what is limitation in research proposal

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.

How to present limitations in research

Last updated

30 January 2024

Reviewed by

Short on time? Get an AI generated summary of this article instead

Limitations don’t invalidate or diminish your results, but it’s best to acknowledge them. This will enable you to address any questions your study failed to answer because of them.

In this guide, learn how to recognize, present, and overcome limitations in research.

• What is a research limitation?

Research limitations are weaknesses in your research design or execution that may have impacted outcomes and conclusions. Uncovering limitations doesn’t necessarily indicate poor research design—it just means you encountered challenges you couldn’t have anticipated that limited your research efforts.

Does basic research have limitations?

Basic research aims to provide more information about your research topic . It requires the same standard research methodology and data collection efforts as any other research type, and it can also have limitations.

• Common research limitations

Researchers encounter common limitations when embarking on a study. Limitations can occur in relation to the methods you apply or the research process you design. They could also be connected to you as the researcher.

Methodology limitations

Not having access to data or reliable information can impact the methods used to facilitate your research. A lack of data or reliability may limit the parameters of your study area and the extent of your exploration.

Your sample size may also be affected because you won’t have any direction on how big or small it should be and who or what you should include. Having too few participants won’t adequately represent the population or groups of people needed to draw meaningful conclusions.

Research process limitations

The study’s design can impose constraints on the process. For example, as you’re conducting the research, issues may arise that don’t conform to the data collection methodology you developed. You may not realize until well into the process that you should have incorporated more specific questions or comprehensive experiments to generate the data you need to have confidence in your results.

Constraints on resources can also have an impact. Being limited on participants or participation incentives may limit your sample sizes. Insufficient tools, equipment, and materials to conduct a thorough study may also be a factor.

Common researcher limitations

Here are some of the common researcher limitations you may encounter:

Time: some research areas require multi-year longitudinal approaches, but you might not be able to dedicate that much time. Imagine you want to measure how much memory a person loses as they age. This may involve conducting multiple tests on a sample of participants over 20–30 years, which may be impossible.

Bias: researchers can consciously or unconsciously apply bias to their research. Biases can contribute to relying on research sources and methodologies that will only support your beliefs about the research you’re embarking on. You might also omit relevant issues or participants from the scope of your study because of your biases.

Limited access to data : you may need to pay to access specific databases or journals that would be helpful to your research process. You might also need to gain information from certain people or organizations but have limited access to them. These cases require readjusting your process and explaining why your findings are still reliable.

• Why is it important to identify limitations?

Identifying limitations adds credibility to research and provides a deeper understanding of how you arrived at your conclusions.

Constraints may have prevented you from collecting specific data or information you hoped would prove or disprove your hypothesis or provide a more comprehensive understanding of your research topic.

However, identifying the limitations contributing to your conclusions can inspire further research efforts that help gather more substantial information and data.

• Where to put limitations in a research paper

A research paper is broken up into different sections that appear in the following order:

Introduction

Methodology

The discussion portion of your paper explores your findings and puts them in the context of the overall research. Either place research limitations at the beginning of the discussion section before the analysis of your findings or at the end of the section to indicate that further research needs to be pursued.

What not to include in the limitations section

Evidence that doesn’t support your hypothesis is not a limitation, so you shouldn’t include it in the limitation section. Don’t just list limitations and their degree of severity without further explanation.

• How to present limitations

You’ll want to present the limitations of your study in a way that doesn’t diminish the validity of your research and leave the reader wondering if your results and conclusions have been compromised.

Include only the limitations that directly relate to and impact how you addressed your research questions. Following a specific format enables the reader to develop an understanding of the weaknesses within the context of your findings without doubting the quality and integrity of your research.

Identify the limitations specific to your study

You don’t have to identify every possible limitation that might have occurred during your research process. Only identify those that may have influenced the quality of your findings and your ability to answer your research question.

Explain study limitations in detail

This explanation should be the most significant portion of your limitation section.

Link each limitation with an interpretation and appraisal of their impact on the study. You’ll have to evaluate and explain whether the error, method, or validity issues influenced the study’s outcome and how.

Propose a direction for future studies and present alternatives

In this section, suggest how researchers can avoid the pitfalls you experienced during your research process.

If an issue with methodology was a limitation, propose alternate methods that may help with a smoother and more conclusive research project . Discuss the pros and cons of your alternate recommendation.

Describe steps taken to minimize each limitation

You probably took steps to try to address or mitigate limitations when you noticed them throughout the course of your research project. Describe these steps in the limitation section.

• Limitation example

“Approaches like stem cell transplantation and vaccination in AD [Alzheimer’s disease] work on a cellular or molecular level in the laboratory. However, translation into clinical settings will remain a challenge for the next decade.”

The authors are saying that even though these methods showed promise in helping people with memory loss when conducted in the lab (in other words, using animal studies), more studies are needed. These may be controlled clinical trials, for example. 

