this trend or what could be the root cause of this? In other words, the diagnostic research design is helpful in identifying where the rains started beating you if it is a case of undesirable results.

It is a research design composed of three research stages, namely;

(1) Problem Inception,

(2) Problem Diagnosis, &

 (3) Problem Solution.

So if the researcher adopts a diagnostic research design, the aim is to answer research questions of;

Origin of the issue – When did the matter crop up? Where do we get more evident on the matter?

Diagnosis of the problem – What is the underlying cause of the issue? In other words, what other factors could be worsening the situation?

Solution for the Matter – What is more practical/logical in solving the matter at hand?

Used where the researcher is more concerned of the specific cause of the problem at hand.

Used where specific data need to be collected to solve an immediate need.

Used where the research problem needs more clarification.

Under diagnostic research design , the researcher need to consider the following steps

Step 1: Identify the immediate cause factors

Step 2: Establish research Problem

Step 3: Develop a hypothesis

In this step 3, establish a hypothesis with consideration of the most suspected causing study variables, which will be used in hypothesis testing to approve or disapprove the cause of the problem.

Step 4: Data collection

Step 5: Develop a Diagnostic Based Methodological Knowledge Gap

In step 5, you should pinpoint the methodological knowledge gap. This can be achieved by;

-Evaluate if past studies had identified any specific factor acting as the key cause of the matter at hand

-Check the level of plausibility of the variables previously used in similar study to the one at hand

-Critique the research findings from past studies and suggest your own way of approach

Illustration 6

Researchers in the past literature may have ignored critical study variables. Therefore, in your current study, you can portray the methodological knowledge gap of diagnostic nature by using more critical or specific factors that can explain the immediate cause of the matter at hand. This will represent a methodological knowledge gap to your study.

STAGE 2: OPERATIONALIZATION

Operationalization is the process of assigning a measurable indicator or proxy on a specific fuzzy characteristic to make it possible to measure it through observation. This approach make it possible for the researcher to systematically collect and evaluate phenomena that can't be observed directly.

Fuzzy characteristic is that kind of behavioral element portrayed by the unit of observation which is vague and not easily measurable. In other words it is not definitely expressible in fixed terms and its measurability depends on context or conditions, and therefore a precise meaning is lacking . The idea of operationalization is in addition to the well-known methodologies of measuring of study variables. That is use of measurement scales which are used to qualify or quantify data variables in statistics and they are usually four in number. That is;

Nominal Scale

Ordinal Scale

Interval Scale

Ratio Scale.

NB: That, qualitative data is measured using nominal and ordinal scale while quantitative data is measured using interval and ratio scales.

Operationalization Methodological Knowledge Gaps

How do we identify methodological gap on the basis of measurement or operationalization of a variable/construct? To achieve this objective, you, the researcher need to use the following guidelines as portrayed by these steps below

Step 1: Review Past Studies

In this step, the researcher will aim at finding out how the similar variable was measured by his/her predecessor researchers. Remember that you cannot re-invent the wheel and come up with your own way of measuring a variable. Also, for a variable to be useful in a study, it must be measurable. As we have let you know in our other articles, “ if a variable is not measurable then it does not exist”.

So in this step one, you as a researcher need to find out if a universally authentic method has been used to gauge the variable.

Step 2: Assess the Appropriateness of the Method of Measurement Used

In this step, the researcher need to assess whether the proxy used to gauge the variable is correct. The extent of correctness or fitting will be assessed against some set thresholds such as:-

Contextual environment

Targeted group in the study

Generally accepted/universal method used

Technological advancements

Step 3: Positively critique to highlight areas of improvement in measurement

At this point, pinpoint the weaknesses of using the measurements used by other scholars/researchers on similar variable(s) in the past studies. This should be done with justification without necessarily critiquing in the wrong way . For example, I have witnessed postgraduate students suggesting that the past studies failed to use a certain method in measuring a particular variable.

For example, one will say that the study of X and Z failed to use ROE to measure profitability of the firm for in their case they used market share instead. So this is the reason why the current researcher want to use ROE!

This is wrong approach in creating methodological knowledge gap. The reason being that, may be as per those researchers, the research problem at hand dictated use of a certain proxy or measurement to gauge the study variables thereof. So as per their study, it was appropriate!. So the current researcher has no right to negatively critique or demonize his/her predecessor researcher’s work!

Step 4: Develop an Operational/Measurement Based Methodological Knowledge Gap

The following illustration will take care of the best way to create such gaps.

Illustration 1

Let me assume I am writing a research to investigate on the factors that influence financial performance of firms listed at the stock exchange. The factors I have proposed are X. Y and Z which are the independent variables whereas, financial performance is the criteria variable (Response variable) and is measured using Return on Capital Employed (ROCE)

The corresponding conceptual framework will be as demonstrated by Figure 1.1 below;

If the research findings portray that there is statistically significant influence of the three factors taken together, namely X, Y and Z on financial performance of those firms listed at the stock market, this currently represents the body of existing knowledge.

