Can Stakeholders Value a Research Gap That Researchers Consider Minor?

What if Researchers Think a Gap Is Minor but the People Affected by It Do Not?

Researchers evaluate a potential gap and conclude that it is narrow, theoretically modest, or unlikely to produce a striking scholarly contribution. Then practitioners, patients, students, communities, or another affected group say that they urgently want the answer.

Who has misunderstood the importance of the question?

Possibly neither group. Researchers and stakeholders can evaluate the same uncertainty from different positions. What appears minor within the structure of an academic literature may sit directly inside a consequential decision or recurring problem experienced by people outside it.

Yes. A Scientifically Modest Gap Can Be Highly Relevant to Stakeholders

Researchers and Stakeholders May Be Looking at Different Consequences

A minor scientific gap can sit inside a major practical problem

Researchers often evaluate gaps partly through their relationship to an existing literature. Does the question challenge a theory? Introduce a new mechanism? Resolve a major contradiction? Provide methodological innovation? Open a new research program?

Stakeholders may evaluate the same question differently. They may ask whether the answer helps them choose between two interventions, avoid an unwanted outcome, improve an everyday process, reduce burden, understand a risk, allocate resources, or make sense of an experience that existing research barely acknowledges.

Neither list applies universally, and researchers themselves can also be stakeholders. The distinction simply illustrates why the same gap may receive different rankings.

Stakeholders may care about outcomes researchers rarely measure

A field can become organized around outcomes that are convenient, conventional, or theoretically interesting. Those outcomes are not necessarily the ones most important to the people affected.

In health research, patient-priority initiatives provide clear examples of this problem. The James Lind Alliance uses priority-setting partnerships in which patients, carers, and clinicians jointly identify and prioritize unanswered questions. Research comparing priorities has documented mismatches between questions emphasized by researchers and those valued by patients or clinicians.

The principle is not confined to medicine. Students may care about accessibility, workload, privacy, or whether educational technology actually helps them learn, while a research literature concentrates on intention to use. Teachers may care about implementation burden while researchers emphasize attitudes. Communities may prioritize an environmental exposure that attracts relatively little theoretical interest.

A gap can therefore look minor because the literature itself has assigned limited attention to the outcome stakeholders value.

Lived experience can reveal consequences that are difficult to see from publications

Reading a literature provides one kind of knowledge. Repeatedly confronting a problem provides another.

People living with a condition, using a technology, implementing a policy, teaching with an intervention, or receiving a service may recognize practical consequences that are absent from published studies. Their experience can reveal that an apparently small uncertainty repeatedly forces consequential choices.

This does not make lived experience a substitute for empirical evidence. It can instead help determine which empirical questions deserve attention.

Stakeholder priorities can expose blind spots in research agendas

Research agendas are shaped by previous funding, disciplinary traditions, available methods, publication incentives, researcher interests, and historical assumptions about what deserves measurement.

As a result, a large literature is not necessarily a neutral map of what matters most.

One published James Lind Alliance priority-setting partnership on hyperemesis gravidarum, for example, noted that previous systematic reviews had made research recommendations without meaningful engagement with patients who had experienced the condition. The subsequent partnership involved patients, carers, and healthcare professionals in identifying and prioritizing uncertainties.

Such examples do not establish that stakeholder priorities should always override scholarly priorities. They demonstrate why the absence of a question from a prominent research agenda cannot by itself establish that the question lacks importance.

Stakeholders can disagree with one another too

"The stakeholders" should never be treated as a single mind.

Patients and clinicians may rank questions differently. Students and instructors may have conflicting priorities. Communities can contain groups with different experiences and interests. Policymakers may emphasize population-level outcomes while individuals emphasize personal burdens.

Even international priority-setting exercises can face questions of representativeness. A study using the James Lind Alliance approach for hyperemesis gravidarum, for example, acknowledged that priorities derived largely from developed-country contexts might be less applicable in low- and middle-income settings.

Accordingly, stakeholder engagement requires attention to who participates and whose perspective may remain absent.

High stakeholder priority does not automatically make a good research study

Suppose stakeholders identify an uncertainty as extremely important. Researchers still need to ask whether the question is answerable, whether existing evidence already resolves it, what design would be appropriate, whether the research is ethical, and whether feasible research can reduce the uncertainty enough to help.

This preserves an important distinction between the value of the question and the quality of the proposed study.

If the only feasible study would provide evidence too weak to address the uncertainty, stakeholder enthusiasm cannot transform that evidence into something stronger than it is.

Researchers should not dismiss stakeholder questions merely because they are not theoretically glamorous

Research contribution is sometimes interpreted too narrowly. A question may offer little theoretical novelty while providing evidence needed for a repeated, consequential decision.

For applied research, that can be a substantial contribution.

WHO guidance on research agenda setting explicitly recommends including a broad range of stakeholders and incorporating implementation and end-user needs into research priorities. AHRQ's work on future research needs similarly examines structured methods for stakeholder engagement and prioritization.

The appropriate response to a stakeholder-valued gap is therefore not "this is minor" but "minor according to which criterion?"

The disagreement itself can be informative

When researchers and stakeholders rank a gap very differently, investigate the source of the disagreement.

Perhaps stakeholders know about a consequence researchers have overlooked. Perhaps researchers know that apparently missing evidence already exists. Perhaps stakeholders are asking a practical question that the current research literature is poorly designed to answer. Or perhaps researchers and stakeholders simply place different weights on legitimate outcomes.

Making those reasons explicit can improve the research question itself.

When a Minor Academic Question Becomes a Major User Concern

This does not mean stakeholder preference automatically wins. It means the original judgment of "minor" was based on an incomplete account of what mattered.

The example also shows how a small research gap can deserve attention because the consequences of uncertainty are large.

Common Mistakes When Researchers and Stakeholders Value Gaps Differently

Treat Disagreement About Importance as Evidence to Investigate

If stakeholders value a gap that you initially consider minor, do not automatically elevate it or dismiss it. Ask why the rankings differ.

This approach also clarifies who should contribute to judgments about research-gap importance. Relevant expertise may come from both knowledge of the evidence and experience of the consequences that evidence is intended to address.

When Stakeholders Value a Gap Researchers Consider Minor, Check This

Questions About Stakeholder and Researcher Priorities

A Small Academic Gap Can Represent a Large Stakeholder Problem

How to Cite This Guide

This guide is intended to be read, shared, and used in research, teaching, and academic work. If you draw on its ideas, explanations, or other content, please acknowledge the source by citing the guide. Doing so gives appropriate credit and helps your readers locate the original resource.