How to find a research gap

Six types of gaps

1. Evidence gap. Studies exist, but the results contradict each other or are weak by design.
2. Methodological gap. The question was studied with one method; another approach may give a different answer, for example qualitative data where only surveys existed.
3. Population gap. The effect was shown in one group, country or industry and not tested in others.
4. Theoretical gap. The phenomenon is described, but there is no explanatory model, or two theories compete without a decisive test.
5. Practical gap. The principle is known, but implementation is unstudied: conditions, barriers, cost.
6. Empirical gap. The topic is discussed conceptually, but there is almost no data.

Where to look for gaps in the literature

• The limitations and future research sections of recent papers: authors name what is missing themselves.
• Divergent results between works with a similar question: different samples, instruments, definitions.
• Recent reviews and especially scoping reviews: they end with a map of gaps.
• The topic graph: clusters with many old works and no new ones, or thin links between clusters nobody has connected.
• Neighbouring disciplines: a method routine in one field may be unused in another.

A step-by-step way

1. Narrow the topic to a question. "Employee motivation" is not a question; "does remote work affect the motivation of junior IT specialists" is.
2. Collect 20–40 key works. Semantic search, backward and forward citations from anchor papers, recent publications.
3. Fill a table. Question, method, sample, result, limitations, what they suggest next. Gaps are visible in the limitations and next columns.
4. Find contradictions. Ask the sources where they disagree and why.
5. State the gap in one sentence. "Despite X, Y has not been studied under conditions Z". Check it is really unstudied: search again with the new wording.
6. Justify the significance. Why the gap matters and what changes once it is answered.

Common mistakes

• A gap that exists only in your sample of the literature: the works exist, but you searched with narrow terms.
• A gap without significance: unstudied because it does not matter.
• A gap too broad: "there is little research on the topic" does not justify a specific study.
• Confusing a gap with method novelty: a new tool does not by itself create a research question.