Gap Spotting and Research Problem
Identifying underexplored areas, formulating research problem
This set of prompts focuses on the critical stage of identifying research gaps, a key practice that transforms your literature database into a meaningful research direction. Peer-reviewed journals expect studies to address clearly defined gaps rather than simply exploring interesting topics. This stage will help you brainstorm potential research directions based on the “Suggestions for Future Research” found in the file you created during the previous step, compare alternatives, and narrow your focus based on feasibility and scientific value.
Identify Gaps and Formulate Problem Statement
Use this prompt once you have collected a set of peer-reviewed articles containing author-proposed directions for future research. The MS Word file created in the previous step is particularly suitable for this stage. Upload that file and paste the prompt below.
This prompt analyzes the uploaded file to identify relevant research gaps based on literature from the last three years, focusing on recurring suggestions and gaps mentioned by multiple authors. The process is structured as a four-phase protocol:
- Analysis: First, the assistant analyzes the file and formulates 2–4 narrative research gaps.
- Feasibility Assessment: The user answers a short questionnaire regarding resources, timelines, and expertise.
- Selection: Based on these answers, the assistant filters for topics that are realistic for the user to execute and suggests two options.
- Generation: Once a topic is chosen, precise research problem statements are generated.
This method is ideal for early-stage brainstorming when you are unsure which topic to focus on. Prioritize review articles and suggestions mentioned in multiple studies, as these usually reflect larger or recurrent issues in the field.
Copy prompt
This approach simulates how experienced scholars perform thematic synthesis: by comparing what different authors have flagged as missing or understudied. It eliminates guesswork and speculative interpretation by restricting the focus to explicitly stated research gaps. Since these suggestions already exist in published work, aligning your study with them makes it easier to justify its originality, relevance, and significance—key criteria for successful peer-reviewed publication.
Note: In practice, scholars may approach defining problem statements and formulating research questions differently. Sandberg and Alvesson (2011) provide an overview of these distinctions. Nevertheless, the method described here is highly effective and serves as an excellent starting point.
I also recommend consulting Miles (2017) to learn about the various types of research gaps and strategies for describing them.