I’ve been lied to. As a result, I’ve lied to my people on social media. Sorry. Academia has fed us an impenetrable myth: that research is about finding gaps in the existing knowledge. I ate it up. And, boy, that chase felt good. Channeling your inner Indiana Jones to fill those gaps in the literature (although all he did in the last movie was fill an age gap with computer-generated imagery). But, before you call me a dementor because I suck the joy out of everything, know that there is something inherently easy and exciting about using research gaps as motivation for a research paper or when looking to find a research topic.
You've probably heard it a thousand times. I’ve preached about research gaps myself (and used them copiously in my writing), but I’m here to tell you now that just chasing gaps is a recipe for irrelevance. Larry McEnerney, the director of the University of Chicago's writing program, opened my eyes. It's a trap that leads to countless hours spent on research that, frankly, nobody cares about in the long run. Gaps are like redshirts on a Star Trek away mission. Nobody cares if they’re gone. But don't worry, there's a better way. Luckily a way I’ve been teaching myself for a long time in my CHI writing course as well. Something I learned from Carl Gutwin years ago. And it has to do with something much more valuable: problems. Real, meaningful problems that your readers actually care about. Like having to spend the winter with Jack Torrance at the Overlook Hotel. The difference between research that gets cited boatloads, and research that fades and falls to forgotten fragments.
How to Write Better Research Papers
Tired of rejection and obscurity? This course delivers the insider secrets you need to get published and cited in social sciences and at the most competitive HCI venue: CHI.
The gap mentality stems from an outdated, positivistic view of knowledge. It assumes that knowledge is like a giant, finite crossword puzzle, and our job as researchers is to fill in the missing squares. We find an area that hasn't been studied, and—voila—we've justified our research. But here's the ugly truth: knowledge is infinite. If you fill a gap in an infinite field, how many gaps are left? An infinite number. It’s just like Nintendo releasing another Mario or Zelda game, you know there is an infinite number of those left, too. You've achieved precisely nothing. Productivity level: Snorlax.
The problem is about who gets to say what is considered knowledge. Historically, this has been a set of people who look very much the same and who use the same toilets, but fortunately, this is changing. However, these people in power (academic power, but still) get to say what is considered knowledge, and what isn't. Arguing that something is new or original isn't enough. You have to convince the crew in peer-review.
Think about it: we could generate new knowledge right now by counting the number of people reading this email. Nobody knows that number (except for me, I can look it up and I’m excited it’s growing), but would anyone actually care? Of course not! Because it's utterly useless information (to most people that are not me or advertisers wanting to sponsor this newsletter). New does not equal valuable.
The Paradigmatic Power of the Problem
Instead of chasing gaps, successful researchers focus on problems—specifically, problems that their target community of readers cares about solving. This is a fundamental shift in mindset. Your purpose is not self-expression but transformation. First, you write to express your inner thoughts, to understand yourself, to think. The second form of writing, the one that gets you published is about changing your readers. Less personal revelation, more public revolution. To be clear, this isn't about lying, but about understanding that there are different functions of an academic piece. You are writing to change the ideas of an existing community. Your peers. That’s your main audience. Instead of asking "What hasn't been studied?" ask yourself:
- What are the existing inconsistencies, tensions, or contradictions in the current understanding of this field? There is a difference between arguing that someone is wrong, and reframing the argument to be about contributing to the overall knowledge.
- What are the limitations of current approaches, and why do those limitations matter?
- What problems are people in my field grappling with, and how can my research help address them?
You will fill conceptual gaps if you focus your research on solving real problems. The value of your work to your academic community will increase. Your work becomes not just an addition to the literature, but a catalyst for advancing your field's understanding.
