THEORIES OF INQUIRY
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325285640
A Framework for Identifying Research Gap in Social Sciences: Evidence from
the Past
Article · May 2018
CITATION
1 READS
9,830
1 author:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Knowledge Management Orientation View project
Heywood Case: Possible Causes and Solutions View project
Rayees Farooq
Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati
18 PUBLICATIONS 140 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Rayees Farooq on 22 May 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Au th
or C
op y
67Research Note© 2017 IUP. All Rights Reserved.
A Framework for Identifying Research Gap in Social Sciences:
Evidence from the Past
Research gap is a researchquestion which has not beenaddressed properly. Researchers and academicians often find
it difficult to identify the research gap in
the literature in their respective fields.
Exploring the research gap is one of the
most difficult tasks for researchers who
are novice or who are at the preliminary
stage of their research.
According to Carey et al. (2011)
“Audiences including researchers,
funders, clinicians, advocates, and
patients could use information about
prioritized research gaps to understand
areas of uncertainty and more quickly
initiate studies”. Robinson et al. (2011,
p. 1325) opined that “the clear and
explicit identification of research gaps is
a necessary step in developing a
research agenda, including decisions
about funding and the design of
informative studies”. Identifying research
gap from the literature is common
practice but criteria used seems to be
ambiguous and vague. According to
Carey et al. (2011) “A survey of 64 US
and international systematic review
organizations found that only 5/37
respondents reported a formal process
for the identification of research gaps
and/or needs”. Robinson et al. (2011)
Research Note
suggested the reasons for research gap
including insufficient or imprecise
information, biased information,
inconsistency or unknown consistency
and not the right information.
Research gap analysis is ambiguous
and equivocal for novice, young
researchers as they find it challenging
to explore the research gap because of
lack of criteria or predetermined
procedures. For example, identifying the
broad area and then selecting the
specific area can lead to the problem
identification.
The objective of the study is to
suggest a framework for identifying
research gap. The study also suggested
propositions based on each dimension
of research gap analysis. The present
study also proposed an updated process
of research gap analysis.
The study was exploratory in nature
and is based on systematic review of the
literature. The methodology proposed
for the study was adopted from
(Tranfield et al., 2003). According to
Tranfield et al. (2003, p. 208) “in
management research, the literature review process is a key tool, used to
manage the diversity of knowledge for a specific academic inquiry”.
Au th
or C
op y
The IUP Journal of Management Research, Vol. XVI, No. 4, 201768
The methodology was planned in a systematic manner including the development of a protocol for review,
identification of studies using keyword search, selection of studies and reporting of studies. Inclusion and
exclusion criteria were adopted to enhance the quality of the review. The decision regarding inclusion and
exclusion of studies was based on the relevance of the study. Studies were explored from various databases including Google Scholar and ProQuest in order to reduce the interpretation bias. As Tranfield et al. (2003, p. 215) stated, “A systematic search begins with the identification of keywords and search terms, which are built from the scoping study, the literature and discussions within the review team”. Studies were explored using the keyword search, ‘research gap’, ‘problem identification’, ‘systematic review’, ‘meta-analysis’, ‘citation analysis’ and ‘content analysis’.
The objective of the paper is to propose a model of research gap analysis and what the dimensions of research gap analysis are and how research gap analysis leads to problem identification.
Figure 1: Process of Research Gap Analysis
Identify the Broad Area
Methods of Identification
Feasibility of Research Gap
Selection of Research Gap
Expected Outcomes
The present model suggested propositions based on each dimension, i.e., as to what extent these dimensions measure research gap. The paper also discussed the process of research gap analysis as shown in Figure 1.
Process of Research Gap Analysis There are various conceptualizations about the identification of research gap, viz., citation analysis, content analysis, meta-analysis, systematic reviews, future research and limitations as shown in Figure 2. There is no definite research gap process defined in the literature. The present research gap process is based on five elements including identifying the research gap, methods of identifying the research gap, feasibility of research gap, selection of research gap and expected outcomes. The following paragraph gives the detailed summary of each element of research gap as shown in Figure 1.
