A research gap is a question that earlier studies have left unanswered. The problem statement is a short passage showing that this gap is real and worth studying.
The two are linked, and if one is weak the other also becomes weak. The gap comes from your literature review. The problem statement presents it to the committee, mostly in Chapter 1 and the synopsis, in a form they can check. When a synopsis gets stuck, many times the reason is one of these two. Sometimes the scholar gives a weak gap, for example only “nobody has studied my district”. Other times the problem statement keeps talking about some social issue in general, and what is unknown is never said anywhere.
Six kinds of gap
A few gaps the committee accepts in the first reading itself, and for some you have to give a lot of backing. The table has six types, each with an example from one invented topic, the work of informal e-waste recyclers in Hyderabad.
Indian committees hear one gap more than any other, “no study has been done in my district”. This is the weakest one. By itself it is a context gap with no reason given. So ask yourself why your district would give a different answer from the places already studied. Maybe the industry or the state policy is different there. If you can give such a reason, the gap stands. If you can’t, expect the committee to ask why the existing studies don’t already answer your question.
| Type of gap | Meaning | Example on one invented topic: informal e-waste recyclers in Hyderabad |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence gap | Earlier studies are giving mixed or opposite results | A few studies find high lead exposure among recyclers, and some find very little. Why they differ is still not clear. |
| Knowledge gap | The question is not studied at all, or some paper mentions it in passing only | No study has measured how recyclers choose which items to break open and which to sell whole. |
| Population gap | Studies are there on other groups, but your group is left out | Health studies look at workers in formal recycling units. The women who sort material at home are not covered. |
| Method gap | Somebody studied it, but the method used cannot answer the question fully | Earlier work used one-time surveys only. No one has tracked a recycler’s income over a full year. |
| Context gap | Work is done in some other place, and you have a reason why your place may differ | Most studies are from the Seelampur cluster in Delhi. In Hyderabad the trade moves through other scrap networks. |
| Practical gap | There is a rule or practice on paper, but nobody knows how it is working on the ground | The E-Waste (Management) Rules give producers certain duties. Nobody has written down if these duties are reaching the informal recyclers or not. |
Finding a gap in the literature you have read
The gap has to come out of your reading. Thinking of one while writing Chapter 1 mostly does not work. Three habits help.
Go through the limitations and future scope sections. Many times the authors of earlier researches write the gap themselves (“this study did not include…”, “future work should examine…”). Note each one in your reading matrix with the citation. A gap three authors point to is easier to defend than one you thought of alone.
Sort the matrix by variable, by sample and by method. Wherever you see a blank cell in the matrix, note it down, because your gap may be sitting there. If every study on recyclers’ health used a survey and nobody took blood tests, that is a method gap. If all the studies were done in Delhi, you may have a context gap, but only when you can explain why Hyderabad would be different.
Look for studies that disagree with each other. It is quite common to find two good studies giving opposite findings. If you ask why that happened, many times the question itself can become a full thesis.
Then do a fresh search for that gap only. Put the exact phrase in Google Scholar and Scopus, and check Shodhganga also for Indian theses. Committee members mostly know some thesis from a neighbouring university that you missed. It is better you find that thesis before they mention it.
A problem statement, weak and stronger
Both versions are on the same invented e-waste topic. Our notes come after them.
Weak version
“E-waste is a growing problem all over the world. India is one of the largest producers of e-waste. Informal recyclers have many health problems and their condition is very bad. The government has not done enough. So there is a need to study the problems of e-waste recyclers in Hyderabad.”
Stronger version
“Informal recyclers still handle most of India’s e-waste, and studies from Delhi have connected their work with raised blood lead levels (Author, Year; Author, Year). As per the E-Waste (Management) Rules, collecting the e-waste and getting it recycled safely is the producer’s duty. But how far these rules reach the informal workers, who still dismantle most of the devices, is hardly known. The scrap networks behind Hyderabad’s trade are unlike those in Delhi. No study in Hyderabad has looked at how recyclers decide what to dismantle, what they earn from it, or what protection they use. So producer schemes are now being planned without any data on the same people these schemes are meant to replace or absorb. This study examines dismantling practices, earnings and safety among informal e-waste recyclers in Hyderabad.”