However, the short life span of stem cells outside the lab and the vaccination’s severe inflammatory side effects are limitations. Researchers won’t be able to conduct clinical trials until these issues are overcome.

• How to overcome limitations in research

You’ve already started on the road to overcoming limitations in research by acknowledging that they exist. However, you need to ensure readers don’t mistake weaknesses for errors within your research design.

To do this, you’ll need to justify and explain your rationale for the methods, research design, and analysis tools you chose and how you noticed they may have presented limitations.

Your readers need to know that even when limitations presented themselves, you followed best practices and the ethical standards of your field. You didn’t violate any rules and regulations during your research process.

You’ll also want to reinforce the validity of your conclusions and results with multiple sources, methods, and perspectives. This prevents readers from assuming your findings were derived from a single or biased source.

• Learning and improving starts with limitations in research

Dealing with limitations with transparency and integrity helps identify areas for future improvements and developments. It’s a learning process, providing valuable insights into how you can improve methodologies, expand sample sizes, or explore alternate approaches to further support the validity of your findings.

Should you be using a customer insights hub?

Do you want to discover previous research faster?

Do you share your research findings with others?

Do you analyze research data?

Start for free today, add your research, and get to key insights faster

Editor’s picks

Last updated: 18 April 2023

Last updated: 27 February 2023

Last updated: 6 February 2023

Last updated: 15 January 2024

Last updated: 6 October 2023

Last updated: 5 February 2023

Last updated: 16 April 2023

Last updated: 7 March 2023

Last updated: 9 March 2023

Last updated: 12 December 2023

Last updated: 11 March 2024

Last updated: 13 May 2024

Latest articles

Related topics, .css-je19u9{-webkit-align-items:flex-end;-webkit-box-align:flex-end;-ms-flex-align:flex-end;align-items:flex-end;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:row;-ms-flex-direction:row;flex-direction:row;-webkit-box-flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-box-pack:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;justify-content:center;row-gap:0;text-align:center;max-width:671px;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}}@media (max-width: 799px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}} decide what to .css-1kiodld{max-height:56px;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-1kiodld{display:none;}} build next, decide what to build next.

Users report unexpectedly high data usage, especially during streaming sessions.

Users find it hard to navigate from the home page to relevant playlists in the app.

It would be great to have a sleep timer feature, especially for bedtime listening.

I need better filters to find the songs or artists I’m looking for.

Log in or sign up

Get started for free

• 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
• Applying Critical Thinking
• 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: Jun 18, 2024 10:45 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

What are the limitations in research and how to write them?

Learn about the potential limitations in research and how to appropriately address them in order to deliver honest and ethical research.

It is fairly uncommon for researchers to stumble into the term research limitations when working on their research paper. Limitations in research can arise owing to constraints on design, methods, materials, and so on, and these aspects, unfortunately, may have an influence on your subject’s findings.

In this Mind The Graph’s article, we’ll discuss some recommendations for writing limitations in research , provide examples of various common types of limitations, and suggest how to properly present this information.

What are the limitations in research?

The limitations in research are the constraints in design, methods or even researchers’ limitations that affect and influence the interpretation of your research’s ultimate findings. These are limitations on the generalization and usability of findings that emerge from the design of the research and/or the method employed to ensure validity both internally and externally. 

Researchers are usually cautious to acknowledge the limitations of their research in their publications for fear of undermining the research’s scientific validity. No research is faultless or covers every possible angle. As a result, addressing the constraints of your research exhibits honesty and integrity .

Why should include limitations of research in my paper?

Though limitations tackle potential flaws in research, commenting on them at the conclusion of your paper, by demonstrating that you are aware of these limitations and explaining how they impact the conclusions that may be taken from the research, improves your research by disclosing any issues before other researchers or reviewers do . 

Additionally, emphasizing research constraints implies that you have thoroughly investigated the ramifications of research shortcomings and have a thorough understanding of your research problem. 

Limits exist in any research; being honest about them and explaining them would impress researchers and reviewers more than disregarding them. 

Remember that acknowledging a research’s shortcomings offers a chance to provide ideas for future research, but be careful to describe how your study may help to concentrate on these outstanding problems.

Possible limitations examples

Here are some limitations connected to methodology and the research procedure that you may need to explain and discuss in connection to your findings.

Methodological limitations

Sample size.

The number of units of analysis used in your study is determined by the sort of research issue being investigated. It is important to note that if your sample is too small, finding significant connections in the data will be challenging, as statistical tests typically require a larger sample size to ensure a fair representation and this can be limiting. 

Lack of available or reliable data

A lack of data or trustworthy data will almost certainly necessitate limiting the scope of your research or the size of your sample, or it can be a substantial impediment to identifying a pattern and a relevant connection.

Lack of prior research on the subject

Citing previous research papers forms the basis of your literature review and aids in comprehending the research subject you are researching. Yet there may be little if any, past research on your issue.

