See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/344461506

Understanding the concept of knowledge gap and knowledge expansion: A

theoretical perspective.

Article · October 2020

CITATION READS

1 2,071

1 author:

Coker Preye Robert

Niger Delta University
7 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Coker Preye Robert on 03 October 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Researchjournali’s Journal of Management
Vol. 7 | No. 3 March | 2019 ISSN 2347-8217
Understanding The
Concept Of Knowledge
Gap And Knowledge
Expansion: A Theoretical
Perspective
www.researchjournali.com
1
Coker Preye Robert
Doctoral Scholar in Department of Marketing, Niger
Delta University, Yenagoa, Bayelsa State
Macaulay Onovughakpo Augustine
Department of Business Administration, Igbinedion
University Okada , Edo State
Researchjournali’s Journal of Management
Vol. 7 | No. 3 March | 2019 ISSN 2347-8217 2

ABSTRACT

The objective of this study is to establish an explicit understanding of the concept and dimensions of knowledge
gap and knowledge expansion and as well reconcile the terminologies used such as research gap or research
problem. Perhaps, the finding of this study is based on conceptual and theoretical reasoning from existing
literature of knowledge gap and research gap. In exploring extant literature, the study shows that the concept of
knowledge gap emanated from the mass media domain and has two distinct pillars or pathways such as
differentials in awareness of issues and in depth informational issues about topics. This study navigated through
the latter perspective of knowledge gap and proposed a conceptual framework that demonstrates the nine
dimensions of knowledge gaps that leads to the expansion of knowledge frontiers. The study also reveals that
knowledge gap is synonymous with research gap. One measure of knowledge expansion was proposed i.e new
knowledge creation. This paper discussed each of them and situations in which these gaps exist. The theoretical
significance of this study is that scholars and researchers in management sciences and other allied disciplines
will use our model to advance the concept of knowledge gap and knowledge expansion within the context of
research.

Keywords: Knowledge, knowledge gap, knowledge expansion, research gap and research problem

1. INTRODUCTION

Knowledge was not regarded as one of the key factors of production, but of late it is widely recognized as the
most important factor of production in any given economy and essential for development (Evers, 2003; Hadad,
2017; Bratianu and Dinca, 2010). Knowledge is a universal concept (Bolisani and Bratianu, 2018) and as well
as a multi-dimensional construct with multi-layered meanings (Nonaka, 1994) which cuts across many fields
of study. Here we are basically concerned with the concept of knowledge gap. The concept of knowledge gap
was first conceptualized by three prominent researchers such as Philip J. Tichenor, George A. Donohue and
Cleric N. Olien in University of Minnesota in the year 1970 (Gaziano, 2016). They developed the knowledge
gap hypothesis by explaining that there exist a divide between persons of lower class and that of higher socio-
economic status in connection with the infusion of mass media information into the social system and the gap
in knowledge continue to increase instead of decreasing as new information keep diffusing in the social system
(Chen, 2013; Gaziano, 2016; Jenseen, 2012). The socio-economic status stands as an embodiment of several
distinctive arguments and variables focusing on media content, ways of life, personal skills, motivation and the
general nature of knowledge itself (Jenssen, 2012).

However, Gaziano (2016) opines that knowledge gap can be measured on two path ways such as simple
awareness of an issue i.e dichotomous measure as opined by Tichenor et al (1970) in relation with two classes
of socio-economic status (differentials in awareness of information), and as in-depth information issue i.e a

www.researchjournali.com
Researchjournali’s Journal of Management
Vol. 7 | No. 3 March | 2019 ISSN 2347-8217 3

continuous variable such as relationship between key elements, reasons, issues, actors, causes and solution. Put
simple, for specific subjects or topic, some people may be better informed than others (Mc Quail, 2010). She
went further to say that a knowledge gap may not exist for awareness of an issue but may exist for in-depth
knowledge of that topic. Based on this argument, many scholars like Rogers (2003 as cited in Gaziano, 2016)
have criticized the conceptualization of the construct knowledge gap within the context of awareness of
information between two distinct social classes. Rogers (2003) perceived it as the effect of communication
activities and begged for it to be re-conceptualized as communication effect gap, rather than knowledge gap.

