Introduction

The concept of a research gap is one of the most significant issues that concern the modern academic community. The search for a gap in scientific knowledge is not a simple process, as for a considerable time there were no established frameworks guiding researchers toward identifying and documenting such gaps. What one researcher may consider a gap may not be regarded as such by another. This relativity creates uncertainty, especially for young scholars or doctoral students, who often struggle to clearly identify the point where they need to focus their research. Among the different types of research gaps, the methodological gap stands out as a particularly critical category.

What is the Methodological Gap?

The methodological gap refers to the shortcomings, limitations, or conflicts associated with the research methods used in previous studies. It arises when the chosen methodology influences the results, creating distortions or limiting generalizability. When studies in a field consistently rely on a single method, understanding of the subject may be restricted. Thus, diversification and enrichment of methodologies provide the opportunity to generate new knowledge while also avoiding biased or misleading conclusions.

Example of a Methodological Gap

A characteristic example concerns the field of Decision Support Systems (DSS). Arnott and Pervan (2005) point out that most studies focus on specific research paradigms, neglecting interpretive case studies. This creates a methodological gap, as the diversity of approaches is restricted and the potential for deeper exploration through qualitative and multidimensional data is limited.

Verification and Documentation of the Methodological Gap

Identifying a gap alone is not sufficient. Systematic verification is required to ensure that the gap indeed exists. Literature reviews serve as a key tool in this process, as they compile and analyze existing knowledge in a field. However, if the review is incomplete, there is a risk of overlooking studies that may have already addressed the gap. For this reason, researchers often need to search for relevant articles, databases, or even textbooks directly related to the issue. This process helps to avoid recycling outdated gaps and strengthens the validity of new studies.

Strategies for Identification and Writing

When writing academic work, the researcher must clearly justify the methodological gap. For example, they may highlight the absence of specific research designs or the over-reliance of a field on a single methodology. In this way, a bridge is created between theoretical justification and the new direction undertaken by the present study. The objective is not only to point out the limitation but also to propose an alternative that will expand or enrich the scientific field.

Conclusions

The existence of methodological gaps should not be considered an obstacle but rather a starting point for new research opportunities. Systematic reviews, combined with critical analysis, form the foundation for the development of evidence-based scientific knowledge. The process of identifying, verifying, and addressing methodological gaps leads to more mature and reliable research practices. In fact, such gaps are the driving force behind scientific progress, as they guide researchers toward new pathways, encourage them to test alternative methods, and contribute to the construction of robust and multidimensional knowledge.