Goal
Turn a literature review's ending from generic "future research" into a specific, justified research direction: what predecessors have done, where the explanation gets stuck, where to cut in, and why that move matters.
Workflow
- Restate the question anchor.
- Summarize the field's current progress in one sentence: consensus plus unresolved tension.
- Identify where progress gets stuck: theory gap, method limitation, data blind spot, context boundary, variable/mechanism omission, or contradictory evidence.
- Select one cut-in point: a module, mechanism, variable relation, context, population, time window, or method design.
- Explain why this cut-in point advances the field: fills a gap, resolves a contradiction, tests a boundary, or improves explanation.
- Draft a concise research outlook or contribution paragraph.
Four Required Questions
A strong research gap must answer all four:
- What have previous studies already established?
- Where exactly is the explanation stuck?
- Which specific opening will the next study enter through?
- Why is this opening worth entering?
If any answer is missing, do not present the gap as ready.
Gap Types
Use the type that matches the evidence:
- Theory gap: existing frameworks miss a mechanism or actor.
- Method gap: existing methods cannot observe the needed process, time dimension, or causal structure.
- Data gap: important samples, contexts, time windows, or measurements are absent.
- Boundary gap: known findings may not hold under certain conditions.
- Contradiction gap: studies disagree and the disagreement has a plausible unresolved source.
- Integration gap: separate modules exist but have not been connected into one explanation chain.
Output Format
Provide:
## Current Progress
[Consensus + tension in one sentence]
## Stuck Point
[Where the literature cannot yet explain enough]
## Proposed Cut-In Point
[Specific module/mechanism/variable/context/method]
## Why It Matters
[How this fills a gap, resolves a contradiction, tests a boundary, or advances explanation]
## Ready-To-Use Paragraph
[Academic prose for conclusion/research outlook]
## Three-Minute Oral Test
- Previous studies have shown: ...
- They have not explained: ...
- I will focus on: ...
- This is valuable because: ...
Guardrails
- Do not use "few studies have examined" as the only proof of a gap; explain why the missing piece matters.
- Do not propose an opening that is broader than the user's review question.
- Do not confuse the user's not-yet-searched area with a true research gap; mark it as "needs verification" when evidence is insufficient.