what are limitations in dissertation research

21 Research Limitations Examples

Research limitations refer to the potential weaknesses inherent in a study. All studies have limitations of some sort, meaning declaring limitations doesn’t necessarily need to be a bad thing, so long as your declaration of limitations is well thought-out and explained.

Rarely is a study perfect. Researchers have to make trade-offs when developing their studies, which are often based upon practical considerations such as time and monetary constraints, weighing the breadth of participants against the depth of insight, and choosing one methodology or another.

In research, studies can have limitations such as limited scope, researcher subjectivity, and lack of available research tools.

Acknowledging the limitations of your study should be seen as a strength. It demonstrates your willingness for transparency, humility, and submission to the scientific method and can bolster the integrity of the study. It can also inform future research direction.

Typically, scholars will explore the limitations of their study in either their methodology section, their conclusion section, or both.

Research Limitations Examples

Qualitative and quantitative research offer different perspectives and methods in exploring phenomena, each with its own strengths and limitations. So, I’ve split the limitations examples sections into qualitative and quantitative below.

Qualitative Research Limitations

Qualitative research seeks to understand phenomena in-depth and in context. It focuses on the ‘why’ and ‘how’ questions.

It’s often used to explore new or complex issues, and it provides rich, detailed insights into participants’ experiences, behaviors, and attitudes. However, these strengths also create certain limitations, as explained below.

1. Subjectivity

Qualitative research often requires the researcher to interpret subjective data. One researcher may examine a text and identify different themes or concepts as more dominant than others.

Close qualitative readings of texts are necessarily subjective – and while this may be a limitation, qualitative researchers argue this is the best way to deeply understand everything in context.

Suggested Solution and Response: To minimize subjectivity bias, you could consider cross-checking your own readings of themes and data against other scholars’ readings and interpretations. This may involve giving the raw data to a supervisor or colleague and asking them to code the data separately, then coming together to compare and contrast results.

2. Researcher Bias

The concept of researcher bias is related to, but slightly different from, subjectivity.

Researcher bias refers to the perspectives and opinions you bring with you when doing your research.

For example, a researcher who is explicitly of a certain philosophical or political persuasion may bring that persuasion to bear when interpreting data.

In many scholarly traditions, we will attempt to minimize researcher bias through the utilization of clear procedures that are set out in advance or through the use of statistical analysis tools.

However, in other traditions, such as in postmodern feminist research , declaration of bias is expected, and acknowledgment of bias is seen as a positive because, in those traditions, it is believed that bias cannot be eliminated from research, so instead, it is a matter of integrity to present it upfront.

Suggested Solution and Response: Acknowledge the potential for researcher bias and, depending on your theoretical framework , accept this, or identify procedures you have taken to seek a closer approximation to objectivity in your coding and analysis.

3. Generalizability

If you’re struggling to find a limitation to discuss in your own qualitative research study, then this one is for you: all qualitative research, of all persuasions and perspectives, cannot be generalized.

This is a core feature that sets qualitative data and quantitative data apart.

The point of qualitative data is to select case studies and similarly small corpora and dig deep through in-depth analysis and thick description of data.

Often, this will also mean that you have a non-randomized sample size.

While this is a positive – you’re going to get some really deep, contextualized, interesting insights – it also means that the findings may not be generalizable to a larger population that may not be representative of the small group of people in your study.

Suggested Solution and Response: Suggest future studies that take a quantitative approach to the question.

4. The Hawthorne Effect

The Hawthorne effect refers to the phenomenon where research participants change their ‘observed behavior’ when they’re aware that they are being observed.

This effect was first identified by Elton Mayo who conducted studies of the effects of various factors ton workers’ productivity. He noticed that no matter what he did – turning up the lights, turning down the lights, etc. – there was an increase in worker outputs compared to prior to the study taking place.

Mayo realized that the mere act of observing the workers made them work harder – his observation was what was changing behavior.

So, if you’re looking for a potential limitation to name for your observational research study , highlight the possible impact of the Hawthorne effect (and how you could reduce your footprint or visibility in order to decrease its likelihood).

Suggested Solution and Response: Highlight ways you have attempted to reduce your footprint while in the field, and guarantee anonymity to your research participants.

5. Replicability

Quantitative research has a great benefit in that the studies are replicable – a researcher can get a similar sample size, duplicate the variables, and re-test a study. But you can’t do that in qualitative research.

Qualitative research relies heavily on context – a specific case study or specific variables that make a certain instance worthy of analysis. As a result, it’s often difficult to re-enter the same setting with the same variables and repeat the study.

Furthermore, the individual researcher’s interpretation is more influential in qualitative research, meaning even if a new researcher enters an environment and makes observations, their observations may be different because subjectivity comes into play much more. This doesn’t make the research bad necessarily (great insights can be made in qualitative research), but it certainly does demonstrate a weakness of qualitative research.

6. Limited Scope

“Limited scope” is perhaps one of the most common limitations listed by researchers – and while this is often a catch-all way of saying, “well, I’m not studying that in this study”, it’s also a valid point.

No study can explore everything related to a topic. At some point, we have to make decisions about what’s included in the study and what is excluded from the study.

So, you could say that a limitation of your study is that it doesn’t look at an extra variable or concept that’s certainly worthy of study but will have to be explored in your next project because this project has a clearly and narrowly defined goal.

Suggested Solution and Response: Be clear about what’s in and out of the study when writing your research question.

7. Time Constraints

This is also a catch-all claim you can make about your research project: that you would have included more people in the study, looked at more variables, and so on. But you’ve got to submit this thing by the end of next semester! You’ve got time constraints.

And time constraints are a recognized reality in all research.

But this means you’ll need to explain how time has limited your decisions. As with “limited scope”, this may mean that you had to study a smaller group of subjects, limit the amount of time you spent in the field, and so forth.

Suggested Solution and Response: Suggest future studies that will build on your current work, possibly as a PhD project.

8. Resource Intensiveness

Qualitative research can be expensive due to the cost of transcription, the involvement of trained researchers, and potential travel for interviews or observations.

So, resource intensiveness is similar to the time constraints concept. If you don’t have the funds, you have to make decisions about which tools to use, which statistical software to employ, and how many research assistants you can dedicate to the study.

Suggested Solution and Response: Suggest future studies that will gain more funding on the back of this ‘ exploratory study ‘.

9. Coding Difficulties

Data analysis in qualitative research often involves coding, which can be subjective and complex, especially when dealing with ambiguous or contradicting data.

After naming this as a limitation in your research, it’s important to explain how you’ve attempted to address this. Some ways to ‘limit the limitation’ include:

• Triangulation: Have 2 other researchers code the data as well and cross-check your results with theirs to identify outliers that may need to be re-examined, debated with the other researchers, or removed altogether.
• Procedure: Use a clear coding procedure to demonstrate reliability in your coding process. I personally use the thematic network analysis method outlined in this academic article by Attride-Stirling (2001).

Suggested Solution and Response: Triangulate your coding findings with colleagues, and follow a thematic network analysis procedure.

10. Risk of Non-Responsiveness

There is always a risk in research that research participants will be unwilling or uncomfortable sharing their genuine thoughts and feelings in the study.

This is particularly true when you’re conducting research on sensitive topics, politicized topics, or topics where the participant is expressing vulnerability .

This is similar to the Hawthorne effect (aka participant bias), where participants change their behaviors in your presence; but it goes a step further, where participants actively hide their true thoughts and feelings from you.

Suggested Solution and Response: One way to manage this is to try to include a wider group of people with the expectation that there will be non-responsiveness from some participants.

11. Risk of Attrition

Attrition refers to the process of losing research participants throughout the study.

This occurs most commonly in longitudinal studies , where a researcher must return to conduct their analysis over spaced periods of time, often over a period of years.

Things happen to people over time – they move overseas, their life experiences change, they get sick, change their minds, and even die. The more time that passes, the greater the risk of attrition.

Suggested Solution and Response: One way to manage this is to try to include a wider group of people with the expectation that there will be attrition over time.

12. Difficulty in Maintaining Confidentiality and Anonymity

Given the detailed nature of qualitative data , ensuring participant anonymity can be challenging.

If you have a sensitive topic in a specific case study, even anonymizing research participants sometimes isn’t enough. People might be able to induce who you’re talking about.

Sometimes, this will mean you have to exclude some interesting data that you collected from your final report. Confidentiality and anonymity come before your findings in research ethics – and this is a necessary limiting factor.

Suggested Solution and Response: Highlight the efforts you have taken to anonymize data, and accept that confidentiality and accountability place extremely important constraints on academic research.

13. Difficulty in Finding Research Participants

A study that looks at a very specific phenomenon or even a specific set of cases within a phenomenon means that the pool of potential research participants can be very low.

Compile on top of this the fact that many people you approach may choose not to participate, and you could end up with a very small corpus of subjects to explore. This may limit your ability to make complete findings, even in a quantitative sense.

You may need to therefore limit your research question and objectives to something more realistic.

Suggested Solution and Response: Highlight that this is going to limit the study’s generalizability significantly.

14. Ethical Limitations

Ethical limitations refer to the things you cannot do based on ethical concerns identified either by yourself or your institution’s ethics review board.

This might include threats to the physical or psychological well-being of your research subjects, the potential of releasing data that could harm a person’s reputation, and so on.

Furthermore, even if your study follows all expected standards of ethics, you still, as an ethical researcher, need to allow a research participant to pull out at any point in time, after which you cannot use their data, which demonstrates an overlap between ethical constraints and participant attrition.

Suggested Solution and Response: Highlight that these ethical limitations are inevitable but important to sustain the integrity of the research.

For more on Qualitative Research, Explore my Qualitative Research Guide

Quantitative Research Limitations

Quantitative research focuses on quantifiable data and statistical, mathematical, or computational techniques. It’s often used to test hypotheses, assess relationships and causality, and generalize findings across larger populations.

Quantitative research is widely respected for its ability to provide reliable, measurable, and generalizable data (if done well!). Its structured methodology has strengths over qualitative research, such as the fact it allows for replication of the study, which underpins the validity of the research.

However, this approach is not without it limitations, explained below.

1. Over-Simplification

Quantitative research is powerful because it allows you to measure and analyze data in a systematic and standardized way. However, one of its limitations is that it can sometimes simplify complex phenomena or situations.

In other words, it might miss the subtleties or nuances of the research subject.

For example, if you’re studying why people choose a particular diet, a quantitative study might identify factors like age, income, or health status. But it might miss other aspects, such as cultural influences or personal beliefs, that can also significantly impact dietary choices.

When writing about this limitation, you can say that your quantitative approach, while providing precise measurements and comparisons, may not capture the full complexity of your subjects of study.

Suggested Solution and Response: Suggest a follow-up case study using the same research participants in order to gain additional context and depth.

2. Lack of Context

Another potential issue with quantitative research is that it often focuses on numbers and statistics at the expense of context or qualitative information.

Let’s say you’re studying the effect of classroom size on student performance. You might find that students in smaller classes generally perform better. However, this doesn’t take into account other variables, like teaching style , student motivation, or family support.

When describing this limitation, you might say, “Although our research provides important insights into the relationship between class size and student performance, it does not incorporate the impact of other potentially influential variables. Future research could benefit from a mixed-methods approach that combines quantitative analysis with qualitative insights.”

3. Applicability to Real-World Settings

Oftentimes, experimental research takes place in controlled environments to limit the influence of outside factors.

This control is great for isolation and understanding the specific phenomenon but can limit the applicability or “external validity” of the research to real-world settings.

For example, if you conduct a lab experiment to see how sleep deprivation impacts cognitive performance, the sterile, controlled lab environment might not reflect real-world conditions where people are dealing with multiple stressors.

Therefore, when explaining the limitations of your quantitative study in your methodology section, you could state:

“While our findings provide valuable information about [topic], the controlled conditions of the experiment may not accurately represent real-world scenarios where extraneous variables will exist. As such, the direct applicability of our results to broader contexts may be limited.”

Suggested Solution and Response: Suggest future studies that will engage in real-world observational research, such as ethnographic research.

4. Limited Flexibility

Once a quantitative study is underway, it can be challenging to make changes to it. This is because, unlike in grounded research, you’re putting in place your study in advance, and you can’t make changes part-way through.

Your study design, data collection methods, and analysis techniques need to be decided upon before you start collecting data.

For example, if you are conducting a survey on the impact of social media on teenage mental health, and halfway through, you realize that you should have included a question about their screen time, it’s generally too late to add it.

When discussing this limitation, you could write something like, “The structured nature of our quantitative approach allows for consistent data collection and analysis but also limits our flexibility to adapt and modify the research process in response to emerging insights and ideas.”

Suggested Solution and Response: Suggest future studies that will use mixed-methods or qualitative research methods to gain additional depth of insight.

5. Risk of Survey Error

Surveys are a common tool in quantitative research, but they carry risks of error.

There can be measurement errors (if a question is misunderstood), coverage errors (if some groups aren’t adequately represented), non-response errors (if certain people don’t respond), and sampling errors (if your sample isn’t representative of the population).

For instance, if you’re surveying college students about their study habits , but only daytime students respond because you conduct the survey during the day, your results will be skewed.

In discussing this limitation, you might say, “Despite our best efforts to develop a comprehensive survey, there remains a risk of survey error, including measurement, coverage, non-response, and sampling errors. These could potentially impact the reliability and generalizability of our findings.”

Suggested Solution and Response: Suggest future studies that will use other survey tools to compare and contrast results.

6. Limited Ability to Probe Answers

With quantitative research, you typically can’t ask follow-up questions or delve deeper into participants’ responses like you could in a qualitative interview.

For instance, imagine you are surveying 500 students about study habits in a questionnaire. A respondent might indicate that they study for two hours each night. You might want to follow up by asking them to elaborate on what those study sessions involve or how effective they feel their habits are.

However, quantitative research generally disallows this in the way a qualitative semi-structured interview could.

When discussing this limitation, you might write, “Given the structured nature of our survey, our ability to probe deeper into individual responses is limited. This means we may not fully understand the context or reasoning behind the responses, potentially limiting the depth of our findings.”

Suggested Solution and Response: Suggest future studies that engage in mixed-method or qualitative methodologies to address the issue from another angle.

7. Reliance on Instruments for Data Collection

In quantitative research, the collection of data heavily relies on instruments like questionnaires, surveys, or machines.

The limitation here is that the data you get is only as good as the instrument you’re using. If the instrument isn’t designed or calibrated well, your data can be flawed.

For instance, if you’re using a questionnaire to study customer satisfaction and the questions are vague, confusing, or biased, the responses may not accurately reflect the customers’ true feelings.

When discussing this limitation, you could say, “Our study depends on the use of questionnaires for data collection. Although we have put significant effort into designing and testing the instrument, it’s possible that inaccuracies or misunderstandings could potentially affect the validity of the data collected.”

Suggested Solution and Response: Suggest future studies that will use different instruments but examine the same variables to triangulate results.

8. Time and Resource Constraints (Specific to Quantitative Research)

Quantitative research can be time-consuming and resource-intensive, especially when dealing with large samples.

It often involves systematic sampling, rigorous design, and sometimes complex statistical analysis.

If resources and time are limited, it can restrict the scale of your research, the techniques you can employ, or the extent of your data analysis.

For example, you may want to conduct a nationwide survey on public opinion about a certain policy. However, due to limited resources, you might only be able to survey people in one city.

When writing about this limitation, you could say, “Given the scope of our research and the resources available, we are limited to conducting our survey within one city, which may not fully represent the nationwide public opinion. Hence, the generalizability of the results may be limited.”

Suggested Solution and Response: Suggest future studies that will have more funding or longer timeframes.

How to Discuss Your Research Limitations

1. in your research proposal and methodology section.

In the research proposal, which will become the methodology section of your dissertation, I would recommend taking the four following steps, in order:

• Be Explicit about your Scope – If you limit the scope of your study in your research question, aims, and objectives, then you can set yourself up well later in the methodology to say that certain questions are “outside the scope of the study.” For example, you may identify the fact that the study doesn’t address a certain variable, but you can follow up by stating that the research question is specifically focused on the variable that you are examining, so this limitation would need to be looked at in future studies.
• Acknowledge the Limitation – Acknowledging the limitations of your study demonstrates reflexivity and humility and can make your research more reliable and valid. It also pre-empts questions the people grading your paper may have, so instead of them down-grading you for your limitations; they will congratulate you on explaining the limitations and how you have addressed them!
• Explain your Decisions – You may have chosen your approach (despite its limitations) for a very specific reason. This might be because your approach remains, on balance, the best one to answer your research question. Or, it might be because of time and monetary constraints that are outside of your control.
• Highlight the Strengths of your Approach – Conclude your limitations section by strongly demonstrating that, despite limitations, you’ve worked hard to minimize the effects of the limitations and that you have chosen your specific approach and methodology because it’s also got some terrific strengths. Name the strengths.

Overall, you’ll want to acknowledge your own limitations but also explain that the limitations don’t detract from the value of your study as it stands.

2. In the Conclusion Section or Chapter

In the conclusion of your study, it is generally expected that you return to a discussion of the study’s limitations. Here, I recommend the following steps:

• Acknowledge issues faced – After completing your study, you will be increasingly aware of issues you may have faced that, if you re-did the study, you may have addressed earlier in order to avoid those issues. Acknowledge these issues as limitations, and frame them as recommendations for subsequent studies.
• Suggest further research – Scholarly research aims to fill gaps in the current literature and knowledge. Having established your expertise through your study, suggest lines of inquiry for future researchers. You could state that your study had certain limitations, and “future studies” can address those limitations.
• Suggest a mixed methods approach – Qualitative and quantitative research each have pros and cons. So, note those ‘cons’ of your approach, then say the next study should approach the topic using the opposite methodology or could approach it using a mixed-methods approach that could achieve the benefits of quantitative studies with the nuanced insights of associated qualitative insights as part of an in-study case-study.

Overall, be clear about both your limitations and how those limitations can inform future studies.

In sum, each type of research method has its own strengths and limitations. Qualitative research excels in exploring depth, context, and complexity, while quantitative research excels in examining breadth, generalizability, and quantifiable measures. Despite their individual limitations, each method contributes unique and valuable insights, and researchers often use them together to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon being studied.

Attride-Stirling, J. (2001). Thematic networks: an analytic tool for qualitative research. Qualitative research , 1 (3), 385-405. ( Source )

Atkinson, P., Delamont, S., Cernat, A., Sakshaug, J., & Williams, R. A. (2021).  SAGE research methods foundations . London: Sage Publications.

Clark, T., Foster, L., Bryman, A., & Sloan, L. (2021).  Bryman’s social research methods . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Köhler, T., Smith, A., & Bhakoo, V. (2022). Templates in qualitative research methods: Origins, limitations, and new directions.  Organizational Research Methods ,  25 (2), 183-210. ( Source )

Lenger, A. (2019). The rejection of qualitative research methods in economics.  Journal of Economic Issues ,  53 (4), 946-965. ( Source )

Taherdoost, H. (2022). What are different research approaches? Comprehensive review of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method research, their applications, types, and limitations.  Journal of Management Science & Engineering Research ,  5 (1), 53-63. ( Source )

Walliman, N. (2021).  Research methods: The basics . New York: Routledge.

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 5 Top Tips for Succeeding at University
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 50 Durable Goods Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 100 Consumer Goods Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 30 Globalization Pros and Cons

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

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

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• Limitations of the Study
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

The limitations of the study are those characteristics of design or methodology that impacted or influenced the interpretation of the findings from your research. Study limitations are the constraints placed on the ability to generalize from the results, to further describe applications to practice, and/or related to the utility of findings that are the result of the ways in which you initially chose to design the study or the method used to establish internal and external validity or the result of unanticipated challenges that emerged during the study.

Price, James H. and Judy Murnan. “Research Limitations and the Necessity of Reporting Them.” American Journal of Health Education 35 (2004): 66-67; Theofanidis, Dimitrios and Antigoni Fountouki. "Limitations and Delimitations in the Research Process." Perioperative Nursing 7 (September-December 2018): 155-163. .

Importance of...

Always acknowledge a study's limitations. It is far better that you identify and acknowledge your study’s limitations than to have them pointed out by your professor and have your grade lowered because you appeared to have ignored them or didn't realize they existed.

Keep in mind that acknowledgment of a study's limitations is an opportunity to make suggestions for further research. If you do connect your study's limitations to suggestions for further research, be sure to explain the ways in which these unanswered questions may become more focused because of your study.

Acknowledgment of a study's limitations also provides you with opportunities to demonstrate that you have thought critically about the research problem, understood the relevant literature published about it, and correctly assessed the methods chosen for studying the problem. A key objective of the research process is not only discovering new knowledge but also to confront assumptions and explore what we don't know.

Claiming limitations is a subjective process because you must evaluate the impact of those limitations . Don't just list key weaknesses and the magnitude of a study's limitations. To do so diminishes the validity of your research because it leaves the reader wondering whether, or in what ways, limitation(s) in your study may have impacted the results and conclusions. Limitations require a critical, overall appraisal and interpretation of their impact. You should answer the question: do these problems with errors, methods, validity, etc. eventually matter and, if so, to what extent?

Price, James H. and Judy Murnan. “Research Limitations and the Necessity of Reporting Them.” American Journal of Health Education 35 (2004): 66-67; Structure: How to Structure the Research Limitations Section of Your Dissertation. Dissertations and Theses: An Online Textbook. Laerd.com.

Descriptions of Possible Limitations

All studies have limitations . However, it is important that you restrict your discussion to limitations related to the research problem under investigation. For example, if a meta-analysis of existing literature is not a stated purpose of your research, it should not be discussed as a limitation. Do not apologize for not addressing issues that you did not promise to investigate in the introduction of your paper.

Here are examples of limitations related to methodology and the research process you may need to describe and discuss how they possibly impacted your results. Note that descriptions of limitations should be stated in the past tense because they were discovered after you completed your research.