From contextual point of view (users of the research report), a methodological knowledge gap based on measurement/operationalization can be established. For instance, suppose another researcher wanted to establish the influence of the same factors, namely X, Y and Z on financial performance with an aim of advising the owners of the companies as far as their Earnings per Share (EPS) is concerned. Then the method used to measure financial performance will change to EPS. This will represent a better way of informing the owners on their expectations as far as their returns are concerned. This is because it is more specific on returns originating from equity invested in the firm other than ROCE which is returns associated with all the investors, hence a general proxy. In other words, we are not saying that the previous way of measuring financial performance, i.e. ROCE was wrong for it fitted the purpose expressing performance of the firm in general.

Therefore, the more appropriate conceptual framework will be as follows as per Figure 1.2;

So note that although both studies are similar in every other way, the use of a different measurement of the financial performance of the firms to suit a particular purpose, represents a operational/measurement methodological knowledge gap. This is paramount for appropriateness of measurement is key in ensuring that no confusion in defining a variable and also there is clarity on decision making by the management.

Suppose in another study, the researcher investigated on the factors influencing financial performance of firms listed at the security exchange and financial performance was measured in three ways, namely; Return on Equity (ROE), Return On Assets (ROA) and Return On Invest

ment(ROI) as shown in Figure 1.3 below

From Corporate Finance perspective, the three measures of financial performance are similar/same for ROI=ROA=ROE. This implies that the research findings will be similar and number two, the data for ROA,ROE and ROI is highly correlated and incase of carrying out multicollinearity test, the relationship will prove to be so. Therefore, there arises a need to eliminate some of dependent variables so as to;

One, avoid multicollinearity problem and

Two , avoid waste of resources for data will be required for the three measures of financial performance which represent the same outcome. This represents a methodological knowledge gap based on the measurement adopted by the researcher.

For an improved study, one can incorporate only one measurement of financial performance, such as either ROE or ROI or ROA but not all. See Figure 1.4 below

NOTE: That, in the three illustrations, we have only focused on the measurement of the dependent variable. This was only made for simplicity of understanding the concept. Otherwise, dissimilar methodologies can be used to measure all study variables as long as one can justify why he/she has gauged a variable in a particular manner. Also, for all the other measuring scale, the right applicability in measuring a characteristics should be considered. If not so, then a researcher can suggest a better method.

STAGE 3: SAMPLING

At the sampling stage in research process, there exists an opportunity to portray methodological knowledge gap also. How does this occur? As we appreciate that most of the time research data is collected from a sample and not the entire population, this increases the chances of pinpointing weaknesses on the sampling techniques used in similar studies hence suggest a better or more appropriate sampling method. The following steps is of paramount importance to you as a scholar or researcher in identifying sampling methodological knowledge gaps

This step will help you as a researcher to compare the research method and the sampling method(s) used by researchers/scholars in past literature similar to your study. The aim is to assess the matching for each research design has a corresponding appropriate sampling technique that guide towards establishment of the right sample size .

Step 2: Identify the Sample Size used in each Past Study Reviewed

Step 2 is a furtherance of step one, which aims at checking the appropriateness of the sample used. The sample size should always be a true representation of the population. Then it means that if the past studies similar to yours has wrong sample size, it is at this juncture that you should raise a red flag for this implies that the data used in those studies could have resulted to biased research findings which have no validity.

Step 3: Critique Past studies

This is done by suggesting the most appropriate sampling methods(s) to use in your study. Either portray why the sampling method used earlier on is not suitable in the similar current study or why another method is more suitable than those used in similar studies.

Your justification points/strengths may include and not limited to;

i). Type of sampling Method used

You can argue that the sampling method used did not give all the units of observation equal chances of being selected to participate in data collection process hence may be the results were bias. For example, you see there are two types of sampling methods; probabilistic sampling which gives all units of observation equal chance to participate in data collection and this assures us of unbiased and valid research findings. Then there is non-probabilistic sampling techniques which may result to biased research findings although to some extent they can be appropriate based on the context or objective under consideration.

ii.) Mismatch between Research Method and Sampling Method

Each research method used in a study dictates the sampling technique to adopt, the type of data to collect, sample size and other many aspects. Then this calls for interrogation of the matching done by researchers in past studies to see the appropriateness of the matching, which may result to a shortcoming in the process of sampling

iii). Nature of the population

The nature of population may assume manifold aspects such as its characteristics, distribution patterns and so on and so on. This may dictate use of specifically a certain type of sampling. For instance, when data is not equally distributed such as unbalanced data panel.

Step 4 : Develop a Sampling Based Methodological Knowledge Gap

Build your case of the methodological knowledge gap by highlighting issues of your concern in the past studies.

In a study where the population is in form of strata, then stratified random sampling method can be adopted to establish a sample size which is a true representative of the entire population. For example, data to be collected for public hospitals in Kenya. In this case, we can consider only the level five category from the 47 counties. The counties will be representing the stratus and then further random selection can be done to pick the right sample for data collection purposes. In this case, the results are unbiased and validity is assured. Note that this is just a simple approach, for we have left out the key details. So in this case, a random sampling method is more suitable.

In a study where the researcher has an aim of discriminatively looking for certain specific data to meet a specific objective, then a non-probabilistic sampling method can be more appropriate. For instance, when I was doing my PhD, my concern was data for firms listed at the Nairobi Securities Exchange. Since some of my variables would produce contradicting research findings such as cashholdings, I discriminated all financial such as banks and insurance institutions whose liquidity rule and regulations require them to keep a certain level of cash reserves which is almost composed of elements of cashholdings. Hence I went for non-financial firms for convenience purposes. Also some of the firms did not portray some of the study variables I was using in my study so I conveniently selected those firms with all the study variables I had incorporated in my study. This called for use of convenient sampling which is non-probabilistic in nature.

