Five Common Limitations in Academic Articles

In academic articles, limitations are typically acknowledged to contextualise findings, demonstrate methodological rigour, and clarify the boundaries of interpretation and generalisability. Explicit discussion of limitations is widely regarded as a marker of scholarly integrity and transparency (Creswell & Creswell 2018; Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill 2019). While specific limitations vary by discipline and methodology, the following five are among the most commonly reported across empirical and theoretical research.

1. Limited Sample Size or Scope

One of the most frequently cited limitations concerns sample size, sampling strategy, or research scope. Small samples, narrowly defined populations, or single-site studies may restrict the extent to which findings can be generalised beyond the immediate study context (Bryman 2016). In qualitative research, such limitations are often framed in terms of transferability rather than statistical generalisability (Lincoln & Guba 1985).

Example:
“This study was conducted with participants from a single institution, which may limit the transferability of the findings to other contexts.”

2. Methodological Constraints

Methodological design choices inherently impose limitations. Common issues include reliance on self-reported data, cross-sectional designs that preclude causal inference, lack of randomisation, or limited instrument validation. These constraints may introduce bias or restrict the strength of conclusions that can be drawn (Creswell & Creswell 2018; Robson & McCartan 2016).

Example:
“The reliance on self-reported survey responses may introduce recall or social desirability bias.”

3. Data Availability and Data Quality

Limitations related to data access, completeness, or reliability are common, particularly in secondary data analysis, longitudinal research, and archival studies. Missing data, inconsistent measurement, or reliance on proxy indicators can affect the robustness and validity of findings (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill 2019).

Example:
“Incomplete historical records limited the ability to conduct a comprehensive longitudinal analysis.”

4. Temporal and Contextual Constraints

Academic studies are often bounded by time, location, and broader contextual conditions. Findings may reflect specific institutional, cultural, legal, or policy environments that are subject to change, thereby limiting broader applicability or long-term relevance (Yin 2018).

Example:
“The findings reflect practices in effect at the time of data collection and may not account for subsequent regulatory changes.”

5. Researcher Bias and Interpretive Limitations

In qualitative, interpretive, or doctrinal research, limitations often relate to researcher subjectivity, theoretical positioning, or interpretive judgment. While reflexivity and methodological transparency help mitigate these concerns, authors commonly acknowledge that analysis is shaped by analytical frameworks and researcher perspectives (Braun & Clarke 2021; Finlay 2002).

Example:
“The analysis was informed by the researcher’s interpretive framework, which may have influenced theme development.”

Finding Gaps in the Literature

Professor David Stuckler has provided an excellent video (see below) outlining a quick method for finding the gaps in the literature by closely examining the limitations authors typically include in their articles.

In Write.studio we have added a few features for recording these gaps into our library records:

1. Limitations text can be pasted from any article you read into the Notes for easy access and reflection.
2. Gapwords' as well as 'Keywords' can be added to the tags. Create a list of gapwords that relate to your research and always use those on each article The five common gaps noted above provide a starting point for lisiting your criteria.
3. Quick facts includes three additional tags:
   
   1. Origin of study (a list of countries to select from)
   2. Methods ( a list of common research methods to select from)
   3. Risk of bias (a drop list of common biases to select from)

Conclusion

Acknowledging limitations does not undermine the value of an academic article; rather, it strengthens credibility by situating findings within their appropriate methodological and contextual boundaries. Well-articulated limitations also guide future research by identifying opportunities for broader samples, alternative methods, or extending an analysis (Creswell & Creswell 2018; Yin 2018).

References

Braun, V & Clarke, V 2021, Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide, Sage, London.

Bryman, A 2016, Social Research Methods, 5th edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Creswell, JW & Creswell, JD 2018, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 5th edn, Sage, Thousand Oaks.

Finlay, L 2002, ‘Negotiating the swamp: The opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice’, Qualitative Research, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 209–230.

Lincoln, YS & Guba, EG 1985, Naturalistic Inquiry, Sage, Beverly Hills.

Robson, C & McCartan, K 2016, Real World Research, 4th edn, Wiley, Chichester.

Saunders, M, Lewis, P & Thornhill, A 2019, Research Methods for Business Students, 8th edn, Pearson, Harlow.

Yin, RK 2018, Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods, 6th edn, Sage, Thousand Oaks.

‍