One of the most challenging and complex tasks of being a student or researcher is dealing with the research gap in your field of interest. At the beginning of the journey, the idea is clear, with a broad, compelling focus, but as you go further, the road gets rocky, and you have to narrow down the research subject to offer a defensible thesis or dissertation. In this article, we will explore the most challenging hurdle for any graduate student.
The anxiety and struggle are real and palpable. This is something every student has experienced at least once in their academic life. Annoying questions like Is my idea truly original? Does this work warrant a PhD or a Master’s degree? The answer relies entirely on one foundational concept: the Research Gap.
Read more: Everything About Research Interests
What is the Research gap?
In simple terms, the Research Gap is the intellectual cornerstone that makes your research valuable and worthwhile. This is the main feature of any significant academic contribution, whether it's a simple midterm paper or a doctoral thesis project.
By explaining the research gap, you can demonstrate that your work brings something new to the table or opens a new avenue for discussion. The research gap is paramount for reviewers to assess whether your work is merely a summary or a replication of existing studies, or whether it poses a necessary and valid question.
A clear, well-articulated Research Gap is central to your proposal and paper, as it can transform a vague research topic into a captivating dissertation and a strong justification for the entire project. The simple rule is to outline precisely what your scientific and academic community does not yet know and how your study can help address the deficiency.
What Defines a Research Gap? The Three Pillars of Deficiency
The research gap, also known as the knowledge gap, is the missing piece of information in a specific field or subject. A piece that is not fully developed and answered in previous studies. Moreover, sometimes the missing piece is a contradiction in findings or an untested application. These problems may have limited the field’s ability to draw robust conclusions on a specific topic or area. So you don’t always have to look for something unique that has not been studied before.
In many cases, you need to assess previous findings and add something new or even prove that the results and knowledge suggested by those studies were misleading. To identify this gap, you need high-level critical thinking, which requires synthesizing the existing literature to identify a deficiency.
A research gap typically manifests across three distinct, yet often interconnected, pillars of deficiency in the current body of literature. Let's check these three pillars to understand the process thoroughly.
1. The Knowledge Void
The knowledge void is the most common type of research gap. Many students have established their foundation on this gap, which describes a variable or relationship among several phenomena that prior researchers have not examined or have missed some essential aspects due to the limitations of the subject at the time of the investigation. In this way, you can show that your field of interest lacks data in many areas and requires further research to clarify the situation.
Example: Take the rise of a new social media platform as a highly influential phenomenon, but no empirical study has yet evaluated its impact on youth political, social, and personal engagement. This is where your research can be valuable, contributing to the knowledge needed to understand this phenomenon.
2. The Evidence Conflict (Contradictory Findings)
This is also a widespread case when the findings and outcomes of two students on one subject contradict. This research gap is called conflicting or contradictory results. For instance, study A might find a strong positive correlation, while study B reports a neutral or even negative relationship between two phenomena or variables. This is where data on the subject is uncertain and unreliable.
Example: These contradictory data leave the field in an ambiguous state. Now you can study and investigate each data point separately and conduct a new study to clear the air and draw a conclusion based on the latest research and reliable methods.
Moreover, sometimes these two contradictory studies can be reconciled by introducing a moderating variable. Explaining these moderating variables clearly can demonstrate why the relationship differs across settings.
3. The Contextual Limit (Restricted Generalizability)
The third rule and necessary feature of the research gap is context restrictions. This happens when existing knowledge is severely limited to a specific context, time, or population, which makes the outcome ambiguous and unreliable. The principle or theory has been proven, but only in a narrow setting, which raises concerns about the lack of data in other settings.
Example: A business strategy has been demonstrated to be highly sufficient for technology start-ups in Silicon Valley, but its viability has not been tested in small, non-profit organizations in rural areas. This is the narrow setting that requires you to add new research and broaden the applicability of established knowledge.
Looking for fully funded?
Discover PhD, Master’s, and Postdoc positions tailored to your goals with ApplyKite’s smart AI tools.
Understanding the 7 Core Types of Research Gaps
To move beyond the knowledge void, researchers need to classify and characterize the Types of Research Gaps with precision, enabling a targeted, theoretically rich research design. Let's explore the seven core types of research gaps. Understanding these types is highly effective and crucial for academic success and excellence. Bear in mind that these are the most common, and research gaps extend beyond these seven types.
1. Theoretical Gap
This gap arises from a fundamental shortage of an adequate theoretical framework in the field, which fails to adequately explain the phenomenon. Moreover, this gap occurs when a phenomenon is examined through a relevant theory that can investigate it thoroughly.
Definition: The current body of knowledge lacks theoretical grounding despite being descriptive or empirical. This means there is a need for a new and underutilized theory to apply novel insights to the article.
Example: One of the best examples of this situation is when examining employee turnover without applying the established Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model to interpret the findings, thus limiting the explanatory power of the study.
2. Empirical Gap (The Evidence Gap)
This research gap occurs when no tangible, reliable evidence is found in the field of study. There are many cases and research questions without empirical or factual evidence to support a claim. This is where a new approach, a method of gathering data, and even a new form of evidence can be valuable.
Definition: A hypothesis, theoretical claim, or definition has been widely asserted and accepted in a field but has never gone through a thorough examination with actual evidence and facts. This research gap examines the primary or existing data that are outdated or conflicting on a subject, and then offers a contemporary theory to conduct a synthesis study.
