a literature review bridges the gap between

The Research Gap (Literature Gap)

Everything you need to know to find a quality research gap

By: Ethar Al-Saraf (PhD) | Expert Reviewed By: Eunice Rautenbach (DTech) | November 2022

If you’re just starting out in research, chances are you’ve heard about the elusive research gap (also called a literature gap). In this post, we’ll explore the tricky topic of research gaps. We’ll explain what a research gap is, look at the four most common types of research gaps, and unpack how you can go about finding a suitable research gap for your dissertation, thesis or research project.

Overview: Research Gap 101

• What is a research gap
• Four common types of research gaps
• Practical examples
• How to find research gaps
• Recap & key takeaways

What (exactly) is a research gap?

Well, at the simplest level, a research gap is essentially an unanswered question or unresolved problem in a field, which reflects a lack of existing research in that space. Alternatively, a research gap can also exist when there’s already a fair deal of existing research, but where the findings of the studies pull in different directions , making it difficult to draw firm conclusions.

For example, let’s say your research aims to identify the cause (or causes) of a particular disease. Upon reviewing the literature, you may find that there’s a body of research that points toward cigarette smoking as a key factor – but at the same time, a large body of research that finds no link between smoking and the disease. In that case, you may have something of a research gap that warrants further investigation.

Now that we’ve defined what a research gap is – an unanswered question or unresolved problem – let’s look at a few different types of research gaps.

Types of research gaps

While there are many different types of research gaps, the four most common ones we encounter when helping students at Grad Coach are as follows:

• The classic literature gap
• The disagreement gap
• The contextual gap, and
• The methodological gap

Need a helping hand?

1. The Classic Literature Gap

First up is the classic literature gap. This type of research gap emerges when there’s a new concept or phenomenon that hasn’t been studied much, or at all. For example, when a social media platform is launched, there’s an opportunity to explore its impacts on users, how it could be leveraged for marketing, its impact on society, and so on. The same applies for new technologies, new modes of communication, transportation, etc.

Classic literature gaps can present exciting research opportunities , but a drawback you need to be aware of is that with this type of research gap, you’ll be exploring completely new territory . This means you’ll have to draw on adjacent literature (that is, research in adjacent fields) to build your literature review, as there naturally won’t be very many existing studies that directly relate to the topic. While this is manageable, it can be challenging for first-time researchers, so be careful not to bite off more than you can chew.

2. The Disagreement Gap

As the name suggests, the disagreement gap emerges when there are contrasting or contradictory findings in the existing research regarding a specific research question (or set of questions). The hypothetical example we looked at earlier regarding the causes of a disease reflects a disagreement gap.

Importantly, for this type of research gap, there needs to be a relatively balanced set of opposing findings . In other words, a situation where 95% of studies find one result and 5% find the opposite result wouldn’t quite constitute a disagreement in the literature. Of course, it’s hard to quantify exactly how much weight to give to each study, but you’ll need to at least show that the opposing findings aren’t simply a corner-case anomaly .

3. The Contextual Gap

The third type of research gap is the contextual gap. Simply put, a contextual gap exists when there’s already a decent body of existing research on a particular topic, but an absence of research in specific contexts .

For example, there could be a lack of research on:

• A specific population – perhaps a certain age group, gender or ethnicity
• A geographic area – for example, a city, country or region
• A certain time period – perhaps the bulk of the studies took place many years or even decades ago and the landscape has changed.

The contextual gap is a popular option for dissertations and theses, especially for first-time researchers, as it allows you to develop your research on a solid foundation of existing literature and potentially even use existing survey measures.

Importantly, if you’re gonna go this route, you need to ensure that there’s a plausible reason why you’d expect potential differences in the specific context you choose. If there’s no reason to expect different results between existing and new contexts, the research gap wouldn’t be well justified. So, make sure that you can clearly articulate why your chosen context is “different” from existing studies and why that might reasonably result in different findings.

4. The Methodological Gap

Last but not least, we have the methodological gap. As the name suggests, this type of research gap emerges as a result of the research methodology or design of existing studies. With this approach, you’d argue that the methodology of existing studies is lacking in some way , or that they’re missing a certain perspective.

For example, you might argue that the bulk of the existing research has taken a quantitative approach, and therefore there is a lack of rich insight and texture that a qualitative study could provide. Similarly, you might argue that existing studies have primarily taken a cross-sectional approach , and as a result, have only provided a snapshot view of the situation – whereas a longitudinal approach could help uncover how constructs or variables have evolved over time.

Practical Examples

Let’s take a look at some practical examples so that you can see how research gaps are typically expressed in written form. Keep in mind that these are just examples – not actual current gaps (we’ll show you how to find these a little later!).

Context: Healthcare

Despite extensive research on diabetes management, there’s a research gap in terms of understanding the effectiveness of digital health interventions in rural populations (compared to urban ones) within Eastern Europe.

Context: Environmental Science

While a wealth of research exists regarding plastic pollution in oceans, there is significantly less understanding of microplastic accumulation in freshwater ecosystems like rivers and lakes, particularly within Southern Africa.

Context: Education

While empirical research surrounding online learning has grown over the past five years, there remains a lack of comprehensive studies regarding the effectiveness of online learning for students with special educational needs.

As you can see in each of these examples, the author begins by clearly acknowledging the existing research and then proceeds to explain where the current area of lack (i.e., the research gap) exists.

How To Find A Research Gap

Now that you’ve got a clearer picture of the different types of research gaps, the next question is of course, “how do you find these research gaps?” .

Well, we cover the process of how to find original, high-value research gaps in a separate post . But, for now, I’ll share a basic two-step strategy here to help you find potential research gaps.

As a starting point, you should find as many literature reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses as you can, covering your area of interest. Additionally, you should dig into the most recent journal articles to wrap your head around the current state of knowledge. It’s also a good idea to look at recent dissertations and theses (especially doctoral-level ones). Dissertation databases such as ProQuest, EBSCO and Open Access are a goldmine for this sort of thing. Importantly, make sure that you’re looking at recent resources (ideally those published in the last year or two), or the gaps you find might have already been plugged by other researchers.

Once you’ve gathered a meaty collection of resources, the section that you really want to focus on is the one titled “ further research opportunities ” or “further research is needed”. In this section, the researchers will explicitly state where more studies are required – in other words, where potential research gaps may exist. You can also look at the “ limitations ” section of the studies, as this will often spur ideas for methodology-based research gaps.

By following this process, you’ll orient yourself with the current state of research , which will lay the foundation for you to identify potential research gaps. You can then start drawing up a shortlist of ideas and evaluating them as candidate topics . But remember, make sure you’re looking at recent articles – there’s no use going down a rabbit hole only to find that someone’s already filled the gap 🙂

Let’s Recap

We’ve covered a lot of ground in this post. Here are the key takeaways:

• A research gap is an unanswered question or unresolved problem in a field, which reflects a lack of existing research in that space.
• The four most common types of research gaps are the classic literature gap, the disagreement gap, the contextual gap and the methodological gap. 
• To find potential research gaps, start by reviewing recent journal articles in your area of interest, paying particular attention to the FRIN section .

If you’re keen to learn more about research gaps and research topic ideation in general, be sure to check out the rest of the Grad Coach Blog . Alternatively, if you’re looking for 1-on-1 support with your dissertation, thesis or research project, be sure to check out our private coaching service .

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

41 Comments

This post is REALLY more than useful, Thank you very very much

Very helpful specialy, for those who are new for writing a research! So thank you very much!!

I found it very helpful article. Thank you.

it very good but what need to be clear with the concept is when di we use research gap before we conduct aresearch or after we finished it ,or are we propose it to be solved or studied or to show that we are unable to cover so that we let it to be studied by other researchers ?

Just at the time when I needed it, really helpful.

Very helpful and well-explained. Thank you

VERY HELPFUL

We’re very grateful for your guidance, indeed we have been learning a lot from you , so thank you abundantly once again.

hello brother could you explain to me this question explain the gaps that researchers are coming up with ?

Am just starting to write my research paper. your publication is very helpful. Thanks so much

How to cite the author of this?

your explanation very help me for research paper. thank you

Very important presentation. Thanks.

Very helpful indeed

Best Ideas. Thank you.

I found it’s an excellent blog to get more insights about the Research Gap. I appreciate it!

Kindly explain to me how to generate good research objectives.

This is very helpful, thank you

How to tabulate research gap

Very helpful, thank you.

Thanks a lot for this great insight!

This is really helpful indeed!

This article is really helpfull in discussing how will we be able to define better a research problem of our interest. Thanks so much.

Reading this just in good time as i prepare the proposal for my PhD topic defense.

Very helpful Thanks a lot.

Thank you very much

This was very timely. Kudos

Great one! Thank you all.

Thank you very much.

This is so enlightening. Disagreement gap. Thanks for the insight.

How do I Cite this document please?

Research gap about career choice given me Example bro?

I found this information so relevant as I am embarking on a Masters Degree. Thank you for this eye opener. It make me feel I can work diligently and smart on my research proposal.

This is very helpful to beginners of research. You have good teaching strategy that use favorable language that limit everyone from being bored. Kudos!!!!!

This plat form is very useful under academic arena therefore im stil learning a lot of informations that will help to reduce the burden during development of my PhD thesis

This information is beneficial to me.

Insightful…

I have found this quite helpful. I will continue using gradcoach for research assistance

Doing research in PhD accounting, my research topic is: Business Environment and Small Business Performance: The Moderating Effect of Financial Literacy in Eastern Uganda. I am failing to focus the idea in the accounting areas. my supervisor tells me my research is more of in the business field. the literature i have surveyed has used financial literacy as an independent variable and not as a moderator. Kindly give me some guidance here. the core problem is that despite the various studies, small businesses continue to collapse in the region. my vision is that financial literacy is still one of the major challenges hence the need for this topic.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Bridging Digital Divides: a Literature Review and Research Agenda for Information Systems Research

Polyxeni vassilakopoulou.

University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway

Associated Data

Extant literature has increased our understanding of the multifaceted nature of the digital divide, showing that it entails more than access to information and communication resources. Research indicates that digital inequality mirrors to a significant extent offline inequality related to socioeconomic resources. Bridging digital divides is critical for sustainable digitalized societies. Ιn this paper, we present a literature review of Information Systems research on the digital divide within settings with advanced technological infrastructures and economies over the last decade (2010–2020). The review results are organized in a concept matrix mapping contributing factors and measures for crossing the divides. Building on the results, we elaborate a research agenda that proposes [1] extending established models of digital inequalities with new variables and use of theory, [2] critically examining the effects of digital divide interventions, and [3] better linking digital divide research with research on sustainability.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10796-020-10096-3.

Introduction

Digital inequalities have emerged as a growing concern in modern societies. These inequalities relate to disparities in access, actual use and use efficacy of digital resources. Digital resources including transformative technologies, such as business analytics, big data and artificial intelligence are key for the transition of societies towards sustainability (Pappas et al. 2018 ; United Nations 2018 ). Reducing digital inequalities is critical for sustainable digitalized societies. At a high level, all types of digital inequalities are encompassed in the term digital divide . One of the first uses of the term is traced back in a US government report published in 1999 referring to the divide between those with access to new technologies and those without (NTIA 1999 ). The term was soon broadened to signify the “gap between those who can effectively use new information and communication tools, such as the Internet, and those who cannot” (Gunkel 2003 ). Overall, the term digital divide includes digital inequalities between individuals, households, businesses or geographic areas (Pick and Sarkar 2016 ; OECD 2001 ). The conceptual broadness of the term aims to capture a multifaceted economic and civil rights issue in an era of continuous efforts to digitalize society. The ongoing digitalization poses a challenge for individuals who are not fully capable of using digital resources and may feel partially excluded or completely left out of the society.

Extant research has contributed insights on the different aspects of the digital divide phenomenon. In the past, the digital divide literature was mostly driven by policy-oriented reports that focused on access. Nevertheless, scientific research expanded to digital inequalities beyond access. Researchers foregrounded digital inequalities related to knowledge, economic and social resources, attributes of technology such as performance and reliability, and utility realization (DiMaggio et al. 2004 ; Van Dijk 2006 ; Van Deursen and Helsper 2015 ). In technologically and economically advanced settings, digital divides seem to be closing in terms of access, but inequalities that affect people’s ability to make good use of digital resources persist (Lameijer et al. 2017 ; Hsieh et al. 2011 ; Bucea et al. 2020 ). As digitalization becomes increasingly pervasive in work and everyday life, concerns are rising about continuing inequalities within societies that are at the digital forefront. At the same time, in low-resource settings there are still significant access issues. For instance, in the least developed countries (as defined by the United Nations) only 19 per cent of individuals had online access in 2019 while in developed countries, close to 87 per cent of individuals access the internet (Int.Telecom.Union 2019 ). Beyond big differences across settings in terms of access, low-resource settings are tormented by particular political, economic and social conditions inflicting digital divides (Venkatesh et al. 2014 ; Srivastava and Shainesh 2015 ; Luo and Chea 2018 ). Overall, prior research has shown that the modalities of digital inequalities are context-specific and it is important to be explicit about the context when researching the digital divide (Barzilai-Nahon 2006 ). This work is focused on digital divide research within settings with advanced technological infrastructures and economies.

The digital divide is an exemplary sociotechnical phenomenon and has attracted the interest of Information System (IS) researchers. IS research examines more than technologies or social phenomena, or even the two side by side; it investigates emergent sociotechnical phenomena (Lee 2001 ). Hence, IS researchers are well-positioned to study the digital divide phenomenon and have been producing a significant volume of related research. Nevertheless, no systematic review of the IS body of literature on the digital divide exists. Our study identifies, analyses, and integrates a critical mass of recent IS research on the digital divide focused on settings where the technological infrastructures and economies are advanced. To ensure a robust result, we performed a systematic literature review (Kitchenham 2004 ) guided by the following question: What are the key findings identified in extant IS research related to the digital divide in contemporary technologically and economically advanced settings?

Our contribution is threefold. First, we identify recurring digital divide factors for population groups threatened by digital inequalities. The factors identified indicate that digital inequalities frequently mirror offline inequalities (for instance, in terms of socioeconomic resources, knowledge and physical abilities). Second, we present measures proposed in the literature and organize them in three key intervention domains that can contribute to closing the gap (related to policies, training initiatives and tailored design). Finally, as a third contribution, we identify areas for future research providing a research agenda.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. First, we present the method used for selecting and analyzing the articles for this review. Then, we offer a synthesis of our findings related to digital divide factors and related measures and present them in a concise concept matrix. We continue by discussing the implications for further research and we end with overall concluding remarks.

The literature review is conceptual providing a synthesis of prior research and identifying areas for future research (Ortiz de Guinea and Paré 2017 ; Schryen et al. 2015 ). It includes research published during the last decade (2010–2020). The approach followed is based on the three-step structured literature review process proposed by Kitchenham ( 2004 ). Specifically, the three-step process includes: (a) planning the review, where a detailed protocol containing specific search terms and inclusion/exclusion criteria is developed, (b) conducting the review, where the identification, selection, quality appraisal, examination and synthesis of prior published research is performed and (c) reporting the review, where the write-up is prepared. We used these steps as our methodological framework. In addition, we utilized principles suggested by Webster and Watson ( 2002 ) for sorting the articles included in the review. Following these principles, we identified key concepts and created a concept-centric matrix that provides an overview of the literature reviewed.

To identify articles to be reviewed, we searched for “Digital” and “Divide” in the abstract, title or keywords within published Information Systems research. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were established to reduce selection bias, guarantee the quality of the papers selected and increase the review validity. Peer-reviewed, empirical papers, written in English were included. Conceptual papers that lack empirical evidence and papers focusing on the digital divide in developing countries were excluded. Figure ​ Figure1 1 provides an overview of the selection process. To ensure a good coverage of Information Systems research we searched within the eight top journals in the field i.e. the basket of eight (AIS 2019 ). The journals included in the basket are: European Journal of Information Systems, Information Systems Journal, Information Systems Research, Journal of AIS, Journal of Information Technology, Journal of MIS, Journal of Strategic Information Systems and MIS Quarterly. Additionally, we searched within the journal Communications of the Association for Information Systems (CAIS) which has a key role within the IS research community communicating swiftly novel, original research. We also included in our search the journal Information Technology (IT) & People because it focuses on IS research that explores the interplay between technology individuals and society and the journal Information Systems Frontiers because it covers behavioural perspectives on IS research. Both journals are high quality IS outlets especially relevant for research on the digital divide. Furthermore, we included in our search the conferences of the Association of Information Systems (ICIS, ECIS; AMCIS; PACIS) and the Hawaiian International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). We utilized Scopus as our search engine.

The literature selection process

In Scopus, we searched for papers from the selected journals and conferences excluding books, book chapters, commentaries, letters and short surveys. For the journal article search, the ISSNs of the selected journals were used for filtering the search results in Scopus. In total, 45 journal papers were identified. For the conference article search, the conference names were used in Scopus and 91 conference papers were identified. Overall, the search yielded 136 unique articles in total. The next step was to read the titles and abstracts of the articles identified checking their relevance to the research question. For this step, the exclusion criteria were used. Specifically, we excluded papers that only casually mentioned the digital divide but had a different focus, literature reviews and conceptual papers and papers focused on developing countries. After this step, 79 articles were shortlisted. The full text of each of the shortlisted articles was assessed for relevance applying the inclusion-exclusion criteria to the full content. Additionally, the quality of the research reported was assessed. For the quality assessment, each article´s method description was first checked. At this stage, conference papers reporting early stages of ongoing research were removed. In several cases of conference papers that were removed, we found that more mature and extensive results from the same studies were reported in journal articles that were already included in our shortlist and were published after the conference papers. After this step, a final corpus of 33 articles was defined (Table ​ (Table1). 1 ). A detailed overview of the reviewed articles is included in an electronic supplementary file that can be accessed in the journal´s web site (see Online Resource 1 ).

List of selected articles

After selecting the papers, we analyzed their content. We started with extracting meta-data of the papers such as type of study, year of study, study context, research method and theoretical framework applied. In addition, we identified the study subjects for each paper distinguishing between papers that engage with the general population, or specific groups of people including the elderly and marginalized population groups (e.g. refugees, migrants). We continued with an intra-analysis of the content of the papers by looking for core themes in each paper. The themes that were identified for each paper were registered, and as a next step, we performed an inter-analysis and comparison across papers. Based on the comparison, recurring themes and patterns across the papers were discovered and further categorized. The outcomes of the papers´analysis are presented in the " Results " section that follows.

This section presents the key findings from the literature reviewed. First, we present the theoretical premises and the methodological approaches of extant publications on the Digital Divide within IS research and their evolution from 2010 to 2020. Table ​ Table2 2 provides an overview of the theories and concepts, methods and data sources in the literature reviewed. Then, recurring digital divide factors are presented for population segments that are particularly digitally challenged (the elderly and marginalized population groups) and also, for the general population. Finally, measures for addressing the digital divide are presented and organized in three key intervention domains (policy measures, education/training and design tailoring). The section also includes a concept matrix which provides an overview of digital divide factors and related measures identified in the literature reviewed (Table ​ (Table3 3 ).

Lenses, methods and data sources employed for studying the Digital Divide

Concept Matrix

Trends, Methods and Theoretical Frames in IS Research on the Digital Divide

The work of Information Systems´ researchers on the digital divide has been influenced by policy-oriented reports that tend to be based on macro-level analyses. This influence is clear in the first half of the 2010–2020 period while in the second half, research extends towards a more complex and contextualized picture of digital divides. Newer papers tend to ask a wider range of questions related to access and use of information technologies and investigate a greater variety of factors. For instance, skill related factors are explored in about half of both earlier and later studies, but, newer studies tend to additionally explore motivation and personality aspects (about half of the newer studies include such aspects). Interestingly, several of the newer papers only focus on technology use. In these papers, researchers explore the second order digital divide and the extent of inclusion or involuntary exclusion of those that already have access to technologies. Furthermore, most earlier papers tend to investigate the general population while the majority of newer studies focus on specific population groups.

Overall, most of the studies employ quantitative research methods utilizing well-established survey instruments adapted for studying digital inequalities for certain groups (e.g. older adults) or re-using existing data sets from organizations like the International Telecommunication Union, the World Bank and the United Nations. A few studies use a mixed-method approach combining interviews with survey data, while the rest employ qualitative approaches. Well-known technology acceptance models such as TAM (Technology Acceptance Model), UTAUT (Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology) and MATH (Model of Adoption of Technology in Households) and theories on motivation and human behavior have been used to explore the digital divide. Typical variables included in the investigations are self-efficacy, performance and effort expectancy. Furthermore, social cognitive theories, social support theories and social capital conceptualizations have been used while some of the papers utilize selectively digital divide conceptualizations combined with constructs from social, sociotechnical or economic research.

Factors Contributing to the Digital Divide

The digital divide is often characterized as a digital divide cascade which is nuanced into different types of inequalities including unequal capabilities, engagement, and use outcomes in addition to inequalities of access and use. This points to the importance of identifying and aiming to remedy inequalities in what people are actually able to do and achieve with digital technologies (Burtch and Chan 2019 ; Díaz Andrade and Doolin 2016 ). In settings with advanced infrastructures and economy, physical access is not a key source of digital inequalities and IS studies that examine issues of unequal access show that access gaps are closing with the exception of marginalized population groups. Nevertheless, there is still a stark difference between access (first-order divide) and actual use (second-order divide) (Bucea et al. 2020 ). The latter relates to differences in digital skills, autonomy, social support and the aims of digital technology use (Rockmann et al. 2018 ). Going beyond socioeconomic demographics, additional personal contributing factors have been identified in the literature related to: (a) motivation, (b) personality traits (e.g. openness, extraversion, conscientiousness), (c) digital skills. Many of the studies reviewed focus on the elderly who are also referred to as “digital immigrants” (as opposed to digital natives that have been interacting with digital technology since childhood). Additionally, several studies focus on marginalized population groups. In the paragraphs that follow, we present research findings organizing them according to the different groups studied.

Elderly Population

Although digital technologies have been around for several decades, some of the elderly members of society have difficulties familiarizing with and adopting digital tools and services. Nevertheless, although a decade ago age-related underutilization of IT was significant (Niehaves and Plattfaut 2010 ), over the years, information and communication technologies (ICTs) have been gradually better integrated in the lives of elderly adults. A recent study on the digital divide related to mobile phone use among old adults in UK found that more than 70% have adopted smartphones (Choudrie et al. 2018 ). Specifically, research findings indicate that older adults frequently use internet-related smartphone features such as emailing and browsing although only very few use smartphones to access public services such as the National Health Service. One potential reason for the limited use of specialized web-based services among the elderly despite the wide adoption of smartphones, is that their former workplaces may have been characterized by low IT intensity causing a lower exploratory IT behavior when seniors are retiring (Rockmann et al. 2018 ). Niehaves and Plattfaut ( 2014 ) used the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) and the model of adoption of technology in households (MATH) to explain internet acceptance and usage by the elderly. Performance expectancy was found to be the main use driver among senior citizens. These models were able to predict how the elderly could be encouraged to learn to use digital technologies.

When asked, the elderly themselves identified several key impeding factors for their digital involvement: fear and anxiety of using digital technology and services, negative attitude, a sense of feeling too old for learning, lack of knowledge, difficulties understanding digital terminology (Holgersson and Söderström 2019 ). Family support is key for developing mobile internet skill literacy and mobile internet information literacy among older adults (Xiong and Zuo 2019 ). Seniors become better positioned to take advantage of digital resources when they have cognitive and emotional support. Cognitive support from family facilitates learning and digital skills´ development, and also, the development of skills for judging, analyzing and selecting information (Xiong and Zuo 2019 ). Emotional support based on patience, praise, encouragement and comfort can help the elderly avoid computer anxiety and stress (Xiong and Zuo 2019 ). Emotional support is important because unwillingness to adopt advanced digital services by the elderly was found to stem from mistrust, high-risk perceptions, and privacy concerns (Fox and Connolly 2018 ).

Overall, older people are a heterogeneous group, and it is important not to overlook their differences in digital skills and digital practice. Klier and colleagues conducted a survey on older unemployed individulas in Germany and showed that they can be grouped into four different types of digital media users ranging from very active users (digital contributors) to sceptics with limited or no use (digital sceptics) characterised by their negative attitude towards digital media (Klier et al. 2020 ). Digitalization efforts should take into account “the various shades of grey in older adults’ ability to draw on IT-based innovations” (Lameijer et al. 2017 , p. 6).

Marginalized Population Groups

Language barriers as for instance, in the case of refugees and immigrants, and practical resource limitations as in the case of distressed urban areas and remote rural areas can cause social exclusion and hinder the process of digital technologies´ assimilation throughout society. Several researchers have studied specifically issues related to the digital divide within marginalized population groups. Alam and Imram ( 2015 ) found in their research that although refugees and immigrants in the US are motivated to learn about new technology, many are not able to do so because of unaffordable cost, language barriers and lack of skills. Refugees and immigrants realize that technology is helpful for finding new jobs or facilitating social engagement. Digital technologies are of particular value to refugees for multiple reasons: to participate in an information society; to communicate effectively; to understand a new society; to be socially connected; to express their cultural identities (Díaz Andrade and Doolin 2016 ). A study on mobile communications by labor migrants (Aricat 2015 ) showed that mobile phones may also facilitate the development of ghettos and the lack of integration in the new countries by easing communications between the migrants and their home countries. The study identified a visible divide in the framing of the prospects and potentialities of mobile phones related to acculturation.

Enhancing the relationship between citizens and government through digital services requires reaching out to individuals and communities on the unfortunate side of the divide. Digital technology access and use in the context of e-government services were explored within one of the most distressed cities in the US (Sipior et al. 2011 ). This study showed that socioeconomic characteristics (educational level and household income) have significant impact on access barriers, but they also found that employment plays a critical role and is associated both with perceived access barriers and with perceived ease of use. A study conducted among governmental participants representing rural communities in Australia suggests that rural digital exclusion can result from three intertwined layers: availability (elements of infrastructure and connectivity), adoption, and digital engagement (Park et al. 2015 ). Among these layers, availability is probably not as important as one could expect. Similarly, one large household study conducted across the US found that the availability of Internet Supply Providers (ISP) had little impact on Internet adoption, and that Internet adoption can almost exclusively be attached to differences in household attributes and not to ISP availability (Ma and Huang 2015 ).

As access gaps are closing in settings with advanced infrastructures and economy, those who do not have access are easily overlooked (Davis et al. 2020 ). Nevertheless, the first-level digital divide still requires attention for marginalized population groups. Furthermore, socioeconomic factors that were found to affect uptake more than two decades ago (for instance, education level and income) are still relevant in today’s context for particular segments of our societies. Contrary to traditional views, the availability of digital solutions does not always facilitate the resolution of long-standing problems for those that are less well-off in our societies (for instance, immigrants or financially troubled individuals). What people are actually able to do and achieve with digital technologies relates to their greater positioning in society (Burtch and Chan 2019 ) and affects their potential for improvement. As digital technologies are becoming indispensable for participating in the economy and engaging in society, sustained digital divides amplify marginalization.

