research gap finder

• AI membership
• Press Releases
• AI & NLP

Research Gaps Suggester

The Research Gaps Suggester is a cutting-edge tool designed to assist researchers in identifying research gaps in a given topic. By inputting the desired topic, users can generate a specified number of research gaps to explore. Whether it’s for a thesis, academic paper, or any research endeavor, this tool provides valuable insights by highlighting areas where further investigation is needed. The number of research gaps to be generated can be specified by the user, ensuring a customizable and efficient research process.

Check out more AI tools .

Sign up for Textify AI membership .

84 J Sector A Scheme no 71

Indore (MP)

India 452009

Email: [email protected]

For the People, By the People

We are democratizing the process of AI tool development by making it easier for ANYONE to build high quality AI tools that can be distributed and monetized through our AI membership platform.

The Research Gap (Literature Gap)

Everything you need to know to find a quality research gap

By: Ethar Al-Saraf (PhD) | Expert Reviewed By: Eunice Rautenbach (DTech) | November 2022

If 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.

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.

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 .

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

You Might Also Like:

32 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.

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.

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.

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.

• Print Friendly

Something went wrong when searching for seed articles. Please try again soon.

No articles were found for that search term.

Author, year The title of the article goes here

LITERATURE REVIEW SOFTWARE FOR BETTER RESEARCH

“Litmaps is a game changer for finding novel literature... it has been invaluable for my productivity.... I also got my PhD student to use it and they also found it invaluable, finding several gaps they missed”

Varun Venkatesh

Austin Health, Australia

As a full-time researcher, Litmaps has become an indispensable tool in my arsenal. The Seed Maps and Discover features of Litmaps have transformed my literature review process, streamlining the identification of key citations while revealing previously overlooked relevant literature, ensuring no crucial connection goes unnoticed. A true game-changer indeed!

Ritwik Pandey

Doctoral Research Scholar – Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning

Using Litmaps for my research papers has significantly improved my workflow. Typically, I start with a single paper related to my topic. Whenever I find an interesting work, I add it to my search. From there, I can quickly cover my entire Related Work section.

David Fischer

Research Associate – University of Applied Sciences Kempten

“It's nice to get a quick overview of related literature. Really easy to use, and it helps getting on top of the often complicated structures of referencing”

Christoph Ludwig

Technische Universität Dresden, Germany

“This has helped me so much in researching the literature. Currently, I am beginning to investigate new fields and this has helped me hugely”

Aran Warren

Canterbury University, NZ

“I can’t live without you anymore! I also recommend you to my students.”

Professor at The Chinese University of Hong Kong

“Seeing my literature list as a network enhances my thinking process!”

Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium

“Incredibly useful tool to get to know more literature, and to gain insight in existing research”

KU Leuven, Belgium

“As a student just venturing into the world of lit reviews, this is a tool that is outstanding and helping me find deeper results for my work.”

Franklin Jeffers

South Oregon University, USA

“Any researcher could use it! The paper recommendations are great for anyone and everyone”

Swansea University, Wales

“This tool really helped me to create good bibtex references for my research papers”

Ali Mohammed-Djafari

Director of Research at LSS-CNRS, France

“Litmaps is extremely helpful with my research. It helps me organize each one of my projects and see how they relate to each other, as well as to keep up to date on publications done in my field”

Daniel Fuller

Clarkson University, USA

As a person who is an early researcher and identifies as dyslexic, I can say that having research articles laid out in the date vs cite graph format is much more approachable than looking at a standard database interface. I feel that the maps Litmaps offers lower the barrier of entry for researchers by giving them the connections between articles spaced out visually. This helps me orientate where a paper is in the history of a field. Thus, new researchers can look at one of Litmap's "seed maps" and have the same information as hours of digging through a database.

Baylor Fain

Postdoctoral Associate – University of Florida

Our Course: Learn and Teach with Litmaps

From research discovery to gap finding

How do you find a research gap?

The aim of all research is to add to or enhance existing knowledge. Arguably, we can only achieve this once we understand the work that has already been carried out in a given field. There are varying opinions, depending on the field of inquiry and methodological approach involved, regarding the level of familiarity a researcher should have with existing literature prior to commencing fieldwork, however it is generally accepted that research should fill gaps in the literature. It is perhaps surprising, then, that so little is written about just how to find a “research gap” in the first place.

Finding the literature

The most obvious way to find a research gap is simply to read and analyse the relevant literature. However, this is easier said than done, as the volume of published literature can be staggering. Fortunately, there are some excellent bibliographic databases, which can speed the process of searching for relevant literature. Literature analysis may then be approached either qualitatively or quantitively.

Qualitative literature analysis

A qualitative analysis may involve the development of a concept matrix (Webster & Watson, 2002) or similar.

Figure 1: Example of a concept matrix (adapted from Webster & Watson, 2002)

Legend: O (organisation), G (group), I (individual)

The concept matrix assists researchers to organise the literature they have read, according to the concepts it relates to. It can be adapted, depending on the area of interest. In the example above, for instance, units of analysis are included.

Quantitive literature analysis

Quantitative analysis of literature may be carried out using a variety of tools, from systematic reviews to meta-analyses, citation analyses, and text mining (Marrone, 2017). Choice of tools may be determined to some extent by the ability of the researcher to acquire or access the technical expertise to leverage them.

Find the gap, or create one?

Reading and analysing the literature may reveal gaps which can be explored, however Alvesson & Sandberg (2011) suggest that research gaps may also be created by the researcher. By linking together work which has previously been considered separately, a researcher can uncover uncharted territory. In this way, opportunities to contribute to existing knowledge are constructed (Locke & Golden-Biddle, 1997) rather than merely identified.

What does a “research gap” look like?

Several authors have sought to characterise research gaps, describing the various forms they can take, whether considered from the perspective of objectively identifiable existing gaps in research (gap finding) or as opportunities to construct new “gaps” (gap creation). Some examples are summarised below.

Figure 2: Characteristics of research gaps (Click to see image bigger)

Gap-finding frameworks

Step-by-step guides to finding research gaps are hard to come by, however in the field of medical epidemiology, a framework for identifying research gaps from systematic reviews of literature has been published (Robinson et al., 2011). In this field, the PICOS framework (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Setting) is commonly used to characterise a research gap. Robinson et al. (2011) suggest that an analysis of the reason for the existence of the gap can further inform the development of research questions. The reasons elucidated by Robinson et al. (2011) for the existence of research gaps are similar to the characteristics of gaps described by other authors, as shown in figure 2 (Characteristics of Research Gaps).

There are many ways to go about identifying research gaps, perhaps so many that the options may on occasion be overwhelming. A considered approach, coupled with knowledge and utilisation of the tools available to assist in research gap-finding, is likely to result in improved research design.

• Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2011). Generating research questions through problematization. Academy of Management Review. 36(2), 247-271 [doi:10.5465/AMR.2011.59330882]
• Hallgren, M. (2012) The construction of research questions in project management. International Journal of Project Management, 30(7), 804-816.
• Locke, K., & Golden-Biddle, K. (1997) Constructing opportunities for contribution: Structuring intertextual coherence and “problematizing” in organizational studies. Academy of Management Journal, 40: 1023–1062.
• Muller-Bloch, C. & Kranz, J. (2015) A framework for rigorously identifying research gaps in qualitative literature reviews. International Conference on Information Systems 2015 [available at: https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2015/proceedings/ResearchMethods/2/]
• Marrone, M., & Hammerle, M. (2017). Relevant Research Areas in IT Service Management: An Examination of Academic and Practitioner Literatures. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 41, 517-543.
• Robinson, K. A., Saldanha, I. J. & McKoy, N. A. (2011) Development of a framework to identify research gaps from systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64(12), 1325-1330.
• Sandberg, J., & Alvesson, M. 2011. Ways of constructing research questions: Gap-spotting or problematization? Organization, 18: 23–44.
• Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), 13-23

Leave a Reply 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.

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

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Gen Intern Med
• v.37(1); 2022 Jan

Methods for Identifying Health Research Gaps, Needs, and Priorities: a Scoping Review

Eunice c. wong.

1 RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA USA

Alicia R. Maher

Aneesa motala.

2 Department of Population and Public Health Sciences, University of Southern California Gehr Family Center for Health Systems Science & Innovation, Los Angeles, USA

Rachel Ross

Olamigoke akinniranye, jody larkin, susanne hempel, associated data.

Well-defined, systematic, and transparent processes to identify health research gaps, needs, and priorities are vital to ensuring that available funds target areas with the greatest potential for impact.

The purpose of this review is to characterize methods conducted or supported by research funding organizations to identify health research gaps, needs, or priorities.

We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and the Web of Science up to September 2019. Eligible studies reported on methods to identify health research gaps, needs, and priorities that had been conducted or supported by research funding organizations. Using a published protocol, we extracted data on the method, criteria, involvement of stakeholders, evaluations, and whether the method had been replicated (i.e., used in other studies).

Among 10,832 citations, 167 studies were eligible for full data extraction. More than half of the studies employed methods to identify both needs and priorities, whereas about a quarter of studies focused singularly on identifying gaps (7%), needs (6%), or priorities (14%) only. The most frequently used methods were the convening of workshops or meetings (37%), quantitative methods (32%), and the James Lind Alliance approach, a multi-stakeholder research needs and priority setting process (28%). The most widely applied criteria were importance to stakeholders (72%), potential value (29%), and feasibility (18%). Stakeholder involvement was most prominent among clinicians (69%), researchers (66%), and patients and the public (59%). Stakeholders were identified through stakeholder organizations (51%) and purposive (26%) and convenience sampling (11%). Only 4% of studies evaluated the effectiveness of the methods and 37% employed methods that were reproducible and used in other studies.

To ensure optimal targeting of funds to meet the greatest areas of need and maximize outcomes, a much more robust evidence base is needed to ascertain the effectiveness of methods used to identify research gaps, needs, and priorities.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-021-07064-1.

Well-defined, systematic, and transparent methods to identify health research gaps, needs, and priorities are vital to ensuring that available funds target areas with the greatest potential for impact. 1 , 2 As defined in the literature, 3 , 4 research gaps are defined as areas or topics in which the ability to draw a conclusion for a given question is prevented by insufficient evidence. Research gaps are not necessarily synonymous with research needs , which are those knowledge gaps that significantly inhibit the decision-making ability of key stakeholders, who are end users of research, such as patients, clinicians, and policy makers. The selection of research priorities is often necessary when all identified research gaps or needs cannot be pursued because of resource constraints. Methods to identify health research gaps, needs, and priorities (from herein referred to as gaps, needs, priorities) can be multi-varied and there does not appear to be general consensus on best practices. 3 , 5

Several published reviews highlight the diverse methods that have been used to identify gaps and priorities. In a review of methods used to identify gaps from systematic reviews, Robinson et al. noted the wide range of organizing principles that were employed in published literature between 2001 and 2009 (e.g., care pathway, decision tree, and patient, intervention, comparison, outcome framework,). 6 In a more recent review spanning 2007 to 2017, Nyanchoka et al. found that the vast majority of studies with a primary focus on the identification of gaps (83%) relied solely on knowledge synthesis methods (e.g., systematic review, scoping review, evidence mapping, literature review). A much smaller proportion (9%) relied exclusively on primary research methods (i.e., quantitative survey, qualitative study). 7

With respect to research priorities, in a review limited to a PubMed database search covering the period from 2001 to 2014, Yoshida documented a wide range of methods to identify priorities including the use of not only knowledge synthesis (i.e., literature reviews) and primary research methods (i.e., surveys) but also multi-stage, structured methods such as Delphi, Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI), James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership (JLA PSP), and Essential National Health Research (ENHR). 2 The CHNRI method, originally developed for the purpose of setting global child health research priorities, typically employs researchers and experts to specify a long list of research questions, the criteria that will be used to prioritize research questions, and the technical scoring of research questions using the defined criteria. 8 During the latter stages, non-expert stakeholders’ input are incorporated by using their ratings of the importance of selected criteria to weight the technical scores. The ENHR method, initially designed for health research priority setting at the national level, involves researchers, decision-makers, health service providers, and communities throughout the entire process of identifying and prioritizing research topics. 9 The JLA PSP method convenes patients, carers, and clinicians to equally and jointly identify questions about healthcare that cannot be answered by existing evidence that are important to all groups (i.e., research needs). 10 The identified research needs are then prioritized by the groups resulting in a final list (often a top 10) of research priorities. Non-clinical researchers are excluded from voting on research needs or priorities but can be involved in other processes (e.g., knowledge synthesis). CHNRI, ENHR, and JLA PSP usually employ a mix of knowledge synthesis and primary research methods to first identify a set of gaps or needs that are then prioritized. Thus, even though CHNRI, ENHR, and JLA PSP have been referred to as priority setting methods, they actually consist of a gaps or needs identification stage that feeds into a research prioritization stage.

Nyanchoka et al.’s review found that the majority of studies focused on the identification of gaps alone (65%), whereas the remaining studies focused either on research priorities alone (17%) or on both gaps and priorities (19%). 7 In an update to Robinson et al.’s review, 6 Carey et al. reviewed the literature between 2010 and 2011 and observed that the studies conducted during this latter period of time focused more on research priorities than gaps and had increased stakeholder involvement, and that none had evaluated the reproducibility of the methods. 11

The increasing development and diversity of formal processes and methods to identify gaps and priorities are indicative of a developing field. 2 , 12 To facilitate more standardized and systematic processes, other important areas warrant further investigation. Prior reviews did not distinguish between the identification of gaps versus research needs. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-based Practice Center (AHRQ EPC) Program issued a series of method papers related to establishing research needs as part of comparative effectiveness research. 13 – 15 The AHRQ EPC Program defined research needs as “evidence gaps” identified within systematic reviews that are prioritized by stakeholders according to their potential impact on practice or care. 16 Furthermore, Nyanchoka et al. relied on author designations to classify studies as focusing on gaps versus research priorities and noted that definitions of gaps varied across studies, highlighting the need to apply consistent taxonomy when categorizing studies in reviews. 7 Given the rise in the use of stakeholders in both gaps and prioritization exercises, a greater understanding of the range of practices involving stakeholders is also needed. This includes the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders (e.g., consultants versus final decision-makers), the composition of stakeholders (e.g., non-research clinicians, patients, caregivers, policymakers), and the methods used to recruit stakeholders. The lack of consensus of best practices also highlights the importance of learning the extent to which evaluations to determine the effectiveness of gaps, needs, and prioritization exercises have been conducted, and if so, what were the resultant outcomes.

To better inform efforts and organizations that fund health research, we conducted a scoping review of methods used to identify gaps, needs, and priorities that were linked to potential or actual health research funding decision-making. Hence, this scoping review was limited to studies in which the identification of health research gaps, needs, or priorities was supported or conducted by funding organizations to address the following questions 1 : What are the characteristics of methods to identify health research gaps, needs, and priorities? and 2 To what extent have evaluations of the impact of these methods been conducted? Given that scoping reviews may be executed to characterize the ways an area of research has been conducted, 17 , 18 this approach is appropriate for the broad nature of this study’s aims.

Protocol and Registration

We employed methods that conform to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. 19 See Appendix A in the Supplementary Information. The scoping review protocol is registered with the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/5zjqx/ ).

Eligibility Criteria

Studies published in English that described methods to identify health research gaps, needs, or priorities that were supported or conducted by funding organizations were eligible for inclusion. We excluded studies that reported only the results of the exercise (e.g., list of priorities) absent of information on the methods used. We also excluded studies involving evidence synthesis (e.g., literature or systematic reviews) that were solely descriptive and did not employ an explicit method to identify research gaps, needs, or priorities.

Information Sources and Search Strategy

We searched the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. Our database search also included an update of the Nyanchoka et al. scoping review, which entailed executing their database searches for the time period following 2017 (the study’s search end date). 7 Nyanchoka et al. did not include database searches for research needs. The electronic database search and scoping review update were completed in August and September 2019, respectively . The search strategy employed for each of the databases is presented in Appendix B in the Supplementary Information.

Selection of Sources of Evidence and Data Charting Process

Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts and full-text publications. Citations that one or both reviewers considered potentially eligible were retrieved for full-text review. Relevant background articles and scoping and systematic reviews were reference mined to screen for eligible studies. Full-text publications were screened against detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data was extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion by the review team.

Information on study characteristics were extracted from each article including the aims of the exercise (i.e., gaps, needs, priorities, or a combination) and health condition (i.e., physical or psychological). Based on definitions in the literature, 3 – 5 the aims of the exercise were coded according to the activities that were conducted, which may not have always corresponded with the study authors’ labeling of the exercises. For instance, the JLA PSP method is often described as a priority exercise but we categorized it as a needs and priority exercise. Priority exercises can be preceded by exercises to identify gaps or needs, which then feed into the priority exercise such as in JLA PSP; however, standalone priority exercises can also be conducted (e.g., stakeholders prioritize an existing list of emerging diseases).

For each type of exercise, information on the methods were recorded. An initial list of methods was created based on previous reviews. 9 , 12 , 20 During the data extraction process, any methods not included in the initial list were subsequently added. If more than one exercise was reported within an article (e.g., gaps and priorities), information was extracted for each exercise separately. Reviewers extracted the following information: methods employed (e.g., qualitative, quantitative), criteria used (e.g., disease burden, importance to stakeholders), stakeholder involvement (e.g., stakeholder composition, method for identifying stakeholders), and whether an evaluation was conducted on the effectiveness of the exercise (see Appendix C in the Supplementary Information for full data extraction form).