Drawing from these inferences, we are basically concerned with the in-depth information issue as dimension of
knowledge gap as pronounced by Gaziano (2016). The awareness issue or dichotomous measure of socio-
economic status is not within the context of this study. Though the construct was borrowed from the
communication domain but the context is different in terms of this paper. Here we are basically concerned with
knowledge gap in terms of research gap as widely used by academic researchers. Apparently, there are
confusing opinions about the terminologies used on knowledge gap when it comes to research in management
sciences. In management sciences research, knowledge gap is used synonymously with research gap or research
problems (Muller-Bloch and Kranz, 2014; Miles, 2017; Jacobs, 2011). Miles (2017) opines that research
problems are not perceived as research gaps. But when research gaps are identified, the research problems are
partly solved. The knowledge gap is the basic justification of any research problem, phenomenon or scientific
inquiry and the identification of this gap is the nexus for expanding knowledge frontiers (Partti Jarvinen, 2016).
Therefore, in this study knowledge gap or research gap will be used interchangeably.

One of the complex task in designing an effective research outcomes is to successfully identify these research
gaps (Miles, 2017) or knowledge gaps. The identification of knowledge gap is a very big challenge for students,
new researchers and practitioners as well. Only very few researchers or scholars have explored ways of
identifying research gaps and dimensions of research gaps in extant literature (Miles, 2017; Robinson, et al,
2011; Hart, 2009; Cooper, 1998; Muller-Bloch and Kranz, 2015; Jacob, 2011; Vom Brocke, et al, 2009). Ule
and Idemudia (2018) have done study on knowledge gap and knowledge expansion in regards to socio-
economic status (SES) but not within the context of research. None has examined the concept of knowledge
gap within the context of research as an elixir for expanding knowledge.

This paper aims at closing this gap by answering these research questions:
 Is knowledge gap synonymous with research gap?
 How could knowledge gap be identified?
 What is the relationship between knowledge gap and knowledge expansion?
 What are the dimensions of knowledge gap and knowledge expansion?

www.researchjournali.com
Researchjournali’s Journal of Management
Vol. 7 | No. 3 March | 2019 ISSN 2347-8217 4

The answers to these questions will be provided in the body of this paper and stands as the basic justification
for embarking on this study.

The pattern of organizing this paper is as follows; introduction, theoretical background, the concept of
knowledge gap, dimensions of knowledge gap, knowledge expansion and conclusion.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

The concept of knowledge gap is preferably explained by attempting to drag in the underlying construct that
paved way for the emergence of the construct i.e “knowledge”. Put simple, knowledge gap begs for the
conceptualization of knowledge. The term knowledge is theoretically grounded in the field of epistemology,
which is a branch of philosophy that deals with the study of knowledge. However, a famous philosopher by
name Plato came up with a profound conceptualization of knowledge, saying that knowledge entails the
justification of truth and belief (Bolisani and Bratianu, 2018). This definition was perceived to be problematic,
though it has overwhelming theoretical supports. Neta and Pritchard (2009) re-affirms Plato’s conceptualization
by identifying three (3) conditions for knowledge i.e tripartite account of knowledge such as the truth condition,
the belief condition and justification condition. In their thesis, they opined that if one belief a proposition, then
that proposition must be true and if it is true, then it is justifiable for one to hold such a proposition as actually
true. Gettier (2009) perceived this conceptualization to be problematic in respect to justification of true belief.
He constructed some counter examples to demonstrate that the three key elements of Plato’s conceptualization
as put forward by Neta and Pritchard (2009) does not constitute a sufficient condition for the conceptualization
of knowledge, saying that a person may be completely justified by holding on to false belief that claimed to be
true.

Drawing from this premise, the definition of knowledge still remains a problem to be addressed (Bolisani and
Bratianu 2018) despite the fact that knowledge is very powerful concept in terms of development (Evers, 2003).
The question still persists, what is knowledge? According to Wikipedia encyclopedia (online), knowledge could
be refer to as a familiarity, awareness, skills, or understanding of facts which an individual holds to himself
over time and being acquired through education, investigation or learning. Knowledge is a construct formed by
interlinking a spectrum of intellectual components and the simplest being information (Abhary, et al, 2009).
Knowledge is defined as information gained and remembered through a learning process (Gaziano, 1997).