General Population

A study by Pick and colleagues ( 2018 ) showed the positive influence of managerial/science/arts occupations, innovation, and social capital on the use of digital technologies (Pick et al. 2018 ). Nevertheless, unreasonably high expectations are found to have a negative impact on ICT acceptance (Ebermann et al. 2016 ). Findings from a study conducted within White and Hispanic-owned SMEs in the US (Middleton and Chambers 2010 ) indicate some level of inequality related to ethnicity and age (younger white SME owners being better positioned). Davis and colleagues (Davis et al.  2020 ) analyzed the influence of income, income distribution, education levels, and ethnicity on levels of access to Internet in the US. The findings show that low levels of education and levels of income below the poverty line still tend to lead to higher proportion of people with no Internet access (Davis et al. 2020 ). Even when individuals do have equal access to digital technologies, differences in skills can lead to digital inequalities (Burtch and Chan 2019 ). Taking a differentiated view on skills is needed to understand technology use and no-use (Reinartz et al. 2018 ). Physical skills matter; users with disabilities can be digitally disadvantaged and despite the benefits promised by specialized assistive technologies their adoption rate falls short of expectations (Pethig and Kroenung 2019 ).

Some groups may be challenged because they are too far embedded in older systems, which makes it difficult for them to adopt newer ICTs (Abdelfattah 2012 ). Social capital can trigger ICT awareness changing individual dispositions, thus converting social capital into cultural capital (Reinartz et al. 2018 ). An interesting study on crowdfunding showed that the benefits of medical crowdfunding accrue systematically less to racial minorities and less educated population segments (Burtch and Chan 2019 ). One of the reasons for this is the communication-rich nature of the context: less educated persons are not always capable of producing polished, persuasive pitches to solicit funds. Furthermore, digital inequality manifests on the efficacy of using crowdfunding platforms, due to a lack of critical mass in the number of potential transaction partners (donors). The results show the importance of looking beyond access or connectivity to investigate efficacy (in this case, expressed as success in fundraising), and how it associates with different population segments (Burtch and Chan 2019 ).

At the country level, a number of studies examined socio-economic influences on access and use of particular forms of technologies as for instance, personal computers and broadband internet (Zhao et al. 2014 ; Pick and Azari 2011 ; Dewan et al. 2010 ). A world-wide study found complementarities in the diffusion of PCs and the Internet leading to narrower digital divides (Dewan et al. 2010 ). These findings challenge the dominant understanding of characteristics such as country wealth, education levels and telecommunications infrastructure leading to the widening of the digital divide. Country-level studies are based on the analysis of data from census surveys, national statistics, and datasets from organizations like UNDP and ITO. The use of such datasets is helpful for performing comparisons across countries but due to the generic nature of data the purpose of digital technology use has been scarcely examined in country-level studies. This may be attributed to the fact that comparable data on specific online activities are not easy to collect across countries (Zhao et al. 2014 ). A study conducted by Bucea and colleagues ( 2020 ), is an exception to this. The study assessed specifically the use of e-Services and Social Networks within the 28 member-states of the European Union analyzing four socio-demographic factors (age, education, gender, and income). The findings showed that for e-Services, disparities relate mostly to education while for Social Networks age is the most important factor (Bucea et al. 2020 ). Overall, country level studies are important for assessing disparities across countries and can lead to the identification of factors reinforcing inequalities. At the same time, macro studies can not bring insights about digital inequalities across different population segments within countries.

Overcoming Digital Divides

Policy-making is considered instrumental for closing the digital gap and a mix of policy measures has been suggested in prior research. In general, policy initiatives can include subsidies targeting specific digitally disadvantaged segments as for instance rural populations (Talukdar and Gauri 2011 ). For instance, governments can apply strong intervention policies to provide equitable ICT access also in rural areas (Park et al. 2015 ). Furthermore, digital divides may be addressed at scale by crafting policies to equip underprivileged groups with better communication skills (reading, writing, and software use) enabling meaningful engagement with digital platforms (Burtch and Chan 2019 ). Government policy makers can collaborate with schools to support students from low-income households through the provision of home computers aiming to reduce the effect of socio-economic inequalities among students (Wei et al. 2011 ). Policies raising the priority of IT, protecting property rights, and enhancing freedom of the press and openness, can help to stimulate educational advances, labor-force participation and income growth, all of which contribute to advancing technology use (Pick and Azari 2011 ). Policy measures should allow room for local adaptations, as contextual and local elements seem to play a role for technology users and could influence policy success (Racherla and Mandviwalla 2013 ). Effective evaluation mechanisms make it easier to develop new policies addressing digital divides (Chang et al. 2012 ) helping policy-makers to refine initiatives targeting certain segments of society, such as elderly people and socio-economically disadvantaged groups (Hsieh et al. 2011 ).

Contemporary workplaces can help by taking greater responsibility for IT education of their employees even when they are close to retirement. Developing the digital skills of seniors while they are still employed is important for preventing digital exclusion after retirement (Rockmann et al. 2018 ). Overall, employment has a pivotal role in explaining citizen usage of e-government initiatives (Sipior et al. 2011 ). As an employee, an individual may have access to the Internet at the place of employment. Furthermore, employment demands may increase the confidence of an individual in performing new tasks. Thinking beyond workplaces, policies that leverage existing communities, social structures, and local actors can also help in reducing digital inequalities (Racherla and Mandviwalla 2013 ). Such policies can stimulate public/private partnerships with grassroots organizations that already have “hooks” in local communities. Moreover, long-term government policies could set a goal of encouraging growth in social capital within communities (Pick et al. 2018 ).

Proper training and education can help mitigate digital inequalities (Van Dijk 2012 ). For instance, platform operators can provide coaching services for underprivileged populations (Burtch and Chan 2019 ). Furthermore, information campaigns also have a significant role to play, digital divides may be narrowed if vendors engage in trust-building campaigns (Fox and Connolly 2018 ). Integrating digital education into curricula can also contribute to reducing digital inequalities (Reinartz et al. 2018 ), and education campaigns can stimulate the adoption and usage of ICTs bridging rural-urban digital gaps. Rural communities typically lag in digital skills, and digital literacy training programs can improve digital engagement in rural communities. Digital literacy programs targeting senior citizens can help them develop the necessary skills and abilities to use digital mobile devices so that they could be part of the Digital Society (Carvalho et al. 2018 ; Fox and Connolly 2018 ; Klier et al. 2020 ). Educational efforts for the elderly must be practically oriented in order to show directly what is to be gained by becoming more digital (Holgersson and Söderström 2019 ). In addition, social networks, friends and family are important for supporting the training of disadvantaged people in technologies; family emotional and cognitive support can increase the elderly’s digital capabilities, reduce computer anxiety and increase trust and motivation for learning (Xiong and Zuo 2019 ).

The design and development of ICT solutions should take into account individual differences for creating proper stimuli to different user groups. For instance, the use of governmental e-services can be improved by making them more engaging, interactive, and personal to address a country’s or region’s cultural norms (Zhao et al. 2014 ). This makes the role of appropriate design for overcoming the digital divide a center of attention. Lameijer et al. ( 2017 ) propose that design-related issues should be considered and evaluated to better understand technology adoption patterns among elderly. Also, the study by Klier and colleagues showed that there is a potential to shift older individuals towards a more active engagement with digital media by ensuring ease of use in the design of digital services (Klier et al. 2020 ). Furthermore, the needs of groups with disabilities ought to be taken into account when designing information systems for the general public (Pethig and Kroenung 2019 ). It is important to integrate assistive functionalities in general IS to emphasize authentic inclusiveness. Overall, research points to the importance of functionalities that suit the needs of specific user groups to stimulate the use of digital technologies.

Crossing Digital Divides: a Research Agenda

The evolution of IS research on the digital divide during the last decade shows the richness of this research area. As digitalization becomes pervasive in our societies, digital inequalities emerge in different contexts and communities renewing the interest on digital divide research. In recent years, researchers have been shifting away from macro-level studies and are re-orienting towards developing nuanced and contextualized insights about digital inequalities. The analysis of published research allows the identification of gaps and opportunities for further research. Furthermore, there are specific research directions proposed in several of the reviewed papers. The synthesis of suggestions from the papers reviewed with the results of our analysis led to the identification of three research avenues that bring exciting opportunities for researchers to engage with topics that are highly relevant with our digitalization era. Specifically, we suggest a research agenda that proposes: [1] extending established digital divide models with new variables and use of theory, [2] examining the effects of interventions, and [3] addressing societal challenges and especially sustainability goals through the lens of digital divide. Social inclusion and digital equality are crucial for a sustainable digitalized society.

Avenue I: Extending Established Digital Divide Models and Use of Theory

Extant research shows that physical access divides are being reduced in technologically and economically advanced societies but, inequalities in use persist (Hsieh et al. 2011 ; Lameijer et al. 2017 ). These use inequalities are found to be related to socioeconomic characteristics and also, personality traits, motivation and digital skills. A better understanding of the complex phenomenon of digital divide is needed combining multiple aspects to form comprehensive models (Choudrie et al. 2018 ) and further explore the concept itself to get more explanatory power (Lameijer et al. 2017 ). The emphasis, to date, has been on describing the digital divide by identifying gaps between actual technology access and use against an ideal situation. Work should be undertaken to investigate different national, social and cultural settings (Niehaves and Plattfaut 2010 ) across geographical contexts (Niehaves and Plattfaut 2014 ) and the influence of institutional and environmental factors on individuals’ ability and motivation to access and use technology (Racherla and Mandviwalla 2013 ). Furthermore, researchers may explore the values and interests of those abstraining from the use of digital resources and the implications of the overemphasis to digital inclusion (Díaz Andrade and Techatassanasoontorn 2020 ).

Further research is also needed to extend established models with new variables. Future investigations may add variables related to social theories (Abdelfattah et al. 2010 ; Hsieh et al. 2011 ; Niehaves and Plattfaut 2014 ), personal traits models (Ebermann et al. 2016 ), and capital theory (Hsieh et al. 2011 ; Reinartz et al. 2018 ). Additionally, future research should consider testing psychological variables (Niehaves and Plattfaut 2010 ) and additional socio-economical aspects (Hsieh et al. 2011 ; Reisdorf and Rikard 2018 ) including support from friends and family (Xiong and Zuo 2019 ; Holgersson and Söderström 2019 ) to develop a more fine-grained understanding of the association between the digital divide phenomenon and contributing variables (Hsieh et al. 2011 ; Niehaves and Plattfaut 2014 ; Fox and Connolly 2018 ). Qualitative research is important for revealing factors that influence inequalities and can become the basis for model building and testing using quantitative data.

Interestingly, fully developed theoretical frameworks that have been extensively used in other streams of exploratory information systems research related to the introduction and use of ICTs were not present in the papers reviewed. For instance, Activity theory and Institutional theory can be used as lenses for understanding and analyzing the digital divide phenomenon. Activity theory (Allen et al. 2011 ; Engeström 1999 ) can help in developing a nuanced understanding of the relationship between ICT artifacts and purposeful individuals taking into account the environment, culture, motivations, and complexity of real-life settings. Institutional theory (Jepperson 1991 ; Scott 2005 ) can contribute to developing insights related to societal structures, norms and routines shifting attention to units of analysis that cannot be reduced to individuals’ attributes or motives. Overall, we observed that digital divide research could benefit from better leveraging theory to extend established digital divide models.

Avenue II: Examining the Effects of Interventions to Cross the Digital Divide

Measures for crossing digital divides include policy interventions, training and design. Information Systems research can be especially relevant by developing design knowledge for the development and deployment of digital technology artifacts in different settings. Although several measures are proposed in the literature, further work is required to research the effect of interventions to avoid the exclusion of citizens from the digital realm addressing inequalities (Alam and Imran 2015 ; Reisdorf and Rikard 2018 ; Reinartz et al. 2018 ). In particular, appropriate design approaches for digital technologies should be investigated and tested to avoid involuntary exclusion of marginalized groups, elderly people or any other group of individuals affected by digital inequalities (Rockmann et al. 2018 ; Lameijer et al. 2017 ; Alam and Imran 2015 ; Fox and Connolly 2018 ). Additionally, comparative research can be undertaken investigating the effects and attractiveness of different design solutions in different cultural settings (Pethig and Kroenung 2019 ). Overall, although many studies include insights related to measures for bridging digital divides, there is a clear need for studies with a longitudinal research design to investigate the impact of measures over time. Interestingly, little research has been performed up to now on the potentially negative unexpected effects of measures for bridging digital divides (Díaz Andrade and Techatassanasoontorn 2020 ). This is certainly an area that needs to be further developed. The use of technologies might lead to advantages or disadvantages, which are unevenly distributed in society. Focusing only on benefits, researchers miss the opportunity to connect to emerging literature on the dark side of Internet and unexpected outcomes of digitalization including privacy risks. Scholars of information systems can develop novel avenues of critical thinking on the effects of interventions to cross the digital divide.

Avenue III: Linking Digital Divide Research With Research on Sustainability

There were no studies in our literature review that focused specifically on sustainability topics, and future research should pay attention to this gap. The United Nations´ sustainability goals focus on reducing inequality within and among countries to avoid biased economic development, social exclusion, and environmentally untenable practices. Important dimensions of sustainable development are human rights and social inclusion, shared responsibilities and opportunities (United Nations 2020 ). An essential part of social inclusion in our societies is e-inclusion (Pentzaropoulos and Tsiougou 2014 ). At the same time, it is important to research the risks and ethical implications of depriving individuals from offline choices (Díaz Andrade and Techatassanasoontorn 2020 ). Furthermore, we need to support sustainability in rural areas reducing the urban - rural digital divide. Sustainability researchers have identified the issue pointing to the vulnerabilities of rural communities that are in particular need of bridging inequalities (Onitsuka 2019 ). Future empirical studies on the digital divide should therefore pay attention to sustainability topics in terms of social exclusion and digital inequality to better understand underlying factors and potential remedies.

The covid-19 pandemic made digital inequalities even more evident. In periods of social distancing to minimize infection risks, individuals sustain their connections with colleagues, friends, and family through online connections. Furthermore, people need digital skills to keep updated on crucial information and to continue working when possible using home offices and digital connections. In addition, recent crisis response experiences have shown that switching to digital education may lead to exclusion of the few that cannot afford physical digital tools (Desrosiers 2020 ), or do not have access to sustainable infrastructures and ICT access. This crisis has shown that digital divides can become a great challenge aggravating inequalities experienced by marginalized communities such as urban poor and under-resourced businesses. Digital inequalities are a major factor of health-related and socio-economical vulnerability (Beaunoyer et al. 2020 ).

The role of Information Systems researchers is critical for the development of digital capital contributing to sustainable development. Digital capital refers to the resources that can be utilized by communities including digital technology ecosystems and related digital literacy and skills. General policy measures related to stimulating regional economic growth, strengthening tertiary education, or discouraging early leaving from education can be developed by scientists in other domains. However, thinking about inclusive configurations of digital infrastructures and ecosystems and developing related design principles entails specialized knowledge from the Information Systems domain. Furthermore, Information Systems researchers can provide insights about the development of capabilities required for leveraging digital resources such as digital infrastructures (Hustad and Olsen 2020 ; Grisot and Vassilakopoulou 2017 ), big data and business analytics (Mikalef et al. 2020 ). Innovative approaches for leveraging digital resources will be pivotal for addressing grand challenges related to poverty, healthcare and climate change. Information Systems researchers can contribute insights for bridging digital divides to promote an agenda towards a sustainable future.

Conclusions

The present work takes stock of Information Systems research on the digital divide by synthesizing insights from publications in the 2010–2020 period. The review process was performed with rigor while selecting and critically assessing earlier research. Nevertheless, this work is not without limitations. We have confined the literature search within one specific discipline (Information Systems research). This limits the breadth of the review but facilitates comprehensiveness and depth in the development of insights about the body of literature analyzed. Furthermore, focusing on Information Systems research facilitates the development of a research agenda that is relevant to the target discipline through the identification of gaps and extrapolations from previous work.

The review showed that within digital divide research, the attention of Information Systems research has gradually shifted from access to use and now needs to shift further towards better understanding use outcomes. Digital inequalities are a serious threat to civil society in an era where societies are rapidly going digital. For instance, daily activities such as paying bills, filling in application forms, filing tax returns, are all expected to be carried out electronically. There are high expectations for active citizens´ role based on online services (Axelsson et al. 2013 ; Vassilakopoulou et al. 2016 ); hence, we need to be concerned of digital inequalities ensuring fairness and inclusiveness. Furthermore, digital resources such as big data and business analytics are key enablers of sustainable value creation within societies (Pappas et al. 2018 ; Mikalef et al. 2020 ). Bridging digital divides is critical for sustainable digitalized societies. The findings of this literature review can provide a foundation for further research and a basis for researchers to orient themselves and position their own work.

Electronic Supplementary Material

(DOCX 35 kb)

Acknowledgements

We want to acknowledge June Lithell Hansen and Andreas Skaiaa for their contribution in an early stage of this study during fall 2018. The contribution was part of their master course work performed at the University of Agder.

Biographies

is an Associate Professor at the Department of Information Systems, University of Agder, Norway. Her research focus is on the transformative potential of digital technology and the implications for work, organisations and societies. Prior to joining academia, she worked in management consulting for over a decade. She has published in leading journals including: Information Systems Journal, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Journal for Computer Supported Collaborative Work, International Journal of Medical Informatics, Health Informatics Journal.

is a Professor at the Department of Information Systems, University of Agder, Norway. Her research interests pay attention to socio-technical issues related to the impact of digital transformation and the implementation of large-scale information systems in organizations. She has presented her research at several international conferences. She has published her work in journals such as Information Systems Journal, Information Management Systems, Journal of Systems and Software, Journal of Integrated Design & Process Science, and International Journal of Information Systems and Project Management.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Polyxeni Vassilakopoulou, Email: on.aiu@vnexylop .

Eli Hustad, Email: [email protected] .

• Abdelfattah, B. M. (2012). Individual-multinational study of internet use: the digital divide explained by displacement hypothesis and knowledge-gap hypothesis. In  AMCIS 2012 Proceedings . 24. https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2012/proceedings/AdoptionDiffusionIT/24 .
• Abdelfattah, B. M., Bagchi, K., Udo, G., & Kirs, P. (2010). Understanding the internet digital divide: an exploratory multi-nation individual-level analysis. In  AMCIS 2010 Proceedings . 542. https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2010/542 .
• AIS (2019). Association for information systems. Senior scholars’ basket of journals . https://aisnet.org/page/SeniorScholarBasket . Accessed 10 Jan 2019.
• Alam K, Imran S. The digital divide and social inclusion among refugee migrants: A case in regional Australia. Information Technology & People. 2015; 28 (2):344–365. doi: 10.1108/ITP-04-2014-0083. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Allen D, Karanasios S, Slavova M. Working with activity theory: Context, technology, and information behavior. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2011; 62 (4):776–788. doi: 10.1002/asi.21441. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aricat RG. Is (the study of) mobile phones old wine in a new bottle? A polemic on communication-based acculturation research. Information Technology & People. 2015; 28 (4):806–824. doi: 10.1108/ITP-09-2014-0223. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Axelsson K, Melin U, Lindgren I. Public e-services for agency efficiency and citizen benefit—Findings from a stakeholder centered analysis. Government Information Quarterly. 2013; 30 (1):10–22. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2012.08.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barzilai-Nahon K. Gaps and bits: Conceptualizing measurements for digital divide/s. The Information Society. 2006; 22 (5):269–278. doi: 10.1080/01972240600903953. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beaunoyer E, Dupéré S, Guitton MJ. COVID-19 and digital inequalities: Reciprocal impacts and mitigation strategies. Computers in Human Behavior. 2020; 111 :106424. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106424. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bucea AE, Cruz-Jesus F, Oliveira T, Coelho PS. Assessing the role of age, education, gender and income on the digital divide: evidence for the European Union. Information Systems Frontiers. 2020 doi: 10.1007/s10796-020-10012-9. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Burtch G, Chan J. Investigating the relationship between medical crowdfunding and personal bankruptcy in the United States: evidence of a digital divide. MIS Quarterly. 2019; 43 (1):237–262. doi: 10.25300/MISQ/2019/14569. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carvalho, C. V. d., Olivares, P. C., Roa, J. M., Wanka, A., & Kolland, F. (2018). Digital information access for ageing persons. In ICALT 2018 Proceedings  the 8th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, IEEE, 345–347.
• Chang S-I, Yen DC, Chang I-C, Chou J-C. Study of the digital divide evaluation model for government agencies–a Taiwanese local government’s perspective. Information Systems Frontiers. 2012; 14 (3):693–709. doi: 10.1007/s10796-011-9297-x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Choudrie J, Pheeraphuttranghkoon S, Davari S. The digital divide and older adult population adoption, use and diffusion of mobile phones: a quantitative study. Information Systems Frontiers. 2018; 22 :673–695. doi: 10.1007/s10796-018-9875-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davis, J. G., Kuan, K. K., & Poon, S. (2020). Digital exclusion and divide in the United States: exploratory empirical analysis of contributing factors. In AMCIS 2020 Proceedings . 1. Fully Online Event. https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2020/social_inclusion/social_inclusion/ .
• Desrosiers, M.-E. (2020). As universities move classes online, let’s not forget the digital divide, Policy Options Politiques . https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/march-2020/as-universities-move-classes-online-lets-not-forget-the-digital-divide/ . Accessed 25 Mar 2020.
• Dewan S, Ganley D, Kraemer KL. Complementarities in the diffusion of personal computers and the Internet: Implications for the global digital divide. Information Systems Research. 2010; 21 (4):925–940. doi: 10.1287/isre.1080.0219. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Díaz Andrade A, Doolin B. Information and communication technology and the social inclusion of refugees. MIS Quarterly. 2016; 40 (2):405–416. doi: 10.25300/MISQ/2016/40.2.06. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Díaz Andrade A, Techatassanasoontorn AA. Digital enforcement: Rethinking the pursuit of a digitally-enabled society. Information Systems Journal. 2020; 12306 :1–14. [ Google Scholar ]
• DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C., & Shafer, S. (2004). Digital inequality: From unequal access to differentiated use. In Social inequality (pp. 355–400). New YorK: Russell Sage Foundation.
• Ebermann, C., Piccinini, E., Brauer, B., Busse, S., & Kolbe, L. (2016). The impact of gamification-induced emotions on In-car IS adoption - the difference between digital natives and digital immigrants. In 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2016) Proceedings, IEEE, 1338–1347.
• Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (Vol. 19, pp. 19–37). Cambridge: Camebridge University Press.
• Fox G, Connolly R. Mobile health technology adoption across generations: Narrowing the digital divide. Information Systems Journal. 2018; 28 (6):995–1019. doi: 10.1111/isj.12179. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grisot M, Vassilakopoulou P. Re-infrastructuring for eHealth: Dealing with turns in infrastructure development. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 2017; 26 (1):7–31. doi: 10.1007/s10606-017-9264-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gunkel DJ. Second thoughts: toward a critique of the digital divide. New Media & Society. 2003; 5 (4):499–522. doi: 10.1177/146144480354003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Holgersson, J., & Söderström, E. (2019). Bridging the gap - Exploring elderly citizens’ perceptions of digital exclusion. In ECIS 2019 Proceedings.  https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2019_rp/28 .
• Hsieh JJ, Rai A, Keil M. Addressing digital inequality for the socioeconomically disadvantaged through government initiatives: Forms of capital that affect ICT utilization. Information Systems Research. 2011; 22 (2):233–253. doi: 10.1287/isre.1090.0256. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hustad, E., & Olsen, D. H. (2020). Creating a sustainable digital infrastructure: the role of service-oriented architecture. Presented at the Centeris conference 2020, forthcoming in Procedia Computer Science , preprint available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346989191_Creating_a_sustainable_digital_infrastructure_The_role_of_service-oriented_architecture .
• Int.Telecom.Union (2019). Facts and figs. 2019: measuring digital development. https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/FactsFigures2019.pdf . Accessed 25 Apr 2020.
• Jepperson, R. L. (1991). Institutions, institutional effects, and institutionalism. In W. W. Powell, & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 143–163). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Kitchenham, B. (2004). Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Keele University Technical Report, UK, TR/SE-0401,  1–26.
• Klier, J., Klier, M., Schäfer-Siebert, K., & Sigler, I. (2020). #Jobless #Older #Digital – Digital media user of the older unemployed. In ECIS 2020 Proceedings . Fully Online Event. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2020_rp/206 .
• Lameijer, C. S., Mueller, B., & Hage, E. (2017). Towards rethinking the digital divide–recognizing shades of grey in older adults’ digital inclusion. In ICIS 2017 Proceedings . 11. http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2017/General/Presentations/11 .
• Lee AS. Editor’s comments: What are the best MIS programs in US business schools? MIS Quarterly. 2001; 25 (3):iii–vii. [ Google Scholar ]
• Luo MM, Chea S. Internet village motoman project in rural Cambodia: bridging the digital divide. Information Technology & People. 2018; 21 (1):2–20. doi: 10.1108/ITP-07-2016-0157. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ma J, Huang Q. Does better Internet access lead to more adoption? A new empirical study using household relocation. Information Systems Frontiers. 2015; 17 (5):1097–1110. doi: 10.1007/s10796-014-9485-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Middleton KL, Chambers V. Approaching digital equity: is wifi the new leveler? Information Technology & People. 2010; 23 (1):4–22. doi: 10.1108/09593841011022528. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mikalef P, Pappas IO, Krogstie J, Pavlou PA. Big data and business analytics: A research agenda for realizing business value. Information & Management. 2020; 57 (1):103237. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2019.103237. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• NTIA. (1999). Falling through the net: Defining the digital divide. A report on the telecommunications and information technology gap in America. National Telecommunications and Information Administration .  https://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/ntiahome/fttn99/contents.html . Accessed 20 Oct 2019.
• Niehaves B, Plattfaut R. Internet adoption by the elderly: employing IS technology acceptance theories for understanding the age-related digital divide. European Journal of Information Systems. 2014; 23 (6):708–726. doi: 10.1057/ejis.2013.19. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Niehaves, B., & Plattfaut, R. (2010). The age-divide in private internet usage: a quantitative study of technology acceptance. In  AMCIS 2010 Proceedings . 407. https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2010/407 .
• OECD. (2001). Understanding the digital divide. OECD Digital Economy Papers ,  49 , OECD Publishing, Paris, France. 10.1787/236405667766.
• Onitsuka K. How social media can foster social innovation in disadvantaged rural communities. Sustainability. 2019; 11 (2697):1–24. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ortiz de Guinea, A., & Paré, G. (2017). What literature review type should I conduct? 1. In The Routledge Companion to Management Information Systems (pp. 73–82). Abingdon: Routledge.
• Pappas IO, Mikalef P, Giannakos MN, Krogstie J, Lekakos G. Big data and business analytics ecosystems: paving the way towards digital transformation and sustainable societies. Information Systems and eBusiness Management. 2018; 16 (3):479–491. [ Google Scholar ]
• Park, S., Freeman, J., Middleton, C., Allen, M., Eckermann, R., & Everson, R. (2015). The multi-layers of digital exclusion in rural Australia. In 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences   (HICSS 2015) Proceedings, IEEE, 3631–3640.
• Pentzaropoulos GC, Tsiougou D. E-inclusion policies for contemporary knowledge economies and societies: an examination of the main issues. Journal of Social Research & Policy. 2014; 5 (1):77–89. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pethig F, Kroenung J. Specialized information systems for the digitally disadvantaged. Journal of the Association for Information Systems. 2019; 20 (10):1412–1446. doi: 10.17705/1jais.00573. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pick J, Azari R. A global model of technological utilization based on governmental, business-investment, social, and economic factors. Journal of Management Information Systems. 2011; 28 (1):49–84. doi: 10.2753/MIS0742-1222280103. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pick, J., & Sarkar, A. (2016). Theories of the digital divide: Critical comparison. In 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2016) Proceedings, IEEE,  3888–3897.
• Pick, J., Sarkar, A., & Parrish, E. (2018). Internet use and online activities in US States: geographic disparities and socio-economic influences. In the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2018) Proceedings, IEEE, 3853–3863.
• Racherla P, Mandviwalla M. Moving from access to use of the information infrastructure: A multilevel sociotechnical framework. Information Systems Research. 2013; 24 (3):709–730. doi: 10.1287/isre.2013.0477. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reinartz, A., Buhtz, K., Graf-Vlachy, L., & König, A. (2018). Mechanisms of engagement with, and disengagement from, Internet applications: A qualitative study of online job search. In International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS) .
• Reisdorf BC, Rikard RV. Digital rehabilitation: a model of reentry into the digital age. American Behavioral Scientist. 2018; 62 (9):1273–1290. doi: 10.1177/0002764218773817. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rockmann, R., Gewald, H., & Haug, M. (2018). Equal access for everyone? A digital divide cascade for retired senior citizens. In  ECIS 2018 Proceedings , 30. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2018_rp/30 .
• Schryen, G., Wagner, G., & Benlian, A. (2015) Theory of knowledge for literature reviews: an epistemological model, taxonomy and empirical analysis of IS literature. In ICIS 2015 Proceedings .  https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1648&context=icis2015 .
• Scott, W. R. (2005). Institutional theory: Contributing to a theoretical research program. In Ken G. Smith and Michael A. Hitt (eds.) Great minds in management: The process of theory development ,  37 (2), 460–484. Oxford UK: Oxford University Press.
• Sipior JC, Ward BT, Connolly R. The digital divide and t-government in the United States: using the technology acceptance model to understand usage. European Journal of Information Systems. 2011; 20 (3):308–328. doi: 10.1057/ejis.2010.64. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Srivastava SC, Shainesh G. Bridging the service divide through digitally enabled service innovations: evidence from indian healthcare service providers. MIS Quarterly. 2015; 39 (1):245–267. doi: 10.25300/MISQ/2015/39.1.11. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Talukdar, D., & Gauri, D. K. (2011). Home Internet access and usage in the USA: Trends in the socio-economic digital divide. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 28 (1), 85–98.
• UnitedNations (2020). Getting to know the sustainable development goals. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/ . Accessed 15 Mar 2020.
• United Nations (2018). E-government survey 2018, Gearing E‐government to support transformation towards sustainable and resilient societies. https://www.unescap.org/resources/e-government-survey-2018-gearing-e-government-support-transformation-towards-sustainable . Accessed 15 Mar 2020.
• Van Deursen, A. J., & Helsper, E. J. (2015). The third-level digital divide: Who benefits most from being online? In Communication and information technologies annual (pp. 29–52). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
• Van Dijk JA. Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics. 2006; 34 (4–5):221–235. doi: 10.1016/j.poetic.2006.05.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Dijk JA. The evolution of the digital divide: The digital divide turns to inequality of skills and usage. Digital Enlightenment Yearbook. 2012; 2012 :57–75. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vassilakopoulou P, Grisot M, Aanestad M. Enabling electronic interactions between patients and healthcare providers: a service design perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems. 2016; 28 (1):71–90. [ Google Scholar ]
• Venkatesh V, Sykes TA, Venkatraman S. Understanding e-Government portal use in rural India: role of demographic and personality characteristics. Information Systems Journal. 2014; 24 (3):249–269. doi: 10.1111/isj.12008. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26 (2), xiii–xxiii.
• Wei K-K, Teo H-H, Chan HC, Tan BC. Conceptualizing and testing a social cognitive model of the digital divide. Information Systems Research. 2011; 22 (1):170–187. doi: 10.1287/isre.1090.0273. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xiong J, Zuo M. How does family support work when older adults obtain information from mobile internet? Information Technology & People. 2019; 32 (6):1496–1516. doi: 10.1108/ITP-02-2018-0060. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhao F, Collier A, Deng H. A multidimensional and integrative approach to study global digital divide and e-government development. Information Technology & People. 2014; 27 (1):38–62. doi: 10.1108/ITP-01-2013-0022. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Research to Action

