Introduction

The concept of a research gap has long preoccupied the academic community, as it represents the starting point of every scientific study. Without the identification of a gap in knowledge, research risks recycling what is already known, without offering anything substantially new. However, what constitutes a gap remains vague and often depends on the judgment and perspective of each researcher. Thus, what one scientist recognizes as a gap may be considered already addressed by another, leading to differing interpretations and, in many cases, conflicting opinions. This relativity makes the detection of research gaps a demanding process, especially for novice researchers who often struggle to determine where the true contribution of their study lies. Within this context, several categorizations have been proposed to provide clearer mapping of gaps, with Miles’s (2017) model standing out as one of the most comprehensive examples.

Types of Research Gaps

Miles’s model identifies seven distinct types of research gaps that can guide investigation in new directions. These categories include the documentation gap, the knowledge gap, the practice-based knowledge gap, the methodological gap, the empirical gap, the theoretical gap, and the population gap. Each type has its own characteristics and requires a different research approach, while taken together they create a framework that allows a holistic understanding of the limitations as well as the potential of existing knowledge.

Documentation Gap

The documentation gap emerges when new research findings contradict previously established conclusions. For instance, a study may present results that support an innovative interpretation, but when compared with the broader literature, strong inconsistencies are revealed. In this case, the gap arises from the inability to reconcile new data with prior knowledge, raising questions about the validity of either the new or the older findings. Identifying such a gap requires a systematic analysis of existing research streams and careful synthesis of results in order to uncover the real conflicts.

Knowledge Gap

One of the most common gaps is the knowledge gap, which can manifest in two ways. On one hand, entire theories or datasets may be absent from a research field, leaving the area largely unexplored. On the other hand, existing literature may yield results that diverge from what was expected, creating the need for new research questions. The lack of knowledge is a key driving force in the production of scientific work, as it motivates the search for answers to issues that remain unknown or contested.

Practice-Based Knowledge Gap

The practice-based knowledge gap refers to the discord that often arises between theoretical knowledge and real-world professional practice. Many times, professionals in a field do not apply the practices proposed by the literature but follow different paths adapted to their needs. This discrepancy creates a divergence worth investigating, as it reveals the practical challenges encountered in real-life contexts. Understanding this gap can lead to an adjustment of both theoretical frameworks and professional applications.

Methodological Gap

The methodological gap occurs when different methodologies produce conflicting results or when research has been restricted to the use of one dominant method. In several cases, a phenomenon has been studied almost exclusively with a specific technique, leaving other approaches unexplored that could potentially yield new insights. Addressing methodological gaps is not only about selecting different methods but also about critically evaluating the outcomes that existing techniques have produced.

Empirical Gap

The empirical gap relates to the lack of adequate validation of theoretical proposals through empirical data. Frequently, the literature presents theories and hypotheses that appear interesting but have not been tested with rigorous scientific tools. This creates the need for studies that place theories under practical examination, confirming or refuting them. In this way, scientific knowledge gains a stronger foundation and greater reliability.

Theoretical Gap

The theoretical gap emerges when existing theories are insufficient to fully explain a phenomenon or when they contradict each other. In such cases, it becomes necessary either to develop new theoretical frameworks or to adapt the existing ones. Bridging a theoretical gap contributes not only to the understanding of a specific issue but also to the broader evolution of scientific discourse, paving the way for new approaches.

Population Gap

Finally, the population gap refers to the lack of studies on specific social, cultural, or geographical groups. Research often focuses on populations that are more accessible or considered more representative, leaving aside other groups that may display equally significant characteristics. Investigating these “invisible” populations broadens the scope of scientific knowledge and strengthens the ability to generalize research findings.

Conclusions

Mapping research gaps is vital for the progress of science. Through the different types of gaps described, researchers gain a tool to identify weaknesses in existing literature and to steer their studies toward innovative directions. Bridging these gaps is not limited to theoretical exploration but is directly connected to the needs of society and professional practice. In this way, research gaps, rather than being obstacles, become opportunities for renewal, advancement, and the creation of new knowledge.