Identify the Broad Area: Identifying the research gap in the literature is still debatable as there is no consensus of opinion among researchers and academicians as how to identify the
Au th
or C
op y
69Research Note
research gap. To identify the research gap, the investigator needs to prune down his area of interest. For example, if your area of interest is marketing, you can further prune it down to a market orientation which can act as a starting point for further analysis. Research gap identification requires a lot of reading and analyzing the material from literature which has been made easy with the advent of some online databases, viz., ProQuest, EBSCOhost, emerald, and science direct.
Methods of Identifying the Research Gap: As Tom (2012) suggested, “As with all research, it is important to formulate questions that need further investigation and identify gaps in the literature that must be researched. First, you need to identify and select relevant information sources, which will mean
looking at books in the library, catalogs,
databases and on the Internet”. There
are various methods available for
identifying the research gap, viz., citation
analysis reports, meta-analysis reports,
content analysis reports and systematic
reviews. However, identifying the gap
with meta-analysis is least preferred by
researchers because of lack of
knowledge and expertise. Systematic
reviews are the most widely used
methods for identifying the research gap
whereby a researcher reviews and
analyzing the literature over a period of
time. For example, a researcher can
select a time period of 5 to 10 years
depending upon the availability of the
literature. There is a big gap between
theory and practice: theoreticians lack
the information about practical
applications of research findings while
as practitioners they have the practical
experience. Therefore, it is indeed useful
to look at the problem from theoretical
and practical perspectives. Another way
to look into the research gap is the
referencing, viz., forward and backward
Figure 2: Conceptual Model of Research Gap
Citation Analysis
Content Analysis Reports
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Reviews
Future Research and Limitations
Research Gap Problem
Identification P6
P5
P4
P3
P2
P1
Au th
or C
op y
The IUP Journal of Management Research, Vol. XVI, No. 4, 201770
referencing. According to Florida Atlantic
University (2017), backward referencing
“also known as chain searching, involves
identifying and examining the references
or works cited in an article. It is one way
to learn about the development of
knowledge on a topic. A researcher will
do this in order to study the origins and
development of a theory, construct, or
model of interest. Another reason to
backward reference search is to identify
experts, institutions or organizations
that specialize in a topic of research”.
Forward reference searching is when a
researcher identifies articles that cite a
particular article or work after it had been
published. This type of search focuses
on the publications created after an
initial original article or research
publication. Forward reference searching
helps a researcher expand their
knowledge on a topic by locating follow-
up studies. A researcher then can
identify new findings and developments
(Florida Atlantic University, 2017).
Feasibility of Research Gap: After
exploring the different methods for
identifying the research gap, the
researcher should emphasize the
feasibility of research problem or
research question. If the research
problem is not feasible then it will be
better to modify the research problem
or approach. If the problem identified
lacks the novelty due to confusing
literature available then step 1 and 2
should be revised. Feasibility of research
gap depends upon the availability of both
primary and secondary data, sufficient
literature available and statistical tools
available.
Selection of Research Gap: Selection of
research problem depends upon the
relevance and importance of the field.
Farooq (2013) suggested criteria for
selection of research problem, viz.,
personal inclination, resource availability,
relative importance, researcher
knowledge and practicality. Selection of
research problem is based on the
researchers own interest, relevance,
and contribution. The selection of the
research gap is based on the availability
of the literature, researchers own
interest and the contribution to the
concerned field. For example, if the
problem identified is, “Knowledge
Management” and the l iterature
available in the databases is limited, one
must rely on other resources, viz., books
and other resources. Selection of
research gap is similar to the decision
making process whereby decision is
taken based on the various alternatives.
Expected Outcomes: The researcher
should identify the expected outcomes
from his/her research gap. If the
research gap identified does not lead to
any expected outcome then the gap
identified is vague and indefinite. A
researcher must have a prior
understanding about the expected
outcomes from his/her research which
may lead to the definite contribution
towards the body of knowledge. If the
problem identified does not lead to any
contribution to the body of knowledge,
then one must revise the whole research
gap process.
Au th
or C
op y
71Research Note
Dimensions of Research Gap Analysis There is a paucity of research about
research gap analysis, there is hardly
any study which has conceptualized the
research gap analysis based on certain
dimensions and propositions. The
present study proposed selected
dimensions which reflect the research
gap as shown in Figure 2. Following
paragraphs provide the detailed
summary of each proposed dimension
based on comprehensive review of the
literature.