The Global Guide to Research Impact

Social Media

Framing challenges

Gap analysis for literature reviews and advancing useful knowledge

By Steve Wallis and Bernadette Wright 02/06/2020

The basics of research are seemingly clear. Read a lot of articles, see what’s missing, and conduct research to fill the gap in the literature. Wait a minute. What is that? ‘See what’s missing?’ How can we see something that is not there?

Imagine you are videoconferencing a colleague who is showing you the results of their project. Suddenly, the screen and sound cut out for a minute. After pressing some keys, you manage to restore the link; only to have your colleague ask, ‘What do you think?’. Of course, you know that you missed something from the presentation because of the disconnection. You can see that something is missing, and you know what to ask for to get your desired results, ‘Sorry, could you repeat that last minute of your presentation, please’. It’s not so easy when we’re looking at research results, proposals, or literature reviews.

While all research is, to some extent, useful, we’ve seen a lot of research that does not have the expected impact. That means wasted time, wasted money, under-served clients, and frustration on multiple levels. A big part of that problem is that directions for research are often chosen intuitively; in a sort of ad-hoc process. While we deeply respect the intuition of experts, that kind of process is not very rigorous.

In this post, we will show you how to ‘see the invisible’: How to identify the missing pieces in any study, literature review, or program analysis. With these straight-forward techniques, you will be able to better target your research in a more cost-effective way to fill those knowledge gaps to develop more effective theories, plans, and evaluations.

The first step is to choose your source material. That can be one or more articles, reports, or other study results. Of course, you want to be sure that the material you use is of high quality . Next, you want to create a causal map of your source material.

We’re going to go a bit abstract on you here because people sometimes get lost in the ‘content’ when what we are looking at here is more about the ‘structure’. Think of it like choosing how to buy a house based on how well it is built, rather than what color it is painted. So, instead of using actual concepts, we’ll refer to them as concepts A, B, C… and so on.

So, the text might say something like: ‘Our research shows that A causes B, B causes C, and D causes less C. Oh yes, and E is also important (although we’re not sure how it’s causally connected to A, B, C, or D)’.

When we draw causal maps from the source material we’ve found, we like to have key concepts in circles, with causal connections represented by arrows.

Figure 1. Abstract example of a causal map of a theory

There are really three basic kinds of gaps for you to find: relevance/meaning, logic/structure, and data/evidence. Starting with structure, there is a gap any place where there are two circles NOT connected by a causal arrow. It is important to have at least two arrows pointing at each concept/circle for the same reason we like to have multiple independent variables for each dependent variable (although, with more complex maps, we’re learning to see these as interdependent variables).

For example, there is no arrow between A and D. Also, there is no arrow between E and any of the other concepts. Each of those is a structural gap – an opening for additional research.

You might also notice that there are two arrows pointing directly at C. Like having two independent variables and one dependent variable, it is structurally better to have at least two arrows pointing at each concept.

So, structurally , C is in good shape. This part of the map has the least need for additional research. A larger gap exists around B, because it has only one arrow pointing at it (the arrow from A to B). Larger still is the gap around A, D, and E; because they have no arrows pointing at them.

To get the greatest leverage for your research dollar, it is generally best to search for that second arrow. In short, one research question would be: What (aside from A) has a causal influence on B? Other good research questions would be (a) Is there a causal relationship between A and D? (b) Is there a causal relationship between E and any of the other concepts? (c) What else besides A helps cause B? (d) What are the causes of A, D, and E?

Now, let’s take a look at gaps in the data, evidence, or information upon which each causal arrow is established.

From structure to data

Here, we add to the drawing by making a note showing (very briefly) the kind of data supporting each causal arrow. We like to have that in a box – with a loopy line ‘typing’ the evidence to the connection. You can also use different colors to more easily differentiate between the concepts and the evidence on your map. You can also write the note along the length of the arrow.

Figure 2. Tying the data to the structure

From data to stakeholder relevance

Finally, the gap in meaning (relevance) asks if those studies were done with the ‘right’ people. By this, we mean people related to the situation or topic you are studying. Managers, line workers, clients, suppliers, those providing related services; all of those and more should be included. Similarly, you might look to a variety of academic disciplines, drawing expertise from psychology, sociology, business, economics, policy, and others.

Which participants or stakeholders are actually part of your research depends on the project. However, in general, having a broader selection of stakeholder groups results in a better map. This applies to both choosing what concepts go on the map and also who to contact for interviews and surveys.

Visualizing the gaps

All of these three gaps – gaps in structure, data, and stakeholder perspectives – can (and should) be addressed to help you choose more focused directions for your research – to generate research results that will have more impact. As a final note, remember that many gaps may be filled with secondary research; a new literature review that fills the gaps in the logic/structure, data/information, and meaning/relevance of your map so that your organisation can have a greater impact.

Figure 3. Visualizing the gaps (shown in green)

Some deeper reading on literature reviews may be found here:

• Practical Mapping for Applied Research and Program Evaluation (SAGE) provides a ‘jargon free’ explanation for every phase of research:

https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/practical-mapping-for-applied-research-and-program-evaluation/book261152   (especially Chapter 3)

• This paper uses theories for addressing poverty from a range of academic disciplines and from policy centers from across the political spectrum as an example of interdisciplinary knowledge mapping and synthesis:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/K-03-2018-0136/full/html

• Restructuring evaluation findings into useful knowledge:

http://journals.sfu.ca/jmde/index.php/jmde_1/article/download/481/436/

This approach helps you to avoid fuzzy understandings and the dangerous ‘pretence of knowledge’ that occasionally crops up in some reports and recommendations. Everyone can see that a piece is missing and so more easily agree where more research is needed to advance our knowledge to better serve our organisational and community constituents.

Contribute Write a blog post, post a job or event, recommend a resource

Partner with Us Are you an institution looking to increase your impact?

Most Recent Posts

• International Programme Officer, Water Witness – Deadline 19 August
• The Tree of Participation: a framework for inclusive decision-making
• Ten lessons for influencing policy
• Considering new approaches to the M&E of policy research
• Improving the effectiveness of educational knowledge brokering 

The latest #R2AImpactPractitioners post features an article by Karen Bell and Mark Reed on the Tree of Participation (ToP) model, a groundbreaking framework designed to enhance inclusive decision-making. By identifying 12 key factors and 7 contextual elements, ToP empowers marginalized groups and ensures processes that are inclusive, accountable, and balanced in power dynamics. The model uses a tree metaphor to illustrate its phases: roots (pre-process), branches (process), and leaves (post-process), all interconnected within their context. Discover more by following the #R2Aimpactpractitioners link in our linktree 👉🔗

Do you use AI in your work? AI is increasingly present in all our lives, but how can we use it effectively to enhance research practice? Earlier this year Inés Arangüena explored this question in a two part series. Follow the link in our bio to read more. https://ow.ly/IV0R50SH5tI #AI

🌟 This week, #R2ARecommends this webinar on demystifying evaluation practice, produced by the Global Evaluation Initiative. 🌟 🔗Follow the #R2ARecommends link in our linktree to find out more! #Evaluation #Webinar #InclusiveCommunication #GEI #GlobalEval

Research To Action (R2A) is a learning platform for anyone interested in maximising the impact of research and capturing evidence of impact.

The site publishes practical resources on a range of topics including research uptake, communications, policy influence and monitoring and evaluation. It captures the experiences of practitioners and researchers working on these topics and facilitates conversations between this global community through a range of social media platforms.

R2A is produced by a small editorial team, led by CommsConsult . We welcome suggestions for and contributions to the site.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

Our contributors

Browse all authors

Friends and partners

• Global Development Network (GDN)
• Institute of Development Studies (IDS)
• International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie)
• On Think Tanks
• Politics & Ideas
• Research for Development (R4D)
• Research Impact

Systematic reviews

What is a systematic review, identifying the need for a systematic review, types of systematic reviews, other reviews, literature review vs systematic review.

• Steps in a systematic review
• Formulate the question
• Create a protocol (plan)
• Sources to search
• Conduct a thorough search
• Post search phase
• Select studies (screening)
• Appraise the quality of the studies
• Extract data, synthesise and analyse
• Interpret results and write
• Guides and manuals
• Training and support

"Systematic reviews aim to identify, evaluate and summarise the findings of all relevant individual studies, thereby making the available evidence more accessible to decisionmakers. When appropriate, combining the results of several studies gives a more reliable and precise estimate of an intervention’s effectiveness than one study alone." 

Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic Reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care . York (GB): Centre for Reviews and Dissemination; 2009.

A systematic review is a review that reports or includes the following:

• research question
• sources that were searched, with a reproducible search strategy (naming of databases, naming of search platforms/engines, search date and complete search strategy)
• inclusion and exclusion criteria
• selection (screening) methods
• critically appraises and reports the quality/risk of bias of the included studies
• information about data analysis and synthesis that allows the reproducibility of the results

Krnic Martinic M, Pieper D, Glatt A, Puljak L. Definition of a systematic review used in overviews of systematic reviews, meta-epidemiological studies and textbooks. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):203.

The reasons for a systematic review may include:

• Uncertainty in the research literature where there are conflicting results
• An identified gap in knowledge
• An area in which research and interest are growing
• To prove effectiveness

Watch: Features and benefits of a systematic review (YouTube, 1m 49s)

Part of establishing the need for your planned systematic review is to check that a systematic review doesn't already exist for your topic. See the section of this guide ' Finding existing systematic reviews '.

Systematic reviews have a focused answerable question often developed and defined by a PICO statement. Systematic and transparent methods must be used and reported which enable repeatability and eliminate bias. A rigorous and sensitive search strategy should be developed to attempt to find all published and unpublished relevant literature. Studies for analysis should be chosen using clear, pre-determined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Selected studies should be appraised and all relevant data analysed with the results used to drive policy and practice.

Meta-analysis and systematic review have, in the past, been used interchangeably, however meta-analysis (or meta-synthesis for qualitative research) is now more often used to describe the data analysis that takes place within the systematic review process.

Rapid reviews aim to use the methodology of the systematic review but where a systematic review may take 18 months results may be expected in 6 to 8 weeks. Generally, an effective rapid review requires more subject knowledge and understanding of the systematic review process of the reviewers than does a systematic review. To achieve best results, given the time constraints reviewers could chose to interrogate fewer databases, perhaps 3 as opposed to the 7 or more used in the typical systematic review. Grey literature may not be included and the screening process may be undertaken by a single reviewer after a benchmarking search involving more reviewers looks at a small percentage of the papers to be screened. The aim of a rapid review is to quickly translate findings to policy and practice.

State of the art reviews are very similar to systematic reviews but are interested only in very recent research, more often in emerging areas.

Umbrella reviews undertake much the same process as systematic reviews, however no primary studies are considered, they are reviews of reviews. The aims are the same as systematic reviews, to influence policy and practice but they have the capacity to do so for a broader concept.

Literature reviews  (narrative, critical) have been with us as long as literature and generally seek to find a subset of papers in a selected area and summarise them. 

Scoping reviews , as far as searching, reporting and study selection are concerned, can be much the same as systematic reviews. The question may be much broader than that of a systematic review often considering concepts rather than focused questions. The final analysis and goals of the scoping review are the fundamental differences between scoping and systematic reviews. Charting is the term most often used to describe the “analysis” of the results of a scoping review. The scope or reach of the concept is charted perhaps geographically, socially, temporally or other respects. A scoping review can determine whether a systematic review on the topic is warranted or viable.

Systematic quantitative literature review.  This method developed by Griffith University's School of Environment bridges the gap between traditional narrative review methods and meta-analyses.

Systematised literature review.  This method attempts to include elements of the systematic review process while stopping short of the systematic review. Systematised reviews are typically conducted as a postgraduate student assignment, in recognition that they are not able to draw upon the resources required for a full systematic review (such as two reviewers).

Systematic reviews are very different to narrative (literature) reviews. The list below highlights some of the principle features which set systematic and narrative reviews apart.

Systematic Review

• Has a clear question or hypothesis to be answered
• Searches are rigorous to locate all potentially relevant literature
• Includes explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Assesses study quality for inclusion and provides a synthesis of results

Narrative (Traditional) Review

• Starts with a question but includes general discussion and no hypothesis
• Does not locate all relevant literature
• Does not have explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Does not always require included studies to be methodologically sound or of a certain quality

Mark, P. Systematic reviews from astronomy to zoology: myths and misconceptions.  BMJ. 2001;322(7278):98-101.

For more information on how to search for, store, organise, evaluate and critique information for your literature review (any type) see our  Literature reviews guide . Includes techniques, books, articles and more to help you do your literature review. If your project requires a systematic approach then the information in this guide (Systematic Reviews) may be the most helpful.

• Next: Steps in a systematic review >>
• Last Updated: Jun 27, 2024 9:31 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.uq.edu.au/research-techniques/systematic-reviews

info This is a space for the teal alert bar.

notifications This is a space for the yellow alert bar.

Research Process

• Brainstorming
• Explore Google This link opens in a new window
• Explore Web Resources
• Explore Background Information
• Explore Books
• Explore Scholarly Articles
• Narrowing a Topic
• Primary and Secondary Resources
• Academic, Popular & Trade Publications
• Scholarly and Peer-Reviewed Journals
• Grey Literature
• Clinical Trials
• Evidence Based Treatment
• Scholarly Research
• Database Research Log
• Search Limits
• Keyword Searching
• Boolean Operators
• Phrase Searching
• Truncation & Wildcard Symbols
• Proximity Searching
• Field Codes
• Subject Terms and Database Thesauri
• Reading a Scientific Article
• Website Evaluation
• Article Keywords and Subject Terms
• Cited References
• Citing Articles
• Related Results
• Search Within Publication
• Database Alerts & RSS Feeds
• Personal Database Accounts
• Persistent URLs
• Literature Gap and Future Research
• Web of Knowledge
• Annual Reviews
• Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses
• Finding Seminal Works
• Exhausting the Literature
• Finding Dissertations
• Researching Theoretical Frameworks
• Research Methodology & Design
• Tests and Measurements
• Organizing Research & Citations This link opens in a new window
• Picking Where to Publish
• Bibliometrics
• Learn the Library This link opens in a new window

Research Articles

These examples below illustrate how researchers from different disciplines identified gaps in existing literature. For additional examples, try a NavigatorSearch using this search string: ("Literature review") AND (gap*)

• Addressing the Recent Developments and Potential Gaps in the Literature of Corporate Sustainability
• Applications of Psychological Science to Teaching and Learning: Gaps in the Literature
• Attitudes, Risk Factors, and Behaviours of Gambling Among Adolescents and Young People: A Literature Review and Gap Analysis
• Do Psychological Diversity Climate, HRM Practices, and Personality Traits (Big Five) Influence Multicultural Workforce Job Satisfaction and Performance? Current Scenario, Literature Gap, and Future Research Directions
• Entrepreneurship Education: A Systematic Literature Review and Identification of an Existing Gap in the Field
• Evidence and Gaps in the Literature on HIV/STI Prevention Interventions Targeting Migrants in Receiving Countries: A Scoping Review
• Homeless Indigenous Veterans and the Current Gaps in Knowledge: The State of the Literature
• A Literature Review and Gap Analysis of Emerging Technologies and New Trends in Gambling
• A Review of Higher Education Image and Reputation Literature: Knowledge Gaps and a Research Agenda
• Trends and Gaps in Empirical Research on Open Educational Resources (OER): A Systematic Mapping of the Literature from 2015 to 2019
• Where Should We Go From Here? Identified Gaps in the Literature in Psychosocial Interventions for Youth With Autism Spectrum Disorder and Comorbid Anxiety

What is a ‘gap in the literature’?

The gap, also considered the missing piece or pieces in the research literature, is the area that has not yet been explored or is under-explored. This could be a population or sample (size, type, location, etc.), research method, data collection and/or analysis, or other research variables or conditions.

It is important to keep in mind, however, that just because you identify a gap in the research, it doesn't necessarily mean that your research question is worthy of exploration. You will want to make sure that your research will have valuable practical and/or theoretical implications. In other words, answering the research question could either improve existing practice and/or inform professional decision-making (Applied Degree), or it could revise, build upon, or create theoretical frameworks informing research design and practice (Ph.D Degree). See the Dissertation Center  for additional information about dissertation criteria at NU.

For a additional information on gap statements, see the following:

• How to Find a Gap in the Literature
• Write Like a Scientist: Gap Statements

How do you identify the gaps?

Conducting an exhaustive literature review is your first step. As you search for journal articles, you will need to read critically across the breadth of the literature to identify these gaps. You goal should be to find a ‘space’ or opening for contributing new research. The first step is gathering a broad range of research articles on your topic. You may want to look for research that approaches the topic from a variety of methods – qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods. 

See the videos below for further instruction on identifying a gap in the literature.

Identifying a Gap in the Literature - Dr. Laurie Bedford

How Do You Identify Gaps in Literature? - SAGE Research Methods

Literature Gap & Future Research - Library Workshop

This workshop presents effective search techniques for identifying a gap in the literature and recommendations for future research.

Where can you locate research gaps?

As you begin to gather the literature, you will want to critically read for what has, and has not, been learned from the research. Use the Discussion and Future Research sections of the articles to understand what the researchers have found and where they point out future or additional research areas. This is similar to identifying a gap in the literature, however, future research statements come from a single study rather than an exhaustive search. You will want to check the literature to see if those research questions have already been answered.

Roadrunner Search

Identifying the gap in the research relies on an exhaustive review of the literature. Remember, researchers may not explicitly state that a gap in the literature exists; you may need to thoroughly review and assess the research to make that determination yourself.

However, there are techniques that you can use when searching in NavigatorSearch to help identify gaps in the literature. You may use search terms such as "literature gap " or "future research" "along with your subject keywords to pinpoint articles that include these types of statements.

Was this resource helpful?

• << Previous: Resources for a Literature Review
• Next: Web of Knowledge >>
• Last Updated: Aug 8, 2024 6:27 PM
• URL: https://resources.nu.edu/researchprocess

© Copyright 2024 National University. All Rights Reserved.

Privacy Policy | Consumer Information

What Is The Difference Between Literature Review And Research Gap?

Students entering a graduate program often encounter a new type of assignment that differs from the papers they had to write in high school or as college undergraduates – the literature review (Knoph, 2006). The research method has two separate parts: a review of the literature and a research gap. Despite being closely related, they have unique qualities and separate functions. The fundamental distinctions between a literature review and a research gap are summarized as follows:

What Is Literature Review?

A literature review is a thorough and critical evaluation of the current scholarly literature, including books, papers, journals, and other pertinent materials on a particular study topic. It entails methodically looking through, picking out, and assessing literature to give a thorough summary of the state of knowledge today. A literature review’s primary objective is to compile, analyse, and synthesize the knowledge already known about the subject.

A literature review performs the following crucial roles in research:

• Synthesize and summarize findings: In a literature review, the key conclusions, hypotheses, and points of view from numerous sources are synthesized and summarized. For that researchers seek help from best dissertation writing services . It highlights the major themes, ideas, and contentions in the literature while arranging the information clearly and ordered way.
• Identify research methodology: A literature review can help researchers decide which research methods and approaches will be most effective for their particular study by looking at the methodologies employed in past studies.
• Validate research findings: By contrasting their own findings with prior research, researchers employ a literature review to validate their own findings. This makes it easier to demonstrate the originality and importance of their research contributions.

What Is Research Gap?

An area or facet of knowledge within a study topic that has not been sufficiently examined, addressed, or comprehended is referred to as a research gap. It stands for lack of knowledge or a lack of comprehension of a specific issue, issue, or question. Finding a research gap example is a crucial phase in the research process since it enables researchers to spot possibilities for fresh studies and advances knowledge in their sector.

There are many ways that research gaps can appear:

• Incomplete or conflicting results: When existing studies show conflicting or inconclusive data, it suggests a knowledge gap or the need for additional studies to clarify the disparities.
• Unresolved research topics: It indicates a research gap when certain issues or concerns within a field of study have not been sufficiently addressed by earlier research. These unsolved queries can be a result of research gaps or recent advances in the subject.
• A changing research environment: As research disciplines develop, knowledge gaps may be caused by new discoveries, developing technology, or shifting social needs. These gaps show areas where current knowledge and research methods have not kept up with recent developments or new problems.

A rigorous and critical study of the available literature is necessary to pinpoint a research gap. To comprehend the level of knowledge in their subject today, researchers must study pertinent studies, hypotheses, and empirical data. What is research gap? Researchers can find places where information is incomplete, conflicting, or constrained by critically analysing the literature.

Researchers can create research questions, hypotheses, or objectives that precisely address a research gap once it has been recognized. They can create studies, make new hypotheses, or create procedures to close the knowledge gap and offer fresh perspectives or actual proof. By filling a research gap example, one might potentially influence practice, policy, and future research projects in addition to advancing knowledge and understanding in the field.

Key Literary Contrasts Gap Between Review And Research

Definition:.

A literature review is a thorough and critical evaluation of the current scholarly writings, books, articles, and other pertinent materials on a particular study topic. It seeks to compile, assess, and synthesize the body of knowledge and research in the area.

A region or component of knowledge within a study topic that has not been sufficiently examined, addressed, or comprehended is referred to as an “Example of research gap.” It stands for lack of knowledge or a lack of comprehension of a specific issue, issue, or question.

A literature review’s goal is to give a thorough assessment of the body of knowledge already written about a particular subject. Some Universal technical institute use it in locating the gaps in the body of existing literature as well as the current state of knowledge, theoretical frameworks, techniques, and discoveries. It provides the framework for the research study and directs the formation of the research questions, hypotheses, and goals.

The goal of establishing a research gap is to draw attention to areas that still require more research or where there are knowledge gaps. It offers an opportunity for scholars to add fresh viewpoints, theories, approaches, or empirical data to fill the knowledge gap and progress in the area.

Focus and Scope

A literature review includes a wide range of published resources connected to a particular study topic. It explores numerous viewpoints, theories, empirical research, and approaches in the area, trying to provide readers with a thorough overview of the topic’s history and situation at the time.

Research gap meaning is a particular issue or query inside a larger research topic that hasn’t been sufficiently covered or investigated in the literature. As it indicates a particular area of research where more research is necessary, it has a more focused scope than a literature review.

Methodology:

A systematic search and selection of pertinent sources are part of a literature review, which also includes a critical assessment and synthesis of the results. It necessitates a careful analysis of the body of prior literature, the selection of important themes, concepts, and arguments, and a systematic presentation of the resulting material.

Finding a research gap requires reflection and iteration frequently. That’s one of the reasons people search for write my assignment online . It necessitates a thorough comprehension of the body of material already in existence as well as the capacity to spot knowledge gaps or inconsistencies. To find and validate research gaps, researchers frequently rely on their knowledge, critical thinking, and contact with the research community.

Final Result and Contribution:

A literature review produces a thorough summary and synthesis of the body of knowledge already available on a particular study topic. It aids in the creation of research questions, the formulation of hypotheses, and the selection of the most relevant approach. By summarizing, analysing, and assessing earlier research, it also adds to the corpus of information already in existence.

Finding a research gap results in the identification of a certain region of the research field that needs additional study. You can get help from some cheap assignment services as well. Researchers can create studies, put out new theories, or create approaches to tackle unanswered problems by bringing attention to this gap. In the end, closing a research gap advances our knowledge and comprehension of the subject.

Range of the Investigation

To provide a thorough grasp of the level of knowledge already available on a study topic, a literature review reviews and analyses a wide range of existing scholarly publications, books, articles, and other pertinent sources.