Possible Methodological Limitations

• Sample size -- the number of the units of analysis you use in your study is dictated by the type of research problem you are investigating. Note that, if your sample size is too small, it will be difficult to find significant relationships from the data, as statistical tests normally require a larger sample size to ensure a representative distribution of the population and to be considered representative of groups of people to whom results will be generalized or transferred. Note that sample size is generally less relevant in qualitative research if explained in the context of the research problem.
• Lack of available and/or reliable data -- a lack of data or of reliable data will likely require you to limit the scope of your analysis, the size of your sample, or it can be a significant obstacle in finding a trend and a meaningful relationship. You need to not only describe these limitations but provide cogent reasons why you believe data is missing or is unreliable. However, don’t just throw up your hands in frustration; use this as an opportunity to describe a need for future research based on designing a different method for gathering data.
• Lack of prior research studies on the topic -- citing prior research studies forms the basis of your literature review and helps lay a foundation for understanding the research problem you are investigating. Depending on the currency or scope of your research topic, there may be little, if any, prior research on your topic. Before assuming this to be true, though, consult with a librarian! In cases when a librarian has confirmed that there is little or no prior research, you may be required to develop an entirely new research typology [for example, using an exploratory rather than an explanatory research design ]. Note again that discovering a limitation can serve as an important opportunity to identify new gaps in the literature and to describe the need for further research.
• Measure used to collect the data -- sometimes it is the case that, after completing your interpretation of the findings, you discover that the way in which you gathered data inhibited your ability to conduct a thorough analysis of the results. For example, you regret not including a specific question in a survey that, in retrospect, could have helped address a particular issue that emerged later in the study. Acknowledge the deficiency by stating a need for future researchers to revise the specific method for gathering data.
• Self-reported data -- whether you are relying on pre-existing data or you are conducting a qualitative research study and gathering the data yourself, self-reported data is limited by the fact that it rarely can be independently verified. In other words, you have to the accuracy of what people say, whether in interviews, focus groups, or on questionnaires, at face value. However, self-reported data can contain several potential sources of bias that you should be alert to and note as limitations. These biases become apparent if they are incongruent with data from other sources. These are: (1) selective memory [remembering or not remembering experiences or events that occurred at some point in the past]; (2) telescoping [recalling events that occurred at one time as if they occurred at another time]; (3) attribution [the act of attributing positive events and outcomes to one's own agency, but attributing negative events and outcomes to external forces]; and, (4) exaggeration [the act of representing outcomes or embellishing events as more significant than is actually suggested from other data].

Possible Limitations of the Researcher

• Access -- if your study depends on having access to people, organizations, data, or documents and, for whatever reason, access is denied or limited in some way, the reasons for this needs to be described. Also, include an explanation why being denied or limited access did not prevent you from following through on your study.
• Longitudinal effects -- unlike your professor, who can literally devote years [even a lifetime] to studying a single topic, the time available to investigate a research problem and to measure change or stability over time is constrained by the due date of your assignment. Be sure to choose a research problem that does not require an excessive amount of time to complete the literature review, apply the methodology, and gather and interpret the results. If you're unsure whether you can complete your research within the confines of the assignment's due date, talk to your professor.
• Cultural and other type of bias -- we all have biases, whether we are conscience of them or not. Bias is when a person, place, event, or thing is viewed or shown in a consistently inaccurate way. Bias is usually negative, though one can have a positive bias as well, especially if that bias reflects your reliance on research that only support your hypothesis. When proof-reading your paper, be especially critical in reviewing how you have stated a problem, selected the data to be studied, what may have been omitted, the manner in which you have ordered events, people, or places, how you have chosen to represent a person, place, or thing, to name a phenomenon, or to use possible words with a positive or negative connotation. NOTE :   If you detect bias in prior research, it must be acknowledged and you should explain what measures were taken to avoid perpetuating that bias. For example, if a previous study only used boys to examine how music education supports effective math skills, describe how your research expands the study to include girls.
• Fluency in a language -- if your research focuses , for example, on measuring the perceived value of after-school tutoring among Mexican-American ESL [English as a Second Language] students and you are not fluent in Spanish, you are limited in being able to read and interpret Spanish language research studies on the topic or to speak with these students in their primary language. This deficiency should be acknowledged.

Aguinis, Hermam and Jeffrey R. Edwards. “Methodological Wishes for the Next Decade and How to Make Wishes Come True.” Journal of Management Studies 51 (January 2014): 143-174; Brutus, Stéphane et al. "Self-Reported Limitations and Future Directions in Scholarly Reports: Analysis and Recommendations." Journal of Management 39 (January 2013): 48-75; Senunyeme, Emmanuel K. Business Research Methods. Powerpoint Presentation. Regent University of Science and Technology; ter Riet, Gerben et al. “All That Glitters Isn't Gold: A Survey on Acknowledgment of Limitations in Biomedical Studies.” PLOS One 8 (November 2013): 1-6.

Structure and Writing Style

Information about the limitations of your study are generally placed either at the beginning of the discussion section of your paper so the reader knows and understands the limitations before reading the rest of your analysis of the findings, or, the limitations are outlined at the conclusion of the discussion section as an acknowledgement of the need for further study. Statements about a study's limitations should not be buried in the body [middle] of the discussion section unless a limitation is specific to something covered in that part of the paper. If this is the case, though, the limitation should be reiterated at the conclusion of the section.

If you determine that your study is seriously flawed due to important limitations , such as, an inability to acquire critical data, consider reframing it as an exploratory study intended to lay the groundwork for a more complete research study in the future. Be sure, though, to specifically explain the ways that these flaws can be successfully overcome in a new study.

But, do not use this as an excuse for not developing a thorough research paper! Review the tab in this guide for developing a research topic . If serious limitations exist, it generally indicates a likelihood that your research problem is too narrowly defined or that the issue or event under study is too recent and, thus, very little research has been written about it. If serious limitations do emerge, consult with your professor about possible ways to overcome them or how to revise your study.

When discussing the limitations of your research, be sure to:

• Describe each limitation in detailed but concise terms;
• Explain why each limitation exists;
• Provide the reasons why each limitation could not be overcome using the method(s) chosen to acquire or gather the data [cite to other studies that had similar problems when possible];
• Assess the impact of each limitation in relation to the overall findings and conclusions of your study; and,
• If appropriate, describe how these limitations could point to the need for further research.

Remember that the method you chose may be the source of a significant limitation that has emerged during your interpretation of the results [for example, you didn't interview a group of people that you later wish you had]. If this is the case, don't panic. Acknowledge it, and explain how applying a different or more robust methodology might address the research problem more effectively in a future study. A underlying goal of scholarly research is not only to show what works, but to demonstrate what doesn't work or what needs further clarification.

Aguinis, Hermam and Jeffrey R. Edwards. “Methodological Wishes for the Next Decade and How to Make Wishes Come True.” Journal of Management Studies 51 (January 2014): 143-174; Brutus, Stéphane et al. "Self-Reported Limitations and Future Directions in Scholarly Reports: Analysis and Recommendations." Journal of Management 39 (January 2013): 48-75; Ioannidis, John P.A. "Limitations are not Properly Acknowledged in the Scientific Literature." Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 60 (2007): 324-329; Pasek, Josh. Writing the Empirical Social Science Research Paper: A Guide for the Perplexed. January 24, 2012. Academia.edu; Structure: How to Structure the Research Limitations Section of Your Dissertation. Dissertations and Theses: An Online Textbook. Laerd.com; What Is an Academic Paper? Institute for Writing Rhetoric. Dartmouth College; Writing the Experimental Report: Methods, Results, and Discussion. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University.

Writing Tip

Don't Inflate the Importance of Your Findings!

After all the hard work and long hours devoted to writing your research paper, it is easy to get carried away with attributing unwarranted importance to what you’ve done. We all want our academic work to be viewed as excellent and worthy of a good grade, but it is important that you understand and openly acknowledge the limitations of your study. Inflating the importance of your study's findings could be perceived by your readers as an attempt hide its flaws or encourage a biased interpretation of the results. A small measure of humility goes a long way!

Another Writing Tip

Negative Results are Not a Limitation!

Negative evidence refers to findings that unexpectedly challenge rather than support your hypothesis. If you didn't get the results you anticipated, it may mean your hypothesis was incorrect and needs to be reformulated. Or, perhaps you have stumbled onto something unexpected that warrants further study. Moreover, the absence of an effect may be very telling in many situations, particularly in experimental research designs. In any case, your results may very well be of importance to others even though they did not support your hypothesis. Do not fall into the trap of thinking that results contrary to what you expected is a limitation to your study. If you carried out the research well, they are simply your results and only require additional interpretation.

Lewis, George H. and Jonathan F. Lewis. “The Dog in the Night-Time: Negative Evidence in Social Research.” The British Journal of Sociology 31 (December 1980): 544-558.

Yet Another Writing Tip

Sample Size Limitations in Qualitative Research

Sample sizes are typically smaller in qualitative research because, as the study goes on, acquiring more data does not necessarily lead to more information. This is because one occurrence of a piece of data, or a code, is all that is necessary to ensure that it becomes part of the analysis framework. However, it remains true that sample sizes that are too small cannot adequately support claims of having achieved valid conclusions and sample sizes that are too large do not permit the deep, naturalistic, and inductive analysis that defines qualitative inquiry. Determining adequate sample size in qualitative research is ultimately a matter of judgment and experience in evaluating the quality of the information collected against the uses to which it will be applied and the particular research method and purposeful sampling strategy employed. If the sample size is found to be a limitation, it may reflect your judgment about the methodological technique chosen [e.g., single life history study versus focus group interviews] rather than the number of respondents used.

Boddy, Clive Roland. "Sample Size for Qualitative Research." Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 19 (2016): 426-432; Huberman, A. Michael and Matthew B. Miles. "Data Management and Analysis Methods." In Handbook of Qualitative Research . Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, eds. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994), pp. 428-444; Blaikie, Norman. "Confounding Issues Related to Determining Sample Size in Qualitative Research." International Journal of Social Research Methodology 21 (2018): 635-641; Oppong, Steward Harrison. "The Problem of Sampling in qualitative Research." Asian Journal of Management Sciences and Education 2 (2013): 202-210.

• << Previous: 8. The Discussion
• Next: 9. The Conclusion >>
• Last Updated: Apr 3, 2024 10:04 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

How to Write Limitations of the Study (with examples)

This blog emphasizes the importance of recognizing and effectively writing about limitations in research. It discusses the types of limitations, their significance, and provides guidelines for writing about them, highlighting their role in advancing scholarly research.

Updated on August 24, 2023

No matter how well thought out, every research endeavor encounters challenges. There is simply no way to predict all possible variances throughout the process.

These uncharted boundaries and abrupt constraints are known as limitations in research . Identifying and acknowledging limitations is crucial for conducting rigorous studies. Limitations provide context and shed light on gaps in the prevailing inquiry and literature.

This article explores the importance of recognizing limitations and discusses how to write them effectively. By interpreting limitations in research and considering prevalent examples, we aim to reframe the perception from shameful mistakes to respectable revelations.

What are limitations in research?

In the clearest terms, research limitations are the practical or theoretical shortcomings of a study that are often outside of the researcher’s control . While these weaknesses limit the generalizability of a study’s conclusions, they also present a foundation for future research.

Sometimes limitations arise from tangible circumstances like time and funding constraints, or equipment and participant availability. Other times the rationale is more obscure and buried within the research design. Common types of limitations and their ramifications include:

• Theoretical: limits the scope, depth, or applicability of a study.
• Methodological: limits the quality, quantity, or diversity of the data.
• Empirical: limits the representativeness, validity, or reliability of the data.
• Analytical: limits the accuracy, completeness, or significance of the findings.
• Ethical: limits the access, consent, or confidentiality of the data.

Regardless of how, when, or why they arise, limitations are a natural part of the research process and should never be ignored . Like all other aspects, they are vital in their own purpose.

Why is identifying limitations important?

Whether to seek acceptance or avoid struggle, humans often instinctively hide flaws and mistakes. Merging this thought process into research by attempting to hide limitations, however, is a bad idea. It has the potential to negate the validity of outcomes and damage the reputation of scholars.

By identifying and addressing limitations throughout a project, researchers strengthen their arguments and curtail the chance of peer censure based on overlooked mistakes. Pointing out these flaws shows an understanding of variable limits and a scrupulous research process.

Showing awareness of and taking responsibility for a project’s boundaries and challenges validates the integrity and transparency of a researcher. It further demonstrates the researchers understand the applicable literature and have thoroughly evaluated their chosen research methods.

Presenting limitations also benefits the readers by providing context for research findings. It guides them to interpret the project’s conclusions only within the scope of very specific conditions. By allowing for an appropriate generalization of the findings that is accurately confined by research boundaries and is not too broad, limitations boost a study’s credibility .

Limitations are true assets to the research process. They highlight opportunities for future research. When researchers identify the limitations of their particular approach to a study question, they enable precise transferability and improve chances for reproducibility. 

Simply stating a project’s limitations is not adequate for spurring further research, though. To spark the interest of other researchers, these acknowledgements must come with thorough explanations regarding how the limitations affected the current study and how they can potentially be overcome with amended methods.

How to write limitations

Typically, the information about a study’s limitations is situated either at the beginning of the discussion section to provide context for readers or at the conclusion of the discussion section to acknowledge the need for further research. However, it varies depending upon the target journal or publication guidelines. 

Don’t hide your limitations

It is also important to not bury a limitation in the body of the paper unless it has a unique connection to a topic in that section. If so, it needs to be reiterated with the other limitations or at the conclusion of the discussion section. Wherever it is included in the manuscript, ensure that the limitations section is prominently positioned and clearly introduced.

While maintaining transparency by disclosing limitations means taking a comprehensive approach, it is not necessary to discuss everything that could have potentially gone wrong during the research study. If there is no commitment to investigation in the introduction, it is unnecessary to consider the issue a limitation to the research. Wholly consider the term ‘limitations’ and ask, “Did it significantly change or limit the possible outcomes?” Then, qualify the occurrence as either a limitation to include in the current manuscript or as an idea to note for other projects. 

Writing limitations

Once the limitations are concretely identified and it is decided where they will be included in the paper, researchers are ready for the writing task. Including only what is pertinent, keeping explanations detailed but concise, and employing the following guidelines is key for crafting valuable limitations:

1) Identify and describe the limitations : Clearly introduce the limitation by classifying its form and specifying its origin. For example:

• An unintentional bias encountered during data collection
• An intentional use of unplanned post-hoc data analysis

2) Explain the implications : Describe how the limitation potentially influences the study’s findings and how the validity and generalizability are subsequently impacted. Provide examples and evidence to support claims of the limitations’ effects without making excuses or exaggerating their impact. Overall, be transparent and objective in presenting the limitations, without undermining the significance of the research. 

3) Provide alternative approaches for future studies : Offer specific suggestions for potential improvements or avenues for further investigation. Demonstrate a proactive approach by encouraging future research that addresses the identified gaps and, therefore, expands the knowledge base.

Whether presenting limitations as an individual section within the manuscript or as a subtopic in the discussion area, authors should use clear headings and straightforward language to facilitate readability. There is no need to complicate limitations with jargon, computations, or complex datasets.

Examples of common limitations

Limitations are generally grouped into two categories , methodology and research process .

Methodology limitations

Methodology may include limitations due to:

• Sample size
• Lack of available or reliable data
• Lack of prior research studies on the topic
• Measure used to collect the data
• Self-reported data

The researcher is addressing how the large sample size requires a reassessment of the measures used to collect and analyze the data.

Research process limitations

Limitations during the research process may arise from:

• Access to information
• Longitudinal effects
• Cultural and other biases
• Language fluency
• Time constraints

The author is pointing out that the model’s estimates are based on potentially biased observational studies.

Final thoughts

Successfully proving theories and touting great achievements are only two very narrow goals of scholarly research. The true passion and greatest efforts of researchers comes more in the form of confronting assumptions and exploring the obscure.

In many ways, recognizing and sharing the limitations of a research study both allows for and encourages this type of discovery that continuously pushes research forward. By using limitations to provide a transparent account of the project's boundaries and to contextualize the findings, researchers pave the way for even more robust and impactful research in the future.

Charla Viera, MS

See our "Privacy Policy"

Ensure your structure and ideas are consistent and clearly communicated

Pair your Premium Editing with our add-on service Presubmission Review for an overall assessment of your manuscript.

Research Limitations & Delimitations

What they are and how they’re different (with examples)

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Expert Reviewed By: David Phair (PhD) | September 2022

If you’re new to the world of research, you’ve probably heard the terms “ research limitations ” and “ research delimitations ” being thrown around, often quite loosely. In this post, we’ll unpack what both of these mean, how they’re similar and how they’re different – so that you can write up these sections the right way.

Overview: Limitations vs Delimitations

• Are they the same?
• What are research limitations
• What are research delimitations
• Limitations vs delimitations

First things first…

Let’s start with the most important takeaway point of this post – research limitations and research delimitations are not the same – but they are related to each other (we’ll unpack that a little later). So, if you hear someone using these two words interchangeably, be sure to share this post with them!

Research Limitations

Research limitations are, at the simplest level, the weaknesses of the study, based on factors that are often outside of your control as the researcher. These factors could include things like time , access to funding, equipment , data or participants . For example, if you weren’t able to access a random sample of participants for your study and had to adopt a convenience sampling strategy instead, that would impact the generalizability of your findings and therefore reflect a limitation of your study.

Research limitations can also emerge from the research design itself . For example, if you were undertaking a correlational study, you wouldn’t be able to infer causality (since correlation doesn’t mean certain causation). Similarly, if you utilised online surveys to collect data from your participants, you naturally wouldn’t be able to get the same degree of rich data that you would from in-person interviews .

Simply put, research limitations reflect the shortcomings of a study , based on practical (or theoretical) constraints that the researcher faced. These shortcomings limit what you can conclude from a study, but at the same time, present a foundation for future research . Importantly, all research has limitations , so there’s no need to hide anything here – as long as you discuss how the limitations might affect your findings, it’s all good.

Research Delimitations

Alright, now that we’ve unpacked the limitations, let’s move on to the delimitations .

Research delimitations are similar to limitations in that they also “ limit ” the study, but their focus is entirely different. Specifically, the delimitations of a study refer to the scope of the research aims and research questions . In other words, delimitations reflect the choices you, as the researcher, intentionally make in terms of what you will and won’t try to achieve with your study. In other words, what your research aims and research questions will and won’t include.

As we’ve spoken about many times before, it’s important to have a tight, narrow focus for your research, so that you can dive deeply into your topic, apply your energy to one specific area and develop meaningful insights. If you have an overly broad scope or unfocused topic, your research will often pull in multiple, even opposing directions, and you’ll just land up with a muddy mess of findings .

So, the delimitations section is where you’ll clearly state what your research aims and research questions will focus on – and just as importantly, what they will exclude . For example, you might investigate a widespread phenomenon, but choose to focus your study on a specific age group, ethnicity or gender. Similarly, your study may focus exclusively on one country, city or even organization. As long as the scope is well justified (in other words, it represents a novel, valuable research topic), this is perfectly acceptable – in fact, it’s essential. Remember, focus is your friend.

Need a helping hand?

Conclusion: Limitations vs Delimitations

Ok, so let’s recap.

Research limitations and research delimitations are related in that they both refer to “limits” within a study. But, they are distinctly different. Limitations reflect the shortcomings of your study, based on practical or theoretical constraints that you faced.

Contrasted to that, delimitations reflect the choices that you made in terms of the focus and scope of your research aims and research questions. If you want to learn more about research aims and questions, you can check out this video post , where we unpack those concepts in detail.

Psst… there’s more (for free)

This post is part of our dissertation mini-course, which covers everything you need to get started with your dissertation, thesis or research project. 

You Might Also Like:

17 Comments

Good clarification of ideas on how a researcher ought to do during Process of choice

Thank you so much for this very simple but explicit explanation on limitation and delimitation. It has so helped me to develop my masters proposal. hope to recieve more from your site as time progresses

Thank you for this explanation – very clear.

Thanks for the explanation, really got it well.

This website is really helpful for my masters proposal

Thank you very much for helping to explain these two terms

I spent almost the whole day trying to figure out the differences

when I came across your notes everything became very clear

thanks for the clearly outlined explanation on the two terms, limitation and delimitation.

Very helpful Many thanks 🙏

Excellent it resolved my conflict .

I would like you to assist me please. If in my Research, I interviewed some participants and I submitted Questionnaires to other participants to answered to the questions, in the same organization, Is this a Qualitative methodology , a Quantitative Methodology or is it a Mixture Methodology I have used in my research? Please help me

How do I cite this article in APA format

Really so great ,finally have understood it’s difference now

Getting more clear regarding Limitations and Delimitation and concepts

I really appreciate your apt and precise explanation of the two concepts namely ; Limitations and Delimitations.

thank you for this, very helpful to researchers

Very good explained

Great and clear explanation, after a long confusion period on the two words, i can now explain to someone with ease.

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

Enjoy a completely custom, expertly-written dissertation. Choose from hundreds of writers, all of whom are career specialists in your subject.

Limitations of a Study: The Complete Guide

Research limitations make most studies imperfect. At its core, the research aims to investigate a specific question or questions about a topic. However, some things can hinder your ability to investigate the question or questions extensively. While this can make achieving your goals challenging, it enables you to point areas that require further studies.

That’s why you should demonstrate how future studies can provide answers to your unanswered questions if you encounter study limitations that affect your findings. Presenting the limitations of a study properly shows the readers that you understand your research problem.

After presenting your research findings, your assessment committee wants to see that you did your work professionally. And presenting limitations in a study shows that you carefully thought about your study problem and performed a review of the available literature while analyzing your preferred methods.

What Are Limitations in Research?

Well, limitations mean anything that might affect the generalizability or reliability of the outcomes of an experiment or a study. And this can relate to research design, like your approach or methods. It can also be something to do with how you carried out your research, like running out of resources or time before completing the study.

Either way, students should include their limitations when writing up their studies. In most cases, researchers include limitations in their analysis and discussions. But different schools can provide varying guidelines on how to include limitations in a research paper. Therefore, seek advice from your educator or check your writing style guide to know where to include the limitations of a study when writing a dissertation.

Common Study Limitations

Each study can have unique limitations. However, most students encounter common study limitations when writing academic papers. Here are some of the most common limitations you’re likely to encounter when writing your academic papers.

Sample profile or size: Most researchers encounter sampling as a limitation for their studies. That’s because they have difficulties finding the right sample with the necessary characteristics and size parameters. And this hinders the generalizability of their study results. Also, different sampling techniques are prone to bias and errors. And this can influence the study outcomes. In some cases, researchers have difficulties selecting their samples and opt to pick their participants selectively. Some researchers can even include irrelevant subjects in their general pool to hit their preferred sample size. Availability of previous research or information: Theoretical concepts or previous knowledge form the basis of studies on specific topics. And this provides a sound foundation on which a researcher can develop a research problem for their investigation and a design. However, a topic can be relatively specific or very progressive. In that case, the lack of or inadequate knowledge and previous studies can limit the analysis scope. And this can cause inaccuracies in the arguments or present a significant error margin in several methodologies and research aspects. Methodology errors: Modern research complexity can cause potential methodology limitations. In most cases, these research limitations relate to how the researchers collect and analyze data. That’s because these aspects can influence the outcomes of a study. Researchers use different techniques to gather data. While these techniques may suit a study design, they can present limitations in terms of inappropriate detail levels, distractions, and privacy. Bias: Bias is a potential limitation whose effects can influence the outcome of every study. However, a researcher can avoid this limitation by eliminating prejudiced or emotional attitudes towards their topic and conflict of interest. Researchers should also establish an oversight level by referring to peer-review procedures or an ethics committee. Bias is an inherent trait for human beings. Even the most objective people exhibit a bias to some extent. Nevertheless, a researcher should remain objective while trying to control potential inaccuracies or bias during the research process.

A researcher may not have control over the limitation of study. However, the limitation can be the condition, influence, or shortcoming that places restrictions on their conclusions or methodology. Therefore, researchers should mention all limitations that can influence their results.

