what is gap identification in literature review

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

Implications in Research – Types, Examples and...

Significance of the Study – Examples and Writing...

Research Paper Conclusion – Writing Guide and...

Data Interpretation – Process, Methods and...

Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and...

Research Results Section – Writing Guide and...

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.

Robinson KA, Saldanha IJ, Mckoy NA. Frameworks for Determining Research Gaps During Systematic Reviews [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2011 Jun. (Methods Future Research Needs Reports, No. 2.)

Cover of Frameworks for Determining Research Gaps During Systematic Reviews

Frameworks for Determining Research Gaps During Systematic Reviews [Internet].

We used multiple resources and sought different perspectives to develop a framework for the identification of research gaps. We carried out six steps. We first attempted to identify, enumerate and describe frameworks that have been used (steps 1 to 3). We then developed, tested and refined a framework (steps 4 to 6). The six steps are:

Focused literature review
Review of current practices of evidence-based practice centers (EPCs)
Review of current practices of organizations involved with evidence synthesis
Development of framework
Pilot test of framework
Refinement and finalization of framework.

Step 1. Focused Literature Review

We sought English-language articles that described the identification of research gaps, research needs, or evidence gaps from systematic reviews or related processes such as health technology assessments (HTAs). We completed a search of MEDLINE © via PubMed (April 22, 2010). We analyzed the terms used in eligible articles identified during preliminary searching to develop a search strategy. We combined controlled vocabulary terms and text words for systematic review, meta-analysis, evidence-based medicine, research needs, and research gaps to create the following search strategy:

((review literature as topic[mh] OR meta-analysis as topic[mh] OR evidence-based medicine[mh] OR systematic reviews[tiab] OR systematic review[tiab] OR technology assessment[tiab] OR technology assessments[tiab] OR meta-analysis[tiab] OR meta-analyses[tiab]) AND (research needs[tiab] OR gaps[tiab] OR research priorities[tiab])).

All search results were imported into a database maintained in reference management software (ProCite™, Thomson Reuters, New York, NY). A custom work form was used to track the searching and screening processes. All citations were screened for eligibility at the title and abstract level by one reviewer. Citations deemed eligible or of unclear eligibility were reviewed by a second reviewer. We obtained full-text articles of citations confirmed as eligible or of unclear eligibility. These full-text articles were then independently screened by two reviewers. Disagreements concerning eligibility were resolved by consensus or by a third reviewer. We excluded citations from further consideration if they:

Were not in English;
Did not have an objective to identify research gaps/needs;
Did not use a systematic review or similar process to identify research gaps/needs;
Did not include a description of methods or process for identifying research gaps/needs; or
Were otherwise eligible but used guidelines as basis for identification of research gaps/needs.

We scanned the reference lists of included articles. From each included article we abstracted the topic area and the method of identifying research gaps/needs that was described in the text or figures. We also abstracted the organizing principle(s) that was (were) used to identify research gaps/needs.

Step 2. Review of Current Practices of Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs)

Audit of evidence reports from epcs.

We searched the AHRQ website ( http://www.ahrq.gov/ ) for evidence reports that satisfied the following criteria (as of April 12, 2010):

Published in 2008 or later;
Classified as “Clinical” or “Health Care Services” (we did not consider “Technical” reports); and
Produced by an EPC that is part of AHRQ’s EPC program between 2007 and 2012.

We randomly selected one report if there was more than one report that satisfied the above criteria from the same EPC. One team member abstracted the following data from each of the evidence reports using a form designed in Excel (Microsoft™, Redmond, WA) (see Appendix B for data abstraction form):

Whether or not the terms research gaps/needs were defined;
Whether or not there was a description of how research gaps/needs were identified;
Whether or not there was an explicit framework/set of organizing principles used for the identification of research gaps/needs;
Whether or not research gaps/needs were presented;
Location(s) of presentation of research gaps/needs in the report; and
How research gaps/needs were presented (e.g., an unordered list, separated by key question, separated by type of study, as a figure/conceptual framework).

Verification of Abstracted Information

We contacted the EPCs that produced the evidence reports selected for abstraction. We contacted the primary author of the evidence report. If it was unclear who the primary author was, or if we were not able to contact the primary author, we contacted the current director of the EPC that produced the report. We provided a summary of what was abstracted from the report and asked for any corrections and clarifications. If no explicit framework was identified in our review of the report, we asked if the EPC had implemented a process since the publication of the report. If so, the EPC was asked to provide a description of the process and to indicate when it was implemented. Each EPC was contacted via email.