Within a larger study topic, a research gap focuses on a particular area or question that has not been sufficiently addressed or investigated. It focuses on a more specific topic or area of knowledge that needs more research.

Time Direction:

An emphasis is placed on the background and current body of knowledge in the field in a literature review. Did you bridge the gap in your study? Don’t worry. It gives a summary of earlier studies while noting how concepts and hypotheses have changed through time.

A research gap anticipates potential areas of future study. It points out areas that require more research to address open-ended questions or knowledge gaps.

Detail Level:

A literature review examines numerous facets of the body of written material in great depth. It analyses and summarizes the information from various studies’ methodologies, content, and conclusions to give readers a thorough overview of the research environment.

A research gap is frequently briefly and concisely defined.  But still there are students who ask experts that is there any assignment help for me ? It points to a particular subject or research question that needs more investigation, but it doesn’t provide detailed analysis or synthesis of previous research.

A Part of the Research Design

Research Questions, Hypotheses, and Objectives are formulated with the help of a literature review. By highlighting gaps, offering theoretical frameworks, and recommending acceptable procedures based on the body of current knowledge, it contributes to the research design.

A research gap affects the choice of the study’s goals and research questions. It draws attention to places where new information can be created and instructs researchers to concentrate on filling the gap that has been found.

What Is Research Gap Example

A specific topic or component of knowledge within a research field that has not been sufficiently studied is referred to as a research gap. For instance, a research gap in the realm of renewable energy could be the incomplete knowledge of the environmental effects of a recently created solar panel technology. Even though solar energy has been extensively studied, there may not be enough research on the possible long-term impacts of this particular technology on ecosystems or its scalability. It is one of the Research gap meaning and examples. This knowledge gap calls attention to the need for more study to close it and provide information to help with technology adoption and implementation decisions.

A research gap in the field of healthcare may concern the efficacy of a specific treatment for a particular medical problem. Take the lack of research on non-pharmacological methods for the treatment of chronic pain as research gap meaning. There may be little data on the long-term usefulness of alternative therapies like acupuncture or mindfulness-based programs, despite the large number of studies on pharmacological treatments.

The use of technology in classroom settings may be an area of research need in the subject of education. For instance, Research gap example in research paper; there may be a study vacuum in the knowledge of how virtual reality (VR) technology affects student involvement and academic results. Although studies on the use of VR in education may exist, it’s possible that there aren’t many studies examining the technology’s efficacy across a range of subjects, grade levels, and student groups.

Many students have trouble writing dissertations and ultimately decide to drop out of school. Due to not understanding the basic differences. A research gap and a review of the literature serve different functions in the research process. An extensive overview of the theories, discoveries, and body of knowledge in a field of study is provided by a literature review. A research gap, on the other hand, denotes a particular subject or query inside the larger issue that has not been thoroughly examined. Finding a research gap aids researchers in seeing chances for fresh inquiries and advances knowledge in their area of study.

What is meant by research gap?

Research gap refers to a missing or insufficiently explored area in existing knowledge within a research field. A research gap is the absence of information or understanding about a specific topic or question, highlighting the need for further investigation.

How do you write a research gap example?

To write a research gap example, identify a specific area within a research field where existing knowledge is lacking or insufficiently explored.

How do you identify a gap in research?

To identify a research gap, examine existing literature and identify areas where knowledge is lacking or insufficiently addressed.

Why is research gap important?

Research gaps are important because they highlight areas where knowledge is lacking or incomplete. By identifying and addressing these gaps, researchers can advance knowledge, guide research direction, and improve the relevance and impact of their studies.

How do you identify a research gap?

To identify a research gap, analyze existing literature for areas where knowledge is lacking or insufficient.

What is the difference between research gap and limitations?

Research gap identifies areas where knowledge is lacking or insufficient, while limitations refer to constraints or shortcomings within a specific research study.

Automated page speed optimizations for fast site performance

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance articles
• Editor's Choice
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• About The British Journal of Social Work
• About the British Association of Social Workers
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, rq1: facilitators and barriers, rq2: three bridges, discussion and implications.

• < Previous

Bridge over Troubled Water—Closing the Research–Practice Gap in Social Work

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Verner Denvall, Mikael Skillmark, Bridge over Troubled Water—Closing the Research–Practice Gap in Social Work, The British Journal of Social Work , Volume 51, Issue 7, October 2021, Pages 2722–2739, https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcaa055

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Since starting over a hundred years ago social work has been occupied with the division into academic and practical knowledge. A common theme in scientific journals of social work is how this gap can be understood and resolved. The initial purpose of this article was to carry out a systematic review to find out if and how the gap could be bridged. Because few independent studies could be found, the study instead took the form of a scoping review with more included articles. The results show concrete suggestions as to how to bridge the gap, but also three discourses with dissimilar problem definitions and solutions. The emergence of proposals such as the evidence-based practice and its diverse combinations, the formation of new institutions, and today’s globalisation triggers this fragmentation. The consequences are vast confusions of opinions and explanations which illustrate competing knowledge positions. The authors propose that researchers and practitioners should orient themselves in this landscape when building bridges between academia and practice. Instead of taking the research – practice gap for granted, they suggest that social work should relate more closely to these three discourses.

The gap between research and practice is a frequent theme in scientific journals in social work. Authors often start by noting that this divide was first reported more than a hundred years ago and that it seems to be as wide as ever ( Epstein, 2009 ; Sim and Lau, 2017 ; Teater, 2017 ). This is commonly related to the two-communities theory ( Cornish, 2017 ; Debra, 2007 ), viewed as a gap between the community of research (producers) and the community of practice (users) ( Caplan, 1979 ). This gap has been suggested to be a matter of weak implementation of research results in social service settings, a lack of interest in research within the social work community, poor understanding of the conditions of social work within the research community, a lack of consensus regarding the nature of social work science, incentives within universities favouring in-house academic knowledge exchange or a relational matter between agencies and research, to mention just some of the many opinions presented in the research above. A comprehensive variety in terminology increases the complexity adding the picture of fragmentation. The gap is supposed to cause the underuse of relevant knowledge from research, thus harming clients who not will receive the best interventions possible. Research presents various suggestions, analyses and explanations ( Dill and Shera, 2015 ; Thyer, 2015 ; Lunt and Shaw, 2017 ; Teater, 2017 ). We find a mess of perceptions, intersecting terminologies and debates regarding the research – practice gap; it is a troubling mantra within the discipline of social work.

The world today is overwhelmed by information provided by a multitude of institutions and actors, each one claiming that it brings the most reliable knowledge ( Nowotny et al. , 2001 ). Scientific knowledge is no longer considered the only valid one (Mode 1), new forms of knowledge are emerging (Mode 2) ( Boaz et al. , 2019 ). Collaboration and the building of partnerships between academia and community, especially between universities and agencies within practice, have been proposed as ways forward ( Mullen, 1998 ; Bledsoe-Mansori et al. , 2013 ; Giffords and Calderon, 2015 ). A systematic review found a lengthy list of synonyms (for instance, bridges, brokers, gatekeepers and boundary spanners) for roles in collaborative networks aiming to bring organisations together ( Long et al. , 2013 ). It has been suggested that collaboration could contribute to making research knowledge more beneficial to social work practice and service-users and stimulate interesting research questions ( Osterling and Austin, 2008 ; Heinsch et al. , 2016 ; Rycroft-Malone et al. , 2016 ).

Based upon reviews of research presented in academic journals, we report on bridge-building processes and look for mechanisms that might explain pitfalls as well as successes of collaborative partnerships. New forms of collaboration and co-production of knowledge have shown to increase research use amongst practitioners ( Walter et al. , 2003 ; Osterling and Austin, 2008 ) and thus might be a reasonable way to further bridge the gap between research in social work and practice. In 2003, Pawson and colleagues classified types of knowledge in the field of social care ( Pawson et al. , 2003 ). Their study indicates that knowledge claims in the research–practice debate are based on various epistemological assumptions. Researchers’ construction of knowledge is dependent on their positions and arguments, thus impacting how they value findings.

The aim of this article is to explore bridges between social work practice and research using the work of research reported in peer-reviewed academic journals. Practice is understood as networks of professionals and their activities, including the resources they utilise when they fulfil their missions ( Julkunen, 2011 ). The following questions will be addressed:

RQ1: What is known about the outcome of partnerships between academia and practice and what are the recommendations from research in order to bridge the gap? RQ2: In what way are different ideas of how to bridge the gap dependent on the researcher’s presumptions?

This study started out as a systematic literature review in order to answer RQ1. Collaboration between academia and agencies such as social service departments, civic society or user organisations was in focus, either from literature reviews or from empirical studies. We were especially interested in finding research with analytical ambitions explaining their findings by using theories. The researcher was not to be involved in the collaboration as we preferred research with a minimum of bias. Due to a shortage of findings, the study was completed with RQ2 and turned into a scoping review with added sources ( Arksey and O'Malley, 2005 ).

Searches for peer-reviewed articles published between 2000 and 2018 were conducted in Social Services Abstracts and Academic Search Premier using combinations of the key terms social work, social agencies, social services, research and practice, partnership and co-operation/collaboration. The first search was conducted during October 2016 and the second during January 2019 using the same databases and key terms. Also, we reviewed four special issues in journals; Social Work and Society (2011), Nordic Social Work Research (2014), Journal of Evidence-Informed Social Work (2015) and Research on Social Work Practice (2014). Later on (winter 2019), we reviewed the websites of ten key scientific journals in social work where we screened their abstracts from the years 2015–2018, choosing supplementary articles for reading. In addition, experts were contacted to ensure that nothing vital was missing. The abstracts were read separately by both authors, as were the majority of those included for full-text reading. Articles were included or excluded after an agreement between the authors.

A large share of the excluded studies was descriptions of collaborative efforts with an unclear presentation of data and sparse analytical ambitions where researchers presented empirical findings but did not explain underlying mechanisms. Other excluded findings were opinion pieces, often plain theoretical articles lacking empirical data. Excluded articles were frequently small-scale case studies using qualitative methods reporting from collaborations where the researcher was one of the involved parties. We were especially curious to find research that explained the relations between context (partnership), mechanisms (intervention) and outcome (intended and unintended effects) ( Pawson and Tilley, 1997 ; Jagosh et al. , 2015 ). Rycroft-Malone and colleagues used realistic design when investigating outcome of collaboration between researchers and users in healthcare in the UK ( Rycroft-Malone et al. , 2016 ). They propose a theory for building strong relationships between multiple partners where shared visions, earlier collaborations and investing in boundary spanners are central incentives. That was for healthcare—what about social work? ( Table 1).

Inclusion and exclusion criteria in use

When answering RQ1, we included eight peer-reviewed studies of collaboration efforts between academia and practice with relevance for social work. Those studies are presented in the section ‘Facilitators and barriers’. Five were from the USA, one from the UK and two from Canada. In order to answer RQ2, we returned to previously dismissed sources ( N  = 152) and made a content analysis. Those findings are presented in the section ‘Three bridges’. Articles are selected for their distinct contributions to those three discursive fields. A particular challenge was all the terminologies in use ( Table 2 ). Several of these will be presented more in detail in the text.

Abbreviations derived from research referred to in this article

A flow chart of search strategies is presented below in Figure 1 . Using several search terms and including more scientific databases would have increased the number of hits. One limitation is that we have not captured publications from conferences, reports and textbooks: ‘grey literature’. This may be a task for later research. Another limitation is that studies in other original languages are missing.

The bridges

We found six primary empirical studies with data of their own and two secondary studies that were based upon literature reviews. Allen-Meares and colleagues’ study consists of ten evaluations where they analyse collaboration that included researchers, practitioners and decision makers ( Allen-Meares et al. , 2005 ). The focus was on work relevant to children and young people and where technology was used to communicate and enable implementation when parties are far from each other. Bledsoe-Mansori and colleagues have distributed a survey to schools of social work ( Bledsoe-Mansori et al. , 2013 ). The scope, variety and character of academia and social services partnerships in the USA are explored to promote the evidence-based practice (EBP). Jagosh and colleagues’ work is based on data from eleven partnerships in community-based participatory research (CBPR; Jagosh et al. , 2015 ). They use a realistic analysis model showing how mechanisms in a context can take different expressions over time and that trust is a prominent mechanism. Dal Santo and colleagues have made interviews with sixteen practitioners (managers) in four organisations about their research use ( Dal Santo et al. , 2002 ). They investigate how nine exploratory studies were disseminated and used by the social services in four California counties. King and colleagues investigate collaboration in partnerships in healthcare and social work in a comparative study of five research partnerships ( King et al. , 2010 ). Structures, processes, outcomes and impact are examined. Perrault and colleagues have published a case study where they examined factors that contribute to a successful collaboration ( Perrault et al. , 2011 ). A four-factor model is presented, suggested to be used when collaboration is to begin.

In a literature review, Lemon Osterling and Austin have four identified factors that are related to the dissemination and utilisation of research within human service settings ( Osterling and Austin, 2008 ). Johnson and Austin have also conducted an overview of studies ( Johnson and Austin, 2008 ). They identify three kinds of interventions that might support the development of an evidence-based organisational culture within the social services.

In those studies, facilitators and barriers for successful collaboration were identified. Only the study by Jagosh and colleagues had clear theoretical ambitions and explained their findings. Findings are summarised below ( Table 3) :

Facilitators and barriers in collaboration between academia and practice in social work

Facilitators

Several studies ( Allen-Meares et al. , 2005 ; Perrault et al. , 2011 ; Jagosh et al. , 2015 ) highlight mutual respect, understanding and trust as important ingredients of collaboration. Partners emphasise respect for the other as a precondition for establishing successful partnerships. For researchers, it could be a matter of stepping away from the role of being an expert ( Allen-Meares et al. , 2005 ). One of the included studies concludes that trust is strengthened if collaborators actively work to ‘build trust around the table’ from the very beginning ( Perrault et al. , 2011 ). Trust is also evident according to Jagosh and colleagues, whose study shows that trust supports sustainability, feelings of safety and spin-off projects with systematic changes ( Jagosh et al. , 2015 ).

If there are already established relations (formal as well as more informal) between collaborators, a new project is more likely to succeed given that the relations are viewed as positive. The importance of face-to-face interactions in strengthening the relationships is highlighted. Another facilitating mechanism involves making all partners feel ownership of the research conducted. In the study by Dal Santo and colleagues, it was the ones that involved both managers and operational staff in the planning, execution and implementation of research that were judged to have the greatest relevance ( Dal Santo et al. , 2002 ). In Allen-Meares and colleagues, it was noted that all partners need to have a say about the aim of the projects and that this often took more time than expected ( Allen-Meares et al. , 2005 ). Osterling and Austin summarise their review in four core elements that should be emphasised: (i) incentives to collaborate on both sides; (ii) shared values, trust, open communication and respect (iii) ability to collaborate; and (iv) ability to build and sustain collaboration ( Osterling and Austin, 2008 , pp. 314–16).

Both in academia and in the social service agencies, managers need to ask for and also encourage practice-based research (PBR; Allen-Meares et al. , 2005 ; Bledsoe-Mansori et al. , 2013 ). And the universities need to encourage the staff to collaborate and to make it a part of potential promotions ( Bledsoe-Mansori et al. , 2013 ). Johnson and Austin suggest staff training and the modification of agency cultures in order to consider the use of EBP ( Johnson and Austin, 2008 , pp. 255–57). An important mechanism for the managers is to make sure that the research results are communicated back to the involved actors ( Dal Santo et al. , 2002 ).

The studies were keener to identify what mechanisms make collaboration succeed rather than that make them fail. This could be a result of the questions asked in the included studies: what key mechanisms can be identified? How to develop and make partnerships improve the social services? What makes collaborations succeed?

The lack of necessary time was identified in several of the studies as one of the major challenges ( Beddoe and Harington, 2012 ; Bledsoe-Mansori et al. , 2013 ). The research has to compete with an intense work-load in the organisations. This mechanism is also connected to the fact that participants might leave the organisation during the time of the research, or in some cases a major restructuring of the organisation might affect the collaboration negatively ( Dal Santo et al. , 2002 ). Operating social service personnel involved in the research process combined with a high staff turnover created great strains. One research group ( Dal Santo et al. , 2002 ) argues, ‘it is important to determine which staff, departments, agencies and stakeholders should be involved in clarifying the research objective, interpreting the findings, and assessing the recommendations’ (p. 76). In the study by Bledsoe-Mansori and colleagues, it is concluded that quite modest resources are available in the USA to finance research projects in close collaboration between academia and practice ( Bledsoe-Mansori et al. , 2013 ).

It seems as if the kind of collaborative efforts with practice renders few if any career opportunities for university-based researchers. Doing research in collaboration takes time and may not be a good precondition for academic publishing. However, the other party, practice, may also have a distorted view of how fast results from research may be available, as for instance in one study ( Johnson and Austin, 2008 ) where the problematic fit between scientific guidelines and ‘the real world’ confirms the two-community thesis about different logics. The legacy of previous poor collaborations should also be viewed as a mechanism that increases the risk of failure. For example, Allen-Meares and colleagues talk about how such starting points risk reinforcing a suspicion towards researchers ( Allen-Meares et al. , 2005 ). Their study shows how it is particularly important for researchers to demonstrate their dedication to the declaration of intent behind the collaboration; that is, active participation and influence by all partners involved in the research.

In summary, the eight included studies show a rich variety of concrete ways to develop collaboration between research and practice as well as barriers to overcome. Their proposals are rather descriptive and have similarities with the previously referred research from healthcare ( Rycroft-Malone et al. , 2016 ). We will now include more of the reported research about bridging the research–practice gap and present knowledge claims and epistemological grounded views ( Pawson et al. , 2003 ).

We have identified three overall tendencies (bridges), each one based upon the kind of agency that takes the lead or is argued for. Since we have used peer-reviewed articles, arguments mostly are raised by the academic parties. The tendencies presented below are often intertwined. Once identified, it is possible to be more specific about how research within those propensities understands the challenges, the researchers’ theoretical assumptions and proposed ways forward ( Figure 2) .

Within each bridge, we identify how problems are understood and argued, proposals to bridge the research–practice gap and institutionalised bridges, that is, examples of strong research environments with established collaboration between academia and practice.

Those bridges are mainly built when researchers define their missions describing the problem in terms of a research–practice gap between available knowledge generated from research and its utilisation ( Mullen, 2002 ). Practitioners in social work and in healthcare are several steps behind such science that could improve their work and benefit clients and patients. This has been termed a twenty-year gap that creates underuse of recognised best practice as well as overutilisation and misuse of services that should be left behind ( Nielsen and Birken, 2018 ). Such a gap has been detected, for instance, in mental healthcare ( Brekke et al. , 2007 ) and in child care ( Lery et al. , 2015 ). Problems are identified as negative attitudes towards research evidence ( Bellamy et al. , 2008 ), misunderstandings of science and EBP in publications ( Gambrill, 2019 ), knowledge transfer with slow implementation of findings from research ( Brekke et al. , 2007 ) and lack of engagement in research by practitioners ( McNall et al. , 2009 ; McBeath and Austin, 2015 ).

Suggested building blocks are extended training of practitioners in order to apply evidence from research ( Brekke et al. , 2007 ; Johnson and Austin, 2008 ; Epstein, 2009 ; Mirabito, 2012 ) and programmes at a national level in order to build an infrastructure for systematic knowledge production ( Sundell et al. , 2010 ; Powell and Orme, 2011 ). Empirical findings suggest a number of factors, including ‘prior relationships and motivations, the leadership abilities of partners, competing institutional demands and trust and the balance of power’ ( McNall et al. , 2009 , pp. 319–20). Multiple reports from successful university–community partnerships exist ( Brekke et al. , 2007 ; Mertz et al. , 2007 ; Bellamy et al. , 2008 ; McNall et al. , 2009 ; Beddoe and Harington, 2012 ).

Some of those organised collaborations address the weak implementation of EBP in social work. Partnerships then aim at improving the uptake of research ( Heinsch et al. , 2016 ), hastening the introduction of promising methods in social work settings ( Brekke et al. , 2007 ) or introducing more effective ways of teaching and of training at the schools of social work ( Bellamy et al. , 2008 ). Practical examples are investing in applied academic centres, as in the Netherlands ( Garretsen et al. , 2007 ) and the national researcher development initiative programme in the UK supporting capacity building of research ( Powell and Orme, 2011 ). In Sweden policy-driven processes are promoting the dissemination of EBP by building institutes as well as alliances with other parties in order to enhance the knowledge about interventions in social work practice ( Sundell et al. , 2010 ).

Collaboration might be forming partnerships and establishing centres to facilitate research connected to practice like the Campbell Collaboration, an international institute that supports the production of systematic reviews. Others are framing the development of social work knowledge culture, for instance, from Columbia University ( Mullen, 2002 ), Helsinki University ( Julkunen, 2011 ) and UCLA. The latter consortium was founded in 1987 and aims to promote interactions between organisations that have shared interests in strengthening the social work undertaken in the San Francisco Bay Area (BASSC). It is a partnership between eleven social services (agencies), five schools of social work and representatives of funders ( Anthony and Austin, 2008 ).

To conclude, the academic bridge builders bring about many concrete solutions to overcome barriers and to strengthen the use of research in practice, especially connected to EBP. However, few studies have any ambition to use theories to explain their findings. Manuel and colleagues and Franklin and Hopson use implementation science and Brekke and colleagues translational science ( Brekke et al. , 2007 ; Franklin and Hopson, 2007 ; Manuel et al. , 2009 ). These theories are used as a backdrop to investigate problems with implementation and knowledge dissemination.

When taking a practice perspective, the academic position as being the main constructor of relevant knowledge for social work is called into question. Historically, ‘practice’ has been subject to many theoretical and methodological concepts in social science since Aristotle suggested the division between two forms of knowledge: phronesis and techne ( Petersén and Olsson, 2015 ). According to some researchers, academic knowledge production is so strongly based upon scientific principles of validity and generalisation that it is of little use for practice ( Kjörstad, 2008 ; McBeath and Austin, 2015 ; Chateauneuf et al. , 2016 ). Nigel Parton earlier described social work in terms of ‘indeterminacy, uncertainty and ambiguity’; its relation to theory and social science is complicated ( Parton, 2000 , p. 460).

The concept of ‘practice research’ suggests the need ‘to create scientific knowledge that has practical value, and to generate knowledge through empirical studies on a local level’ ( Julkunen, 2011 , p. 67). A statement is published in a scientific social work journal: the Salisbury Statement ( Nordic Social Work Research 2014: 4). Practice research unites in their focus on the local perspective in the production of knowledge and the need for co-operation where researchers and practitioners join to produce, implement and diffuse knowledge with strong local relevance ( Osterling and Austin, 2008 ). Other research has suggested a variety of steps to promote practice and social work organisations either to conduct research themselves or to better integrate knowledge from existing research. McBeath and Austin have proposed organisational development in order to support research-minded practitioners, individuals committed to critical thinking and with ‘an affinity for empirical inquiry’ ( McBeath and Austin, 2015 , p. 447), clinical data-mining takes place when practitioners make use of existing agency information in order to analyse and improve their practice ( Lalayants et al. , 2012 ) and others adding to the multitude of research describing small-scale cases of PBR ( Moe et al. , 2014 ; Chateauneuf et al. , 2016 ). The Matilda Wrede Institute, founded in 2002, is a Finnish research institute located in Helsinki, which aims to develop practical research in social work and meetings between internship, teaching and research ( Julkunen, 2011 ).

This perspective is theoretically grounded in, amongst other things, pragmatism and the production of knowledge ( Julkunen, 2011 ), social mobilisation and power ( Kjörstad, 2008 ) and negotiated knowledge and Mode 2 knowledge production ( Uggerhøj, 2011 , 2014 ). Organisational change and learning are used when arguing the concept of research-minded practitioners and building strategies to promote practice research ( McBeath and Austin, 2015 ).

Service-user

A critical approach is adopted within the service-user bridge, as the legitimate base of being an expert and a professional is put into question. Lived experience should be added to knowledge from academia and profession ( Davies and Gray, 2017 ). Writers argue that in the Sackett’s definition of EBP, one aspect includes emphasising experiences of clients and patients and that this needs to be weighed together with knowledge from professional groups and with scientific knowledge. A critical angle is the lack of impact from research on social policy and interest in engaging service-users in social change ( Donnelly et al. , 2019 ).

Professionals need to be introduced to how they create the conditions for service-user, user influence needs to increase, decisions should become more client-centred where power-sharing is an option ( Nation et al. , 2011 ), bottom-up is emphasised, leaning towards a progressive era of social work ( McBeath, 2015 ). Equality can be a means but is also something that is questioned when looking for more radical solutions ( Eide, 2015 ). Partnerships involving service-users, practitioners and researchers can be far-reaching and improve social work ( Fook et al. , 2011 ). The traditions in social work of empowerment, participation and community work are stressed. However, warnings are set up for imbalances of power that could skew relationships according to a UK study ( Tew, 2008 ).

Using CBPR is suggested in order to ‘benefit research participants and the communities in which they live’ ( Donnelly et al. , 2019 , p. 4). CBPR is closely related to participatory action research (PAR) when researchers try to eliminate barriers and support co-production of knowledge ( Barbera, 2008 ). This kind of research goes under different terms and orientations and has strong links with community work.

The Social Care Institute for Excellence in the UK is a government-funded agency aiming to improve social care and is perhaps the most prominent example of how the service-user perspective is institutionalised in knowledge production ( Fisher, 2016 ). In Norway, the HUSK project has been the topic of many articles published in journals of social work in recent years ( Fook et al. , 2011 ; Andreassen, 2015 ; Eide, 2015 ; Johannessen and Eide, 2015 ; Julkunen, 2015 ; McBeath, 2015 ). HUSK was designed to expand the knowledge base of practice by including practitioners and service-users in knowledge production and the quality of social services.

Theories are used to underpin arguments, as in PAR where theories of participation and social justice are highlighted ( Barbera, 2008 ). In the studies of HUSK, analyses are using organisational theory and institutionalism ( Andreassen, 2015 ), power ( Eide, 2015 ), sense-making ( McBeath, 2015 ) and an actor-relational perspective is suggested to further analyse the relational complexities that arise in practice research ( Julkunen, 2015 ).

There is no lack of research reporting on shortcomings and opportunities in order to bridge the research–practice gap, even though we found relatively little independent research. Trust is a frequently suggested mediator when achieving collaboration, serving both as objective and means. We found extensive knowledge production linked to three discourses ( Table 4) .

Three discourses summarized

Bridging the research–practice gap appears as three discourses with different ways to understand and to overcome the gap. Researchers build on a set of norms and approaches that recreate narratives and thereby provide a framework for how things (here the research–practice gap) are to be perceived. The titles of the articles illustrate how the researchers understand the problems and their ideas of how to bridge the gap. Descriptions of problems vary from deficient implementation and lack of knowledge in practitioners, via too expansive academic interventions and unusable research results, to power and the challenge of expanding professions. Suggested solutions within the service-user bridge concentrate on recognising the value of lived experience, whereas researchers from other parties may value new forms of equal partnerships between research and practice. The wave of EBP may challenge such ambitions as the problems are presumed to lie within the service organisations. They need to sharpen their organisation, hire social workers with knowledge of research and train their staff. The academic bridge seems to be well equipped as a strong international collaboration is manifest with support from national authorities. The analytical ambitions reflect the discourses and go from the frame of implementation science and EBP over to organisational learning and participation.

