further research in this field

Home » Future Research – Thesis Guide

Future Research – Thesis Guide

Table of Contents

Future research, also known as recommendations for further study, is an essential section in a thesis that outlines areas where additional investigation is needed. This section acknowledges the limitations of the current research and proposes directions for future inquiry, helping to advance knowledge in the field. By providing well-thought-out suggestions, this component enhances the relevance and value of your study, contributing to the academic and practical understanding of the topic.

This guide explains the importance of the future research section, its key components, how to write it effectively, and examples of well-crafted recommendations.

Future Research

The future research section is where a researcher identifies unresolved issues, gaps, or new questions that arose during their study. It highlights areas that could not be addressed within the scope or limitations of the current research and suggests topics, methods, or perspectives for future scholars to explore.

For example, if your research studied the effects of online learning on high school students, you might suggest future research examining its long-term effects or its impact on different age groups.

Importance of Future Research

Advancing Knowledge: Encourages the academic community to build upon your work, contributing to a deeper understanding of the topic.
Addressing Limitations: Acknowledges areas where the current study fell short, providing a starting point for further investigation.
Fostering Innovation: Suggests novel approaches, methods, or angles that could lead to breakthroughs in the field.
Improving Practical Applications: Helps practitioners, policymakers, or organizations by highlighting areas that require more evidence or exploration.

Key Components of a Future Research Section

1. acknowledgment of limitations.

Clearly state the limitations of your study that hindered a comprehensive exploration of the topic.

Example: “This study focused solely on urban schools, which limits its generalizability to rural settings. Further research should examine the impact of online learning in diverse geographic contexts.”

2. Unresolved Questions

Identify questions that your research could not address but are crucial for understanding the topic more fully.

Example: “While this study found a correlation between social media use and self-esteem, the causality remains unclear. Future research should explore this relationship using experimental designs.”

3. Suggestions for Different Methods

Recommend alternative methodologies that could yield different or more comprehensive insights.

Example: “This study employed qualitative interviews. Quantitative surveys with a larger sample size could provide more generalizable findings.”

4. New Variables or Perspectives

Propose additional variables, factors, or perspectives that future researchers could investigate.

Example: “Future research could examine how cultural differences influence the effectiveness of remote work policies.”

5. Longitudinal Studies

Suggest exploring the long-term impacts or trends related to your topic.

Example: “A longitudinal study tracking students’ academic performance over five years would provide valuable insights into the lasting effects of online learning.”

How to Write the Future Research Section

Step 1: reflect on study limitations.

Review your research process and results to identify areas that were constrained by time, resources, or methodology. Use these limitations as a basis for recommendations.

Step 2: Identify Gaps and Unanswered Questions

Pinpoint aspects of the topic that remain unexplored or unresolved, either from your findings or existing literature.

Step 3: Propose Specific Research Directions

Provide clear and actionable suggestions, ensuring they are relevant to your field and build upon your work.

Step 4: Justify Recommendations

Explain why the suggested research is necessary and how it could contribute to the field.

Step 5: Use Professional Language

Maintain an academic tone, avoiding vague or overly broad suggestions. Be concise yet specific.

Examples of Future Research Recommendations

1. education.

Study Topic: The Impact of Online Learning on Student Engagement Future Research Suggestions: “Future research should examine the long-term effects of online learning on academic achievement across various age groups. Additionally, studies could investigate the role of parental involvement in mitigating the challenges of remote education.”

2. Healthcare

Study Topic: The Effectiveness of Telemedicine in Rural Areas Future Research Suggestions: “This study focused on patient satisfaction with telemedicine services. Future research should explore its impact on clinical outcomes and healthcare cost reduction. Furthermore, investigating the barriers to telemedicine adoption in underserved communities would provide valuable insights.”

3. Environmental Studies

Study Topic: Renewable Energy Adoption in Urban Areas Future Research Suggestions: “Further research could analyze the economic feasibility of renewable energy adoption in rural settings. Comparative studies across regions with varying levels of policy support would also help identify key drivers of success.”

4. Business

Study Topic: The Role of AI in Enhancing Customer Experience Future Research Suggestions: “Future studies could focus on the ethical implications of AI in customer interactions and its impact on customer trust. Longitudinal research examining how AI adoption evolves in small versus large businesses would also be valuable.”

Tips for Writing an Effective Future Research Section

Be Specific: Avoid vague or general statements. Provide clear and actionable suggestions.
Align with Study Findings: Ensure your recommendations build logically on your results and limitations.
Consider Feasibility: Propose research directions that are practical and achievable within the field.
Emphasize Significance: Highlight the potential impact and importance of the proposed research.
Avoid Redundancy: Do not repeat ideas already covered in other sections of your thesis.