Limitations of the Study Example

The purpose of most studies is to confirm or establish facts, reaffirm a previous study’s outcomes, solve current or new issues, develop a new theory, or support theorems. Research should also enable experts to develop knowledge on specific subjects. And people research different subjects, depending on their interests. However, researchers experience limitations of quantitative research and qualitative research. Here are the most common limitations in research.

Lack or inadequate interactions: Researchers might lack adequate interactions with government institutions and businesses. Consequently, they do not tap a substantial data amount. Researchers should arrange interaction programs with other establishments. That way, they can identify issues that warrant investigation and the necessary data for conducting research, as well as, the benefits of their studies. Overlapping studies can lead fritter resources away or duplicate the findings. Appropriate revision and compilation at regular intervals can solve this problem. Costly publishing: After researching a topic, a researcher should find ways to publish their findings. However, international journals cost a lot of money to publish a study. And this can discourage a researcher from publishing their work. For instance, a study involving females only or carried out in a specific town can have limitations like sample size, gender, and location. What’s more, the entire study could be limited to the researcher’s perception. Lack of or inadequate training: The research process doesn’t have a systematic methodology. Many researchers do not understand the research method when carrying out their work. Consequently, most researchers experience methodological limitations. Essentially, most researchers replicate the methodologies of similar studies. Even some research guides don’t explain the methodologies accurately. And this can limit the outcome of some studies. Lack of code of conduct: Researchers don’t have a code of conduct. And this causes inter-university and inter-departmental rivalries. Library functioning and management are not adequate in most places. Consequently, some researchers spend a lot of energy and time tracing the necessary books, reports, and journals for their studies. Such energy and time can be spent tracing relevant materials. Lack of confidence: The lack of confidence is among the most common limitations of research studies because company managers think that a researcher can misuse the data they disclose to them. Consequently, they don’t want to reveal their business information. And this can affect studies, yet data from researchers can help the same institutions. Therefore, organizations and researchers should implement confidence-building strategies to encourage companies to share data, knowing that researchers will use it productively.

Why Write the Limitations of a Study?

When writing a research paper or a thesis, some people think including study limitations is counterintuitive. That’s particularly the case for researchers that experienced something wrong. However, mentioning the limitations of your study is imperative for the following reasons.

• It tells the readers that you understand that no study lacks some limitations, and you took the time to analyze your work critically.
• It provides opportunities for further studies.
• It enables you to discuss the impacts of the limitations on your analysis and how future studies can address the challenges you encountered if granted a chance to do the study again.
• It presents your study as a transparent undertaking, making the results useful and credible for other people.

Most professors spot problems with the students’ work even if they don’t mention them. Consequently, embracing the limitations of your study and including them in your analysis is the best approach. Leaving out the limitations of research or vital aspects of a study can be detrimental to the entire study field. That’s because it can establish a potentially fallacious and incomplete depiction of the study.

In the academic world, players expect researchers to include the limitations of their works. And this includes a section that demonstrates a holistic and comprehensive understanding of a topic and research process by the author. Discussing limitations is a learning process for assessing the magnitude while critically evaluating the extenuating effect of the stated limitations.

Stating the limitations of a study also improves the validity and quality of future studies. And this includes limitations whose basis is the transparency principle in scientific research, whose purpose is to promote further progress while maintaining mutual integrity in similar studies.

How to Write Study Limitations

When writing your research limitations, do it in a way that demonstrates your understanding of the core concepts of confounding, analytical self-criticism, and bias. Highlighting every limitation might not be necessary. However, include every limitation with a direct impact on your research problem or study results.

Present your thought process as a researcher and explain the pros and cons of your decisions. Also, explain circumstances that may have led to a research limitation. Here’s how you should structure your limitations.

• Identification and description of the limitation: Use professional terminology to identify and describe the limitation. Also, include all necessary accompanying definitions. The limitation explanation should be precise and brief to ensure that the audience can easily understand the issue. Additionally, make sure that your audience can follow your thought pattern.
• Outline the possible impact or influence of the limitation: Explain to your readers how the limitation may have affected or influenced your study. And this comprises elements like the impact’s magnitude, occurrence likelihood, and the general direction the specific limitation could have driven your findings. Researchers generally accept that a limitation can have a more profound influence on a study than others. Therefore, highlight the effect or influence of a limitation to help readers decide on the issues to consider while examining your topic. And this is vital because a limitation whose value bias is null is less dangerous.
• Discuss alternative approaches to limitations: You can also discuss alternative ways to approach the limitations of your research question. However, the researcher should support the methodology or approach they selected in their study. Also, a research paper should explain why the study context warranted the methodology or approach, regardless of the limitation’s nature. Some researchers even provide persuasive evidence while discussing alternative decisions to some extent. And this shows thought transparency while reassuring readers that the researcher chose the best approach, despite the possible laminations.
• Description of the techniques for minimizing risks: Any limitation in research comes with some risks. Therefore, a researcher should describe possible techniques for minimizing the potential risk from the stated limitations. Such techniques can include a reference of previous studies and suggestions for improving data analysis and research design.

Don’t forget that acknowledging your study limitations provides a chance to suggest the direction for further studies. Therefore, connect the limitations of your study to the suggestions you make for further research. Also, explain how your study can make the unanswered questions more focused.

Also, acknowledging the limitation of the study enables you to demonstrate to the professor that you have critically thought about your research problem and understood the importance of the already-published literature. What’s more, it shows that you’ve carefully assessed the methods for studying your study problem. In research, a key objective is to discover new knowledge while confronting assumptions as you explore what others might not know.

Writing limitations should be a subjective process. That’s because you must analyze the impacts of the limitations and include them in your paper. In this section, don’t include the key weaknesses only. Instead, highlight the magnitude of the limitations of your research. And doing this requires you to demonstrate your study’s validity. Show the readers how the limitations have impacted your study outcomes and conclusions. Thus, writing the limitations section of your paper requires an overall, critical interpretation and appraisal of the impact. Essentially, this section should tell the readers why the problems with methods, errors, validity, and other limitations matter and to what extent.

Practical Tips for Writing Research Limitations

When writing a research paper, include information about your study’s limitations at the beginning of the discussion section. That way, your readers can understand your study limitations before delving into the deeper analysis. In some cases, authors bring out limitations when concluding their research discussion and highlighting the essence of further study on the subject. Here are practical tips to help you write the limitations of your study more effectively.

• Check some examples of limitations in research first: To understand the best way to include or present the limitations of your study, check how other authors do it. The internet is awash with good sample papers with a section for limitations. Checking such samples can help you write a limitations section for your academic paper.
• Include essential limitations only: Don’t come up with a list of limitations in your research paper. That’s because doing so can discredit the entire research project. Instead, highlight up to 3 limitations whose influence on your work was the highest. Also, explain how each of the limitations affected your work and research findings.
• Be brief and direct to the point: Identify the limitation, what caused it, and its impact on your research. Don’t expound on the limitation beyond this because the limitation section should be a small part of your paper.
• Be sincere: Don’t make up some lies or disguise your research limitations. That’s because doing so could prove you aren’t prepared. Therefore, be true and sincere with the audience. As you might see in good examples of study limitations, this section tells the audience what could be different or better.
• Explain what caused the limitations of your study: Your audience should have an easy time identifying the reason for the limitations. Therefore, make sure that you have explained everything correctly. Telling the readers about a limiting factor without explaining it can give them the impression that you’re outside your research project.
• Make suggestions for further studies: An ideal way for reversing points that other researchers can explore is to suggest future research paths. Your study could have failed in certain aspects. Maybe you didn’t achieve your expected results. However, it can prompt other researchers to take different directions in their future studies. Also, explain how other researchers can overcome the limitations you encountered in your study. You can even demonstrate why additional studies on the topic or subject are essential.
• Don’t confuse negative results with limitations: If your study brings out negative results, don’t confuse them for limitations. What negative outcomes mean is that you should support your hypothesis instead of opposing it. Perhaps, you can check sample limitations to understand what qualifies as a limitation. However, you can reformulate your hypothesis if you get negative results. Even when you stumble onto something you didn’t expect, don’t highlight it as a limitation.

Final Thoughts

When working on the limitations section of a research paper, be precise and clear. If writing this section becomes challenging, follow the tips shared in this article or seek assistance. That way, you can impress your educator by highlighting the limitations of your study properly.

Frequently Asked Questions

Richard Ginger is a dissertation writer and freelance columnist with a wealth of knowledge and expertise in the writing industry. He handles every project he works on with precision while keeping attention to details and ensuring that every work he does is unique.

Succeed With A Perfect Dissertation

Leave a Reply 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.

As Putin continues killing civilians, bombing kindergartens, and threatening WWIII, Ukraine fights for the world's peaceful future.

Ukraine Live Updates

Diving Deeper into Limitations and Delimitations

If you are working on a thesis, dissertation, or other formal research project, chances are your advisor or committee will ask you to address the delimitations of your study. When faced with this request, many students respond with a puzzled look and then go on to address what are actually the study’s limitations.

In a previous article , we covered what goes into the limitations, delimitations, and assumptions sections of your thesis or dissertation. Here, we will dive a bit deeper into the differences between limitations and delimitations and provide some helpful tips for addressing them in your research project—whether you are working on a quantitative or qualitative study.

Acknowledging Weaknesses vs. Defining Boundaries

These concepts are easy to get confused because both limitations and delimitations restrict (or limit) the questions you’ll be able to answer with your study, most notably in terms of generalizability.

However, the biggest difference between limitations and delimitations is the degree of control you have over them—that is, how much they are based in conscious, intentional choices you made in designing your study.

Limitations occur in all types of research and are, for the most part, outside the researcher’s control (given practical constraints, such as time, funding, and access to populations of interest). They are threats to the study’s internal or external validity.

Limitations may include things such as participant drop-out, a sample that isn’t entirely representative of the desired population, violations to the assumptions of parametric analysis (e.g., normality, homogeneity of variance), the limits of self-report, or the absence of reliability and validity data for some of your survey measures.

Limitations can get in the way of your being able to answer certain questions or draw certain types of inferences from your findings. Therefore, it’s important to acknowledge them upfront and make note of how they restrict the conclusions you’ll be able to draw from your study. Frequently, limitations can get in the way of our ability to generalize our findings to the larger populations or to draw causal conclusions, so be sure to consider these issues when you’re thinking about the potential limitations of your study.

Delimitations are also factors that can restrict the questions you can answer or the inferences you can draw from your findings. However, they are based on intentional choices you make a priori (i.e., as you’re designing the study) about where you’re going to draw the boundaries of your project. In other words, they define the project’s scope.

Like limitations, delimitations are a part of every research project, and this is not a bad thing. In fact, it’s very important! You can’t study everything at once. If you try to do so, your project is bound to get huge and unwieldy, and it will become a lot more difficult to interpret your results or come to meaningful conclusions with so many moving parts. You have to draw the line somewhere, and the delimitations are where you choose to draw these lines.

One of the clearest examples of a delimitation that applies to almost every research project is participant exclusion criteria. In conducting either a quantitative or a qualitative study, you will have to define your population of interest. Defining this population of interest means that you will need to articulate the boundaries of that population (i.e., who is not included). Those boundaries are delimitations.

For example, if you’re interested in understanding the experiences of elementary school teachers who have been implementing a new curriculum into their classrooms, you probably won’t be interviewing or sending a survey to any of the following people: non-teachers, high-school teachers, college professors, principals, parents of elementary school children, or the children themselves. Furthermore, you probably won’t be talking to elementary school teachers who have not yet had the experience of implementing the curriculum in question. You would probably only choose to gather data from elementary school teachers who have had this experience because that is who you’re interested in for the purposes of your study. Perhaps you’ll narrow your focus even more to elementary school teachers in a particular school district who have been teaching for a particular length of time. The possibilities can go on. These are choices you will need to make, both for practical reasons (i.e., the population you have access to) and for the questions you are trying to answer.

Of course, for this particular example, this does not mean that it wouldn’t be interesting to also know what principals think about the new curriculum. Or parents. Or elementary school children. It just means that, for the purposes of your project and your research questions, you’re interested in the experience of the teachers, so you’re excluding anyone who does not meet those criteria. Having delimitations to your population of interest also means that you won’t be able to answer any questions about the experiences of those other populations; this is ok because those populations are outside of the scope of your project . As interesting as their experiences might be, you can save these questions for another study. That is the part of the beauty of research: there will always be more studies to do, more questions to ask. You don’t have to (and can’t) do it all in one project.

Continuing with the previous example, for instance, let’s suppose that the problem you are most interested in addressing is the fact that we know relatively little about elementary school teachers’ experiences of implementing a new curriculum. Perhaps you believe that knowing more about teachers’ experiences could inform their training or help administrators know more about how to support their teachers. If the identified problem is our lack of knowledge about teachers’ experiences, and your research questions focus on better understanding these experiences, that means that you are choosing not to focus on other problems or questions, even those that may seem closely related. For instance, you are not asking how effective the new curriculum is in improving student test scores or graduation rates. You might think that would be a very interesting question, but it will have to wait for another study. In narrowing the focus of your research questions, you limit your ability to answer other questions, and again, that’s ok. These other questions may be interesting and important, but, again, they are beyond the scope of your project .

Common Examples of Limitations

While each study will have its own unique set of limitations, some limitations are more common in quantitative research, and others are more common in qualitative research.

In quantitative research, common limitations include the following:

– Participant dropout

– Small sample size, low power

– Non-representative sample

– Violations of statistical assumptions

– Non-experimental design, lack of manipulation of variables, lack of controls

– Potential confounding variables

– Measures with low (or unknown) reliability or validity

– Limits of an instrument to measure the construct of interest

– Data collection methods (e.g., self-report)

– Anything else that might limit the study’s internal or external validity

In qualitative research, common limitations include the following:

– Lack of generalizability of findings (not the goal of qualitative research, but still worth mentioning as a limitation)

– Inability to draw causal conclusions (again, not the goal of qualitative research, but still worth mentioning)

– Researcher bias/subjectivity (especially if there is only one coder)

– Limitations in participants’ ability/willingness to share or describe their experiences

– Any factors that might limit the rigor of data collection or analysis procedures

Common Examples of Delimitations

As noted above, the two most common sources of delimitations in both quantitative and qualitative research include the following:

– Inclusion/exclusion criteria (or how you define your population of interest)

– Research questions or problems you’ve chosen to examine

Several other common sources of delimitations include the following:

– Theoretical framework or perspective adopted

– Methodological framework or paradigm chosen (e.g., quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods)

– In quantitative research, the variables you’ve chosen to measure or manipulate (as opposed to others)

Whether you’re conducting a quantitative or qualitative study, you will (hopefully!) have chosen your research design because it is well suited to the questions you’re hoping to answer. Because these questions define the boundaries or scope of your project and thus point to its delimitations, your research design itself will also be related to these delimitations.

Questions to Ask Yourself

As you are considering the limitations and delimitations of your project, it can be helpful to ask yourself a few different questions.

Questions to help point out your study’s limitations :

1. If I had an unlimited budget, unlimited amounts of time, access to all possible populations, and the ability to manipulate as many variables as I wanted, how would I design my study differently to be better able to answer the questions I want to answer? (The ways in which your study falls short of this will point to its limitations.)

2. Are there design issues that get in the way of my being able to draw causal conclusions?

3. Are there sampling issues that get in the way of my being able to generalize my findings?

4. Are there issues related to the measures I’m using or the methods I’m using to collect data? Do I have concerns about participants telling the truth or being able to provide accurate responses to my questions?

5. Are there any other factors that might limit my study’s internal or external validity?

Questions that help point out your study’s delimitations :

1. What are my exclusion criteria? Who did I not include in my study, and why did I make this choice?

2. What questions did I choose not to address in my study? (Of course, the possibilities are endless here, but consider related questions that you chose not to address.)

3. In what ways did I narrow the scope of my study in order to hone in on a particular issue or question?

4. What other methodologies did I not use that might have allowed me to answer slightly different questions about the same topic?

How to Write About Limitations and Delimitations

Remember, having limitations and delimitations is not a bad thing. They’re present in even the most rigorous research. The important thing is to be aware of them and to acknowledge how they may impact your findings or the conclusions you can draw.

In fact, writing about them and acknowledging them gives you an opportunity to demonstrate that you can think critically about these aspects of your study and how they impact your findings, even if they were out of your control.

Keep in mind that your study’s limitations will likely point to important directions for future research. Therefore, when you’re getting ready to write about your recommendations for future research in your discussion, remember to refer back to your limitations section!

As you write about your delimitations in particular, remember that they are not weaknesses, and you don’t have to apologize for them. Good, strong research projects have clear boundaries. Also, keep in mind that you are the researcher and you can choose whatever delimitations you want for your study. You’re in control of the delimitations. You just have to be prepared—both in your discussion section and in your dissertation defense itself—to justify the choices you make and acknowledge how these choices impact your findings.

Browse More on PhDStudent

Everything You Need to Know About References and Citations: Part 1

When you conduct your research, it is important to record the details of all the information you find to provide accurate references, …

How to Write a Proposal: For a Master’s Thesis or Dissertation

Note: Many thanks to fellow PhDStudent blogger Ryan Krone for his contributions and insight to this post. Your thesis/dissertation proposal provides an …

How to Find Free Money for Graduate School Part 2

Getting into graduate school is already a challenge on its own, and funding the program once admitted is even harder. Graduate studies …

How to Find Free Money for Graduate School

You’ve finally earned your Bachelor’s degree and have made it into graduate school. Whether you already have massive student loans from undergrad …

Part 3 of How to Pick Your Defense Committee

  What strategies can a doctoral student employ to maneuver the trials and tribulations of a dissertation committee? In Part 2, we …

Best Dissertation Proofreading and Editing Tips to Make Your Work Spotless

You’ve heard this statement many times before: “the dissertation is the most important project you’ve ever worked on.” That may sound like …

Part 2 of How to Pick Your Defense Committee

Choosing a committee can be a daunting task for a doctoral student.  We’ve already covered two strategies that can help you through this …

Part 1 of How to Pick Your Defense Committee

So you’re ready to pick your committee members; there are a few things to keep in mind first—after all, it is a …

Intro To Series on How to Pick Your Defense Committee

Choosing the right defense committee can potentially be the difference between a smooth transition of receiving your doctoral degree or dodging bullets …

On Babies and Dissertations: Part 3

I recently had the experience of expecting my first baby a month before I graduated. Throughout the process, I accidentally learned several …

On Babies and Dissertations: Part 2

On Babies and Dissertations: Part 1

I recently had the experience of expecting my first baby a month before I graduated and accidentally learned tips on graduating on time with a …

Click here to cancel reply.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Copyright © 2024 PhDStudent.com. All rights reserved. Designed by Divergent Web Solutions, LLC .

Writing Limitations of Research Study — 4 Reasons Why It Is Important!

It is not unusual for researchers to come across the term limitations of research during their academic paper writing. More often this is interpreted as something terrible. However, when it comes to research study, limitations can help structure the research study better. Therefore, do not underestimate significance of limitations of research study.

Allow us to take you through the context of how to evaluate the limits of your research and conclude an impactful relevance to your results.

Table of Contents

What Are the Limitations of a Research Study?

Every research has its limit and these limitations arise due to restrictions in methodology or research design.  This could impact your entire research or the research paper you wish to publish. Unfortunately, most researchers choose not to discuss their limitations of research fearing it will affect the value of their article in the eyes of readers.

However, it is very important to discuss your study limitations and show it to your target audience (other researchers, journal editors, peer reviewers etc.). It is very important that you provide an explanation of how your research limitations may affect the conclusions and opinions drawn from your research. Moreover, when as an author you state the limitations of research, it shows that you have investigated all the weaknesses of your study and have a deep understanding of the subject. Being honest could impress your readers and mark your study as a sincere effort in research.

Why and Where Should You Include the Research Limitations?

The main goal of your research is to address your research objectives. Conduct experiments, get results and explain those results, and finally justify your research question . It is best to mention the limitations of research in the discussion paragraph of your research article.

At the very beginning of this paragraph, immediately after highlighting the strengths of the research methodology, you should write down your limitations. You can discuss specific points from your research limitations as suggestions for further research in the conclusion of your thesis.

1. Common Limitations of the Researchers

Limitations that are related to the researcher must be mentioned. This will help you gain transparency with your readers. Furthermore, you could provide suggestions on decreasing these limitations in you and your future studies.

2. Limited Access to Information

Your work may involve some institutions and individuals in research, and sometimes you may have problems accessing these institutions. Therefore, you need to redesign and rewrite your work. You must explain your readers the reason for limited access.

3. Limited Time

All researchers are bound by their deadlines when it comes to completing their studies. Sometimes, time constraints can affect your research negatively. However, the best practice is to acknowledge it and mention a requirement for future study to solve the research problem in a better way.

4. Conflict over Biased Views and Personal Issues

Biased views can affect the research. In fact, researchers end up choosing only those results and data that support their main argument, keeping aside the other loose ends of the research.

Types of Limitations of Research

Before beginning your research study, know that there are certain limitations to what you are testing or possible research results. There are different types that researchers may encounter, and they all have unique characteristics, such as:

1. Research Design Limitations

Certain restrictions on your research or available procedures may affect your final results or research outputs. You may have formulated research goals and objectives too broadly. However, this can help you understand how you can narrow down the formulation of research goals and objectives, thereby increasing the focus of your study.

2. Impact Limitations

Even if your research has excellent statistics and a strong design, it can suffer from the influence of the following factors:

• Presence of increasing findings as researched
• Being population specific
• A strong regional focus.

3. Data or statistical limitations

In some cases, it is impossible to collect sufficient data for research or very difficult to get access to the data. This could lead to incomplete conclusion to your study. Moreover, this insufficiency in data could be the outcome of your study design. The unclear, shabby research outline could produce more problems in interpreting your findings.

How to Correctly Structure Your Research Limitations?

There are strict guidelines for narrowing down research questions, wherein you could justify and explain potential weaknesses of your academic paper. You could go through these basic steps to get a well-structured clarity of research limitations:

• Declare that you wish to identify your limitations of research and explain their importance,
• Provide the necessary depth, explain their nature, and justify your study choices.
• Write how you are suggesting that it is possible to overcome them in the future.

In this section, your readers will see that you are aware of the potential weaknesses in your business, understand them and offer effective solutions, and it will positively strengthen your article as you clarify all limitations of research to your target audience.

Know that you cannot be perfect and there is no individual without flaws. You could use the limitations of research as a great opportunity to take on a new challenge and improve the future of research. In a typical academic paper, research limitations may relate to:

1. Formulating your goals and objectives

If you formulate goals and objectives too broadly, your work will have some shortcomings. In this case, specify effective methods or ways to narrow down the formula of goals and aim to increase your level of study focus.

2. Application of your data collection methods in research

If you do not have experience in primary data collection, there is a risk that there will be flaws in the implementation of your methods. It is necessary to accept this, and learn and educate yourself to understand data collection methods.

3. Sample sizes

This depends on the nature of problem you choose. Sample size is of a greater importance in quantitative studies as opposed to qualitative ones. If your sample size is too small, statistical tests cannot identify significant relationships or connections within a given data set.