Look at this EXTRACT from my PhD thesis;

(“ The total number of registered organizations at the Nairobi Securities Exchange by 2015 was 63 in total (NSE, 2015). Commercial banks and insurance firms were excluded in this study because they are heavily regulated than non-financial firms and have a unique capital structure (which is similar amongst themselves) from other firms (Berkman & Bradbury, 2001). NSE facilitates its member firms hence it is unique in its operations as compared to the targeted firms for the study. To ensure that the firms used in the study are uniform, such unique firm attributes were put under consideration and discriminatively selected some firms for the study. Therefore, the target population comprised of 47 firms.

Convenience sampling technique was used to collect a more representative sample for the study. Hence, the relevant observation items that enabled achievement of the research objectives were considered and therefore firms with incomplete data were left out. This implies that companies which did not have a full set of data on variables mentioned in the study were excluded. Therefore a sample size of 31 organizations registered at the NSE for the period of eleven years was selected out of the targeted population of 47 firms as shown in Table 3.1 below

Sometimes, past studies may use sample size which is large but not scientifically determined. That is, as one arrives at a particular sample size, a scientific method should have been used so as to justify the authenticity of the sample size and its usability in the study. Therefore, in the current study, the researcher need to justify why such a “ sample size determination formula” has been used.

For example, the following extract is from a past study where Yamane (Formula) was used to determine the sample size

Sample Size

The appropriate sample for this study was 265 SMEs drawn from a target population of 5311 SMEs operating in Machakos County using Yamane formula (1967). This formula was used to determine the sample size (n) which is the number of subjects to be randomly selected from each category of SME projects in Machakos County.

Sampling Procedure

The procedure of how the 265 firms was selected out of the total population of 5311 was summarized in Table 3.2

NB: The researcher has to justify why such a formula is used in such a study. Of course there are other sample size determination formulas and if used by the researcher, then again justification is necessary. All these sampling concerns portray sampling methodological knowledge gaps.

STAGE 4: DATA COLLECTION

After sample size or population has been determined in stage 3, then actual data is collected. This process also just like the other stages of research process presents to you as a researcher another chance to demonstrate the data collection methodological gaps in existence as per past studies.

Remember that data collection is a sensitive procedure and if the appropriate data collection method is not used, then biasness dominates the data collected and the data analysis process will bring forth results which are not admirable. Data collection utilizes three data collection research designs as explained in our research Hub, namely;

Cross sectional Research design- A cross-sectional study design is a type of research design in which data is collected from many unit of observations/respondents at a single point in time.

Longitudinal Research design- A longitudinal study design, is a type of research design whereby researchers repeatedly examine the same unit of observations/respondents to detect any changes that might occur over time (ie at different points in time) without trying to influence those variables.

Time series Research design- Time series designs are a sub-set of longitudinal research design which its analysis focus is on “large series of observations made on the same variable consecutively over different point in time.

The following steps will guide you to establish the data collection methodological knowledge gap

From past studies, identify the data collection research design used to assess its appropriateness in that study(ies). Based on the research problem at hand, one is able to tell the most suitable data collection research design.

Step 2: Assess the nature of population or sample to collect data from

This aspect represents the source of data which can either be primary data or secondary data

If primary data for several variables -then cross sectional research design is useful

If secondary data for several variables -then longitudinal research design is helpful

If secondary data for only one variable-then time series research design is helpful

From past studies, demonstrate that the methods of data collection are unsuitable to your current study. This can be achieved by positively proving that the data collection research design is only suitable in the past similar studies but not the current one. This can be achieved by suggesting the appropriate method of collecting data based on the aforementioned data collection research design which is well fitting.

Step 4: Development of Data Collection Based Methodological Knowledge Gap

At this point show the suitability of the current methods of data collection by justifying that the methods will meet objectives such as;

Right data collection method ensures data validity which translate in to unbiased research findings.

Right data collection method saves time.

Right data collection method translates to reliable data analysis methods etc etc.

Suppose you are carrying a study on the relationship between time taken to coach undergraduate students and academic performance for the last 5 years from 2016 up to 2020.

The data to be collected is primary data and will be collected through questionnaires issued at the year 2020

This is data collection at one data point to represent performance information of students for 5 years

Data is collected from more than one unit of observation

Therefore, cross sectional data collection method will apply.

Suppose you are carrying another study on the relationship between time taken to coach a particular undergraduate student by the name James and his Mathematics performance for the last 5 years from 2016 up to 2020.

One; the data to be collected is secondary data and will be collected through using secondary source such as James academic reports from the year 2016 up to 2020.

This is data collection at 5 different data points, that is 2016; 2017;2018;2019 and 2020.

Two; data is collected for one unit of observation, ie James who is a student.

Therefore, longitudinal data collection method will apply. This will be a new approach of collecting data hence a dissimilar data collection methodological knowledge gap is realized.