Having looked at the various definitions of knowledge, it is apparent that knowledge is perceived as an
embodiment of learned behavior built upon careful observation of phenomenon, factual information or data
stored, or skills acquired through practice or education. Admittedly, in an attempt to carefully examine the
phenomenon or factual information or data stored in order to ascertain the justification of true belief is labelled

www.researchjournali.com
Researchjournali’s Journal of Management
Vol. 7 | No. 3 March | 2019 ISSN 2347-8217 5

“Knowledge Gap” (Gaziano, 1997). Knowledge gap exist as a result of differences in the types of knowledge
being studied (Leo, et al, 200) and such difference in the investigation prompted the concept (Gaziano, 2016).

2.2 THE CONCEPT OF KNOWLEDGE GAP

The question as to whether knowledge gap is synonymous with research gap has generated confusion in
academic research. The reason being that knowledge gap was conceptualized in the field of mass
communication as earlier discussed in the first part of this paper which is highly criticized by many research
scholars like Rogers (2003) and Gaziano and Gaziano (1999). As a result, academic researchers refused to use
the concept of knowledge gap in research context in order to avoid confusion and contradiction of the construct,
without critically looking at the underpinnings on which the construct was built. The concept was developed
under two key pillars such as differentials in awareness of information of two socio-economic status i.e upper
and lower class and differentials in regards to in-depth information issue relating to topics i.e differences in
investigation (Gaziano, 2016). The latter pillar is what academic researchers labelled “research gap” or
“research problem” when conceptualizing gaps in literature (Muller-Bloch and Kranz, 2014; Miles, 2017;
Jacobs, 2011; Robinson, et al., 2011). Of course their ideas are valid but we are here to nurture and relate it with
knowledge gap that is widely acclaimed in all research settings, but we are in different opinion with Tichenor,
et al., (1970) in regards to the first pillar on which the construct was labelled knowledge gap. In fact the
digitalization of the world economy has helped to knock-down the rationale behind the first pillar where they
believe that the gap widens as information diffused in the society between the upper class and the lower class.
Today the case is different as a result of the emergence of social media whereby the poor could be privy to new
information before the rich. So what do we call this dramatic change in terms of the idea of knowledge gap by
Tichenor, et al., (1970)? Gaziano (2016) provided an answer by calling it a reverse gap or in fact knowledge
gap in this context might not actually exist. Though, Tichenor, et al., (1970) conceptualization makes sense but
there is a saying that challenging dominant thinking is a sure way of provoking knowledge and as well
expanding knowledge frontiers.

2.2.1 OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF KNOWLEDGE GAP

The essence of any quality research study is to contribute to knowledge and by doing so, entails the ability for
the researcher to identify research gaps and these gaps are labelled knowledge gaps. The term knowledge gap
has not been defined within the context of academic research in extant literature despite the fact that the phrase
is used every day by students, academicians and researchers. In fact it is even more popular than research gap.
This makes the definition more difficult. But we are going to make a meaningful contribution by integrating
the idea of the concept of knowledge gap by Gaziano(2016) and research gap and come up with our own stand
on the definition of knowledge gap. Before this is done, let us define research gap. Research gap could be
defined as gap that exists in the combination of information sets being derived from literature synthesis that
needed additional research to be resolved (Muller-Bloch and Kranz, 2015). According to Robinson, et al.,

www.researchjournali.com
Researchjournali’s Journal of Management
Vol. 7 | No. 3 March | 2019 ISSN 2347-8217 6

(2011) opines that a research gap occurs frequently, most especially when the researcher finds it difficult to
arrive at comprehensive conclusions i.e always providing incomplete conclusions. Jacob (2011) asserts that a
research gap is perceived as the process of establishing research problems and steps to be taken to resolve it.
However, drawing from these definitions we can say that a knowledge gap could be defined as differences in
the investigation of phenomena or factual information being stored in an existing body of knowledge that have
not been explored and needs to be explored. The Phenomena here represent the relationship between elements
such as issues, reasons, causes, and solutions. Perhaps, looking at the various definitions it is obvious that there
exist strong intersection between knowledge gap and research gap which has to do with issues that have not
been explored by researchers and need to be resolved. From the two conceptualizations we can deduce that
knowledge gap is broad (multi-dimensional) in nature i.e subjective construct, while research gap is objective
in nature (very specific). This implies that research gap is a subset of knowledge gap. Therefore, we can say
that the both terms are related and can be used interchangeably in research context Let us give a practical
example of both. For instance, we are trying to investigate the relationship between customer retention strategies
and firm’s profitability. Researcher A has used price discount and service quality as dimensions of customer
retention strategies to give account for firm’s profitability. Then, researcher B looked at it from a different
perspective and realized that apart from price discount and service quality there is another dimension that can
as well account for firm’s profitability and discovered that customer service care is one, but has not been
explored by researcher A. This is research gap. Then the difference in thought between the knowledge of
researcher B as compare to researcher A in terms of customer service care which researcher A could not account
for in his investigation is called Knowledge gap. We can come up with another dimension as well. Knowledge
gap or research gap is an unending process, as the flow of thought continues the gap widens

