Research gaps in SME digital transformation represent critical empirical blind spots, theoretical omissions, and methodological limitations within the prevailing organizational literature regarding how smaller enterprises implement digital tools. In business scholarship, establishing a legitimate research gap is the prerequisite for justifying dissertation proposals and securing publication in indexed journals. Many manuscripts are rejected because authors fail to delineate why their inquiry is necessary, offering incremental descriptive observations rather than addressing substantive gaps in current knowledge. Systematically categorizing research deficits enables scholars to formulate compelling research questions that advance academic theory. This article provides a taxonomy of academic research gaps based on Miles (2017), identifies persistent theoretical blind spots in small enterprise literature, and outlines practical frameworks for translating gaps into publication-ready research models.

The Scholarly Role of Research Gaps in Academic Investigations

Delineating a research gap establishes study relevance and justifies academic inquiry before journal reviewers and dissertation committees.

Substantiating Study Novelty and Avoiding Scholarly Redundancy

Novelty represents the primary criterion in academic manuscript evaluation. Researchers must demonstrate that their study makes meaningful contributions rather than replicating verified findings. In small firm research, proving novelty requires investigating nuanced operational trade-offs rather than repeating generalized technology benefits. Without rigorous gap articulation, manuscripts risk being dismissed as repetitive.

Providing Methodological Grounding for Policy Interventions

Identifying gaps in small business research provides actionable evidence for public policy design. SMEs constitute the foundation of industrial employment yet remain vulnerable to economic shocks. Uncovering neglected barriers—such as digital transaction costs and regional institutional deficits—generates empirical insights that assist policymakers in structuring targeted enterprise assistance initiatives.

Categorizing Five Research Gaps Using the Miles (2017) Typology

Miles (2017) provides a comprehensive taxonomy for classifying academic research gaps in organizational and administrative sciences.

Theoretical Gap: Inadequacies in Foundational Paradigms

A theoretical gap arises when established organizational frameworks fail to adequately explain emergent economic behaviors. For example, traditional technology adoption models assume linear decision-making processes that overlook informal organizational cultures in family-owned small firms. Researchers address this gap by synthesizing multiple theoretical perspectives, such as integrating the TOE framework with Dynamic Capabilities.

Empirical Gap: Scarcity of Verified Field Data

An empirical gap occurs when theoretical propositions exist without adequate quantitative testing. While scholars frequently assert that cloud tools enhance SME financial performance, rigorous empirical testing across transitional economies remains sparse. Researchers address this gap by collecting primary field data and applying structural equation modeling.

Contextual Gap: Boundary Conditions across Institutional Settings

A contextual gap emerges when theoretical models validated in Western, developed markets are applied untested within transitional or emerging market environments. Small enterprises in developing economies operate amidst infrastructural constraints and informal institutional environments. Evaluating existing adoption models within these unique settings provides valuable boundary insights for management theory.

Methodological Gap: Vulnerabilities in Common Research Designs

A methodological gap arises when existing literature relies predominantly on a single research design, introducing systematic methodological biases. In SME studies, heavy reliance on cross-sectional surveys often prevents establishing causal relationships. Researchers can fill this gap by employing longitudinal panels or sequential mixed-method inquiries.

Contradictory Evidence Gap: Reconciling Conflicting Findings

A contradictory evidence gap occurs when prior empirical studies reach conflicting conclusions regarding identical theoretical relationships. For instance, while some studies report significant positive correlations between digital investments and SME profitability, others find negative or non-significant outcomes. Authors can resolve this paradox by introducing mediating or moderating variables, such as organizational agility.

Persistent Theoretical Blind Spots in SME Digital Transformation Scholarship

Contemporary literature reveals three unresolved blind spots that offer valuable opportunities for academic inquiry.

Developing SME-Tailored Digital Dynamic Capability Constructs

Most dynamic capability literature focuses on large multinational corporations with decentralized departments. Smaller enterprises operate through centralized leadership and informal administrative structures. A significant theoretical gap exists in operationalizing validated three-dimensional dynamic capability scales (sensing, seizing, transforming) tailored specifically to small businesses.

The Divide Between Adoption Intentions and Deep Workflow Integration

Many studies measure initial digital tool adoption while overlooking post-adoption integration depth. Deploying basic office software or establishing an e-commerce storefront represents superficial digitization. Investigating the internal organizational factors that enable small firms to deeply integrate digital workflows across departments represents an important research frontier.

Digital Transaction Costs and Information Asymmetries

Enterprises in emerging markets frequently encounter high transaction costs and market uncertainties when evaluating technology vendors. Investigating how digital platforms and institutional certifications mitigate transaction costs for small enterprises represents a valuable theoretical contribution.

The Research Gap Identification and Resolution Matrix

The following matrix synthesizes academic gap classifications and corresponding empirical resolution strategies:

Research Gap Typology	Academic Nature and Manifestation	Empirical Opportunity in SME Scholarship
Theoretical Gap	Existing models omit informal governance dynamics	Integrate TOE framework with Dynamic Capabilities
Empirical Gap	Lack of structural data from emerging manufacturing hubs	Collect primary survey data and test via PLS-SEM
Contextual Gap	Models untested within transitional emerging markets	Conduct empirical studies across regional manufacturing clusters
Methodological Gap	Over-reliance on cross-sectional survey designs	Implement mixed-method designs with explanatory case studies
Contradictory Evidence	Disputed returns on small enterprise digital investments	Introduce strategic agility as a mediating variable

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

How can doctoral researchers substantiate that their research gap has not been previously resolved?