STAGE 5: DATA ANALYSIS

This is the last stage in research process whose end result is the research findings which in turn are used for making conclusions. In this stage there are diverse data analysis approaches that are useful to the researcher based on the objectives to be achieved.

Since the methods are several, (visit STATA, E-VIEWs, SPSS program) I will demonstrate the steps to follow when creating  data analysis methodological knowledge.

The following steps matter

Revisit past studies similar to your topic to evaluate the data analysis method utilized and the justifications the authors have provided.

Step 2: Identify both the research question and the specific objectives of the study.

From the past studies you review, you will notice that at least one or two methods of data analysis has been utilized. At this point, equally identify the corresponding research questions and the research specific objectives which obviously should emanate from the research question.

Step 3: Identify the research design used by the researcher in that past study.

With the research question and the specific objectives at hand, further identify the research design used and evaluate its suitability in answering the research question at hand and achieving the study specific objectives. Ask yourself, whether with such a research design, the two aspects were fulfilled to satisfaction.

NB: For your information, the right matching should be for instance, if the research problem was descriptive in nature, the research question will be descriptive and specific objective as well. Then, descriptive research methodology will be used, followed by descriptive research methods and descriptive data analysis. Similarly, the same applies in all other research designs.

Step 4: Benchmark the data analysis method used and the researcher’s research question

Again consider the matching of the research design chosen with the data analysis method used if it is correlated in any way. Of course, you know that the research design chosen dictates the data analysis method used. And the data analysis used is meant to answer the research question. If this is the case as per the past study research findings, then it’s ok. But if not, this becomes a case to raise some questions on how best the data analysis should have been done.

Step 5: Benchmark the data analysis method used and the researcher’s specific objectives 

Repeat step 4 to step 5 and consider the matching of the data analysis method and the extent to which the tool has helped in achieving the set specific objectives of the past study. Of course, you know that the data analysis method chosen dictates the extent to which the specific objectives are achieved. If with the data analysis used, the specific objectives are fully achieved, ok. But if not, this becomes a case to raise some questions on how best such objectives should have been achieved. This calls for identification of areas for further research as indicated in most of the academic papers in chapter five or six of the project paper.

Step 6: Critique the data analysis approach used in the past studies

In step 6, you highlight the appropriate data methodology to use in your current study by pinpointing either weaknesses or strengths of the methods used earlier on by your predecessors in the similar studies you have reviewed.

Show how more suitable or appropriate your methodology is and how it will sufficiently be able to answer the question at hand and meet the specific objectives of the study.

  NB: As you review past studies to interrogate the data analysis method used, you need to be careful of the specific objectives which that particular researcher wanted to achieve.

Step 7: Development of Data Analysis Based Methodological Knowledge Gap

Pegged on the hypotheses set, demonstrate how the data analysis has proven or disapproved the hypotheses.

Assess the level of hypothesis test statistical significance to determine whether to fail to accept the null hypothesis (ie reject the null hypothesis) or fail to reject the null hypothesis (ie accept the null hypothesis).

State the data analysis methodological knowledge gap thereof. So in the following illustrations, we will consider different scenarios with different researchers as portrayed below;

Assume that researcher one carried out a study on the relationship between P and M .

So in this case, the research question he wanted to answer was;

Research Question : Does variable P have a strong association with M ?

The corresponding;

Specific Objective was; To determine the relationship between P and M

NOTE the following;

The specific objective to be achieved is to establish the relationship between P and M variables.

In the conceptual framework, we do not indicate the role of the variables for we are concerned about the relationship and not which variable influence the other. So no predictor or response variable classification.

The researcher incorporated correlation data analysis method to find out the association between P and M variables. Pearson Product Moment correlation model was used.

Research findings revealed that there exists a strong positive relationship between P and M .

Now, let us assume that illustration one will represent the “existing body of knowledge” that there exists a strong positive correlation between P and M. This assumption will help us understand how to develop data analysis methodology knowledge gaps that can arise from this first case.

So let’s move on….

From past literature, researcher two came across a study by researcher one (refer to researcher one research findings) whereby the research findings showed that there exists a strong positive relationship between P and M .

However, according to researcher two, there exists some data analysis methodological knowledge gap as per the past study undertaken by researcher one if regression analysis is incorporated.

One; researcher one focused on correlation of P and M variables while the current study of researcher two is on the influence of P on M hence need to carry out regression analysis and not correlation analysis

Two; the previous study of researcher one was on determining the level of strength of the relationship between P and M while in the case of researcher two, the focus was to establish the level of significance influence of P on M.

Three; both the research questions and specific objectives of the two researchers were dissimilar .

Point of correction -when creating the methodological gap of whichever nature, its common amongst researchers even I have witnessed my postgraduate students, even others during postgraduate academic defenses state that “ researchers as per past literature failed to use either multiple regression or correlation analysis method and that is why there is a methodological gap. ”

No, you cannot afford to say that because past literature had different research question, different specific objective and of course different hypothesis and so the method used was appropriate as far as that case was concerned. So, no one has a right to negatively critique that researcher(s)!

Therefore, Researcher two further carried out a research on the influence of P on M . This means that, he sought to investigate the level of significance that P has on M .

Now, in this case the research question was,

Research Question: Does variable P have statistically significant influence on M ?