2.3 HOW TO IDENTIFY KNOWLEDGE GAP/RESEARCH GAP

Knowledge gap is basically identified from existing and related literature review. Knowledge gap or research
gap represents an output of literature review (Robinson, et al., 2011) and it is also viewed as an input to spur
more research (Muller-Bloch and Kranz, 2015). Jacob (2011) says that research problems or gaps are generated
from literature review and therefore should be seen as an output of literature review. A literature review should
not only focused on findings from past studies but also critically identify knowledge gap or research gap (Hart,
2009; Ron, 2014; Webster and Watson, 2002) and research gaps are extracted from literature synthesis (cooper,
1998). Perhaps, literature synthesis should make provision for the guidance of future studies where it would be
more effective. Although it is argued that not only literature synthesis one can identify research gap, it could be
derived from other sources as well (Muller-Bloch and Kranz, 2015). Research gap can directly results to
questions for future studies but this does not implies that all questions for future studies are derived from
research gap (Muller-Bloch and Kranz, 2015) or knowledge gap. Brocke, et al., (2009) identified five stages
for identifying knowledge gap in literature review such as definition of review scope, conceptualization of topic,

www.researchjournali.com
Researchjournali’s Journal of Management
Vol. 7 | No. 3 March | 2019 ISSN 2347-8217 7

literature search, literature analysis and synthesis and research gap identification. However, after the research
gaps have been identified, these gaps need to be localized, verified and presented (Muller-Bloch and Kranz,
2015).

2.4 DIMENSIONS OF KNOWLEDGE GAP

As earlier stated, very few scholars have attempted to theorize the construct of knowledge gap or research gap
in extant literature. Prominent among them are: Robinson et al (2011); Muller-Bloch and Kranz (2014); Jacobs
(2011); Miles (2017); Dissanayaka (2013). Robinson, et al., (2011) theorized research gap as population,
intervention, comparison, outcomes and settings. Then Jacob’s (2011) theorized it as six kinds of research
problems such as contradictory evidence gap, knowledge void gap, action knowledge conflict, methodology
gap, evaluation void gap and theory application void gap. However, Muller-Bloch and Kranz (2014) adapted
the dimension of research gap as put forward by Jacob (2011). Therefore, Miles (2017) opines that the
theoretical framework of research gap proposed by Jacob (2011) and Muller-Bloch and Kranz (2014) and
Robinson et al., (2011) are significant models for the advancement of the construct. Perhaps, resting on the
foundation of these theories, Miles (2017) designed a comprehensive model that integrates these theories of
Robinson et al (2011) and Muller-Bloch and Kranz (2014). Miles (2017) theorized research gap as evidence
gap, knowledge void, practical knowledge conflict gap, methodological gap, empirical gap, theoretical gap and
population gap. Dissanayaka (2013) identified research gap as obsolete knowledge gap, and contradictory
knowledge gap.

Based on these streams of knowledge gaps from these known scholars, we therefore proposed a new conceptual
framework that encapsulates the various dimensions of knowledge gap being put forward by these scholars.

Fig I: Conceptual Framework of Knowledge Gap and Knowledge Expansion

Source: Researcher’s conceptualized, 2019

2.4.1 CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE GAP
A contradictory evidence gap arises when a new research outcomes is contrary to a generally accepted idea or
conclusion (Miles, 2017). The gap entails contradiction in thought in regards to findings from previous research

www.researchjournali.com
Researchjournali’s Journal of Management
Vol. 7 | No. 3 March | 2019 ISSN 2347-8217 8

which could be misleading as well. This gap is somehow closely related with provocative exception gap which
we are going to discuss later. For this gap to be identified easily one has to start by critically analyzing each
research stream and the outcome from the analysis required to be synthesized (Muller- Bloch and Kranz, 2004;
Miles, 2017).