The three discourses identified are analytical constructions with ambitions to gather aspects as shown in the research about the research–practice gap. We also find intertwined ambitions where researchers may move from one bridge to the other. Especially within the practice research tradition, we find elements from the other discourses. Such ambitions are easy to sympathise with, but we are struck by the many ambitions to construct bridges rather than to analyse and theorise the existing examples. Much of this research is scarcely based upon irrefutable evidence and their bridges are connected to social, cultural and knowledge constructions, some standing on solid institutional ground. Theories and practical examples are then used as arguments to support a perspective.

We end with two conclusions. First, the research–practice gap serves badly as a metaphor. We propose three discourses which researchers could start from, relate to and build upon. Their epistemological and normative standpoints would then be easier to relate to. Second is how well the debate about social work relates to the attempts to bridge the research–practice gap. The tensions between how research should be reflected in practice could be understood as ways to enhance its significance in the welfare state, its possibility to support a profession and its relevance to clients and users of social work.

We challenge colleagues in social work research not to report so much from their own cases and instead add to our knowledge by contributing to a collection of theoretical independent analyses based upon empirical undertakings. Otherwise such a challenge may be picked up from outside the social work, and that is not something we want to happen, is it?

The authors have received initial financial support for this research by Linnaeus University; however, they received no funding for the publication of this article.

Allen-Meares P. , Hudgins C. A. , Engberg M. E. , Lessnau B. ( 2005 ) ‘ Using a collaboratory model to translate social work research into practice and policy ’, Research on Social Work Practice , 15 ( 1 ), pp. 29 – 40 .

Google Scholar

Andreassen T. A. ( 2015 ) ‘ Reforming social services: The institutional and organizational context of the HUSK program ’, Journal of Evidence-Informed Social Work , 12 ( 1 ), pp. 32 – 49 .

Anthony E. K. , Austin M. J. ( 2008 ) ‘ The role of an intermediary organization in promoting research in schools of social work: The case of the Bay Area Social Services Consortium ’, Social Work Research , 32 ( 4 ), pp. 287 – 93 .

Arksey H. , O'Malley L. ( 2005 ) ‘ Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework ’, International Journal of Social Research Methodology , 8 ( 1 ), pp. 19 – 32 .

Barbera R. A. ( 2008 ) ‘ Relationships and the research process: Participatory action research and social work ’, Journal of Progressive Human Services , 19 ( 2 ), pp. 140 – 59 .

Beddoe L. , Harington P. ( 2012 ) ‘ One step in a thousand-mile journey: Can civic practice be nurtured in practitioner research? Reporting on an innovative project ’, The British Journal of Social Work , 42 ( 1 ), pp. 74 – 93 .

Bellamy J. L. , Bledsoe S. E. , Mullen E. J. , Fang L. , Manuel J. I. ( 2008 ) ‘ Agency-university partnership for evidence-based practice in social work ’, Journal of Social Work Education , 44 ( 3 ), pp. 55 – 76 .

Bledsoe-Mansori S. E. , Bellamy J. L. , Wike T. , Grady M. , Dinata E. , Killian-Farrell C. , Rosenberg K. ( 2013 ) ‘ Agency–university partnerships for evidence-based practice: A national survey of schools of social work ’, Social Work Research , 37 ( 3 ), pp. 179 – 93 .

Boaz A. , Davies H. , Fraser A. , Nutley S. (eds) ( 2019 ) What Works Now? Evidence-Informed Policy and Practice , Bristol , Policy Press .

Google Preview

Brekke J. S. , Ell K. , Palinkas L. A. ( 2007 ) ‘ Translational science at the national institute of mental health: Can social work take its rightful place? ’, Research on Social Work Practice , 17 ( 1 ), pp. 123 – 33 .

Caplan N. ( 1979 ) ‘ The two-communities theory and knowledge utilization ’, American Behavioral Scientist , 22 ( 3 ), pp. 459 – 70 .

Chateauneuf D. , Ramdé J. , Avril A. ( 2016 ) ‘ Processes employed by social work practitioners in child welfare for exchanging and using knowledge ’, Journal of Social Work Practice , 30 ( 4 ), pp. 397 – 415 .

Cornish S. ( 2017 ) ‘ Social work and the two cultures: The art and science of practice ’, Journal of Social Work , 17 ( 5 ), pp. 544 – 59 .

Dal Santo T. , Goldberg S. , Choice P. , Austin M. J. ( 2002 ) ‘ Exploratory research in public social service agencies: As assessment of dissemination and utilization ’, Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare , 29 ( 4 ), pp. 59 – 81 .

Davies K. , Gray M. ( 2017 ) ‘ The place of service-user expertise in evidence-based practice ’, Journal of Social Work , 17 ( 1 ), pp. 3 – 20 .

Debra J. C. ( 2007 ) ‘ The very separate worlds of academic and practitioner publications in human resource management: Reasons for the divide and concrete solutions for bridging the gap ’, The Academy of Management Journal , 50 ( 5 ), pp. 1013 – 9 .

Dill K. A. , Shera W. ( 2015 ) ‘ Empowering human services organizations to embrace evidence-informed practice: International best practices ’, Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership and Governance , 39 ( 4 ), pp. 323 – 38 .

Donnelly S. , Ní Raghallaigh M. , Foreman M. ( 2019 ) ‘ Reflections on the use of community based participatory research to affect social and political change: Examples from research with refugees and older people in Ireland ’, European Journal of Social Work , 22 ( 5 ), pp. 831 – 44 .

Eide S. B. ( 2015 ) ‘ Equal collaboration in HUSK ’, Journal of Evidence-Informed Social Work , 12 ( 1 ), pp. 92 – 101 .

Epstein I. ( 2009 ) ‘ Promoting harmony where there is commonly conflict: Evidence-informed practice as an integrative strategy ’, Social Work in Health Care , 48 ( 3 ), pp. 216 – 31 .

Fisher M. ( 2016 ) ‘ The social care institute for excellence and evidence-based policy and practice ’, The British Journal of Social Work , 46 ( 2 ), pp. 498 – 513 .

Fook J. , Johannessen A. , Psoinos M. ( 2011 ) ‘ Partnership in practice research: A Norwegian experience ’, Social Work and Society , 9 ( 1 ), pp. 29 – 43 .

Franklin C. , Hopson L. M. ( 2007 ) ‘ Facilitating the use of evidence-based practice in community organizations ’, Journal of Social Work Education , 43 ( 3 ), pp. 377 – 404 .

Gambrill E. ( 2019 ) ‘ The promotion of avoidable ignorance in the British Journal of Social Work ’, Research on Social Work Practice , 29 ( 4 ), pp. 455 – 69 .

Garretsen H. F. L. , Bongers I. M. B. , De Roo A. A. , Van De Goor I. A. M. ( 2007 ) ‘ Bridging the gap between science and practice: Do applied academic centres contribute to a solution? A plea for international comparative research ’, Journal of Comparative Social Welfare , 23 ( 1 ), pp. 49 – 59 .

Giffords E. D. , Calderon O. ( 2015 ) ‘ Academic and community collaborations: An exploration of benefits, barriers and successes ’, Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership and Governance , 39 ( 4 ), pp. 397 – 405 .

Heinsch M. , Gray M. , Sharland E. ( 2016 ) ‘ Re-conceptualising the link between research and practice in social work: A literature review on knowledge utilisation ’, International Journal of Social Welfare , 25 ( 1 ), pp. 98 – 104 .

Jagosh J. , Bush P. L. , Salsberg J. , Macaulay A. C. , Greenhalgh T. , Wong G. , Cargo M. , Green L. W. , Herbert C. P. , Pluye P. ( 2015 ) ‘A realist evaluation of community-based participatory research: Partnership synergy, trust building and related ripple effects’, BMC Public Health , 15 Advance Access published 30 July 2015, 10.1186/s12889-015-1949-1.

Johannessen A. , Eide S. B. ( 2015 ) ‘ Evidence from social service enhancement projects: Selected cases from Norway's HUSK Project ’, Journal of Evidence-Informed Social Work , 12 ( 1 ), pp. 7 – 31 .

Johnson M. , Austin M. J. ( 2008 ) ‘ Evidence-based practice in the social services: Implications for organizational change ’, Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work , 5 ( 1-2 ), pp. 239 – 69 .

Julkunen I. ( 2011 ) ‘ Knowledge-production processes in practice research–outcomes and critical elements ’, Social Work and Society , 9 ( 1 ), pp. 60 – 75 .

Julkunen I. ( 2015 ) ‘ Practice-based research: The role of HUSK in knowledge development ’, Journal of Evidence-Informed Social Work , 12 ( 1 ), pp. 102 – 11 .

King G. , Servais M. , Forchuk C. , Chalmers H. , Currie M. , Law M. , Specht J. , Rosenbaum P. , Willoughby T. , Kertoy M. ( 2010 ) ‘ Features and impacts of five multidisciplinary community–university research partnerships ’, Health & Social Care in the Community , 18 ( 1 ), pp. 59 – 69 .

Kjörstad M. ( 2008 ) ‘ Opening the black box - Mobilizing practical knowledge in social research: Methodological reflections based on a study of social work practice ’, Qualitative Social Work , 7 ( 2 ), pp. 143 – 61 .

Lalayants M. , Epstein I. , Auslander G. K. , Chan W. C. H. , Fouché C. , Giles R. , Joubert L. , Rosenne H. , Vertigan A. ( 2012 ) ‘ Clinical data-mining: Learning from practice in international settings ’, International Social Work , 56 ( 6 ), pp. 775 – 97 .

Lery B. , Wiegmann W. , Berrick J. D. ( 2015 ) ‘ Building an evidence-driven child welfare workforce: A university-agency partnership ’, Journal of Social Work Education , 51 ( sup2 ), pp. S283 – 98 .

Long J. C. , Cunningham F. C. , Braithwaite J. ( 2013 ) ‘ Bridges, brokers and boundary spanners in collaborative networks: A systematic review ’, BMC Health Services Research , 13 ( 1 ), pp. 158 .

Lunt N. , Shaw I. ( 2017 ) ‘ Good practice in the conduct and reporting of practitioner research: Reflections from social work and social care ’, Practice , 29 ( 3 ), pp. 201 – 18 .

Macrae R. , Smith M. , Cree V. E. ( 2015 ) ‘ The role of practitioner research in developing cultures of learning in children and families social work ’, Practice , 28 ( 3 ), pp. 1 – 17 .

Manuel J. I. , Mullen E. J. , Fang L. , Bellamy J. L. , Bledsoe S. E. ( 2009 ) ‘ Preparing social work practitioners to use evidence-based practice: A comparison of experiences from an implementation project ’, Research on Social Work Practice , 19 ( 5 ), pp. 613 – 27 .

McBeath B. ( 2015 ) ‘ Making sense of HUSK: Practice implications for social change initiatives ’, Journal of Evidence-Informed Social Work , 12 ( 1 ), pp. 139 – 54 .

McBeath B. , Austin M. J. ( 2015 ) ‘ The organizational context of research-minded practitioners challenges and opportunities ’, Research on Social Work Practice , 25 ( 4 ), pp. 446 – 59 .

McNall M. , Reed C. S. , Brown R. , Allen A. ( 2009 ) ‘ Brokering community–university engagement ’, Innovative Higher Education , 33 ( 5 ), pp. 317 – 31 .

Mertz L. K. P. , Fortune A. E. , Zendell A. L. ( 2007 ) ‘ Promoting leadership skills in field education: A university-community partnership to bring macro and micro together in gerontological field placements ’, Journal of Gerontological Social Work , 50 ( 1-2 ), pp. 173 – 86 .

Mirabito D. ( 2012 ) ‘ Educating a new generation of social workers: Challenges and skills needed for contemporary agency-based practice ’, Clinical Social Work Journal , 40 ( 2 ), pp. 245 – 54 .

Moe A. , Tronvoll I. M. , Gjeitnes K. ( 2014 ) ‘ A reflective approach in practice research ’, Nordic Social Work Research , 4 ( sup1 ), pp. 14 – 25 .

Mullen E. ( 1998 ) ‘ Linking the university and the social agency in collaborative evaluation research: Principles and examples ’, Scandinavian Journal of Social Welfare , 7 ( 2 ), pp. 152 – 8 .

Mullen E. ( 2002 ) ‘ Problem formulation in practitioner and researcher partnerships: A decade of experience at the center for the study of social work practice ’, Social Work Education , 21 ( 3 ), pp. 323 – 36 .

Nation M. , Bess K. , Voight A. , Perkins D. D. , Juarez P. ( 2011 ) ‘ Levels of community engagement in youth violence prevention: The role of power in sustaining successful university‐community partnerships ’, American Journal of Community Psychology , 48 ( 1-2 ), pp. 89 – 96 .

Nielsen M. E. , Birken S. A. ( 2018 ) ‘ Implementation science theories to inform efforts for de-implementation of urologic oncology care practices resulting in overuse and misuse ’, Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations , 36 ( 5 ), pp. 252 – 6 .

Nowotny H. , Scott P. B. , Gibbons M. T. ( 2001 ) Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty , Cambridge , Polity Press .

Osterling K. L. , Austin M. J. ( 2008 ) ‘ The dissemination and utilization of research for promoting evidence-based practice ’, Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work , 5 ( 1-2 ), pp. 295 – 319 .

Parton N. ( 2000 ) ‘ Some thoughts on the relationship between theory and practice in and for social work ’, The British Journal of Social Work , 30 ( 4 ), pp. 449 – 63 .

Pawson R. , Boaz A. , Grayson L. , Long A. , Barnes C. ( 2003 ) Types and Quality of Social Care Knowledge , SCIE , London .

Pawson R. , Tilley N. ( 1997 ) Realistic Evaluation , London , Sage .

Perrault E. , McClelland R. , Austin C. , Sieppert J. ( 2011 ) ‘ Working together in collaborations: Successful process factors for community collaboration ’, Administration in Social Work , 35 ( 3 ), pp. 282 – 98 .

Petersén A. C. , Olsson J. I. ( 2015 ) ‘ Calling evidence-based practice into question: Acknowledging phronetic knowledge in social work ’, The British Journal of Social Work , 45 ( 5 ), pp. 1581 – 97 .

Powell J. , Orme J. ( 2011 ) ‘ Increasing the confidence and competence of social work researchers: What works? ’, The British Journal of Social Work , 41 ( 8 ), pp. 1566 – 85 .

Rycroft-Malone J. , Burton C. R. , Wilkinson J. , Harvey G. , McCormack B. , Baker R. , Dopson S. , Graham I. D. , Staniszewska S. , Thompson C. , Ariss S. , Melville-Richards L. , Williams L. ( 2016 ) ‘ Collective action for implementation: A realist evaluation of organisational collaboration in healthcare ’, Implementation Science , 11 Advance Access published 9 February 2016, 10.1186/s13012-016-0380-z.

Sim T. , Lau V. C. Y. ( 2017 ) ‘ The emergence of social work practice research in the Peoples' Republic of China: A literature review ’, Research on Social Work Practice , 27 ( 1 ), pp. 8 – 18 .

Sundell K. , Soydan H. , Tengvald K. , Anttila S. ( 2010 ) ‘ From opinion-based to evidence-based social work: The Swedish case ’, Research on Social Work Practice , 20 ( 6 ), pp. 714 – 22 .

Teater B. ( 2017 ) ‘ Social work research and its relevance to practice: ‘The gap between research and practice continues to be wide” ’, Journal of Social Service Research , 43 ( 5 ), pp. 547 – 65 .

Tew J. ( 2008 ) ‘ Researching in partnership: Reflecting on a collaborative study with mental health service users into the impact of compulsion ’, Qualitative Social Work: Research and Practice , 7 ( 3 ), pp. 271 – 87 .

Thyer B. A. ( 2015 ) ‘ Preparing current and future practitioners to integrate research in real practice settings ’, Research on Social Work Practice , 25 ( 4 ), pp. 463 – 72 .

Uggerhøj L. ( 2011 ) ‘ Theorizing practice research in social work ’, Social Work and Social Sciences Review , 15 ( 1 ), pp. 49 – 73 .

Uggerhøj L. ( 2014 ) ‘ Learning from each other: Collaboration processes in practice research ’, Nordic Social Work Research , 4(sup1 ), pp. 44 – 57 .

Walter I. , Davies H. , Nutley S. ( 2003 ) ‘ Increasing research impact through partnerships: Evidence from outside health care ’, Journal of Health Services Research & Policy , 8(2_suppl ), pp. 58 – 61 .

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1468-263X
• Print ISSN 0045-3102
• Copyright © 2024 British Association of Social Workers
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Research guidance, Research Journals, Top Universities

Top 20 MCQs on literature review with answers

MCQs on literature review : The primary purpose of literature review is to facilitate detailed background of the previous studies to the readers on the topic of research.

In this blog post, we have published 20 MCQs on Literature Review (Literature Review in Research) with answers.

20 Multiple Choice Questions on Literature Review

1. Literature is a 

Written Record

Published Record

Unpublished Record

All of these

2. Which method of literature review involves a non-statistical method to present data having the feature of systematic Method too?

Narrative Method

Systematic Method

Meta-Analysis Method of Literature Review

Meta-Synthesis Method of Literature Review

3. Comparisons of non-statistical variables are performed under which method of literature review?

4. Literature review is not similar to

Annotated Bibliography 

5. APA Style, MLA Style, Chicago Manual, Blue Book, OSCOLA are famously known as

Citation Manuals

Directories

Abbreviation Manuals

6. Literature collected is reviewed and preferably arranged 

Alphabetically

Chronologically

None of these

7. Literature collected for review includes

Primary and Secondary Sources

Secondary and Tertiary Sources

Primary and Tertiary Sources

8. Literature includes

Previous Studies

Scholarly publications

Research Findings

9. No time frame is set to collect literature in which of the following method of compiling reviews?

Traditional Method

10. Which method of the literature review is more reliable for drawing conclusions of each individual researcher for new conceptualizations and interpretations?

11. The main purpose of finalization of research topics and sub-topics is

Collection of Literature

Collection of Questions

Collection of Statistics

Collection of Responses

12. Literature review is basically to bridge the gap between

Newly established facts

Previously established facts

Facts established time to time

Previous to current established facts

13. The last step in writing the literature review is 

Developing a Final Essay

Developing a Coherent Essay

Developing a Collaborated Essay

Developing a Coordinated Essay

14. The primary purpose of literature review is to facilitate detailed background of 

Present Studies

Previous studies

Future Studies

15. Narrative Literature Review method is also known as 

Advanced Method

Scientific Method

16. Which method of literature review starts with formulating research questions?

17. Which method of literature review involves application of clinical approach based on a specific subject.

18. Which literature review involves timeline based collection of literature for review

19. Which method of literature review involves application of statistical approach?

20. Which literature review method involves conclusions in numeric/statistical form?

More MCQs Related to MCQs on Literature Review

• MCQs on Qualitative Research with answers
• Research Proposal MCQs with answers PDF
• Solved MCQ on legal Reasoning in Research
• MCQ on data analysis in research methodology
• Research Report writing MCQs with answers
• All Solved MCQs on Research Methodology
• MCQs on Legal Research with answers
• MCQs on sampling in research methodology with answers
• MCQs with answers on plagiarism
• MCQ on Citation and Referencing in Research
• Research Ethics MCQs with answers
• Solved MCQs on Sampling in research methodology
• Solved MCQs on Basic Research

MCQs  on literature review  with answers PDF | Research methods multiple choice questions | Literature review  questions and answers

Share this:

1 thought on “top 20 mcqs on literature review with answers”.

Very nice questions for revision

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Advertisement

Bridging Digital Divides: a Literature Review and Research Agenda for Information Systems Research

• Published: 06 January 2021
• Volume 25 , pages 955–969, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Polyxeni Vassilakopoulou   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5947-4070 1 &
• Eli Hustad   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1150-1850 1  

46k Accesses

99 Citations

12 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Extant literature has increased our understanding of the multifaceted nature of the digital divide, showing that it entails more than access to information and communication resources. Research indicates that digital inequality mirrors to a significant extent offline inequality related to socioeconomic resources. Bridging digital divides is critical for sustainable digitalized societies. Ιn this paper, we present a literature review of Information Systems research on the digital divide within settings with advanced technological infrastructures and economies over the last decade (2010–2020). The review results are organized in a concept matrix mapping contributing factors and measures for crossing the divides. Building on the results, we elaborate a research agenda that proposes [1] extending established models of digital inequalities with new variables and use of theory, [2] critically examining the effects of digital divide interventions, and [3] better linking digital divide research with research on sustainability.

Similar content being viewed by others

An Upward Spiral Model: Bridging and Deepening Digital Divide

Understanding Digital Inequalities in the Global South

The Effect of the Transformation in Digital Media on the Digital Divide

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Digital inequalities have emerged as a growing concern in modern societies. These inequalities relate to disparities in access, actual use and use efficacy of digital resources. Digital resources including transformative technologies, such as business analytics, big data and artificial intelligence are key for the transition of societies towards sustainability (Pappas et al. 2018 ; United Nations 2018 ). Reducing digital inequalities is critical for sustainable digitalized societies. At a high level, all types of digital inequalities are encompassed in the term digital divide . One of the first uses of the term is traced back in a US government report published in 1999 referring to the divide between those with access to new technologies and those without (NTIA 1999 ). The term was soon broadened to signify the “gap between those who can effectively use new information and communication tools, such as the Internet, and those who cannot” (Gunkel 2003 ). Overall, the term digital divide includes digital inequalities between individuals, households, businesses or geographic areas (Pick and Sarkar 2016 ; OECD 2001 ). The conceptual broadness of the term aims to capture a multifaceted economic and civil rights issue in an era of continuous efforts to digitalize society. The ongoing digitalization poses a challenge for individuals who are not fully capable of using digital resources and may feel partially excluded or completely left out of the society.

Extant research has contributed insights on the different aspects of the digital divide phenomenon. In the past, the digital divide literature was mostly driven by policy-oriented reports that focused on access. Nevertheless, scientific research expanded to digital inequalities beyond access. Researchers foregrounded digital inequalities related to knowledge, economic and social resources, attributes of technology such as performance and reliability, and utility realization (DiMaggio et al. 2004 ; Van Dijk 2006 ; Van Deursen and Helsper 2015 ). In technologically and economically advanced settings, digital divides seem to be closing in terms of access, but inequalities that affect people’s ability to make good use of digital resources persist (Lameijer et al. 2017 ; Hsieh et al. 2011 ; Bucea et al. 2020 ). As digitalization becomes increasingly pervasive in work and everyday life, concerns are rising about continuing inequalities within societies that are at the digital forefront. At the same time, in low-resource settings there are still significant access issues. For instance, in the least developed countries (as defined by the United Nations) only 19 per cent of individuals had online access in 2019 while in developed countries, close to 87 per cent of individuals access the internet (Int.Telecom.Union 2019 ). Beyond big differences across settings in terms of access, low-resource settings are tormented by particular political, economic and social conditions inflicting digital divides (Venkatesh et al. 2014 ; Srivastava and Shainesh 2015 ; Luo and Chea 2018 ). Overall, prior research has shown that the modalities of digital inequalities are context-specific and it is important to be explicit about the context when researching the digital divide (Barzilai-Nahon 2006 ). This work is focused on digital divide research within settings with advanced technological infrastructures and economies.

The digital divide is an exemplary sociotechnical phenomenon and has attracted the interest of Information System (IS) researchers. IS research examines more than technologies or social phenomena, or even the two side by side; it investigates emergent sociotechnical phenomena (Lee 2001 ). Hence, IS researchers are well-positioned to study the digital divide phenomenon and have been producing a significant volume of related research. Nevertheless, no systematic review of the IS body of literature on the digital divide exists. Our study identifies, analyses, and integrates a critical mass of recent IS research on the digital divide focused on settings where the technological infrastructures and economies are advanced. To ensure a robust result, we performed a systematic literature review (Kitchenham 2004 ) guided by the following question: What are the key findings identified in extant IS research related to the digital divide in contemporary technologically and economically advanced settings?

Our contribution is threefold. First, we identify recurring digital divide factors for population groups threatened by digital inequalities. The factors identified indicate that digital inequalities frequently mirror offline inequalities (for instance, in terms of socioeconomic resources, knowledge and physical abilities). Second, we present measures proposed in the literature and organize them in three key intervention domains that can contribute to closing the gap (related to policies, training initiatives and tailored design). Finally, as a third contribution, we identify areas for future research providing a research agenda.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. First, we present the method used for selecting and analyzing the articles for this review. Then, we offer a synthesis of our findings related to digital divide factors and related measures and present them in a concise concept matrix. We continue by discussing the implications for further research and we end with overall concluding remarks.

The literature review is conceptual providing a synthesis of prior research and identifying areas for future research (Ortiz de Guinea and Paré 2017 ; Schryen et al. 2015 ). It includes research published during the last decade (2010–2020). The approach followed is based on the three-step structured literature review process proposed by Kitchenham ( 2004 ). Specifically, the three-step process includes: (a) planning the review, where a detailed protocol containing specific search terms and inclusion/exclusion criteria is developed, (b) conducting the review, where the identification, selection, quality appraisal, examination and synthesis of prior published research is performed and (c) reporting the review, where the write-up is prepared. We used these steps as our methodological framework. In addition, we utilized principles suggested by Webster and Watson ( 2002 ) for sorting the articles included in the review. Following these principles, we identified key concepts and created a concept-centric matrix that provides an overview of the literature reviewed.

To identify articles to be reviewed, we searched for “Digital” and “Divide” in the abstract, title or keywords within published Information Systems research. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were established to reduce selection bias, guarantee the quality of the papers selected and increase the review validity. Peer-reviewed, empirical papers, written in English were included. Conceptual papers that lack empirical evidence and papers focusing on the digital divide in developing countries were excluded. Figure 1 provides an overview of the selection process. To ensure a good coverage of Information Systems research we searched within the eight top journals in the field i.e. the basket of eight (AIS 2019 ). The journals included in the basket are: European Journal of Information Systems, Information Systems Journal, Information Systems Research, Journal of AIS, Journal of Information Technology, Journal of MIS, Journal of Strategic Information Systems and MIS Quarterly. Additionally, we searched within the journal Communications of the Association for Information Systems (CAIS) which has a key role within the IS research community communicating swiftly novel, original research. We also included in our search the journal Information Technology (IT) & People because it focuses on IS research that explores the interplay between technology individuals and society and the journal Information Systems Frontiers because it covers behavioural perspectives on IS research. Both journals are high quality IS outlets especially relevant for research on the digital divide. Furthermore, we included in our search the conferences of the Association of Information Systems (ICIS, ECIS; AMCIS; PACIS) and the Hawaiian International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). We utilized Scopus as our search engine.

The literature selection process

In Scopus, we searched for papers from the selected journals and conferences excluding books, book chapters, commentaries, letters and short surveys. For the journal article search, the ISSNs of the selected journals were used for filtering the search results in Scopus. In total, 45 journal papers were identified. For the conference article search, the conference names were used in Scopus and 91 conference papers were identified. Overall, the search yielded 136 unique articles in total. The next step was to read the titles and abstracts of the articles identified checking their relevance to the research question. For this step, the exclusion criteria were used. Specifically, we excluded papers that only casually mentioned the digital divide but had a different focus, literature reviews and conceptual papers and papers focused on developing countries. After this step, 79 articles were shortlisted. The full text of each of the shortlisted articles was assessed for relevance applying the inclusion-exclusion criteria to the full content. Additionally, the quality of the research reported was assessed. For the quality assessment, each article´s method description was first checked. At this stage, conference papers reporting early stages of ongoing research were removed. In several cases of conference papers that were removed, we found that more mature and extensive results from the same studies were reported in journal articles that were already included in our shortlist and were published after the conference papers. After this step, a final corpus of 33 articles was defined (Table 1 ). A detailed overview of the reviewed articles is included in an electronic supplementary file that can be accessed in the journal´s web site (see Online Resource 1 ).