Specific Objective was; to establish the influence of P on M

1.  The specific objective to be achieved is to establish the influence of variable P on variable M.

2.  In the conceptual framework, we indicate the role of the variables for we are concerned about the influence that one variable (independent variable) has on another variable (dependent variable). So P is taken to be the predictor variable and M is the response variable as indicated in the conceptual framework unlike in the correlation case were there was no classification of the same two variables.

Therefore, from illustration two, there exists some data analysis methodological knowledge gap for researcher one used correlation data analysis method which was and is for sure appropriate for determining the strength of a relationship. But it cannot apply for testing the level of significance of influence of one factor on another. Hence researcher two has to point out that instead of using correlation, simple regression method is more applicable. This way, the knowledge gap is filled and this justifies why researcher two is undertaking a similar study to that of researcher one for there is new knowledge added to the already existing body of knowledge.

Research findings -it was established that there was statistically significant influence of P on M. Therefore, the researcher failed to accept the null hypothesis. Ie rejected the Null Hypothesis so as the accept the Alternative Hypothesis (HA) That variable P has statistically significant influence on P.

Let us assume that both illustration one and two now represent the “existing body of knowledge” that there exists a strong positive correlation between P and M and also P has statistical significant influence on M. This assumption further will help us understand how to develop data analysis methodology knowledge gaps that can arise from these two cases.

So let’s move on again..

From past literature, researcher three came across studies by researcher one and researcher two whereby although both studies focused on P and M variables, there still existed some data analysis methodological knowledge gap as per those past studies.

One; although both researcher one and two focused on the P and M linkage, one was looking at the correlation of P and M while researcher two considered the influence of P on M and as a result, one used correlation analysis and the other simple regression analysis.

Two; although researcher two work was an improved study of researcher one, he only focused on a Bivariate model where by only one independent variable was considered in predicting the changes in

Three; use of one predictor variable may not be good enough to estimate the changes observed in the response (dependent variable). This is because in normal circumstances, changes that occur on the dependent variable (outcome variable) may not originate from only one predictor/factor. So the simple regression model cannot be the most appropriate estimator of the dependent variable.

Therefore, there exists some data analysis methodological knowledge gap for researcher one used correlation data analysis method which was and is for sure appropriate for determining the strength of a relationship. But it cannot apply for testing the level of significance of influence of one factor on another.

Similarly, the research findings of researcher two of P having statistically significant influence on M was ok. However, use of Bivariate model is not good enough to conclude that P is only influenced by P alone. Hence researcher three has to point out that instead of using simple regression method, multiple regression analysis is far much better for more than one predictor/independent variable is used to predict the outcome variable. This way the knowledge gap is filled and this justifies why researcher three is undertaking a similar study to researcher one and two for there is new knowledge added to the already existing body of knowledge.

NB: That, in Multiple regression data analysis method, Ordinary Least Square (OLS) tool or model is used to analyze the end results.

Therefore, Researcher three carried out a study to determine the factors that influence M. She sought to determine the influence of two variables, namely P and Q which were classified as the independent variables on M.

Research Question:

Does variable P and Q have statistically significant influence on M?

Specific Objective was ;

To establish the influence of P and Q on M

1.  The specific objective to be achieved is to establish the influence of two variables, P and Q on variable M.

2.  In the conceptual framework, we indicate the role of ALL the variables for we are concerned about the influence that two variables (independent variables) have on another variable (dependent variable). So both P and Q are taken to be the predictor variables and M is the response variable as indicated in the conceptual framework.

3. Although the two independent variables appear separately in the conceptual framework, this does not represent a corresponding two research questions, two research objectives and two hypotheses as witnessed in most academic research proposals/projects. CONCEPTUALLY or THEORETICALLY, the conceptual framework represent only one theory of the joint influence of P and Q on M.

Research findings- it was established that there was statistically significant influence of P and Q on M. Therefore, the researcher failed to accept both null hypotheses. I.e. rejected the Null Hypotheses so as to accept the Alternative Hypothesis (HA) that variable P and Q has statistically significant influence on M.

Similarly, let us assume that the THREE illustrations represent a wider existing body of knowledge so far. This assumption further will help us understand how to develop data analysis methodology knowledge gaps that can arise from these three cases.

So let’s move on further..

Again, from past literature, researcher four came across studies by researcher one, two and three which formed the existing body of knowledge. But still researcher four is able to incorporate new data analysis methodological knowledge gap as per the past studies undertaken by the three researchers so far.

One; some studies considered correlation, others simple regression and others multiple regression analysis methods as witnessed in the case of researcher one to three

Two; some studies used bivariate models with one predictor variable while others like researcher three used multivariate model with two predictor variables

Three; although use of multivariate model with two predictor variables is better and more appropriate in estimating changes in the dependent variable, there still exists some data analysis methodological knowledge gap for researcher three performed multiple regression whereby she ran all the two predictor variables at once either using SPSS or STATA computer program. This approach/method did not give her room to evaluate the prediction power of every incremental predictor variable considered.

Therefore, researcher four carried out a similar study like the rest but incorporate Hierarchical multiple regression model instead of just using multiple regression. This methodology has an option of portraying which predictor variable has more power to estimate the response variable for there is an option in the computer program to command significant change . In addition, use of four predictor variable is more accurate in estimating the dependent variable changes. 