Synthesis of results entailed quantitative descriptives of study characteristics (e.g., proportion of studies by aims of exercise) and characteristics of methods employed across all studies and by each type of study (e.g., gaps, needs, priorities).

The electronic database search yielded a total of 10,548 titles. Another 284 articles were identified after searching the reference lists of full-text publications, including three systematic reviews 21 – 23 and one scoping review 24 that had met eligibility criteria. Moreover, a total of 99 publications designated as relevant background articles were also reference mined to screen for eligible studies. We conducted full-text screening for 2524 articles, which resulted in 2344 exclusions (440 studies were designated as background articles). A total of 167 exercises related to the identification of gaps, needs, or priorities that were supported or conducted by a research funding organization were described across 180 publications and underwent full data extraction. See Figure ​ Figure1 1 for the flow diagram of our search strategy and reasons for exclusion.

Literature flow

Characteristics of Sources of Evidence

Among the published exercises, the majority of studies (152/167) conducted gaps, need, or prioritization exercises related to physical health, whereas only a small fraction of studies focused on psychological health (12/167) (see Appendix D in the Supplementary Information).

Methods for Identifying Gaps, Needs, and Priorities

As seen in Table ​ Table1, 1 , only about a quarter of studies involved a singular type of exercise with 7% focused on the identification of gaps only (i.e., areas with insufficient information to draw a conclusion for a given question), 6% on needs only (i.e., knowledge gaps that inhibit the decision-making of key stakeholders), and 14% priorities only (i.e., ranked gaps or needs often because of resource constraints). Studies more commonly conducted a combination of multiple types of exercises with more than half focused on the identification of both research needs and priorities, 14% on gaps and priorities, 3% gaps, needs, and priorities, and 3% gaps and needs.

Methods for Identifying Health Research Gaps, Needs, and Priorities

JLA PSP , James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnerships; ENHR , Essential National Health Research; CHNRI , Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative. Numbers in columns may add up to more than the total N or 100% since some studies employed more than one method

Across the 167 studies, the three most frequently used methods were the convening of workshops/meetings/conferences (37%), quantitative methods (32%), and the JLA PSP approach (28%). This was followed by methods involving literature reviews (17%), qualitative methods (17%), consensus methods (13%), and reviews of source materials (15%). Other methods included the CHNRI process (7%), reviews of in-progress data (7%), consultation with (non-researcher) stakeholders (4%), applying a framework tool (4%), ENHR (1%), systematic reviews (1%), and evidence mapping (1%).

The criterion most widely applied across the 167 studies was the importance to stakeholders (72%) (see Table ​ Table2). 2 ). Almost one-third (29%) considered the potential value and 18% feasibility as criteria. Burden of disease (9%), addressing inequities (8%), costs (6%), alignment with organization’s mission (3%), and patient centeredness (2%) were adopted as criteria to a lesser extent.

Criteria for Identifying Health Research Gaps, Needs, and Priorities

Numbers in columns may add up to more than the total N or 100% since some studies employed more than one criterion

About two-thirds of the studies included researchers (66%) and clinicians (69%) as stakeholders (see Appendix E in the Supplementary Information). Patients and the public were involved in 59% of the studies. A smaller proportion included policy makers (20%), funders (13%), product makers (8%), payers (5%), and purchasers (2%) as stakeholders. Nearly half of the studies (51%) relied on stakeholder organizations to identify stakeholders (see Appendix F in the Supplementary Information). A quarter of studies (26%) used purposive sampling and some convenience sampling (11%). Few (9%) used snowball sampling to identify stakeholders. Only a minor fraction of studies, seven of the 167 (4%), reported some type of effectiveness evaluation. 25 – 31

Our scoping review revealed that approaches to identifying gaps, needs, and priorities are less likely to occur as discrete processes and more often involve a combination of exercises. Approaches encompassing multiple exercises (e.g., gaps and needs) were far more prevalent than singular standalone exercises (e.g., gaps only) (73% vs. 27%). Findings underscore the varying importance placed on gaps, needs, and priorities, which reflect key principles of the Value of Information approach (i.e., not all gaps are important, addressing gaps do not necessarily address needs nor does addressing needs necessarily address priorities). 32

Findings differ from Nyanchoka et al.’s review in which studies involving the identification of gaps only outnumbered studies involving both gaps and priorities. 7 However, Nyanchoka et al. relied on author definitions to categorize exercises, whereas our study made designations based on our review of the activities described in the article and applied definitions drawn from the literature. 3 , 4 Lack of consensus on definitions of gaps and priority setting has been noted in the literature. 33 , 34 To the authors’ knowledge, no prior scoping review has focused on methods related to the identification of “research needs.” Findings underscore the need to develop and apply more consistent taxonomy to this growing field of research.

More than 40% of studies employed methods with a structured protocol including JLA PSP, ENHR, CHRNI, World Café, and the Dialogue model. 10 , 35 – 40 The World Café and Dialogue models particularly value the experiential perspectives of stakeholders. The World Café centers on creating a special environment, often modeled after a café, in which rounds of multi-stakeholder, small group, conversations are facilitated and prefaced with questions designed for the specific purpose of the session. Insights and results are reported and shared back to the entire group with no expectation to achieve consensus, but rather diverse perspectives are encouraged. 36 The Dialogue model is a multi-stakeholder, participatory, priority setting method involving the following phases: exploratory (informal discussions), consultation (separate stakeholder consultations), prioritization (stakeholder ratings), and integration (dialog between stakeholders). 39 Findings may indicate a trend away from non-replicable methods to approaches that afford greater transparency and reproducibility. 41 For instance, of the 17 studies published between 2000 and 2009, none had employed CHNRI and 6% used JLA PSP compared to the 141 studies between 2010 and 2019 in which 8% applied CHNRI and 32% JLA PSP. However, notable variations in implementing CHNRI and JLA PSP have been observed. 41 – 43 Though these protocols help to ensure a more standardized process, which is essential when testing the effectiveness of methods, such evaluations are infrequent but necessary to establish the usefulness of replicable methods.

Convening workshops, meetings, or conferences was the method used by the greatest proportion of studies (37%). The operationalization of even this singular method varied widely in duration (e.g., single vs. multi-day conferences), format (e.g., expert panel presentations, breakout discussion groups), processes (e.g., use of formal/informal consensus methods), and composition of stakeholders. The operationalization of other methods (e.g., quantitative, qualitative) also exhibited great diversity.

The use of explicit criteria to determine gaps, needs, or priorities is a key component of certain structured protocols 40 , 44 and frameworks. 9 , 45 In our scoping review, the criterion applied most frequently across studies (71%) was “importance to stakeholders” followed by potential value (31%) and feasibility (18%). Stakeholder values are being incorporated into the identification of gaps, needs, and exercises across a significant proportion of studies, but how this is operationalized varies widely across studies. For instance, the CHNRI typically employs multiple criteria that are scored by technical experts and these scores are then weighted based on stakeholder ratings of their relative importance. Other studies totaled scores across multiple criteria, whereas JLA PSP asks multiple stakeholders to rank the top ten priorities. The importance of involving stakeholders, especially patients and the public, in priority setting is increasingly viewed as vital to ensuring the needs of end users are met, 46 , 47 particularly in light of evidence demonstrating mismatches between the research interests of patients and researchers and clinicians. 48 – 50 In our review, clinicians (69%) and researchers (66%) were the most widely represented stakeholder groups across studies. Patients and the public (e.g., caregivers) were included as stakeholders in 59% of the studies. Only a small fraction of studies involved exercises in which stakeholders were limited to researchers only. Patients and the public were involved as stakeholders in 12% of studies published between 2000 and 2009 compared to 60% of studies between 2010 and 2019. Findings may reflect a trend away from researchers traditionally serving as one of the sole drivers of determining which research topics should be pursued.

More than half of the studies reported relying on stakeholder organizations to identify participants. Partnering with stakeholder organizations has been noted as one of the primary methods for identifying stakeholders for priority setting exercises. 34 Purposive sampling was the next most frequently used stakeholder identification method. In contrast, convenience sampling (e.g., recommendations by study team) and snowball sampling (e.g., identified stakeholders refer other stakeholders who then refer additional stakeholders) were not as frequently employed, but were documented as common methods in a prior review conducted almost a decade ago. 14 The greater use of stakeholder organizations than convenience or snowball sampling may be partly due to the more recent proliferation of published studies using structured protocols like JLA PSP, which rely heavily on partnerships with stakeholder organizations. Though methods such as snowball sampling may introduce more bias than random sampling, 14 there are no established best practices for stakeholder identification methods. 51 Nearly a quarter of studies provided either unclear or no information on stakeholder identification methods, which has been documented as a barrier to comparing across studies and assessing the validity of research priorities. 34

Determining the effectiveness of gaps, needs, and priority exercises is challenging given that outcome evaluations are rarely conducted. Only seven studies reported conducting an evaluation. 25 – 31 Evaluations varied with respect to their focus on process- (e.g., balanced stakeholder representation, stakeholder satisfaction) versus outcome-related impact (e.g., prioritized topics funded, knowledge production, benefits to health). There is no consensus on what constitutes optimal outcomes, which has been found to vary by discipline. 52

More than 90% of studies involved exercises related to physical health in contrast to a minor portfolio of work being dedicated to psychological health, which may be an indication of the low priority placed on psychological health policy research. Understanding whether funding decisions for physical versus psychological health research are similarly or differentially governed by more systematic, formal processes may be important to the extent that this affects the effective targeting of funds.

Limitations

By limiting studies to those supported or conducted by funding organizations, we may have excluded global, national, or local priority setting exercises. In addition, our scoping review categorized approaches according to the actual exercises conducted and definitions provided in the scientific literature rather than relying on the terminology employed by studies. This resulted in instances in which the category assigned to an exercise within our scoping review could diverge from the category employed by the study authors. Lastly, this study’s findings are subject to limitations often characteristic of scoping reviews such as publication bias, language bias, lack of quality assessment, and search, inclusion, and extraction biases. 53

Conclusions

The diversity and growing establishment of formal processes and methods to identify health research gaps, needs, and priorities are characteristic of a developing field. Even with the emergence of more structured and systematic approaches, the inconsistent categorization and definition of gaps, needs, and priorities inhibit efforts to evaluate the effectiveness of varied methods and processes, such efforts are rare and sorely needed to build an evidence base to guide best practices. The immense variation occurring within structured protocols, across different combinations of disparate methods, and even within singular methods, further emphasizes the importance of using clearly defined approaches, which are essential to conducting investigations of the effectiveness of these varied approaches. The recent development of reporting guidelines for priority setting for health research may facilitate more consistent and clear documentation of processes and methods, which includes the many facets of involving stakeholders. 34 To ensure optimal targeting of funds to meet the greatest areas of need and maximize outcomes, a much more robust evidence base is needed to ascertain the effectiveness of methods used to identify research gaps, needs, and priorities.

(PDF 1205 kb)

Acknowledgements

This scoping review is part of research that was sponsored by Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury (now Psychological Health Center of Excellence).

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

How to identify research gaps

Anthony Newman

About this video

Researching is an ongoing task, as it requires you to think of something nobody else has thought of before. This is where the research gap comes into play.

We will explain what a research gap is, provide you with steps on how to identify these research gaps, as well as provide you several tools that can help you identify them.

About the presenter

Senior Publisher, Life Sciences, Elsevier

Anthony Newman is a Senior Publisher with Elsevier and is based in Amsterdam. Each year he presents numerous Author Workshops and other similar trainings worldwide. He is currently responsible for fifteen biochemistry and laboratory medicine journals, he joined Elsevier over thirty years ago and has been Publisher for more than twenty of those years. Before then he was the marketing communications manager for the biochemistry journals of Elsevier.  By training he is a polymer chemist and was active in the surface coating industry before leaving London and moving to Amsterdam in 1987 to join Elsevier.

How to locate key publications

How to find relevant and authoritative research

How to integrate sex, gender, and intersectional analysis into research

How to enhance your chances of serendipitous research discovery

Data Repositories to store your data

Researcher Academy on Twitter

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• This Or That Game
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• College University and Postgraduate
• Academic Writing
• Research Papers

How to Find a Research Gap

Last Updated: February 16, 2024 Fact Checked

This article was co-authored by wikiHow staff writer, Danielle Blinka, MA, MPA . Danielle Blinka is a Writer, Editor, Podcaster, Improv Performer, and Artist currently living in Houston, TX. She also has experience teaching English and writing to others. Danielle holds a Bachelor of Arts in English, Bachelor of Arts in Political Science, Master of Arts in English with a concentration in writing, and Master of Public Administration from Lamar University. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 33,678 times. Learn more...

Do you want to contribute original research and make an impact in your field? If so, it's important to look for research gaps, or areas of study that are either under-researched or currently unexplored. In this article, we'll explain in detail the best way to identify a research gap—by performing a comprehensive literature review—so you can dive deep into your research topic and analyze articles critically and effectively. For more tips and tricks on identifying potential research gaps and how to proceed when you find one, read on.

Researching Your Topic

• If you start with a narrow topic, you may struggle to find a gap in research, since you’ll be focused on fewer avenues of study.
• For instance, a broad topic for social sciences research might be "organizational development" or "human motivation." For urban planning, a broad topic might be "walkable cities" or "traffic management."

• While you can't include sources like Wikipedia and news websites on your literature review, it's okay to read them to get an overview of your topic and recent developments in your field.
• It’s okay to narrow your topic as you learn more about it. However, keep your options open until you’re sure you’ve found an area with gaps in research.
• Let's say you were researching human motivation. You might use search terms like "motivating workers," "goal setting," and "improving worker productivity."

• Your research needs to be very thorough to ensure that you’re actually finding a gap. If you only read a handful of articles, you may be missing other existing research that answers your proposed research question.

Tip: Look for both quantitative and qualitative research, if applicable to your field. This will give you a broader overview of the current research.

• Ask them questions like, “Which areas of research are hot right now?” “What kinds of changes are happening within the field?” “What possible avenues of research do you see?” or “Do you think this topic is a good fit for me?”

Analyzing the Literature

• If you decide an article is unhelpful, it’s okay to skip the second reading.

Tip: Conducting a literature review is often a very time-consuming task. However, it’s also an essential part of identifying a research gap. Additionally, you can use the notes you take during your literature review when it comes time to write your article, thesis, or dissertation.

• As an example, an author might identify their gap in research with a statement like: “This subject has not been previously studied,” or “This question remains unanswered.”

• If you keep your notes in a separate document, make sure you label them with the title of the article and the author’s name. This way you won’t accidentally get your notes mixed up.

• Save any questions that you can’t answer because they may be a starting point for writing a research question.

• For instance, you might make a research gap table in a spreadsheet. Create 3 columns and label them “Author,” “Year,” and "Summary." For each article, list the authors, year of publication, and a bullet point summary of the article contents.
• Similarly, you may make a Venn diagram to compare 1 or more articles. Look for overlapping themes and methods, as well as differences between the articles.

Using Current Research, Key Concepts, or Trends

• Keep in mind that other researchers may have addressed the gaps identified in a particular article since that article was written. However, this can give you a starting point for finding a potential gap.

• Don’t rely solely on these types of papers when conducting your research. However, they can make a great supplement.

• Some journals will even tell you how many articles are pertaining to that key concept. If you see a key concept that has fewer articles than the others, that might be a good avenue for further research because it’s been studied less.

• You can access Google trends here: https://trends.google.com/trends/?geo=US
• For instance, if you look up "organizational development" on Google trends, you'll see that people are looking for information on management development, mission statements, and software framework.

Expert Q&A

• Reading Wikipedia articles related to your topic of study may help you identify a gap in research, though you can’t use those articles as sources. Look for areas where more citations are needed, unanswered questions, or sections that are underdeveloped.

You Might Also Like

• ↑ https://libanswers.snhu.edu/faq/264001
• ↑ https://resources.nu.edu/researchprocess/literaturegap
• ↑ https://guides.umd.umich.edu/c.php?g=529423&p=3621573
• ↑ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK62480/

About This Article

• Send fan mail to authors

Did this article help you?

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

wikiHow Tech Help Pro:

Develop the tech skills you need for work and life

•   [email protected]
• Shapiro Library
• SNHU Library Frequently Asked Questions

FAQ: What is a research gap and how do I find one?

• 7 Academic Integrity & Plagiarism
• 64 Academic Support, Writing Help, & Presentation Help
• 29 Access/Remote Access
• 7 Accessibility
• 9 Building/Facilities
• 7 Career/Job Information
• 26 Catalog/Print Books
• 26 Circulation
• 129 Citing Sources
• 14 Copyright
• 311 Databases
• 24 Directions/Location
• 18 Faculty Resources/Needs
• 7 Hours/Contacts
• 2 Innovation Lab & Makerspace/3D Printing
• 25 Interlibrary Loan
• 43 IT/Computer/Printing Support
• 3 Library Instruction
• 39 Library Technology Help
• 6 Multimedia
• 17 Online Programs
• 19 Periodicals
• 25 Policies
• 8 RefWorks/Citation Managers
• 4 Research Guides (LibGuides)
• 216 Research Help
• 23 University Services

Last Updated: Jun 27, 2023 Views: 474287

What is a research gap.

A research gap is a question or a problem that has not been answered by any of the existing studies or research within your field. Sometimes, a research gap exists when there is a concept or new idea that hasn't been studied at all. Sometimes you'll find a research gap if all the existing research is outdated and in need of new/updated research (studies on Internet use in 2001, for example). Or, perhaps a specific population has not been well studied (perhaps there are plenty of studies on teenagers and video games, but not enough studies on toddlers and video games, for example). These are just a few examples, but any research gap you find is an area where more studies and more research need to be conducted. Please view this video clip from our Sage Research Methods database for more helpful information: How Do You Identify Gaps in Literature?