After selecting the papers, we analyzed their content. We started with extracting meta-data of the papers such as type of study, year of study, study context, research method and theoretical framework applied. In addition, we identified the study subjects for each paper distinguishing between papers that engage with the general population, or specific groups of people including the elderly and marginalized population groups (e.g. refugees, migrants). We continued with an intra-analysis of the content of the papers by looking for core themes in each paper. The themes that were identified for each paper were registered, and as a next step, we performed an inter-analysis and comparison across papers. Based on the comparison, recurring themes and patterns across the papers were discovered and further categorized. The outcomes of the papers´analysis are presented in the " Results " section that follows.

This section presents the key findings from the literature reviewed. First, we present the theoretical premises and the methodological approaches of extant publications on the Digital Divide within IS research and their evolution from 2010 to 2020. Table 2 provides an overview of the theories and concepts, methods and data sources in the literature reviewed. Then, recurring digital divide factors are presented for population segments that are particularly digitally challenged (the elderly and marginalized population groups) and also, for the general population. Finally, measures for addressing the digital divide are presented and organized in three key intervention domains (policy measures, education/training and design tailoring). The section also includes a concept matrix which provides an overview of digital divide factors and related measures identified in the literature reviewed (Table 3 ).

3.1 Trends, Methods and Theoretical Frames in IS Research on the Digital Divide

The work of Information Systems´ researchers on the digital divide has been influenced by policy-oriented reports that tend to be based on macro-level analyses. This influence is clear in the first half of the 2010–2020 period while in the second half, research extends towards a more complex and contextualized picture of digital divides. Newer papers tend to ask a wider range of questions related to access and use of information technologies and investigate a greater variety of factors. For instance, skill related factors are explored in about half of both earlier and later studies, but, newer studies tend to additionally explore motivation and personality aspects (about half of the newer studies include such aspects). Interestingly, several of the newer papers only focus on technology use. In these papers, researchers explore the second order digital divide and the extent of inclusion or involuntary exclusion of those that already have access to technologies. Furthermore, most earlier papers tend to investigate the general population while the majority of newer studies focus on specific population groups.

Overall, most of the studies employ quantitative research methods utilizing well-established survey instruments adapted for studying digital inequalities for certain groups (e.g. older adults) or re-using existing data sets from organizations like the International Telecommunication Union, the World Bank and the United Nations. A few studies use a mixed-method approach combining interviews with survey data, while the rest employ qualitative approaches. Well-known technology acceptance models such as TAM (Technology Acceptance Model), UTAUT (Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology) and MATH (Model of Adoption of Technology in Households) and theories on motivation and human behavior have been used to explore the digital divide. Typical variables included in the investigations are self-efficacy, performance and effort expectancy. Furthermore, social cognitive theories, social support theories and social capital conceptualizations have been used while some of the papers utilize selectively digital divide conceptualizations combined with constructs from social, sociotechnical or economic research.

3.2 Factors Contributing to the Digital Divide

The digital divide is often characterized as a digital divide cascade which is nuanced into different types of inequalities including unequal capabilities, engagement, and use outcomes in addition to inequalities of access and use. This points to the importance of identifying and aiming to remedy inequalities in what people are actually able to do and achieve with digital technologies (Burtch and Chan 2019 ; Díaz Andrade and Doolin 2016 ). In settings with advanced infrastructures and economy, physical access is not a key source of digital inequalities and IS studies that examine issues of unequal access show that access gaps are closing with the exception of marginalized population groups. Nevertheless, there is still a stark difference between access (first-order divide) and actual use (second-order divide) (Bucea et al. 2020 ). The latter relates to differences in digital skills, autonomy, social support and the aims of digital technology use (Rockmann et al. 2018 ). Going beyond socioeconomic demographics, additional personal contributing factors have been identified in the literature related to: (a) motivation, (b) personality traits (e.g. openness, extraversion, conscientiousness), (c) digital skills. Many of the studies reviewed focus on the elderly who are also referred to as “digital immigrants” (as opposed to digital natives that have been interacting with digital technology since childhood). Additionally, several studies focus on marginalized population groups. In the paragraphs that follow, we present research findings organizing them according to the different groups studied.

Elderly Population

Although digital technologies have been around for several decades, some of the elderly members of society have difficulties familiarizing with and adopting digital tools and services. Nevertheless, although a decade ago age-related underutilization of IT was significant (Niehaves and Plattfaut 2010 ), over the years, information and communication technologies (ICTs) have been gradually better integrated in the lives of elderly adults. A recent study on the digital divide related to mobile phone use among old adults in UK found that more than 70% have adopted smartphones (Choudrie et al. 2018 ). Specifically, research findings indicate that older adults frequently use internet-related smartphone features such as emailing and browsing although only very few use smartphones to access public services such as the National Health Service. One potential reason for the limited use of specialized web-based services among the elderly despite the wide adoption of smartphones, is that their former workplaces may have been characterized by low IT intensity causing a lower exploratory IT behavior when seniors are retiring (Rockmann et al. 2018 ). Niehaves and Plattfaut ( 2014 ) used the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) and the model of adoption of technology in households (MATH) to explain internet acceptance and usage by the elderly. Performance expectancy was found to be the main use driver among senior citizens. These models were able to predict how the elderly could be encouraged to learn to use digital technologies.

When asked, the elderly themselves identified several key impeding factors for their digital involvement: fear and anxiety of using digital technology and services, negative attitude, a sense of feeling too old for learning, lack of knowledge, difficulties understanding digital terminology (Holgersson and Söderström 2019 ). Family support is key for developing mobile internet skill literacy and mobile internet information literacy among older adults (Xiong and Zuo 2019 ). Seniors become better positioned to take advantage of digital resources when they have cognitive and emotional support. Cognitive support from family facilitates learning and digital skills´ development, and also, the development of skills for judging, analyzing and selecting information (Xiong and Zuo 2019 ). Emotional support based on patience, praise, encouragement and comfort can help the elderly avoid computer anxiety and stress (Xiong and Zuo 2019 ). Emotional support is important because unwillingness to adopt advanced digital services by the elderly was found to stem from mistrust, high-risk perceptions, and privacy concerns (Fox and Connolly 2018 ).

Overall, older people are a heterogeneous group, and it is important not to overlook their differences in digital skills and digital practice. Klier and colleagues conducted a survey on older unemployed individulas in Germany and showed that they can be grouped into four different types of digital media users ranging from very active users (digital contributors) to sceptics with limited or no use (digital sceptics) characterised by their negative attitude towards digital media (Klier et al. 2020 ). Digitalization efforts should take into account “the various shades of grey in older adults’ ability to draw on IT-based innovations” (Lameijer et al. 2017 , p. 6).

Marginalized Population Groups

Language barriers as for instance, in the case of refugees and immigrants, and practical resource limitations as in the case of distressed urban areas and remote rural areas can cause social exclusion and hinder the process of digital technologies´ assimilation throughout society. Several researchers have studied specifically issues related to the digital divide within marginalized population groups. Alam and Imram ( 2015 ) found in their research that although refugees and immigrants in the US are motivated to learn about new technology, many are not able to do so because of unaffordable cost, language barriers and lack of skills. Refugees and immigrants realize that technology is helpful for finding new jobs or facilitating social engagement. Digital technologies are of particular value to refugees for multiple reasons: to participate in an information society; to communicate effectively; to understand a new society; to be socially connected; to express their cultural identities (Díaz Andrade and Doolin 2016 ). A study on mobile communications by labor migrants (Aricat 2015 ) showed that mobile phones may also facilitate the development of ghettos and the lack of integration in the new countries by easing communications between the migrants and their home countries. The study identified a visible divide in the framing of the prospects and potentialities of mobile phones related to acculturation.

Enhancing the relationship between citizens and government through digital services requires reaching out to individuals and communities on the unfortunate side of the divide. Digital technology access and use in the context of e-government services were explored within one of the most distressed cities in the US (Sipior et al. 2011 ). This study showed that socioeconomic characteristics (educational level and household income) have significant impact on access barriers, but they also found that employment plays a critical role and is associated both with perceived access barriers and with perceived ease of use. A study conducted among governmental participants representing rural communities in Australia suggests that rural digital exclusion can result from three intertwined layers: availability (elements of infrastructure and connectivity), adoption, and digital engagement (Park et al. 2015 ). Among these layers, availability is probably not as important as one could expect. Similarly, one large household study conducted across the US found that the availability of Internet Supply Providers (ISP) had little impact on Internet adoption, and that Internet adoption can almost exclusively be attached to differences in household attributes and not to ISP availability (Ma and Huang 2015 ).

As access gaps are closing in settings with advanced infrastructures and economy, those who do not have access are easily overlooked (Davis et al. 2020 ). Nevertheless, the first-level digital divide still requires attention for marginalized population groups. Furthermore, socioeconomic factors that were found to affect uptake more than two decades ago (for instance, education level and income) are still relevant in today’s context for particular segments of our societies. Contrary to traditional views, the availability of digital solutions does not always facilitate the resolution of long-standing problems for those that are less well-off in our societies (for instance, immigrants or financially troubled individuals). What people are actually able to do and achieve with digital technologies relates to their greater positioning in society (Burtch and Chan 2019 ) and affects their potential for improvement. As digital technologies are becoming indispensable for participating in the economy and engaging in society, sustained digital divides amplify marginalization.

General Population

A study by Pick and colleagues ( 2018 ) showed the positive influence of managerial/science/arts occupations, innovation, and social capital on the use of digital technologies (Pick et al. 2018 ). Nevertheless, unreasonably high expectations are found to have a negative impact on ICT acceptance (Ebermann et al. 2016 ). Findings from a study conducted within White and Hispanic-owned SMEs in the US (Middleton and Chambers 2010 ) indicate some level of inequality related to ethnicity and age (younger white SME owners being better positioned). Davis and colleagues (Davis et al.  2020 ) analyzed the influence of income, income distribution, education levels, and ethnicity on levels of access to Internet in the US. The findings show that low levels of education and levels of income below the poverty line still tend to lead to higher proportion of people with no Internet access (Davis et al. 2020 ). Even when individuals do have equal access to digital technologies, differences in skills can lead to digital inequalities (Burtch and Chan 2019 ). Taking a differentiated view on skills is needed to understand technology use and no-use (Reinartz et al. 2018 ). Physical skills matter; users with disabilities can be digitally disadvantaged and despite the benefits promised by specialized assistive technologies their adoption rate falls short of expectations (Pethig and Kroenung 2019 ).

Some groups may be challenged because they are too far embedded in older systems, which makes it difficult for them to adopt newer ICTs (Abdelfattah 2012 ). Social capital can trigger ICT awareness changing individual dispositions, thus converting social capital into cultural capital (Reinartz et al. 2018 ). An interesting study on crowdfunding showed that the benefits of medical crowdfunding accrue systematically less to racial minorities and less educated population segments (Burtch and Chan 2019 ). One of the reasons for this is the communication-rich nature of the context: less educated persons are not always capable of producing polished, persuasive pitches to solicit funds. Furthermore, digital inequality manifests on the efficacy of using crowdfunding platforms, due to a lack of critical mass in the number of potential transaction partners (donors). The results show the importance of looking beyond access or connectivity to investigate efficacy (in this case, expressed as success in fundraising), and how it associates with different population segments (Burtch and Chan 2019 ).

At the country level, a number of studies examined socio-economic influences on access and use of particular forms of technologies as for instance, personal computers and broadband internet (Zhao et al. 2014 ; Pick and Azari 2011 ; Dewan et al. 2010 ). A world-wide study found complementarities in the diffusion of PCs and the Internet leading to narrower digital divides (Dewan et al. 2010 ). These findings challenge the dominant understanding of characteristics such as country wealth, education levels and telecommunications infrastructure leading to the widening of the digital divide. Country-level studies are based on the analysis of data from census surveys, national statistics, and datasets from organizations like UNDP and ITO. The use of such datasets is helpful for performing comparisons across countries but due to the generic nature of data the purpose of digital technology use has been scarcely examined in country-level studies. This may be attributed to the fact that comparable data on specific online activities are not easy to collect across countries (Zhao et al. 2014 ). A study conducted by Bucea and colleagues ( 2020 ), is an exception to this. The study assessed specifically the use of e-Services and Social Networks within the 28 member-states of the European Union analyzing four socio-demographic factors (age, education, gender, and income). The findings showed that for e-Services, disparities relate mostly to education while for Social Networks age is the most important factor (Bucea et al. 2020 ). Overall, country level studies are important for assessing disparities across countries and can lead to the identification of factors reinforcing inequalities. At the same time, macro studies can not bring insights about digital inequalities across different population segments within countries.

3.3 Overcoming Digital Divides

Policy-making is considered instrumental for closing the digital gap and a mix of policy measures has been suggested in prior research. In general, policy initiatives can include subsidies targeting specific digitally disadvantaged segments as for instance rural populations (Talukdar and Gauri 2011 ). For instance, governments can apply strong intervention policies to provide equitable ICT access also in rural areas (Park et al. 2015 ). Furthermore, digital divides may be addressed at scale by crafting policies to equip underprivileged groups with better communication skills (reading, writing, and software use) enabling meaningful engagement with digital platforms (Burtch and Chan 2019 ). Government policy makers can collaborate with schools to support students from low-income households through the provision of home computers aiming to reduce the effect of socio-economic inequalities among students (Wei et al. 2011 ). Policies raising the priority of IT, protecting property rights, and enhancing freedom of the press and openness, can help to stimulate educational advances, labor-force participation and income growth, all of which contribute to advancing technology use (Pick and Azari 2011 ). Policy measures should allow room for local adaptations, as contextual and local elements seem to play a role for technology users and could influence policy success (Racherla and Mandviwalla 2013 ). Effective evaluation mechanisms make it easier to develop new policies addressing digital divides (Chang et al. 2012 ) helping policy-makers to refine initiatives targeting certain segments of society, such as elderly people and socio-economically disadvantaged groups (Hsieh et al. 2011 ).

Contemporary workplaces can help by taking greater responsibility for IT education of their employees even when they are close to retirement. Developing the digital skills of seniors while they are still employed is important for preventing digital exclusion after retirement (Rockmann et al. 2018 ). Overall, employment has a pivotal role in explaining citizen usage of e-government initiatives (Sipior et al. 2011 ). As an employee, an individual may have access to the Internet at the place of employment. Furthermore, employment demands may increase the confidence of an individual in performing new tasks. Thinking beyond workplaces, policies that leverage existing communities, social structures, and local actors can also help in reducing digital inequalities (Racherla and Mandviwalla 2013 ). Such policies can stimulate public/private partnerships with grassroots organizations that already have “hooks” in local communities. Moreover, long-term government policies could set a goal of encouraging growth in social capital within communities (Pick et al. 2018 ).

Proper training and education can help mitigate digital inequalities (Van Dijk 2012 ). For instance, platform operators can provide coaching services for underprivileged populations (Burtch and Chan 2019 ). Furthermore, information campaigns also have a significant role to play, digital divides may be narrowed if vendors engage in trust-building campaigns (Fox and Connolly 2018 ). Integrating digital education into curricula can also contribute to reducing digital inequalities (Reinartz et al. 2018 ), and education campaigns can stimulate the adoption and usage of ICTs bridging rural-urban digital gaps. Rural communities typically lag in digital skills, and digital literacy training programs can improve digital engagement in rural communities. Digital literacy programs targeting senior citizens can help them develop the necessary skills and abilities to use digital mobile devices so that they could be part of the Digital Society (Carvalho et al. 2018 ; Fox and Connolly 2018 ; Klier et al. 2020 ). Educational efforts for the elderly must be practically oriented in order to show directly what is to be gained by becoming more digital (Holgersson and Söderström 2019 ). In addition, social networks, friends and family are important for supporting the training of disadvantaged people in technologies; family emotional and cognitive support can increase the elderly’s digital capabilities, reduce computer anxiety and increase trust and motivation for learning (Xiong and Zuo 2019 ).

The design and development of ICT solutions should take into account individual differences for creating proper stimuli to different user groups. For instance, the use of governmental e-services can be improved by making them more engaging, interactive, and personal to address a country’s or region’s cultural norms (Zhao et al. 2014 ). This makes the role of appropriate design for overcoming the digital divide a center of attention. Lameijer et al. ( 2017 ) propose that design-related issues should be considered and evaluated to better understand technology adoption patterns among elderly. Also, the study by Klier and colleagues showed that there is a potential to shift older individuals towards a more active engagement with digital media by ensuring ease of use in the design of digital services (Klier et al. 2020 ). Furthermore, the needs of groups with disabilities ought to be taken into account when designing information systems for the general public (Pethig and Kroenung 2019 ). It is important to integrate assistive functionalities in general IS to emphasize authentic inclusiveness. Overall, research points to the importance of functionalities that suit the needs of specific user groups to stimulate the use of digital technologies.

4 Crossing Digital Divides: a Research Agenda

The evolution of IS research on the digital divide during the last decade shows the richness of this research area. As digitalization becomes pervasive in our societies, digital inequalities emerge in different contexts and communities renewing the interest on digital divide research. In recent years, researchers have been shifting away from macro-level studies and are re-orienting towards developing nuanced and contextualized insights about digital inequalities. The analysis of published research allows the identification of gaps and opportunities for further research. Furthermore, there are specific research directions proposed in several of the reviewed papers. The synthesis of suggestions from the papers reviewed with the results of our analysis led to the identification of three research avenues that bring exciting opportunities for researchers to engage with topics that are highly relevant with our digitalization era. Specifically, we suggest a research agenda that proposes: [1] extending established digital divide models with new variables and use of theory, [2] examining the effects of interventions, and [3] addressing societal challenges and especially sustainability goals through the lens of digital divide. Social inclusion and digital equality are crucial for a sustainable digitalized society.

4.1 Avenue I: Extending Established Digital Divide Models and Use of Theory

Extant research shows that physical access divides are being reduced in technologically and economically advanced societies but, inequalities in use persist (Hsieh et al. 2011 ; Lameijer et al. 2017 ). These use inequalities are found to be related to socioeconomic characteristics and also, personality traits, motivation and digital skills. A better understanding of the complex phenomenon of digital divide is needed combining multiple aspects to form comprehensive models (Choudrie et al. 2018 ) and further explore the concept itself to get more explanatory power (Lameijer et al. 2017 ). The emphasis, to date, has been on describing the digital divide by identifying gaps between actual technology access and use against an ideal situation. Work should be undertaken to investigate different national, social and cultural settings (Niehaves and Plattfaut 2010 ) across geographical contexts (Niehaves and Plattfaut 2014 ) and the influence of institutional and environmental factors on individuals’ ability and motivation to access and use technology (Racherla and Mandviwalla 2013 ). Furthermore, researchers may explore the values and interests of those abstraining from the use of digital resources and the implications of the overemphasis to digital inclusion (Díaz Andrade and Techatassanasoontorn 2020 ).

Further research is also needed to extend established models with new variables. Future investigations may add variables related to social theories (Abdelfattah et al. 2010 ; Hsieh et al. 2011 ; Niehaves and Plattfaut 2014 ), personal traits models (Ebermann et al. 2016 ), and capital theory (Hsieh et al. 2011 ; Reinartz et al. 2018 ). Additionally, future research should consider testing psychological variables (Niehaves and Plattfaut 2010 ) and additional socio-economical aspects (Hsieh et al. 2011 ; Reisdorf and Rikard 2018 ) including support from friends and family (Xiong and Zuo 2019 ; Holgersson and Söderström 2019 ) to develop a more fine-grained understanding of the association between the digital divide phenomenon and contributing variables (Hsieh et al. 2011 ; Niehaves and Plattfaut 2014 ; Fox and Connolly 2018 ). Qualitative research is important for revealing factors that influence inequalities and can become the basis for model building and testing using quantitative data.

Interestingly, fully developed theoretical frameworks that have been extensively used in other streams of exploratory information systems research related to the introduction and use of ICTs were not present in the papers reviewed. For instance, Activity theory and Institutional theory can be used as lenses for understanding and analyzing the digital divide phenomenon. Activity theory (Allen et al. 2011 ; Engeström 1999 ) can help in developing a nuanced understanding of the relationship between ICT artifacts and purposeful individuals taking into account the environment, culture, motivations, and complexity of real-life settings. Institutional theory (Jepperson 1991 ; Scott 2005 ) can contribute to developing insights related to societal structures, norms and routines shifting attention to units of analysis that cannot be reduced to individuals’ attributes or motives. Overall, we observed that digital divide research could benefit from better leveraging theory to extend established digital divide models.

4.2 Avenue II: Examining the Effects of Interventions to Cross the Digital Divide

Measures for crossing digital divides include policy interventions, training and design. Information Systems research can be especially relevant by developing design knowledge for the development and deployment of digital technology artifacts in different settings. Although several measures are proposed in the literature, further work is required to research the effect of interventions to avoid the exclusion of citizens from the digital realm addressing inequalities (Alam and Imran 2015 ; Reisdorf and Rikard 2018 ; Reinartz et al. 2018 ). In particular, appropriate design approaches for digital technologies should be investigated and tested to avoid involuntary exclusion of marginalized groups, elderly people or any other group of individuals affected by digital inequalities (Rockmann et al. 2018 ; Lameijer et al. 2017 ; Alam and Imran 2015 ; Fox and Connolly 2018 ). Additionally, comparative research can be undertaken investigating the effects and attractiveness of different design solutions in different cultural settings (Pethig and Kroenung 2019 ). Overall, although many studies include insights related to measures for bridging digital divides, there is a clear need for studies with a longitudinal research design to investigate the impact of measures over time. Interestingly, little research has been performed up to now on the potentially negative unexpected effects of measures for bridging digital divides (Díaz Andrade and Techatassanasoontorn 2020 ). This is certainly an area that needs to be further developed. The use of technologies might lead to advantages or disadvantages, which are unevenly distributed in society. Focusing only on benefits, researchers miss the opportunity to connect to emerging literature on the dark side of Internet and unexpected outcomes of digitalization including privacy risks. Scholars of information systems can develop novel avenues of critical thinking on the effects of interventions to cross the digital divide.

4.3 Avenue III: Linking Digital Divide Research With Research on Sustainability

There were no studies in our literature review that focused specifically on sustainability topics, and future research should pay attention to this gap. The United Nations´ sustainability goals focus on reducing inequality within and among countries to avoid biased economic development, social exclusion, and environmentally untenable practices. Important dimensions of sustainable development are human rights and social inclusion, shared responsibilities and opportunities (United Nations 2020 ). An essential part of social inclusion in our societies is e-inclusion (Pentzaropoulos and Tsiougou 2014 ). At the same time, it is important to research the risks and ethical implications of depriving individuals from offline choices (Díaz Andrade and Techatassanasoontorn 2020 ). Furthermore, we need to support sustainability in rural areas reducing the urban - rural digital divide. Sustainability researchers have identified the issue pointing to the vulnerabilities of rural communities that are in particular need of bridging inequalities (Onitsuka 2019 ). Future empirical studies on the digital divide should therefore pay attention to sustainability topics in terms of social exclusion and digital inequality to better understand underlying factors and potential remedies.

The covid-19 pandemic made digital inequalities even more evident. In periods of social distancing to minimize infection risks, individuals sustain their connections with colleagues, friends, and family through online connections. Furthermore, people need digital skills to keep updated on crucial information and to continue working when possible using home offices and digital connections. In addition, recent crisis response experiences have shown that switching to digital education may lead to exclusion of the few that cannot afford physical digital tools (Desrosiers 2020 ), or do not have access to sustainable infrastructures and ICT access. This crisis has shown that digital divides can become a great challenge aggravating inequalities experienced by marginalized communities such as urban poor and under-resourced businesses. Digital inequalities are a major factor of health-related and socio-economical vulnerability (Beaunoyer et al. 2020 ).

The role of Information Systems researchers is critical for the development of digital capital contributing to sustainable development. Digital capital refers to the resources that can be utilized by communities including digital technology ecosystems and related digital literacy and skills. General policy measures related to stimulating regional economic growth, strengthening tertiary education, or discouraging early leaving from education can be developed by scientists in other domains. However, thinking about inclusive configurations of digital infrastructures and ecosystems and developing related design principles entails specialized knowledge from the Information Systems domain. Furthermore, Information Systems researchers can provide insights about the development of capabilities required for leveraging digital resources such as digital infrastructures (Hustad and Olsen 2020 ; Grisot and Vassilakopoulou 2017 ), big data and business analytics (Mikalef et al. 2020 ). Innovative approaches for leveraging digital resources will be pivotal for addressing grand challenges related to poverty, healthcare and climate change. Information Systems researchers can contribute insights for bridging digital divides to promote an agenda towards a sustainable future.

5 Conclusions

The present work takes stock of Information Systems research on the digital divide by synthesizing insights from publications in the 2010–2020 period. The review process was performed with rigor while selecting and critically assessing earlier research. Nevertheless, this work is not without limitations. We have confined the literature search within one specific discipline (Information Systems research). This limits the breadth of the review but facilitates comprehensiveness and depth in the development of insights about the body of literature analyzed. Furthermore, focusing on Information Systems research facilitates the development of a research agenda that is relevant to the target discipline through the identification of gaps and extrapolations from previous work.

The review showed that within digital divide research, the attention of Information Systems research has gradually shifted from access to use and now needs to shift further towards better understanding use outcomes. Digital inequalities are a serious threat to civil society in an era where societies are rapidly going digital. For instance, daily activities such as paying bills, filling in application forms, filing tax returns, are all expected to be carried out electronically. There are high expectations for active citizens´ role based on online services (Axelsson et al. 2013 ; Vassilakopoulou et al. 2016 ); hence, we need to be concerned of digital inequalities ensuring fairness and inclusiveness. Furthermore, digital resources such as big data and business analytics are key enablers of sustainable value creation within societies (Pappas et al. 2018 ; Mikalef et al. 2020 ). Bridging digital divides is critical for sustainable digitalized societies. The findings of this literature review can provide a foundation for further research and a basis for researchers to orient themselves and position their own work.

Abdelfattah, B. M. (2012). Individual-multinational study of internet use: the digital divide explained by displacement hypothesis and knowledge-gap hypothesis. In  AMCIS 2012 Proceedings . 24. https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2012/proceedings/AdoptionDiffusionIT/24 .

Abdelfattah, B. M., Bagchi, K., Udo, G., & Kirs, P. (2010). Understanding the internet digital divide: an exploratory multi-nation individual-level analysis. In  AMCIS 2010 Proceedings . 542. https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2010/542 .

AIS (2019). Association for information systems. Senior scholars’ basket of journals . https://aisnet.org/page/SeniorScholarBasket . Accessed 10 Jan 2019.

Alam, K., & Imran, S. (2015). The digital divide and social inclusion among refugee migrants: A case in regional Australia. Information Technology & People, 28 (2), 344–365.

Article   Google Scholar  

Allen, D., Karanasios, S., & Slavova, M. (2011). Working with activity theory: Context, technology, and information behavior. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62 (4), 776–788.

Aricat, R. G. (2015). Is (the study of) mobile phones old wine in a new bottle? A polemic on communication-based acculturation research. Information Technology & People, 28 (4), 806–824.