The measure used to collect data

After finishing your analysis of the findings, you realize that the method you used to collect data limited your capacity to undertake a comprehensive evaluation of the findings. Recognize the flaw by mentioning that future researchers should change the specific approach for data collection.

Issues with research samples and selection

Sampling inaccuracies arise when a probability sampling method is employed to choose a sample, but that sample does not accurately represent the overall population or the relevant group. As a result, your study suffers from “sampling bias” or “selection bias.”

Limitations of the research

When your research requires polling certain persons or a specific group, you may have encountered the issue of limited access to these interviewees. Because of the limited access, you may need to reorganize or rearrange your research. In this scenario, explain why access is restricted and ensure that your findings are still trustworthy and valid despite the constraint.

Time constraints

Practical difficulties may limit the amount of time available to explore a research issue and monitor changes as they occur. If time restrictions have any detrimental influence on your research, recognize this impact by expressing the necessity for a future investigation.

Due to their cultural origins or opinions on observed events, researchers may carry biased opinions, which can influence the credibility of a research. Furthermore, researchers may exhibit biases toward data and conclusions that only support their hypotheses or arguments.

The structure of the limitations section 

The limitations of your research are usually stated at the beginning of the discussion section of your paper so that the reader is aware of and comprehends the limitations prior to actually reading the rest of your findings, or they are stated at the end of the discussion section as an acknowledgment of the need for further research.

The ideal way is to divide your limitations section into three steps: 

1. Identify the research constraints; 

2. Describe in great detail how they affect your research; 

3. Mention the opportunity for future investigations and give possibilities. 

By following this method while addressing the constraints of your research, you will be able to effectively highlight your research’s shortcomings without jeopardizing the quality and integrity of your research.

Present your research or paper in an innovative way

If you want your readers to be engaged and participate in your research, try Mind The Graph tool to add visual assets to your content. Infographics may improve comprehension and are easy to read, just as the Mind The Graph tool is simple to use and offers a variety of templates from which you can select the one that best suits your information.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Exclusive high quality content about effective visual communication in science.

About Jessica Abbadia

Jessica Abbadia is a lawyer that has been working in Digital Marketing since 2020, improving organic performance for apps and websites in various regions through ASO and SEO. Currently developing scientific and intellectual knowledge for the community's benefit. Jessica is an animal rights activist who enjoys reading and drinking strong coffee.

Content tags

• The Scientist University

How to Present a Research Study’s Limitations

All studies have imperfections, but how to present them without diminishing the value of the work can be tricky..

Nathan Ni holds a PhD from Queens University. He is a science editor for The Scientist’s Creative Services Team who strives to better understand and communicate the relationships between health and disease.

View full profile.

Learn about our editorial policies.

Scientists work with many different limitations. First and foremost, they navigate informational limitations, work around knowledge gaps when designing studies, formulating hypotheses, and analyzing data. They also handle technical limitations, making the most of what their hands, equipment, and instruments can achieve. Finally, researchers must also manage logistical limitations. Scientists will often experience sample scarcity, financial issues, or simply be unable to access the technology or materials that they want.

All scientific studies have limitations, and no study is perfect. Researchers should not run from this reality, but engage it directly. It is better to directly address the specific limitations of the work in question, and doing so is actually a way to demonstrate an author’s proficiency and aptitude.

Do: Be Transparent

From a practical perspective, being transparent is the main key to directly addressing the specific limitations of a study. Was there an experiment that the researchers wanted to perform but could not, or a sample that existed that the scientists could not obtain? Was there a piece of knowledge that would explain a question raised by the data presented within the current study? If the answer is yes, the authors should mention this and elaborate upon it within the discussion section.

Asking and addressing these questions demonstrates that the authors have knowledge, understanding, and expertise of the subject area beyond what the study directly investigated. It further demonstrates a solid grasp of the existing literature—which means a solid grasp of what others are doing, what techniques they are using, and what limitations impede their own studies. This information helps the authors contextualize where their study fits within what others have discovered, thereby mitigating the perceived effect of a given limitation on the study’s legitimacy. In essence, this strategy turns limitations, often considered weaknesses, into strengths.

For example, in their 2021 Cell Reports study on macrophage polarization mechanisms, dermatologist Alexander Marneros and colleagues wrote the following. 1

A limitation of studying macrophage polarization in vitro is that this approach only partially captures the tissue microenvironment context in which many different factors affect macrophage polarization. However, it is likely that the identified signaling mechanisms that promote polarization in vitro are also critical for polarization mechanisms that occur in vivo. This is supported by our observation that trametinib and panobinostat inhibited M2-type macrophage polarization not only in vitro but also in skin wounds and laser-induced CNV lesions.

This is a very effective structure. In the first sentence ( yellow ), the authors outlined the limitation. In the next sentence ( green ), they offered a rationalization that mitigates the effect of the limitation. Finally, they provided the evidence ( blue ) for this rationalization, using not just information from the literature, but also data that they obtained in their study specifically for this purpose. 