Common Pitfalls to Avoid

Overly Broad Recommendations: Suggestions that are too general lack value and direction.
Neglecting Feasibility: Avoid proposing research that is impractical or unrealistic within the field.
Ignoring Context: Ensure your suggestions are relevant to the scope of your study and field of inquiry.
Unclear Justifications: Failing to explain why future research is necessary weakens the recommendations.

The future research section is a vital component of a thesis, helping to guide the academic community and practitioners toward further exploration and innovation. By identifying gaps, addressing limitations, and proposing actionable directions, this section contributes to the ongoing growth of knowledge in your field. Crafting a well-thought-out future research section not only enhances the value of your thesis but also establishes your work as a stepping stone for others in the academic journey.

Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches . Sage Publications.
Flick, U. (2018). An Introduction to Qualitative Research . Sage Publications.
Bryman, A. (2016). Social Research Methods . Oxford University Press.
Babbie, E. (2020). The Practice of Social Research . Cengage Learning.
Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., & Williams, J. M. (2016). The Craft of Research . University of Chicago Press.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

Background of The Study – Examples and Writing...

Research Report – Example, Writing Guide and...

APA Research Paper Format – Example, Sample and...

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Thesis Outline – Example, Template and Writing...

Research Paper Title Page – Example and Making...

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.

Evans D, Coad J, Cottrell K, et al. Public involvement in research: assessing impact through a realist evaluation. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2014 Oct. (Health Services and Delivery Research, No. 2.36.)

Public involvement in research: assessing impact through a realist evaluation.

Chapter 9 conclusions and recommendations for future research.

How well have we achieved our original aim and objectives?

The initially stated overarching aim of this research was to identify the contextual factors and mechanisms that are regularly associated with effective and cost-effective public involvement in research. While recognising the limitations of our analysis, we believe we have largely achieved this in our revised theory of public involvement in research set out in Chapter 8 . We have developed and tested this theory of public involvement in research in eight diverse case studies; this has highlighted important contextual factors, in particular PI leadership, which had not previously been prominent in the literature. We have identified how this critical contextual factor shapes key mechanisms of public involvement, including the identification of a senior lead for involvement, resource allocation for involvement and facilitation of research partners. These mechanisms then lead to specific outcomes in improving the quality of research, notably recruitment strategies and materials and data collection tools and methods. We have identified a ‘virtuous circle’ of feedback to research partners on their contribution leading to their improved confidence and motivation, which facilitates their continued contribution. Following feedback from the HS&DR Board on our original application we did not seek to assess the cost-effectiveness of different mechanisms of public involvement but we did cost the different types of public involvement as discussed in Chapter 7 . A key finding is that many research projects undercost public involvement.

In our original proposal we emphasised our desire to include case studies involving young people and families with children in the research process. We recruited two studies involving parents of young children aged under 5 years, and two projects involving ‘older’ young people in the 18- to 25-years age group. We recognise that in doing this we missed studies involving children and young people aged under 18 years; in principle we would have liked to have included studies involving such children and young people, but, given the resources at our disposal and the additional resource, ethical and governance issues this would have entailed, we regretfully concluded that this would not be feasible for our study. In terms of the four studies with parental and young persons’ involvement that we did include, we have not done a separate analysis of their data, but the themes emerging from those case studies were consistent with our other case studies and contributed to our overall analysis.

In terms of the initial objectives, we successfully recruited the sample of eight diverse case studies and collected and analysed data from them (objective 1). As intended, we identified the outcomes of involvement from multiple stakeholders‘ perspectives, although we did not get as many research partners‘ perspectives as we would have liked – see limitations below (objective 2). It was more difficult than expected to track the impact of public involvement from project inception through to completion (objective 3), as all of our projects turned out to have longer time scales than our own. Even to track involvement over a stage of a case study research project proved difficult, as the research usually did not fall into neatly staged time periods and one study had no involvement activity over the study period.

Nevertheless, we were able to track seven of the eight case studies prospectively and in real time over time periods of up to 9 months, giving us an unusual window on involvement processes that have previously mainly been observed retrospectively. We were successful in comparing the contextual factors, mechanisms and outcomes associated with public involvement from different stakeholders‘ perspectives and costing the different mechanisms for public involvement (objective 4). We only partly achieved our final objective of undertaking a consensus exercise among stakeholders to assess the merits of the realist evaluation approach and our approach to the measurement and valuation of economic costs of public involvement in research (objective 5). A final consensus event was held, where very useful discussion and amendment of our theory of public involvement took place, and the economic approach was discussed and helpfully critiqued by participants. However, as our earlier discussions developed more fully than expected, we decided to let them continue rather than interrupt them in order to run the final exercise to assess the merits of the realist evaluation approach. We did, however, test our analysis with all our case study participants by sending a draft of this final report for comment. We received a number of helpful comments and corrections but no disagreement with our overall analysis.