You could point out that other researchers should base the same study on a larger sample size to get more accurate results.

4. The absence of previous studies in the field you have chosen

Writing a literature review is an important step in any scientific study because it helps researchers determine the scope of current work in the chosen field. It is a major foundation for any researcher who must use them to achieve a set of specific goals or objectives.

However, if you are focused on the most current and evolving research problem or a very narrow research problem, there may be very little prior research on your topic. For example, if you chose to explore the role of Bitcoin as the currency of the future, you may not find tons of scientific papers addressing the research problem as Bitcoins are only a new phenomenon.

It is important that you learn to identify research limitations examples at each step. Whatever field you choose, feel free to add the shortcoming of your work. This is mainly because you do not have many years of experience writing scientific papers or completing complex work. Therefore, the depth and scope of your discussions may be compromised at different levels compared to academics with a lot of expertise. Include specific points from limitations of research. Use them as suggestions for the future.

Have you ever faced a challenge of writing the limitations of research study in your paper? How did you overcome it? What ways did you follow? Were they beneficial? Let us know in the comments below!

Frequently Asked Questions

Setting limitations in our study helps to clarify the outcomes drawn from our research and enhance understanding of the subject. Moreover, it shows that the author has investigated all the weaknesses in the study.

Scope is the range and limitations of a research project which are set to define the boundaries of a project. Limitations are the impacts on the overall study due to the constraints on the research design.

Limitation in research is an impact of a constraint on the research design in the overall study. They are the flaws or weaknesses in the study, which may influence the outcome of the research.

1. Limitations in research can be written as follows: Formulate your goals and objectives 2. Analyze the chosen data collection method and the sample sizes 3. Identify your limitations of research and explain their importance 4. Provide the necessary depth, explain their nature, and justify your study choices 5. Write how you are suggesting that it is possible to overcome them in the future

Excellent article ,,,it has helped me big

This is very helpful information. It has given me an insight on how to go about my study limitations.

Good comments and helpful

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Diversity and Inclusion
• Trending Now

The Silent Struggle: Confronting gender bias in science funding

In the 1990s, Dr. Katalin Kariko’s pioneering mRNA research seemed destined for obscurity, doomed by…

• Promoting Research

Plain Language Summary — Communicating your research to bridge the academic-lay gap

Science can be complex, but does that mean it should not be accessible to the…

Addressing Barriers in Academia: Navigating unconscious biases in the Ph.D. journey

In the journey of academia, a Ph.D. marks a transitional phase, like that of a…

• Manuscripts & Grants
• Reporting Research

Unraveling Research Population and Sample: Understanding their role in statistical inference

Research population and sample serve as the cornerstones of any scientific inquiry. They hold the…

• Manuscript Preparation
• Publishing Research

Research Problem Statement — Find out how to write an impactful one!

What Is a Research Problem Statement? A research problem statement is a clear, concise, and…

How to Develop a Good Research Question? — Types & Examples

5 Effective Ways to Avoid Ghostwriting for Busy Researchers

Top 5 Key Differences Between Methods and Methodology

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

What should universities' stance be on AI tools in research and academic writing?

• Affiliate Program

• UNITED STATES
• 台灣 (TAIWAN)
• TÜRKIYE (TURKEY)
• Academic Editing Services
• - Research Paper
• - Journal Manuscript
• - Dissertation
• - College & University Assignments
• Admissions Editing Services
• - Application Essay
• - Personal Statement
• - Recommendation Letter
• - Cover Letter
• - CV/Resume
• Business Editing Services
• - Business Documents
• - Report & Brochure
• - Website & Blog
• Writer Editing Services
• - Script & Screenplay
• Our Editors
• Client Reviews
• Editing & Proofreading Prices
• Wordvice Points
• Partner Discount
• Plagiarism Checker

APA Citation Generator

MLA Citation Generator

Chicago Citation Generator

Vancouver Citation Generator

• - APA Style
• - MLA Style
• - Chicago Style
• - Vancouver Style
• Writing & Editing Guide
• Academic Resources
• Admissions Resources

How to Present the Limitations of the Study Examples

What are the limitations of a study?

The limitations of a study are the elements of methodology or study design that impact the interpretation of your research results. The limitations essentially detail any flaws or shortcomings in your study. Study limitations can exist due to constraints on research design, methodology, materials, etc., and these factors may impact the findings of your study. However, researchers are often reluctant to discuss the limitations of their study in their papers, feeling that bringing up limitations may undermine its research value in the eyes of readers and reviewers.

In spite of the impact it might have (and perhaps because of it) you should clearly acknowledge any limitations in your research paper in order to show readers—whether journal editors, other researchers, or the general public—that you are aware of these limitations and to explain how they affect the conclusions that can be drawn from the research.

In this article, we provide some guidelines for writing about research limitations, show examples of some frequently seen study limitations, and recommend techniques for presenting this information. And after you have finished drafting and have received manuscript editing for your work, you still might want to follow this up with academic editing before submitting your work to your target journal.

Why do I need to include limitations of research in my paper?

Although limitations address the potential weaknesses of a study, writing about them toward the end of your paper actually strengthens your study by identifying any problems before other researchers or reviewers find them.

Furthermore, pointing out study limitations shows that you’ve considered the impact of research weakness thoroughly and have an in-depth understanding of your research topic. Since all studies face limitations, being honest and detailing these limitations will impress researchers and reviewers more than ignoring them.

Where should I put the limitations of the study in my paper?

Some limitations might be evident to researchers before the start of the study, while others might become clear while you are conducting the research. Whether these limitations are anticipated or not, and whether they are due to research design or to methodology, they should be clearly identified and discussed in the discussion section —the final section of your paper. Most journals now require you to include a discussion of potential limitations of your work, and many journals now ask you to place this “limitations section” at the very end of your article. 

Some journals ask you to also discuss the strengths of your work in this section, and some allow you to freely choose where to include that information in your discussion section—make sure to always check the author instructions of your target journal before you finalize a manuscript and submit it for peer review .

Limitations of the Study Examples

There are several reasons why limitations of research might exist. The two main categories of limitations are those that result from the methodology and those that result from issues with the researcher(s).

Common Methodological Limitations of Studies

Limitations of research due to methodological problems can be addressed by clearly and directly identifying the potential problem and suggesting ways in which this could have been addressed—and SHOULD be addressed in future studies. The following are some major potential methodological issues that can impact the conclusions researchers can draw from the research.

Issues with research samples and selection

Sampling errors occur when a probability sampling method is used to select a sample, but that sample does not reflect the general population or appropriate population concerned. This results in limitations of your study known as “sample bias” or “selection bias.”

For example, if you conducted a survey to obtain your research results, your samples (participants) were asked to respond to the survey questions. However, you might have had limited ability to gain access to the appropriate type or geographic scope of participants. In this case, the people who responded to your survey questions may not truly be a random sample.

Insufficient sample size for statistical measurements

When conducting a study, it is important to have a sufficient sample size in order to draw valid conclusions. The larger the sample, the more precise your results will be. If your sample size is too small, it will be difficult to identify significant relationships in the data.

Normally, statistical tests require a larger sample size to ensure that the sample is considered representative of a population and that the statistical result can be generalized to a larger population. It is a good idea to understand how to choose an appropriate sample size before you conduct your research by using scientific calculation tools—in fact, many journals now require such estimation to be included in every manuscript that is sent out for review.

Lack of previous research studies on the topic

Citing and referencing prior research studies constitutes the basis of the literature review for your thesis or study, and these prior studies provide the theoretical foundations for the research question you are investigating. However, depending on the scope of your research topic, prior research studies that are relevant to your thesis might be limited.

When there is very little or no prior research on a specific topic, you may need to develop an entirely new research typology. In this case, discovering a limitation can be considered an important opportunity to identify literature gaps and to present the need for further development in the area of study.

Methods/instruments/techniques used to collect the data

After you complete your analysis of the research findings (in the discussion section), you might realize that the manner in which you have collected the data or the ways in which you have measured variables has limited your ability to conduct a thorough analysis of the results.

For example, you might realize that you should have addressed your survey questions from another viable perspective, or that you were not able to include an important question in the survey. In these cases, you should acknowledge the deficiency or deficiencies by stating a need for future researchers to revise their specific methods for collecting data that includes these missing elements.

Common Limitations of the Researcher(s)

Study limitations that arise from situations relating to the researcher or researchers (whether the direct fault of the individuals or not) should also be addressed and dealt with, and remedies to decrease these limitations—both hypothetically in your study, and practically in future studies—should be proposed.

Limited access to data

If your research involved surveying certain people or organizations, you might have faced the problem of having limited access to these respondents. Due to this limited access, you might need to redesign or restructure your research in a different way. In this case, explain the reasons for limited access and be sure that your finding is still reliable and valid despite this limitation.

Time constraints

Just as students have deadlines to turn in their class papers, academic researchers might also have to meet deadlines for submitting a manuscript to a journal or face other time constraints related to their research (e.g., participants are only available during a certain period; funding runs out; collaborators move to a new institution). The time available to study a research problem and to measure change over time might be constrained by such practical issues. If time constraints negatively impacted your study in any way, acknowledge this impact by mentioning a need for a future study (e.g., a longitudinal study) to answer this research problem.

Conflicts arising from cultural bias and other personal issues

Researchers might hold biased views due to their cultural backgrounds or perspectives of certain phenomena, and this can affect a study’s legitimacy. Also, it is possible that researchers will have biases toward data and results that only support their hypotheses or arguments. In order to avoid these problems, the author(s) of a study should examine whether the way the research problem was stated and the data-gathering process was carried out appropriately.

Steps for Organizing Your Study Limitations Section

When you discuss the limitations of your study, don’t simply list and describe your limitations—explain how these limitations have influenced your research findings. There might be multiple limitations in your study, but you only need to point out and explain those that directly relate to and impact how you address your research questions.

We suggest that you divide your limitations section into three steps: (1) identify the study limitations; (2) explain how they impact your study in detail; and (3) propose a direction for future studies and present alternatives. By following this sequence when discussing your study’s limitations, you will be able to clearly demonstrate your study’s weakness without undermining the quality and integrity of your research.

Step 1. Identify the limitation(s) of the study

• This part should comprise around 10%-20% of your discussion of study limitations.

The first step is to identify the particular limitation(s) that affected your study. There are many possible limitations of research that can affect your study, but you don’t need to write a long review of all possible study limitations. A 200-500 word critique is an appropriate length for a research limitations section. In the beginning of this section, identify what limitations your study has faced and how important these limitations are.

You only need to identify limitations that had the greatest potential impact on: (1) the quality of your findings, and (2) your ability to answer your research question.

Step 2. Explain these study limitations in detail

• This part should comprise around 60-70% of your discussion of limitations.

After identifying your research limitations, it’s time to explain the nature of the limitations and how they potentially impacted your study. For example, when you conduct quantitative research, a lack of probability sampling is an important issue that you should mention. On the other hand, when you conduct qualitative research, the inability to generalize the research findings could be an issue that deserves mention.

Explain the role these limitations played on the results and implications of the research and justify the choice you made in using this “limiting” methodology or other action in your research. Also, make sure that these limitations didn’t undermine the quality of your dissertation .

Step 3. Propose a direction for future studies and present alternatives (optional)

• This part should comprise around 10-20% of your discussion of limitations.

After acknowledging the limitations of the research, you need to discuss some possible ways to overcome these limitations in future studies. One way to do this is to present alternative methodologies and ways to avoid issues with, or “fill in the gaps of” the limitations of this study you have presented.  Discuss both the pros and cons of these alternatives and clearly explain why researchers should choose these approaches.

Make sure you are current on approaches used by prior studies and the impacts they have had on their findings. Cite review articles or scientific bodies that have recommended these approaches and why. This might be evidence in support of the approach you chose, or it might be the reason you consider your choices to be included as limitations. This process can act as a justification for your approach and a defense of your decision to take it while acknowledging the feasibility of other approaches.

P hrases and Tips for Introducing Your Study Limitations in the Discussion Section

The following phrases are frequently used to introduce the limitations of the study:

• “There may be some possible limitations in this study.”
• “The findings of this study have to be seen in light of some limitations.”
•  “The first is the…The second limitation concerns the…”
•  “The empirical results reported herein should be considered in the light of some limitations.”
• “This research, however, is subject to several limitations.”
• “The primary limitation to the generalization of these results is…”
• “Nonetheless, these results must be interpreted with caution and a number of limitations should be borne in mind.”
• “As with the majority of studies, the design of the current study is subject to limitations.”
• “There are two major limitations in this study that could be addressed in future research. First, the study focused on …. Second ….”

For more articles on research writing and the journal submissions and publication process, visit Wordvice’s Academic Resources page.

And be sure to receive professional English editing and proofreading services , including paper editing services , for your journal manuscript before submitting it to journal editors.

Wordvice Resources

Proofreading & Editing Guide

Writing the Results Section for a Research Paper

How to Write a Literature Review

Research Writing Tips: How to Draft a Powerful Discussion Section

How to Captivate Journal Readers with a Strong Introduction

Tips That Will Make Your Abstract a Success!

APA In-Text Citation Guide for Research Writing

Additional Resources

• Diving Deeper into Limitations and Delimitations (PhD student)
• Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper: Limitations of the Study (USC Library)
• Research Limitations (Research Methodology)
• How to Present Limitations and Alternatives (UMASS)

Article References

Pearson-Stuttard, J., Kypridemos, C., Collins, B., Mozaffarian, D., Huang, Y., Bandosz, P.,…Micha, R. (2018). Estimating the health and economic effects of the proposed US Food and Drug Administration voluntary sodium reformulation: Microsimulation cost-effectiveness analysis. PLOS. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002551

Xu, W.L, Pedersen, N.L., Keller, L., Kalpouzos, G., Wang, H.X., Graff, C,. Fratiglioni, L. (2015). HHEX_23 AA Genotype Exacerbates Effect of Diabetes on Dementia and Alzheimer Disease: A Population-Based Longitudinal Study. PLOS. Retrieved from https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001853

Research Limitations

It is for sure that your research will have some limitations and it is normal. However, it is critically important for you to be striving to minimize the range of scope of limitations throughout the research process.  Also, you need to provide the acknowledgement of your research limitations in conclusions chapter honestly.

It is always better to identify and acknowledge shortcomings of your work, rather than to leave them pointed out to your by your dissertation assessor. While discussing your research limitations, don’t just provide the list and description of shortcomings of your work. It is also important for you to explain how these limitations have impacted your research findings.

Your research may have multiple limitations, but you need to discuss only those limitations that directly relate to your research problems. For example, if conducting a meta-analysis of the secondary data has not been stated as your research objective, no need to mention it as your research limitation.

Research limitations in a typical dissertation may relate to the following points:

1. Formulation of research aims and objectives . You might have formulated research aims and objectives too broadly. You can specify in which ways the formulation of research aims and objectives could be narrowed so that the level of focus of the study could be increased.

2. Implementation of data collection method . Because you do not have an extensive experience in primary data collection (otherwise you would not be reading this book), there is a great chance that the nature of implementation of data collection method is flawed.

3. Sample size. Sample size depends on the nature of the research problem. If sample size is too small, statistical tests would not be able to identify significant relationships within data set. You can state that basing your study in larger sample size could have generated more accurate results. The importance of sample size is greater in quantitative studies compared to qualitative studies.

4. Lack of previous studies in the research area . Literature review is an important part of any research, because it helps to identify the scope of works that have been done so far in research area. Literature review findings are used as the foundation for the researcher to be built upon to achieve her research objectives.

However, there may be little, if any, prior research on your topic if you have focused on the most contemporary and evolving research problem or too narrow research problem. For example, if you have chosen to explore the role of Bitcoins as the future currency, you may not be able to find tons of scholarly paper addressing the research problem, because Bitcoins are only a recent phenomenon.

5. Scope of discussions . You can include this point as a limitation of your research regardless of the choice of the research area. Because (most likely) you don’t have many years of experience of conducing researches and producing academic papers of such a large size individually, the scope and depth of discussions in your paper is compromised in many levels compared to the works of experienced scholars.

You can discuss certain points from your research limitations as the suggestion for further research at conclusions chapter of your dissertation.

My e-book,  The Ultimate Guide to Writing a Dissertation in Business Studies: a step by step assistance  offers practical assistance to complete a dissertation with minimum or no stress. The e-book covers all stages of writing a dissertation starting from the selection to the research area to submitting the completed version of the work within the deadline. John Dudovskiy

• Cookies & Privacy
• GETTING STARTED
• Introduction
• FUNDAMENTALS
• Acknowledgements
• Research questions & hypotheses
• Concepts, constructs & variables
• Research limitations
• Getting started
• Sampling Strategy
• Research Quality
• Research Ethics
• Data Analysis

EXPECTATIONS

What the reader expects from the research limitations section of your dissertation.

All research suffers from limitations , whether it is performed by undergraduate and master's level dissertation students, or seasoned academics. These research limitations range from flaws in the research design, which can be quite serious, to more common problems, such as the challenge of justifying how and why your findings answer the research questions and/or hypotheses that were set. This article explains some of the broader rules to think about when writing the Research Limitations section of your dissertation. In particular, your Research Limitations section should be: (a) well structured; (b) properly weighted; (c) honest; and (d) pragmatic. Each of these is discussed in turn.

Well structured

There is no "one best way" to structure this Research Limitations section of your dissertation. However, like the dissertation abstract, structure is important because you typically only have around 200 to 500 words to explain and justify all the potential weaknesses and/or limitations in your dissertation. In producing a Research Limitations section that is well structured, we recommend a structure based on three moves (i.e., the announcing , reflecting and forward looking move):

The announcing move immediately allows you to identify the limitations of your dissertation and explain how important each of these limitations is.

The reflecting move provides greater depth, helping to explain the nature of the limitations and justify the choices that you made during the research process.

Finally, the forward looking move enables you to suggest how such limitations could be overcome in future.

The collective aim of these three moves is to help you walk the reader through your Research Limitations section in a succinct and structured way. This will make it clear to the reader that you (a) recognise the limitations of your own research, (b) understand why such factors are limitations, and (c) can point to ways of combating these limitations if future research was carried out.

To understand more about each of these moves and how to clearly structure the Research Limitations section of your dissertation, read the section: How to structure the Research Limitations section of your dissertation .

Properly weighted

You should consider dedicating around 10-20% of the total word count of the Research Limitations section to the announcing move , 60-70% to the reflecting move and 10-20% to the final, forward looking move . Certainly, it is important to acknowledge the potential limitations of your dissertation in the announcing move , as well as suggest how future research could overcome such limitations. However, the focus of the Research Limitations section should be on explaining the nature of your limitations, the degree to which these were a problem, as well as justifying the reasons why you conducted the research the way you did. Since this section of the dissertation is generally only 200-500 words, the section should focus on those limitations that you feel had the greatest impact on your findings, as well as your ability to effectively answer your research questions and/or hypotheses. You are not writing a 2000 word critical review of the limitations of your dissertation.

Acknowledging the limitations of your research is not a way of highlighting to the reader where (and why) they should reduce the marks you receive for your dissertation. Instead, the Research Limitations section provides the right balance to the final chapter of your dissertation (often Chapter Five: Discussion/Conclusions ). It makes it clear to the reader that you recognise the limitations of your own research, that you understand why such factors are limitations, and can point to ways of combating these limitations if future research was carried out. Communicating such an understanding to the reader demonstrates the command that you have over your research, which should help in improving the marks you receive for your dissertation. Added to this, the person reading your dissertation can easily identify potential weaknesses, even if you have not spelt these out. This comes with years of experience in teaching and research, which many academics have. Trying to hide potential limitations to your dissertation is not advised.

There are many ideals in research. For the researcher that prefers to adopt a quantitative research design [see the section on Research Designs for more information about research designs], a probability sampling technique is viewed as the ideal because it enables the researcher to make generalisations (i.e., statistical inferences ) from the sample to the population being studied [see the articles on Sampling: The basics and Probability sampling to learn more about sampling and probability sampling techniques].

For example: If the researcher was investigating the career choices of students at a university of 20,000 students (the population in question), only a small number of these students (e.g., a sample of 400 students), may need to be surveyed. It may then be possible to make generalisations about the career choices of the population of 20,000 students based on the data collected from the sample of 400 students [see the article, Probability sampling , if you want to know more about this example].

However, as all of the articles on types of probability sampling technique illustrate (e.g., simple random sampling , stratified random sampling ), using a probability sampling technique can be very difficult. In fact, there are many reasons why it may be impossible (or near on impossible) to use a probability sampling technique. In such cases, researchers are forced to use non-probability sampling techniques , where is it no longer possible to make generalisations (i.e., statistical inferences) from the sample to the population being studied. However, this does not mean that any study that uses a quantitative research design, but fails to use a probability sampling technique, is of low quality or flawed. It simply means that some things that are limitations in theory are not necessarily weaknesses in practice . It means that you need to adopt a pragmatic approach to your research, whilst acknowledging potential limitations.

If you know the limitations in your dissertation, you may find the next section, How to structure the Research Limitations section of your dissertation , helpful.

Organizing Academic Research Papers: Limitations of the Study

• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Executive Summary
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tertiary Sources
• What Is Scholarly vs. Popular?
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Annotated Bibliography
• Dealing with Nervousness
• Using Visual Aids
• Grading Someone Else's Paper
• How to Manage Group Projects
• Multiple Book Review Essay
• Reviewing Collected Essays
• About Informed Consent
• Writing Field Notes
• Writing a Policy Memo
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Acknowledgements

The limitations of the study are those characteristics of design or methodology that impacted or influenced the application or interpretation of the results of your study. They are the constraints on generalizability and utility of findings that are the result of the ways in which you chose to design the study and/or the method used to establish internal and external validity.

Importance of...

Always acknowledge a study's limitations. It is far better for you to identify and acknowledge your study’s limitations than to have them pointed out by your professor and be graded down because you appear to have ignored them.

Keep in mind that acknowledgement of a study's limitations is an opportunity to make suggestions for further research. If you do connect your study's limitations to suggestions for further research, be sure to explain the ways in which these unanswered questions may become more focused because of your study.

Acknowledgement of a study's limitations also provides you with an opportunity to demonstrate to your professor that you have thought critically about the research problem, understood the relevant literature published about it, and correctly assessed the methods chosen for studying the problem. A key objective of the research process is not only discovering new knowledge but also to confront assumptions and explore what we don't know.

Claiming limitiations is a subjective process because you must evaluate the impact of those limitations . Don't just list key weaknesses and the magnitude of a study's limitations. To do so diminishes the validity of your research because it leaves the reader wondering whether, or in what ways, limitation(s) in your study may have impacted the findings and conclusions. Limitations require a critical, overall appraisal and interpretation of their impact. You should answer the question: do these problems with errors, methods, validity, etc. eventually matter and, if so, to what extent?

Structure: How to Structure the Research Limitations Section of Your Dissertation . Dissertations and Theses: An Online Textbook. Laerd.com.