Don't: Be Defensive

It can feel natural to avoid talking about a study’s limitations. Scientists may believe that mentioning the drawbacks still present in their study will jeopardize their chances of publication. As such, researchers will sometimes skirt around the issue. They will present “boilerplate faults”—generalized concerns about sample size/diversity and time limitations that all researchers face—rather than honestly discussing their own study. Alternatively, they will describe their limitations in a defensive manner, positioning their problems as something that “could not be helped”—as something beyond what science can currently achieve.

However, their audience can see through this, because they are largely peers who understand and have experienced how modern research works. They can tell the difference between global challenges faced by every scientific study and limitations that are specific to a single study. Avoiding these specific limitations can therefore betray a lack of confidence that the study is good enough to withstand problems stemming from legitimate limitations. As such, researchers should actively engage with the greater scientific implications of the limitations that they face. Indeed, doing this is actually a way to demonstrate an author’s proficiency and aptitude.

In an example, neurogeneticist Nancy Bonini and colleagues, in their publication in Nature , discussed a question raised by their data that they have elected not to directly investigate in this study, writing “ Among the intriguing questions raised by these data is how senescent glia promote LDs in other glia. ” To show both the legitimacy of the question and how seriously they have considered it, the authors provided a comprehensive summary of the literature in the following seven sentences, offering two hypotheses backed by a combined eight different sources. 2 Rather than shying away from a limitation, they attacked it as something to be curious about and to discuss. This is not just a very effective way of demonstrating their expertise, but it frames the limitation as something that, when overcome, will build upon the present study rather than something that negatively affects the legitimacy of their current findings.

Striking the Right Balance

Scientists have to navigate the fine line between acknowledging the limitations of their study while also not diminishing the effect and value of their own work. To be aware of legitimate limitations and properly assess and dissect them shows a profound understanding of a field, where the study fits within that field, and what the rest of the scientific community are doing and what challenges they face.

All studies are parts of a greater whole. Pretending otherwise is a disservice to the scientific community.

Looking for more information on scientific writing? Check out  The Scientist’ s  TS SciComm  section. Looking for some help putting together a manuscript, a figure, a poster, or anything else?  The Scientist ’s  Scientific Services  may have the professional help that you need.

• He L, et al. Global characterization of macrophage polarization mechanisms and identification of M2-type polarization inhibitors . Cell Rep . 2021;37(5):109955.
• Byrns CN, et al. Senescent glia link mitochondrial dysfunction and lipid accumulation . Nature . 2024.

21 Research Limitations Examples

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]

Learn about our Editorial Process

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) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 19 Top Cognitive Psychology Theories (Explained)
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 119 Bloom’s Taxonomy Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ All 6 Levels of Understanding (on Bloom’s Taxonomy)
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 15 Self-Actualization Examples (Maslow's Hierarchy)

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

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

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

the topic is well covered

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Publishing Research
• Trending Now
• Understanding Ethics

Understanding the Impact of Retractions on Research Integrity – A global study

As we reach the midway point of 2024, ‘Research Integrity’ remains one of the hot…

• Diversity and Inclusion

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…

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

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

5 Effective Ways to Avoid Ghostwriting for Busy Researchers

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 would be most effective in reducing research misconduct?

Stating the Obvious: Writing Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations

During the process of writing your thesis or dissertation, you might suddenly realize that your research has inherent flaws. Don’t worry! Virtually all projects contain restrictions to your research. However, being able to recognize and accurately describe these problems is the difference between a true researcher and a grade-school kid with a science-fair project. Concerns with truthful responding, access to participants, and survey instruments are just a few of examples of restrictions on your research. In the following sections, the differences among delimitations, limitations, and assumptions of a dissertation will be clarified.

Delimitations

Delimitations are the definitions you set as the boundaries of your own thesis or dissertation, so delimitations are in your control. Delimitations are set so that your goals do not become impossibly large to complete. Examples of delimitations include objectives, research questions, variables, theoretical objectives that you have adopted, and populations chosen as targets to study. When you are stating your delimitations, clearly inform readers why you chose this course of study. The answer might simply be that you were curious about the topic and/or wanted to improve standards of a professional field by revealing certain findings. In any case, you should clearly list the other options available and the reasons why you did not choose these options immediately after you list your delimitations. You might have avoided these options for reasons of practicality, interest, or relativity to the study at hand. For example, you might have only studied Hispanic mothers because they have the highest rate of obese babies. Delimitations are often strongly related to your theory and research questions. If you were researching whether there are different parenting styles between unmarried Asian, Caucasian, African American, and Hispanic women, then a delimitation of your study would be the inclusion of only participants with those demographics and the exclusion of participants from other demographics such as men, married women, and all other ethnicities of single women (inclusion and exclusion criteria). A further delimitation might be that you only included closed-ended Likert scale responses in the survey, rather than including additional open-ended responses, which might make some people more willing to take and complete your survey. Remember that delimitations are not good or bad. They are simply a detailed description of the scope of interest for your study as it relates to the research design. Don’t forget to describe the philosophical framework you used throughout your study, which also delimits your study.