2.4.2 KNOWLEDGE VOID GAP

Knowledge void gap is a peculiar type of research gap in most past studies and always occur when a research
findings are different from what is actually expected from a particular field of study (Miles, 2017; Muller-Bloch
and Kranz, 2004). Muller-Bloch and Kranz, (2004) opines that knowledge void exist especially when one is
trying to apply a research findings from a different research domain to related domain where knowledge may
not exist in the actual field and literature, and this kind of conflict can spur new research in same direction.

2.4.3 PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE GAP

Practical knowledge gap occurs whenever the actual behavior of a professional deviates from what is generally
expected of such an authority in terms of his/her behavior (Miles, 2017). As such research could be tailored to
actually ascertain the nature and scope of the conflict and to unravel the reasons behind such behavior (Muller-
Bloch and Kranz, 2014).

2.4.4 METHODOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE GAP

A methodological knowledge gap has to do with the type of gap that occurred whenever a particular procedure
of research investigation has been over used in prior studies and also impact on the result (Miles, 2017; Muller
Bloch and Kranz, 2014). This type of gap offers a new line of inquiry or method in order to draw conclusions
on issues or topics that have been over researched.

2.4.5 EMPIRICAL KNOWLEDGE GAP

This type of gap is closely related to methodological gap in the sense that empirical gap is part of methodological
gap. This gap always occurs in prior studies when the findings were not empirically justifiable using statistical
techniques to ascertain results such as testing of hypotheses with regression tools. The empirical gap solely
addresses topics or issues that have not been successfully verified (Miller, 2017; Muller-Bloch and kranz, 2014)
and past research mainly focused on theoretical and conceptual perspectives.

2.4.6 THEORETICAL KNOWLEDGE GAP

The theoretical gap is also related to the methodological gap as earlier discussed. This type of gap exists as a
result of gaps in theory from prior research (Miles, 2017). Theoretical gaps always occur whenever a given
phenomenon is over emphasized through different theoretical models in prior research. For instance, when
scholars theoretically over emphasized the various dimension of knowledge gaps in prior research without
contributing to knowledge by identifying new construct or relate it with other constructs is known as theoretical
knowledge gap.

www.researchjournali.com
Researchjournali’s Journal of Management
Vol. 7 | No. 3 March | 2019 ISSN 2347-8217 9

2.4.7 POPULATION KNOWLEDGE GAP

A population gap is a peculiar type of knowledge gap that is being recognized among researchers and scholars,
and has to do with a situation whereby a given set of population is not adequately represented in the study
sample and conclusion is drawn from prior research such as sex, race, ethnicity, age (Robinson et al.,, 2011;
Miles, 2017), region, educational level, and social class etc.

2.4.8 PROVOCATIVE EXCEPTION KNOWLEDGE GAP

A provocative exception knowledge gap usually arises when new research findings actually negate universally
accepted conclusions (Muller-Bloch and Kranz, 2014). This can help to motivate further research and open up
new areas. Jacob (2011) and Muller-Bloch and Kranz (2014) asserts that provocative gap does not stand
prominently in literature but it is necessary to identify and examine these exceptions or discrepancies by
analyzing the key issues.

2.4.9 OBSOLETE KNOWLEDGE GAP

The obsolete knowledge gap arises when the finding from prior research has been outdated and thus the
applications of such findings could be problematic (Dissanayake, 2013). The context at which the findings were
developed cannot stand in present day reality. Perhaps theories, models and laws are created as a result of
research. These theories, models and laws are being used and continuously researched upon, but later current
findings will depicts that these theories, models and laws are outdated and cannot be applied to contemporary
issues. It therefore becomes a gap that needed to be filled in order to expand knowledge. A good example is the
knowledge gap hypothesis postulated by Tichenor et al (1970) as discussed in this paper.

