Introduction

The detection and analysis of research gaps constitute a fundamental process for academic progress. One of the most frequently discussed gaps is the empirical gap, which is linked to the absence of empirical data for the confirmation or refutation of theoretical propositions. This issue particularly concerns doctoral and early-career researchers, who often find it difficult to identify and clearly define the gaps in their studies. The empirical gap acts as a catalyst for the development of new knowledge and opens pathways for original research.

Definition and Characteristics

The empirical gap refers to those situations in which there is a lack of rigorous studies verifying specific research findings. Often, it concerns hypotheses or theoretical approaches that have not been tested against real data. A proposition may appear theoretically convincing, yet without empirical substantiation it cannot be supported reliably. Thus, the empirical gap functions as a motivation for studies that aim to fill precisely this absence, transforming the weakness of previous literature into a starting point for new scientific inquiry.

Identifying the Empirical Gap

The process of identifying an empirical gap is based on a systematic review of existing literature. The researcher must determine where there are theoretical claims that have not been empirically tested, or where the existing studies show inconsistencies. At this point, it is crucial to make use of databases, scientific articles, and handbooks, in order to rule out the possibility that relevant research already exists which covers the supposed gap. A clear example of an empirical gap is when it becomes evident that no study to date has directly assessed a particular variable or correlation.

Verification of the Gap

Once an empirical gap has been identified, it must be verified. This means ensuring that there truly is no related research and that the gap is not the result of a misunderstanding due to an incomplete literature review. Literature reviews must be thorough and well-documented. If a gap is ultimately confirmed, then the researcher has a solid foundation for designing his or her own empirical study, which will address this deficiency and reinforce the reliability of the scientific discourse.

Writing Strategy

In writing, the researcher is obliged to present the identified gap clearly and to demonstrate its importance. The presentation should include a concise statement of the study’s purpose, an emphasis on the unexplored aspects, a connection to the relevant literature, and a demonstration of the value of empirical investigation. In this way, the text becomes persuasive and shows its contribution to scientific knowledge. Explicitly stating that very few empirical studies have dealt with a given issue, or that no study has yet attempted to evaluate it empirically, strengthens the significance and uniqueness of the new research effort.

The Role of Systematic Reviews

Systematic reviews are key tools in identifying research gaps. The methodical examination of existing knowledge helps formulate questions that remain unanswered and facilitates the design of new studies with greater accuracy. Reviews function as a mechanism that reveals the absence of empirical evidence and provide researchers with a framework for interpreting their findings. The detection of empirical gaps through systematic reviews supports the practice of evidence-based research and enhances academic rigor.

Conclusions

The empirical gap is not simply a theoretical matter, but a substantial challenge that drives research in new directions. Through its recognition, verification, and eventual coverage, researchers expand knowledge and provide more reliable findings. The existence of empirical gaps highlights that science is a continuously evolving process, where each answer generates new questions and each gap represents an opportunity for progress. Understanding and addressing these gaps is not only useful for the development of theory but also essential for the practical application of scientific results in real-world contexts.