Limitations

Limitations of a dissertation are potential weaknesses in your study that are mostly out of your control, given limited funding, choice of research design, statistical model constraints, or other factors. In addition, a limitation is a restriction on your study that cannot be reasonably dismissed and can affect your design and results. Do not worry about limitations because limitations affect virtually all research projects, as well as most things in life. Even when you are going to your favorite restaurant, you are limited by the menu choices. If you went to a restaurant that had a menu that you were craving, you might not receive the service, price, or location that makes you enjoy your favorite restaurant. If you studied participants’ responses to a survey, you might be limited in your abilities to gain the exact type or geographic scope of participants you wanted. The people whom you managed to get to take your survey may not truly be a random sample, which is also a limitation. If you used a common test for data findings, your results are limited by the reliability of the test. If your study was limited to a certain amount of time, your results are affected by the operations of society during that time period (e.g., economy, social trends). It is important for you to remember that limitations of a dissertation are often not something that can be solved by the researcher. Also, remember that whatever limits you also limits other researchers, whether they are the largest medical research companies or consumer habits corporations. Certain kinds of limitations are often associated with the analytical approach you take in your research, too. For example, some qualitative methods like heuristics or phenomenology do not lend themselves well to replicability. Also, most of the commonly used quantitative statistical models can only determine correlation, but not causation.

Assumptions

Assumptions are things that are accepted as true, or at least plausible, by researchers and peers who will read your dissertation or thesis. In other words, any scholar reading your paper will assume that certain aspects of your study is true given your population, statistical test, research design, or other delimitations. For example, if you tell your friend that your favorite restaurant is an Italian place, your friend will assume that you don’t go there for the sushi. It’s assumed that you go there to eat Italian food. Because most assumptions are not discussed in-text, assumptions that are discussed in-text are discussed in the context of the limitations of your study, which is typically in the discussion section. This is important, because both assumptions and limitations affect the inferences you can draw from your study. One of the more common assumptions made in survey research is the assumption of honesty and truthful responses. However, for certain sensitive questions this assumption may be more difficult to accept, in which case it would be described as a limitation of the study. For example, asking people to report their criminal behavior in a survey may not be as reliable as asking people to report their eating habits. It is important to remember that your limitations and assumptions should not contradict one another. For instance, if you state that generalizability is a limitation of your study given that your sample was limited to one city in the United States, then you should not claim generalizability to the United States population as an assumption of your study. Statistical models in quantitative research designs are accompanied with assumptions as well, some more strict than others. These assumptions generally refer to the characteristics of the data, such as distributions, correlational trends, and variable type, just to name a few. Violating these assumptions can lead to drastically invalid results, though this often depends on sample size and other considerations.

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 .

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Perspect Med Educ
• v.8(4); 2019 Aug

Limited by our limitations

Paula t. ross.

Medical School, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI USA

Nikki L. Bibler Zaidi

Study limitations represent weaknesses within a research design that may influence outcomes and conclusions of the research. Researchers have an obligation to the academic community to present complete and honest limitations of a presented study. Too often, authors use generic descriptions to describe study limitations. Including redundant or irrelevant limitations is an ineffective use of the already limited word count. A meaningful presentation of study limitations should describe the potential limitation, explain the implication of the limitation, provide possible alternative approaches, and describe steps taken to mitigate the limitation. This includes placing research findings within their proper context to ensure readers do not overemphasize or minimize findings. A more complete presentation will enrich the readers’ understanding of the study’s limitations and support future investigation.

Introduction

Regardless of the format scholarship assumes, from qualitative research to clinical trials, all studies have limitations. Limitations represent weaknesses within the study that may influence outcomes and conclusions of the research. The goal of presenting limitations is to provide meaningful information to the reader; however, too often, limitations in medical education articles are overlooked or reduced to simplistic and minimally relevant themes (e.g., single institution study, use of self-reported data, or small sample size) [ 1 ]. This issue is prominent in other fields of inquiry in medicine as well. For example, despite the clinical implications, medical studies often fail to discuss how limitations could have affected the study findings and interpretations [ 2 ]. Further, observational research often fails to remind readers of the fundamental limitation inherent in the study design, which is the inability to attribute causation [ 3 ]. By reporting generic limitations or omitting them altogether, researchers miss opportunities to fully communicate the relevance of their work, illustrate how their work advances a larger field under study, and suggest potential areas for further investigation.

Goals of presenting limitations

Medical education scholarship should provide empirical evidence that deepens our knowledge and understanding of education [ 4 , 5 ], informs educational practice and process, [ 6 , 7 ] and serves as a forum for educating other researchers [ 8 ]. Providing study limitations is indeed an important part of this scholarly process. Without them, research consumers are pressed to fully grasp the potential exclusion areas or other biases that may affect the results and conclusions provided [ 9 ]. Study limitations should leave the reader thinking about opportunities to engage in prospective improvements [ 9 – 11 ] by presenting gaps in the current research and extant literature, thereby cultivating other researchers’ curiosity and interest in expanding the line of scholarly inquiry [ 9 ].