Descriptions of Possible Limitations

All studies have limitations . However, it is important that you restrict your discussion to limitations related to the research problem under investigation. For example, if a meta-analysis of existing literature is not a stated purpose of your research, it should not be discussed as a limitation. Do not apologize for not addressing issues that you did not promise to investigate in your paper.

Here are examples of limitations you may need to describe and to discuss how they possibly impacted your findings. Descriptions of limitations should be stated in the past tense.

Possible Methodological Limitations

• Sample size -- the number of the units of analysis you use in your study is dictated by the type of research problem you are investigating. Note that, if your sample size is too small, it will be difficult to find significant relationships from the data, as statistical tests normally require a larger sample size to ensure a representative distribution of the population and to be considered representative of groups of people to whom results will be generalized or transferred.
• Lack of available and/or reliable data -- a lack of data or of reliable data will likely require you to limit the scope of your analysis, the size of your sample, or it can be a significant obstacle in finding a trend and a meaningful relationship. You need to not only describe these limitations but to offer reasons why you believe data is missing or is unreliable. However, don’t just throw up your hands in frustration; use this as an opportunity to describe the need for future research.
• Lack of prior research studies on the topic -- citing prior research studies forms the basis of your literature review and helps lay a foundation for understanding the research problem you are investigating. Depending on the currency or scope of your research topic, there may be little, if any, prior research on your topic. Before assuming this to be true, consult with a librarian! In cases when a librarian has confirmed that there is a lack of prior research, you may be required to develop an entirely new research typology [for example, using an exploratory rather than an explanatory research design]. Note that this limitation can serve as an important opportunity to describe the need for further research.
• Measure used to collect the data -- sometimes it is the case that, after completing your interpretation of the findings, you discover that the way in which you gathered data inhibited your ability to conduct a thorough analysis of the results. For example, you regret not including a specific question in a survey that, in retrospect, could have helped address a particular issue that emerged later in the study. Acknowledge the deficiency by stating a need in future research to revise the specific method for gathering data.
• Self-reported data -- whether you are relying on pre-existing self-reported data or you are conducting a qualitative research study and gathering the data yourself, self-reported data is limited by the fact that it rarely can be independently verified. In other words, you have to take what people say, whether in interviews, focus groups, or on questionnaires, at face value. However, self-reported data contain several potential sources of bias that should be noted as limitations: (1) selective memory (remembering or not remembering experiences or events that occurred at some point in the past); (2) telescoping [recalling events that occurred at one time as if they occurred at another time]; (3) attribution [the act of attributing positive events and outcomes to one's own agency but attributing negative events and outcomes to external forces]; and, (4) exaggeration [the act of representing outcomes or embellishing events as more significant than is actually suggested from other data].

Possible Limitations of the Researcher

• Access -- if your study depends on having access to people, organizations, or documents and, for whatever reason, access is denied or otherwise limited, the reasons for this need to be described.
• Longitudinal effects -- unlike your professor, who can literally devote years [even a lifetime] to studying a single research problem, the time available to investigate a research problem and to measure change or stability within a sample is constrained by the due date of your assignment. Be sure to choose a topic that does not require an excessive amount of time to complete the literature review, apply the methodology, and gather and interpret the results. If you're unsure, talk to your professor.
• Cultural and other type of bias -- we all have biases, whether we are conscience of them or not. Bias is when a person, place, or thing is viewed or shown in a consistently inaccurate way. It is usually negative, though one can have a positive bias as well. When proof-reading your paper, be especially critical in reviewing how you have stated a problem, selected the data to be studied, what may have been omitted, the manner in which you have ordered events, people, or places and how you have chosen to represent a person, place, or thing, to name a phenomenon, or to use possible words with a positive or negative connotation. Note that if you detect bias in prior research, it must be acknowledged and you should explain what measures were taken to avoid perpetuating bias.
• Fluency in a language -- if your research focuses on measuring the perceived value of after-school tutoring among Mexican-American ESL [English as a Second Language] students, for example, and you are not fluent in Spanish, you are limited in being able to read and interpret Spanish language research studies on the topic. This deficiency should be acknowledged.

Brutus, Stéphane et al. Self-Reported Limitations and Future Directions in Scholarly Reports: Analysis and Recommendations. Journal of Management 39 (January 2013): 48-75; Senunyeme, Emmanuel K. Business Research Methods . Powerpoint Presentation. Regent University of Science and Technology.

Structure and Writing Style

Information about the limitations of your study are generally placed either at the beginning of the discussion section of your paper so the reader knows and understands the limitations before reading the rest of your analysis of the findings, or, the limitations are outlined at the conclusion of the discussion section as an acknowledgement of the need for further study. Statements about a study's limitations should not be buried in the body [middle] of the discussion section unless a limitation is specific to something covered in that part of the paper. If this is the case, though, the limitation should be reiterated at the conclusion of the section.

If you determine that your study is seriously flawed due to important limitations , such as, an inability to acquire critical data, consider reframing it as a pilot study intended to lay the groundwork for a more complete research study in the future. Be sure, though, to specifically explain the ways that these flaws can be successfully overcome in later studies.

But, do not use this as an excuse for not developing a thorough research paper! Review the tab in this guide for developing a research topic . If serious limitations exist, it generally indicates a likelihood that your research problem is too narrowly defined or that the issue or event under study  is too recent and, thus, very little research has been written about it. If serious limitations do emerge, consult with your professor about possible ways to overcome them or how to reframe your study.

When discussing the limitations of your research, be sure to:

• Describe each limitation in detailed but concise terms;
• Explain why each limitation exists;
• Provide the reasons why each limitation could not be overcome using the method(s) chosen to gather the data [cite to other studies that had similar problems when possible];
• Assess the impact of each limitation in relation to  the overall findings and conclusions of your study; and,
• If appropriate, describe how these limitations could point to the need for further research.

Remember that the method you chose may be the source of a significant limitation that has emerged during your interpretation of the results [for example, you didn't ask a particular question in a survey that you later wish you had]. If this is the case, don't panic. Acknowledge it, and explain how applying a different or more robust methodology might address the research problem more effectively in any future study. A underlying goal of scholarly research is not only to prove what works, but to demonstrate what doesn't work or what needs further clarification.

Brutus, Stéphane et al. Self-Reported Limitations and Future Directions in Scholarly Reports: Analysis and Recommendations. Journal of Management 39 (January 2013): 48-75; Ioannidis, John P.A. Limitations are not Properly Acknowledged in the Scientific Literature. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 60 (2007): 324-329; Pasek, Josh. Writing the Empirical Social Science Research Paper: A Guide for the Perplexed . January 24, 2012. Academia.edu; Structure: How to Structure the Research Limitations Section of Your Dissertation . Dissertations and Theses: An Online Textbook. Laerd.com; What Is an Academic Paper? Institute for Writing Rhetoric. Dartmouth College; Writing the Experimental Report: Methods, Results, and Discussion. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University.

Writing Tip

Don't Inflate the Importance of Your Findings! After all the hard work and long hours devoted to writing your research paper, it is easy to get carried away with attributing unwarranted importance to what you’ve done. We all want our academic work to be viewed as excellent and worthy of a good grade, but it is important that you understand and openly acknowledge the limitiations of your study. Inflating of the importance of your study's findings in an attempt hide its flaws is a big turn off to your readers. A measure of humility goes a long way!

Another Writing Tip

Negative Results are Not a Limitation!

Negative evidence refers to findings that unexpectedly challenge rather than support your hypothesis. If you didn't get the results you anticipated, it may mean your hypothesis was incorrect and needs to be reformulated, or, perhaps you have stumbled onto something unexpected that warrants further study. Moreover, the absence of an effect may be very telling in many situations, particularly in experimental research designs. In any case, your results may be of importance to others even though they did not support your hypothesis. Do not fall into the trap of thinking that results contrary to what you expected is a limitation to your study. If you carried out the research well, they are simply your results and only require additional interpretation.

Yet Another Writing Tip

A Note about Sample Size Limitations in Qualitative Research

Sample sizes are typically smaller in qualitative research because, as the study goes on, acquiring more data does not necessarily lead to more information. This is because one occurrence of a piece of data, or a code, is all that is necessary to ensure that it becomes part of the analysis framework. However, it remains true that sample sizes that are too small cannot adequately support claims of having achieved valid conclusions and sample sizes that are too large do not permit the deep, naturalistic, and inductive analysis that defines qualitative inquiry. Determining adequate sample size in qualitative research is ultimately a matter of judgment and experience in evaluating the quality of the information collected against the uses to which it will be applied and the particular research method and purposeful sampling strategy employed. If the sample size is found to be a limitation, it may reflect your judgement about the methodological technique chosen [e.g., single life history study versus focus group interviews] rather than the number of respondents used.

Huberman, A. Michael and Matthew B. Miles. Data Management and Analysis Methods. In Handbook of Qualitative Research. Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, eds. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994), pp. 428-444.

• << Previous: 8. The Discussion
• Next: 9. The Conclusion >>
• Last Updated: Jul 18, 2023 11:58 AM
• URL: https://library.sacredheart.edu/c.php?g=29803
• QuickSearch
• Library Catalog
• Databases A-Z
• Publication Finder
• Course Reserves
• Citation Linker
• Digital Commons
• Our Website

Research Support

• Ask a Librarian
• Appointments
• Interlibrary Loan (ILL)
• Research Guides
• Databases by Subject
• Citation Help

Using the Library

• Reserve a Group Study Room
• Renew Books
• Honors Study Rooms
• Off-Campus Access
• Library Policies
• Library Technology

User Information

• Grad Students
• Online Students
• COVID-19 Updates
• Staff Directory
• News & Announcements
• Library Newsletter

My Accounts

• Interlibrary Loan
• Staff Site Login

FIND US ON  

CPS Online Graduate Studies Research Paper (UNH Manchester Library): Limitations of the Study

• Overview of the Research Process for Capstone Projects
• Types of Research Design
• Selecting a Research Problem
• The Title of Your Research Paper
• Before You Begin Writing
• 7 Parts of the Research Paper
• Background Information
• Quanitative and Qualitative Methods
• Qualitative Methods
• Quanitative Methods
• Resources to Help You With the Literature Review
• Non-Textual Elements

Limitations of the Study

• Format of Capstone Research Projects at GSC
• Editing and Proofreading Your Paper
• Acknowledgements
• UNH Scholar's Repository

The limitations of the study are those characteristics of design or methodology that impacted or influenced the interpretation of the findings from your research. They are the constraints on generalizability, applications to practice, and/or utility of findings that are the result of the ways in which you initially chose to design the study and/or the method used to establish internal and external validity.

Price, James H. and Judy Murnan. “Research Limitations and the Necessity of Reporting Them.” American Journal of Health Education 35 (2004): 66-67.

Always acknowledge a study's limitations. It is far better that you identify and acknowledge your study’s limitations than to have them pointed out by your professor and be graded down because you appear to have ignored them.

Keep in mind that acknowledgement of a study's limitations is an opportunity to make suggestions for further research. If you do connect your study's limitations to suggestions for further research, be sure to explain the ways in which these unanswered questions may become more focused because of your study.

Acknowledgement of a study's limitations also provides you with an opportunity to demonstrate that you have thought critically about the research problem, understood the relevant literature published about it, and correctly assessed the methods chosen for studying the problem. A key objective of the research process is not only discovering new knowledge but to also confront assumptions and explore what we don't know.

Claiming limitations is a subjective process because you must evaluate the impact of those limitations . Don't just list key weaknesses and the magnitude of a study's limitations. To do so diminishes the validity of your research because it leaves the reader wondering whether, or in what ways, limitation(s) in your study may have impacted the results and conclusions. Limitations require a critical, overall appraisal and interpretation of their impact. You should answer the question: do these problems with errors, methods, validity, etc. eventually matter and, if so, to what extent?

Price, James H. and Judy Murnan. “Research Limitations and the Necessity of Reporting Them.” American Journal of Health Education 35 (2004): 66-67; Structure: How to Structure the Research Limitations Section of Your Dissertation . Dissertations and Theses: An Online Textbook. Laerd.com.

Descriptions of Possible Limitations

All studies have limitations . However, it is important that you restrict your discussion to limitations related to the research problem under investigation. For example, if a meta-analysis of existing literature is not a stated purpose of your research, it should not be discussed as a limitation. Do not apologize for not addressing issues that you did not promise to investigate in the introduction of your paper.

Here are examples of limitations related to methodology and the research process you may need to describe and to discuss how they possibly impacted your results. Descriptions of limitations should be stated in the past tense because they were discovered after you completed your research.

Possible Methodological Limitations

• Sample size -- the number of the units of analysis you use in your study is dictated by the type of research problem you are investigating. Note that, if your sample size is too small, it will be difficult to find significant relationships from the data, as statistical tests normally require a larger sample size to ensure a representative distribution of the population and to be considered representative of groups of people to whom results will be generalized or transferred. Note that sample size is less relevant in qualitative research.
• Lack of available and/or reliable data -- a lack of data or of reliable data will likely require you to limit the scope of your analysis, the size of your sample, or it can be a significant obstacle in finding a trend and a meaningful relationship. You need to not only describe these limitations but to offer reasons why you believe data is missing or is unreliable. However, don’t just throw up your hands in frustration; use this as an opportunity to describe the need for future research.
• Lack of prior research studies on the topic -- citing prior research studies forms the basis of your literature review and helps lay a foundation for understanding the research problem you are investigating. Depending on the currency or scope of your research topic, there may be little, if any, prior research on your topic. Before assuming this to be true, though, consult with a librarian. In cases when a librarian has confirmed that there is no prior research, you may be required to develop an entirely new research typology [for example, using an exploratory rather than an explanatory research design]. Note again that discovering a limitation can serve as an important opportunity to identify new gaps in the literature and to describe the need for further research.
• Measure used to collect the data -- sometimes it is the case that, after completing your interpretation of the findings, you discover that the way in which you gathered data inhibited your ability to conduct a thorough analysis of the results. For example, you regret not including a specific question in a survey that, in retrospect, could have helped address a particular issue that emerged later in the study. Acknowledge the deficiency by stating a need for future researchers to revise the specific method for gathering data.
• Self-reported data -- whether you are relying on pre-existing data or you are conducting a qualitative research study and gathering the data yourself, self-reported data is limited by the fact that it rarely can be independently verified. In other words, you have to take what people say, whether in interviews, focus groups, or on questionnaires, at face value. However, self-reported data can contain several potential sources of bias that you should be alert to and note as limitations. These biases become apparent if they are incongruent with data from other sources. These are: (1) selective memory [remembering or not remembering experiences or events that occurred at some point in the past]; (2) telescoping [recalling events that occurred at one time as if they occurred at another time]; (3) attribution [the act of attributing positive events and outcomes to one's own agency but attributing negative events and outcomes to external forces]; and, (4) exaggeration [the act of representing outcomes or embellishing events as more significant than is actually suggested from other data].

Possible Limitations of the Researcher

• Access -- if your study depends on having access to people, organizations, or documents and, for whatever reason, access is denied or limited in some way, the reasons for this need to be described.
• Longitudinal effects -- unlike your professor, who can literally devote years [even a lifetime] to studying a single topic, the time available to investigate a research problem and to measure change or stability over time is pretty much constrained by the due date of your assignment. Be sure to choose a research problem that does not require an excessive amount of time to complete the literature review, apply the methodology, and gather and interpret the results. If you're unsure whether you can complete your research within the confines of the assignment's due date, talk to your professor.
• Cultural and other type of bias -- we all have biases, whether we are conscience of them or not. Bias is when a person, place, or thing is viewed or shown in a consistently inaccurate way. Bias is usually negative, though one can have a positive bias as well, especially if that bias reflects your reliance on research that only support for your hypothesis. When proof-reading your paper, be especially critical in reviewing how you have stated a problem, selected the data to be studied, what may have been omitted, the manner in which you have ordered events, people, or places, how you have chosen to represent a person, place, or thing, to name a phenomenon, or to use possible words with a positive or negative connotation.

NOTE:   If you detect bias in prior research, it must be acknowledged and you should explain what measures were taken to avoid perpetuating that bias.

• Fluency in a language -- if your research focuses on measuring the perceived value of after-school tutoring among Mexican-American ESL [English as a Second Language] students, for example, and you are not fluent in Spanish, you are limited in being able to read and interpret Spanish language research studies on the topic. This deficiency should be acknowledged.

Aguinis, Hermam and Jeffrey R. Edwards. “Methodological Wishes for the Next Decade and How to Make Wishes Come True.” Journal of Management Studies 51 (January 2014): 143-174; Brutus, Stéphane et al. "Self-Reported Limitations and Future Directions in Scholarly Reports: Analysis and Recommendations." Journal of Management 39 (January 2013): 48-75; Senunyeme, Emmanuel K. Business Research Methods . Powerpoint Presentation. Regent University of Science and Technology; ter Riet, Gerben et al. “All That Glitters Isn't Gold: A Survey on Acknowledgment of Limitations in Biomedical Studies.” PLOS One 8 (November 2013): 1-6.

Structure and Writing Style

Information about the limitations of your study are generally placed either at the beginning of the discussion section of your paper so the reader knows and understands the limitations before reading the rest of your analysis of the findings, or, the limitations are outlined at the conclusion of the discussion section as an acknowledgement of the need for further study. Statements about a study's limitations should not be buried in the body [middle] of the discussion section unless a limitation is specific to something covered in that part of the paper. If this is the case, though, the limitation should be reiterated at the conclusion of the section. If you determine that your study is seriously flawed due to important limitations, such as, an inability to acquire critical data, consider reframing it as an exploratory study intended to lay the groundwork for a more complete research study in the future. Be sure, though, to specifically explain the ways that these flaws can be successfully overcome in a new study. But, do not use this as an excuse for not developing a thorough research paper! Review the tab in this guide for developing a research topic. If serious limitations exist, it generally indicates a likelihood that your research problem is too narrowly defined or that the issue or event under study is too recent and, thus, very little research has been written about it. If serious limitations do emerge, consult with your professor about possible ways to overcome them or how to revise your study. When discussing the limitations of your research, be sure to: Describe each limitation in detailed but concise terms; Explain why each limitation exists; Provide the reasons why each limitation could not be overcome using the method(s) chosen to acquire or gather the data [cite to other studies that had similar problems when possible]; Assess the impact of each limitation in relation to the overall findings and conclusions of your study; and, If appropriate, describe how these limitations could point to the need for further research. Remember that the method you chose may be the source of a significant limitation that has emerged during your interpretation of the results [for example, you didn't interview a group of people that you later wish you had]. If this is the case, don't panic. Acknowledge it, and explain how applying a different or more robust methodology might address the research problem more effectively in a future study. A underlying goal of scholarly research is not only to show what works, but to demonstrate what doesn't work or what needs further clarification. Aguinis, Hermam and Jeffrey R. Edwards. “Methodological Wishes for the Next Decade and How to Make Wishes Come True.” Journal of Management Studies 51 (January 2014): 143-174; Brutus, Stéphane et al. "Self-Reported Limitations and Future Directions in Scholarly Reports: Analysis and Recommendations." Journal of Management 39 (January 2013): 48-75; Ioannidis, John P.A. "Limitations are not Properly Acknowledged in the Scientific Literature." Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 60 (2007): 324-329; Pasek, Josh. Writing the Empirical Social Science Research Paper: A Guide for the Perplexed. January 24, 2012. Academia.edu; Structure: How to Structure the Research Limitations Section of Your Dissertation. Dissertations and Theses: An Online Textbook. Laerd.com; What Is an Academic Paper? Institute for Writing Rhetoric. Dartmouth College; Writing the Experimental Report: Methods, Results, and Discussion. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University.

Information about the limitations of your study are generally placed either at the beginning of the discussion section of your paper so the reader knows and understands the limitations before reading the rest of your analysis of the findings, or, the limitations are outlined at the conclusion of the discussion section as an acknowledgement of the need for further study. Statements about a study's limitations should not be buried in the body [middle] of the discussion section unless a limitation is specific to something covered in that part of the paper. If this is the case, though, the limitation should be reiterated at the conclusion of the section.

If you determine that your study is seriously flawed due to important limitations , such as, an inability to acquire critical data, consider reframing it as an exploratory study intended to lay the groundwork for a more complete research study in the future. Be sure, though, to specifically explain the ways that these flaws can be successfully overcome in a new study.

But, do not use this as an excuse for not developing a thorough research paper! Review the tab in this guide for developing a research topic . If serious limitations exist, it generally indicates a likelihood that your research problem is too narrowly defined or that the issue or event under study is too recent and, thus, very little research has been written about it. If serious limitations do emerge, consult with your professor about possible ways to overcome them or how to revise your study.

When discussing the limitations of your research, be sure to:

• Describe each limitation in detailed but concise terms;
• Explain why each limitation exists;
• Provide the reasons why each limitation could not be overcome using the method(s) chosen to acquire or gather the data [cite to other studies that had similar problems when possible];
• Assess the impact of each limitation in relation to the overall findings and conclusions of your study; and,
• If appropriate, describe how these limitations could point to the need for further research.

Remember that the method you chose may be the source of a significant limitation that has emerged during your interpretation of the results [for example, you didn't interview a group of people that you later wish you had]. If this is the case, don't panic. Acknowledge it, and explain how applying a different or more robust methodology might address the research problem more effectively in a future study. A underlying goal of scholarly research is not only to show what works, but to demonstrate what doesn't work or what needs further clarification.

Aguinis, Hermam and Jeffrey R. Edwards. “Methodological Wishes for the Next Decade and How to Make Wishes Come True.” Journal of Management Studies 51 (January 2014): 143-174; Brutus, Stéphane et al. "Self-Reported Limitations and Future Directions in Scholarly Reports: Analysis and Recommendations." Journal of Management 39 (January 2013): 48-75; Ioannidis, John P.A. "Limitations are not Properly Acknowledged in the Scientific Literature." Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 60 (2007): 324-329; Pasek, Josh. Writing the Empirical Social Science Research Paper: A Guide for the Perplexed . January 24, 2012. Academia.edu; Structure: How to Structure the Research Limitations Section of Your Dissertation . Dissertations and Theses: An Online Textbook. Laerd.com; What Is an Academic Paper? Institute for Writing Rhetoric. Dartmouth College; Writing the Experimental Report: Methods, Results, and Discussion . The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University.

• << Previous: The Discussion
• Next: Conclusion >>
• Last Updated: Nov 6, 2023 1:43 PM
• URL: https://libraryguides.unh.edu/cpsonlinegradpaper

• Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Delimitations

Definition:

Delimitations refer to the specific boundaries or limitations that are set in a research study in order to narrow its scope and focus. Delimitations may be related to a variety of factors, including the population being studied, the geographical location, the time period, the research design , and the methods or tools being used to collect data .