Citation Analysis: Citation analysis is a
most appropriate way of identifying and
analyzing the research gap. Research
papers which are highly cited provide the
basic understanding about problem
identification. According to Hoffmann and
Doucette (2012, p. 321) “Citation
analysis is a branch of bibliometric that
examines the citations found in
publications such as journal articles and
books to look for patterns of use”. Smith
(1981) stated that “The development of
citation analysis has been marked by the
invention of new techniques and
measures, the exploitation of new tools,
and the study of different units of
analysis. These trends have led to a
rapid growth in both the number and
types of studies using citation analysis”
(p. 85). Citation analysis is the dominant
way to identify the research gap using
Google Scholar, Scopus, Web-of-Science,
CiteSeer, SciFinder, Faculty of 1,000 and
scholarly databases including Ebsco,
ProQuest, Emerald, etc., to identify the
papers or studies with a maximum
number of citations. Analyzing the
citations depends upon the keywords used and the nature of the study. According to Hoffmann and Doucette
(2012, pp. 324-325) “The most significant component of analyzing citations is related to the variables that
each researcher chose to analyze”. Citations can be analyzed using the Microsoft Excel, Microsoft access, and
SPSS. Journal Citation Reports (JCR), Scimago Journal and Country ranking and essential science indicator can be used
to verify the citations of journals and studies. Therefore, following proposition was framed.
Proposition 1: Citation analysis is an
important predictor of research gap which leads to problem identification.
Content Analysis Reports: Content analysis is a research technique which is used in qualitative research to make inferences by interpreting the texts, images, and documents. Content analysis reports can be very supportive for identifying the research gap from the qualitative research. According to Duriau et al. (2007, p. 5) “Content analysis, a class of methods at the intersection of the qualitative and quantitative traditions, is promising for the rigorous exploration of many important but difficult-to-study issues of interest to management researchers”. Researchers and academicians often lack basic understanding about identifying and exploring the research gap using content analysis reports. According to Duriau et al. (2007, p. 23) “Content analysis implemented with care should be of particular interest for management researchers because of several factors,
Au th
or C
op y
The IUP Journal of Management Research, Vol. XVI, No. 4, 201772
including access to deep structures of managers, non-intrusiveness, analytical flexibility, and the ability to implement
longitudinal designs”. Therefore, following proposition was framed.
Proposition 2: Content analysis reports is an important predictor of
research gap which leads to problem identification.
Meta-Analysis: Meta-analysis is defined
as the process of integrating the findings
from previous studies by statistically
analyzing the literature. Identifying
research gap using quantitative
literature reviews including meta-
analysis is a most challenging task for
researchers who lack the basic
understanding of meta-analysis, i.e.,
how to do meta-analysis?. Meta-analysis
reports provide the overview about a
particular construct, i.e., how a construct
has been measured and what are the
different findings of that particular
construct. Exploring research gap using
meta-analysis is untapped and
unexplored due to lack of information
and knowledge about meta-analysis.
Therefore, following proposition was
framed.
Proposition 3: Meta-analysis is an
important predictor of research gap
which leads to problem
identification.
Systematic Reviews: According to
Green (2005, p. 270), “A systematic
review is a scientific tool that can be
used to appraise, summarize and
communicate the results and implications
of otherwise unmanageable quantities
of research”. A systematic review collects
and analyses the literature about a
research problem from various studies. Systematic reviews are quantitative in nature whereby researchers explore the
literature which may support or contradict a finding depending upon the nature of the study. According to Tranfield
et al. (2003, p. 208), “ The aim of conducting a literature review is often to enable the researcher both to map
and to assess the existing intellectual territory and to specify a research question to develop the existing body
of knowledge further”. Robinson et al. (2011) developed a framework to facilitate the identification and
characterization of research gaps from systematic reviews. Merely exploring the literature from databases does not lead
to a research gap, however, literature explored requires thorough reading and understating a particular problem or
research question.
State-of-the-art paper is another way
to look into the research gap. According to Patter (2016) “A state of the art paper is a variation on the history of the field.
It is always an argument; it takes a particular and arguably new angle on what has been written. A state of the
art paper is usually generated through a narrative or thematic review, and is usually very explicitly selective”.
