How many papers support this gap analysis?

3 papers from our local library contribute to this synthesis, with an average publication year of 2025.

Can I get a manuscript addressing this gap reviewed here?

Yes — AI Review runs 8 specialised agents over the full PDF and returns a structured editorial report in one pass, for 30 credits. Start at /review. An open-access publication route is in preparation and is not open for submissions yet.

engineering3 papersavg year 2025weak evidence

The study identifies a gap in the existing literature on disability and technology

Research gap analysis derived from 3 engineering papers in our local library.

The gap

The study identifies a gap in the existing literature on disability and technology, highlighting the need for more research on access-making and situated expertise. - The research gap is also related to the lack of consideration for non-nor

Evidence profile

Stated in the recommendations and cells research gap and abstract sections of the source papers, classified as general, drawn from work published between 2024 and 2026, spanning 3 journals. Those papers have been cited 6 times in total.

Research trend

Established — well-defined area with open sub-problems.

Supporting evidence — 3 representative gaps

The Technological Determinants of Digital Inclusivity in E-Justice Systems: A Mixed-Methods Analysis of Design, Access, and Format Availability for Persons with Disabilities in Kenya (2026) · East African Journal of Information Technology · doi
Conclusion technology This study investigated how inclusive design, multichannel accessibility, and alternative format availability, together the Technology Factors construct, affect digital inclusion in Kenyan e‑justice for persons with disabilities. Findings show factors have a positive, statistically significant impact on digital inclusion (β = 0.556, R² = 0.310, p < 0.001). Multichannel accessibility was the most influential (β = 0.776), followed by inclusive design (β = 0.720) and alternative formats (β = 0.717). However, consistent qualitative implementation gap: architectural features do not always translate into functional accessibility. The principal conclusion is that technology alone is necessary but insufficient for inclusive e‑justice.
generalstated in recommendationsevidence 5/5
Keywords: technology inclusive accessibility conclusion design multichannel alternative factors digital inclusion justice investigated format availability together
Cartografías del cyborgcrip y la geopolítica del imperio de la mirada en América Latina (2026) · Kipus Revista Andina de Letras y Estudios Culturales · doi
The study identifies a gap in the existing literature on disability and technology, highlighting the need for more research on access-making and situated expertise. - The research gap is also related to the lack of consideration for non-normative temporalities and interdependencies in technology design.
generalstated in cells research gapevidence 5/5
Keywords: study identifies gap existing literature disability technology highlighting
Accessibility of digital systems in information retrieval by users with visual impairment (2024) · Quality Assurance in Education · cited 6× · doi
Further research is needed to explore other factors that may influence the accessibility of digital systems, such as the design of user interfaces as well as an evaluation of accessibility of digital systems for other categories of disabilities such as hearing impairment, physical impairment, autism and intellectual disability, among others.
generalstated in abstractevidence 3/5
Keywords: accessibility digital systems impairment further needed explore factors influence design user interfaces well evaluation categories

Questions about this gap

The study identifies a gap in the existing literature on disability and technology, highlighting the need for more research on access-making and situated expertise. - The research… This is supported by 3 representative gap statements extracted from 3 papers, rated weak evidence.

Explore this gap further

Run this gap as a query across open scholarly engines for the latest related literature.

Find research gaps on this topic →Google Scholar ↗Semantic Scholar ↗OpenAlex ↗Europe PMC ↗CORE ↗

Working on this gap? Review it with us.

Science AI Journal reviews manuscripts in one pass with 8 specialised AI agents calibrated on 69,000+ real peer reviews.

Run an AI review Run a pre-submission check

Tools for your next paper

Pre-CheckIs your paper ready? A Tier 1–5 acceptance probability in seconds.Journal FinderA ranked shortlist of target journals from a 17,500-venue index.Duplicate Publication CheckerCheck prior-publication & salami-slicing risk across 8 sources.Citation GeneratorFreeA DOI or title → APA, MLA, Vancouver, Chicago, BibTeX, RIS. No signup.Graphical Abstract MakerFreeTurn your findings into a colorblind-safe graphical abstract.AI Review8 specialist agents return an editor-ready review of your full PDF.

Compare the category — Honest roundups of the AI research tools, ours listed alongside the alternatives.