NB: That, in Hierarchical Multiple regression data analysis method, Ordinary Least Square (OLS) tool or model is used to analyze the end results.

Researcher four therefore aimed at interrogating on the factors influencing variable M as it was in the cases of researcher one, two and three. But researcher four feels that there are more factors than just two that influence variable M. For this matter, he proposed four variables, namely; P , Q , R and S as the predictor variables.

Does variable P, Q, R and S have statistically significant influence on M?

Specific Objective was;

To establish the influence of P, Q, R and S on M

The influence of P, Q, R and S on M is not statistically significant

The conceptual framework appeared as per Figure 1.8 below 

1. The specific objective to be achieved is to establish the influence of four variables, P, Q, R and S on variable M.

2. In the conceptual framework, we indicate the role of ALL the variables for we are concerned about the influence that the four variables (independent variables) have on another variable (dependent variable). So all variables P, Q, R and S are proposed to be the predictor variables on M which is the response variable as indicated in the conceptual framework.

3. Although the four independent variables appear separately in the conceptual framework, this does not represent corresponding four research questions, four research objectives and four hypotheses as witnessed in most academic research proposals/projects. CONCEPTUALLY or THEORETICALLY, the conceptual framework represent only one theory of the joint influence of P, Q, R and S on M.

Research findings-it was established that there was statistically significant influence of P, Q, R and S taken together on M. Therefore, the researcher failed to accept the null hypothesis i.e. rejected the Null Hypothesis so as to accept the Alternative Hypothesis (HA) that variable P, Q, R and S has statistically significant influence on M.

In conclusion, under methodological knowledge gap perspective, there are many ways of the researcher like you and me to argue any case at hand and succeed. This will further be discussed in oncoming online tutorials.

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

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

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

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

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Research Gap Identification

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

Related Papers

Oyediran Kayode Kunle

Vinicius M. Netto

This short paper brings observations for researchers-in-the-making and supervisors regarding two key moments: the definition of the research problem and the academic writing itself. First we see how to prepare the research problem considering the following steps: (1) What the research problem is, (2) why it is important, (3) what is known about the problem, and (4) what the research will contribute to knowledge about the problem. Second, we discuss how to write a scientific paper (articles, theses, dissertations…) and clarify our approach to a research problem These observations have been developed along years of discussions with both experienced and young researchers.

Princy Jain

Arts and Humanities in Higher Education

Gerald Graff

International Journal of Innovative Research in Education

Miloud Bekkar

It is argued that the most critical moment in performing research work is the topic choice. This challenging step comes before undertaking any research work. Almost, the most common researcher’s anxiety that comes to his/her mind is about the success or on the contrary, the failure of the topic choice. This research aims to tackle the common challenges and difficulties while choosing one’s research problem. The study targets a group of postgraduate students of the English language Department at the University of Mascara. Around 25 subjects representing Master II 2021–2022 promotion participated in this study. The research tools include a questionnaire with students and a teacher’s experience in teaching Research Methodology Module at Mascara University. Most participants prefer the topics proposed by their future supervisors. Also, the study tempts to give recommendations for developing students’ research topics and titles. Keywords: Methodology, research work, students, topi...

Hashil Al-Saadi

Almost all research students begin their academic journey with a quite good degree of confidence and enthusiasm but as they begin to read in some depth on and around their selected topic area, their confidence and enthusiasm start to dwindle over time. Many of novice students feel somewhat lost or unfocused at this stage. This uncertainty, I think, can be related to three main reasons: firstly, high expectations on the part of students of their research proposal, secondly, unfamiliarity of the nature of research in their respected discipline, social sciences in our case here at the School of Education, and finally lack of in-depth reading and thinking strategies. Drawing on my personal experience as postgraduate research student, this paper sheds light on this issue and suggest a practical framework for novice research students for better handling of reading in their postgraduate studies.

Maximus Monaheng Sefotho (PhD) , Maximus Sefotho

The purpose of the present paper is to advance arguments that reflect on the researcher’s dilemma caused by tendencies to conflate metatheory and paradigm in the crafting of dissertations and theses. Philosophy as an umbrella concept under which metatheory and paradigm are subsumed proves evasive in some social science dissertations and theses. Consequently, most novice researchers become confused by the conflated and unexplained use of these concepts in research. The researcher attempted to clarify philosophy, paradigm and metatheory as used in the social sciences in this paper. To this end, the paper demystified the use and relationship of research philosophy concepts normally found in dissertations and theses. This paper is primarily a theoretical exploration intended to guide beginning researchers on the scientific and scholarly use of the philosophy of research concepts in their dissertations and theses.

