<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE ArticleSet PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD PubMed 2.7//EN" "https://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/ncbi/pubmed/in/PubMed.dtd">
<ArticleSet>
<Article>
<Journal>
				<PublisherName>Shiraz University</PublisherName>
				<JournalTitle>Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly</JournalTitle>
				<Issn>2981-1546</Issn>
				<Volume>45</Volume>
				<Issue>4</Issue>
				<PubDate PubStatus="epublish">
					<Year>2026</Year>
					<Month>09</Month>
					<Day>01</Day>
				</PubDate>
			</Journal>
<ArticleTitle>The Rhetoric of Research Gaps across Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed-Methods Traditions in Iranian Applied Linguistics Articles</ArticleTitle>
<VernacularTitle></VernacularTitle>
			<FirstPage>1</FirstPage>
			<LastPage>28</LastPage>
			<ELocationID EIdType="pii">8804</ELocationID>
			
<ELocationID EIdType="doi">10.22099/tesl.2026.56562.3519</ELocationID>
			
			<Language>EN</Language>
<AuthorList>
<Author>
					<FirstName>Reza</FirstName>
					<LastName>Rezvani</LastName>
<Affiliation>Department of Foreign Languages and Linguistics, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran</Affiliation>

</Author>
<Author>
					<FirstName>Nima</FirstName>
					<LastName>Farzaneh</LastName>
<Affiliation>Department of Foreign Languages and Linguistics, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran</Affiliation>
<Identifier Source="ORCID">0009-0005-1401-3050</Identifier>

</Author>
</AuthorList>
				<PublicationType>Journal Article</PublicationType>
			<History>
				<PubDate PubStatus="received">
					<Year>2026</Year>
					<Month>07</Month>
					<Day>05</Day>
				</PubDate>
			</History>
		<Abstract>Gap-spotting, identifying and filling perceived deficiencies in existing literature, has become the predominant strategy for formulating research questions across academic disciplines. While recent investigations have documented its prevalence in applied linguistics, this study sought a more nuanced understanding of how gap statements vary across qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods articles published in Iranian applied linguistics journals. From a corpus of empirical articles published between 2016 and 2025 in 12 Scopus- or ISC-indexed journals, 220 articles that included gap-based justifications were selected. We excluded articles that did not state explicit research questions, and we analyzed the remaining 215 articles using qualitative content analysis.&lt;em&gt; &lt;/em&gt;Using a six-category typology of research gaps, the analysis examined primary gap type, gap statement explicitness, gap claim basis, textual positioning of gap statements, and number of research questions. Findings revealed that knowledge gaps dominated across all three traditions with near-identical proportions (80.9–81.0%), indicating a shared disciplinary norm that transcends paradigmatic boundaries. Tradition-specific variations emerged in attribution use, rhetorical positioning, and research question counts. These patterns aligned with a cumulative, positivistic epistemology that privileges empirical accumulation over conceptual innovation. Findings highlighted the need for more diverse approaches to research question formulation to foster a pluralistic and socially responsive research culture across traditions.</Abstract>
		<ObjectList>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">applied linguistics</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Epistemology</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Gap-Spotting</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Knowledge Production</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Methodological Traditions</Param>
			</Object>
		</ObjectList>
<ArchiveCopySource DocType="pdf">https://tesl.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8804_e609970844d217487c3d53803f8cdacf.pdf</ArchiveCopySource>
</Article>
</ArticleSet>