What were the limitations of our study?

Realist evaluation is a relatively new approach and we recognise that there were a number of limitations to our study. We sought to follow the approach recommended by Pawson, but we acknowledge that we were not always able to do so. In particular, our theory of public involvement in research evolved over time and initially was not as tightly framed in terms of a testable hypothesis as Pawson recommends. In his latest book Pawson strongly recommends that outcomes should be measured with quantitative data, 17 but we did not do so; we were not aware of the existence of quantitative data or tools that would enable us to collect such data to answer our research questions. Even in terms of qualitative data, we did not capture as much information on outcomes as we initially envisaged. There were several reasons for this. The most important was that capturing outcomes in public involvement is easier the more operational the focus of involvement, and more difficult the more strategic the involvement. Thus, it was relatively easy to see the impact of a patient panel on the redesign of a recruitment leaflet but harder to capture the impact of research partners in a multidisciplinary team discussion of research design.

We also found it was sometimes more difficult to engage research partners as participants in our research than researchers or research managers. On reflection this is not surprising. Research partners are generally motivated to take part in research relevant to their lived experience of a health condition or situation, whereas our research was quite detached from their lived experience; in addition people had many constraints on their time, so getting involved in our research as well as their own was likely to be a burden too far for some. Researchers clearly also face significant time pressures but they had a more direct interest in our research, as they are obliged to engage with public involvement to satisfy research funders such as the NIHR. Moreover, researchers were being paid by their employers for their time during interviews with us, while research partners were not paid by us and usually not paid by their research teams. Whatever the reasons, we had less response from research partners than researchers or research managers, particularly for the third round of data collection; thus we have fewer data on outcomes from research partners‘ perspectives and we need to be aware of a possible selection bias towards more engaged research partners. Such a bias could have implications for our findings; for example payment might have been a more important motivating factor for less engaged advisory group members.

There were a number of practical difficulties we encountered. One challenge was when to recruit the case studies. We recruited four of our eight case studies prior to the full application, but this was more than 1 year before our project started and 15 months or more before data collection began. In this intervening period, we found that the time scales of some of the case studies were no longer ideal for our project and we faced the choice of whether to continue with them, although this timing was not ideal, or seek at a late moment to recruit alternative ones. One of our case studies ultimately undertook no involvement activity over the study period, so we obtained fewer data from it, and it contributed relatively little to our analysis. Similarly, one of the four case studies we recruited later experienced some delays itself in beginning and so we had a more limited period for data collection than initially envisaged. Research governance approvals took much longer than expected, particularly as we had to take three of our research partners, who were going to collect data within NHS projects, through the research passport process, which essentially truncated our data collection period from 1 year to 9 months. Even if we had had the full year initially envisaged for data collection, our conclusion with hindsight was that this was insufficiently long. To compare initial plans and intentions for involvement with the reality of what actually happened required a longer time period than a year for most of our case studies.

In the light of the importance we have placed on the commitment of PIs, there is an issue of potential selection bias in the recruitment of our sample. As our sampling strategy explicitly involved a networking approach to PIs of projects where we thought some significant public involvement was taking place, we were likely (as we did) to recruit enthusiasts and, at worst, those non-committed who were at least open to the potential value of public involvement. There were, unsurprisingly, no highly sceptical PIs in our sample. We have no data therefore on how public involvement may work in research where the PI is sceptical but may feel compelled to undertake involvement because of funder requirements or other factors.

What would we do differently next time?

If we were to design this study again, there are a number of changes we would make. Most importantly we would go for a longer time period to be able to capture involvement through the whole research process from initial design through to dissemination. We would seek to recruit far more potential case studies in principle, so that we had greater choice of which to proceed with once our study began in earnest. We would include case studies from the application stage to capture the important early involvement of research partners in the initial design period. It might be preferable to research a smaller number of case studies, allowing a more in-depth ethnographic approach. Although challenging, it would be very informative to seek to sample sceptical PIs. This might require a brief screening exercise of a larger group of PIs on their attitudes to and experience of public involvement.

The economic evaluation was challenging in a number of ways, particularly in seeking to obtain completed resource logs from case study research partners. Having a 2-week data collection period was also problematic in a field such as public involvement, where activity may be very episodic and infrequent. Thus, collecting economic data alongside other case study data in a more integrated way, and particularly with interviews and more ethnographic observation of case study activities, might be advantageous. The new budgeting tool developed by INVOLVE and the MHRN may provide a useful resource for future economic evaluations. 23

We have learned much from the involvement of research partners in our research team and, although many aspects of our approach worked well, there are some things we would do differently in future. Even though we included substantial resources for research partner involvement in all aspects of our study, we underestimated how time-consuming such full involvement would be. We were perhaps overambitious in trying to ensure such full involvement with the number of research partners and the number and complexity of the case studies. We were also perhaps naive in expecting all the research partners to play the same role in the team; different research partners came with different experiences and skills, and, like most of our case studies, we might have been better to be less prescriptive and allow the roles to develop more organically within the project.

