top of page

On why we need to stop asking academic authors to find the gap in the literature

Writer's picture: Jason ThatcherJason Thatcher

On why we need to stop asking academic authors to find the gap in the literature (and why we need to study real problems).


I recently managed a review package where the reviewers criticized the authors for not articulating a gap in the literature.


I personally find the ‘gap motivation’ the least interesting of all motivations.


It assumes that the literature has defined the expanse of what is possible.


It suggests that a good study fills in the unexamined spaces in that expanse.


It leads to incremental work - that doesn’t expand the boundaries of what we know.


If I had my druthers, we would stop teaching students to find gaps and reviewers would stop asking authors to articulate them.


Gap spotting limits our thinking.


Rather than gaps, let’s start talking about solving problems & building understanding.


Let’s direct attention to real problems faced by people, organizations, & society.


Let’s talk about how solving those problems helps the world outside of the academy’s.


Lets stop rejecting papers bc they don’t address gaps.


Let’s start accepting them bc they integrate knowledge.


Let’s accept them when they solve problems.


So what does this mean for academic research?


First, it doesn’t mean ignore the literature.


Your understanding of theory, methods, & relevant research should inform how you define problems and approach a study.


We don’t need to solve problems twice!


Even though we do need to refresh our understanding of problems from time to time.


So ground what you do in your discipline.


Second, it does mean look around at the world.


Your understanding of the world shapes how you define problems.


Pay attention to trends, watch the news, listen to industry, & watch grant solicitations.


These non-academic sources help you understand the problems the world needs answered.


Third, it does mean tackle wicked problems.


Too often, I see gap motivations used to answer what are really structured problems.


They motivate studies that are often just applications of a method in a new context or that easily examined by varying a parameter.


Problem centric research takes on more than gaps - it takes subtle or intractable questions - that answering shapes our understanding of the world.


Fourth, it does mean opening your mind to novelty.


Rather than asking what is the gap? Which translates to has this been studied before?


Ask what did I learn from this study? Which translates to how did this add to knowledge?


The difference is subtle - the second question opens your mind to novelty - and helps you see what contribution is new in a paper - the first question primes you to look for similarity - making it harder to see novel contributions.


Finally, studying real problems are more fun to study.


Rather than asking how do I add a variable to a model, ask what can I do that is interesting to me? And change the world!


Next time you manage a paper, ask what is the problem? You’ll find the contribution a lot easier to find.


Best of luck!



2 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Yorumlar


  • Linkedin
bottom of page