Example: For a long time, a teaching method has been known to be effective and highly influential for retention, but the only evidence comes from case studies rather than actual qualitative or quantitative research. This subject needs an empirical study with a large sample size and a control group to test the effectiveness and foundation of the teaching method.
3. Population Gap (A Crucial Secondary Keyword)
Many studies provide reliable methods and empirical findings, but the populations and relevant groups are not large enough to draw conclusions or make valid claims about the subject. The population gap recognizes a shortage of generalizability. This gap usually happens when specific and critical demographic, geographic, or organizational groups are excluded from the study and thus not represented in the qualitative data.
Definition: A population gap is a pervasive error in many quantitative studies: due to specific limitations, ideologies, or even gender discrimination, the vast majority of influential people are not examined. Like when there is a claim that remote positions are better for today's world, but it just tests male employees' opinions and excludes female perspectives, leading to unreliable findings.
Example: A study on the effects of remote work is based entirely on high-income, urban professionals. A population gap exists when applying the survey to low-income, rural workers, necessitating a new investigation.
4. Methodological Gap
This gap results from relying almost entirely on a single research design or data collection method, leading to a limited understanding. Therefore, there is not enough data and knowledge about the topic, which causes the gap. The new study not only applies new methods but also adds fresh, multifaceted data to the field.
Definition: a topic or area was only investigated through either qualitative or quantitative methods. The new study employs novel techniques and data, yielding new insights into the topic.
Example: A well-known study that has examined student stress only through self-reports, using (quantitative) data such as interviews, leaves a significant gap in qualitative data, which can be addressed in new research.
5. Contextual Gap
Contextual gap is the absence of testing or study of a topic or principle in specific environments (geographic, cultural, political, or institutional) where it has not been examined before. So the primary focus is on the research context, not the method.
Definition: Knowledge is established in Context A, but the relevance of that knowledge to Context B is unexplored due to salient differences between the settings.
Example: A prosperous public health intervention validated in Canada needs to be tested in a developing nation with a dramatically different healthcare infrastructure and cultural norms.
6. Application/Practical Gap
When there is a gap between academic knowledge or findings and practical, real-world applications or professional policies, this research gap occurs.
Definition: There is a plethora of theories and research on a topic, but no actual firsthand study or experiment in real life. So the gap here is doing the research in the exact context, whether social, political, or geographical, to see how the theory works in practical terms.
Example: A simple example of this gap could be a word-of-mouth theory or claim, such as that mindful eating improves health outcomes, examined with real people through qualitative and quantitative methods to test its validity.
7. Conceptual Gap (The Definitional Gap)
The conceptual gap is probably the least common among these seven and may be harder to indicate and find. This gap is rooted in a lack of clarity regarding the definitions, measurement, or conceptual boundaries of a key construct.
Definition: Critical variables are employed inconsistently across studies, or a new concept lacks the precise definitional clarity required for consistent measurement and research.
Example: Different researchers use different definitions for "organizational culture," making cross-study comparison difficult. A new study could focus solely on developing and validating a consistent conceptual model for the term.
How Can ApplyKite Help You Find a Research Gap?
If you are still baffled by the research gap and how to incorporate it into your research, use the ApplyKite AI tool, designed exclusively for academic purposes and educational excellence. There are many ways to use it, from getting feedback on your resume and potential research area to finding relevant studies and gaps in your field of interest. Plus, you can check the available positions and supervisors in your field and check their proposals and research requirements.
The ApplyKite AI tool is designed as a search engine specifically for talented students to help them chart their academic path and achieve their dreams and goals. If you are an international student looking for reliable sources and information about top-ranked universities, positions, funding, and scholarships, check ApplyKite’s platform today.
The Systematic Search: How to Find Your Research Gap in the Limitations and Future Research Sections
Identifying a solid and dependable research gap is not by luck, but rather by understanding the role of the research gap in a study. Not all questions and mistakes in a paper or article are research gaps.
Not only do you need to read many articles in your field, but you also need to investigate their research method closely and with a sharp eye, trying to figure out the missing points, which comes from a systematic, iterative literature review.
Your job is to map what has been done and see clearly what has not and why. Finding the gap needs a thorough investigation of variables, context, methods, and people engaged in the study. Let's check some quick steps and tricks to help you find the research gap faster and more systematically.
Step 1: A literature review must go beyond a summary and analyse patterns, disagreements, and absences in the study. You can start by mapping the field, meaning recording the key findings and other critical information, such as method, design, author, topic, context, and population.
Now you can easily spot the gap; for instance, when all studies on a subject use only qualitative methods, you have a methodological gap. Another example could be the limits of population: if all samples are urban or from a single region, you have a contextual gap. Finally, always remember to ask this vital question: What in the field remains unresolved due to these recurring limitations? The answer is the early form of your Research Gap.
Step 2: After completing the first step, it's time to locate the gap through “Hunting the FRIN” (further research is needed) in the limitations and future research sections. Usually, the author explains the limitations of their work at the end of the article, which is the best way to explore new topics and areas for future study. In top journals and academic theses, authors are expected to include the FRIN section and clearly explain it, so don't worry about not finding them.
Conclusion: The Significance of Originality and Filling the Research Gap
A substantial, clearly defined research gap is the most critical factor for thesis and dissertation approval and eventual publication. It moves your work from being merely an academic exercise to being a genuine contribution to scholarly knowledge.
By mastering the classification of research gaps and systematically targeting the limitations and future research sections of the literature review, researchers can confidently demonstrate their originality. Use the frameworks provided here to transform a broad area of interest into a focused, publishable study that successfully identifies and fills a critical research gap in the literature.