How do I find one?

It will take a lot of research and reading.  You'll need to be very familiar with all the studies that have already been done, and what those studies contributed to the overall body of knowledge about that topic. Make a list of any questions you have about your topic and then do some research to see if those questions have already been answered satisfactorily. If they haven't, perhaps you've discovered a gap!  Here are some strategies you can use to make the most of your time:

• One useful trick is to look at the “suggestions for future research” or conclusion section of existing studies on your topic. Many times, the authors will identify areas where they think a research gap exists, and what studies they think need to be done in the future.
• As you are researching, you will most likely come across citations for seminal works in your research field. These are the research studies that you see mentioned again and again in the literature.  In addition to finding those and reading them, you can use a database like Web of Science to follow the research trail and discover all the other articles that have cited these. See the FAQ: I found the perfect article for my paper. How do I find other articles and books that have cited it? on how to do this. One way to quickly track down these seminal works is to use a database like SAGE Navigator, a social sciences literature review tool. It is one of the products available via our SAGE Knowledge database.
• In the PsycINFO and PsycARTICLES databases, you can select literature review, systematic review, and meta analysis under the Methodology section in the advanced search to quickly locate these. See the FAQ: Where can I find a qualitative or quantitative study? for more information on how to find the Methodology section in these two databases.
• In CINAHL , you can select Systematic review under the Publication Type field in the advanced search. 
• In Web of Science , check the box beside Review under the Document Type heading in the “Refine Results” sidebar to the right of the list of search hits.
• If the database you are searching does not offer a way to filter your results by document type, publication type, or methodology in the advanced search, you can include these phrases (“literature reviews,” meta-analyses, or “systematic reviews”) in your search string.  For example, “video games” AND “literature reviews” could be a possible search that you could try.

Please give these suggestions a try and contact a librarian for additional assistance.

Content authored by: GS

• Share on Facebook

Was this helpful? Yes 380 No 152

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) are a self-serve option for users to search and find answers to their questions. 

Use the search box above to type your question to search for an answer or browse existing FAQs by group, topic, etc.

Tell Me More

Link to Question Form

More assistance.

Submit a Question

Related FAQs

Identifying Research Gaps to Pursue Innovative Research

This article is an excerpt from a lecture given by my Ph.D. guide, a researcher in public health. She advised us on how to identify research gaps to pursue innovative research in our fields.

What is a Research Gap?

Today we are talking about the research gap: what is it, how to identify it, and how to make use of it so that you can pursue innovative research. Now, how many of you have ever felt you had discovered a new and exciting research question , only to find that it had already been written about? I have experienced this more times than I can count. Graduate studies come with pressure to add new knowledge to the field. We can contribute to the progress and knowledge of humanity. To do this, we need to first learn to identify research gaps in the existing literature.

A research gap is, simply, a topic or area for which missing or insufficient information limits the ability to reach a conclusion for a question. It should not be confused with a research question, however. For example, if we ask the research question of what the healthiest diet for humans is, we would find many studies and possible answers to this question. On the other hand, if we were to ask the research question of what are the effects of antidepressants on pregnant women, we would not find much-existing data. This is a research gap. When we identify a research gap, we identify a direction for potentially new and exciting research.

How to Identify Research Gap?

Considering the volume of existing research, identifying research gaps can seem overwhelming or even impossible. I don’t have time to read every paper published on public health. Similarly, you guys don’t have time to read every paper. So how can you identify a research gap?

There are different techniques in various disciplines, but we can reduce most of them down to a few steps, which are:

• Identify your key motivating issue/question
• Identify key terms associated with this issue
• Review the literature, searching for these key terms and identifying relevant publications
• Review the literature cited by the key publications which you located in the above step
• Identify issues not addressed by  the literature relating to your critical  motivating issue

It is the last step which we all find the most challenging. It can be difficult to figure out what an article is  not  saying. I like to keep a list of notes of biased or inconsistent information. You could also track what authors write as “directions for future research,” which often can point us towards the existing gaps.

Different Types of Research Gaps

Identifying research gaps is an essential step in conducting research, as it helps researchers to refine their research questions and to focus their research efforts on areas where there is a need for more knowledge or understanding.

1. Knowledge gaps

These are gaps in knowledge or understanding of a subject, where more research is needed to fill the gaps. For example, there may be a lack of understanding of the mechanisms behind a particular disease or how a specific technology works.

2. Conceptual gaps

These are gaps in the conceptual framework or theoretical understanding of a subject. For example, there may be a need for more research to understand the relationship between two concepts or to refine a theoretical framework.

3. Methodological gaps

These are gaps in the methods used to study a particular subject. For example, there may be a need for more research to develop new research methods or to refine existing methods to address specific research questions.

4. Data gaps

These are gaps in the data available on a particular subject. For example, there may be a need for more research to collect data on a specific population or to develop new measures to collect data on a particular construct.

5. Practical gaps

These are gaps in the application of research findings to practical situations. For example, there may be a need for more research to understand how to implement evidence-based practices in real-world settings or to identify barriers to implementing such practices.

Examples of Research Gap

Limited understanding of the underlying mechanisms of a disease:.

Despite significant research on a particular disease, there may be a lack of understanding of the underlying mechanisms of the disease. For example, although much research has been done on Alzheimer’s disease, the exact mechanisms that lead to the disease are not yet fully understood.

Inconsistencies in the findings of previous research:

When previous research on a particular topic has inconsistent findings, there may be a need for further research to clarify or resolve these inconsistencies. For example, previous research on the effectiveness of a particular treatment for a medical condition may have produced inconsistent findings, indicating a need for further research to determine the true effectiveness of the treatment.

Limited research on emerging technologies:

As new technologies emerge, there may be limited research on their applications, benefits, and potential drawbacks. For example, with the increasing use of artificial intelligence in various industries, there is a need for further research on the ethical, legal, and social implications of AI.

How to Deal with Literature Gap?

Once you have identified the literature gaps, it is critical to prioritize. You may find many questions which remain to be answered in the literature. Often one question must be answered before the next can be addressed. In prioritizing the gaps, you have identified, you should consider your funding agency or stakeholders, the needs of the field, and the relevance of your questions to what is currently being studied. Also, consider your own resources and ability to conduct the research you’re considering. Once you have done this, you can narrow your search down to an appropriate question.

Tools to Help Your Search

There are thousands of new articles published every day, and staying up to date on the literature can be overwhelming. You should take advantage of the technology that is available. Some services include  PubCrawler ,  Feedly ,  Google Scholar , and PubMed updates. Stay up to date on social media forums where scholars share new discoveries, such as Twitter. Reference managers such as  Mendeley  can help you keep your references well-organized. I personally have had success using Google Scholar and PubMed to stay current on new developments and track which gaps remain in my personal areas of interest.

The most important thing I want to impress upon you today is that you will struggle to  choose a research topic  that is innovative and exciting if you don’t know the existing literature well. This is why identifying research gaps starts with an extensive and thorough  literature review . But give yourself some boundaries.  You don’t need to read every paper that has ever been written on a topic. You may find yourself thinking you’re on the right track and then suddenly coming across a paper that you had intended to write! It happens to everyone- it happens to me quite often. Don’t give up- keep reading and you’ll find what you’re looking for.

Class dismissed!

How do you identify research gaps? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

Frequently Asked Questions

A research gap can be identified by looking for a topic or area with missing or insufficient information that limits the ability to reach a conclusion for a question.

Identifying a research gap is important as it provides a direction for potentially new research or helps bridge the gap in existing literature.

Gap in research is a topic or area with missing or insufficient information. A research gap limits the ability to reach a conclusion for a question.

Thank u for your suggestion.

Very useful tips specially for a beginner

Thank you. This is helpful. I find that I’m overwhelmed with literatures. As I read on a particular topic, and in a particular direction I find that other conflicting issues, topic a and ideas keep popping up, making me more confused.

I am very grateful for your advice. It’s just on point.

The clearest, exhaustive, and brief explanation I have ever read.

Thanks for sharing

Thank you very much.The work is brief and understandable

Thank you it is very informative

Thanks for sharing this educative article

Thank you for such informative explanation.

Great job smart guy! Really outdid yourself!

Nice one! I thank you for this as it is just what I was looking for!😃🤟

Thank you so much for this. Much appreciated

Thank you so much.

Thankyou for ur briefing…its so helpful

Thank you so much .I’ved learn a lot from this.❤️

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Reporting Research

Choosing the Right Analytical Approach: Thematic analysis vs. content analysis for data interpretation

In research, choosing the right approach to understand data is crucial for deriving meaningful insights.…

Comparing Cross Sectional and Longitudinal Studies: 5 steps for choosing the right approach

The process of choosing the right research design can put ourselves at the crossroads of…

• Career Corner

Unlocking the Power of Networking in Academic Conferences

Embarking on your first academic conference experience? Fear not, we got you covered! Academic conferences…

Research Recommendations – Guiding policy-makers for evidence-based decision making

Research recommendations play a crucial role in guiding scholars and researchers toward fruitful avenues of…

• AI in Academia

Disclosing the Use of Generative AI: Best practices for authors in manuscript preparation

The rapid proliferation of generative and other AI-based tools in research writing has ignited an…

Intersectionality in Academia: Dealing with diverse perspectives

Meritocracy and Diversity in Science: Increasing inclusivity in STEM education

Avoiding the AI Trap: Pitfalls of relying on ChatGPT for PhD applications

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

As a researcher, what do you consider most when choosing an image manipulation detector?

Kickstart your research with Research Kick

Research Kick helps you craft compelling research questions and find research gaps in minutes.

Researchers love Research Kick

Trusted by more than 700 researchers worldwide

I was impressed at its ease of usability and indeed as promised, I was able to generate 10 topic ideas within 4 minutes.

“ I subcribed to Research Kick and gave 4 research topics in form of relevant research questions to my post graduates in a matter of minutes. ”

“ I used Research Kick this week, very happy with the result. ”

What is Research Kick?

A better and faster way to kickstart your research

Research Kick is an AI that helps researcher brainstorm and craft compelling research questions. Integrated with scholarly databases like Semantic Scholar, Scite, and PubMed, Research Kick also helps user identify research gaps.

Less than 10 minutes

Research Kick helps you brainstorm ideas, craft research questions, and identify research gaps in less than 10 minutes.

More than 300 million papers

Research Kick searches through more than 300 million research papers to help you identify research gaps in many fields.

Trusted scholarly databases

Research Kick integrates with trusted scholarly databases like Semantic Scholar, Scite, and PubMed for accurate results.

World-class AI models

Research Kick uses OpenAI GPT-4o and cutting-edge AI technologies to ensure no hallucinations and provide the best results.

How it works?

3 simple steps

Enter research keywords. Refine research questions. Identify research gaps.

Generate research questions

Simply enter your research keywords, Research Kick will give you 5-10 relevant and compelling research questions. You can select any given research question and ask Research Kick to refine it or check if it is a novel research question.

Refine research questions

Ask Research Kick to refine a research question and optionally provide additional considerations. Research Kick will give you more focused, precise, and compelling research questions. You can repeat this process until you are satisfied with a given research question.

Find relevant research papers and identify research gaps

Ask Research Kick to search trusted research databases for relevant research papers that can answer your research question. Research Kick will find a list of the most relevant research papers (if any) and assess if they have adequately addressed your research question.

The right price for you, whoever you are

Pay a subscription for better value or buy one-time credits at a higher price.

Monthly plan

For academics who need to kickstart their research projects at an affordable price.

• All features
• 10,000 credits per month
• Discounted additional credits
• Unlimited expiration
• Priority support

Pay as you go

For people who prefer a one-time payment and are willing to pay a higher price.

• 2,500 credits per order
• No additional credits
• 1-month expiration
• Limited support

Annual plan

$108 $99 /year

For academics who need more credits to kickstart more research projects at a discounted price.

• 120,000 credits per year

Save up to $477

Built by academics for academics

We’re a small self-funded team who are passionate to help academics become highly-efficient with AI apps.

Mushtaq Bilal

Mushtaq Bilal is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Southern Denmark’s Hans Christian Andersen Center. He holds a PhD in comparative literature from Binghamton University.

He is known for developing ways of incorporating AI apps into academic writing. He has an audience of more than 225,000 on X and 60,000 on LinkedIn, where he regularly shares tips on how to become an efficient academic writer with AI apps.

He is frequently invited to give talks at leading universities in North America, Europe, and Australia.

His work has been featured in publications like Nature, Der Spiegel, and Times Higher Education.

Minh-Phuc Tran

Minh-Phuc Tran is an experienced software engineer and serial software entrepreneur. He has been developing software for over a decade, ranging from mission-critical cloud services to modern AI applications.

Prior to running his startups, he held key roles as a lead engineer and a founding engineer at fast-growing startups such as Fig and Web3Auth.

In recent years, he has bootstrapped several successful software products and cultivated a sizable audience of software enthusiasts on X.

His work has been utilized by numerous companies and high-performing individuals worldwide.

Frequently asked questions

• Privacy Policy

Home » Research Gap – Types, Examples and How to Identify

Research Gap – Types, Examples and How to Identify

Table of Contents

Research Gap

Definition:

Research gap refers to an area or topic within a field of study that has not yet been extensively researched or is yet to be explored. It is a question, problem or issue that has not been addressed or resolved by previous research.

How to Identify Research Gap

Identifying a research gap is an essential step in conducting research that adds value and contributes to the existing body of knowledge. Research gap requires critical thinking, creativity, and a thorough understanding of the existing literature . It is an iterative process that may require revisiting and refining your research questions and ideas multiple times.

Here are some steps that can help you identify a research gap:

• Review existing literature: Conduct a thorough review of the existing literature in your research area. This will help you identify what has already been studied and what gaps still exist.
• Identify a research problem: Identify a specific research problem or question that you want to address.
• Analyze existing research: Analyze the existing research related to your research problem. This will help you identify areas that have not been studied, inconsistencies in the findings, or limitations of the previous research.
• Brainstorm potential research ideas : Based on your analysis, brainstorm potential research ideas that address the identified gaps.
• Consult with experts: Consult with experts in your research area to get their opinions on potential research ideas and to identify any additional gaps that you may have missed.
• Refine research questions: Refine your research questions and hypotheses based on the identified gaps and potential research ideas.
• Develop a research proposal: Develop a research proposal that outlines your research questions, objectives, and methods to address the identified research gap.

Types of Research Gap

There are different types of research gaps that can be identified, and each type is associated with a specific situation or problem. Here are the main types of research gaps and their explanations:

Theoretical Gap

This type of research gap refers to a lack of theoretical understanding or knowledge in a particular area. It can occur when there is a discrepancy between existing theories and empirical evidence or when there is no theory that can explain a particular phenomenon. Identifying theoretical gaps can lead to the development of new theories or the refinement of existing ones.

Empirical Gap

An empirical gap occurs when there is a lack of empirical evidence or data in a particular area. It can happen when there is a lack of research on a specific topic or when existing research is inadequate or inconclusive. Identifying empirical gaps can lead to the development of new research studies to collect data or the refinement of existing research methods to improve the quality of data collected.

Methodological Gap

This type of research gap refers to a lack of appropriate research methods or techniques to answer a research question. It can occur when existing methods are inadequate, outdated, or inappropriate for the research question. Identifying methodological gaps can lead to the development of new research methods or the modification of existing ones to better address the research question.

Practical Gap

A practical gap occurs when there is a lack of practical applications or implementation of research findings. It can occur when research findings are not implemented due to financial, political, or social constraints. Identifying practical gaps can lead to the development of strategies for the effective implementation of research findings in practice.

Knowledge Gap

This type of research gap occurs when there is a lack of knowledge or information on a particular topic. It can happen when a new area of research is emerging, or when research is conducted in a different context or population. Identifying knowledge gaps can lead to the development of new research studies or the extension of existing research to fill the gap.

Examples of Research Gap

Here are some examples of research gaps that researchers might identify:

• Theoretical Gap Example : In the field of psychology, there might be a theoretical gap related to the lack of understanding of the relationship between social media use and mental health. Although there is existing research on the topic, there might be a lack of consensus on the mechanisms that link social media use to mental health outcomes.
• Empirical Gap Example : In the field of environmental science, there might be an empirical gap related to the lack of data on the long-term effects of climate change on biodiversity in specific regions. Although there might be some studies on the topic, there might be a lack of data on the long-term effects of climate change on specific species or ecosystems.
• Methodological Gap Example : In the field of education, there might be a methodological gap related to the lack of appropriate research methods to assess the impact of online learning on student outcomes. Although there might be some studies on the topic, existing research methods might not be appropriate to assess the complex relationships between online learning and student outcomes.
• Practical Gap Example: In the field of healthcare, there might be a practical gap related to the lack of effective strategies to implement evidence-based practices in clinical settings. Although there might be existing research on the effectiveness of certain practices, they might not be implemented in practice due to various barriers, such as financial constraints or lack of resources.
• Knowledge Gap Example: In the field of anthropology, there might be a knowledge gap related to the lack of understanding of the cultural practices of indigenous communities in certain regions. Although there might be some research on the topic, there might be a lack of knowledge about specific cultural practices or beliefs that are unique to those communities.