Step 3. Review of Current Practices of Organizations Involved With Evidence Synthesis

We identified organizations that develop systematic reviews or related products such as HTAs. We compiled a list by pooling together organizations from the following two sources:

All current member organizations of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) (as listed on the INAHTA website http://www.inahta.org/ on April 27, 2010); and
All current member organizations of the Guidelines International Network (G-I-N) from the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), Canada, and Australia that are involved with systematic reviews, technology assessments (TA), or cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) (as listed on the G-I-N website http://www.g-i-n.net/ on April 27, 2010).

Each organization was contacted via email and asked:

Whether or not they have a formal process for identifying research gaps/needs;
When the formal process (if any) for identifying research gaps/needs was implemented; and
To provide a description of the formal process (if any).

Based on responses received from these organizations, we made independent determinations of whether the processes were formal or not. We determined processes to be formal if the organization stated that it had a formal process currently being implemented and if the process or method used was explicitly described. If formal, we assessed whether the process was directed at the identification of gaps/needs for primary research, systematic reviews, HTAs, and/or guidelines. We only included for further consideration the formal processes used by organizations for the identification of research gaps/needs for primary research.

Step 4. Development of Framework

We considered the various elements of research gaps noted in the literature and identified by the EPCs and organizations. Based on these elements and known important aspects of research questions, we developed a framework for the identification and organization of research gaps. This framework included an explicit determination and classification of the reason(s) why each research gap exists. We developed a worksheet to facilitate the use of the framework by investigators to systematically identify, organize, and record research gaps identified during the conduct of an evidence report.

Technical Expert Review

Once we developed the initial version of the framework, we sought feedback from two technical experts from our institution. We asked these experts to review the framework and the worksheet and to comment on the clarity and potential ease of use. We also asked them to provide general comments and suggestions for specific items that might need to be added, removed, or reworded. The framework and worksheet were refined after receipt of feedback from the technical experts.

Step 5. Pilot Test of Framework

Selection of epc evidence reports for pilot test.

We pilot tested the framework on two evidence reports not produced by our EPC. These reports were randomly selected from a pool of available reports from the AHRQ Website ( http://www.ahrq.gov/ ) which met the following criteria (as of August 02, 2010): published in 2008 or later; classified as “Clinical” or “Health Care Services” (we did not consider “Technical” reports); and produced by an EPC that is part of AHRQ's EPC program between 2007 and 2012.

Process for Pilot Test of Framework

Two team members independently applied the framework to each selected evidence report using the worksheet. The purpose was to assess the usability of the worksheet in abstracting and identifying research gaps. We decided to focus on the results sections because we wanted to simulate, as closely as possible, the process that investigators would follow in using this framework and worksheet. We envision that investigators would fill out this worksheet soon after the data synthesis phase, while writing the results section of the evidence report. Team members thus read the results sections of the reports to abstract individual research gaps. If necessary, team members read other sections of the reports. Team members also kept track of the number of key questions, number of research gaps abstracted, and number of gaps which were abstracted but could not be fit into the framework. We recorded the time taken to complete this process per evidence report. After reviewing the evidence reports and abstracting research gaps, we compared the lists of gaps identified by the two team members. We also compared the gaps we identified with those presented in the future research sections of the respective evidence reports.

Step 6. Refinement and Finalization of Framework

We refined the framework and the worksheet based on our results from the pilot test.

Cite this Page Robinson KA, Saldanha IJ, Mckoy NA. Frameworks for Determining Research Gaps During Systematic Reviews [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2011 Jun. (Methods Future Research Needs Reports, No. 2.) Methods.
PDF version of this title (561K)

In this Page

Focused Literature Review
Review of Current Practices of Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs)
Review of Current Practices of Organizations Involved With Evidence Synthesis
Development of Framework
Pilot Test of Framework
Refinement and Finalization of Framework

Other titles in this collection

AHRQ Methods Future Research Needs Series

Recent Activity

Methods - Frameworks for Determining Research Gaps During Systematic Reviews Methods - Frameworks for Determining Research Gaps During Systematic Reviews

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