The Importance of Delimitations in Research Studies

Here are some reasons why delimitations are important in research studies:

• Provide focus : Delimitations help researchers focus on a specific area of interest and avoid getting sidetracked by tangential topics. By setting clear boundaries, researchers can concentrate their efforts on the most relevant and significant aspects of the research question.
• Increase validity : Delimitations ensure that the research is more valid by defining the boundaries of the study. When researchers establish clear criteria for inclusion and exclusion, they can better control for extraneous variables that might otherwise confound the results.
• Improve generalizability : Delimitations help researchers determine the extent to which their findings can be generalized to other populations or contexts. By specifying the sample size, geographic region, time frame, or other relevant factors, researchers can provide more accurate estimates of the generalizability of their results.
• Enhance feasibility : Delimitations help researchers identify the resources and time required to complete the study. By setting realistic parameters, researchers can ensure that the study is feasible and can be completed within the available time and resources.
• Clarify scope: Delimitations help readers understand the scope of the research project. By explicitly stating what is included and excluded, researchers can avoid confusion and ensure that readers understand the boundaries of the study.

Types of Delimitations in Research

Here are some types of delimitations in research and their significance:

Time Delimitations

This type of delimitation refers to the time frame in which the research will be conducted. Time delimitations are important because they help to narrow down the scope of the study and ensure that the research is feasible within the given time constraints.

Geographical Delimitations

Geographical delimitations refer to the geographic boundaries within which the research will be conducted. These delimitations are significant because they help to ensure that the research is relevant to the intended population or location.

Population Delimitations

Population delimitations refer to the specific group of people that the research will focus on. These delimitations are important because they help to ensure that the research is targeted to a specific group, which can improve the accuracy of the results.

Data Delimitations

Data delimitations refer to the specific types of data that will be used in the research. These delimitations are important because they help to ensure that the data is relevant to the research question and that the research is conducted using reliable and valid data sources.

Scope Delimitations

Scope delimitations refer to the specific aspects or dimensions of the research that will be examined. These delimitations are important because they help to ensure that the research is focused and that the findings are relevant to the research question.

How to Write Delimitations

In order to write delimitations in research, you can follow these steps:

• Identify the scope of your study : Determine the extent of your research by defining its boundaries. This will help you to identify the areas that are within the scope of your research and those that are outside of it.
• Determine the time frame : Decide on the time period that your research will cover. This could be a specific period, such as a year, or it could be a general time frame, such as the last decade.
• I dentify the population : Determine the group of people or objects that your study will focus on. This could be a specific age group, gender, profession, or geographic location.
• Establish the sample size : Determine the number of participants that your study will involve. This will help you to establish the number of people you need to recruit for your study.
• Determine the variables: Identify the variables that will be measured in your study. This could include demographic information, attitudes, behaviors, or other factors.
• Explain the limitations : Clearly state the limitations of your study. This could include limitations related to time, resources, sample size, or other factors that may impact the validity of your research.
• Justify the limitations : Explain why these limitations are necessary for your research. This will help readers understand why certain factors were excluded from the study.

When to Write Delimitations in Research

Here are some situations when you may need to write delimitations in research:

• When defining the scope of the study: Delimitations help to define the boundaries of your research by specifying what is and what is not included in your study. For instance, you may delimit your study by focusing on a specific population, geographic region, time period, or research methodology.
• When addressing limitations: Delimitations can also be used to address the limitations of your research. For example, if your data is limited to a certain timeframe or geographic area, you can include this information in your delimitations to help readers understand the limitations of your findings.
• When justifying the relevance of the study : Delimitations can also help you to justify the relevance of your research. For instance, if you are conducting a study on a specific population or region, you can explain why this group or area is important and how your research will contribute to the understanding of this topic.
• When clarifying the research question or hypothesis : Delimitations can also be used to clarify your research question or hypothesis. By specifying the boundaries of your study, you can ensure that your research question or hypothesis is focused and specific.
• When establishing the context of the study : Finally, delimitations can help you to establish the context of your research. By providing information about the scope and limitations of your study, you can help readers to understand the context in which your research was conducted and the implications of your findings.

Examples of Delimitations in Research

Examples of Delimitations in Research are as follows:

Research Title : “Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Cybersecurity Threat Detection”

Delimitations :

• The study will focus solely on the use of artificial intelligence in detecting and mitigating cybersecurity threats.
• The study will only consider the impact of AI on threat detection and not on other aspects of cybersecurity such as prevention, response, or recovery.
• The research will be limited to a specific type of cybersecurity threats, such as malware or phishing attacks, rather than all types of cyber threats.
• The study will only consider the use of AI in a specific industry, such as finance or healthcare, rather than examining its impact across all industries.
• The research will only consider AI-based threat detection tools that are currently available and widely used, rather than including experimental or theoretical AI models.

Research Title: “The Effects of Social Media on Academic Performance: A Case Study of College Students”

Delimitations:

• The study will focus only on college students enrolled in a particular university.
• The study will only consider social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
• The study will only analyze the academic performance of students based on their GPA and course grades.
• The study will not consider the impact of other factors such as student demographics, socioeconomic status, or other factors that may affect academic performance.
• The study will only use self-reported data from students, rather than objective measures of their social media usage or academic performance.

Purpose of Delimitations

Some Purposes of Delimitations are as follows:

• Focusing the research : By defining the scope of the study, delimitations help researchers to narrow down their research questions and focus on specific aspects of the topic. This allows for a more targeted and meaningful study.
• Clarifying the research scope : Delimitations help to clarify the boundaries of the research, which helps readers to understand what is and is not included in the study.
• Avoiding scope creep : Delimitations help researchers to stay focused on their research objectives and avoid being sidetracked by tangential issues or data.
• Enhancing the validity of the study : By setting clear boundaries, delimitations help to ensure that the study is valid and reliable.
• Improving the feasibility of the study : Delimitations help researchers to ensure that their study is feasible and can be conducted within the time and resources available.

Applications of Delimitations

Here are some common applications of delimitations:

• Geographic delimitations : Researchers may limit their study to a specific geographic area, such as a particular city, state, or country. This helps to narrow the focus of the study and makes it more manageable.
• Time delimitations : Researchers may limit their study to a specific time period, such as a decade, a year, or a specific date range. This can be useful for studying trends over time or for comparing data from different time periods.
• Population delimitations : Researchers may limit their study to a specific population, such as a particular age group, gender, or ethnic group. This can help to ensure that the study is relevant to the population being studied.
• Data delimitations : Researchers may limit their study to specific types of data, such as survey responses, interviews, or archival records. This can help to ensure that the study is based on reliable and relevant data.
• Conceptual delimitations : Researchers may limit their study to specific concepts or variables, such as only studying the effects of a particular treatment on a specific outcome. This can help to ensure that the study is focused and clear.

Advantages of Delimitations

Some Advantages of Delimitations are as follows:

• Helps to focus the study: Delimitations help to narrow down the scope of the research and identify specific areas that need to be investigated. This helps to focus the study and ensures that the research is not too broad or too narrow.
• Defines the study population: Delimitations can help to define the population that will be studied. This can include age range, gender, geographical location, or any other factors that are relevant to the research. This helps to ensure that the study is more specific and targeted.
• Provides clarity: Delimitations help to provide clarity about the research study. By identifying the boundaries and limitations of the research, it helps to avoid confusion and ensures that the research is more understandable.
• Improves validity: Delimitations can help to improve the validity of the research by ensuring that the study is more focused and specific. This can help to ensure that the research is more accurate and reliable.
• Reduces bias: Delimitations can help to reduce bias by limiting the scope of the research. This can help to ensure that the research is more objective and unbiased.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

How to Cite Research Paper – All Formats and...

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Research Paper Format – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Institutional Review Board – Application Sample...

• The role of limitations in research: why they are important
• How to Organize Limitations of a Research Study

What are the Limitations of a Study (Research)?

Why and where to include limitations in my research paper, common limitations of the researchers.

• Limited Access to Information

Time Limits

Conflicts on biased views and personal issues, different types, 1. research design limitations, 2. impact limitations, 3. data or statistical limitations, how to structure your research limitations correctly, how to set your research limitations, formulation of your objectives and aims, implementation of your data collection methods, what are sample sizes, lacking previous studies in the same field, scope of discussions, concluding thoughts.

When completing a study or any other important work, there are different details that you should include to present its comprehensive and clear description. Sometimes you might even need to hire a thesis writer to help you with the whole writing process. Don’t underrate the section with limitations in research . It plays a big role in the entire process. Some students find it difficult to write this part, while others are reluctant to include it in their academic papers. Don’t underestimate the significance of limitations in research to provide readers with an accurate context of your work and enough data to evaluate the impact and relevance of your results. What is the best way to go about them? Keep reading to find out more.

Every research has its limitations. These limitations can appear due to constraints on methodology or research design. Needless to say, this may impact your whole study or research paper. Most researchers prefer to not discuss their study limitations because they think it may decrease the value of their paper in the eyes of the audience.

Remember that it’s quite important to show your study limitations to your audience (other researchers, editors of journals, and public readers). You need to notice that you know about these limitations and about the impact they may have. It’s important to give an explanation of how your research limitations can affect the conclusions and thoughts drawn from your research. 

In this guide, you can read useful tips on how to write limitations on your future research. Read great techniques on making a proper limitations section and see examples to make sure you have got an idea of writing your qualitative research limitations. You need to understand that even if limitations show the weaknesses of your future research, including them in your study can make your paper strengthen because you show all the problems before your readers will discover them by themselves. 

Apart from this, when the author points out the study limitations, it means that you have researched all the weak sides of your study and you understand the topic deeply. Needless to say, all the studies have their limitations even if you know how to make research design properly. When you’re honest with your readers, it can impress people much better than ignoring limitations at all.

Every research has certain limitations, and it’s completely normal, but you need to minimize their range of scope in the process. Provide your acknowledgment of them in the conclusion. Identify and understand potential shortcomings in your work.

When discussing limitations in research, explain how they impact your findings because creating their short list or description isn’t enough. Your research may have many limitations. Your basic goal is to discuss the ones that relate to the research questions that you choose for a specific academic assignment.

Limitations of your qualitative research can become clear to your readers even before they start to read your study. Sometimes, people can see the limitations only when they have viewed the whole document. You have to present your study limitations clearly in the Discussion section of a researh paper . This is the final part of your work where it’s logical to place the limitations section. You should write the limitations at the very beginning of this paragraph, just after you have highlighted the strong sides of the research methodology. When you discuss the limitations before the findings are analyzed, it will help to see how to qualify and apply these findings in future research.   

Limitations related to the researcher must also be written and shown to readers. You have to provide suggestions on decreasing these limitations in both your and future studies.

Limited Access to Information 

Your study may involve some organizations and people in the research, and sometimes you may get problems with access to these organizations. Due to this, you need to redesign and rewrite your study. You need to explain the cause of limited access to your readers.

Needless to say, all the researchers have their deadlines when they need to complete their studies. Sometimes, time constraints can affect your research negatively. If this happened, you need to acknowledge it and mention a need for future research to solve the main problem. 

Some researchers can have biased views because of their cultural background or personal views. Needless to say, it can affect the research. Apart from this, researchers with biased views can choose only those results and data that support their main arguments. If you want to avoid this problem, pay your attention to the problem statement and proper data gathering.

Before you start your study or work, keep in mind that there are specific limitations to what you test or possible research results. What are their types? There are different types that students may encounter and they all have unique features, including:

• Research design limitations,
• Impact limitations,
• Data or statistical limitations.

Specific constraints on your population research or available procedures may affect the final outcomes or results that you obtain.

Even if your research has excellent stats and a strong design, it may suffer from the impact of such factors as:

• The field is conductive to incremental findings,
• Being too population-specific.
• A strong regional focus.

In some cases, it’s impossible to collect enough data or enrollment is very difficult, and all that under-powers your research results. They may stem from your study design. They produce more issues in interpreting your findings.

There are strict rules to structure this section of your academic paper where you need to justify and explain its potential weaknesses. Take these basic steps to end up with a well-structured section:

• Announce to identify your research limitations and explain their importance,
• Reflect to provide the necessary depth, explain their nature, and justify your study choices,
• Look forward to suggest how it’s possible to overcome them in the future.

They walk your readers through this section. You need them to make it clear to your target audience that you recognize potential weaknesses in your work, understand them, and can point effective solutions.

No one is perfect. It means that your work isn’t beyond possible flaws, but you need to use them as a great opportunity to overcome new challenges and improve your knowledge. In a typical academic paper, research limitations can relate to these points:

• Formulation of your objectives and aims,
• Implementation of your data collection methods,
• Sample sizes,
• Lack of previous studies in your chosen area,
• The scope of discussions.

Learn to determine them in each one.

Your work has certain shortcomings if you formulate objectives and aims in a very broad manner. What to do in this case? Specify effective methods or ways to narrow your formulation of objectives and aims to increase the level of your study focus.

If you don’t have a lot of experience in collecting primary data, there’s a certain risk that the implementation of your methods has flaws. It’s necessary to acknowledge that.

They depend on the nature of your chosen problem and their significance is bigger in quantitative studies, unlike the qualitative ones. If your sample size is very small, statistical tests will fail to identify important relationships or connections within a particular data set. How to solve this problem? State that other researchers need to base the same study on a larger sample size to end up with more accurate results. To find more information on how to identify a resesrch problem , check our guide. 

Writing a literature review is a key step in any scientific work because it helps students determine the scope of existing studies in the chosen area. Why should you use the literature review findings? They are a basic foundation for any researcher who must use them to achieve a set of specific objectives or aims. What if there are no previous works? You may face this challenge if you choose an evolving or current problem for your study or if it’s very narrow.

Feel free to include this point as a shortcoming of your work, no matter what your chosen area is. Why? The main reason is that you don’t have long years of experience in writing scientific papers or completing complex studies. That’s why the depth and scope of your discussions can be compromised in different levels compared to scholars with a lot of expertise. Include certain points from limitations in research. Use them as suggestions for the future.

Any research suffers from specific limitations that range from common flaws to serious problems in design or methodology dissertation has. The ability to set these shortcomings plays a huge role in writing a successful academic paper and earning good grades. What if you lack it? Turn to our professional thesis writers and get their expert consultation on thesis or research paper.

What comes first, the research design or research problem selection? Read on this guide from our dissertation writing service if you are struggling to answer this question. Any research paper is based on the hypothesis, datum, and methodology. These things though are not written down in the instruct...

The methodology is an important part of your dissertation. It describes a broad philosophical underpinning to your chosen research methods, either quantitative or qualitative, to explain to readers your approach better. Make sure that you’re clear about an academic basis for your choice of research ...

Students have to complete different writing assignments, and some of them are utterly complex. Every assignment has the central idea or problem, which is supposed to be discussed and analyzed during the entire work. It’s called a thesis statement. The main objective of the statement is to explain to...

Designing Physical Interaction Platforms pp 229–232 Cite as

Limitations and Future Research

• Maximilian Perez Mengual 5  
• First Online: 13 October 2023

67 Accesses

Part of the book series: Markt- und Unternehmensentwicklung Markets and Organisations ((MAU))

The findings of the empirical studies presented in this dissertation are subject to consideration in light of their limitations. This chapter highlights the shortcomings of the studies from Parts III to VI, thereby opening up avenues for future research. In the following, shortcomings and future research are presented chronologically.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Nürnberg, Germany

Maximilian Perez Mengual

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Perez Mengual, M. (2023). Limitations and Future Research. In: Designing Physical Interaction Platforms. Markt- und Unternehmensentwicklung Markets and Organisations. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-41920-2_38

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-41920-2_38

Published : 13 October 2023

Publisher Name : Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden

Print ISBN : 978-3-658-41919-6

Online ISBN : 978-3-658-41920-2

eBook Packages : Business and Economics (German Language)

Share this chapter

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

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Faculty Experts

TXST doctoral students receive Phi Kappa Phi dissertation fellowships, graduate research grants

STUDENT EXPERIENCE

The Graduate College | April 3, 2024

Two Texas State University doctoral students have been selected as winners of the Dissertation Fellowship from the Honor Society of Phi Kappa Phi. This highly competitive, $10,000 national fellowship is awarded annually to only 15 active society members who are doctoral candidates and are completing dissertations.

This year marks the second time that TXST has had two Phi Kappa Phi Dissertation Fellowship recipients in a single year — 13% of the 2024 awardee pool for this prestigious national award — and the third year in a row that TXST doctoral students have received this award.

The award provides financial support during the dissertation writing process to candidates in all fields of study whose projects demonstrate a high degree of originality and significant potential for advancing knowledge in the candidates’ disciplines.

2024 Texas State Phi Kappa Phi Dissertation Fellowship awardees

Elisabeth Cuerrier-Richer, applied anthropology major, researches the cranial variation of Latin Americans from skeletal collections in the United States, Mexico, and other Central and South American countries. Notably, Cuerrier-Richer previously received both the Graduate Research Grant and Love of Learning Award from Phi Kappa Phi in 2023, making her the second student from TXST to have received all three of these awards from Phi Kappa Phi.

Applied anthropology major Shelby Garza researches differences in how cortical and trabecular bone structure responds to varying activity patterns and mechanical loading in identified human skeletons to improve current forensic identification methods.

“I am impressed that our Phi Kappa Phi students are consistently recognized every year for their significant research accomplishments,” said Kambra Bolch , J.D., TXST’s Phi Kappa Phi chapter president. “We are proud to have them represent our chapter and Texas State University so well at the national level.”

Two additional doctoral students in applied anthropology, Hilda Torres and Sameeha Vardhan, received Graduate Research Grants from Phi Kappa Phi during the 2024 competition. Annually awarded to only 20 applicants, these grants provide up to $1,500 to support graduate students who are conducting or presenting research.

“These four Phi Kappa Phi awardees demonstrate that Texas State cultivates and nurtures outstanding graduate students engaged in highly intellectual, significant, and original research,” said Andrea Golato , Ph.D., dean of The Graduate College. “We hope that more graduate students from all fields of study will engage with our extensive external funding support services.”

Visit The Graduate College website for more information about available programs, resources, and external funding .

Share this article

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Submit to Reddit
• Share on LinkedIn
• Share using Email

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Is Intermittent Fasting Bad for Your Heart? Here’s What We Know.

By Alice Callahan

You may have seen the headlines: “Intermittent fasting linked to 91 percent increase in risk of death from heart disease”; “The intermittent fasting trend may pose risks to your heart.”

The news came from an abstract presented Monday at an American Heart Association conference in Chicago. The study has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal, and experts cautioned that it had many limitations. Here’s what we know.

The Background

Intermittent fasting involves cycling between eating and fasting for specific periods of time. A common approach, for example, is to eat only within an eight-hour window each day, said Krista Varady, a professor of nutrition at the University of Illinois Chicago.

Several short-term trials have suggested that this eating style can lead to some weight loss and may lower blood pressure and improve blood sugar control in certain people, she said.

But the longest intermittent fasting trial lasted only one year , said Victor Wenze Zhong, lead author of the new study and an epidemiologist at Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine in China. His aim, he said, was to look at longer term health.

The Research

The new study included more than 20,000 adults from the United States. The participants completed two interviews, less than two weeks apart, about what time they ate on the previous day. The researchers then calculated the participants’ average eating windows and assumed it was their typical schedule for the rest of the study, Dr. Zhong said. The participants were followed for an average of eight years.

During that time, the participants who limited their eating to eight hours in a day had a 91 percent greater chance of dying from cardiovascular disease than those who ate over a 12- to 16-hour time frame, the researchers reported.

But there were just 414 people in the eight-hour eating group, Dr. Zhong said. And they tended to be younger and less educated; have lower income and less access to food; and be more likely to smoke than the other participants.

The researchers accounted for these factors in their analysis, Dr. Zhong said. But the study did not show that this style of eating caused deaths from cardiovascular disease, only that the two were linked.

The Limitations

Since the study has not been published or peer-reviewed, it’s challenging to fully evaluate it, Dr. Varady said.

A “major limitation” is that they used just two reports to accurately represent people’s typical eating pattern, Dr. Varady said; and the study did not seem to evaluate what kinds of foods people ate.

Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Tufts University, called the study “very problematic.” The eight-hour eating group may have included many people who were very busy, or faced other challenges that forced them to miss meals or eat erratically, he said.

The group also could have included people who were already in poor health — those with eating disorders or illness that reduced their appetite, for instance, which may have resulted in them eating during a shorter window, said Satchidananda Panda, a professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego.

And if intermittent fasting is really harmful, it’s not clear why that might be. Dr. Zhong said that his study was not designed to answer that question.

What’s Next

More research is needed to evaluate the long term health effects of intermittent fasting, Dr. Zhong said.

Intermittent fasting isn’t a good fit for everyone, said Dr. Pam Taub, a cardiologist at the University of California, San Diego. But many of her patients have enjoyed its benefits, like reduced cholesterol levels.

Now, her patients are “confused and scared” by the headlines they’re reading, Dr. Taub said. But she won’t recommend that they change anything based on this study, she said, adding that people should always talk with their doctor before shifting their diet or lifestyle.

An earlier version of this story misrepresented the way researchers collected diet information with the study participants. It was via two interviews, not two questionnaires.

How we handle corrections

Alice Callahan is a Times reporter covering nutrition and health. She has a Ph.D. in nutrition from the University of California, Davis. More about Alice Callahan

A Guide to Better Nutrition

How much salt is too much? Should I cut back? We asked experts these and other questions about sodium .

Patients were told for years that cutting calories would ease the symptoms of polycystic ovary syndrome. But research suggests dieting may not help at all .

We asked a nutrition expert how she keeps up healthy habits without stressing about food. Here are seven tips  she shared for maintaining that balance.

There are many people who want to lose a few pounds for whom weight loss drugs are not the right choice. Is old-fashioned dieting a good option ?

Salmon is good for you, but choosing the right type to eat isn’t so easy. Here are answers to all your questions about this nutritional powerhouse .

Read these books to shift into a healthier way of thinking about food .

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 26 March 2024

Australian human-induced native forest regeneration carbon offset projects have limited impact on changes in woody vegetation cover and carbon removals

• Andrew Macintosh   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5700-7105 1 ,
• Don Butler   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6019-1078 1 ,
• Pablo Larraondo 2 ,
• Megan C. Evans 3 ,
• Dean Ansell 1 ,
• Marie Waschka   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0001-4574-4834 1 ,
• Rod Fensham   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3658-5867 4 ,
• David Eldridge   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2191-486X 5 ,
• David Lindenmayer   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4766-4088 1 ,
• Philip Gibbons 1 &
• Paul Summerfield 1  

Communications Earth & Environment volume  5 , Article number:  149 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

11k Accesses

734 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Climate-change mitigation
• Environmental studies

Carbon offsets are a widely used climate policy instrument that can reduce mitigation costs and generate important environmental and social co-benefits. However, they can increase emissions if they lack integrity. We analysed the performance of one of the world’s largest nature-based offset types: human-induced regeneration projects under Australia’s carbon offset scheme. The projects are supposed to involve the human-induced regeneration of permanent even-aged native forests through changes in land management. We analysed 182 projects and found limited evidence of regeneration in credited areas. Changes in woody vegetation cover within the areas that have been credited also largely mirror changes in adjacent comparison areas, outside the projects, suggesting the observable changes are predominantly attributable to factors other than the project activities. The results add to the growing literature highlighting the practical limitations of offsets and the potential for offset schemes to credit abatement that is non-existent, non-additional and potentially impermanent.