Examples of Research Gap In Literature Review, Thesis, and Research Paper might be:

• Literature review : A literature review on the topic of machine learning and healthcare might identify a research gap in the lack of studies that investigate the use of machine learning for early detection of rare diseases.
• Thesis : A thesis on the topic of cybersecurity might identify a research gap in the lack of studies that investigate the effectiveness of artificial intelligence in detecting and preventing cyber attacks.
• Research paper : A research paper on the topic of natural language processing might identify a research gap in the lack of studies that investigate the use of natural language processing techniques for sentiment analysis in non-English languages.

How to Write Research Gap

By following these steps, you can effectively write about research gaps in your paper and clearly articulate the contribution that your study will make to the existing body of knowledge.

Here are some steps to follow when writing about research gaps in your paper:

• Identify the research question : Before writing about research gaps, you need to identify your research question or problem. This will help you to understand the scope of your research and identify areas where additional research is needed.
• Review the literature: Conduct a thorough review of the literature related to your research question. This will help you to identify the current state of knowledge in the field and the gaps that exist.
• Identify the research gap: Based on your review of the literature, identify the specific research gap that your study will address. This could be a theoretical, empirical, methodological, practical, or knowledge gap.
• Provide evidence: Provide evidence to support your claim that the research gap exists. This could include a summary of the existing literature, a discussion of the limitations of previous studies, or an analysis of the current state of knowledge in the field.
• Explain the importance: Explain why it is important to fill the research gap. This could include a discussion of the potential implications of filling the gap, the significance of the research for the field, or the potential benefits to society.
• State your research objectives: State your research objectives, which should be aligned with the research gap you have identified. This will help you to clearly articulate the purpose of your study and how it will address the research gap.

Importance of Research Gap

The importance of research gaps can be summarized as follows:

• Advancing knowledge: Identifying research gaps is crucial for advancing knowledge in a particular field. By identifying areas where additional research is needed, researchers can fill gaps in the existing body of knowledge and contribute to the development of new theories and practices.
• Guiding research: Research gaps can guide researchers in designing studies that fill those gaps. By identifying research gaps, researchers can develop research questions and objectives that are aligned with the needs of the field and contribute to the development of new knowledge.
• Enhancing research quality: By identifying research gaps, researchers can avoid duplicating previous research and instead focus on developing innovative research that fills gaps in the existing body of knowledge. This can lead to more impactful research and higher-quality research outputs.
• Informing policy and practice: Research gaps can inform policy and practice by highlighting areas where additional research is needed to inform decision-making. By filling research gaps, researchers can provide evidence-based recommendations that have the potential to improve policy and practice in a particular field.

Applications of Research Gap

Here are some potential applications of research gap:

• Informing research priorities: Research gaps can help guide research funding agencies and researchers to prioritize research areas that require more attention and resources.
• Identifying practical implications: Identifying gaps in knowledge can help identify practical applications of research that are still unexplored or underdeveloped.
• Stimulating innovation: Research gaps can encourage innovation and the development of new approaches or methodologies to address unexplored areas.
• Improving policy-making: Research gaps can inform policy-making decisions by highlighting areas where more research is needed to make informed policy decisions.
• Enhancing academic discourse: Research gaps can lead to new and constructive debates and discussions within academic communities, leading to more robust and comprehensive research.

Advantages of Research Gap

Here are some of the advantages of research gap:

• Identifies new research opportunities: Identifying research gaps can help researchers identify areas that require further exploration, which can lead to new research opportunities.
• Improves the quality of research: By identifying gaps in current research, researchers can focus their efforts on addressing unanswered questions, which can improve the overall quality of research.
• Enhances the relevance of research: Research that addresses existing gaps can have significant implications for the development of theories, policies, and practices, and can therefore increase the relevance and impact of research.
• Helps avoid duplication of effort: Identifying existing research can help researchers avoid duplicating efforts, saving time and resources.
• Helps to refine research questions: Research gaps can help researchers refine their research questions, making them more focused and relevant to the needs of the field.
• Promotes collaboration: By identifying areas of research that require further investigation, researchers can collaborate with others to conduct research that addresses these gaps, which can lead to more comprehensive and impactful research outcomes.

Disadvantages of Research Gap

While research gaps can be advantageous, there are also some potential disadvantages that should be considered:

• Difficulty in identifying gaps: Identifying gaps in existing research can be challenging, particularly in fields where there is a large volume of research or where research findings are scattered across different disciplines.
• Lack of funding: Addressing research gaps may require significant resources, and researchers may struggle to secure funding for their work if it is perceived as too risky or uncertain.
• Time-consuming: Conducting research to address gaps can be time-consuming, particularly if the research involves collecting new data or developing new methods.
• Risk of oversimplification: Addressing research gaps may require researchers to simplify complex problems, which can lead to oversimplification and a failure to capture the complexity of the issues.
• Bias : Identifying research gaps can be influenced by researchers’ personal biases or perspectives, which can lead to a skewed understanding of the field.
• Potential for disagreement: Identifying research gaps can be subjective, and different researchers may have different views on what constitutes a gap in the field, leading to disagreements and debate.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Institutional Review Board – Application Sample...

Evaluating Research – Process, Examples and...

• Library databases
• Library website

Library Guide to Capstone Literature Reviews: Find a Research Gap

Find a research gap: tips to get started.

Finding a research gap is not an easy process and there is no one linear path. These tips and suggestions are just examples of possible ways to begin. 

In Ph.D. dissertations, students identify a gap in research. In other programs, students identify a gap in practice. The literature review for a gap in practice will show the context of the problem and the current state of the research. 

Research gap definition

A research gap exists when:

• a question or problem has not been answered by existing studies/research in the field 
• a concept or new idea has not been studied at all
• all the existing literature on a topic is outdated 
• a specific population/location/age group etc has not been studied 

A research gap should be:

• grounded in the literature
• amenable to scientific study
• Litmus Test for a Doctoral-Level Research Problem (Word) This tool helps students determine if they have identified a doctoral level research problem.

Identify a research gap

To find a gap you must become very familiar with a particular field of study. This will involve a lot of research and reading, because a gap is defined by what does (and does not) surround it.

• Search the research literature and dissertations (search all university dissertations, not just Walden!).
• Understand your topic! Review background information in books and encyclopedias . 
• Look for literature reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.
• Take notes on concepts, themes, and subject terms . 
• Look closely at each article's limitations, conclusions, and recommendations for future research. 
• Organize, analyze, and repeat! 

• Quick Answer: How do I find dissertations on a topic?

Start with broad searches

Use the Library Search (formerly Thoreau)  to do a broad search with just one concept at a time . Broad searches give you an idea of the academic conversation surrounding your topic.

• Try the terms you know (keywords) first.
• Look at the Subject Terms (controlled language) to brainstorm terms. 
• Subject terms help you understand what terms are most used, and what other terms to try.
• No matter what your topic is, not every researcher will be using the same terms. Keep an eye open for additional ways to describe your topic.
• Guide: Subject Terms & Index Searches: Index Overview

Keep a list of terms

• Create a list of terms
• Example list of terms

This list will be a record of what terms are: 

• related to or represent your topic
• synonyms or antonyms
• more or less commonly used
• keywords (natural language) or subject terms (controlled language)
• Synonyms & antonyms (database search skills)
• Turn keywords into subject terms

Term I started with:

culturally aware 

Subject terms I discovered:

cultural awareness (SU) 

cultural sensitivity (SU) 

cultural competence (SU) 

Search with different combinations of terms

• Combine search terms list
• Combine search terms table
• Video: Search by Themes

Since a research gap is defined by the absence of research on a topic, you will search for articles on everything that relates to your topic. 

• List out all the themes related to your gap.
• Search different combinations of the themes as you discover them (include search by theme video at bottom) 

For example, suppose your research gap is on the work-life balance of tenured and tenure-track women in engineering professions. In that case, you might try searching different combinations of concepts, such as: 

• women and STEM 
• STEM or science or technology or engineering or mathematics
• female engineering professors 
• tenure-track women in STEM
• work-life balance and women in STEM
• work-life balance and women professors
• work-life balance and tenure 

Topic adapted from one of the award winning Walden dissertations. 

• Walden University Award Winning Dissertations
• Gossage, Lily Giang-Tien, "Work-Life Balance of Tenured and Tenure-Track Women Engineering Professors" (2019). Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies. 6435.

Break your topic into themes and try combining the terms from different themes in different ways. For example: 

Theme 1 and Theme 4

Theme 2 and Theme 1

Theme 3 and Theme 4

Video: Search by Themes (YouTube)

(2 min 40 sec) Recorded April 2014 Transcript

Track where more research is needed

Most research articles will identify where more research is needed. To identify research trends, use the literature review matrix to track where further research is needed. 

• Download or create your own Literature Review Matrix (examples in links below).
• Do some general database searches on broad topics.
• Find an article that looks interesting.
• When you read the article, pay attention to the conclusions and limitations sections.
• Use the Literature Review Matrix to track where  'more research is needed' or 'further research needed'. NOTE:  you might need to add a column to the template.
• As you fill in the matrix you should see trends where more research is needed.

There is no consistent section in research articles where the authors identify where more research is needed. Pay attention to these sections: 

• limitations
• conclusions
• recommendations for future research 
• Literature Review Matrix Templates: learn how to keep a record of what you have read
• Literature Review Matrix (Excel) with color coding Sample template for organizing and synthesizing your research
• Previous Page: Scope
• Next Page: Get & Stay Organized
• Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

• Academic Residencies
• Academic Skills
• Career Planning and Development
• Customer Care Team
• Field Experience
• Military Services
• Student Success Advising
• Writing Skills

Centers and Offices

• Center for Social Change
• Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services
• Office of Degree Acceleration
• Office of Research and Doctoral Services
• Office of Student Affairs

Student Resources

• Doctoral Writing Assessment
• Form & Style Review
• Quick Answers
• ScholarWorks
• SKIL Courses and Workshops
• Walden Bookstore
• Walden Catalog & Student Handbook
• Student Safety/Title IX
• Legal & Consumer Information
• Website Terms and Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Accessibility
• Accreditation
• State Authorization
• Net Price Calculator
• Contact Walden

Walden University is a member of Adtalem Global Education, Inc. www.adtalem.com Walden University is certified to operate by SCHEV © 2024 Walden University LLC. All rights reserved.

How to Use Chatgpt to Find Research Gaps – Complete Guide

Are you struggling to find a suitable topic for your research project? Do you want to make sure that your research question is original and relevant? If so, you might want to try using chatgpt, a powerful tool that can help you find research gaps in any field or domain.

What is Chatgpt and How Does It Work?

Chatgpt is a web-based application that uses artificial intelligence (AI) to generate natural language responses based on user input. It is powered by GPT-3, one of the most advanced language models in the world, which can produce coherent and diverse texts on various topics and styles.

Chatgpt can be used for various purposes, such as chatting, writing, learning, and researching. In this article, we will focus on how to use chatgpt to find research gaps, which are areas or aspects of a topic that have not been adequately explored or addressed by existing literature or knowledge.

What is a Research Gap and Why Is It Important?

A research gap is a gap or a missing piece in the current state of knowledge or understanding of a topic or problem. It can be identified by reviewing the existing literature and sources on the topic and finding out what has been done, what has not been done, and what can be done better or differently.

Finding a research gap is important for several reasons. First, it can help you narrow down your topic and formulate a specific and clear research question or hypothesis. Second, it can help you justify the significance and contribution of your research project and show how it fills the gap or advances the knowledge in your field. Third, it can help you avoid duplication or repetition of existing research and ensure the originality and novelty of your work.

How to Use Chatgpt to Find Research Gaps

Finding a research gap can be challenging and time-consuming, especially if you are not familiar with the topic or the literature.

However, chatgpt can make this process easier and faster by generating relevant keywords and phrases, searching for existing sources, and identifying the gaps or limitations in the current knowledge.

Here are the steps to use chatgpt to find research gaps:

• Identify a general topic or question of interest. For example, you might be interested in exploring the effects of social media on mental health.
• Generate relevant keywords and phrases using chatgpt. You can type in your topic or question and ask chatgpt to suggest some keywords or phrases that are related to it. For example, you might get suggestions like “social media addiction”, “cyberbullying”, “online self-presentation”, “social comparison”, “depression”, “anxiety”, etc.
• Use chatgpt to search for existing literature and sources on the topic. You can type in your keywords or phrases and ask chatgpt to find some sources that match them. For example, you might get results like “The relationship between social media addiction and depression: A meta-analysis”, “Cyberbullying victimization and mental health in adolescents and the moderating role of family dinners”, “Online self-presentation: Processes of identity expression among college students”, etc.
• Analyze the results and identify the gaps or limitations in the current knowledge. You can read the abstracts or summaries of the sources and ask chatgpt to highlight the main findings, implications, limitations, or suggestions for future research. For example, you might get highlights like “social media addiction is positively associated with depression across different age groups and cultures”, “cyberbullying victimization is negatively associated with mental health and family dinners can buffer this effect”, “online self-presentation is influenced by various factors such as gender, personality, culture, and feedback”, etc.
• Refine your topic or question based on the gaps and generate new keywords or phrases using chatgpt. You can use the highlights to narrow down your focus and identify a specific aspect or angle that has not been sufficiently explored or addressed by existing research. For example, you might decide to focus on how online self-presentation affects social comparison and mental health among college students. You can then ask chatgpt to generate some new keywords or phrases that are related to this subtopic. For example, you might get suggestions like “online self-presentation strategies”, “social comparison orientation”, “self-esteem”, “body image”, “well-being”, etc.
• Repeat the process until you find a specific and original research gap. You can use chatgpt to search for more sources using your new keywords or phrases and analyze them to find out if there is still a gap or a missing piece in the current knowledge. For example, you might find out that there is little research on how online self-presentation strategies affect social comparison orientation and self-esteem among college students, and how this in turn affects their body image and well-being. This could be your research gap that you can use to formulate your research question or hypothesis.

Also Check: How to Use ChatGPT to Summarize a Research Paper

Examples and Tips for Using Chatgpt to Find Research Gaps in Different Fields or Domains

Chatgpt can be used to find research gaps in any field or domain, as long as you have a general topic or question of interest. Here are some examples and tips for using chatgpt to find research gaps in different fields or domains:

Humanities and Social Sciences:

You can use chatgpt to find research gaps in topics such as history, literature, philosophy, psychology, sociology, education, etc. For example, you might be interested in exploring the impact of COVID-19 on online education.

You can use chatgpt to generate keywords and phrases such as “online learning”, “student engagement”, “teacher feedback”, “academic performance”, “motivation”, “satisfaction”, etc. You can then use chatgpt to search for sources and identify the gaps or limitations in the current knowledge.

For example, you might find out that there is little research on how online learning affects student engagement and motivation among different age groups and cultures, and how this in turn affects their academic performance and satisfaction. This could be your research gap that you can use to formulate your research question or hypothesis.

2. Humanities and Social Sciences:

3. science and engineering:.

You can use chatgpt to find research gaps in topics such as biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, computer science, engineering, etc. For example, you might be interested in exploring the applications of quantum computing in cryptography.

You can use chatgpt to generate keywords and phrases such as “quantum algorithms”, “quantum key distribution”, “quantum encryption”, “quantum hacking”, “quantum security”, etc. You can then use chatgpt to search for sources and identify the gaps or limitations in the current knowledge.

For example, you might find out that there is little research on how quantum algorithms can be used to enhance quantum encryption and security, and how this can prevent quantum hacking and attacks. This could be the research gap that you can use to formulate your research question or hypothesis.

4. Arts and Design

You can use chatgpt to find research gaps in topics such as music, art, photography, fashion, architecture, etc. For example, you might be interested in exploring the influence of social media on fashion trends.

You can use chatgpt to generate keywords and phrases such as “social media platforms”, “fashion influencers”, “fashion followers”, “fashion styles”, “fashion choices”, etc. You can then use chatgpt to search for sources and identify the gaps or limitations in the current knowledge.

For example, you might find out that there is little research on how social media platforms affect fashion followers’ fashion styles and choices, and how this in turn affects their identity and self-expression. This could be your research gap that you can use to formulate your research question or hypothesis.

Also Check: How to use ChatGPT to Write Research Proposal: Use ChatGPT Effectively

Chatgpt is a powerful tool that can help you find research gaps in any field or domain. By using chatgpt, you can generate relevant keywords and phrases, search for existing literature and sources, and identify the gaps or limitations in the current knowledge. You can then refine your topic or question based on the gaps and find a specific and original research gap that you can use to formulate your research question or hypothesis.

By using chatgpt responsibly and critically, you can make your research process easier and faster, and find research gaps that are meaningful and valuable for your field or domain. We hope that this article has given you some insights and tips on how to use chatgpt to find research gaps.

2 thoughts on “How to Use Chatgpt to Find Research Gaps – Complete Guide”

It is very informative and excellent please continue so that I can properly us chatgpt thanks.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

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

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

You are probably wrong about

Ola Rosling opens UN global goal meeting 2020

The UN’s SDG Moments 2020 was introduced by Malala Yousafzai and Ola Rosling, president and co-founder of Gapminder.

Free tools for a fact-based worldview

Used by millions of people, teachers , journalists and decision makers all over the world.

Worldview Upgrader

Rid yourself of the most common global misconceptions and get your Upgraded Worldview Certificate

Animating Data

Get the proportions right and realize the macrotrends that will shape the future.

Dollar Street

Watch everyday life in hundreds of homes on all income levels across the world, to counteract the media’s skewed selection of images of other places.

We ask thousands of fact questions

to the public in many countries...