Implications for research practice and funding

If one of the objectives of R&D policy is to increase the extent and effectiveness of public involvement in research, then a key implication of this research is the importance of influencing PIs to value public involvement in research or to delegate to other senior colleagues in leading on involvement in their research. Training is unlikely to be the key mechanism here; senior researchers are much more likely to be influenced by peers or by their personal experience of the benefits of public involvement. Early career researchers may be shaped by training but again peer learning and culture may be more influential. For those researchers sceptical or agnostic about public involvement, the requirement of funders is a key factor that is likely to make them engage with the involvement agenda. Therefore, funders need to scrutinise the track record of research teams on public involvement to ascertain whether there is any evidence of commitment or leadership on involvement.

One of the findings of the economic analysis was that PIs have consistently underestimated the costs of public involvement in their grant applications. Clearly the field will benefit from the guidance and budgeting tool recently disseminated by MHRN and INVOLVE. It was also notable that there was a degree of variation in the real costs of public involvement and that effective involvement is not necessarily costly. Different models of involvement incur different costs and researchers need to be made aware of the costs and benefits of these different options.

One methodological lesson we learned was the impact that conducting this research had on some participants’ reflection on the impact of public involvement. Particularly for research staff, the questions we asked sometimes made them reflect upon what they were doing and change aspects of their approach to involvement. Thus, the more the NIHR and other funders can build reporting, audit and other forms of evaluation on the impact of public involvement directly into their processes with PIs, the more likely such questioning might stimulate similar reflection.

Recommendations for further research

There are a number of gaps in our knowledge around public involvement in research that follow from our findings, and would benefit from further research, including realist evaluation to extend and further test the theory we have developed here:

In-depth exploration of how PIs become committed to public involvement and how to influence agnostic or sceptical PIs would be very helpful. Further research might compare, for example, training with peer-influencing strategies in engendering PI commitment. Research could explore the leadership role of other research team members, including research partners, and how collective leadership might support effective public involvement.
More methodological work is needed on how to robustly capture the impact and outcomes of public involvement in research (building as well on the PiiAF work of Popay et al. 51 ), including further economic analysis and exploration of impact when research partners are integral to research teams.
Research to develop approaches and carry out a full cost–benefit analysis of public involvement in research would be beneficial. Although methodologically challenging, it would be very useful to conduct some longer-term studies which sought to quantify the impact of public involvement on such key indicators as participant recruitment and retention in clinical trials.
It would also be helpful to capture qualitatively the experiences and perspectives of research partners who have had mixed or negative experiences, since they may be less likely than enthusiasts to volunteer to participate in studies of involvement in research such as ours. Similarly, further research might explore the (relatively rare) experiences of marginalised and seldom-heard groups involved in research.
Payment for public involvement in research remains a contested issue with strongly held positions for and against; it would be helpful to further explore the value research partners and researchers place on payment and its effectiveness for enhancing involvement in and impact on research.
A final relatively narrow but important question that we identified after data collection had finished is: what is the impact of the long periods of relative non-involvement following initial periods of more intense involvement for research partners in some types of research, particularly clinical trials?

Included under terms of UK Non-commercial Government License .

Cite this Page Evans D, Coad J, Cottrell K, et al. Public involvement in research: assessing impact through a realist evaluation. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2014 Oct. (Health Services and Delivery Research, No. 2.36.) Chapter 9, Conclusions and recommendations for future research.
PDF version of this title (4.3M)

In this Page

Other titles in this collection.

Health Services and Delivery Research

Recent Activity

Conclusions and recommendations for future research - Public involvement in rese... Conclusions and recommendations for future research - Public involvement in research: assessing impact through a realist evaluation

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

Suggestions for Future Research

Your dissertation needs to include suggestions for future research. Depending on requirements of your university, suggestions for future research can be either integrated into Research Limitations section or it can be a separate section.

You will need to propose 4-5 suggestions for future studies and these can include the following:

1. Building upon findings of your research . These may relate to findings of your study that you did not anticipate. Moreover, you may suggest future research to address unanswered aspects of your research problem.

2. Addressing limitations of your research . Your research will not be free from limitations and these may relate to formulation of research aim and objectives, application of data collection method, sample size, scope of discussions and analysis etc. You can propose future research suggestions that address the limitations of your study.

3. Constructing the same research in a new context, location and/or culture . It is most likely that you have addressed your research problem within the settings of specific context, location and/or culture. Accordingly, you can propose future studies that can address the same research problem in a different settings, context, location and/or culture.