Presenting study limitations is also an ethical element of scientific inquiry [ 12 ]. It ensures transparency of both the research and the researchers [ 10 , 13 , 14 ], as well as provides transferability [ 15 ] and reproducibility of methods. Presenting limitations also supports proper interpretation and validity of the findings [ 16 ]. A study’s limitations should place research findings within their proper context to ensure readers are fully able to discern the credibility of a study’s conclusion, and can generalize findings appropriately [ 16 ].

Why some authors may fail to present limitations

As Price and Murnan [ 8 ] note, there may be overriding reasons why researchers do not sufficiently report the limitations of their study. For example, authors may not fully understand the importance and implications of their study’s limitations or assume that not discussing them may increase the likelihood of publication. Word limits imposed by journals may also prevent authors from providing thorough descriptions of their study’s limitations [ 17 ]. Still another possible reason for excluding limitations is a diffusion of responsibility in which some authors may incorrectly assume that the journal editor is responsible for identifying limitations. Regardless of reason or intent, researchers have an obligation to the academic community to present complete and honest study limitations.

A guide to presenting limitations

The presentation of limitations should describe the potential limitations, explain the implication of the limitations, provide possible alternative approaches, and describe steps taken to mitigate the limitations. Too often, authors only list the potential limitations, without including these other important elements.

Describe the limitations

When describing limitations authors should identify the limitation type to clearly introduce the limitation and specify the origin of the limitation. This helps to ensure readers are able to interpret and generalize findings appropriately. Here we outline various limitation types that can occur at different stages of the research process.

Study design

Some study limitations originate from conscious choices made by the researcher (also known as delimitations) to narrow the scope of the study [ 1 , 8 , 18 ]. For example, the researcher may have designed the study for a particular age group, sex, race, ethnicity, geographically defined region, or some other attribute that would limit to whom the findings can be generalized. Such delimitations involve conscious exclusionary and inclusionary decisions made during the development of the study plan, which may represent a systematic bias intentionally introduced into the study design or instrument by the researcher [ 8 ]. The clear description and delineation of delimitations and limitations will assist editors and reviewers in understanding any methodological issues.

Data collection

Study limitations can also be introduced during data collection. An unintentional consequence of human subjects research is the potential of the researcher to influence how participants respond to their questions. Even when appropriate methods for sampling have been employed, some studies remain limited by the use of data collected only from participants who decided to enrol in the study (self-selection bias) [ 11 , 19 ]. In some cases, participants may provide biased input by responding to questions they believe are favourable to the researcher rather than their authentic response (social desirability bias) [ 20 – 22 ]. Participants may influence the data collected by changing their behaviour when they are knowingly being observed (Hawthorne effect) [ 23 ]. Researchers—in their role as an observer—may also bias the data they collect by allowing a first impression of the participant to be influenced by a single characteristic or impression of another characteristic either unfavourably (horns effect) or favourably (halo effort) [ 24 ].

Data analysis

Study limitations may arise as a consequence of the type of statistical analysis performed. Some studies may not follow the basic tenets of inferential statistical analyses when they use convenience sampling (i.e. non-probability sampling) rather than employing probability sampling from a target population [ 19 ]. Another limitation that can arise during statistical analyses occurs when studies employ unplanned post-hoc data analyses that were not specified before the initial analysis [ 25 ]. Unplanned post-hoc analysis may lead to statistical relationships that suggest associations but are no more than coincidental findings [ 23 ]. Therefore, when unplanned post-hoc analyses are conducted, this should be clearly stated to allow the reader to make proper interpretation and conclusions—especially when only a subset of the original sample is investigated [ 23 ].

Study results

The limitations of any research study will be rooted in the validity of its results—specifically threats to internal or external validity [ 8 ]. Internal validity refers to reliability or accuracy of the study results [ 26 ], while external validity pertains to the generalizability of results from the study’s sample to the larger, target population [ 8 ].

Examples of threats to internal validity include: effects of events external to the study (history), changes in participants due to time instead of the studied effect (maturation), systematic reduction in participants related to a feature of the study (attrition), changes in participant responses due to repeatedly measuring participants (testing effect), modifications to the instrument (instrumentality) and selecting participants based on extreme scores that will regress towards the mean in repeat tests (regression to the mean) [ 27 ].

Threats to external validity include factors that might inhibit generalizability of results from the study’s sample to the larger, target population [ 8 , 27 ]. External validity is challenged when results from a study cannot be generalized to its larger population or to similar populations in terms of the context, setting, participants and time [ 18 ]. Therefore, limitations should be made transparent in the results to inform research consumers of any known or potentially hidden biases that may have affected the study and prevent generalization beyond the study parameters.