...to see what people think the world looks like

based on the news stories they see.

we check the data...

from the UN and other reliable sources...

to identify the most common misconceptions

where peoples' ideas differ most from reality.

we can help YOU

identify what you’re wrong about, and...

... keep upgrading your worldview

as the world keeps changing,

AND ENJOY a fact-based worldview

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Systematic review article, stem and gender gap: a systematic review in wos, scopus, and eric databases (2012–2022).

• 1 Universidad Metropolitana de Ciencias de la Educación, Ñuñoa, Chile
• 2 Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile
• 3 Centro de Investigación en Psicología, Educación y Familia (CIPEF), Universidad Finis Terrae, Santiago, Chile

Introduction: This article offers a thorough examination of relevant literature in the WoS, Scopus, and Eric databases for the period 2012–2022, utilizing the PRISMA model (2020) to address STEM and gender gap factors.

Methods: A comprehensive search of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Eric databases spanning the years 2012 to 2022 was conducted. Employing the PRISMA (2020) model, inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to identify pertinent studies that examined the relationship between STEM education and the gender gap. After rigorous evaluation, 24 articles that adhered to the established criteria were selected. These articles were thoroughly analyzed to extract relevant information pertaining to the factors contributing to the gender gap in STEM fields and educational interventions designed to alleviate these disparities.

Results: This analysis hinges on two fundamental dimensions. The first addresses the factors that contribute to the gender gap in STEM fields, while the second focuses on educational interventions crafted to mitigate bias. These interventions include activities aimed at enhancing skills in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology as well as fostering a growth mindset. The findings of this review suggest that research on gender and STEM predominantly emphasizes key issues using quantitative methodologies; however, it is recommended to explore other methodologies as well.

Discussion: The practical implications of this research relate to identifying critical areas in need of attention to address the identified gap and recognizing the necessity of diversifying the methods and tools used for gathering information to explore new factors that could account for gender biases in scientific fields. The study’s limitations lie in its exclusive focus on the binary gender gap between women and men without considering other relevant factors. Future analyses should incorporate the intersectionality perspective.

Introduction

The promotion gender equality in education is an ongoing global challenge in the twenty-first century, due to persistent disparities between men and women ( Fernandez et al., 2023 ). Unfortunately, a gender-based culture that differentiates expectations, skills, and life projects continues to prevail. One area of particular concern is the limited access given to women in scientific disciplines such as science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, collectively referred to as STEM ( OECD, 2016 ). This situation reveals a troubling scenario of social inequality that educators and policymakers worldwide must address.

According to a recent report by UN Women, at the current pace of progress, it may take 286 years to eliminate existing gaps ( United Nations Women, 2022 ). Advancing toward achieving these goals is crucial because providing education for all increases social resilience, mobility, and economic progress. For this reason, the agenda 2030, approved by the United Nations General Assembly in September 2015, is of utmost relevance. It includes 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), among which Goal 4 stands out, referring to quality, inclusive, and equitable education that promotes lifelong learning opportunities for all. Additionally, SDG 5 addresses gender equality, empowering women, and ending all forms of violence ( Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, 2020 ). In this regard, according to OECD Indicators (2021) , men strongly dominate STEM-related fields, highlighting the need to focus on this issue as it demonstrates the loss of talent by not effectively including women.

STEM is an interdisciplinary approach that emerged in the United States after World War II, driven by the need for technological progress. Its development was further propelled by the historical context of the Cold War, particularly with the launch of the R-7 rocket carrying the Sputnik 1 satellite, which had a significant impact on American politics ( Razi and Zhou, 2022 ). Its educational orientation was established by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and subsequently promoted and adopted worldwide. Its objectives are to provide students with critical thinking skills for creative problem-solving and, ultimately, to make them more marketable in the workforce ( White, 2014 ). In this way, the STEM approach contributes to higher-order skills and provides a foundation for innovation, influencing the economic well-being of nations ( Barakos et al., 2012 ).

However, women have been relegated from STEM objectives due to societal gender stereotypes, which shape a shared set of beliefs about the attributes that are characteristic of members of a social category ( Greenwald and Banaji, 2017 ). These beliefs can be implicit or explicit in individuals. By implicit we state thoughts and beliefs that are not commonly recognized but influence our explicit actions toward these objectives. This situation influences the expectations that humans have about their own capabilities. Lippmann (1922) defined stereotypes as mental images of different social groups, with their utility lying in simplifying perception and cognition. One of the most widely accepted definitions is provided by Ashmore and Del Boca (1981) , who conceive stereotypes as a set of beliefs about the personal attributes of a group of individuals.

Human beings develop generalized stereotypes related to specific disciplinary areas from an early age, which become an integral part of their developmental system ( Fine, 2018 ). These stereotypes influence their identity, that is, what they believe about themselves, their future, their interests, and their motivation to learn ( Meltzoff and Cvencek, 2019 ). In this regard, women encounter stereotypes with negative consequences for their interest and academic performance, necessitating efforts to attract and retain them in the STEM workforce to maximize innovation, creativity, and competitiveness ( Hill et al., 2010 ; Gaweł and Krstić, 2021 ). Thus, the educational space, as a socializing agent, is a structure that gives rise to interactions contributing to the reinforcement of stereotypes, which leads to the reproduction of symbolic violence ( Bourdieu and Passeron, 2018 ). Stereotypes describe and proscribe, inducing behavior as individuals conform to the norms attributed to them by society, which are further reinforced through educational institutions. The issue of the STEM education gap presents significant challenges for women, as they are hindered by stereotypes imposed by educational contexts regarding their own creative abilities ( Rippon, 2019 ), thereby limiting their access to careers in these fields.

When investigating the potential causes of the gender gap and biases in STEM, one can explore the most relevant theories and approaches that explain behaviors related to gender stereotypes, providing a suitable theoretical and empirical foundation for the study. These are summarized in Figure 1 .

Figure 1 . Theoretical models explaining stereotyped behaviors.

In the first group of the so-called “conventional” theories, we have Spence’s gender identity theory ( Spence, 1993 ), which presents a multifactorial approach to gender-associated attributes. Individuals adopt interests and behaviors expected of their gender, conforming to conventional roles. Additionally, the stereotype threat theory by Steele and Aronson (1995) reinforces and introduces new elements. It highlights the risk of confirming a negative stereotype about one’s own group, which can affect performance on specific tasks. In line with this, women are often associated with weaker mathematical skills compared to men, which influences their performance and interest. However, this does not align with their actual level of ability, as studies indicate that women achieve higher grades in this area ( Perez-Felkner et al., 2017 ; Lundberg, 2020 ).

In the group of established theories, we have Tajfel and Turner’s social identity theory of intergroup behavior ( Tajfel and Turner, 1979 ), which highlights the impact on individuals’ behavior when they perceive themselves as members of social categories. This theory involves three psychological processes: social categorization, identification, and social comparisons. Another theory in this group is the social cognitive career and academic interest theory (SCCT) proposed by Lent et al. (1994) . SCCT focuses on self-efficacy, outcome expectations, goal mechanisms, and how they can interact with gender, contextual support systems, and experiential learning factors ( Lent et al., 1994 ). Eccles and Wigfield’s expectancy-value theory ( Eccles and Wigfield, 2002 ) is a theoretical model that introduces other relevant variables. It addresses the theoretical pathway through which stereotypes affect students’ academic outcomes, choices, and the role of motivation as a change agent ( Wigfield et al., 2015 ). While it emphasizes the role of motivation in addressing the gender gap, it overlooks contextual barriers. It is not only through motivation and elevated expectations that individuals achieve their goals, but social, economic, and personal interferences also play a role. In this regard, identity emerges as a crucial aspect. Finally, we have Eagly and Wood (2012) , which aims to explain the behavior of women and men, as well as the relevant stereotypes, ideologies, and attitudes related to sex and gender.

In the emerging approaches, the contributions of Greenwald and Banaji (1995) are noteworthy. They had already introduced the concept of implicit social cognition to address the influences of stimuli that impact individuals outside of conscious control. Later, Baron et al. (2014) incorporated this concept and focused on social cognition to address stereotypes, emphasizing that it is a cognitive process that develops throughout an individual’s life, including elements such as social association, the assigned gender identity, and self-concept ( Meltzoff and Cvencek, 2019 ). In a similar vein, the nascent proposal of Master and Meltzoff (2020) , called STEMO (Stereotypes, Motivation, and Outcomes), integrates aspects of educational research, human development, and social psychology to understand the mechanisms contributing to gender gaps. Their hypothesis describes the ways in which female STEM students encounter negative stereotypes, leading to biased self-representations regarding their group membership and consequent effects on their interest and academic performance.

The current debate in empirical studies on gender stereotypes in STEM revolves around the differences in preferences and interests between men and women. In this regard, findings indicate that stereotypical images persist and apply to all areas. Given the limited number of studies, it is still risky to make comparisons or inferences ( Master and Meltzoff, 2020 ). On the other hand, some lines of research have focused on the preschool stage and the effect of math stereotypes on teacher-student interaction networks ( Ortega et al., 2021 ). Similarly, research on the role of implicit and explicit beliefs related to mathematics in primary school students, in connection with the influence of parents on their behavior, is noteworthy ( Siani and Dacin, 2018 ). From another perspective, studies have focused on considering the socioeconomic and cultural profiles of female high school students who intend to pursue STEM careers ( Kızılay et al., 2020 ). Meanwhile, recent research addresses the experiences of female graduate students in STEM careers regarding gender gaps and the challenges they face ( Lim et al., 2021 ).

Studies on STEM education have progressively increased in recent years, delineating different scientific trends ( Bogdan and García-Carmona, 2021 ). Therefore, it is essential to identify the approaches that have been developed and envision research gaps for the advancement of new perspectives. Hence, this systematic review follows the PRISMA 2020 guidelines ( Page et al., 2021 ) and aims to describe the scope of research on STEM and the gender gap in primary, secondary, and tertiary education between the years 2012 and 2022. The following questions will help us address this objective:

• What are the most frequently addressed research topics? (Q1).

• What are the most widely used theories that guide research? (Q2).

• How are the topics addressed in the studies? (Q3).

• What is the most developed research method in the studies? (Q4).

The following section delineates the methodological criteria and search strategies employed in this study. After this, the systematic review’s findings are elucidated, leading into discussions, conclusions, and the acknowledgment of limitations, ultimately culminating in a comprehensive compilation of bibliographic references utilized in this study.

This Systematic Review follows the PRISMA (2020) criteria. The research incorporates empirical scientific articles published in open access journals from 2012 to 2022, using the search engines Scopus, Eric, and WoS, recognized as those that compile the highest number of multidisciplinary scientific publications. The purpose is to gather knowledge advancement in a specific subject. The search date for this review was June 21, 2022, and the following English keyword combinations were used: STEM Education AND gender gap, STEM AND gender gap, and STEM AND education AND gap AND gender.

This study is structured based on pre-established criteria for selection/exclusion on this matter, such as the temporal dimension and the object of study. Additionally, the scientific mapping considered five stages: (1) study design, (2) data collection, (3) data analysis, (4) data visualization, and (5) interpretation. In the study design stage, the guiding question was: “What were the results of publications on STEM education and the gender gap indexed in the Scopus, Eric, and WoS databases for the period 2012–2022. The data collection stage consists of three sub-stages: (1) data gathering, (2) data screening, and (3) data cleaning. Table 1 condenses the research protocol criteria that represent the search filters.

Table 1 . Research protocol summary.

Before proceeding with the selection of articles, the following inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined:

Inclusion criteria

1. Open-access empirical scientific articles that are available in databases, and peer-reviewed, published in the last 10 years.

2. Studies that link the analysis of standardized assessment databases with other attitudinal, cognitive, and social variables from governmental and non-governmental entities.

3. They must be empirical studies with educational implications and case studies.

4. The studies that address STEM and the gender gap in primary, secondary, or tertiary education.

Exclusion criteria

1. Book chapters, conferences, theoretical articles, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.

2. Studies only focused on the database analysis published, prior to 2012 of this systematic review, on standardized assessments.

3. Database studies on academic performance analysis without linkage to other attitudinal, cognitive, and social variables from governmental and non-governmental entities.

4. Studies focused on the topics of ethnicity, race, graduate students, and practicing professionals in STEM.

5. Studies that mainly address the implementation of other guidelines, with STEM and gender gap not being their focus of analysis.

6. Once the systematic review protocol outlined in the PRISMA model (2020) proposed by Page et al. (2021) was applied to the WoS, Scopus, and Eric databases, a total of 24 scientific articles that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were obtained, corresponding to the primary units of analysis for the research. The process is presented in the following flowchart ( Figure 2 ).

Figure 2 . Flowchart of scientific article search.

A synthesis of the selected research results is presented in the following table organized by authors, theory, sample, methodology, and results. The analysis that will be conducted next follows the projected order that is most relevant for facilitating understanding and integration of the findings. Table 2 shows a summary of the analyzed studies.

Table 2 . Characteristics of the reviewed studies.

The results have been organized into two dimensions derived from the analysis of the articles found: factors influencing the gender gap in STEM and learning experiences to overcome the gender gap in STEM. Under the factors influencing the gender gap in STEM, categories such as self-efficacy, motivation, expectations, social support, gender roles, identity, teaching roles, anxiety, skills, interests, goals, confidence, stereotype attribution bias, value beliefs, occupational aspirations, burnout, well-being, academic performance, self-perceived skills, influence of the job market, and peer influence emerge. In this regard, four factors that dominated the reviewed research are highlighted: beliefs, self-efficacy, motivation, and expectations. In the realm of learning experiences to overcome the gender gap in STEM , a growth mindset is emphasized.

Similarly, the quantitatively most studied focus has been the discipline of mathematics, even though STEM also encompasses other areas such as chemistry, physics, biology, engineering, astronomy, among others.

Gender gap in STEM is a challenge that involves combined factors such as stereotypical beliefs, self-efficacy, expectations, and motivation. Overcoming biases should be directed toward various aspects, such as university and government support, financial assistance, assertive teacher interaction ( Wang, 2013 ), and, of course, meaningful scientific learning experiences ( Rundgren et al., 2019 ).

The analysis of factors and strategies to address and detect inequalities imposed by biases is limited and should consider other variables. It has mostly focused on studies that gather personal perceptions from each subject, without examining the underlying relationship that governs gender social inequalities between men and women, such as power dynamics and collaborative work. Exploring these aspects would provide alternative perspectives to the issue and contribute to the retention of individuals in STEM fields.

Research has focused on the use of the social cognitive career theory, as there is an interest in understanding the social, cognitive, and psychological factors that influence women’s choices in STEM fields. However, they have not considered the brain structures involved in the adoption of stereotypes.

Furthermore, although significant progress has been made in research on STEM and the gender gap ( Le Thi Thu et al., 2021 ), studies have predominantly focused on the development of quantitative methodologies, highlighting the limited presence of qualitative and mixed methods studies. Moreover, surveys and databases have been commonly used as research tools. The use of database analysis reveals serious issues due to the lack of familiarity and control over the data structure ( Bryman, 2016 ). Therefore, it would be advisable to diversify the methods and tools for gathering information in order to explore new factors that could explain gender biases in scientific fields.

Factors that affect the gender gap in STEM

Gender stereotypes are unconscious and conscious beliefs that underpin the gender gap in STEM and are in line with the status quo , as they depend on who is stereotyping and who is being stereotyped to generate an implicit and explicit response in their cognition that translates into social behavior. The factors influencing the gender gap in STEM education are addressed in various studies and can be grouped into three types: psychological, contextual, and sociocultural. However, the boundaries between these factors are blurred, as there is an interactive and dynamic relationship among them.

Within the most investigated factors, one can identify self-efficacy, motivation, expectations, social support, gender roles, identity, aspirations, family background, attitudes, socioeconomic context, teaching role, anxiety, skills, interests, goals, confidence, stereotype attribution bias, values beliefs, external support, masculinity, occupational aspirations, burnout, well-being, academic performance, self-perceived skills, influence of the job market, and classmates ( Legewie and DiPrete, 2014 ; Lauermann et al., 2017 ; Master et al., 2017 ; Siani and Dacin, 2018 ; Vázquez and Blanco, 2018 ; Makarova et al., 2019 ; Çiftçi et al., 2020 ; Cotner et al., 2020 ; He et al., 2020 ; Lundberg, 2020 ; Salmela-Aro, 2020 ; Stearns et al., 2020 ; Alam et al., 2021 ; Ashlock et al., 2021 ; Ayuso et al., 2021 ; Demir et al., 2021 ; Mitsopoulou and Pavlatou, 2021 ; Moè et al., 2021 ; Anaya et al., 2022 ; Chan, 2022 ; Cuevas et al., 2022 ). In this sense, four gender gap factors stood out from the reviewed research: beliefs, self-efficacy, motivation, and expectations. These factors were quantitatively addressed the most and the study conclusions indicated them as critical elements mediating biases.

Self-efficacy is the mechanism that assist individuals determine their activity and environmental choices ( Bandura, 1982 ). It contributes to the persistence and regulation of emotions, behaviors, and interest in entering or persisting in STEM disciplines ( Rundgren et al., 2019 ). However, self-efficacy is influenced by a multitude of factors, among which learning experiences stand out, whether in primary, secondary, or tertiary education, which, in turn, are influenced by various contextual elements such as social, cultural, and economic factors, and are directly related to stereotypical beliefs ( Chan, 2022 ).