Researchers emphasizing more on quantitative literature review requires knowledge about the process, i.e., how
to conduct the quantitative literature review? Which test to apply after collecting the studies from various
sources? and how to calculate the effect size? According to Christoph and Kranz (2015, p. 2) “There is a need for a
framework that helps scholars to identify
Au th
or C
op y
73Research Note
research gaps in qualitative literature reviews whose objective is to summarize extant theory to identify gaps in theory or research”. Therefore, following proposition was framed.
Proposition 4: Systematic review is an important predictor of research gap which leads to problem identification.
PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis framework was developed by Mother et al. (2009) based on the reporting of systematic reviews in a very comprehensive and systematic way. The framework identifies the records through database searchi as well as from other
sources. Screening of records after the duplicates have been removed and the number of records screened and excluded is noted. After the screening of records, full-texts are identified for eligibility and the number of full-texts excluded is recorded with reasons. Subsequently, a number of studies are included in qualitative syntheses and some others in quantitative syntheses as shown in Figure 3.
Future Research and Limitations: According to Price (2004, p. 66), “A limitation of a study design or instrument is the systematic bias that the researcher did not or could not control and which could inappropriately affect
Figure 3: PRISMA Framework
Source: Mother et al. (2009)
Records Identified Through Database Searching
(n= )
Additional Records Identified Through Other Sources
(n= )
Records After Duplicates Removed (n= )
Records Screened (n= )
Records Excluded (n= )
Full-Text Articles Assessed for Eligibility
(n= )
Full-Text Articles Excluded, with Reasons
(n= )
Studies Included in Qualitative Synthesis
(n= )
Studies Included in Quantitative Synthesis
(Meta-Analysis) (n= )
In cl
u d e d
E li g ib
il it
y S
cr e e n in
g Id
e n ti
fi ca
ti o n
Au th
or C
op y
The IUP Journal of Management Research, Vol. XVI, No. 4, 201774
the results”. Limitation and future research is a part of every research paper and thesis which is untapped and
unexplored. For example, if a researcher wants to study the relationship between knowledge sharing orientation and
business performance and he/she has not explored the mediating effect of social capital, this can be a part of future
research or limitation. Compilation of future research and l imitations of different research papers, articles and
theses and then combining all the relevant information and contents systematically can lead to research gap.
Therefore, following proposition was framed.
Proposition 5: Future research and limitations is an important predictor of research gap which leads to
problem identification.
Problem Identification: Problem identification is the outcome of research
gap or research problem or research question. Studies so far lacked the process of identifying the research gap
due to lack of methods and procedures. However, problem identification is not the end of research gap analysis, there are
other aspects which should be taken into consideration, i.e., what follows problem identification. The cause and effect
relationship between the learning orientation and business performance in a specific context can be a research gap
which ultimately leads to the problem identification. Therefore, fol lowing proposition was framed.
Proposition 6: Research gap is positively related to problem
identification.
Conclusion The study developed a framework to facilitate the identification of research gap from citation analysis, content analysis, systematic reviews, meta- analysis, future research, and limitations. The model identified certain dimensions (citation analysis, content analysis, systematic reviews, meta-analysis, future research, and limitations) which were poorly defined in the past literature. Dimensions identified can be very helpful in identifying the research gap which leads to the problem identification. Research gap is positively related to problem identification in evidence- based research. According to Robinson et al. (2011, p. 1329) “Knowing where the gaps are and the reason(s) underlying their existence could help in the translation of these gaps into specific research needs, and subsequently, in the priorit ization and design of the appropriate research to fill them." The present study provides a systematic way of exploring the research gap using citation analysis reports followed by meta-analysis and limitations of the study which may act as a reliable source of research gap analysis.
The study also found that PRISMA is the most widely used tool for identifying the research gap which is frequently used in social sciences especially in systematic reviews. However, the gap identified using the present model varies from using the other frameworks. The framework can be very helpful for researchers who are at the preliminary stage of their research especially M.Phil and Ph.D. scholars who lack basic understanding about identifying
Au th
or C
op y
75Research Note
research gap. However, the study is
applicable for researchers and
practitioners across various industries for
identifying research gap.