2.5 KNOWLEDGE EXPANSION

Knowledge expansion as a measure in this study has not been studied extensively in existing research literature.
As such, there is no agreed upon or existing definition of the construct in extant literature. Few scholars have
done studies on knowledge expansion (Edward, 2011; Ramsundar and Swapan, 2014; Miller, 2017) but none
has defined the construct. This makes the conceptualization of the construct to be challenging and difficult.
Nevertheless we can make a meaningful contribution by defining the construct. But before this is done, it is
imperative for us to disintegrate the both terms i.e “knowledge and expansion” and define them separately. In
the early part of this paper we have successfully defined knowledge as an embodiment of learned behavior built
upon careful observation of phenomenon, factual information or data being stored, or skills acquired through
practice or education. On the other hand, according to advance oxford dictionary, define expansion as the act
or process of increasing. Simply put a new addition. However, drawing from these definitions we can deduce
that knowledge expansion is the continuous addition of new ideas, thinking, theories, concepts, skills or models
in any given field of study or discipline. The expansion of knowledge progresses through the creation of new
disciplines which continue to expand (Hassan, 2017). Miller (2017) supported this argument by saying that
throughout the passage of human life, we keep on expanding knowledge continually till end of time. As our

www.researchjournali.com
Researchjournali’s Journal of Management
Vol. 7 | No. 3 March | 2019 ISSN 2347-8217 10

knowledge expands, we do understand and discover new concepts and theories. Increasing our reservoir of
knowledge has open up so many new issues in our life and we learn about new things or issues when knowledge
gap is identified. Knowledge gap is an unending process because where someone knowledge ends, another
person’s knowledge begins from there and it keeps on increasing and knowledge expands as well. Miller (2017)
is in agreement with this position that when we continue to span across new areas by developing any existing
theories through gaps, it increases our knowledge as well as our ignorance for the exploration of more
knowledge. That is why Gaziano (2016) identify knowledge gap as a continuous variable.

In this study, knowledge expansion is measured in terms of new knowledge creation being conceptualized from
the works of Nanaka (1994), Galia and Lagros (2004), Pugh and Prusak (2013), Bandera and Passerini (2017),
Chouikha and Dakhi (2012).

2.5.1 NEW KNOWLEDGE CREATION

New knowledge creation is the continuous formation of new ideas (Business Dictionary Online), concept,
theories or models. New knowledge creation or call it new findings is being supported by relevant information
and data which can improve decisions and serve as building block in the expansion of knowledge (Knowledge
Management tools, online, 2010). Perhaps, knowledge is created from two sources such as tacit and explicit
knowledge (Nonaka, 1994). Tacit knowledge is deeply rooted in action, commitment, and involvement in a
specific context, while explicit knowledge entails the transmission of formal system language that is
documented and stored (Nonaka, 1994).

3. CONCLUSION

The basic justification of this study is to make an explicit understanding of the concept and dimensions of
knowledge gap and knowledge expansion and as well to reconcile knowledge gap and research gap. The study
has revealed that the concept of knowledge gap was first propounded by three prominent scholars Tichenor,
Donohue and Olien in 1970. The concept was domiciled within the province of mass media information.
However, in this study we have thrived to uncover the two key pillars that underpin the conceptualization of
knowledge gap as being theorized by Gaziano (2016) in relation with the conceptualization of knowledge gap
by Tichenor, Donohue and Olien (1970). The two key pillars are differentials in simple awareness of an issue
between two classes of the social strata and an in-depth information issue regarding a topic in terms of
relationship between elements, issues, causes and solutions. In this study, we keyed into the second pillar of
knowledge gap as conceptualized by Gaziano (2016).The first pillar is not within the context of this study,
because this paper is basically concerned with research studies. The conceptualization of knowledge gap has
been criticized by many scholars in terms of the context it is used and popular among them is Rogers (2003).
We are in disagreement with Tichenor et al (1970) in one aspect, because the idea in which the concept was
developed has been knocked-down by digital revolution. Perhaps, academic researchers have decided to use

www.researchjournali.com
Researchjournali’s Journal of Management
Vol. 7 | No. 3 March | 2019 ISSN 2347-8217 11

the concept research gap rather than knowledge gap (Muller-Bloch and Kranz, 2014; Jacobs, 2011; Robinson
etal, 2011; Miles, 2017) in order to avoid contradictions, though they are used interchangeably in many research
settings. Therefore, in this study we have succeeded in reconciling the both constructs by nurturing and relating
them in order to advance the construct. The study reveals that there is a strong intersection between knowledge
gap and research gap though not proven empirically but with theoretical enforcement. . This position will
definitely provoke a lot of research scholars and the beautiful thing is that we have set the agenda for the
construct to develop rather than going extinct as a result of misconception. Knowledge gap or research gap is
the primary basis of any research investigations and the identification of these gaps is the foundation for
expanding knowledge frontiers. One measure of knowledge expansion was proposed i.e new knowledge
creation.

4. THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS

The conceptual framework designed in this study will guide empirical findings for scholars and researchers in
order to develop the construct. The relationship between knowledge gap and knowledge expansion has not been
explored in any research literature, perhaps this framework will stand as a spring board to develop the theoretical
relationship between the both constructs.

5. LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER DIRECTIONS

The knowledge gaps identified in this study were been paraphrased from research gaps and some scholars have
divergent views relating to the conceptualization of the both constructs. Perhaps more studies need to be
conducted in order to ascertain if actually they are synonymous or related. Similarly, the concept was lifted
from the domain of mass communication and there exist a contextual difference which the construct is used.
This could make the understanding of the concept to be misleading, but we have succeeded in making such
distinctions through the help of Gaziano (2016). More research scholars should explore the two key pillars or
pathways of Gaziano (2016) conceptualization to ascertain if the measures used by us are in line with the
conceptualization of knowledge gap. The conceptual framework developed in this study was not empirical
tested in order to ascertain if actually the dimensions are actually predictors of knowledge expansion. Future
study is needed to test these nine (9) dimensions and measure of new knowledge creation needs to be validated
in order to ascertain if actually the measure is capable of measuring knowledge expansion. The knowledge gaps
or research gap identified are not exhaustive scholars can come up with more gaps in literature.

6. REFERENCES
Abhary K., Adrainsen H.K, Begorac F, Djukic D, Qin B, Spuzic S, Wood D, and Xing K (2009). Some Basic Aspects of Knowledge
Procedia.Social and Behavioural Science 1, 1753-1758.
Bolisani E., and Bratianu C., (2018). The Elusive Definition of Knowledge. Strategic Thinking in Knowledge Management, 1-22 Chain
Spinger International Publishing.

www.researchjournali.com
Researchjournali’s Journal of Management
Vol. 7 | No. 3 March | 2019 ISSN 2347-8217 12
Bratianu C., and Dinca V.M (2010). Knowledge Economy Dimensions. Review of International Comparative Management, 11, 2.
Bandera C. and Passerini K (2017). Knowledge Management and the Entrepreneur.: Insights form Ikujiro Nonaka’s Dynamic
Knowledge Creation Model (SECI). International Journal of Innovation Studies, 1,3,163-174.
Business Dictionary (online). Assessed on www.google.com Retrieved on 26th November,2018.
Cooper, H. (1998). Synthesizing Research – A Guide for Literature Review,3rd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA,US: SAGE Publication Inc.
Chen xi (2013). The Influence of Social Media use on Knowledge Gap about Science and Technology among Chinese Audiences: A
Thesis submitted to Graduate Faculty IOWA State University.
Chouikha B. M, and Dakhi S.B.D (2012). The Dimensions of Knowledge Sharing. Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems
(MCIS), Proceedings. AIS Electronic Library (Aisel).
Dissanayake D.M.N.S.W (2013) Research, Research Gap and the Research Problem. MPRA Paper, No. 47519.
Evers Hans-Diefors (2003) Malaysian Knowledge Society and Global Knowledge Gap. Asian Journal of Social Science 3,3,383-397.
Edward Tenner (2011). Is the Expansion of Knowledge Endangering Genius? The Atlantic Health-online.
Gettier E (2009). Is Justified True Belief Knowledge? In R Neta, D Pritchard (eds) Arguing About Knowledge. Routledge London, pp.
14-15.
Gaziano C (1997) Forecast 2000: Widening Knowledge Gap. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 74, 237-264.
Gaziano C. (2016). Knowledge Gap: History and Development. Wiley Online Library. Assessed from www.google.com and Retrieved
on 28th August, 2018.
Gaziano E. and Gaziano C. (1999). Social control. Social change and the knowledge gap hypothesis. In D Demers and K. Viswanath
(eds) Mass media, social control and social change: A micro social perspective pp117-136. Ames IA, IOWA State University Press.
Galia, F and Lagoos D. (2004). The Knowledge Creation, Sharing and Transferring Process in French Manufacturing Firms in an
Innovative Perspective. The ICFAI Journal of Knowledge Management, 3,2,54-70.
Hasan, Masood (2017). Complexity and Knowledge. The Nations Newspapers-online www.google.com.
Hart, C. (2009). Doing a Literature Review-Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination, London: SAGE Publications.
Hadad S (2017). Knowledge Economy: Characteristics and Dimension Management. Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, 5,(2),203-
225.
Jacobs, R.L (2011). “Developing a research problem and purpose statement”, in the Handbook of Scholarly Writings and Publishing
T.S Rocco and T. Hatcher (eds), San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 125-141.
Jenssen Anders (2012). Widening or Closing the Knowledge Gap: The Role of Tv and Newspapers in Changing the Distribution of
Political Knowledge. Nordicam Review 33 (1), 19-36.
Jarvinen Pertti (2016). On Lenses and their Improvement for Identifying Research Gaps in Literature Review. University of Tampere
School of Information Sciences Report in Information Science 49.
Knowledge management tools (2010). Assessed on www.google.com. Retrieved on 28th November, 2018.
Leo W.J Atkin D, and Fu Hanlong (2011). Reconceptualize the Knowledge and the Knowledge Gap: Time to Content. Open
Communication Journal, 5,30-37.
Miles D. A (2017). A Taxonomy of Research Gaps: Identifying and Defining the Seven Research Gaps. Doctoral Student Workshop:
Finding Research Gaps-Research Methods and Strategies.
Mc Quail (2010) as cited in Chen xi (2013). The Influence of Social Media use on Knowledge Gap about Science and Technology among
Chinese Audiences: A Thesis submitted to Graduate Faculty 10WA State University.
Miller Henry (2017). The Theory of Knowledge. UK Essays online assessed from www.google.com. Retrieved 5th September, 2018.
Muller-Bloch C and Kranz, J. (2014). A Framework for Rigorously Identifying Research Gaps in Qualitative Literature Reviews. The
Thirty Six International Conference on Information Systems, Fort Worth 2015, pp. 1-19.
Neta T., and Pritchard D. (2009) Arguing About Knowledge. Rutledge, London.