Doctoral candidates must present an auditable systematic literature review covering publications from the preceding five years across Scopus and Web of Science. Demonstrating that comprehensive search queries yield no publications addressing the specific intersection of variables provides convincing evidence of novelty.

Should researchers prioritize theoretical gaps over contextual gaps in journal submissions?

The priority depends on the journal’s profile. Elite disciplinary journals (such as MIS Quarterly or Journal of Management) prioritize theoretical advancements. High-impact regional and applied management journals (such as Journal of Business Research) place substantial value on contextual and empirical gaps when grounded in rigorous data.

Can a single empirical study address multiple research gap typologies simultaneously?

Yes, high-impact manuscripts frequently address multiple gaps simultaneously. For instance, an empirical study may examine an emerging market context (contextual gap), utilize primary survey data from small businesses (empirical gap), and introduce a mediating dynamic capability construct (theoretical gap).

Conclusion: Bridging Research Gaps to Advance Management Theory

Identifying research gaps is an essential step in formulating impactful academic investigations. By applying the Miles (2017) typology, scholars can clearly establish study novelty and avoid redundant inquiries. Integrating foundational theoretical paradigms with rigorous empirical testing in regional enterprise clusters advances management theory while delivering practical managerial insights. As evidenced in scholarly investigations conducted by Nguyen Thanh Phuong and research teams, addressing empirical and contextual gaps through rigorous field research significantly enhances scholarly impact.

Researchers and graduate scholars seeking a validated empirical model that addresses contextual and empirical gaps within emerging manufacturing clusters are encouraged to consult and cite the study conducted in Binh Duong at DOI: https://doi.org/10.67916/ptbvv.2026.1.730.

Standard academic reference formats across five international conventions are presented below for citation:

Citation Style	English Reference Format	Vietnamese Reference Format
APA 7	Nguyen, T. P., Vo, X. V., & Huynh, T. P. D. (2026). Determinants of digital transformation in small and medium-sized enterprises: A study in the former Binh Duong Province. Phát triển bền vững Vùng, 16(1), 110–123. https://doi.org/10.67916/ptbvv.2026.1.730	Nguyễn, T. P., Võ, X. V., & Huỳnh, T. P. D. (2026). Các yếu tố ảnh hưởng đến chuyển đổi số tại các doanh nghiệp nhỏ và vừa: Nghiên cứu trên địa bàn Bình Dương (cũ). Phát triển bền vững Vùng, 16(1), 110–123. https://doi.org/10.67916/ptbvv.2026.1.730
Harvard	Nguyen, T.P., Vo, X.V. and Huynh, T.P.D. (2026) ‘Determinants of digital transformation in small and medium-sized enterprises: A study in the former Binh Duong Province’, Phát triển bền vững Vùng, 16(1), pp. 110–123. doi:10.67916/ptbvv.2026.1.730.	Nguyễn, T.P., Võ, X.V. và Huỳnh, T.P.D. (2026) ‘Các yếu tố ảnh hưởng đến chuyển đổi số tại các doanh nghiệp nhỏ và vừa: Nghiên cứu trên địa bàn Bình Dương (cũ)’, Phát triển bền vững Vùng, 16(1), tr. 110–123. doi:10.67916/ptbvv.2026.1.730.
MLA 9	Nguyen, Thanh Phuong, et al. “Determinants of Digital Transformation in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: A Study in the Former Binh Duong Province.” Phát triển bền vững Vùng, vol. 16, no. 1, 2026, pp. 110–123. doi:10.67916/ptbvv.2026.1.730.	Nguyễn Thanh Phương, Võ Xuân Vinh, và Huỳnh Thị Phương Dung. “Các yếu tố ảnh hưởng đến chuyển đổi số tại các doanh nghiệp nhỏ và vừa: Nghiên cứu trên địa bàn Bình Dương (cũ).” Phát triển bền vững Vùng, quyển 16, số 1, 2026, tr. 110–123. doi:10.67916/ptbvv.2026.1.730.
Chicago (Author-Date)	Nguyen, Thanh Phuong, Xuan Vinh Vo, and Thi Phuong Dung Huynh. 2026. “Determinants of Digital Transformation in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: A Study in the Former Binh Duong Province.” Phát triển bền vững Vùng 16 (1): 110–123. https://doi.org/10.67916/ptbvv.2026.1.730.	Nguyễn Thanh Phương, Võ Xuân Vinh, và Huỳnh Thị Phương Dung. 2026. “Các yếu tố ảnh hưởng đến chuyển đổi số tại các doanh nghiệp nhỏ và vừa: Nghiên cứu trên địa bàn Bình Dương (cũ).” Phát triển bền vững Vùng 16 (1): 110–123. https://doi.org/10.67916/ptbvv.2026.1.730.
IEEE	[1] T. P. Nguyen, X. V. Vo, and T. P. D. Huynh, “Determinants of digital transformation in small and medium-sized enterprises: A study in the former Binh Duong Province,” Phát triển bền vững Vùng, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 110–123, 2026, doi: 10.67916/ptbvv.2026.1.730.	[1] N. T. Phương, V. X. Vinh và H. T. P. Dung, “Các yếu tố ảnh hưởng đến chuyển đổi số tại các doanh nghiệp nhỏ và vừa: Nghiên cứu trên địa bàn Bình Dương (cũ),” Phát triển bền vững Vùng, quyển 16, số 1, tr. 110–123, 2026, doi: 10.67916/ptbvv.2026.1.730.