4. Re-assessing and expanding theory, framework or model you have addressed in your research . Future studies can address the effects of specific event, emergence of a new theory or evidence and/or other recent phenomenon on your research problem.

My e-book, The Ultimate Guide to Writing a Dissertation in Business Studies: a step by step assistance offers practical assistance to complete a dissertation with minimum or no stress. The e-book covers all stages of writing a dissertation starting from the selection to the research area to submitting the completed version of the work within the deadline. John Dudovskiy

🚀 Work With Us

Private Coaching

Language Editing

Qualitative Coding

✨ Free Resources

Templates & Tools

Short Courses

Articles & Videos

The Research Gap (Literature Gap)

I f you’re just starting out in research, chances are you’ve heard about the elusive research gap (also called a literature gap). In this post, we’ll explore the tricky topic of research gaps. We’ll explain what a research gap is, look at the four most common types of research gaps, and unpack how you can go about finding a suitable research gap for your dissertation, thesis or research project.

Overview: Research Gap 101

What is a research gap
Four common types of research gaps
Practical examples
How to find research gaps
Recap & key takeaways

What (exactly) is a research gap?

Well, at the simplest level, a research gap is essentially an unanswered question or unresolved problem in a field, which reflects a lack of existing research in that space. Alternatively, a research gap can also exist when there’s already a fair deal of existing research, but where the findings of the studies pull in different directions , making it difficult to draw firm conclusions.

For example, let’s say your research aims to identify the cause (or causes) of a particular disease. Upon reviewing the literature, you may find that there’s a body of research that points toward cigarette smoking as a key factor – but at the same time, a large body of research that finds no link between smoking and the disease. In that case, you may have something of a research gap that warrants further investigation.

Now that we’ve defined what a research gap is – an unanswered question or unresolved problem – let’s look at a few different types of research gaps.

A research gap is essentially an unanswered question or unresolved problem in a field, reflecting a lack of existing research.

Types of research gaps

While there are many different types of research gaps, the four most common ones we encounter when helping students at Grad Coach are as follows:

The classic literature gap
The disagreement gap
The contextual gap, and
The methodological gap

Need a helping hand?

1. The Classic Literature Gap

First up is the classic literature gap. This type of research gap emerges when there’s a new concept or phenomenon that hasn’t been studied much, or at all. For example, when a social media platform is launched, there’s an opportunity to explore its impacts on users, how it could be leveraged for marketing, its impact on society, and so on. The same applies for new technologies, new modes of communication, transportation, etc.

Classic literature gaps can present exciting research opportunities , but a drawback you need to be aware of is that with this type of research gap, you’ll be exploring completely new territory . This means you’ll have to draw on adjacent literature (that is, research in adjacent fields) to build your literature review, as there naturally won’t be very many existing studies that directly relate to the topic. While this is manageable, it can be challenging for first-time researchers, so be careful not to bite off more than you can chew.

⚡ GET THE FREE TEMPLATE ⚡

Fast-track your research with our award-winning Dissertation Template .

Download Now 📂

2. The Disagreement Gap

As the name suggests, the disagreement gap emerges when there are contrasting or contradictory findings in the existing research regarding a specific research question (or set of questions). The hypothetical example we looked at earlier regarding the causes of a disease reflects a disagreement gap.

Importantly, for this type of research gap, there needs to be a relatively balanced set of opposing findings . In other words, a situation where 95% of studies find one result and 5% find the opposite result wouldn’t quite constitute a disagreement in the literature. Of course, it’s hard to quantify exactly how much weight to give to each study, but you’ll need to at least show that the opposing findings aren’t simply a corner-case anomaly .

3. The Contextual Gap

The third type of research gap is the contextual gap. Simply put, a contextual gap exists when there’s already a decent body of existing research on a particular topic, but an absence of research in specific contexts .

For example, there could be a lack of research on:

A specific population – perhaps a certain age group, gender or ethnicity
A geographic area – for example, a city, country or region
A certain time period – perhaps the bulk of the studies took place many years or even decades ago and the landscape has changed.

The contextual gap is a popular option for dissertations and theses, especially for first-time researchers, as it allows you to develop your research on a solid foundation of existing literature and potentially even use existing survey measures.

Importantly, if you’re gonna go this route, you need to ensure that there’s a plausible reason why you’d expect potential differences in the specific context you choose. If there’s no reason to expect different results between existing and new contexts, the research gap wouldn’t be well justified. So, make sure that you can clearly articulate why your chosen context is “different” from existing studies and why that might reasonably result in different findings.

4. The Methodological Gap

Last but not least, we have the methodological gap. As the name suggests, this type of research gap emerges as a result of the research methodology or design of existing studies. With this approach, you’d argue that the methodology of existing studies is lacking in some way , or that they’re missing a certain perspective.