Both motivation and interest in STEM among women are directly related to beliefs about their skills, leading to demotivation and self-doubt, which in turn affects career choices ( Chan, 2022 ). However, what enables women to become interested and motivated in choosing other careers? According to the social cognitive career theory, both supports and barriers influence interests and motivations. Studies indicate that greater interests are expressed by males ( Vázquez and Blanco, 2018 ; Çiftçi et al., 2020 ). In this regard, according to Mitsopoulou and Pavlatou (2021) , the combination of outcome expectations and self-efficacy levels results in interest in STEM. However, beliefs play a crucial role as girls have a lower perception of their skills compared to boys from an early age ( Perez-Felkner et al., 2017 ). Girls may not choose engineering, even if their STEM scores are high ( Cuevas et al., 2022 ), as they are confined to spaces imposed by society through symbolic violence. This situation is further exacerbated by the fact that students’ interest in STEM subjects decreases during secondary education ( Bailey et al., 2017 ; Ballen et al., 2018 ). Therefore, constant opportunities and motivating learning experiences are required.

Learning experiences in overcoming the gender gap in STEM education

Based on the reviewed research, the relevance of learning experiences that foster interest in STEM among women can be concluded. These experiences include extracurricular activities focused on scientific enrichment ( Master et al., 2017 ; Siani and Dacin, 2018 ; Rundgren et al., 2019 ; Demi̇r et al., 2021). Within this framework, the absence of connections with scientific activities in teaching and learning practices in educational institutions is detrimental to overcoming the gap, as it not only hinders engagement in STEM careers but also hampers innovation, creativity, critical thinking, and student autonomy. Studies indicate that learning experiences are essential for entering and persisting in these fields ( Maltese and Tai, 2011 ; Wang, 2013 ). Overall participation in several types of scientific education experiences, including informal, every day, and school-directed experiences ( DeWitt and Archer, 2017 ), is significant for developing scientific capital among female students.

The growth mindset ( Perez-Felkner et al., 2017 ; Moè et al., 2021 ) emerges from successful learning experiences, triggering positive activating emotions such as motivation and interest ( Ayuso et al., 2021 ). In this way, it would facilitate overcoming the gender gap in these fields, which are essential for sustainable development. Implicit and explicit stereotypical beliefs about gender roles must be eradicated to progress in social, economic, and cultural advancement. This is not only beneficial for states but also for non-governmental entities in terms of providing a skilled workforce ( Legewie and DiPrete, 2014 ), thus promoting the reduction of social inequalities.

This systematic review endeavors to uncover the prevailing trends in research conducted between 2012 and 2022, focusing on the factors that contribute to gender disparities in STEM fields. The insights derived from this initial exploration serve as the foundation for a comprehensive examination of our research findings and their implications for fostering gender equity in STEM education and career.

Returning to the research questions, we can indicate that:

• Q1: The most investigated topics are factors influencing the gender gap in STEM as well as educational interventions to promote interest and motivation.

• Q2: The most used theories are the social cognitive career theory, as it provides insights into the determinants that influence career choices.

• Q3: The addressed topics focus on women and are studied by considering variables that should be considered in gender gaps in STEM. Possible solutions are also emerging in the discussions.

• Q4: The most used method is quantitative, and the predominant instruments and techniques for gathering information are databases and surveys.

Ultimately, the space for research growth is evident both at the theoretical and methodological levels, due to the predominance of quantitative studies, with a minority presence of qualitative and mixed methods studies. While quantitative studies are of high quality, as they are longitudinal, experimental, and observational, it is important to explore the reality through other approaches that allow for a deeper understanding of the issue.

On the other hand, the tools used as self-report instruments and databases are insufficient for understanding the phenomenon. Subsequent studies should investigate other factors that influence the gender gap in STEM education and link them with critical perspectives on the underlying causes, rather than just focusing on the consequences or self-perceptions of those stereotypical beliefs. The combined effects and experiences across educational levels must be observed to understand academic and career choices.

The findings of this systematic review offer a comprehensive summary of the empirical research conducted within this field of study. This study aims to promote scientific knowledge from a global perspective. It is of utmost importance for researchers and policymakers to be knowledgeable about the systematization of STEM studies and the gender gap. This knowledge is crucial for understanding the methods developed to advance knowledge, raise awareness about the issue, and propose innovative solutions to address this phenomenon.

Limitations

The present systematic review concentrated exclusively on the gender gap within the binary framework of women and men. Nevertheless, it is crucial to incorporate the perspective of intersectionality in future systematic reviews, as it encompasses various categories of analysis that would significantly contribute to the investigation of disparities in STEM fields.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author contributions

FB-V: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. NS-G: Funding acquisition, Resources, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This research was funded by the National Doctoral Scholarship Program 2022–2024 of the National Agency for Research and Development of Chile (ANID No. 21220061; GOP No. 242230011); and National Fund for Scientific and Technological Development (FONDECYT), ANID, Chile (No. 1231574).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Alam, M., Sajid, S., Kok, J., Rehman, M., and Amin, A. (2021). Factors that influence high school female students’ intentions to pursue science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education in Malaysia. Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. Human. 29, 839–867. doi: 10.47836/pjssh.29.2.06

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Anaya, L., Stafford, F., and Zamarro, G. (2022). Gender gaps in math performance, perceived mathematical ability and college STEM education: the role of parental occupation. Educ. Econ. 30, 113–128. doi: 10.1080/09645292.2021.1974344

Ashlock, J., Stojnic, M., and Tufekci, Z. (2021). Gender differences in academic efficacy across STEM fields. Sociol. Perspect. 65, 555–579. doi: 10.1177/07311214211028617

Ashmore, R. D., and Del Boca, F. K. (1981). “Conceptual approaches to stereotypes and stereotyping” in Cognitive processes in stereotyping and intergroup behavior . ed. D. L. Hamilton (Psychology Press), 1–35.

Google Scholar

Ayuso, N., Fillola, E., Masia, B., Murillo, A. C., Trillo-Lado, R., Baldassarri, S., et al. (2021). Gender gap in STEM: a cross-sectional study of primary school students’ self-perception and test anxiety in mathematics. IEEE Trans. Educ. 64, 40–49. doi: 10.1109/TE.2020.3004075

Bailey, D., Duncan, G. J., Odgers, C. L., and Yu, W. (2017). Persistence and fadeout in the impacts of child and adolescent interventions. J. Res. Educ. Effect. 10, 7–39. doi: 10.1080/19345747.2016.1232459

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ballen, C. J., Aguillon, S. M., Brunelli, R., Drake, A. G., Wassenberg, D., Weiss, S. L., et al. (2018). Do small classes in higher education reduce performance gaps in STEM? Bioscience 68, 593–600. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biy056

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. Am. Psychol. 37, 122–147. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122

Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of personality . Available at: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Social-cognitive-theory-of-personality.-Bandura/e9cc8502ef2ca8e4ca6c7be45e67416f8d25a947

Bandura, A. (2018). Toward a psychology of human agency: pathways and reflections. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 13, 130–136. doi: 10.1177/1745691617699280

Barakos, L., Lujan, V., and Strang, C. (2012). Science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM): catalyzing change amid the confusion. : Center on Instruction Available at: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED534119 .

Baron, A. S., Schmader, T., Cvencek, D., and Meltzoff, A. N. (2014). “The gendered self-concept: how implicit gender stereotypes and attitudes shape self-definition” in Gender and development . Eds P. J. Leman and H. R. Tenenbaum (Psychology Press), 109–132.

Blickenstaff, J. (2005). Women and science careers: leaky pipeline or gender filter? Gend. Educ. 17, 369–386. doi: 10.1080/09540250500145072

Bogdan, R., and García-Carmona, A. (2021). «De STEM nos gusta todo menos STEM». Análisis crítico de una tendencia educativa de moda [«of STEM we like everything but STEM». A critical analysis of a buzzing educational trend]. Enseñanza Cienc. 39, 65–80. doi: 10.5565/rev/ensciencias.3093

Bourdieu, P., and Passeron, J.-C. (2018). La reproducción: Elementos para una teoría del sistema educativo . Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI.

Breit, M., Brunner, M., and Preckel, F. (2020). General intelligence and specific cognitive abilities in adolescence: tests of age differentiation, ability differentiation, and their interaction in two large samples. Dev. Psychol. 56, 364–384. doi: 10.1037/dev0000876

Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods . 5th Edn. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

Cernas-Ortiz, D., Mercado, P., and Leon-Cazares, F. (2017). La varianza del método común en la relación entre la satisfacción laboral y la satisfacción con la vida. Estudi. Geren. 33, 321–329. doi: 10.1016/j.estger.2017.11.004

Chan, R. C. H. (2022). A social cognitive perspective on gender disparities in self-efficacy, interest, and aspirations in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): the influence of cultural and gender norms. Int. J. STEM Educ. 9:37. doi: 10.1186/s40594-022-00352-0

Çiftçi, A., Topcu, M., and Erdogan, I. (2020). Gender gap and career choices in STEM education: Turkey sample. Int. J. Progress. Educ. 16, 53–66. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2020.248.4

Cotner, S., Jeno, L. M., Walker, J. D., Jørgensen, C., and Vandvik, V. (2020). Gender gaps in the performance of Norwegian biology students: the roles of test anxiety and science confidence. Int. J. STEM Educ. 7:55. doi: 10.1186/s40594-020-00252-1

Cuevas, P., García-Arenas, M., and Rico, N. (2022). Why not STEM? A study case on the influence of gender factors on students’ higher education choice. Mathematics 10:239. doi: 10.3390/math10020239

Cvencek, D., Meltzoff, A. N., and Greenwald, A. G. (2011). Math-gender stereotypes in elementary school children. Child Dev. 82, 766–779. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01529.x

Cvencek, D., Meltzoff, A. N., and Kapur, M. (2014). Cognitive consistency and math-gender stereotypes in Singaporean children. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 117, 73–91. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2013.07.018

Demir, C., Önal, N., and Önal, N. (2021). Investigation of middle school students’ attitudes towards science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education and determination of the predictors. J. Sci. Learn. 4:101. doi: 10.17509/jsl.v4i2.28859

DeWitt, J., and Archer, L. (2017). Participation in informal science learning experiences: the rich get richer? Int. J. Sci. Educ., Part B 7, 356–373. doi: 10.1080/21548455.2017.1360531

Eagly, A. H., and Wood, W. (2012). “Social role theory” in Handbook of theories of social psychology: volume 2 . Eds. n P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski and E. T. Higgins (SAGE Publications Ltd.), 458–476.

Eccles, J. (2011). Gendered educational and occupational choices: applying the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 35, 195–201. doi: 10.1177/0165025411398185

Eccles, J., and Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values and goals. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 53, 109–132. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153

Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) (2020). The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in the new global and regional context: scenarios and projections in the current crisis (LC/PUB.2020/5), Santiago. Available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/26088ECLAC_contribution_2020.pdf

Fernandez, D., White, S., Smith, H. C. M., Connor, P. M., and Ryan, M. (2023). Gender inequality in science, technology, engineering and mathematics: gendered time disparities in perceived and actual time spent in practical laboratory-based activities. Front. Educ. 8:1194968. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2023.1194968

Fine, C. (2018). Testosterona Rex. Mitos sobre el sexo, ciencia y sociedad . Barcelona: Paidos.

Gaweł, A., and Krstić, M. (2021). Gender gaps in entrepreneurship and education levels from the perspective of clusters of european countries. J. Dev. Entrep. 26:2150024. doi: 10.1142/S1084946721500242

Greenwald, A. G., and Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychol. Rev. 102, 4–27. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.102.1.4

Greenwald, A. G., and Banaji, M. R. (2017). The implicit revolution: reconceiving the relation between conscious and unconscious. Am. Psychol. 72, 861–871. doi: 10.1037/amp0000238

He, L., Zhou, G., Salinitri, G., and Xu, L. (2020). Female underrepresentation in STEM subjects: an exploratory study of female high school students in China. EURASIA J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 16:em1802. doi: 10.29333/ejmste/109657

Hill, C., Corbett, C., and St. Rose, A. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics : American Association of University Women Available at: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED509653 .

Joel, D., Berman, Z., Tavor, I., Wexler, N., Gaber, O., Stein, Y., et al. (2015). Sex beyond the genitalia: the human brain mosaic. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 112, 15468–15473. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1509654112

Kızılay, E., Yamak, H., and Kavak, N. (2020). Development of the STEM career interest scale for high school students. Eur. J. Educ. Sci. 7, 1–15. doi: 10.19044/ejes.v7no3a4

Lauermann, F., Tsai, Y.-M., and Eccles, J. S. (2017). Math-related career aspirations and choices within Eccles et al.’s expectancy–value theory of achievement-related behaviors. Dev. Psychol. 53, 1540–1559. doi: 10.1037/dev0000367

Le Thi Thu, H., Tran, T., Trinh Thi Phuong, T., Le Thi Tuyet, T., Le Huy, H., and Vu Thi, T. (2021). Two decades of STEM education research in middle school: a Bibliometrics analysis in Scopus database (2000–2020). Educ. Sci. 11:353. doi: 10.3390/educsci11070353

Legewie, J., and DiPrete, T. A. (2014). The high school environment and the gender gap in science and engineering. Sociol. Educ. 87, 259–280. doi: 10.1177/0038040714547770

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., and Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. J. Vocat. Behav. 45, 79–122. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.1994.1027

Lim, J. H., Wang, Y., Wu, T., Li, Z., and Sun, T. (2021). Walking on gender tightrope with multiple marginalities: Asian international female students in STEM graduate programs. J. Int. Stud. 11, 647–665. doi: 10.32674/jis.v11i3.2132

Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion . New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.

Lundberg, S. (2020). Educational gender gaps. South. Econ. J. 87, 416–439. doi: 10.1002/soej.12460

Makarova, E., Aeschlimann, B., and Herzog, W. (2019). The gender gap in STEM fields: the impact of the gender stereotype of math and science on secondary students’ career aspirations. Front. Educ. 4:60. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2019.00060

Maltese, A. V., and Tai, R. H. (2011). Pipeline persistence: examining the association of educational experiences with earned degrees in STEM among U.S. students. Sci. Educ. 95, 877–907. doi: 10.1002/sce.20441

Master, A., Cheryan, S., Moscatelli, A., and Meltzoff, A. N. (2017). Programming experience promotes higher STEM motivation among first-grade girls. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 160, 92–106. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2017.03.013

Master, A., and Meltzoff, A. (2020). Cultural stereotypes and sense of belonging contribute to gender gaps in STEM. Sci. Technol. 12:47,

Meltzoff, A. N., and Cvencek, D. (2019). How stereotypes shape children’s STEM identity and learning. In: Developing minds in the digital age: Towards a science of learning for 21st century education. Eds. P. Kuhl et al. (Chapter 3, pp. 37–47). OECD Publishing.

Mitsopoulou, A., and Pavlatou, E. (2021). Factors associated with the development of secondary school students’ interest towards STEM studies. Educ. Sci. 11:746. doi: 10.3390/educsci11110746

Moè, A., Hausmann, M., and Hirnstein, M. (2021). Gender stereotypes and incremental beliefs in STEM and non-STEM students in three countries: relationships with performance in cognitive tasks. Psychol. Res. 85, 554–567. Scopus. doi: 10.1007/s00426-019-01285-0

Nix, S., Perez-Felkner, L., and Thomas, K. (2015). Perceived mathematical ability under challenge: a longitudinal perspective on sex segregation among STEM degree fields. Front. Psychol. 6:530. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00530

OECD (2016). Mujeres, Gobierno y Diseño de Políticas Públicas en los países de la OCDE: Fomentar la diversidad para el crecimiento incluyente : Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Available at: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/governance/mujeres-gobierno-y-diseno-de-politicas-publicas-en-los-paises-de-la-ocde_9789264256613-es .

OECD (2021). Education at a glance 2021: OECD indicators : OECD.

Ortega, L., Treviño, E., and Gelber, D. (2021). The inclusion of girls in Chilean mathematics classrooms: gender bias in teacher-student interaction networks (La inclusión de las niñas en las aulas de matemáticas chilenas: sesgo de género en las redes de interacciones profesor-estudiante). J. Study Educ. Dev. 44, 623–674. doi: 10.1080/02103702.2020.1773064

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., et al. (2021). Declaración PRISMA 2020: Una guía actualizada para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas. Rev. Esp. Cardiol. 74, 790–799. doi: 10.1016/j.recesp.2021.06.016

Perez-Felkner, L., Nix, S., and Thomas, K. (2017). Gendered pathways: how mathematics ability beliefs shape secondary and postsecondary course and degree field choices. Front. Psychol. 8:386. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00386

Razi, A., and Zhou, G. (2022). STEM, iSTEM, and STEAM: what is next? Int. J. Technol. Educ. 5, 1–29. doi: 10.46328/ijte.119

Rippon, G. (2019). The gendered brain: the new neuroscience that shatters the myth of the female brain . London: Bodley Head.

