IUP Publications Online
Home About IUP Magazines Journals Books Archives
     
Recommend    |    Subscriber Services    |    Feedback    |     Subscribe Online
 
The IUP Journal of Management Research :
Uber’s Competitive Advantage vis-à-vis Porter’s Generic Strategies
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Research gap is a research which has not been addressed properly. Resear-chers 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) suggested the reasons for research gap including insufficient or imprecise information, biased information, inconsistency or unknown consistency and not the right information.

 
 

Research gap is a research question which has not been addressed properly. Resear-chers 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) 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”.

 
 

Management Research Journal,Social Sciences: Evidence from the Past, A Framework for Identifying Research Gap, Dimensions of Research Gap Analysis.