For example, you might argue that the bulk of the existing research has taken a quantitative approach, and therefore there is a lack of rich insight and texture that a qualitative study could provide. Similarly, you might argue that existing studies have primarily taken a cross-sectional approach , and as a result, have only provided a snapshot view of the situation – whereas a longitudinal approach could help uncover how constructs or variables have evolved over time.

Practical Examples

Let’s take a look at some practical examples so that you can see how research gaps are typically expressed in written form. Keep in mind that these are just examples – not actual current gaps (we’ll show you how to find these a little later!).

Context: Healthcare

Despite extensive research on diabetes management, there’s a research gap in terms of understanding the effectiveness of digital health interventions in rural populations (compared to urban ones) within Eastern Europe.

Context: Environmental Science

While a wealth of research exists regarding plastic pollution in oceans, there is significantly less understanding of microplastic accumulation in freshwater ecosystems like rivers and lakes, particularly within Southern Africa.

Context: Education

While empirical research surrounding online learning has grown over the past five years, there remains a lack of comprehensive studies regarding the effectiveness of online learning for students with special educational needs.

As you can see in each of these examples, the author begins by clearly acknowledging the existing research and then proceeds to explain where the current area of lack (i.e., the research gap) exists.

How To Find A Research Gap

Now that you’ve got a clearer picture of the different types of research gaps, the next question is of course, “how do you find these research gaps?” .

Well, we cover the process of how to find original, high-value research gaps in a separate post . But, for now, I’ll share a basic two-step strategy here to help you find potential research gaps.

As a starting point, you should find as many literature reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses as you can, covering your area of interest. Additionally, you should dig into the most recent journal articles to wrap your head around the current state of knowledge. It’s also a good idea to look at recent dissertations and theses (especially doctoral-level ones). Dissertation databases such as ProQuest, EBSCO and Open Access are a goldmine for this sort of thing. Importantly, make sure that you’re looking at recent resources (ideally those published in the last year or two), or the gaps you find might have already been plugged by other researchers.

Once you’ve gathered a meaty collection of resources, the section that you really want to focus on is the one titled “ further research opportunities ” or “further research is needed”. In this section, the researchers will explicitly state where more studies are required – in other words, where potential research gaps may exist. You can also look at the “ limitations ” section of the studies, as this will often spur ideas for methodology-based research gaps.

By following this process, you’ll orient yourself with the current state of research , which will lay the foundation for you to identify potential research gaps. You can then start drawing up a shortlist of ideas and evaluating them as candidate topics . But remember, make sure you’re looking at recent articles – there’s no use going down a rabbit hole only to find that someone’s already filled the gap 🙂

Let’s Recap

We’ve covered a lot of ground in this post. Here are the key takeaways:

A research gap is an unanswered question or unresolved problem in a field, which reflects a lack of existing research in that space.
The four most common types of research gaps are the classic literature gap, the disagreement gap, the contextual gap and the methodological gap.
To find potential research gaps, start by reviewing recent journal articles in your area of interest, paying particular attention to the FRIN section .

If you’re keen to learn more about research gaps and research topic ideation in general, be sure to check out the rest of the Grad Coach Blog . Alternatively, if you’re looking for 1-on-1 support with your dissertation, thesis or research project, be sure to check out our private coaching service .

You Might Also Like:

How To Choose A Tutor For Your Dissertation

Hiring the right tutor for your dissertation or thesis can make the difference between passing and failing. Here’s what you need to consider.

5 Signs You Need A Dissertation Helper

Discover the 5 signs that suggest you need a dissertation helper to get unstuck, finish your degree and get your life back.

Writing A Dissertation While Working: A How-To Guide

Struggling to balance your dissertation with a full-time job and family? Learn practical strategies to achieve success.

How To Review & Understand Academic Literature Quickly

Learn how to fast-track your literature review by reading with intention and clarity. Dr E and Amy Murdock explain how.

Dissertation Writing Services: Far Worse Than You Think

Thinking about using a dissertation or thesis writing service? You might want to reconsider that move. Here’s what you need to know.

📄 FREE TEMPLATES

Research Topic Ideation

Proposal Writing

Literature Review

Methodology & Analysis

Academic Writing

Referencing & Citing

Apps, Tools & Tricks

The Grad Coach Podcast

43 Comments

This post is REALLY more than useful, Thank you very very much

Very helpful specialy, for those who are new for writing a research! So thank you very much!!

I found it very helpful article. Thank you.

it very good but what need to be clear with the concept is when di we use research gap before we conduct aresearch or after we finished it ,or are we propose it to be solved or studied or to show that we are unable to cover so that we let it to be studied by other researchers ?