The study was based on a review of
the literature and limited studies were
selected for the development of a
conceptual model of research gap
analysis. Future research needs to
empirically validate the model by
identifying statements for each
dimension to know as to what extent
these dimensions reflect the research
gap.@
References 1. Carey T, Yon A, Beadles C and Wines
R (2011), “Use of Research Gaps
from Systematic Reviews to Inform
Research Priorities”, available at
http://www.shepscenter. unc.edu/
project/epc-use-of-research-gaps-
from-systematic-reviews-to-inform-
research-priorities/. Accessed on
November 7, 2014.
2. Christoph M B and Kranz J (2015),
“A Framework for Rigorously
Identifying Research Gaps in
Qualitative Literature Reviews”,
Thirty Sixth International
Conference on Information Systems,
Fort Worth, pp. 1-19.
3. Duriau V J, Reger R K and Pfarrer M
D (2007), “A Content Analysis of the
Content Analysis Literature in
Organization Studies: Research
Themes, Data Sources, and
Methodological Refinements”,
Organizational Research Methods, Vol.
10, No. 1, pp. 5-34.
4. Farooq U (2013), “Selection of
Research Problem”, available at
http://www.studylecturenotes.com/
socia l -research-methodology/
selection-of-research-problem.
Accessed on September 1, 2015.
5. Florida A U (2017), Guide to Science Information Resources: Backward & Forward Reference Searching , Available at http:// l i b g u i d e s . f a u . e d u / c.php?g=325509&p= 2182112
(Accessed on May 29, 2017)
6. Green S (2005), “Systematic
Reviews and Meta-Analysis”,
Singapore Medical Journal, Vol. 46, No.
6, pp. 270-274.
7. Hoffmann K and Doucette L (2012),
“A Review of Citation Analysis
Methodologies for Collection
Management”, College & Research
Libraries, Vol. 73, No. 4,
pp. 321-335.
8. Moeini S (2014), “6 (Very Useful!)
Approaches to Identify Research
Gaps and Generate Research
Questions”, available at https://
w w w . l i n k e d i n . c o m / p u l s e /
20140912150946-275561203-6-
very-useful-approaches-to-identify-
research-gaps-and-genera te-
research-questions. Accessed on
October 15, 2015.
9. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman
D G and The PRISMA Group (2009),
“Preferred Reporting Items for
Systematic Reviews and Meta-
Analyses: The PRISMA Statement”,
PLoS Med, Vol. 6, No. 7, available at
Au th
or C
op y
The IUP Journal of Management Research, Vol. XVI, No. 4, 201776
Reference # 02J-2017-10-05-10
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pubmed/19622511, Accessed on
October 15, 2015.
10. National Collaborating Centre for
Methods and Tools (2012),
“Framework for Identifying Research
Gaps”, available at http://
www.nccmt.ca/resources/search/
118. Accessed on December 9, 2015,
McMaster University, Hamilton, ON.
11. Patter (2016), “Writing a Publishable
Literature Review Paper: Four
Options”, available at https://
patthomson.net/tag/state-of-the-
art-paper/. Accessed on August 13,
2016.
12. Price J H (2004), “Research
Limitations and the Necessity of
Reporting Them”, American Journal
of Health Education, Vol. 35, No. 3,
pp. 66-67.
13. Robinson K A, Saldanha I J and
Mckoy N A (2011), “Development of
a Framework to Identify Research
Gaps from Systematic Reviews”,
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol.
64, No. 12, pp. 1325-1330.
14. Smith L C (1981), “Citation
Analysis”, Library Trends, Vol. 30, pp.
83-106, available at https://
www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/
handle/2142/7190/? sequence=1,
Accessed on September 13, 2016.
15. Tom (2012), “Identifying Gaps in the
Literature is a Critical Part of a
Review”, available at http://
www. l i t e ra ture rev iewo f. com/
identifying-gaps.html. Accessed on
September 14, 2015.
16. Tranfield D, Denyer D and Smart P (2003), “Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 207-222.
* Senior Research Fellow, Mittal School of Business, Lovely Professional University, Phagwara, Punjab, India. E-mail: rayeesfarooq@rediffmail.com
Rayees Farooq*
Au th
or C
op y
View publication statsView publication stats