Defining a Gap in the Literature: On Proving the Presence of an Absence
It’s standard in any study to point out the gap in the
literature you're seeking to fill. (Else why do the study—unless it’s a
replication study?) Like the hole in the donut, the gap is defined by what surrounds
it. Yet it’s common to read statements in the literature review such as (a) “I could
not find anything on [the issue] in the literature” or (b) “Very few studies,
if any, talked about [the issue].”
It’s not easy to prove a negative: This does not exist. Therefore, to define a gap, a precise and
exhaustive search is needed to identify all the studies around—but not
touching—your topic. Reporting what you did find, what is known (the donut) implies
what is not known (the hole in the
donut). The unknown is the gap, your topic.
The problem with (b) is that it leaves readers wondering
about what you know; it asks them to just accept your claim with no support. If
your search were thorough, you would know whether any or just a few studies
talked about your issue. If there were none, then, just as in (a), you’d define
the gap by identifying the studies around—but not touching—your precise topic. The
number of studies required to make that point could vary. However, if there
were some studies, then you'd need to
discuss only those studies in order to confirm for your readers that something was
indeed missing—your angle on the
issue.
If your search was precise—if you named all the databases you used (not just the names of portals, such as ProQuest or EBSCO), if you listed all the keywords (not phrases) you used, and if you specified your time range—then your committee (and future readers) could have confidence that you were in the right ballpark. If you then described what was known—using a broad set of studies or a handful of specific studies—then your readers could have confidence in your claim because they could see your process, and judge the data adduced, to “prove” a negative and reveal the presence of an absence.
If your search was precise—if you named all the databases you used (not just the names of portals, such as ProQuest or EBSCO), if you listed all the keywords (not phrases) you used, and if you specified your time range—then your committee (and future readers) could have confidence that you were in the right ballpark. If you then described what was known—using a broad set of studies or a handful of specific studies—then your readers could have confidence in your claim because they could see your process, and judge the data adduced, to “prove” a negative and reveal the presence of an absence.
.png "Tim McIndoo author image")
Tim McIndoo, who has been a dissertation editor since 2007, has more than 30 years of editorial experience in the fields of medicine, science and technology, fiction, and education.
Get new posts in your email inbox!
|
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
Thanks for this wonderful post on how to define the donut "hole." I have started sending this link to my students at the prospectus and literature review phase! It is known affectionately in our mentor group as "the donut post" ~Dr. Darci
ReplyDelete"The donut post"--we love it! Thanks for sharing, Dr. Darci. It's so great to hear from faculty and students who find our posts helpful.
DeleteYes. Dr. Harland just sent this to me. Thank you Dr. Harland.
DeleteGreat to hear--glad that you find this useful!
DeleteThank you for this information, however, it doesn't seem to give a good description of what a Gap is, only what it isn't.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment! Yes, the tricky thing about gaps is that they are "absences" (i.e., things that are "not"), and thus frustrate attempts at positive definitions.
DeleteThank you so much for this post, it really clarified the concept of "gaps in literature" for me and it gives me more of a point of focus when researching literature.
ReplyDeleteYou're welcome! We're glad that our post was helpful for you. You can find more information on literature reviews on our website: http://bit.ly/2ry7Aqo
DeleteI have a question regarding the size of the 'hole'. One of the Walden Webinars that I listened to described defining the problem as a 'focusing-in'. The example used was 'High School Drug Use', reducing to 'Drug Use Amongst High School Athletes', then again to 'Marijuana Use Amongst High School Athletes', and again to 'Marijuana Use Amongst Black High School Athletes' and finally to 'Marijuana Use Amongst Black High School Athletes in a Specific State'. As the problem becomes more and more granular, does that mean the 'hole' can be smaller and smaller - i.e. if nothing specifically covers the very refined problem - is that a gap? Or, are other studies (perhaps covering 'Marijuana Use Amongst High School Athletes') regarded as generalisable to the more detailed issue? So, how big does the donut hole need to be?
ReplyDeleteThis is a great question! The general answer is that a "hole" or gap can be very narrow and specific. This can be helpful for many scholars because it directs the research question in a very clear way. In the example you gave, there are many many research questions about "drug use among high schoolers" but there are fewer possible research questions for "marijuana use among Black high school athletes in Michigan." So yes, the hole can become smaller and smaller and that can really benefit the proposed research.
DeleteNow the more specific answer is - for your research, it is best to work with your direct team to determine how general vs. specific your research gap should be. Your instructor, chair, and committee are all experts in the field and can best guide your choice of how specific you should get. I hope that helps! If you need more follow-up on this, please email writingsupport@waldenu.edu