The weak one talks about a problem in society and never tells what is unknown. And “so there is a need to study” comes with no argument behind it. In the stronger one, the known part has citations and the unknown part is stated clearly. It also explains why Hyderabad may not be the same as Delhi. Then it connects the gap with an actual decision that is being taken, and only in the last line it tells what this study is going to do. We have put “Author, Year” just to hold the place. In your thesis every claim needs a real source, and every figure needs its year with it.
A four-part structure for the statement
Whatever be your field, a good problem statement mostly goes through the same four steps. For the first draft you can just follow them in order.
What is known, or what should happen
What is already established, or what ought to happen. Write one or two sentences for this and put the citations.
What is missing, or what is really happening
Then say what is actually going on, or what nobody knows yet. Most of the weight of your statement is on this part, so give evidence for it.
Why the gap matters
Say who is affected when this stays unknown. Maybe some group is losing out, or a decision is being taken without any data.
What your study will do
One sentence that takes the reader to your objectives. The key words in it should match your title.
In a thesis the full problem statement is mostly 250 to 500 words, and in a synopsis it is many times shorter. If it runs to several pages, probably background material from elsewhere in Chapter 1 has crept in.
Many scholars ignore the last move. The final sentence has to lead the reader to the objectives directly, and the key words should be repeated there. In our e-waste example the last line talks about “dismantling practices, earnings and safety”. So the objectives also should talk about dismantling practices, earnings and safety only, in the same words. Our guide to research objectives and hypotheses continues from this point.
How a committee tests your gap
At the registration interview, the synopsis presentation and the pre-submission seminar, your gap is questioned more than anything else. Mostly the questions are like these.
- “Are you sure nobody has studied this? What about [a study you haven’t read]?”
- “Why would your district give different results?”
- “So what? Who needs this answer?”
- “Is this gap big enough for a PhD, or only for a paper?”
The committee is right to ask the last one. If one survey and one regression can close your gap, it may be enough for a paper, and for a doctoral thesis it is usually too small. A PhD gap normally needs several linked objectives to close it. Suppose the committee feel your gap is too small. Then check whether it connects to a wider question you can take up.
Common problems we see in drafts
A social problem with no research problem in it. “Farmers are suffering” is a social problem. “We don’t know why crop insurance adoption stays low among tenant farmers despite the subsidy” is a research problem, and you can study it.
No citations. Many drafts we get have lines like “the condition is very poor”. That is just the scholar’s own feeling, and the committee has no way to verify it. Wherever you are stating some fact, put the source next to it.
A gap no one would miss. If no decision, theory or practice would change after your answer, the committee will point it out.
The title says one thing and the statement says another. When the problem statement is about earnings and the title talks about health, one of the two has to change. For the title side, see our guide to choosing a thesis title.
Is your synopsis presentation coming up soon? Through our research proposal and synopsis support we can question your gap the same way a committee would, using the literature you have already collected, before you face the panel.
Questions scholars ask
Are a research gap and a research problem the same thing?
Not exactly. The gap is what the literature is missing. Once you put that gap as a problem to be solved and also explain why it is important, then we call it the research problem. The problem statement brings both together in one short passage.
How many research gaps should a thesis have?
Mostly one main gap for the whole thesis. Under each objective you will have a smaller gap that supports it. Some scholars write ten gaps with no link between them. Then the committee asks what exactly the thesis is about.
Where does the research gap go in the thesis?
You build it up through the literature review and state it clearly in the end of that chapter. Later the problem statement in Chapter 1 presents it again in short. Both places should say the same thing.
Can the gap change after my synopsis is approved?
Yes. As you keep reading, the gap becomes sharper, and almost every scholar goes through this. A completely different gap will usually mean different objectives too, and for that you need approval from your doctoral committee.