www.researchjournali.com
 Researchjournali’s Journal of Management
Vol. 7 | No. 3 March | 2019 ISSN 2347-8217 13
Nonaka I (1994). A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation. Organizational Science 5(1),14-37.
Pugh K and Prusak L (2013). Designing Effective Knowledge Networks. MITSloan Management Review-Magazine. Keshtkar F,
Baratolacci M, Neerudu S.
Ramsundar B. and Swapan M (2014). A Comparative Study on the Rate of Knowledge Expansion among People belong to Different
Areas in West Mengal, India. International Journal of Current Research. 6,12,10757-10760.
Row F. (2014). What Literature Review is not: Diversity, Boundaries and Recommendations, European Journal of Information Systems,
23,3,241-255.
Rogers E.M (2003 as cited in Gaziano, 2016). Diffusion of Innovation (5th ed) new York Free Press. Knowledge Gap: History and
Development. Wiley Online Library. Assessed from www.google.com and Retrieved on 28th August, 2018.
Robinson K. A and Saldanha, I.J and Mc Koy, N.A (2011). Development of a Framework to Identifying Research Gaps from Systematic
Reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64, 12, 1325-1330.
Tichenor P., Donohue and Olien (1970 as Cited in Jessen (2012). Widening or Closing the Knowledge Gap: The Role of Tv and
Newspapers in Changing the Distribution of Political Knowledge. Nordicam Review 33 (1), 19-36.
Ule P.A and Idemudia F.A (2018). Knowledge gap: The magic behind knowledge expansion. American journal of humanity and social
science Research 2(11), 124-128.
Vom Brocke, J., Simons A., Niehaves, B., Riener, K., Plattfant R., and Cleven, A. (2009). Reconstructing the Giant: On the Importance
of Rigour in Documenting the Literature Search Process,” in Proceedings of the ECIS 2009, S. Newells, E.A Whitley, N. Pouloudi J.
Wareham and l. Mathiassen (eds), Berona, Italy, pp.206-2217.
Wikipedia Encyclopedia (online) Assessed from www.google. Retrived on 24th August, 2018.
Webster, J., and Watson, R.T (2002). Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review. MIS Quarterly 26, 2,
13-23.

www.researchjournali.com
View publication stats