Just at the time when I needed it, really helpful.

Very helpful and well-explained. Thank you

VERY HELPFUL

We’re very grateful for your guidance, indeed we have been learning a lot from you , so thank you abundantly once again.

hello brother could you explain to me this question explain the gaps that researchers are coming up with ?

Am just starting to write my research paper. your publication is very helpful. Thanks so much

How to cite the author of this?

your explanation very help me for research paper. thank you

Very important presentation. Thanks.

Very helpful indeed

Best Ideas. Thank you.

I found it’s an excellent blog to get more insights about the Research Gap. I appreciate it!

Kindly explain to me how to generate good research objectives.

This is very helpful, thank you

How to tabulate research gap

Very helpful, thank you.

Thanks a lot for this great insight!

This is really helpful indeed!

This article is really helpfull in discussing how will we be able to define better a research problem of our interest. Thanks so much.

Reading this just in good time as i prepare the proposal for my PhD topic defense.

Very helpful Thanks a lot.

Thank you very much

This was very timely. Kudos

Great one! Thank you all.

Thank you very much.

This is so enlightening. Disagreement gap. Thanks for the insight.

How do I Cite this document please?

Research gap about career choice given me Example bro?

I found this information so relevant as I am embarking on a Masters Degree. Thank you for this eye opener. It make me feel I can work diligently and smart on my research proposal.

This is very helpful to beginners of research. You have good teaching strategy that use favorable language that limit everyone from being bored. Kudos!!!!!

This plat form is very useful under academic arena therefore im stil learning a lot of informations that will help to reduce the burden during development of my PhD thesis

This information is beneficial to me.

Insightful…

I have found this quite helpful. I will continue using gradcoach for research assistance

Doing research in PhD accounting, my research topic is: Business Environment and Small Business Performance: The Moderating Effect of Financial Literacy in Eastern Uganda. I am failing to focus the idea in the accounting areas. my supervisor tells me my research is more of in the business field. the literature i have surveyed has used financial literacy as an independent variable and not as a moderator. Kindly give me some guidance here. the core problem is that despite the various studies, small businesses continue to collapse in the region. my vision is that financial literacy is still one of the major challenges hence the need for this topic.

An excellent work, it’s really helpful

This is eye opening

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Submit Comment

Print Friendly

“More research is needed” and other clichés

by kinesismagazine
Posted on January 26, 2018 September 19, 2020

Why is more research needed? This simple phrase can greatly affect the portrayal of scientific research, and we need to explore why.

Written by: Mariam Zaki

Art by: Yang Xin

How many times have you heard the phrase ‘more research is needed’? The phrase is so overused that in a simple Google search it was mentioned a staggering 1, 400,000,000 times! Narrowing this down to a stricter Google Scholar search, this number is reduced to just 6,590,000 results. Is this science’s most overused cliché, or do scientists actually mean what they say?

Even in the best of research papers, the concluding paragraph will most likely end with: ‘more research is needed’ or the paraphrase ‘further research is required’. To be honest, we may never reach an endpoint in scientific research, mainly because science is a continuous process (you can argue that this sounds like a cliché too). Scientists are constantly working to find out new information about things such as pioneering medications, our understanding of space, climate change, gravitational waves… the list goes on.

These are all growing fields of science, and there’s still plenty we need to discover. Besides, science doesn’t undergo a paradigm shift every day, so most of the ongoing scientific research has to build upon previous knowledge: the limitations of this can sometimes handicap the advancement of research in the field. In this case, more research is needed.

Clichés causing confusion and distrust

A recent piece of research published in 2014 stated that sweeteners may be a cause of diabetes, but the study was inconclusive and ‘more research was needed’. This potentially conveyed the message that the research was not worth the time, effort or money spent on it, since it didn’t come out with any definitive results or advice for the consumer. To a member of the general public, this doesn’t sound reassuring, nor does it provide a definite answer to the issue at hand. But for the scientist, there is no choice but to say ‘more research is needed’; their position as scientists means they should acknowledge gaps in the science and any uncertainties. It would be irresponsible not to.

Confusion in the media

The media (newspapers, television, radio etc.) is one of the main sources of scientific information for the general public, so it’s important that everything communicated is factually accurate and spreads the right message. A phrase like ‘more research is needed’ can potentially convey a message of uncertainty (even though uncertainty is an unavoidable part of science). As stated in the Journal of Experimental Psychology, the effect of uncertainty is amplified (to the audience) according to individual judgements about a particular science’s value. For example, psychology is perceived as the least reliable while forensics is perceived as the most reliable . Teresa Ashe, lecturer in environmental policy at the Open University, also found that sometimes journalists miscommunicate the statistical evidence of research and its degrees of ‘uncertainty’.