Axelsson, K., Melin, U., & Lindgren, I. (2013). Public e-services for agency efficiency and citizen benefit—Findings from a stakeholder centered analysis. Government Information Quarterly, 30 (1), 10–22.

Barzilai-Nahon, K. (2006). Gaps and bits: Conceptualizing measurements for digital divide/s. The Information Society, 22 (5), 269–278.

Beaunoyer, E., Dupéré, S., & Guitton, M. J. (2020). COVID-19 and digital inequalities: Reciprocal impacts and mitigation strategies. Computers in Human Behavior, 111 , 106424.

Bucea, A. E., Cruz-Jesus, F., Oliveira, T., & Coelho, P. S. (2020). Assessing the role of age, education, gender and income on the digital divide: evidence for the European Union. Information Systems Frontiers . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-020-10012-9 .

Burtch, G., & Chan, J. (2019). Investigating the relationship between medical crowdfunding and personal bankruptcy in the United States: evidence of a digital divide. MIS Quarterly, 43 (1), 237–262.

Carvalho, C. V. d., Olivares, P. C., Roa, J. M., Wanka, A., & Kolland, F. (2018). Digital information access for ageing persons. In ICALT 2018 Proceedings  the 8th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, IEEE, 345–347.

Chang, S.-I., Yen, D. C., Chang, I.-C., & Chou, J.-C. (2012). Study of the digital divide evaluation model for government agencies–a Taiwanese local government’s perspective. Information Systems Frontiers, 14 (3), 693–709.

Choudrie, J., Pheeraphuttranghkoon, S., & Davari, S. (2018). The digital divide and older adult population adoption, use and diffusion of mobile phones: a quantitative study. Information Systems Frontiers, 22 , 673–695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-018-9875-2 .

Davis, J. G., Kuan, K. K., & Poon, S. (2020). Digital exclusion and divide in the United States: exploratory empirical analysis of contributing factors. In AMCIS 2020 Proceedings . 1. Fully Online Event. https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2020/social_inclusion/social_inclusion/ .

Desrosiers, M.-E. (2020). As universities move classes online, let’s not forget the digital divide, Policy Options Politiques . https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/march-2020/as-universities-move-classes-online-lets-not-forget-the-digital-divide/ . Accessed 25 Mar 2020.

Dewan, S., Ganley, D., & Kraemer, K. L. (2010). Complementarities in the diffusion of personal computers and the Internet: Implications for the global digital divide. Information Systems Research, 21 (4), 925–940.

Díaz Andrade, A., & Doolin, B. (2016). Information and communication technology and the social inclusion of refugees. MIS Quarterly, 40 (2), 405–416.

Díaz Andrade, A., & Techatassanasoontorn, A. A. (2020). Digital enforcement: Rethinking the pursuit of a digitally-enabled society. Information Systems Journal, 12306 , 1–14.

Google Scholar  

DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C., & Shafer, S. (2004). Digital inequality: From unequal access to differentiated use. In Social inequality (pp. 355–400). New YorK: Russell Sage Foundation.

Ebermann, C., Piccinini, E., Brauer, B., Busse, S., & Kolbe, L. (2016). The impact of gamification-induced emotions on In-car IS adoption - the difference between digital natives and digital immigrants. In 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2016) Proceedings, IEEE, 1338–1347.

Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (Vol. 19, pp. 19–37). Cambridge: Camebridge University Press.

Fox, G., & Connolly, R. (2018). Mobile health technology adoption across generations: Narrowing the digital divide. Information Systems Journal, 28 (6), 995–1019.

Grisot, M., & Vassilakopoulou, P. (2017). Re-infrastructuring for eHealth: Dealing with turns in infrastructure development. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 26 (1), 7–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-017-9264-2 .

Gunkel, D. J. (2003). Second thoughts: toward a critique of the digital divide. New Media & Society, 5 (4), 499–522.

Holgersson, J., & Söderström, E. (2019). Bridging the gap - Exploring elderly citizens’ perceptions of digital exclusion. In ECIS 2019 Proceedings.  https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2019_rp/28 .

Hsieh, J. J., Rai, A., & Keil, M. (2011). Addressing digital inequality for the socioeconomically disadvantaged through government initiatives: Forms of capital that affect ICT utilization. Information Systems Research, 22 (2), 233–253.

Hustad, E., & Olsen, D. H. (2020). Creating a sustainable digital infrastructure: the role of service-oriented architecture. Presented at the Centeris conference 2020, forthcoming in Procedia Computer Science , preprint available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346989191_Creating_a_sustainable_digital_infrastructure_The_role_of_service-oriented_architecture .

Int.Telecom.Union (2019). Facts and figs. 2019: measuring digital development. https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/FactsFigures2019.pdf . Accessed 25 Apr 2020.

Jepperson, R. L. (1991). Institutions, institutional effects, and institutionalism. In W. W. Powell, & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 143–163). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kitchenham, B. (2004). Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Keele University Technical Report, UK, TR/SE-0401,  1–26.

Klier, J., Klier, M., Schäfer-Siebert, K., & Sigler, I. (2020). #Jobless #Older #Digital – Digital media user of the older unemployed. In ECIS 2020 Proceedings . Fully Online Event. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2020_rp/206 .

Lameijer, C. S., Mueller, B., & Hage, E. (2017). Towards rethinking the digital divide–recognizing shades of grey in older adults’ digital inclusion. In ICIS 2017 Proceedings . 11. http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2017/General/Presentations/11 .

Lee, A. S. (2001). Editor’s comments: What are the best MIS programs in US business schools? MIS Quarterly, 25 (3), iii–vii.

Luo, M. M., & Chea, S. (2018). Internet village motoman project in rural Cambodia: bridging the digital divide. Information Technology & People, 21 (1), 2–20.

Ma, J., & Huang, Q. (2015). Does better Internet access lead to more adoption? A new empirical study using household relocation. Information Systems Frontiers, 17 (5), 1097–1110.

Middleton, K. L., & Chambers, V. (2010). Approaching digital equity: is wifi the new leveler? Information Technology & People, 23 (1), 4–22.

Mikalef, P., Pappas, I. O., Krogstie, J., & Pavlou, P. A. (2020). Big data and business analytics: A research agenda for realizing business value. Information & Management, 57 (1), 103237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2019.103237 .

NTIA. (1999). Falling through the net: Defining the digital divide. A report on the telecommunications and information technology gap in America. National Telecommunications and Information Administration .  https://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/ntiahome/fttn99/contents.html . Accessed 20 Oct 2019.

Niehaves, B., & Plattfaut, R. (2014). Internet adoption by the elderly: employing IS technology acceptance theories for understanding the age-related digital divide. European Journal of Information Systems, 23 (6), 708–726.

Niehaves, B., & Plattfaut, R. (2010). The age-divide in private internet usage: a quantitative study of technology acceptance. In  AMCIS 2010 Proceedings . 407. https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2010/407 .

OECD. (2001). Understanding the digital divide. OECD Digital Economy Papers ,  49 , OECD Publishing, Paris, France. https://doi.org/10.1787/236405667766 .

Onitsuka, K. (2019). How social media can foster social innovation in disadvantaged rural communities. Sustainability, 11 (2697), 1–24.

Ortiz de Guinea, A., & Paré, G. (2017). What literature review type should I conduct? 1. In The Routledge Companion to Management Information Systems (pp. 73–82). Abingdon: Routledge.

Pappas, I. O., Mikalef, P., Giannakos, M. N., Krogstie, J., & Lekakos, G. (2018). Big data and business analytics ecosystems: paving the way towards digital transformation and sustainable societies. Information Systems and eBusiness Management, 16 (3), 479–491.

Park, S., Freeman, J., Middleton, C., Allen, M., Eckermann, R., & Everson, R. (2015). The multi-layers of digital exclusion in rural Australia. In 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences   (HICSS 2015) Proceedings, IEEE, 3631–3640.

Pentzaropoulos, G. C., & Tsiougou, D. (2014). E-inclusion policies for contemporary knowledge economies and societies: an examination of the main issues. Journal of Social Research & Policy, 5 (1), 77–89.

Pethig, F., & Kroenung, J. (2019). Specialized information systems for the digitally disadvantaged. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 20 (10), 1412–1446.

Pick, J., & Azari, R. (2011). A global model of technological utilization based on governmental, business-investment, social, and economic factors. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28 (1), 49–84.

Pick, J., & Sarkar, A. (2016). Theories of the digital divide: Critical comparison. In 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2016) Proceedings, IEEE,  3888–3897.

Pick, J., Sarkar, A., & Parrish, E. (2018). Internet use and online activities in US States: geographic disparities and socio-economic influences. In the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2018) Proceedings, IEEE, 3853–3863.

Racherla, P., & Mandviwalla, M. (2013). Moving from access to use of the information infrastructure: A multilevel sociotechnical framework. Information Systems Research, 24 (3), 709–730.

Reinartz, A., Buhtz, K., Graf-Vlachy, L., & König, A. (2018). Mechanisms of engagement with, and disengagement from, Internet applications: A qualitative study of online job search. In International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS) .

Reisdorf, B. C., & Rikard, R. V. (2018). Digital rehabilitation: a model of reentry into the digital age. American Behavioral Scientist, 62 (9), 1273–1290.

Rockmann, R., Gewald, H., & Haug, M. (2018). Equal access for everyone? A digital divide cascade for retired senior citizens. In  ECIS 2018 Proceedings , 30. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2018_rp/30 .

Schryen, G., Wagner, G., & Benlian, A. (2015) Theory of knowledge for literature reviews: an epistemological model, taxonomy and empirical analysis of IS literature. In ICIS 2015 Proceedings .  https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1648&context=icis2015 .

Scott, W. R. (2005). Institutional theory: Contributing to a theoretical research program. In Ken G. Smith and Michael A. Hitt (eds.) Great minds in management: The process of theory development ,  37 (2), 460–484. Oxford UK: Oxford University Press.

Sipior, J. C., Ward, B. T., & Connolly, R. (2011). The digital divide and t-government in the United States: using the technology acceptance model to understand usage. European Journal of Information Systems, 20 (3), 308–328.

Srivastava, S. C., & Shainesh, G. (2015). Bridging the service divide through digitally enabled service innovations: evidence from indian healthcare service providers. MIS Quarterly, 39 (1), 245–267.

Talukdar, D., & Gauri, D. K. (2011). Home Internet access and usage in the USA: Trends in the socio-economic digital divide. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 28 (1), 85–98.

UnitedNations (2020). Getting to know the sustainable development goals. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/ . Accessed 15 Mar 2020.

United Nations (2018). E-government survey 2018, Gearing E‐government to support transformation towards sustainable and resilient societies. https://www.unescap.org/resources/e-government-survey-2018-gearing-e-government-support-transformation-towards-sustainable . Accessed 15 Mar 2020.

Van Deursen, A. J., & Helsper, E. J. (2015). The third-level digital divide: Who benefits most from being online? In Communication and information technologies annual (pp. 29–52). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Van Dijk, J. A. (2006). Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics, 34 (4–5), 221–235.

Van Dijk, J. A. (2012). The evolution of the digital divide: The digital divide turns to inequality of skills and usage. Digital Enlightenment Yearbook, 2012, 57–75.

Vassilakopoulou, P., Grisot, M., & Aanestad, M. (2016). Enabling electronic interactions between patients and healthcare providers: a service design perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 28 (1), 71–90.

Venkatesh, V., Sykes, T. A., & Venkatraman, S. (2014). Understanding e-Government portal use in rural India: role of demographic and personality characteristics. Information Systems Journal, 24 (3), 249–269.

Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26 (2), xiii–xxiii.

Wei, K.-K., Teo, H.-H., Chan, H. C., & Tan, B. C. (2011). Conceptualizing and testing a social cognitive model of the digital divide. Information Systems Research, 22 (1), 170–187.

Xiong, J., & Zuo, M. (2019). How does family support work when older adults obtain information from mobile internet? Information Technology & People, 32 (6), 1496–1516.

Zhao, F., Collier, A., & Deng, H. (2014). A multidimensional and integrative approach to study global digital divide and e-government development. Information Technology & People, 27 (1), 38–62.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We want to acknowledge June Lithell Hansen and Andreas Skaiaa for their contribution in an early stage of this study during fall 2018. The contribution was part of their master course work performed at the University of Agder.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway

Polyxeni Vassilakopoulou & Eli Hustad

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Polyxeni Vassilakopoulou .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic Supplementary Material

(DOCX 35 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Vassilakopoulou, P., Hustad, E. Bridging Digital Divides: a Literature Review and Research Agenda for Information Systems Research. Inf Syst Front 25 , 955–969 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-020-10096-3

Download citation

Accepted : 06 December 2020

Published : 06 January 2021

Issue Date : June 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-020-10096-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Digital divide
• Digitalization
• Digital inequalities
• Information systems research
• Sustainability
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Cosmetology in the era of artificial intelligence.

1. Introduction

2. ai in cosmetic outcome prediction: aligning expectations with achievable results, 3. the role of ai in democratizing skincare: transforming accessibility and personalization, 4. ai is bridging the gap between physicians and cosmetologists, 5. using ai in ingredient assessments for cosmetic recommendations, 6. advancements of in silico models in cosmetology, 7. ethical considerations and data security in ai applications for cosmetology, 8. future directions of ai in cosmetology, 9. discussion, 10. conclusions, author contributions, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Dreno, B.; Bordet, C.; Seite, S.; Taieb, C.; Registre Acne, D. Acne relapses: Impact on quality of life and productivity. J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. 2019 , 33 , 937–943. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Vatiwutipong, P.; Vachmanus, S.; Noraset, T.; Tuarob, S. Artificial Intelligence in Cosmetic Dermatology: A Systematic Literature Review. IEEE Access 2023 , 11 , 71407–71425. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Haykal, D.; Garibyan, L.; Flament, F.; Cartier, H. Hybrid cosmetic dermatology: AI generated horizon. Skin Res. Technol. 2024 , 30 , e13721. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Tian, B. Tele-aesthetics in South Asia. J. Cosmet. Dermatol. 2017 , 16 , 21–25. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Elder, A.; Ring, C.; Heitmiller, K.; Gabriel, Z.; Saedi, N. The role of artificial intelligence in cosmetic dermatology-Current, upcoming, and future trends. J. Cosmet. Dermatol. 2021 , 20 , 48–52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ta, G.H.; Weng, C.F.; Leong, M.K. In silico Prediction of Skin Sensitization: Quo vadis? Front. Pharmacol. 2021 , 12 , 655771. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Golden, E.; Macmillan, D.S.; Dameron, G.; Kern, P.; Hartung, T.; Maertens, A. Evaluation of the global performance of eight in silico skin sensitization models using human data. ALTEX 2021 , 38 , 33–48. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Adamski, Z.; Gornowicz-Porowska, J.; Sobkowska, D.; Kaszuba, K.; Czajkowski, R. Acne—Therapeutic challenges to the cooperation between a dermatologist and a cosmetologist. Postepy Dermatol. Alergol. 2021 , 38 , 21–31. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kim, J.; Hwang, D.U.; Son, E.J.; Oh, S.H.; Kim, W.; Kim, Y.; Kwon, G. Emotion recognition while applying cosmetic cream using deep learning from EEG data; cross-subject analysis. PLoS ONE 2022 , 17 , e0274203. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Balconi, M.; Venturella, I.; Sebastiani, R.; Angioletti, L. Touching to Feel: Brain Activity During In-Store Consumer Experience. Front. Psychol. 2021 , 12 , 653011. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tong, W.-S.; Tang, C.-K.; Brown, M.S.; Xu, Y.-Q. Example-Based Cosmetic Transfer. In Proceedings of the 15th Pacific Conference on Computer Graphics and Applications (PG’07), Maui, HI, USA, 29 October–2 November 2007; pp. 211–218. [ Google Scholar ]
• Flament, F.; Zhang, Y.; Yu, Z.; Jiang, R.; Houghton, J.; Sarda Duthil, L.; Arcin, V.; Daniel, R.; Perrier, J.C.; Niviere, J.; et al. Developing an Artificial Intelligence (A.I)-based descriptor of facial appearance that fits with the assessments of makeup experts. Skin Res. Technol. 2021 , 27 , 1081–1091. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Shi, C.; Jiang, Z.; Ma, X.; Luo, Q. A Personalized Visual Aid for Selections of Appearance Building Products with Long-term Effects. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New Orleans, LA, USA, 29 April–5 May 2022; p. 74. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Flament, F.; Jiang, R.; Houghton, J.; Zhang, Y.; Kroely, C.; Jablonski, N.G.; Jean, A.; Clarke, J.; Steeg, J.; Sehgal, C.; et al. Accuracy and clinical relevance of an automated, algorithm-based analysis of facial signs from selfie images of women in the United States of various ages, ancestries and phototypes: A cross-sectional observational study. J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. 2023 , 37 , 176–183. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Fliorent, R.; Fardman, B.; Podwojniak, A.; Javaid, K.; Tan, I.J.; Ghani, H.; Truong, T.M.; Rao, B.; Heath, C. Artificial intelligence in dermatology: Advancements and challenges in skin of color. Int. J. Dermatol. 2024 , 63 , 455–461. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Google. Developing the Monk Skin Tone Scale: Skin Tone Research. Available online: https://skintone.google/the-scale (accessed on 1 June 2024).
• Brzozowska, J.M.; Gotlib, J. The Importance of Remote Counseling in Cosmetology and Cosmetic Dermatology. Pol. Merkur. Lek. 2023 , 51 , 74–87. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Shen, X.; Zhang, J.; Yan, C.; Zhou, H. An Automatic Diagnosis Method of Facial Acne Vulgaris Based on Convolutional Neural Network. Sci. Rep. 2018 , 8 , 5839. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Junayed, M.S.; Jeny, A.; Atik, S.; Neehal, N.; Karim, A.; Azam, S.; Shanmugam, B. AcneNet—A Deep CNN Based Classification Approach for Acne Classes. In Proceedings of the 2019 12th International Conference on Information & Communication Technology and System (ICTS), Surabaya, Indonesia, 18 July 2019; pp. 203–208. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kim, D.H.; Sun, S.; Cho, S.I.; Kong, H.J.; Lee, J.W.; Lee, J.H.; Suh, D.H. Automated Facial Acne Lesion Detecting and Counting Algorithm for Acne Severity Evaluation and Its Utility in Assisting Dermatologists. Am. J. Clin. Dermatol. 2023 , 24 , 649–659. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Yadav, R.; Jain, A.; Sharma, S. Acne Detection Care System using Deep Learning. In Proceedings of the 2024 11th International Conference on Reliability, Infocom Technologies and Optimization (Trends and Future Directions) (ICRITO), Noida, India, 14–15 March 2024; pp. 1–5. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Halpern, S. Teledermatology in Europe. In Proceedings of the 8th World Congress of Teledermatology, Skin Imaging and AI in Skin Diseases 2020, Virtual, 5–6 November 2020; Available online: https://telemedskin.com/the-dermatology-ecosystem-in-europe-differs-from-one-country-to-another/ (accessed on 1 July 2024).
• Seite, S.; Khammari, A.; Benzaquen, M.; Moyal, D.; Dreno, B. Development and accuracy of an artificial intelligence algorithm for acne grading from smartphone photographs. Exp. Dermatol. 2019 , 28 , 1252–1257. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lee, J.; Yoon, H.; Kim, S.; Lee, C.; Lee, J.; Yoo, S. Deep learning-based skin care product recommendation: A focus on cosmetic ingredient analysis and facial skin conditions. J. Cosmet. Dermatol. 2024 , 23 , 2066–2077. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Olivia, S. Post-Pandemic Beauty: The Growing Role of Ingredients. 2022. Available online: https://www.teknoscienze.com/Contents/Riviste/Sfogliatore/HPC4_2022/46/ (accessed on 10 June 2024).
• Rubasri, S.; Hemavathi, S.; Jayasakthi, K.; Latha, K.; Gopinath, N. Cosmetic Product Selection Using Machine Learning. In Proceedings of the 2022 International Conference on Communication, Computing and Internet of Things (IC3IoT), Chennai, India, 10–11 March 2022; pp. 1–6. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• He, X.; Liao, L.; Zhang, H.; Nie, L.; Hu, X.; Chua, T.-S. Neural Collaborative Filtering. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web, Perth, Australia, 3–7 April 2017; pp. 173–182. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nakajima, Y.; Honma, H.; Aoshima, H.; Akiba, T.; Masuyama, S. Recommender System Based on User Evaluations and Cosmetic Ingredients. In Proceedings of the 2019 4th International Conference on Information Technology (InCIT), Bangkok, Thailand, 24–25 October 2019; pp. 22–27. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, H.H.; Liao, Y.H.; Huang, Y.N.; Cheng, P.J. Based on machine learning for personalized skin care products recommendation engine. In Proceedings of the 2020 International Symposium on Computer, Consumer and Control (IS3C), Taichung City, Taiwan, 13–16 November 2020; pp. 460–462. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ronneberger, O.; Fischer, P.; Brox, T. U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th International Conference, Munich, Germany, October 5–9, 2015, Proceedings, Part III ; Springer: Cham, Sweitzerland, 2015; pp. 234–241. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yoon, H.; Kim, S.; Lee, J.; Yoo, S. Deep-Learning-Based Morphological Feature Segmentation for Facial Skin Image Analysis. Diagnostics 2023 , 13 , 1894. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fisher, A.A. “Status cosmeticus”: A cosmetic intolerance syndrome. Cutis 1990 , 46 , 109–110. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zirwas, M.J. Contact Dermatitis to Cosmetics. Clin. Rev. Allergy Immunol. 2019 , 56 , 119–128. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hafner, M.F.S.; Rodrigues, A.C.; Lazzarini, R. Allergic contact dermatitis to cosmetics: Retrospective analysis of a population subjected to patch tests between 2004 and 2017. An. Bras. Dermatol. 2020 , 95 , 696–701. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kalicinska, J.; Wisniowska, B.; Polak, S.; Spiewak, R. Artificial Intelligence That Predicts Sensitizing Potential of Cosmetic Ingredients with Accuracy Comparable to Animal and In Vitro Tests-How Does the Infotechnomics Compare to Other “Omics” in the Cosmetics Safety Assessment? Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023 , 24 , 6801. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gilmour, N.; Kern, P.S.; Alepee, N.; Boisleve, F.; Bury, D.; Clouet, E.; Hirota, M.; Hoffmann, S.; Kuhnl, J.; Lalko, J.F.; et al. Development of a next generation risk assessment framework for the evaluation of skin sensitisation of cosmetic ingredients. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2020 , 116 , 104721. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gellatly, N.; Sewell, F. Regulatory acceptance of in silico approaches for the safety assessment of cosmetic-related substances. Comput. Toxicol. 2019 , 11 , 82–89. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Strickland, J.; Zang, Q.; Paris, M.; Lehmann, D.M.; Allen, D.; Choksi, N.; Matheson, J.; Jacobs, A.; Casey, W.; Kleinstreuer, N. Multivariate models for prediction of human skin sensitization hazard. J. Appl. Toxicol. 2017 , 37 , 347–360. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hirota, M.; Kouzuki, H.; Ashikaga, T.; Sono, S.; Tsujita, K.; Sasa, H.; Aiba, S. Artificial neural network analysis of data from multiple in vitro assays for prediction of skin sensitization potency of chemicals. Toxicol. In Vitro 2013 , 27 , 1233–1246. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Selvestrel, G. SpheraCosmolife: A new tool for the risk assessment of cosmetic products. ALTEX 2021 , 38 , 565–579. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Georgievskaya, A.; Tlyachev, T.; Danko, D.; Chekanov, K.; Corstjens, H. How artificial intelligence adopts human biases: The case of cosmetic skincare industry. AI Ethics 2023 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• EuropeanCommission. Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council. Laying Down Harmonized Rules on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and Amending Certain Union Legislative Acts. 2021. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52021PC0206 (accessed on 1 June 2024).
• Kenig, N.; Monton Echeverria, J.; Muntaner Vives, A. Human Beauty according to Artificial Intelligence. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. Glob. Open 2023 , 11 , e5153. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• TheGuardian. A Beauty Contest Was Judged by AI and the Robots Didn’t Like Dark Skin. 2016. Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/08/artificial-intelligence-beauty-contest-doesnt-like-black-people (accessed on 1 June 2024).
• Grzybowski, A.; Jin, K.; Wu, H. Challenges of artificial intelligence in medicine and dermatology. Clin. Dermatol. 2024 , 42 , 210–215. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Khalil, A.; Ahmed, S.G.; Khattak, A.M.; Al-Qirim, N. Investigating Bias in Facial Analysis Systems: A Systematic Review. IEEE Access 2020 , 8 , 130751–130761. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Buolamwini, J.; Gebru, T. Gender Shades: Intersectional Accuracy Disparities in Commercial Gender Classification. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency, New York, NY, USA, 23–24 February 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Revieve. Personalization and Data Privacy Balance in the Beauty Industry. 2021. Available online: https://www.revieve.com/resources/personalization-data-privacy-balance-in-beauty (accessed on 1 June 2024).
• Haykal, D.; Ascher, B.; Cartier, H.; Gold, M. Exploring the landscape of AI adoption in cosmetic medicine and surgery: Insights from the 25th IMCAS Congress (International Master Course in Aging Science). J. Cosmet. Dermatol. 2024 , 23 , 2673–2675. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Authors, A.; Luz, G.; Olaoye, G. Data Quality and Data Privacy Challenges in AI Applications. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378904709_Data_quality_and_data_privacy_challenges_in_AI_applications (accessed on 1 June 2024).
• Lee, J.; Kwon, K.H. Future value and direction of cosmetics in the era of metaverse. J. Cosmet. Dermatol. 2022 , 21 , 4176–4183. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Lee, J.; Kwon, K.H. Recognition and the development potential of mobile shopping of customized cosmetic on untact coronavirus disease 2019 period: Focused on 40’s to 60’s women in Seoul, Republic of Korea. J. Cosmet. Dermatol. 2021 , 20 , 1975–1991. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kim, H.W.; Seok, Y.; Cho, T.; Rhee, M. Risk factors influencing contamination of customized cosmetics made on-the-spot: Evidence from the national pilot project for public health. Sci. Rep. 2020 , 10 , 1561. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kim, H.W.; Seok, Y.S.; Lee, H.G.; Song, M.K.; Rhee, M.S. Consumers’ lack of understanding of customized cosmetics made on the spot and implications for regulations and controls. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2021 , 124 , 104979. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Cadau, S.; Rival, D.; Andre-Frei, V.; Chavan, M.M.; Fayol, D.; Salducci, M.; Brisson, B.; Guillemot, F. New bioprinted skin, cosmetic in vitro model. J. Cosmet. Sci. 2017 , 68 , 85–90. [ Google Scholar ] [ PubMed ]
• Freer, M.; Darling, N.; Goncalves, K.; Mills, K.J.; Przyborski, S. Development of a mammalian neurosensory full-thickness skin equivalent and its application to screen sensitizing stimuli. Bioeng. Transl. Med. 2023 , 8 , e10484. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pai, V.V.; Pai, R.B. Artificial intelligence in dermatology and healthcare: An overview. Indian J. Dermatol. Venereol. Leprol. 2021 , 87 , 457–467. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kapoor, K.M.; Kapoor, A.; Bertossi, D. Role of Robotics in Neuromodulator and Filler Injections of Face. Indian J. Plast. Surg. 2023 , 56 , 470–473. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Grech, V.S.; Kefala, V.; Rallis, E. Cosmetology in the Era of Artificial Intelligence. Cosmetics 2024 , 11 , 135. https://doi.org/10.3390/cosmetics11040135

Grech VS, Kefala V, Rallis E. Cosmetology in the Era of Artificial Intelligence. Cosmetics . 2024; 11(4):135. https://doi.org/10.3390/cosmetics11040135

Grech, Vasiliki Sofia, Vasiliki Kefala, and Efstathios Rallis. 2024. "Cosmetology in the Era of Artificial Intelligence" Cosmetics 11, no. 4: 135. https://doi.org/10.3390/cosmetics11040135

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

• DOI: 10.1080/13803610701626127
• Corpus ID: 55711173

The gap between educational research and practice: A literature review, symposium, and questionnaire

• H. Broekkamp , B. V. van Hout-Wolters
• Published 1 June 2007
• Educational Research and Evaluation

271 Citations

An exploratory study of pre-service teachers’ evidence-based practice related knowledge, attitudes, and practices.