School Science and Mathematics

Sandra Williams

Andrea Estefania Estupiñan

RELATED PAPERS

IRJET Journal

Harsh Mathur

Daniela Opris-Belinski

JOSÉ R E N A T O F E R R A Z D A SILVEIRA

Immaculate Machasio

Psicologia Revista

Carla Cristina Garcia

Journal of Turkish Studies

NECMETTİN KAMİL SEVİL

Nathalie Verdiere

Revista Navarra Jurídica

katherin torres

JURNAL DESTINASI PARIWISATA

putri chelsea

Revista Educação e Políticas em Debate

Monica Serafim

Quelques études de statistiques

BOUMARAF ISLAM EDDINE

Journal of Neuroimmune Pharmacology

Santosh Kumar

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Alan Tennant

IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology

Prestige Park Grove Whitefield Bangalore

Sciencia Scripts

Aamir Al-Mosawi

Philippe de Lajudie

Purwanto Putra

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)

Ravindra Adav

O direito e sua práxis 3

Arsénio Paulo

jhgjfgtf hgjfgdghf

International Journal of Morphology

Dr Sharanabasappa Patil

Circulation

hafis bukhori

Journal of Molecular and Cellular Cardiology

Timothy McCaffrey

RELATED TOPICS

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

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:

How the American middle class has changed in the past five decades

The middle class, once the economic stratum of a clear majority of American adults, has steadily contracted in the past five decades. The share of adults who live in middle-class households fell from 61% in 1971 to 50% in 2021, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of government data.

From 2020: Are you in the American middle class? Find out with our income calculator

The shrinking of the middle class has been accompanied by an increase in the share of adults in the upper-income tier – from 14% in 1971 to 21% in 2021 – as well as an increase in the share who are in the lower-income tier, from 25% to 29%. These changes have occurred gradually, as the share of adults in the middle class decreased in each decade from 1971 to 2011, but then held steady through 2021.

The analysis below presents seven facts about how the economic status of the U.S. middle class and that of America’s major demographic groups have changed since 1971. A related analysis examines the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on the financial well-being of households in the lower-, middle- and upper-income tiers, with comparisons to the Great Recession era. (In the source data for both analyses, demographic figures refer to the 1971-2021 period, while income figures refer to the 1970-2020 period. Thus, the shares of adults in an income tier are based on their household incomes in the previous year.)

This report analyzes data from the Annual Social and Economic Supplements (ASEC) of the Current Population Survey (CPS) to study how the economic status of the American middle class has changed since 1971. It also examines the movement of demographic groups in and out of the American middle class and across lower- and upper-income tiers from 1971 to 2021.

The CPS is the U.S. government’s official source for monthly estimates of unemployment ; the ASEC, conducted in March each year, is the official source for its estimates of income and poverty . The COVID-19 outbreak has affected data collection efforts by the U.S. government in its surveys, limiting in-person data collection and affecting the response rate. It is possible that some measures of economic outcomes and how they vary across demographic groups are affected by these changes in data collection. This report makes use of updated weights released by the Census Bureau to correct for nonresponse in 2019, 2020 and 2021.

In this analysis, “middle-income” adults in 2021 are those with an annual household income that was two-thirds to double the national median income in 2020, after incomes have been adjusted for household size, or about $52,000 to $156,000 annually in 2020 dollars for a household of three. “Lower-income” adults have household incomes less than $52,000 and “upper-income” adults have household incomes greater than $156,000.

The income it takes to be middle income varies by household size, with smaller households requiring less to support the same lifestyle as larger households. The boundaries of the income tiers also vary across years with changes in the national median income. Read the methodology for more details.

The terms “middle income” and “middle class” are used interchangeably in this analysis for the sake of exposition. But being middle class can refer to more than just income, be it the level of education, the type of profession, economic security, home ownership, or one’s social and political values. Class also could simply be a matter of self-identification.

Household incomes have risen considerably since 1970, but those of middle-class households have not climbed nearly as much as those of upper-income households. The median income of middle-class households in 2020 was 50% greater than in 1970 ($90,131 vs. $59,934), as measured in 2020 dollars. These gains were realized slowly, but for the most part steadily, with the exception of the period from 2000 to 2010, the so-called “ lost decade ,” when incomes fell across the board.

The median income for lower-income households grew more slowly than that of middle-class households, increasing from $20,604 in 1970 to $29,963 in 2020, or 45%.

The rise in income from 1970 to 2020 was steepest for upper-income households. Their median income increased 69% during that timespan, from $130,008 to $219,572.

As a result of these changes, the gap in the incomes of upper-income and other households also increased. In 2020, the median income of upper-income households was 7.3 times that of lower-income households, up from 6.3 in 1970. The median income of upper-income households was 2.4 times that of middle-income households in 2020, up from 2.2 in 1970.

The share of aggregate U.S. household income held by the middle class has fallen steadily since 1970. The widening of the income gap and the shrinking of the middle class has led to a steady decrease in the share of U.S. aggregate income held by middle-class households. In 1970, adults in middle-income households accounted for 62% of aggregate income, a share that fell to 42% in 2020.

Meanwhile, the share of aggregate income accounted for by upper-income households has increased steadily, from 29% in 1970 to 50% in 2020. Part of this increase reflects the rising share of adults who are in the upper-income tier.

The share of U.S. aggregate income held by lower-income households edged down from 10% to 8% over these five decades, even though the proportion of adults living in lower-income households increased over this period.

Older Americans and Black adults made the greatest progress up the income ladder from 1971 to 2021. Among adults overall, the share who were in the upper-income tier increased from 14% in 1971 to 21% in 2021, or by 7 percentage points. Meanwhile, the share in the lower-income tier increased from 25% to 29%, or by 4 points. On balance, this represented a net gain of 3 percentage points in income status for all adults.