Confusion in politics

This leads us to the problem of uncertainty and how a statement like ‘more research is needed’ could affect evidence-based policymaking. Policymakers don’t have enough time to gather copious amounts of information before coming to a conclusion, as they have to make swift decisions about scientific research and its future impacts. Paul Cairney (professor of politics and public policy at University of Stirling) demonstrates that there are two ways that policymakers do this: 1) by using evidence which meets their targets, and 2) relying on their feelings and gut instincts to make a decision quickly. The ‘complex system’ of policymaking doesn’t allow time for uncertainty and waiting for the publication of more research; this means that some issues may be neglected, due to the scientific evidence not reaching the policymaker at the right time.

Science communication is key…

Simply put, it’s important for scientists to be the ones to directly communicate (either via their own social media or blogs) when, where and why more research is needed, and to reassure the public and policymakers that this is not a ‘redundant claim’ synonymous with uncertainty. It’s not enough to rely on science journalists to communicate science efficiently; scientists have a responsibility to share their research directly with the general public and ensure that science journalists get their message across correctly.

‘More research is needed’ shouldn’t be a worrying sentence: it just means that science is not finite, there’s still a lot more to find out. More research could be the difference between uncertainty and certainty, providing better scientific knowledge for everyone.

Factors Affecting the Performance of the Beef Value Chain in the Zambezi Region of Namibia

The adoption of generative ai in kenya: a critical analysis of opportunities, challenges, and strategic imperatives, the impact of university-industry collaboration on graduate employability after covid-19: a literature review.

SDGs in the Wellness- and Luxury Hospitality Industry after the COVID-19 Pandemics
Social Media Virality: Reaching the Tipping Point
Digital Technologies Supporting SMEs – A Survey in Albanian Manufacturers’ Websites
A Taxonomy of Knowledge Management Systems in the Micro-Enterprise
Immigrant Entrepreneurship in Europe: Insights from a Bibliometric Analysis
Slide Share

The future of research: Emerging trends and new directions in scientific inquiry

The world of research is constantly evolving, and staying on top of emerging trends is crucial for advancing scientific inquiry. With the rapid development of technology and the increasing focus on interdisciplinary research, the future of research is filled with exciting opportunities and new directions.

In this article, we will explore the future of research, including emerging trends and new directions in scientific inquiry. We will examine the impact of technological advancements, interdisciplinary research, and other factors that are shaping the future of research.

One of the most significant trends shaping the future of research is the rapid development of technology. From big data analytics to machine learning and artificial intelligence, technology is changing the way we conduct research and opening up new avenues for scientific inquiry. With the ability to process vast amounts of data in real-time, researchers can gain insights into complex problems that were once impossible to solve.

Another important trend in the future of research is the increasing focus on interdisciplinary research. As the boundaries between different fields of study become more fluid, interdisciplinary research is becoming essential for addressing complex problems that require diverse perspectives and expertise. By combining the insights and methods of different fields, researchers can generate new insights and solutions that would not be possible with a single-discipline approach.

One emerging trend in research is the use of virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR) to enhance scientific inquiry. VR/AR technologies have the potential to transform the way we conduct experiments, visualize data, and collaborate with other researchers. For example, VR/AR simulations can allow researchers to explore complex data sets in three dimensions, enabling them to identify patterns and relationships that would be difficult to discern in two-dimensional representations.

Another emerging trend in research is the use of open science practices. Open science involves making research data, methods, and findings freely available to the public, facilitating collaboration and transparency in the scientific community. Open science practices can help to accelerate the pace of research by enabling researchers to build on each other’s work more easily and reducing the potential for duplication of effort.

The future of research is also marked by scientific innovation, with new technologies and approaches being developed to address some of the world’s most pressing problems. For example, gene editing technologies like CRISPR-Cas9 have the potential to revolutionize medicine by allowing scientists to edit DNA and cure genetic diseases. Similarly, nanotechnology has the potential to create new materials with unprecedented properties, leading to advances in fields like energy, electronics, and medicine.

One new direction in research is the focus on sustainability and the environment. With climate change and other environmental issues becoming increasingly urgent, researchers are turning their attention to developing sustainable solutions to the world’s problems. This includes everything from developing new materials and technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to developing sustainable agricultural practices that can feed the world’s growing population without damaging the environment.

Another new direction in research is the focus on mental health and wellbeing. With mental health issues becoming increasingly prevalent, researchers are exploring new approaches to understanding and treating mental illness. This includes everything from developing new therapies and medications to exploring the role of lifestyle factors like diet, exercise, and sleep in mental health.

In conclusion, the future of research is filled with exciting opportunities and new directions. By staying on top of emerging trends, embracing interdisciplinary research, and harnessing the power of technological innovation, researchers can make significant contributions to scientific inquiry and address some of the world’s most pressing problems.