Rundgren, S.-N. C., Sun, Y., and Jidesjo, A. (2019). Examining gender differences in students’ entrance into and persistence in STEM programs in Swedish higher education. Eur. J. Educ. Sci. 6, 66–94. doi: 10.19044/ejes.v6no1a5

Salmela-Aro, K. (2020). The role of motivation and academic wellbeing – the transition from secondary to further education in STEM in Finland. Eur. Rev. 28, S121–S134. doi: 10.1017/S1062798720000952

Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. Technol. Teach. 68, 20–26,

Schunk, D. H., and DiBenedetto, M. K. (2020). Motivation and social cognitive theory. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 60:101832. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101832

Siani, A., and Dacin, C. (2018). An evaluation of gender bias and pupils’ attitude towards STEM disciplines in the transition between compulsory and voluntary schooling. New Direct. Teach. Phys. Sci. doi: 10.29311/ndtps.v0i13.2966

Spence, J. T. (1993). Gender-related traits and gender ideology: evidence for a multifactorial theory. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 64, 624–635. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.64.4.624

Stearns, E., Bottia, M. C., Giersch, J., Mickelson, R. A., Moller, S., Jha, N., et al. (2020). Do relative advantages in STEM grades explain the gender gap in selection of a STEM major in college? A multimethod answer. Am. Educ. Res. J. 57, 218–257. doi: 10.3102/0002831219853533

Steele, C. M., and Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 69, 797–811. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797

Tajfel, H., and Turner, J. C. (1979). “An integrative theory of intergroup conflict | ALNAP” in The social psychology of intergroup relations (Brooks/Cole), 33–37. Available at: https://www.alnap.org/help-library/an-integrative-theory-of-intergroup-conflict

United Nations Women. (2022). Progress on the sustainable development goals: the gender snapshot 2022 . Available at: https://data.unwomen.org/publications/progress-sustainable-development-goals-gender-snapshot-2022

Vázquez, I. M. V., and Blanco, Á. (2018). Factores sociocognitivos asociados a la elección de estudios científico-matemáticos. Un análisis diferencial por sexo y curso en la Educación Secundaria. Rev. Invest. Educ. 37, 269–286. doi: 10.6018/rie.37.1.303531

Wang, X. (2013). Why students choose STEM majors: motivation, high school learning, and postsecondary context of support. Am. Educ. Res. J. 50, 1081–1121. doi: 10.3102/0002831213488622

White, D. W. (2014). What is STEM education and why is it important? Flor. Assoc. Teach. Educ. J. 1, 1–9,

Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Fredricks, J. A., Simpkins, S., Roeser, R., and Schiefele, U. (2015). Development of achievementmotivation and engagement. In: Handbook of child psychology and developmental science, Vol. 3: socioemotional processes . Eds. R. M. Lerner (Series Ed.), and M. Lamb (Vol. Ed.), (7th ed., pp. 657–700). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Keywords: stereotypes, stem, gender gap, education, academic performance

Citation: Beroíza-Valenzuela F and Salas-Guzmán N (2024) STEM and gender gap: a systematic review in WoS, Scopus, and ERIC databases (2012–2022). Front. Educ . 9:1378640. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2024.1378640

Received: 30 January 2024; Accepted: 23 April 2024; Published: 06 May 2024.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2024 Beroíza-Valenzuela and Salas-Guzmán. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Natalia Salas-Guzmán, [email protected]

This article is part of the Research Topic

Women's Experience and Gender Bias in Higher Education

Veon Teams up With Partners to Bridge Online 'AI Language Gap'

Veon Teams up With Partners to Bridge Online 'AI Language Gap'

FILE PHOTO: Figurines with computers and smartphones are seen in front of the words "Artificial Intelligence AI" in this illustration taken, February 19, 2024. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo

(Reuters) - Telecom company Veon, mobile operator Beeline Kazakhstan, the Barcelona Supercomputing Center and the GSMA lobby group said on Wednesday they would work together to bridge an "AI language gap" for under-represented languages.

Large language models powering 'bots' like chatGPT often rely on swathes of online data, such as digital books, websites, articles and blogs to learn how to generate human-like responses. But data and resources in some languages are limited.

"Out of nearly 7000 languages spoken around the globe, only seven are considered high-resource languages in the digital world: English, Spanish, French, Mandarin, Arabic, German and Japanese," the groups said in a joint statement.

They will collaborate on developing tools and language model documentation in under-represented languages, including those spoken in the countries where Veon operates - Pakistan, Ukraine, Bangladesh, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan.

Another language was Catalan, which is spoken by around 10 million people, the statement said.

"The lack of resources in other languages results in an AI language gap which leads to sub-optimal user experience in AI applications, deepens the bias in AI models and risks deepening the digital divide in AI technologies ," they added.

(Reporting by Olivier Sorgho; Editing by Alexander Smith)

Copyright 2024 Thomson Reuters .

Tags: Ukraine , artificial intelligence , Pakistan , Bangladesh , Kazakhstan , Uzbekistan , Europe , Spain , education , Netherlands , Kyrgyzstan

The Best Financial Tools for You

Credit Cards

Personal Loans

Comparative assessments and other editorial opinions are those of U.S. News and have not been previously reviewed, approved or endorsed by any other entities, such as banks, credit card issuers or travel companies. The content on this page is accurate as of the posting date; however, some of our partner offers may have expired.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter to get investing advice, rankings and stock market news.

See a newsletter example .

You May Also Like

7 best vanguard bond funds to buy.

Tony Dong May 15, 2024

Best Bond Funds for Retirement

Coryanne Hicks May 15, 2024

8 Best Quantum Computing Stocks to Buy

Brian O'Connell May 15, 2024

7 Best High-Dividend Stocks Under $10

Jeff Reeves May 15, 2024

7 Best REIT ETFs to Buy for 2024

Glenn Fydenkevez May 14, 2024

Roundtable Q&A on the Inflation Dilemma

Rachel McVearry May 14, 2024

7 Best International Stock Funds to Buy

Tony Dong May 14, 2024

7 Top Financial Advisor Firms by AUM

Marc Guberti May 14, 2024

Brokerage Account vs. IRA: Which Wins?

Wayne Duggan May 14, 2024

5 Great Fixed-Income Funds to Buy Now

Tony Dong May 13, 2024

7 High-Return, Low-Risk Investments

Brian O'Connell May 13, 2024

Best Vanguard ETFs to Buy

7 Best Equal-Weight ETFs to Buy

Glenn Fydenkevez May 13, 2024

These 3 Fund Families Control the Market

Wayne Duggan May 13, 2024

4 Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) Stocks

Matt Whittaker May 10, 2024

Biggest Tech Companies in the World

Wayne Duggan May 10, 2024

7 Best Car Stocks to Invest in Now

Jeff Reeves May 10, 2024

5 Best Mutual Funds to Buy

Coryanne Hicks May 10, 2024

Fidelity Mutual Funds to Buy and Hold

Tony Dong May 10, 2024

Should You Buy Solana? 3 Pros, 3 Cons

Wayne Duggan May 9, 2024

Report Highlights Big Gaps in Cancer Outcomes Based on Race

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay Reporter

WEDNESDAY, May 15, 2024 (HealthDay News) -- U.S. cancer death rates are continuing to drop, falling by 33% between 1991 and 2020.

However, not all Americans are reaping the benefits from advances in cancer prevention, early detection and treatment, a new report from the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) shows.

Race, location and sexuality all play a role in cancer disparities across the United States, according to the AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report 2024.

Black people and Native Americans continue to have the highest overall cancer death rates of all racial or ethnic groups, even though their overall cancer incidence rates are lower than those of whites, the report found.

U.S. Cities With the Most Homelessness

Black Americans, in particular, have striking disparities in cancer deaths:

Black men are twice as likely to die from prostate cancer as white men.

Black women are 40% more likely to die from breast cancer as white women, even though they develop the cancer at similar rates.

Black people are twice as likely to be diagnosed with and die from multiple myeloma, a type of blood cancer.

Meanwhile, a number of groups -- American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian/Pacific Islander and Hispanic people -- are more than twice as likely to die from stomach cancer as whites. These groups also are more likely to develop and die from liver cancer.

A person’s zip code also plays a role in their cancer risk, the report found.

People in largely rural counties are 38% more likely to be diagnosed with and die from lung cancer, compared to those living in urban areas, researchers found.

Another source of disparity comes from a person’s sexual and gender orientation, the report shows:

The risk of breast cancer is higher among sexual minority women compared to heterosexual women

Transgender people have a 76% higher risk of being diagnosed with advanced-stage lung cancer compared to cisgender people

Transgender women are twice as likely to die from prostate cancer as cisgender men, even though they have a 60% lower risk of developing it

"The findings of this report offer a deeper dive into the ‘whole person’ as it relates to the areas outside of medicine that contribute to health inequities,” said Dr. Robert Winn , chair of the AACR steering committee that produced the report.

“We have seen tremendous progress against cancer in the last few decades, but we must keep fighting to ensure equal access and improved health care delivery for all people,” added Winn, who is director of the Virginia Commonwealth University Massey Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Potential roots of these observed inequities could include, according to the report:

Social drivers of health like education level, income, employment, housing, transportation and access to health care and good food. Residents of disadvantaged neighborhoods have a 22% higher death rate for all cancers combined, the report noted

Differences in biological factors like genetics, immune profiles and gut bacteria

A lack of cancer genetics research involving a broad diversity of races

A lack of diversity among people in health care and cancer research

However, some progress has been made in narrowing these disparities, the report added.

The disparity in the overall cancer death rate between Black people and whites has narrowed significantly over the past three decades, from 33% in 1990 to just over 11% in 2020.

Specifically, disparities have narrowed for:

Lung cancer between white and Black men.

Cervical cancer between white and Hispanic women.

Stomach cancer between white and Asian/Pacific Islander populations.

The AACR report calls for billions in federal funding to fight these disparities, including more than $51 billion for the National Institutes of Health and nearly $8 billion for the National Cancer Institute in 2025.

The AACR also urged $472 million in funding for a U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention program aimed at health equity, as well as continued funding for Cancer Moonshot activities.

“In this era of extraordinary scientific progress against cancer, it is crucial that we ensure that no populations or communities are left behind. Health equity is a fundamental human right and must be a national priority,” said Dr. Margaret Foti , chief executive officer of the AACR.

“We hope that the information and recommendations in this report will inspire collaboration among stakeholders and the necessary support from Congress to tackle these complex issues and eliminate cancer disparities once and for all,” Foti added in an AACR news release.

More information

The National Cancer Institute has more on cancer disparities .

SOURCE: American Association for Cancer Research, news release, May 15, 2024 

Copyright © 2024 HealthDay . All rights reserved.

Join the Conversation

Tags: race , cancer

America 2024

Health News Bulletin

Stay informed on the latest news on health and COVID-19 from the editors at U.S. News & World Report.

Sign in to manage your newsletters »

Sign up to receive the latest updates from U.S News & World Report and our trusted partners and sponsors. By clicking submit, you are agreeing to our Terms and Conditions & Privacy Policy .

You May Also Like

The 10 worst presidents.

U.S. News Staff Feb. 23, 2024

Cartoons on President Donald Trump

Feb. 1, 2017, at 1:24 p.m.

Photos: Obama Behind the Scenes

April 8, 2022

Photos: Who Supports Joe Biden?

March 11, 2020

Who Is Prime Minister Robert Fico?

Laura Mannweiler May 15, 2024

Biden and Trump Agree to Debate

Lauren Camera May 15, 2024

Biden Muddies Message on Israel

Aneeta Mathur-Ashton May 15, 2024

Consumers Get a Break From Inflation

Tim Smart May 15, 2024

Trump Team Gets Its Shot at Cohen

Lauren Camera May 14, 2024

New China Tariffs: What to Know

Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder May 14, 2024

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

How to Weigh the Risks of Disclosing a Disability

• Ludmila N. Praslova

Disclosing a challenging health condition at work can be risky. You may get the accommodations you need, but you may also be met with suspicion, resentment, and accusations of making it all up. Research shows that most disabled employees experience some form of workplace discrimination, including hiring biases, pay gaps, bullying, and mistreatment. In addition, when people with nonapparent conditions disclose them, they often get a “You look fine” response, adding to their reluctance to disclose. In this article, the author discusses why disclosure is challenging, how to decide whether the risk is worth taking, and how a network can support you.

A guide to help you decide — and find support.

Whether to disclose your long Covid, or any other nonapparent condition or disability, to your employer is a deeply personal and consequential decision. While disclosing may help you access accommodations, it carries risks stemming from stigma and ableism. You might get support, but you might also be met with suspicion, resentment, and accusations of making it all up.

And what their employers are — and aren’t — doing to support them.

• Ludmila N. Praslova , PhD, SHRM-SCP, uses her extensive experience with neurodiversity and global and cultural inclusion to help create talent-rich workplaces. The author of The Canary Code , she is a professor of graduate industrial-organizational psychology and the accreditation liaison officer at Vanguard University of Southern California. Follow Ludmila on LinkedIn .

Partner Center

McKinsey Global Private Markets Review 2024: Private markets in a slower era

At a glance, macroeconomic challenges continued.

McKinsey Global Private Markets Review 2024: Private markets: A slower era

If 2022 was a tale of two halves, with robust fundraising and deal activity in the first six months followed by a slowdown in the second half, then 2023 might be considered a tale of one whole. Macroeconomic headwinds persisted throughout the year, with rising financing costs, and an uncertain growth outlook taking a toll on private markets. Full-year fundraising continued to decline from 2021’s lofty peak, weighed down by the “denominator effect” that persisted in part due to a less active deal market. Managers largely held onto assets to avoid selling in a lower-multiple environment, fueling an activity-dampening cycle in which distribution-starved limited partners (LPs) reined in new commitments.

About the authors

This article is a summary of a larger report, available as a PDF, that is a collaborative effort by Fredrik Dahlqvist , Alastair Green , Paul Maia, Alexandra Nee , David Quigley , Aditya Sanghvi , Connor Mangan, John Spivey, Rahel Schneider, and Brian Vickery , representing views from McKinsey’s Private Equity & Principal Investors Practice.

Performance in most private asset classes remained below historical averages for a second consecutive year. Decade-long tailwinds from low and falling interest rates and consistently expanding multiples seem to be things of the past. As private market managers look to boost performance in this new era of investing, a deeper focus on revenue growth and margin expansion will be needed now more than ever.

Perspectives on a slower era in private markets

Global fundraising contracted.

Fundraising fell 22 percent across private market asset classes globally to just over $1 trillion, as of year-end reported data—the lowest total since 2017. Fundraising in North America, a rare bright spot in 2022, declined in line with global totals, while in Europe, fundraising proved most resilient, falling just 3 percent. In Asia, fundraising fell precipitously and now sits 72 percent below the region’s 2018 peak.

Despite difficult fundraising conditions, headwinds did not affect all strategies or managers equally. Private equity (PE) buyout strategies posted their best fundraising year ever, and larger managers and vehicles also fared well, continuing the prior year’s trend toward greater fundraising concentration.

The numerator effect persisted

Despite a marked recovery in the denominator—the 1,000 largest US retirement funds grew 7 percent in the year ending September 2023, after falling 14 percent the prior year, for example 1 “U.S. retirement plans recover half of 2022 losses amid no-show recession,” Pensions and Investments , February 12, 2024. —many LPs remain overexposed to private markets relative to their target allocations. LPs started 2023 overweight: according to analysis from CEM Benchmarking, average allocations across PE, infrastructure, and real estate were at or above target allocations as of the beginning of the year. And the numerator grew throughout the year, as a lack of exits and rebounding valuations drove net asset values (NAVs) higher. While not all LPs strictly follow asset allocation targets, our analysis in partnership with global private markets firm StepStone Group suggests that an overallocation of just one percentage point can reduce planned commitments by as much as 10 to 12 percent per year for five years or more.

Despite these headwinds, recent surveys indicate that LPs remain broadly committed to private markets. In fact, the majority plan to maintain or increase allocations over the medium to long term.

Investors fled to known names and larger funds

Fundraising concentration reached its highest level in over a decade, as investors continued to shift new commitments in favor of the largest fund managers. The 25 most successful fundraisers collected 41 percent of aggregate commitments to closed-end funds (with the top five managers accounting for nearly half that total). Closed-end fundraising totals may understate the extent of concentration in the industry overall, as the largest managers also tend to be more successful in raising non-institutional capital.

While the largest funds grew even larger—the largest vehicles on record were raised in buyout, real estate, infrastructure, and private debt in 2023—smaller and newer funds struggled. Fewer than 1,700 funds of less than $1 billion were closed during the year, half as many as closed in 2022 and the fewest of any year since 2012. New manager formation also fell to the lowest level since 2012, with just 651 new firms launched in 2023.

Whether recent fundraising concentration and a spate of M&A activity signals the beginning of oft-rumored consolidation in the private markets remains uncertain, as a similar pattern developed in each of the last two fundraising downturns before giving way to renewed entrepreneurialism among general partners (GPs) and commitment diversification among LPs. Compared with how things played out in the last two downturns, perhaps this movie really is different, or perhaps we’re watching a trilogy reusing a familiar plotline.

Dry powder inventory spiked (again)

Private markets assets under management totaled $13.1 trillion as of June 30, 2023, and have grown nearly 20 percent per annum since 2018. Dry powder reserves—the amount of capital committed but not yet deployed—increased to $3.7 trillion, marking the ninth consecutive year of growth. Dry powder inventory—the amount of capital available to GPs expressed as a multiple of annual deployment—increased for the second consecutive year in PE, as new commitments continued to outpace deal activity. Inventory sat at 1.6 years in 2023, up markedly from the 0.9 years recorded at the end of 2021 but still within the historical range. NAV grew as well, largely driven by the reluctance of managers to exit positions and crystallize returns in a depressed multiple environment.

Private equity strategies diverged

Buyout and venture capital, the two largest PE sub-asset classes, charted wildly different courses over the past 18 months. Buyout notched its highest fundraising year ever in 2023, and its performance improved, with funds posting a (still paltry) 5 percent net internal rate of return through September 30. And although buyout deal volumes declined by 19 percent, 2023 was still the third-most-active year on record. In contrast, venture capital (VC) fundraising declined by nearly 60 percent, equaling its lowest total since 2015, and deal volume fell by 36 percent to the lowest level since 2019. VC funds returned –3 percent through September, posting negative returns for seven consecutive quarters. VC was the fastest-growing—as well as the highest-performing—PE strategy by a significant margin from 2010 to 2022, but investors appear to be reevaluating their approach in the current environment.

