How to Start Business Research | Identify Research Gaps and How to Find the Research Topic

TL;DR

Narrow from a broad research area to a topic of interest that the researcher can read, write, and discuss extensively.

Briefing Cornell Notes

Briefing

A practical, step-by-step workflow for finding a research topic and turning it into a publishable study starts with choosing the right “area” and “topic of interest,” then uses systematic literature reviews (SLRs) to map what’s already known—before hunting for gaps that can support a credible new model.

The process begins by identifying a broad research area (for example, human resource management) and then narrowing to a topic of interest within that area (such as leadership). The key test is personal fit: the topic should be something the researcher can read about, write about, and discuss at length. Once the area and topic are set, a preliminary literature review kicks in. Rather than scanning hundreds of papers, the workflow prioritizes systematic reviews because they consolidate research from the last decade or two, summarize definitions, measures, limitations, and the theories used, and often point to future research directions. For early-career researchers, this also helps with a common stumbling block: locating and understanding theories that explain relationships.

To find SLRs efficiently, the workflow recommends using Google Scholar in a more targeted way—searching for “systematic literature review” alongside specific concepts (e.g., “servant leadership” + “systematic literature review”). When access is restricted, requesting papers from authors is presented as a normal step. The value of SLRs is concrete: they show how many definitions exist, what scales are available and where they fail, which countries have been studied (and where research is sparse), what antecedents and outcomes have been tested, and how constructs connect through “nomological networks” (antecedents, mediators, moderators, and outcomes). That mapping makes it easier to locate where a new study could fit.

After establishing what exists, the next checkpoint is journal relevance. A topic that feels important personally may still struggle if top journals have not engaged with it recently. The workflow warns against investing time in areas with little or no research activity in the last couple of years, since that can signal low publishability.

Then comes the work of reading and organizing. Quality databases and journals are emphasized—examples include Emerald, ScienceDirect, SAGE, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, Springer, and Cambridge/Oxford resources—along with the idea that writing quality is learned by reading how established papers are structured. Information should be stored in a structured way, either using reference-management software (like Mendeley) or an Excel template that captures key study elements: title, objective, research questions, theory, variables (independent/dependent/control), mediators/moderators, gaps, contributions, sample details, and a summary.

The workflow’s core publishability advice is about gaps. It distinguishes explicit gaps—future research directions stated in existing studies—from implicit gaps, which emerge when a researcher understands the concepts deeply but cannot find studies linking them. For explicit gaps, the workflow cautions against building a model from only one paper’s recommendations. A common rejection scenario occurs when another team publishes the same idea shortly before submission. The countermeasure is to triangulate: pull gap elements from at least three to four recent papers, and ensure the proposed mediators/moderators/outcomes are supported across sources. The final step is presenting the initial model to a supervisor for refinement, with the expectation that critique should be taken openly rather than as a sign to quit.

Cornell Notes

The workflow for starting business research centers on narrowing from a broad area to a specific topic of interest, then using systematic literature reviews to map what is already known. SLRs reduce the need to read hundreds of papers by summarizing definitions, measures, theories, antecedents, mediators, moderators, outcomes, and country coverage, often including future research directions. After identifying what top journals have recently published, the researcher reads and stores information in a structured system (folders or Excel fields) so writing can be assembled from known locations in the literature. Gap identification comes in two forms: explicit gaps from “limitations and future research” sections, and implicit gaps discovered when concepts appear theoretically linkable but no studies connect them. To avoid rejection, gap-based models should be built from multiple recent papers, not a single study’s recommendations.

How should a researcher choose a research topic after selecting a broad research area?

Start by naming the area (e.g., human resource management), then pick a topic of interest inside it (e.g., leadership). The practical criterion is capability and motivation: the topic should be something the researcher can explain for long stretches, keep reading about, and write about without running out of understanding. The transcript contrasts this with topics outside one’s interest (e.g., someone focused on leadership may struggle to define compensation management or recruitment and selection in depth).

Why are systematic literature reviews treated as the first major search step?

SLRs consolidate research from roughly the last 10–20 years, so the researcher avoids manually scanning 200–300 papers. They provide summaries of definitions (including how many exist and their limitations), measurement scales and their problems, the countries where research has been conducted, and the theories used. They also identify antecedents, mediators, moderators, and outcomes—often through a “nomological network”—and frequently include future research directions that can be converted into testable models.

What is a concrete method for finding systematic reviews on a specific concept?

Use targeted Google Scholar queries that include both the concept and the review type. For example, search for “servant leadership” plus “systematic literature review,” then open relevant SLRs such as “servant leadership a systematic review and call for future research.” If institutional access is missing, request the paper from the authors.

What makes a topic less likely to be publishable, even if it feels important?

A key warning is journal relevance and recency. If top journals in the field have not engaged with the topic in recent years, the topic may not be considered “worthy of research.” The transcript describes a pattern where repeated submissions over years lead to rejection until the work is redirected to journals with different indexing/fit, implying that low recent research attention can be a red flag.

How should explicit research gaps be used without triggering “already done” rejection?

Explicit gaps come from limitations and future research sections in existing studies. But relying on only one paper’s gap can backfire if another group publishes the same idea soon. The solution is triangulation: locate additional papers that discuss related mediators/moderators/outcomes and build the model from at least three to four recent sources, so the gap is not tied to a single publication.

How do implicit gaps get identified when nothing seems to exist in the literature?

Implicit gaps arise after deep reading when concepts are understood as theoretically linkable but searches fail to find studies connecting them. The transcript gives an example involving entrepreneurial orientation/project success versus entrepreneurial leadership/project success: the researcher could not find the latter link at the time, despite knowing entrepreneurial leadership is a form of leadership. The researcher then searches again using database queries to verify the absence before claiming novelty.

Review Questions

What specific information should be captured in a structured literature storage system (e.g., Excel template) to support later writing?
Why does the transcript recommend using multiple recent papers to build a gap-based model instead of extracting everything from one study?
How can a researcher distinguish between an explicit gap and an implicit gap, and what evidence is needed to justify each?

Key Points

1
Narrow from a broad research area to a topic of interest that the researcher can read, write, and discuss extensively.
2
Use systematic literature reviews early to map definitions, measures, theories, antecedents, mediators, moderators, outcomes, and country coverage without reading hundreds of papers.
3
Search for SLRs with targeted queries (concept + “systematic literature review”) and request papers from authors when access is unavailable.
4
Check journal relevance and recent research activity; a topic with little attention from top journals in the last 2–3 years may be a poor investment.
5
Store reading outputs in a structured system (folders or an Excel sheet) capturing variables, theories, gaps, contributions, and sample details so writing can be assembled efficiently.
6
Identify gaps as either explicit (from limitations/future research in existing studies) or implicit (concepts that appear linkable but lack published connections after thorough searching).
7
Build gap-driven models using triangulation from at least three to four recent papers to reduce the risk of “already published” rejection.

Highlights

Systematic literature reviews act like a shortcut map: they summarize definitions, measurement scales, theories, country coverage, and future research directions in one place.

A publishable gap usually isn’t sourced from a single paper; triangulating across multiple recent studies helps prevent “already done” outcomes.

Implicit gaps are discovered through deep reading plus repeated database searches that confirm the missing link between concepts.

Reading quality is treated as a writing strategy: established journal structure and phrasing are learned by studying high-quality papers.

Structured storage (folders or Excel fields) turns reading into usable writing by keeping track of where each idea belongs in the eventual paper.

Topics

Research Topic Selection
Systematic Literature Reviews
Research Gaps
Journal Fit
Literature Organization

Mentioned

Mendeley