Similar content being viewed by others

Expert review of the science underlying nature-based climate solutions

B. Buma, D. R. Gordon, … S. P. Hamburg

Meta-analysis shows the impacts of ecological restoration on greenhouse gas emissions

Tiehu He, Weixin Ding, … Quanfa Zhang

Accounting for albedo change to identify climate-positive tree cover restoration

Natalia Hasler, Christopher A. Williams, … Susan C. Cook-Patton

Introduction

Carbon offsets are a widely used climate policy instrument that are considered integral to government and corporate decarbonisation plans 1 , 2 , 3 . Under offset schemes, projects that reduce emissions relative to counterfactual baselines receive credits, which can be used by others to offset their emissions. The benefits of offsets include that they can reduce mitigation costs, generate important environmental and social co-benefits, and reduce political resistance to carbon pricing by lowering compliance costs for facilities with carbon liabilities 4 , 5 , 6 .

Whether the environmental and economic benefits of offsets materialise depends on the environmental integrity of the credits. If the credits lack integrity, offsets can facilitate increases in emissions and thereby work against greenhouse gas mitigation objectives. Carbon offsets are considered to have environmental integrity when there is high confidence they represent real, additional and permanent abatement 1 , 7 , 8 , 9 . In this context, ‘realness’ refers to the extent to which credits reflect carbon removals or emission reductions that are directly attributable to the project activities 1 , 9 , 10 . ‘Additionality’ requires that the credited removals or emission reductions would not have occurred without the incentive provided by the offset scheme 11 . Permanence relates exclusively to sequestration projects and requires credited removals to persist in relevant carbon stocks like vegetation and soils 9 , 11 , 12 .

Research on the integrity of carbon offsets has found material issues with the realness, additionality and permanence of credited abatement, raising questions about their effectiveness in assisting decarbonisation 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 . Similar issues have arisen with biodiversity offsets 26 , 27 .

Carbon offsets have been a central feature of climate policy in Australia for two decades. Under a provincial mandatory carbon trading scheme (the world’s first) that operated in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory between 2003 and 2012 covered facilities were allowed to use offsets from designated project types to meet their emission reduction obligations 28 . In late 2011, a national carbon offset scheme was introduced, which was relied upon as the main Australian Government mitigation policy between 2014 and 2022 29 . The object of the national offset scheme is to incentivise offset projects that help Australia meet its international greenhouse gas mitigation obligations 29 . Each credit issued under the scheme is supposed to represent abatement equivalent to one tonne of CO 2 .

The national offset scheme is now linked to a national mandatory carbon pricing instrument; the Safeguard Mechanism. As with the previous provincial carbon trading scheme, facilities covered by the Safeguard Mechanism can use credits issued under the offset scheme to meet their emission reduction obligations. There are no restrictions on the extent to which covered facilities can rely on offset credits to meet their obligations. The only relevant restriction is that the credits must come from projects registered under the national scheme.

The most popular project type under the national offset scheme is human-induced regeneration of permanent even-aged native forests (HIR) 30 . HIR projects received 37 million credits to June 2023, almost 30% of the issuances under the scheme 31 . The projects cover almost 42 million hectares, an area larger than Japan 31 . As of 30 June 2023, they were the world’s fifth largest nature-based offset type by credit issuances, and the largest when projects involving avoided emissions are excluded (Supplementary Fig. S 1 ).

Under the applicable rules (found in the ‘HIR method’), HIR projects should involve the human-induced regeneration of permanent even-aged native forests across the entirety of the areas that are credited (‘credited areas’) (Fig.  1 ) 30 . The projects do not involve planting or direct seeding. Regeneration must be induced by the project activities from ‘the germination of in situ seed, or the growth of in situ seedlings, rootstock or lignotuber’ 30 . The project activities can include reducing grazing pressure from livestock and feral animals, management of non-native plants, and cessation of clearing of native plant regrowth 30 , 32 , 33 .

In the baseline scenario (yellow ribbon), clearing, grazing and/or weeds suppress regeneration of woody plants, ensuring the credited area has predominantly non-woody cover throughout the projection period. In the project scenario (black-red ribbon), the credited area initially has predominantly non-woody cover due to the effects of clearing, grazing and/or weeds. The project involves the removal or mitigation of these suppressors, which leads to even-aged forest regeneration. The credited area should transition from predominantly non-woody cover to predominantly sparse woody cover, and then to forest cover, and retain forest cover throughout the permanence period. In the regions where HIR projects are located, credited areas should have forest cover when tree and debris biomass reaches ~7.2–11 dry metric tonnes (dmt) per hectare.

Sequestration in HIR projects is not directly measured, it is estimated as the product of the size of the credited areas and sequestration per unit area, which is modelled using the Australian Government’s Full Carbon Accounting Model 34 . The model uses a simple tree yield formula to estimate above-ground biomass per hectare in regenerating forests 35 , 36 , 37 . It assumes credited areas start with little woody biomass and grow towards their maximum woody biomass potential under native vegetation. Maximum above-ground woody biomass potential ( M ) is modelled spatially using a range of biophysical parameters calibrated against measurements of intact native vegetation 38 . The most recent calibration of the tree yield formula estimates above-ground biomass in regeneration under average climate conditions after a years to be M.e (−23.81/a) (Supplementary Fig. S 2 ) 37 .

The above-ground biomass estimates from the model’s tree yield formula are partitioned into biomass and debris pools via standardised allocation ratios (e.g. root-shoot), and turnover and decomposition rates, to calculate carbon accumulation in live above- and below-ground biomass and debris 39 . The model includes a soil carbon module but it is not used for HIR projects; the projects are credited for increases only in live biomass and dead organic matter.

Most HIR projects are claiming to regenerate native forests by reducing grazing pressure from livestock and/or feral herbivores in arid and semi-arid ‘rangeland’ areas (<350 mm average annual rainfall) that have never been comprehensively cleared of native vegetation (Fig.  2 , Supplementary Fig. S 3 ). The location of the projects in uncleared rangelands (where there is often limited and highly variable rainfall) raises questions about the capacity of the credited areas to permanently support material additional woody biomass, and the realness, additionality and permanence of credited abatement 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 .

The 182 projects analysed in this paper in light green. Source: Australian Government. Area-based Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF) projects. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra (2023); Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. National Vegetation Information System (NVIS) data products, version 6. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra (2023); New South Wales Government. NSW State Vegetation Type Map. NSW Government, Sydney (2023); Geoscience Australia. GEODATA COAST 100K 2004. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra (2023).

Plant growth is constrained by the availability of resources (water, nutrients, light etc.), which limit woody biomass potential under native vegetation 44 , 45 , 46 . In most of Australia’s uncleared rangelands, the key limiting resource is water and its availability depends on variable rainfall, which fluctuates over time-scales from months to decades 47 . Variations in rainfall and water availability drive changes in plant growth, including woody biomass 47 , 48 .

The primary way grazing could affect forest cover in uncleared areas is by impeding woody plant recruitment during recovery after periods of drought or fires, where cover has been lost through tree death 49 , 50 , 51 . For grazing to prevent the regeneration of forests in these circumstances, grazing intensity after a mortality event would need to be sufficiently intense to prevent recruitment and then be maintained over multiple decades to suppress subsequent recruitment. Grazing in Australia’s uncleared rangelands has been shown to have local, short-term effects on regeneration, but assessments over larger spatial and temporal scales show that grazing has not generally reduced tree cover 52 , and that the influence of grazing alone on woody plants is minimal compared to the effect of variable rainfall 53 , 54 , 55 .

This is illustrated through the well-documented increase in tree cover that occurred across substantial parts of Australia’s grazed eastern rangelands through the twentieth century, particularly following a series of La Niña events from the 1950s that brought above-average rainfall 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 . Similarly, more than 300,000 ha of secondary native forest is re-cleared annually in Australia in areas previously cleared for grazing 39 , 60 , 61 , typically on cycles of around 8–30 years 53 , 60 . This re-clearing would not be necessary if grazing was suppressing regeneration of native forests.

Because grazing does not have a material negative influence on tree cover in Australia’s rangelands, HIR projects are unlikely to regenerate permanent native forest through grazing control in uncleared areas. In some cases, reduced grazing could increase tree cover but, generally, any management-induced increases are likely to be relatively small and often short-lived (since droughts can remove excess biomass accumulated during wet times) 62 .

The modelling approach used to calculate abatement for HIR projects compounds the resulting integrity risks. Projects could be credited for forest regeneration that has not occurred or that does not persist. The HIR method also does not control for the over-riding impacts of rainfall on regeneration in the rangelands, creating a risk that projects will be credited for increases in tree cover that are mainly attributable to natural variations in rainfall rather than the project activities (i.e. non-additional) 42 , 43 .

Here we present the results of an analysis of HIR projects conducted using the Australian Government’s National Forest and Sparse Woody (NFSW) dataset (Version 7.0) 63 . The dataset provides Landsat-derived estimates of the spatial extent of three classes of woody vegetation cover across Australia over the period 1988 to 2022. The data are a near-annual time series in which 25 m grid cells are classified as either non-woody, sparse woody (sub-forest woody cover where crown cover is between 5–19%) or forest (woody vegetation ≥2 m tall with crown cover >20% over at least 0.2 ha).

The object of our analysis was to assess the performance of HIR projects using two metrics:

the extent of the increase in forest cover and ‘woody cover’ (areas with either forest or sparse woody cover) in the credited areas of HIR projects; and

the extent to which changes in forest and woody cover in the credited areas of HIR projects have mirrored trends in paired controls for each project, comprising 3 km wide buffer areas outside the project boundaries that exclude areas in other HIR projects (‘comparison areas’).

Metric (1) provides a proxy measure of the likely increases in woody biomass in the credited areas of HIR projects. When combined with data on credit issuances, it serves as an indicator of over-crediting risk (i.e. whether sequestered CO 2 is likely to be materially less than credited sequestration). Metric (2) provides a measure of the extent to which changes in forest and woody cover in the credited areas of HIR projects are additional to what would otherwise have occurred (i.e. attributable to the project activities or other factors such as rainfall variability). Together, metrics (1) and (2) provide a basis on which to draw conclusions about the extent to which HIR projects have helped Australia meet its international mitigation obligations, consistent with the scheme’s objectives 29 .

Published estimates of the accuracy of the classifications of pixels to forest, sparse or non-woody in the NFSW dataset suggest accuracy of 95% or more for forest and non-woody classes where no change is indicated, with lower confidence for classification of sparse woody pixels (~66%) 39 , 64 . Error rates are likely to be somewhat higher for classification of changes between years, but there is also no reason to expect biases in error between credited areas and comparison areas used in our analysis. Notably, the Australian Government relies on the NFSW dataset to estimate land sector emissions and removals in its greenhouse accounts 39 . Greenhouse gas outcomes from changes in tree cover in Australia’s rangelands are not accounted for in Australia’s greenhouse accounts if they are not detected in the NFSW dataset. The fact that the Australian Government relies on the NFSW dataset to track reforestation and revegetation for greenhouse accounting purposes justifies its use to assess outcomes from HIR projects.

All HIR projects whose credited area location data were published as of 22 June 2023 and that were registered in or before 2018 (providing at least four data points in the NFSW time series post registration) were included in the analysis, except where they were completely surrounded by other projects or the published spatial files were corrupt 65 , 66 . The projects ( n  = 182) included in the analysis covered a combined area of 9.5 M ha, with their credited areas covering 3.4 M ha (Fig.  2 , Table  1 ). The projects in the sample were registered over the period 11 December 2013 to 30 November 2018, with most (75%) registered in 2015, 2016 and 2017 (Supplementary Fig. S 4 ).

Change in forest and sparse woody cover

The analysed projects received 27.4 million credits over the period from 11 December 2013 (when the first HIR project was registered) to 30 June 2022, suggesting a substantial proportion of the credited areas should have transitioned from non-woody cover to either sparse woody or forest cover because of the human-induced forest regeneration 31 . This has not occurred.

Almost 50% of the credited areas had sparse woody or forest cover when the projects were registered (median woody cover 46.5% (sd 22.5%), median forest cover 12.7% (sd 12.9%)). This is problematic as it indicates that most projects are seeking to regenerate permanent even-aged native forests on land that contained material amounts of pre-existing woody vegetation. Competition from the pre-existing woody vegetation is likely to limit additional forest regeneration.

Consistent with this, there was relatively little change in woody cover in the credited areas over the study period. Almost 80% of projects ( n  = 143) experienced negative or negligible change in woody cover in the credited areas over the period from project registration to 2022 (Table  1 , see methods for definitions of negative, negligible and positive woody cover change). Despite the absence of positive woody cover change, these 143 projects received 22.9 million credits over the period 31 .

At an aggregate level, woody cover increased by a mere 0.8% (28,155 ha) across the 3.4 M ha credited area: forest cover increased by 3.6% (124,852 ha); and sparse woody cover decreased by −2.8% (96,697 ha) (Supplementary Fig.  5 ). By comparison, gains and losses in sparse woody cover alone across Australia averaged 2.2 M ha year −1 and −2.1 M ha year −1 respectively over the period 2013–14 to 2020–21 39 .

The modest gain in woody cover in the credited areas after project registration continued a trend that started in the late 2000s, before the HIR method was developed (Fig.  3 ). The increase in woody cover in the credited areas that pre-dates the method is difficult to reconcile with the premise of the projects: that grazing was previously suppressing regeneration and that, without the projects, it would not occur (Fig.  1 ).

Source: Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. National Forest and Sparse Woody Vegetation Data (Version 7.0 - 2022 Release) (2023); Clean Energy Regulator. Emissions Reduction Fund project register. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra (2023). The green bar shows when most (75%) of the HIR projects in the sample were registered (2015–2017).

There is a relationship between biomass in forest regeneration (above- and below-ground live biomass, litter, and dead wood) and crown cover in the forest systems where HIR projects are located 67 . This relationship suggests that forest cover (>20% crown cover) should be achieved when tree and debris biomass reaches 7.2 to 11 tonnes of dry matter per hectare, equivalent to 13.2–20.2 tCO 2 ha −1   67 . To 30 June 2022, estimated average credited sequestration in the 182 projects in the sample was 12.9 tCO 2 ha −1 (median 11.5 tCO 2 ha −1 , sd 8.9 tCO 2 ha −1 ) 31 . The estimated credited sequestration in 75 of these projects (41%) was ≥13.2 tCO 2 ha −1 (mean 21.6 tCO 2 ha −1 , median 20.8 tCO 2 ha −1 , sd 6.5 tCO 2 ha −1 ) 31 . This suggests that, based on the credits that have been issued, a substantial proportion of the total credited area should have already attained forest cover. However, for the 75 projects with credited sequestration ≥13.2 tCO 2 ha −1 , only 21% (188,880 ha) of the 898,680 ha total credited area had forest cover in 2022, and this was only a 1.8% (16,530 ha) increase relative to forest cover when the projects were registered (Fig.  4 , Supplementary Fig. S 6 ). There is a large apparent disparity between the credited and observed sequestration in the projects.

Note that under the HIR method, forest cover at project registration should be at or near 0% and reach 100% within ~10–15 years of when regeneration is modelled to have commenced. Source: Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. National Forest and Sparse Woody Vegetation Data (Version 7.0 − 2022 Release) (2023); Clean Energy Regulator. Emissions Reduction Fund project register. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra (2023).

Change in woody cover relative to trends in external comparison areas

Changes in forest and sparse woody cover in credited areas were far more strongly correlated with changes in cover in comparison areas than to the timing of project registration. Table  2 presents standardised coefficients from hierarchical regression models predicting annual cover changes in credited areas as a function of cover changes in comparison areas and a variable indicating whether the year of observation was before or after project registration. The coefficients for comparison areas are many times larger than those for project registration. Project registration did have a statistically significant effect for forest cover change, but not for woody cover change. While statistically significant, the identified effect of project registration on forest cover was small, being equivalent to ~0.5% per year following project registration.

The extent to which changes in forest and sparse woody cover within credited areas have mirrored changes in comparison areas suggests the limited changes observed within the credited areas are largely non-additional. As shown in Figs.  3 , 5 (Supplementary Table  S1 , Fig. S 7 ), there was a strong correlation between forest and sparse woody cover changes in the credited areas and comparison areas over the period before projects were first registered. Post registration, the correlation was maintained, suggesting factors other than the project activities (most likely rainfall variability) have been the dominant influence on woody cover changes.

Dashed lines indicate 1:1. Source: Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. National Forest and Sparse Woody Vegetation Data (Version 7.0 − 2022 Release) (2023); Clean Energy Regulator. Emissions Reduction Fund project register. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra (2023).

It is important to note that, while changes in forest and sparse woody cover relative to external comparison areas provide a useful indicator of the impact of project activities, they should not be construed as the only indicator of project effectiveness. HIR projects are credited on the basis that even-aged native forest is regenerating across the entirety of the credited area and that, within ~10–15 years of when regeneration is modelled to have commenced, all of the credited area will have forest cover. The modest gain in woody cover observed within credited areas, and small effect of project registration on forest cover change, suggest this is unlikely to occur.

Reforestation, avoided forest conversion and improved forest management have the potential to generate substantial amounts of low-cost abatement, while providing important biodiversity and other co-benefits 68 , 69 . Carbon offset schemes can incentivise these activities and reduce the economic cost of decarbonisation. However, the benefits of these nature-based offsets are contingent on offset projects being credited only for real, additional and permanent increases in relevant carbon stocks. Our findings suggest that HIR projects in Australia’s uncleared rangelands do not meet this requirement.

There was only a small positive overall increase in forest cover (3.6%), and negligible increase in combined sparse woody and forest cover (0.8%), across the combined 3.4 Mha credited area, where the 182 assessed projects are supposedly regenerating permanent even-aged native forests. Despite the absence of material increases in woody cover, the projects received 27.4 million credits over the study period 31 ; 22.9 million credits were issued to projects whose woody cover declined or was largely stagnant.

Given the levels of credited sequestration, the changes in woody cover should be readily apparent, beyond the levels of classification error in the underlying data, which is likely to be in the order of 5–10% 39 , 64 . A substantial proportion of the credited areas should have already attained forest cover and, at the very least, there should have been large increases in sparse woody cover that go well beyond changes observed in the external comparison areas. Neither has occurred.

Trends in forest and woody cover in the credited areas largely mirrored fluctuations in comparison areas, both before and after project registration. Regression models of changes in forest and woody cover in the credited areas identified far smaller effects for project registration than for cover changes in comparison areas. The results suggest the changes in forest and woody cover in the credited areas were largely non-additional, presumably because they reflect rainfall variability rather than responses to project activities 47 , 48 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 .

The small increases in forest and woody cover, and the small effect of project registration relative to variation in cover in the comparison areas, suggest HIR projects have done little to help Australia meet its international mitigation obligations, both in absolute terms and relative to credit issuances 39 . The underperformance is accentuated by the fact that, to date, the Australian Government alone has spent ~AU$300 million in purchasing credits from HIR projects and is contractually committed to purchase a further ~AU$1.2 billion 70 , 71 .

The results add to the growing literature highlighting the practical limitations of offsets and the potential for offset schemes to credit abatement that is non-existent, non-additional, and potentially impermanent 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 . They also serve as a reminder of why offsets are considered a high-risk policy instrument 10 , 72 , 73 .

Offsets are high-risk because of two factors: likelihood of error and the consequences when they occur. There is a high probability of error in the design and administration of the rules and processes that are intended to ensure credits are issued only for real, additional and permanent abatement. This is due to multiple factors, including the uncertainties associated with determining counterfactual baselines (what would net emissions have been within the project boundaries in the absence of the incentive provided by the scheme?) and the errors inherent in the measurement of emissions and removals from often dispersed sources and sinks 72 , 74 , 75 . Other pertinent factors that contribute to the likelihood of errors include the difficulty in overcoming adverse selection when seeking to exclude non-additional projects 74 , 76 , and the persistent tension within offset schemes to lower the stringency of measurement protocols to reduce transaction costs and thereby promote participation 77 .

Regardless of the cause, where errors occur and result in the issuance of low integrity credits, their use can lead to worse climate outcomes. This is because offsets are a permission to pollute, issued on the premise that the offset project has abated one tonne of emissions. Hence, when the credited abatement is not real, additional and permanent, offsets can enable an increase in emissions from a polluter with no offsetting emission reduction elsewhere.

The high-risk nature of offsets is why they are deprioritised in the ‘mitigation hierarchy’ that is often used in biodiversity-related regulatory approval processes 78 ; they are supposed to be a last resort reserved for when all other viable avoidance and mitigation options have been exhausted. The risk also provides the basis for the principle that offsets credits should only be used where there is high confidence the credits are likely to represent real, additional and permanent abatement 11 , 29 , 72 , 73 .

The root cause of the integrity issues with HIR projects is that credited areas have been allowed to be located in areas where native vegetation has not previously been comprehensively cleared, where the capacity to permanently increase forest carbon stocks is generally likely to be small, and in semi-arid and arid rangeland areas where there is substantial natural variability, which makes it difficult to separate the impacts of project activities from rainfall-induced changes 11 . The integrity problems with HIR projects have been compounded by the use of a modelled approach to the estimation of sequestration and allowing the model to be used in circumstances it was not calibrated for (i.e. to estimate regeneration on sites that contain material amounts of pre-existing woody vegetation) 30 , 37 .

Despite the risks, and the evidence of their limitations, carbon offsets are seen as indispensable by many policymakers; as evidenced through the Paris Agreement’s Article 6.4 Mechanism, the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation and other similar initiatives 8 , 79 . With the commitment to their continued use, the challenge for policymakers is to demonstrate that offset schemes can have integrity.

The experience with HIR projects provides two generalisable lessons. First, that sequestration-related offsets are inappropriate for use in situations where the relevant carbon stocks are likely to be at or near their maximum sustainable potentials and where natural variability in the stocks is materially larger than the likely effects of management change. Second, care needs to be taken where models are used to estimate carbon stocks to ensure they are applied appropriately and with due regard to the need for conservativism.

Australia’s experience with HIR projects also highlights the importance of transparency 11 , 80 . From January 2013 until June 2023, no data on the location of credited areas were published under the scheme, which shielded projects from scrutiny. At the time of writing, proponents were still not required to publish offset reports or audit reports, or information on how they have modelled sequestration. Proponents are also not required to undertake any direct measurements of biomass in HIR projects and, where biomass measurements are voluntarily undertaken, they are not required to be published. Effective offset schemes require constant scrutiny and critical assessment, including from third parties. This cannot be provided without the public release of all information that is necessary for the proper evaluation of the performance and integrity of offset projects 11 .

HIR projects included in sample

As at 10 December 2023, there were 469 registered HIR projects. Up until April 2023, it was unlawful for the Clean Energy Regulator to publish data on the location of credited areas. Following changes to the law in April 2023, the Regulator first published credited area location data for 223 HIR projects on 6 June 2023.