Those ages 65 and older made the most notable progress up the income ladder from 1971 to 2021. They increased their share in the upper-income tier while reducing their share in the lower-income tier, resulting in a net gain of 25 points. Progress among adults 65 and older was likely driven by an increase in labor force participation , rising educational levels and by the role of Social Security payments in reducing poverty.

Black adults, as well as married men and women, were also among the biggest gainers from 1971 to 2021, with net increases ranging from 12 to 14 percentage points.

On the other hand, not having at least a bachelor’s degree resulted in a notable degree of economic regression over this period. Adults with a high school diploma or less education, as well as those with some college experience but no degree, saw sizable increases in their shares in the lower-income tier in the past five decades. Although no single group of adults by education category moved up the income ladder from 1971 to 2021, adults overall realized gains by boosting their education levels . The share of adults 25 and older who had completed at least four years of college stood at 38% in 2021, compared with only 11% in 1971.

Progress up the income ladder for a demographic group does not necessarily signal its economic status in comparison with other groups at a given point in time. For example, in 2021, adults ages 65 and older and Black adults were still more likely than many other groups to be lower income, and less likely to be middle or upper income.

Married adults and those in multi-earner households made more progress up the income ladder from 1971 to 2021 than their immediate counterparts. Generally, partnered adults have better outcomes on a range of economic outcomes than the unpartnered. One reason is that marriage is increasingly linked to educational attainment , which bears fruit in terms of higher incomes.

Married men and women were distributed across the income tiers identically to each other in both 1971 and 2021. Both groups nearly doubled their shares in the upper-income tier in the past five decades, from 14% in 1971 to 27% in 2021. And neither group experienced an increase in the share in the lower-income tier.

Unmarried men and women were much more likely than their married counterparts to be in the lower-income tier in 2021. And unmarried men, in particular, experienced a sizable increase in their share in the lower-income tier from 1971 t0 2021 and a similarly large decrease in their share in the middle-income tier. Nonetheless, unmarried men are less likely than unmarried women to be lower income and more likely to be middle income.

Adults in households with more than one earner fare much better economically than adults in households with only one earner. In 2021, some 20% of adults in multi-earner households were in the lower-income tier, compared with 53% of adults in single-earner households. Also, adults in multi-earner households were more than twice as likely as adults in single-earner households to be in the upper-income tier in 2021. In the long haul, adults in single-earner households are among the groups who slid down the income ladder the most from 1971 to 2021.

Despite progress, Black and Hispanic adults trail behind other groups in their economic status. Although Black adults made some of the biggest strides up the income tiers from 1971 to 2021, they, along with Hispanic adults, are more likely to be in the lower-income tier than are White or Asian adults. About 40% of both Black and Hispanic adults were lower income in 2021, compared with 24% of White adults and 22% of Asian adults.

Black adults are the only major racial and ethnic group that did not experience a decrease in its middle-class share, which stood at 47% in 2021, about the same as in 1971. White adults are the only group in which more than half (52%) lived in middle-class households in 2021, albeit after declining from 63% in 1971. At the top end, only about one-in-ten Black and Hispanic adults were upper income in 2021, compared with one-in-four or more White and Asian adults.

The relative economic status of men and women has changed little from 1971 to 2021. Both experienced similar percentage point increases in the shares in the lower- and upper-income tiers, and both saw double-digit decreases in the shares who are middle class. Women remained more likely than men to live in lower-income households in 2021 (31% vs. 26%).

Adults 65 and older continue to lag economically, despite decades of progress. The share of adults ages 65 and older in the lower-income tier fell from 54% in 1971 to 37% in 2021. Their share in the middle class rose from 39% to 47% and their share in the upper-income tier increased from 7% to 16%. However, adults 65 and older are the only age group in which more than one-in-three adults are in lower-income households, and they are much less likely than adults ages 30 to 44 – as well as those ages 45 to 64 – to be in the upper-income tier.

All other age groups experienced an increase in the shares who are lower income from 1971 to 2021, as well as a decrease in the shares who are middle income. But they also saw increases in the shares who are upper income. Among adults ages 30 to 44, for instance, the share in upper-income households almost doubled, from 12% in 1971 to 21% in 2021.

There is a sizable and growing income gap between adults with a bachelor’s degree and those with lower levels of education. In 2021, about four-in-ten adults with at least a bachelor’s degree (39%) were in the upper-income tier, compared with 16% or less among those without a bachelor’s degree. The share of adults in the upper-income tier with at least a bachelor’s degree edged up from 1971 to 2021, while the share without a bachelor’s degree either edged down or held constant.

About half or a little more of adults with either some college education or a high school diploma only were in the middle class in 2021. But these two groups, along with those with less than a high school education, experienced notable drops in their middle class shares from 1971 to 2021 – and notable increases in the shares in the lower-income tier. In 2021, about four-in-ten adults with only a high school diploma or its equivalent (39%) were in the lower-income tier, about double the share in 1971.

Note: Here is the methodology for this analysis.

• Economic Inequality
• Income & Wages
• Middle Class

1 in 10: Redefining the Asian American Dream (Short Film)

The hardships and dreams of asian americans living in poverty, a booming u.s. stock market doesn’t benefit all racial and ethnic groups equally, black americans’ views on success in the u.s., wealth surged in the pandemic, but debt endures for poorer black and hispanic families, 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