Explain the implication(s) of each limitation

Authors should include the potential impact of the limitations (e.g., likelihood, magnitude) [ 13 ] as well as address specific validity implications of the results and subsequent conclusions [ 16 , 28 ]. For example, self-reported data may lead to inaccuracies (e.g. due to social desirability bias) which threatens internal validity [ 19 ]. Even a researcher’s inappropriate attribution to a characteristic or outcome (e.g., stereotyping) can overemphasize (either positively or negatively) unrelated characteristics or outcomes (halo or horns effect) and impact the internal validity [ 24 ]. Participants’ awareness that they are part of a research study can also influence outcomes (Hawthorne effect) and limit external validity of findings [ 23 ]. External validity may also be threatened should the respondents’ propensity for participation be correlated with the substantive topic of study, as data will be biased and not represent the population of interest (self-selection bias) [ 29 ]. Having this explanation helps readers interpret the results and generalize the applicability of the results for their own setting.

Provide potential alternative approaches and explanations

Often, researchers use other studies’ limitations as the first step in formulating new research questions and shaping the next phase of research. Therefore, it is important for readers to understand why potential alternative approaches (e.g. approaches taken by others exploring similar topics) were not taken. In addition to alternative approaches, authors can also present alternative explanations for their own study’s findings [ 13 ]. This information is valuable coming from the researcher because of the direct, relevant experience and insight gained as they conducted the study. The presentation of alternative approaches represents a major contribution to the scholarly community.

Describe steps taken to minimize each limitation

No research design is perfect and free from explicit and implicit biases; however various methods can be employed to minimize the impact of study limitations. Some suggested steps to mitigate or minimize the limitations mentioned above include using neutral questions, randomized response technique, force choice items, or self-administered questionnaires to reduce respondents’ discomfort when answering sensitive questions (social desirability bias) [ 21 ]; using unobtrusive data collection measures (e.g., use of secondary data) that do not require the researcher to be present (Hawthorne effect) [ 11 , 30 ]; using standardized rubrics and objective assessment forms with clearly defined scoring instructions to minimize researcher bias, or making rater adjustments to assessment scores to account for rater tendencies (halo or horns effect) [ 24 ]; or using existing data or control groups (self-selection bias) [ 11 , 30 ]. When appropriate, researchers should provide sufficient evidence that demonstrates the steps taken to mitigate limitations as part of their study design [ 13 ].

In conclusion, authors may be limiting the impact of their research by neglecting or providing abbreviated and generic limitations. We present several examples of limitations to consider; however, this should not be considered an exhaustive list nor should these examples be added to the growing list of generic and overused limitations. Instead, careful thought should go into presenting limitations after research has concluded and the major findings have been described. Limitations help focus the reader on key findings, therefore it is important to only address the most salient limitations of the study [ 17 , 28 ] related to the specific research problem, not general limitations of most studies [ 1 ]. It is important not to minimize the limitations of study design or results. Rather, results, including their limitations, must help readers draw connections between current research and the extant literature.

The quality and rigor of our research is largely defined by our limitations [ 31 ]. In fact, one of the top reasons reviewers report recommending acceptance of medical education research manuscripts involves limitations—specifically how the study’s interpretation accounts for its limitations [ 32 ]. Therefore, it is not only best for authors to acknowledge their study’s limitations rather than to have them identified by an editor or reviewer, but proper framing and presentation of limitations can actually increase the likelihood of acceptance. Perhaps, these issues could be ameliorated if academic and research organizations adopted policies and/or expectations to guide authors in proper description of limitations.

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

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  

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

How to Present the Limitations of a Study in Research?

The limitations of the study convey to the reader how and under which conditions your study results will be evaluated. Scientific research involves investigating research topics, both known and unknown, which inherently includes an element of risk. The risk could arise due to human errors, barriers to data gathering, limited availability of resources, and researcher bias. Researchers are encouraged to discuss the limitations of their research to enhance the process of research, as well as to allow readers to gain an understanding of the study’s framework and value.

Limitations of the research are the constraints placed on the ability to generalize from the results and to further describe applications to practice. It is related to the utility value of the findings based on how you initially chose to design the study, the method used to establish internal and external validity, or the result of unanticipated challenges that emerged during the study. Knowing about these limitations and their impact can explain how the limitations of your study can affect the conclusions and thoughts drawn from your research. 1

Table of Contents

What are the limitations of a study

Researchers are probably cautious to acknowledge what the limitations of the research can be for fear of undermining the validity of the research findings. No research can be faultless or cover all possible conditions. These limitations of your research appear probably due to constraints on methodology or research design and influence the interpretation of your research’s ultimate findings. 2 These are limitations on the generalization and usability of findings that emerge from the design of the research and/or the method employed to ensure validity internally and externally. But such limitations of the study can impact the whole study or research paper. However, most researchers prefer not to discuss the different types of limitations in research for fear of decreasing the value of their paper amongst the reviewers or readers.