To be included in the sample for the analysis, projects had to have published credited area location data and at least 4 years of data in the NFSW time series post the year they were registered ( n  = 191). This was to ensure there was a valid basis for determining the response of woody vegetation to the project activities. In addition, projects were excluded from the sample if they were completely surrounded by other projects ( n  = 4). These projects were excluded because it was not possible to designate a valid comparison area in accordance with the method described below. A further five projects were removed because the spatial data on their credited areas were not useable.

Credited area location data

The Clean Energy Regulator publishes credited area data in vector format. To facilitate our analysis, the dataset was converted into raster format. Due to differences between the map projections of each dataset, credited area data were rasterised using 10-m resolution vs the 25-m of the NFSW dataset. This increase in resolution allowed for improving the accuracy of the masking operation around partially intercepted pixels. To perform this conversion we used the standard gdal_rasterize command from the GDAL library to generate a raster preserving the original projection of the vector dataset 81 .

Carbon credit issuances

Carbon credit issuance data were obtained from the ERF Project Register published by the Clean Energy Regulator 31 . The Register contains data on total issuances and total issuances by Australian financial year (1 July–30 June). Credit issuances were included in a calendar year only where they were issued prior to 30 June of the same year. This ensured conservative estimates of credit issuances for the purposes of making comparisons of project performance.

Relative size of HIR projects

The relative size of HIR projects was analysed using data from the registries of seven offset schemes for the period 2013–2023: the ACCU scheme; Clean Development Mechanism; Verified Carbon Standard (VCS, or Verra); Gold Standard; American Carbon Registry; Climate Action Reserve; and Plan Vivo. Data on credit issuances by project type are provided in Supplementary Fig. S 1 .

External comparison areas

HIR projects have an outer project boundary, which is typically the boundary of the property on which it is located. The credited areas lie within the project boundary. The comparison areas, which are used as paired controls for each project, comprised 3 km wide buffer areas around the outside of project boundaries, excluding areas that intersected with other HIR projects.

The use of these 3 km wide comparison areas is likely to overstate the relative effects of the projects on woody cover. This is due to the way the credited areas are delineated. Under the HIR method, credited areas must contain only areas that have the potential to achieve forest cover (woody vegetation ≥2 m tall with crown cover >20% at 0.2 ha scale). They are also not allowed to have forest cover at commencement. This results in credited areas having exclusions inside and around them, even when the areas are subject to the same project activities (i.e. grazing control) and lie within the same fenced areas. In contrast, the comparison areas are comprised of all land within the 3 km wide buffers, excluding other HIR projects.

The characteristics of the credited areas and comparison areas means that, where the same changes in tree cover occur, there is likely to be a greater proportionate increase (or decrease) in cover in the credited areas relative to the comparison areas. This approach was adopted to ensure conservative outputs and because of the practical difficulty associated with delineating areas that share the same characteristics as the areas included in the credited areas.

National forest and sparse woody dataset analysis

Changes in woody cover (forest and sparse woody cover) in the credited areas and comparison areas were analysed using the Australian Government’s NFSW dataset (Version 7.0) 63 . The dataset provides Landsat-derived estimates of the extents of three classes of woody vegetation cover across Australia over the period 1988–2022. The data are a near-annual time series in which 25 m grid cells are classified as either non-woody, sparse woody (sub-forest woody cover where crown cover is between 5–19%) or forest (woody vegetation ≥2 m tall with crown cover >20% over at least 0.2 ha).

The analysis was undertaken using Terrak.io, a geospatial analytics platform developed by Haizea Analytics. This platform builds upon Cloud infrastructure and can provide on-demand analytics on large satellite and climate datasets through an API. Users can rely on Terrak.io to generate maps or zonal statistics showing temporal trends for large numbers or areas, defined using custom vector polygons. This infrastructure was used to calculate zonal statistics on the frequency of forest, sparse woody, and non-woody cover pixels within each project’s credited areas and comparison areas.

Classifying project changes in forest and sparse woody cover since registration

To assess whether woody cover in the credited areas of each project (i.e. the proportion of pixels with forest or sparse woody cover) experienced negative, negligible and positive change since the projects were registered (i.e. the results presented in Table  1 ), simple linear regression models were fit for each project to the time-series of the forest and sparse woody percentages in their credited areas from the year of registration forward, with the percentage of each cover class as the response variable and year as the only independent variable.

Projects were classified as having increased woody cover if the slope of either of the fits for forest or sparse cover was greater than 0.25% per year, provided the slope for the fit to the other woody cover class (i.e. sparse if the forest fit has a positive slope >0.25%) was greater than −0.05% per year.

Tree cover was deemed to be negligible if the sum of the slopes from the linear models fit to the sparse and forest cover were greater than −0.25% per year, and they did not meet the ‘increased’ requirements.

Projects whose tree cover did not meet either the ‘increased’ or ‘negligible’ requirements were deemed to have decreasing cover.

Comparing cover trends in carbon estimation areas and adjacent comparison areas

Changes in woody cover were calculated from the time-series of NFSW data from 1988 to 2022 63 . The percentage of pixels within the credited areas and comparison area classified as forest in each year was subtracted from the percentage of forest pixels in the preceding time point in the time series. Most time steps were annual, including all from 2004 on, but some spanned two or more years (’89–’91, ’92–’95, ’95–’98, ’98–2000, 2000–’02 and ’02–’04).

Hierarchical linear regression models, built using the lme4 package 82 in R (4.3.0, R Core Team 2022) 83 , were used to model cover changes within credited areas as a function of cover changes in comparison areas (indicating responses to broader environmental drivers) and a binary variable indicating whether the interval over which cover changes occurred was before or after the year of project registration. Models were built to include random effects accommodating the numerous observations made for each project by fitting separate intercepts for projects, as well as coefficients for the two fixed-effects (cover change in comparison areas and project registration) and a higher level intercept (Eq. ( 1 ), in the syntax of lmer: project_cover_change ~ comparison_area_change + registration + (1|project_ID)). Statistical significance of predictors was assessed via the anova function, by comparing the full model to models with each predictor removed in turn.

The cover change variables for credited areas (response) and comparison areas (fixed effect 1) were standardised (centred and scaled) by subtracting the variable mean from each observation, and dividing by its standard deviation (Supplementary Table  S2 ). The binary variable for project registration was not standardised (pre-registration = 0, post-registration = 1). This means that the coefficient for the comparison area predictor in each model is a measure of effect size, indicating the expected magnitude of change in the response credited area cover variable (in standard deviations) for a one standard deviation change in comparison area cover. The coefficient for project registration ( β 2 ) indicates the effect of project registration on year-to-year cover change in credited areas, again in units of standard deviation for the response variable, i.e. cover change in credited areas.

The strength of portfolio-scale correlations between the extent of each cover class (forest, sparse or woody) in the combined credited areas and in comparison areas, across the 182 projects (i.e. variables plotted in Fig.  3 ), was assessed using Pearson’s correlation coefficient from the cor.test function in R 83 . Correlation coefficients were also calculated for annual cover changes inside credited areas and in adjacent comparison areas, for both forest and woody cover classes (Supplementary Table  S1 ).

Estimating credited sequestration

Credited sequestration was estimated using data from the ERF Project Register 31 . Total credit issuances to each project to 30 June 2022 were adjusted to account for relevant discounts (5% risk of reversal buffer and a 20% permanence period discount for projects with 25 year permanence periods). A uniform and conservative 0.5% deduction was made to account for fossil fuel use, based on Australian Government analysis of a sample of HIR projects that found average fuel use emissions were less than 0.02% of total project abatement 84 . The resulting estimates were converted from CO 2 to C using the atomic mass ratio, 44/12.

The approach used to compare credited sequestration to forest cover is conservative. Ideally, the comparison of forest cover to sequestration would be undertaken using the modelled sequestration for each project. This would ensure the estimates account for the fact that projects have been allowed to commence modelling regeneration before the projects were registered. Due to this, the amount of modelled sequestration across the projects is greater than the credited sequestration, accentuating the extent of relative underperformance. It was not possible to analyse the modelled sequestration because of transparency issues. Estimates of modelled sequestration are not published and no verified data are published on the modelling parameters used in HIR projects. At the time of writing, information about the choice of model calibration and modelling commencement dates had been published by the proponents of 63 HIR projects. However, the published data were incomplete (e.g. modelling points are not published) and unverified, rendering them unusable for these purposes.

Australian Government expenditure on carbon credits from HIR projects

We estimate that, to 4 December 2023, the Australian Government had spent ~AU$300 million in purchasing credits from HIR projects and was contractually committed to purchase a further ~AU$1.2 billion. The Australian Government does not publish data on carbon credit purchases or contracted credit prices by project. Due to this, our estimate of Australian Government expenditure on credits from HIR projects was based on the number of credits sold by each project to the Australian Government under Emissions Reduction Fund contracts, up until 4 December 2023 70 . Where contracts had multiple projects, the recorded credit sales were assumed to be sourced evenly from the contracted projects. Sale prices were assigned to each project based on the published weighted average carbon credit purchase price from the Emissions Reduction Fund auction at which the relevant project was contracted (range AU$10.23-AU$17.35) 71 . The estimate of the value of the remaining HIR credits contracted by the Australian Government was based on the number of credits originally contracted, less those delivered and the number of credits released or lapsed from delivery obligations 70 . The contracted prices assigned to each project were again based on the weighted average carbon credit purchase price from the Emissions Reduction Fund auction at which the relevant project was contracted 70 , 71 .

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study, including a summary of individual project data, are available on Figshare at: https://figshare.com/ [DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.25199786 and 10.6084/m9.figshare.25199789].

Code availability

Details of the hierarchical linear regression models developed in the study are provided above.

Schneider, L. & La Hoz Theuer, S. Environmental integrity of international carbon market mechanisms under the Paris Agreement. Clim. Policy 19 , 386–400 (2019).

Article   Google Scholar  

Black, R. et al. Taking stock: A global assessment of net zero targets. (Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit and Oxford Net Zero,United Kingdom, 2021).

Dawes, A. et al. Voluntary Carbon Markets: A Review of Global Initiatives and Evolving Models . (Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, DC, 2023).

Bushnell, J. The Economics of Carbon Offsets. in The Design and Implementation of U.S. Climate Policy (eds Don Fullerton and Catherine Wolfram) 197–209 (University of Chicago Press, 2010).

Kopp, R. Role of Offsets in Global and Domestic Climate Policy. In Proc. National Research Council, Modelling the Economics of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation: Summary of a Workshop 92–99 (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2011).

Tavoni, M. et al. Forestry and the carbon market response to stabilize climate. Energy Policy 35 , 5346–5353 (2007).

Breidenich, C., Magraw, D., Rowley, A. & Rubin, J.W. The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Am. J. Int. Law 92 , 315–331 (1998).

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Conference of the Parties. Adoption of the Paris Agreement, Decision 1/CP.21, paragraph 37 (2016).

Stubbs, M. et al. Agriculture and Forestry Offsets in Carbon Markets: Background and Selected Issues . (Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC, 2021).

Goodward, J., Kelly, A. The Bottom Line on Offsets. (World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, 2010).

Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market. Core Carbon Principles . (ICVCM, London, 2023).

Marland, G. et al. Accounting for sequestered carbon: the question of permanence. Environ. Sci. Policy 4 , 259–268 (2001).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Kollmuss, A. et al. Has Joint Implementation reduced GHG emissions? Lessons learned for the design of carbon market mechanisms . (Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, 2015).

Calel, R. et al. Do Carbon Offsets Offset Carbon ? (Munich Society for the Promotion of Economic Research, Munich, 2021).

Cames, M. et al. How additional is the Clean Development Mechanism? Analysis of the application of current tools and proposed alternatives . (INFRAS and Stockholm Environment Institute, Zürich, 2016).

Passey, R. et al. The governance challenge for implementing effective market-based climate policies: a case study of The New South Wales Greenhouse Gas Reduction Scheme. Energy Policy 36 , 3009–3018 (2008).

Schneider, L. & Kollmuss, A. Perverse effects of carbon markets on HFC-23 and SF 6 abatement projects in Russia. Nat. Clim. Change 5 , 1061–1064 (2015).

Randazzo, R. et al. Improved assessment of baseline and additionality for forest carbon crediting. Ecol. Appl. 33 , e2817 (2023).

Guizar-Coutiño, A. et al. A global evaluation of the effectiveness of voluntary REDD+ projects at reducing deforestation and degradation in the moist tropics. Conserv. Biol. 36 , e13970 (2022).

Badgley, G. et al. California’s forest carbon offsets buffer pool is severely undercapitalized. Front. For. Glob. Change 5 , 930426 (2022).

Badgley, G. et al. Systematic over-crediting in California’s forest carbon offsets program. Glob. Change Biol. 28 , 1433–1445 (2022).

Coffield, S. et al. Using remote sensing to quantify the additional climate benefits of California forest carbon offset projects. Glob. Change Biol . 28 , 6789–6806 (2022).

West, T. A. P. et al. Overstated carbon emission reductions from voluntary REDD+ projects in the Brazilian Amazon. PNAS 117 , 24188–24194 (2020).

West, T. A. P. et al. Action needed to make carbon offsets from forest conservation work for climate change mitigation. Science 381 , 873–877 (2023).

Stapp, J. et al. Little evidence of management change in California’s forest offset program. Commun. Earth. Environ. 4 , 331 (2023).

Gibbons, P. et al. Outcomes from 10 years of biodiversity offsetting. Glob. Change Biol. 24 , e643–e654 (2018).

zu Ermgassen, S. et al. The ecological outcomes of biodiversity offsets under “no net loss” policies: a global review. Conserv. Lett. 12 , e12664 (2019).

NSW Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal. NSW Greenhouse Reduction Scheme—Strengths, Weaknesses and Lessons Learned (IPART, Sydney, 2013).

Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011 (Cwlth).

Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) (Human-Induced Regeneration of a Permanent Even-Aged Native Forest—1.1) Methodology Determination (2013).

Clean Energy Regulator. Emissions Reduction Fund project register . (Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 2023).

Evans, M. C. et al. Carbon farming via assisted natural regeneration as a cost-effective mechanism for restoring biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Environ. Sci. Policy 50 , 114–129 (2015).

Evans, M. C. Effective incentives for reforestation: lessons from Australia’s carbon farming policies. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 32 , 38–45 (2018).

Richards, G. & Evens, D. Development of a carbon accounting model (FullCAM Vers. 1.0) for the Australian continent. Aust. For. 67 , 277–283 (2004).

Waterworth, R. et al. A generalised hybrid process-empirical model for predicting plantation forest growth. Forest Ecol. Manag. 238 , 231–243 (2007).

Paul, K. et al. Improved models for estimating temporal changes in carbon sequestration in above-ground biomass of mixed-species environmental plantings. Forest Ecol. Manag. 338 , 208–218 (2015).

Paul, K. & Roxburgh, S. Predicting carbon sequestration of woody biomass following land restoration. Forest Ecol. Manag. 460 , 117838 (2020).

Roxburgh, S. et al. A revised above-ground maximum biomass layer for the Australian continent. Forest Ecol. Manag. 432 , 264–275 (2019).

Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. National Inventory Report 2021 . (Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 2023).

Butler, D. et al. Australian National University (ANU)-University of New South Wales (UNSW) ERF research team submission to the Chubb Review. (Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Canberra, 2022).

Wilson, R. et al. Why offsets are not a viable alternative to cutting emissions. (Climate Analytics, Berlin, 2023).

Australian Academy of Science. Review of Four Methods of Generating Australian Carbon Credit Units . (Australian Academy of Science, Canberra, 2022).

Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists. Submission to the Independent Review of Australian Carbon Credit Units . (Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Canberra, 2022).

Richards, G. & Brack, C. A continental biomass stock and stock change estimation approach for Australia. Aust. For. 67 , 284–288 (2004).

Morton, S. R. et al. A fresh framework for the ecology of arid Australia. J. Arid Environ. 75 , 313–329 (2011).

Fensham, R. J. et al. How does clay constrain woody biomass in drylands? Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 24 , 950–958 (2015).

Ma, X. et al. Drought rapidly diminishes the large net CO 2 uptake in 2011 over semi-arid Australia. Sci. Rep. 6 , 37747 (2016).

Fensham et al. Rainfall, landuse and woody vegetation cover in semi-arid Australian savannah. J. Ecol. 93 , 596–606 (2005).

Eldridge, D. J. et al. Impacts of shrub encroachment on ecosystem structure and functioning: towards a global synthesis. Ecol. Lett. 14 , 709–722 (2011).

Sankaran, M. et al. Native ungulates of diverse body sizes collectively regulate long-term woody plant demography and structure of a semi-arid savanna. J. Ecol. 101 , 1389–1399 (2013).

Travers, S. et al. Rabbits and livestock grazing alter the structure and composition of mid-storey plants in a wooded dryland. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 277 , 53–60 (2019).

Witt, G. B. Vegetation changes through the eyes of the locals: the ‘artificial wilderness’ in the mulga country of south-west Queensland. Rangel. J. 35 , 299–314 (2013).

Fensham, R. et al. Potential aboveground biomass in drought-prone forest used for rangeland pastoralism. Ecol. Appl. 22 , 894–908 (2012).

Landsberg, J. et al. Abundance and composition of plant species along grazing gradients in Australian rangelands. J. Appl. Ecol. 40 , 1008–1024 (2003).

Friedel, M. H. Discontinuous change in arid woodland and grassland vegetation along gradients of cattle grazing in central Australia. J. Arid Environ. 37 , 145–164 (1997).

Noble, J. C. T he Delicate and Noxious Scrub: CSIRO Studies on Native Tree and Shrub Proliferation in the Semi-Arid Woodlands of Eastern Australia . (CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, 1997).

Burrows, W. H. Seeing the wood(land) for the trees—an individual perspective of Queensland woodland studies (1965-2005). Trop. Grasslands 36 , 202–217 (2002).

Google Scholar  

Fensham, R. & Fairfax, R. Preliminary assessment of gidgee (Acacia cambagei) woodland thickening in the Longreach district, Queensland. The Rangel. J. 27 , 159–168 (2005).

Witt, B. et al. Is ‘vegetation thickening’ occurring in Queensland’s mulga lands—a 50-year aerial photographic analysis. Aust. J. Bot. 57 , 572–582 (2009).

Queensland Department of Environment and Science. Statewide Landcover and Trees Study: 2020–21 SLATS Report. (Queensland Government, Brisbane, 2023).

NSW Department of Planning and Environment. Results for NSW Vegetation Clearing 2021 . (NSW Government, Sydney, 2023).

Fensham, R. et al. To what extent is drought‐induced tree mortality a natural phenomenon? Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 28 , 365–373 (2019).

Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. National Forest and Sparse Woody Vegetation Data (Version 7.0 - 2022 Release) (Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 2023).

Department of the Environment and Energy. National Inventory Report 2017 . (Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 2019).

Macintosh, A. et al. HIR Project Data Summary. Figshare (2024). https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.25199786 .

Macintosh, A. et al. Forest & Sparse Woody Cover in HIR Projects. Figshare (2024). https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.25199789 .

Larmour, J. et al. Relating canopy cover and average height to the biomass of the stand. Report for the Department of the Environment and Energy . (CSIRO, Canberra, 2019).

Austin, K. et al. The economic costs of planting, preserving, and managing the world’s forests to mitigate climate change. Nat. Commun. 11 , 5946 (2020).

Nabuurs, G-J. et al. Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU). In IPCC, 2022: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds. Shukla P. R. et al.) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA 2022).

Clean Energy Regulator. Carbon abatement contract register . (Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 2023).

Clean Energy Regulator. Auction results . (Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 2023).

Gillenwater, M., Seres, S. The Clean Development Mechanism: A Review of the First International Offset Program . (Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Washington, DC, 2011).

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP). Modalities and procedures for a clean development mechanism as defined in Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol, Decision 3/CMP.1, paragraph 45 (2005).

Bushnell, J. Adverse Selection and Emissions Offsets . Energy Institute at HAAS. Working Paper 222. (University of California, Berkeley, 2011).

Smith, P. et al. How to measure, report and verify soil carbon change to realize the potential of soil carbon sequestration for atmospheric greenhouse gas removal. Glob. Change Biol. 26 , 219–241 (2020).

Burke, P. J. Undermined by adverse selection: Australia’s direct action abatement subsidies. Econ. Papers 35 , 216–229 (2016).

Victor, D. The Politics and Economics of International Carbon Offsets. In Proc. National Research Council, Modelling the Economics of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation: Summary of a Workshop 132–142 (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, (2011).

Arlidge, W. et al. A global mitigation hierarchy for nature conservation. BioScience 68 , 336–347 (2018).

International Civil Aviation Organization. Assembly Resolution A41-22: Consolidated statement of continuing ICAO policies and practices related to environmental protection—Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA). (ICAO, Montreal, Canada, 2022).

Gupta, A. & Mason, M. Disclosing or obscuring? the politics of transparency in climate governance. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 18 , 82–90 (2016).

GDAL/OGR contributors. GDAL/OGR Geospatial Data Abstraction software Library. Open Source Geospatial Foundation (2022). URL https://gdal.org . https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5884351 .

Bates, D. et al. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67 , 1–48 (2015).

R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria (2022).

Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee. Review of the Human-Induced Regeneration and Native Forest from Managed Regrowth methods . (Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 2018).

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia

Andrew Macintosh, Don Butler, Dean Ansell, Marie Waschka, David Lindenmayer, Philip Gibbons & Paul Summerfield

Haizea Analytics Pty Ltd, Canberra, ACT, Australia

Pablo Larraondo

University of New South Wales, Canberra, ACT, Australia

Megan C. Evans

University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

Rod Fensham

University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia

David Eldridge

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

A.M., D.B., P.L. and M.E. initiated and designed the research, with input from D.A. and M.W. A.M. led the drafting, with input from all authors, except P.S. D.B. designed and performed the statistical analysis. P.L. processed and analysed the woody cover data. A.M. compiled and analysed data on projects and crediting. R.F., D.E., D.L. and P.G. provided input on drafting and the literature review. P.S. designed and illustrated Fig.  1 .

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Andrew Macintosh or Don Butler .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare the following competing interests. A.M. is a non-executive director of Paraway Pastoral Company Ltd. Paraway Pastoral Company Ltd has offset projects under Australia’s offset scheme. Paraway Pastoral Company Ltd does not have any human-induced regeneration projects. A.M., D.B., D.A. and M.W. advise public and private entities on environmental markets and Australia’s carbon offset scheme, including on the design of carbon offset methods. The remaining authors have no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Communications Earth & Environment thanks Thales A. P. West, Michael Köhl and Shane Coffield for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editors: Jinfeng Chang and Martina Grecequet. A peer review file is available.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Peer review file, supplementary information, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Macintosh, A., Butler, D., Larraondo, P. et al. Australian human-induced native forest regeneration carbon offset projects have limited impact on changes in woody vegetation cover and carbon removals. Commun Earth Environ 5 , 149 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01313-x

Download citation

Received : 22 September 2023

Accepted : 11 March 2024

Published : 26 March 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01313-x

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

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.