• Highly Influenced

Empowering professional learning communities of secondary science teachers to uncover and address their students’ misconceptions via research-oriented practices

Communicating research to practitioners – between scientific rigor, easy science and practitioners' self-perception of expertise, neither dichotomy nor continuum: iranian efl teachers’ cognitions on research–practice relationship, understanding information needs for seamless intermodal transportation: evidence from germany, moving beyond practical wisdom: teacher research in secondary education, flexible assessments as a tool to improve student motivation: an explorative study on student motivation for flexible assessments, creating transformative research–practice partnership in collaboration with school, city, and university actors, the challenge of change: understanding the role of habits in university students’ self-regulated learning, integrating theory, experience and social learning in a professionalisation trajectory aimed at developing primary school teachers’ diversity competences, 40 references, making research matter more..

• Highly Influential

Comment: Educational Research:The Hardest Science of All

[re]visioning the academic–teacher divide: power and knowledge in the educational community, between school and work: new perspectives on transfer and boundary-crossing. edited by terttu tuomi-gröhn and yrjö engeström. boston: pergamon, 2003. 344 pp., relating classroom teaching to student learning: a critical analysis of why research has failed to bridge the theory-practice gap., improving educational research:toward a more useful, more influential, and better-funded enterprise, evidence-based education policies: transforming educational practice and research, school improvement for real, the strategic education research program and the public value of research, pasteur's quadrant: basic science and technological innovation, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

• INNOVATION FESTIVAL
• Capital One

08-08-2024 DESIGN

Jabra’s obsession with design led to its new line of hearing aids

The audio company is looking to bridge the gap between O.T.C and prescription hearing aids.

[Photo: Jabra]

BY  Margaret Andersen 7 minute read

There’s a tweet from a few years ago that’s always stuck with me that reads: “According to most health insurance companies, teeth are luxury bones that I must pay more to continue enjoying. It perfectly sums up the absurdity of the U.S. healthcare system in how it really isn’t designed to address the well-being of the whole person, but rather categorizes individual body parts as either essential or non-essential when determining what medical services you can receive. Like dental and vision, hearing care requires additional coverage from both private insurance and Medicare, and while some insurance plans offer partial coverage for assistive devices like hearing aids, many people still face substantial out-of-pocket expenses. 

For the 60 million people in the U.S. who live with some degree of hearing loss, audiologist Briana Owen says funding is the primary access barrier to obtaining hearing aids. “Costs vary significantly between nonprofit hospitals and private practitioners, with different billing methods like bundled services or fee-for-service influencing the final price tag,” she explains. “But it also depends on where you are geographically. You could easily drop $10,000 on a set of hearing aids if you’re in New York City, whereas a smaller town in a different state might only cost $3,000.” 

The introduction of over-the-counter (O.T.C.) hearing aids has aimed to alleviate this financial burden, providing more affordable options without the need for a prescription. However, while O.T.C. hearing aids offer the benefits of lower costs and increased accessibility, they come with potential drawbacks, including limited customization and lower sound quality compared to professionally fitted devices. That’s where consumer audio company Jabra has stepped in to disrupt the current O.T.C. marketplace with a line of high-quality over-the-counter (O.T.C.) hearing aids that rival those you would receive from a doctor’s office. 

According to Steve Jacobs, president and chief product officer at Jabra Hearing, the company’s mission is to bridge the gap between O.T.C. and prescription hearing aids by utilizing a direct-to-consumer model that includes the support of state-licensed and routed telehealth audiologists. “Consumers have this expectation that over-the-counter hearing aids are less powerful or less customizable to their unique needs. But what we’re offering is really the best of both worlds;  you’re getting a powerful hearing aid at an affordable and accessible price, while still getting the benefit of an audiology team at your disposal via remote care,” Jacobs says.

The Jabra Enhance line of O.T.C. hearing aids comes in three different models ranging from $995 to $1,995, along with a 100 day free trial. Jabra offers a Premium Package care plan baked into the price of its latest model, the Select 500, that includes access to support from their audiology team for three years. The Select 500 is Jabra’s smallest and most advanced hearing aid to date. It features a “Micro RIE” design, 25% smaller than standard receiver-in-ear aids and is 15% smaller than its predecessor, the Select 300. It utilizes SoundScape™ technology to enhance speech clarity and reduce background noise for natural, immersive listening in any environment, and includes Bluetooth features like Bluetooth LE Audio for improved audio quality and battery life, as well as Auracast™ for live broadcast audio in public venues.

‘We’re obsessed with design’

Even though I often cover assistive technology, I don’t live with hearing loss, so I enlisted the help of my mother Kathy to wear the Select 500s, and let me observe her experience while using the devices as well as the onboarding process with Jabra’s audiologist. She has moderate hearing loss and has considered getting a set of prescription hearing aids but was deterred by the out-of-pocket cost. She’s explored other consumer tech options for hearing enhancement like the accessibility features on the Apple Airpods Pro, but didn’t like the feeling of occlusion that the airpods created in her ears, and the battery life was not enough to last throughout the day. 

Before purchasing the Select 500 hearing aids, customers take an online hearing test, beginning with general questions about the types of environments where they struggle to hear clearly, while also giving them the option to upload an audiogram if they’ve already had their hearing tested at a doctor’s office. The evaluation started with a headphone volume test that played the 1960s pop song “For What It’s Worth” by Buffalo Springfield. 

Kathy noted that the familiarity of song put her at ease before moving on to the next step of testing her hearing in both ears with sustained tones at various frequencies. She also appreciated the easy-to-navigate interface of the website and how her results were displayed in an illustrated graph accompanied by a video of a doctor explaining the test based on her results, rather than just a written report. All of these elements contributed to an overall positive user experience, which is a crucial first step in helping users get comfortable with any new device.

“We’re obsessed with design,” Jacobs says, “and making our products simple and easy to use is a top priority, whether that’s a website, an app, or the hardware itself. We really try to understand the customer and what makes them tick—what are they nervous about? What are they excited about? Our job is to guide them through this process, because hearing is a complex system, as is selecting the most appropriate hearing aids for an individual’s unique needs. That’s where design comes in to make that process as streamlined as possible.”

Testing the Jabra Select 500s

A few days later after the online test, Kathy’s customized hearing aids arrived in the mail. The  sleek packaging came with a variety of handouts and QR codes that took her to an onboarding video with diagrams for how to charge the hearing aids. For comparison, three hours of charging gives you 24 hours of use time versus Apple airpods, which only last for about five or six hours before you have to charge them again. 

We downloaded the Enhance Select app, and while the initial Bluetooth connection was a little finicky, after a few attempts we were able to connect the hearing aids to her phone. The app offers preset listening environments to optimize sound in different settings. The all-around program is most suitable for everyday situations and adapts well to changing environments while the restaurant and outdoor programs enhance speech, reduce background noise or wind, and the music program is ideal for live music and performances. 

New users also meet with an audiologist via Zoom to discuss their hearing history and get fitting guidance. The hearing aids come with a tool to measure the length of each ear to make sure that the wire fits properly. After measuring her ears, the audiologist determined that Kathy would be better suited using a shorter set of wires so a few days later she received the new set along with a video link for how to connect the wires, which were surprisingly simple to install. 

Aside from ensuring that the devices fit properly, the key benefit of having one-on-one time with an audiologist was to answer some of Kathy’s questions based on her initial experiences of wearing the hearing aids. She was surprised by how aggressive some noises sounded, like the birds chirping outside, or the beep from the microwave. The audiologist explained that it takes about two weeks of consistent use for a person’s brain to acclimate their new hearing ability, and in her case, the devices were programmed to pick up more high frequency noises so those higher pitched sounds were going to sound more jarring at first.

Ultimately, the goal is to find the right balance between comfort and audibility so customers can contact their care team through the app to request an adjustment as needed. After the initial acclimation period, Kathy noticed a substantial improvement in her ability to hear in a variety of settings and noted that she felt more engaged in conversations at work and in social situations. 

She appreciated the discreet size of the devices as well as the ability to answer phone calls via bluetooth. “I feel like a spy,” she told me after covertly answering my call by double-tapping one of the hearing aids. As a teacher, she also found the app’s different sound programs and the portability of the charger particularly useful when attending a recent school camping trip. Over the four-day trip, she was able to charge her hearing aids at night in the portable charger without needing an external power source, and shifted between program settings on the app from all-around to the outdoor program to enjoy the sounds of nature more clearly. 

Overall the Select 500 combines advanced technology with a user-friendly design, making it a great option for people with mild to moderate hearing loss, especially if they’ve held off on seeking hearing care due to the cost or perceived stigma associated with using a medical device. By entering the O.T.C. market, consumer brands like Jabra are normalizing the use of assistive technology and making it more accessible to people who might otherwise continue to go without hearing care. “People wait, on average, seven years to treat their hearing loss,” says Steve Jacobs, “so just having these devices available in retail environments like Walmart, Best Buy or Amazon not only makes them more accessible, but its also a way of reducing stigma because you’re seeing them in the context of earbuds and other audio tech that we all use every day.”

Apply to the Most Innovative Companies Awards and be recognized as an organization driving the world forward through innovation. Early-rate deadline: Friday, August 23.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Margaret Andersen is a contributor for Fast Company and a judge for Innovation By Design 2023   More

Explore Topics

• Tech Google who? This new service actually gets AI search right
• Tech Why Apple iOS 18’s ‘Distraction Control’ ad blocker is deeply controversial
• Tech Heat-trapping ‘glitter’ could make Mars more habitable for humans, scientists say
• News Home insurance is spiking—and landlords plan to pass on some costs to renters
• News Susan Wojcicki, a key Google employee and ex-YouTube CEO, dies at 56
• News As the Paris Olympics comes to a close, a look back at 8 highlights and viral moments of the games
• Design René Redzepi talks life after Noma and his new show, ‘Omnivore’
• Design How Vernon Dalhart recorded country music’s first big hit in 1924
• Design Could TikTok breed the next generation of startups?
• Work Life How to be a good leader according to USWNT coach Emma Hayes
• Work Life Three simple ways to change your life for less than $50
• Work Life This simple 3-step plan will protect your postretirement nest egg

Augmented Course Design: Using AI to Boost Efficiency and Expand Capacity

The emerging class of generative AI tools has the potential to significantly alter the landscape of course development.

Using generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools such as ChatGPT, Gemini, or CoPilot as intelligent assistants in instructional design can significantly enhance the scalability of course development. GenAI can significantly improve the efficiency with which institutions develop content that is closely aligned with the curriculum and course objectives. As a result, institutions can more effectively meet the rising demand for flexible and high-quality education, preparing a new generation of future professionals equipped with the knowledge and skills to excel in their chosen fields. Footnote 1 In this article, we illustrate the uses of AI in instructional design in terms of content creation, media development, and faculty support. We also provide some suggestions on the effective and ethical uses of AI in course design and development. Our perspectives are rooted in medical education, but the principles can be applied to any learning context.

Course Planning

New and emerging GenAI tools can assist educators throughout the entire course development process, from initial planning to final production.

Course Mapping

Course design typically follows a backward-design method, first describing course goals or objectives, then considering assessments, and then designing instructional materials and activities to support students in mastering the content necessary to achieve these course objectives. Footnote 2 This method ensures a strong alignment between what is taught, how it is taught, and what is assessed, thereby promoting coherence and relevance in the educational experience. GenAI can play a constructive role in every step of the course planning process.

Instructors often work with subject-matter and content knowledge, which can be so expansive and complex that they have blind spots in the course planning process, or a lack of understanding of student or curriculum needs. This gap between content mastery and pedagogical need can overwhelm faculty. In several ways, this course mapping process can become easier with the help of GenAI. An AI function in Blackboard, the learning management system (LMS) we use, can be prompted to generate a quick list of suggested modules in a sandbox course. Instructors can use that content to envision what a course looks like and to provide a jump-start to create their own list of modules and topics to teach. We recommend using a sandbox course for such development and adjusting and editing it before copying it over to an actual course. Having a sample list of modules to work from makes course planning easier, compared to beginning from nothing. This is valuable for someone who needs more experience in developing content to be offered either online or in a hybrid modality, each of which requires more front-loading of content than a face-to-face course, but using GenAI in this way is also valuable for face-to-face courses.

Refinement of Learning Objectives

The backward-design method starts with identifying the desired outcomes or competencies students should achieve by the end of the course, but writing learning objectives can be challenging. Instructors can start their objectives and then use GenAI tools to refine them, especially to align them with the appropriate cognitive levels of Bloom's Taxonomy. Instructors have traditionally depended on job aids such as verb lists to refine the objectives to align with the appropriate cognitive level. GenAI can help instructors select the verbs that accurately describe the cognitive level.

Assessment Planning

Once the objectives have been written, instructors can use GenAI tools to help draft activities and assessments to measure student mastery of the objectives. With the appropriate prompt, a GenAI tool can suggest ideas for assessments to measure specific learning outcomes. GenAI tools can work with a case or scenario and apply it in assessments for different units. GenAI tools in Blackboard, for example, can create question banks based on a given text. Naturally, instructors will need to go through the output and delete, modify, and add as needed, but GenAI can at least can help overcome writer's block as instructors work on creating assessment activities. Rubric development is another potent area of GenAI use. If instructors feed the proper criteria and the levels of measurement, the GenAI function of Blackboard can generate a working draft on which an actual rubric can be created.

Instructional Strategy Planning

We have found that Google's Gemini excels in generating lesson plans as a thought starter in the course-creation process. Using objectives and assessments as the basis, Gemini can produce a draft lesson plan, including methods to present the content and activities to help students process the content. With lesson plans created or refined by AI, faculty can more easily map out instructional time for materials and instructional activities. For instance, an instructor can request that a lesson plan be created for a unit that consists of two hours of teaching, and Gemini will create a detailed plan with specific time allotted for lessons, activities, and assessments. A course designer can then modify the prompt or add additional prompts to get the draft in the best possible shape before instructors edit it. Backward design is a process that often goes against faculty's intuition because, in most cases, their starting point is somewhere in the vast matrix of their knowledge. The skilled use of AI can get them unstuck when planning their lessons.

Content Production

In designing courses, instructors must bridge the gap between their expertise and students' existing knowledge or skills. Sometimes, bridging the gap in subject-matter mastery can be paralyzing. Here are a few ways that GenAI can help an instructor:

Content Inspiration

AI, serving as a springboard, can provide great inspiration to faculty in developing new courses or as they transition from classroom teaching to offering content online, which requires preparation of a large amount of content at the front end. GenAI tools can offer unexpected subthemes, case studies, or creative exercises when prompted about a well-worn subject, fostering a fresh perspective. This is especially helpful when the subject matter is overly complex to be broken into chunks for student learning. Similarly, for those seeking alternatives to traditional lectures, GenAI can assist instructors and instructional designers as they brainstorm interactive activities such as simulations, quizzes, or role-playing scenarios, promoting deeper understanding through active engagement.

Content Generation

GenAI tools such as ChatGPT can transform a basic text outline from an instructor into a visually appealing PowerPoint presentation. It can suggest slide layouts, images, and relevant charts or graphs. We have also found that by using a well-developed set of learning objectives, we can use GenAI to help create drafts of such components as unit introductions, conclusions, and other course content, from which faculty can produce substantive components using their own expertise and professional judgment.

Content Expansion

If a professor only has a few key points, GenAI can flesh out initial vague ideas with additional supporting information, examples, and relevant statistics. GenAI can analyze text documents, research papers, or lecture transcripts and generate concise summaries or key takeaways. GenAI tools such as Scholarly GPT that are geared toward the scholarly community can help with literature reviews to quickly identify and share additional content for students to research.

Design Refinement

GenAI can analyze existing instructional documents and recommend layout, design, and visual hierarchy improvements to make them more engaging. For instance, with Microsoft's Designer tool and Copilot, it is possible to quickly redesign a slide to be more visually appealing and consistent, thereby improving student learning experiences. After they have initial materials to train the AI, instructors can also use GenAI to match tone and style across a set of resources.

Media Production

Media production is often one of the most time-consuming and professionally demanding tasks for educators. Media production involves storyboarding, media creation, and accessibility compliance. AI tools not only streamline the educational content creation process but also ensure that the content is accessible, engaging, and tailored to meet the diverse needs of learners.

Storyboarding

GenAI can assist with outlining concepts, creating engaging narratives for videos or lessons, and even suggesting a basic storyboard structure. This is the best use of GenAI for media production because it can help create a coherent storyboard, factoring in elements that the subject-matter experts might not have considered due to the complexity of their mental schemas regarding the topics to cover. It is also easier to create a consistent tone and style for a presentation if a coherent and consistent prompt is used.

Media Creation

Tools such as DALL-E 3 allow instructors to generate custom images and illustrations simply by describing what they want to see, and some LMSs also now include a feature to generate decorative images. However, we have found that these and other GenAI tools are still lacking in accuracy and subtlety in producing scientific imagery for educational purposes. For instance, we have not found a tool that helps us recreate foot osteology with the minute details we need in teaching. Most GenAI tools generate images based on text prompts, but in some cases what would valuable for instructional uses would be the ability to modify or recreate existing images (and to meet specific instructional needs, the same difficulty applies to GenAI tools for video production). GenAI tools are also lacking right now for creating diagrams and other visual representations of complex concepts or procedures. We hope this will change as GenAI tools continue to evolve at a rapid pace.

Accessible Features

We are not yet sure if tools such as ChatGPT's Sora to turn text into video can help produce useful instructional videos because scientific videos require precision and accuracy that GenAI tools presently lack for our use, but we have found a very productive use of AI for instructional multimedia: The need for universal design and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) calls for the production of alternative formats of representation for media. We can use AI voice tools to generate narration for PowerPoint and AI tools to create transcripts. Such production would otherwise take many human hours. Text-to-audio AI production is especially helpful when the instructors speak with a heavy accent or speak in a way that is difficult for students to comprehend. However, we caution that a course should not always have AI voices because it could cause a course to lose the human touch of the faculty. Course and unit instruction videos, for instance, should be created with natural human voices.

A similar application of AI would be multilingual translation. AI can translate instructional videos and materials into various languages, expanding the reach of instructors' content to a global audience. However, tools such as DeepL, Google Translate, or Microsoft Translator could also provide just-in-time translation.

Supporting Faculty in AI Use

An instructional designer can also coach faculty to use AI to accelerate and optimize content creation, bridge the gap between expert knowledge and student learning, and prepare the next generation of professionals. Table 1 summarizes a few low-hanging fruits in AI usage in course development.

Instructional designers can also play the role of a faculty developer or change agent. In such roles, we can assist faculty in developing capabilities in using AI in their work. According to a recent Microsoft and LinkedIn report, 66% of leaders surveyed indicated that they would not hire someone without AI skills. Footnote 3 Compared to this expectation and from our observation, educators in the workforce fall into one of these stages:

• AI Avoidance: This is the most basic stage, where people actively avoid any interaction with AI. This could be due to fear of the unknown, science fiction tropes portraying AI as dangerous, or simply a lack of awareness of how AI is already integrated into daily work or life.
• AI Illiteracy: At this stage, people have some basic understanding of AI and are less fearful but lack the knowledge to effectively use or interact with it. They might be aware of AI tools but struggle to understand how they work or their capabilities.
• AI Hallucination: This stage is characterized by those who embrace AI but blindly accept misinterpretations generated by AI. AI systems can produce outputs that seem correct on the surface but contain inaccurate or misleading information.
• AI Literacy: This is a key turning point. People at this stage have a solid understanding of AI's capabilities and limitations. They can recognize where AI is being used and how it can be a helpful tool. They can critically evaluate information generated by AI and avoid falling victim to AI biases.
• AI Fluency: Here, people can not only use AI tools effectively but also understand the underlying concepts and algorithms that make them work. They can speak the language of AI, meaning they can communicate with AI systems and manipulate them to achieve desired outcomes. This stage requires a technical understanding of AI concepts.
• AI Innovation: This is the stage where people do not just use AI but actively contribute to its development. They can create new AI applications, improve existing algorithms, and push the boundaries of what AI can do. This stage requires fluency in AI, as well as creativity and a solid foundation in computer science.

Higher education is a workplace where AI can play a significant role. We have sought to illustrate the use of AI—in particular, GenAI in one of the core activities: the design and development of courses. We recommend that instructional designers and faculty assess where they stand in this spectrum and act accordingly to become AI-augmented staff or educators by developing fluency in using AI to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their work. It must be emphasized that not all educators need to advance to the "AI innovation" stage. In a variety of fields, being knowledgeable enough to recognize incorrect information is often sufficient. When using ChatGPT, you can state in the query that you want the tool to provide a confidence level in the form of a percentage for the information it is giving—for example: "Please provide the information along with a percentage of your certainty." Asking for the references to arrive at the answer can also help determine the accuracy of the information provided. References do need to be checked because ChatGPT sometimes provides fictional references. Each new version of ChatGPT has resulted in improvements in the accuracy of ChatGPT's responses.

Instructional designers can either play the role of faculty developer in helping faculty acquire fluency or work with dedicated faculty developers in developing faculty capability in this area. It is fitting for instructional designers, who often stay in the area where education meets technology, to stay ahead of the learning curve to better advise faculty about the uses, ethics, strengths, and weaknesses of AI usage.

Using GenAI in Content Generation

Many in higher education have been deeply suspicious of GenAI, especially after the launch of ChatGPT. One primary concern was student cheating, inspiring tools such as GPTZero, which tried to detect student use of ChatGPT. Footnote 4 We echo those sentiments and insist that the most effective and appropriate uses of GenAI complement, rather than replace, what humans can produce. Humans can have an idea, ask AI to generate a course map, and then work on it further and finalize that version. This is an iterative process in which humans and GenAI work better together, with humans using GenAI primarily as a smart assistant. The following suggestions illustrate productive and ethical uses of AI in course design.

Use It but Don't Abuse It

AI streamlines content creation by automating repetitive tasks and generating quizzes or assessments. As discussed, it can also inspire us during brainstorming stages. This frees up instructional designers to focus on the creative aspects, such as crafting engaging activities and incorporating new technologies. However, the potential for misuse exists. Overreliance on AI could lead to a sterile learning experience devoid of the human touch. A skilled instructor can adapt to unexpected questions, provide emotional support, and foster a sense of community—activities that AI currently struggles to replicate. There might be a time when AI can accomplish these in a way that is hard to distinguish from humans, but until that happens, we advocate using it where human labor is less effective and efficient but not abusing it to the point of creating inferior educational experiences.

Integrate, Iterate, Work Incrementally

Generative AI should be seen as a powerful tool for instructors. We can use GenAI for heavy-lifting tasks, inspiration, and modifications while tapping into human experiences, especially the vast clinical experiences of faculty. We would caution faculty not to have a "baby and bathwater" syndrome, dismissing a tool just because it does not give exactly what instructors need. Instead, work interactively and incrementally, get ideas, tweak prompts, edit, and finalize using your expertise and experience.

Avoid Errors and Biases

A crucial part of using GenAI appropriately is to ensure that its outputs are factually correct and free from errors. Always have subject-matter experts review AI-generated content and use it only as inspiration and drafts, not as final editions of what instructors would provide. GenAI can sometimes perpetuate biases present in the data it is trained on. Developers must actively work to mitigate bias to avoid inaccurate or discriminatory outcomes. Be precise with your prompt writing. Carefully read what GenAI generates and make changes as needed to rid the material of any bias and modify the material to improve impartiality and inclusiveness. Instructors can leave feedback for the trainers of AI so they can improve it.

Be Transparent

Educate both instructors and students on the ethical use of GenAI, addressing issues of plagiarism, intellectual property, and responsible use. Be transparent about when GenAI is used in the course. For instance, if an image is produced using AI, provide a reference to it in a way that students can tell it was created with a specific AI tool. In addition, avoid using AI to create scientific images because doing so often results in images that contain inaccuracies.

Use It to Detect Abuses

By using GenAI in course development, faculty can also gain increased sensitivity toward generic content "fresh off ChatGPT." When ChatGPT was first developed, it created panic among faculty that such content is now difficult to detect even with the use of tools such as Turnitin. In our experience, using GenAI has sensitized us toward suspicious content, helping us more readily detect abuses than an unsuspecting faculty member without much AI literacy. This provides us with better insights and intuition to work with students more effectively, not necessarily by calling them out but by teaching them how to use AI productively and ethically for their future careers.

AI has the potential to be a transformative tool for instructors engaged in course development. It can assist at various stages, from initial course mapping and objective refinement to content generation and media production. We believe in the power of a collaborative working relationship between humans and AI, one in which the machine's strengths in processing information and generating ideas augment the faculty's expertise in subject matter, pedagogy, and student engagement.

In today's digital landscape, fluency in AI tools is a crucial aspect of student digital literacy. By embracing GenAI as a partner in course development, we, as educators, equip ourselves not only to stay ahead of the curve but also to effectively prepare our students to navigate and utilize this powerful technology within the context of their academic pursuits and future careers. As AI continues to evolve, so will its capabilities to support faculty in creating dynamic and engaging learning experiences. The future of education lies in harnessing this powerful technology while prioritizing human expertise and the irreplaceable value of human-to-human interaction in the learning process.

• Joyeta Ghosh, Sudrita Roy Choudhury, Khusboo Singh, and Samarpita Koner, "Application of Machine Learning Algorithm and Artificial Intelligence in Improving Metabolic Syndrome Related Complications: A Review," International Journal of Advanced Life Sciences Research 7, no. 2 (2024). Jump back to footnote 1 in the text. ↩
• Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe, Understanding by Design (Alexandria, VA: ASCD, 2012). Jump back to footnote 2 in the text. ↩
• Microsoft and LinkedIn, "AI at Work Is Here. Now Comes the Hard Part," 2024 Work Trend Index Annual Report, May 8, 2024. Jump back to footnote 3 in the text. ↩
• James M. Lang, "The Case for Slow-Walking Our Use of Generative AI," Chronicle of Higher Education , February 29, 2024; Ray Schroeder, "The AI-Augmented Professor of 2024," Inside Higher Ed , May 8, 2024; Doug Lederman, "Ep. 113: Helping Higher Education Own Its AI Future," Inside Higher Ed , in The Key Podcast , May 13, 2023. Jump back to footnote 4 in the text. ↩

Berlin Fang is a Learning Innovation Designer at University of St. Augustine for Health Sciences.

Kim Broussard is an Instructor at University of St. Augustine for Health Sciences.

© 2024 Berlin Fang and Kim Broussard. The content of this work is licensed under a Creative Commons BY-ND 4.0 International License.