Private equity entry multiples contracted

PE buyout entry multiples declined by roughly one turn from 11.9 to 11.0 times EBITDA, slightly outpacing the decline in public market multiples (down from 12.1 to 11.3 times EBITDA), through the first nine months of 2023. For nearly a decade leading up to 2022, managers consistently sold assets into a higher-multiple environment than that in which they had bought those assets, providing a substantial performance tailwind for the industry. Nowhere has this been truer than in technology. After experiencing more than eight turns of multiple expansion from 2009 to 2021 (the most of any sector), technology multiples have declined by nearly three turns in the past two years, 50 percent more than in any other sector. Overall, roughly two-thirds of the total return for buyout deals that were entered in 2010 or later and exited in 2021 or before can be attributed to market multiple expansion and leverage. Now, with falling multiples and higher financing costs, revenue growth and margin expansion are taking center stage for GPs.

Real estate receded

Demand uncertainty, slowing rent growth, and elevated financing costs drove cap rates higher and made price discovery challenging, all of which weighed on deal volume, fundraising, and investment performance. Global closed-end fundraising declined 34 percent year over year, and funds returned −4 percent in the first nine months of the year, losing money for the first time since the 2007–08 global financial crisis. Capital shifted away from core and core-plus strategies as investors sought liquidity via redemptions in open-end vehicles, from which net outflows reached their highest level in at least two decades. Opportunistic strategies benefited from this shift, with investors focusing on capital appreciation over income generation in a market where alternative sources of yield have grown more attractive. Rising interest rates widened bid–ask spreads and impaired deal volume across food groups, including in what were formerly hot sectors: multifamily and industrial.

Private debt pays dividends

Debt again proved to be the most resilient private asset class against a turbulent market backdrop. Fundraising declined just 13 percent, largely driven by lower commitments to direct lending strategies, for which a slower PE deal environment has made capital deployment challenging. The asset class also posted the highest returns among all private asset classes through September 30. Many private debt securities are tied to floating rates, which enhance returns in a rising-rate environment. Thus far, managers appear to have successfully navigated the rising incidence of default and distress exhibited across the broader leveraged-lending market. Although direct lending deal volume declined from 2022, private lenders financed an all-time high 59 percent of leveraged buyout transactions last year and are now expanding into additional strategies to drive the next era of growth.

Infrastructure took a detour

After several years of robust growth and strong performance, infrastructure and natural resources fundraising declined by 53 percent to the lowest total since 2013. Supply-side timing is partially to blame: five of the seven largest infrastructure managers closed a flagship vehicle in 2021 or 2022, and none of those five held a final close last year. As in real estate, investors shied away from core and core-plus investments in a higher-yield environment. Yet there are reasons to believe infrastructure’s growth will bounce back. Limited partners (LPs) surveyed by McKinsey remain bullish on their deployment to the asset class, and at least a dozen vehicles targeting more than $10 billion were actively fundraising as of the end of 2023. Multiple recent acquisitions of large infrastructure GPs by global multi-asset-class managers also indicate marketwide conviction in the asset class’s potential.

Private markets still have work to do on diversity

Private markets firms are slowly improving their representation of females (up two percentage points over the prior year) and ethnic and racial minorities (up one percentage point). On some diversity metrics, including entry-level representation of women, private markets now compare favorably with corporate America. Yet broad-based parity remains elusive and too slow in the making. Ethnic, racial, and gender imbalances are particularly stark across more influential investing roles and senior positions. In fact, McKinsey’s research  reveals that at the current pace, it would take several decades for private markets firms to reach gender parity at senior levels. Increasing representation across all levels will require managers to take fresh approaches to hiring, retention, and promotion.

Artificial intelligence generating excitement

The transformative potential of generative AI was perhaps 2023’s hottest topic (beyond Taylor Swift). Private markets players are excited about the potential for the technology to optimize their approach to thesis generation, deal sourcing, investment due diligence, and portfolio performance, among other areas. While the technology is still nascent and few GPs can boast scaled implementations, pilot programs are already in flight across the industry, particularly within portfolio companies. Adoption seems nearly certain to accelerate throughout 2024.

Private markets in a slower era

If private markets investors entered 2023 hoping for a return to the heady days of 2021, they likely left the year disappointed. Many of the headwinds that emerged in the latter half of 2022 persisted throughout the year, pressuring fundraising, dealmaking, and performance. Inflation moderated somewhat over the course of the year but remained stubbornly elevated by recent historical standards. Interest rates started high and rose higher, increasing the cost of financing. A reinvigorated public equity market recovered most of 2022’s losses but did little to resolve the valuation uncertainty private market investors have faced for the past 18 months.

Within private markets, the denominator effect remained in play, despite the public market recovery, as the numerator continued to expand. An activity-dampening cycle emerged: higher cost of capital and lower multiples limited the ability or willingness of general partners (GPs) to exit positions; fewer exits, coupled with continuing capital calls, pushed LP allocations higher, thereby limiting their ability or willingness to make new commitments. These conditions weighed on managers’ ability to fundraise. Based on data reported as of year-end 2023, private markets fundraising fell 22 percent from the prior year to just over $1 trillion, the largest such drop since 2009 (Exhibit 1).

The impact of the fundraising environment was not felt equally among GPs. Continuing a trend that emerged in 2022, and consistent with prior downturns in fundraising, LPs favored larger vehicles and the scaled GPs that typically manage them. Smaller and newer managers struggled, and the number of sub–$1 billion vehicles and new firm launches each declined to its lowest level in more than a decade.

Despite the decline in fundraising, private markets assets under management (AUM) continued to grow, increasing 12 percent to $13.1 trillion as of June 30, 2023. 2023 fundraising was still the sixth-highest annual haul on record, pushing dry powder higher, while the slowdown in deal making limited distributions.

Investment performance across private market asset classes fell short of historical averages. Private equity (PE) got back in the black but generated the lowest annual performance in the past 15 years, excluding 2022. Closed-end real estate produced negative returns for the first time since 2009, as capitalization (cap) rates expanded across sectors and rent growth dissipated in formerly hot sectors, including multifamily and industrial. The performance of infrastructure funds was less than half of its long-term average and even further below the double-digit returns generated in 2021 and 2022. Private debt was the standout performer (if there was one), outperforming all other private asset classes and illustrating the asset class’s countercyclical appeal.

Private equity down but not out

Higher financing costs, lower multiples, and an uncertain macroeconomic environment created a challenging backdrop for private equity managers in 2023. Fundraising declined for the second year in a row, falling 15 percent to $649 billion, as LPs grappled with the denominator effect and a slowdown in distributions. Managers were on the fundraising trail longer to raise this capital: funds that closed in 2023 were open for a record-high average of 20.1 months, notably longer than 18.7 months in 2022 and 14.1 months in 2018. VC and growth equity strategies led the decline, dropping to their lowest level of cumulative capital raised since 2015. Fundraising in Asia fell for the fourth year of the last five, with the greatest decline in China.

Despite the difficult fundraising context, a subset of strategies and managers prevailed. Buyout managers collectively had their best fundraising year on record, raising more than $400 billion. Fundraising in Europe surged by more than 50 percent, resulting in the region’s biggest haul ever. The largest managers raised an outsized share of the total for a second consecutive year, making 2023 the most concentrated fundraising year of the last decade (Exhibit 2).

Despite the drop in aggregate fundraising, PE assets under management increased 8 percent to $8.2 trillion. Only a small part of this growth was performance driven: PE funds produced a net IRR of just 2.5 percent through September 30, 2023. Buyouts and growth equity generated positive returns, while VC lost money. PE performance, dating back to the beginning of 2022, remains negative, highlighting the difficulty of generating attractive investment returns in a higher interest rate and lower multiple environment. As PE managers devise value creation strategies to improve performance, their focus includes ensuring operating efficiency and profitability of their portfolio companies.

Deal activity volume and count fell sharply, by 21 percent and 24 percent, respectively, which continued the slower pace set in the second half of 2022. Sponsors largely opted to hold assets longer rather than lock in underwhelming returns. While higher financing costs and valuation mismatches weighed on overall deal activity, certain types of M&A gained share. Add-on deals, for example, accounted for a record 46 percent of total buyout deal volume last year.

Real estate recedes

For real estate, 2023 was a year of transition, characterized by a litany of new and familiar challenges. Pandemic-driven demand issues continued, while elevated financing costs, expanding cap rates, and valuation uncertainty weighed on commercial real estate deal volumes, fundraising, and investment performance.

Managers faced one of the toughest fundraising environments in many years. Global closed-end fundraising declined 34 percent to $125 billion. While fundraising challenges were widespread, they were not ubiquitous across strategies. Dollars continued to shift to large, multi-asset class platforms, with the top five managers accounting for 37 percent of aggregate closed-end real estate fundraising. In April, the largest real estate fund ever raised closed on a record $30 billion.

Capital shifted away from core and core-plus strategies as investors sought liquidity through redemptions in open-end vehicles and reduced gross contributions to the lowest level since 2009. Opportunistic strategies benefited from this shift, as investors turned their attention toward capital appreciation over income generation in a market where alternative sources of yield have grown more attractive.

In the United States, for instance, open-end funds, as represented by the National Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries Fund Index—Open-End Equity (NFI-OE), recorded $13 billion in net outflows in 2023, reversing the trend of positive net inflows throughout the 2010s. The negative flows mainly reflected $9 billion in core outflows, with core-plus funds accounting for the remaining outflows, which reversed a 20-year run of net inflows.

As a result, the NAV in US open-end funds fell roughly 16 percent year over year. Meanwhile, global assets under management in closed-end funds reached a new peak of $1.7 trillion as of June 2023, growing 14 percent between June 2022 and June 2023.

Real estate underperformed historical averages in 2023, as previously high-performing multifamily and industrial sectors joined office in producing negative returns caused by slowing demand growth and cap rate expansion. Closed-end funds generated a pooled net IRR of −3.5 percent in the first nine months of 2023, losing money for the first time since the global financial crisis. The lone bright spot among major sectors was hospitality, which—thanks to a rush of postpandemic travel—returned 10.3 percent in 2023. 2 Based on NCREIFs NPI index. Hotels represent 1 percent of total properties in the index. As a whole, the average pooled lifetime net IRRs for closed-end real estate funds from 2011–20 vintages remained around historical levels (9.8 percent).

Global deal volume declined 47 percent in 2023 to reach a ten-year low of $650 billion, driven by widening bid–ask spreads amid valuation uncertainty and higher costs of financing (Exhibit 3). 3 CBRE, Real Capital Analytics Deal flow in the office sector remained depressed, partly as a result of continued uncertainty in the demand for space in a hybrid working world.

During a turbulent year for private markets, private debt was a relative bright spot, topping private markets asset classes in terms of fundraising growth, AUM growth, and performance.

Fundraising for private debt declined just 13 percent year over year, nearly ten percentage points less than the private markets overall. Despite the decline in fundraising, AUM surged 27 percent to $1.7 trillion. And private debt posted the highest investment returns of any private asset class through the first three quarters of 2023.

Private debt’s risk/return characteristics are well suited to the current environment. With interest rates at their highest in more than a decade, current yields in the asset class have grown more attractive on both an absolute and relative basis, particularly if higher rates sustain and put downward pressure on equity returns (Exhibit 4). The built-in security derived from debt’s privileged position in the capital structure, moreover, appeals to investors that are wary of market volatility and valuation uncertainty.

Direct lending continued to be the largest strategy in 2023, with fundraising for the mostly-senior-debt strategy accounting for almost half of the asset class’s total haul (despite declining from the previous year). Separately, mezzanine debt fundraising hit a new high, thanks to the closings of three of the largest funds ever raised in the strategy.

Over the longer term, growth in private debt has largely been driven by institutional investors rotating out of traditional fixed income in favor of private alternatives. Despite this growth in commitments, LPs remain underweight in this asset class relative to their targets. In fact, the allocation gap has only grown wider in recent years, a sharp contrast to other private asset classes, for which LPs’ current allocations exceed their targets on average. According to data from CEM Benchmarking, the private debt allocation gap now stands at 1.4 percent, which means that, in aggregate, investors must commit hundreds of billions in net new capital to the asset class just to reach current targets.

Private debt was not completely immune to the macroeconomic conditions last year, however. Fundraising declined for the second consecutive year and now sits 23 percent below 2021’s peak. Furthermore, though private lenders took share in 2023 from other capital sources, overall deal volumes also declined for the second year in a row. The drop was largely driven by a less active PE deal environment: private debt is predominantly used to finance PE-backed companies, though managers are increasingly diversifying their origination capabilities to include a broad new range of companies and asset types.

Infrastructure and natural resources take a detour

For infrastructure and natural resources fundraising, 2023 was an exceptionally challenging year. Aggregate capital raised declined 53 percent year over year to $82 billion, the lowest annual total since 2013. The size of the drop is particularly surprising in light of infrastructure’s recent momentum. The asset class had set fundraising records in four of the previous five years, and infrastructure is often considered an attractive investment in uncertain markets.

While there is little doubt that the broader fundraising headwinds discussed elsewhere in this report affected infrastructure and natural resources fundraising last year, dynamics specific to the asset class were at play as well. One issue was supply-side timing: nine of the ten largest infrastructure GPs did not close a flagship fund in 2023. Second was the migration of investor dollars away from core and core-plus investments, which have historically accounted for the bulk of infrastructure fundraising, in a higher rate environment.

The asset class had some notable bright spots last year. Fundraising for higher-returning opportunistic strategies more than doubled the prior year’s total (Exhibit 5). AUM grew 18 percent, reaching a new high of $1.5 trillion. Infrastructure funds returned a net IRR of 3.4 percent in 2023; this was below historical averages but still the second-best return among private asset classes. And as was the case in other asset classes, investors concentrated commitments in larger funds and managers in 2023, including in the largest infrastructure fund ever raised.

The outlook for the asset class, moreover, remains positive. Funds targeting a record amount of capital were in the market at year-end, providing a robust foundation for fundraising in 2024 and 2025. A recent spate of infrastructure GP acquisitions signal multi-asset managers’ long-term conviction in the asset class, despite short-term headwinds. Global megatrends like decarbonization and digitization, as well as revolutions in energy and mobility, have spurred new infrastructure investment opportunities around the world, particularly for value-oriented investors that are willing to take on more risk.

Private markets make measured progress in DEI

Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) has become an important part of the fundraising, talent, and investing landscape for private market participants. Encouragingly, incremental progress has been made in recent years, including more diverse talent being brought to entry-level positions, investing roles, and investment committees. The scope of DEI metrics provided to institutional investors during fundraising has also increased in recent years: more than half of PE firms now provide data across investing teams, portfolio company boards, and portfolio company management (versus investment team data only). 4 “ The state of diversity in global private markets: 2023 ,” McKinsey, August 22, 2023.

In 2023, McKinsey surveyed 66 global private markets firms that collectively employ more than 60,000 people for the second annual State of diversity in global private markets report. 5 “ The state of diversity in global private markets: 2023 ,” McKinsey, August 22, 2023. The research offers insight into the representation of women and ethnic and racial minorities in private investing as of year-end 2022. In this chapter, we discuss where the numbers stand and how firms can bring a more diverse set of perspectives to the table.

The statistics indicate signs of modest advancement. Overall representation of women in private markets increased two percentage points to 35 percent, and ethnic and racial minorities increased one percentage point to 30 percent (Exhibit 6). Entry-level positions have nearly reached gender parity, with female representation at 48 percent. The share of women holding C-suite roles globally increased 3 percentage points, while the share of people from ethnic and racial minorities in investment committees increased 9 percentage points. There is growing evidence that external hiring is gradually helping close the diversity gap, especially at senior levels. For example, 33 percent of external hires at the managing director level were ethnic or racial minorities, higher than their existing representation level (19 percent).

Yet, the scope of the challenge remains substantial. Women and minorities continue to be underrepresented in senior positions and investing roles. They also experience uneven rates of progress due to lower promotion and higher attrition rates, particularly at smaller firms. Firms are also navigating an increasingly polarized workplace today, with additional scrutiny and a growing number of lawsuits against corporate diversity and inclusion programs, particularly in the US, which threatens to impact the industry’s pace of progress.

Fredrik Dahlqvist is a senior partner in McKinsey’s Stockholm office; Alastair Green  is a senior partner in the Washington, DC, office, where Paul Maia and Alexandra Nee  are partners; David Quigley  is a senior partner in the New York office, where Connor Mangan is an associate partner and Aditya Sanghvi  is a senior partner; Rahel Schneider is an associate partner in the Bay Area office; John Spivey is a partner in the Charlotte office; and Brian Vickery  is a partner in the Boston office.

The authors wish to thank Jonathan Christy, Louis Dufau, Vaibhav Gujral, Graham Healy-Day, Laura Johnson, Ryan Luby, Tripp Norton, Alastair Rami, Henri Torbey, and Alex Wolkomir for their contributions

The authors would also like to thank CEM Benchmarking and the StepStone Group for their partnership in this year's report.

This article was edited by Arshiya Khullar, an editor in the Gurugram office.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

CEO alpha: A new approach to generating private equity outperformance

Private equity turns to resiliency strategies for software investments

The state of diversity in global private markets: 2022