Importance of limitations of a study

Writing the limitations of the research papers is often assumed to require lots of effort. However, identifying the limitations of the study can help structure the research better. Therefore, do not underestimate the importance of research study limitations. 3

• Opportunity to make suggestions for further research. Suggestions for future research and avenues for further exploration can be developed based on the limitations of the study.
• Opportunity to demonstrate critical thinking. A key objective of the research process is to discover new knowledge while questioning existing assumptions and exploring what is new in the particular field. Describing the limitation of the research shows that you have critically thought about the research problem, reviewed relevant literature, and correctly assessed the methods chosen for studying the problem.
• Demonstrate Subjective learning process. Writing limitations of the research helps to critically evaluate the impact of the said limitations, assess the strength of the research, and consider alternative explanations or interpretations. Subjective evaluation contributes to a more complex and comprehensive knowledge of the issue under study.

Why should I include limitations of research in my paper

All studies have limitations to some extent. Including limitations of the study in your paper demonstrates the researchers’ comprehensive and holistic understanding of the research process and topic. The major advantages are the following:

• Understand the study conditions and challenges encountered . It establishes a complete and potentially logical depiction of the research. The boundaries of the study can be established, and realistic expectations for the findings can be set. They can also help to clarify what the study is not intended to address.
• Improve the quality and validity of the research findings. Mentioning limitations of the research creates opportunities for the original author and other researchers to undertake future studies to improve the research outcomes.
• Transparency and accountability. Including limitations of the research helps maintain mutual integrity and promote further progress in similar studies.
• Identify potential bias sources.  Identifying the limitations of the study can help researchers identify potential sources of bias in their research design, data collection, or analysis. This can help to improve the validity and reliability of the findings.

Where do I need to add the limitations of the study in my paper

The limitations of your research can be stated at the beginning of the discussion section, which allows the reader to comprehend the limitations of the study prior to reading the rest of your findings or at the end of the discussion section as an acknowledgment of the need for further research.

Types of limitations in research

There are different types of limitations in research that researchers may encounter. These are listed below:

• Research Design Limitations : Restrictions on your research or available procedures may affect the research outputs. If the research goals and objectives are too broad, explain how they should be narrowed down to enhance the focus of your study. If there was a selection bias in your sample, explain how this may affect the generalizability of your findings. This can help readers understand the limitations of the study in terms of their impact on the overall validity of your research.
• Impact Limitations : Your study might be limited by a strong regional-, national-, or species-based impact or population- or experimental-specific impact. These inherent limitations on impact affect the extendibility and generalizability of the findings.
• Data or statistical limitations : Data or statistical limitations in research are extremely common in experimental (such as medicine, physics, and chemistry) or field-based (such as ecology and qualitative clinical research) studies. Sometimes, it is either extremely difficult to acquire sufficient data or gain access to the data. These limitations of the research might also be the result of your study’s design and might result in an incomplete conclusion to your research.

Limitations of study examples

All possible limitations of the study cannot be included in the discussion section of the research paper or dissertation. It will vary greatly depending on the type and nature of the study. These include types of research limitations that are related to methodology and the research process and that of the researcher as well that you need to describe and discuss how they possibly impacted your results.

Common methodological limitations of the study

Limitations of research due to methodological problems are addressed by identifying the potential problem and suggesting ways in which this should have been addressed. Some potential methodological limitations of the study are as follows. 1

• Sample size: The sample size 4 is dictated by the type of research problem investigated. If the sample size is too small, finding a significant relationship from the data will be difficult, as statistical tests require a large sample size to ensure a representative population distribution and generalize the study findings.
• Lack of available/reliable data: A lack of available/reliable data will limit the scope of your analysis and the size of your sample or present obstacles in finding a trend or meaningful relationship. So, when writing about the limitations of the study, give convincing reasons why you feel data is absent or untrustworthy and highlight the necessity for a future study focused on developing a new data-gathering strategy.
• Lack of prior research studies: Citing prior research studies is required to help understand the research problem being investigated. If there is little or no prior research, an exploratory rather than an explanatory research design will be required. Also, discovering the limitations of the study presents an opportunity to identify gaps in the literature and describe the need for additional study.
• Measure used to collect the data: Sometimes, the data gathered will be insufficient to conduct a thorough analysis of the results. A limitation of the study example, for instance, is identifying in retrospect that a specific question could have helped address a particular issue that emerged during data analysis. You can acknowledge the limitation of the research by stating the need to revise the specific method for gathering data in the future.
• Self-reported data: Self-reported data cannot be independently verified and can contain several potential bias sources, such as selective memory, attribution, and exaggeration. These biases become apparent if they are incongruent with data from other sources.

General limitations of researchers

Limitations related to the researcher can also influence the study outcomes. These should be addressed, and related remedies should be proposed.

• Limited access to data : If your study requires access to people, organizations, data, or documents whose access is denied or limited, the reasons need to be described. An additional explanation stating why this limitation of research did not prevent you from following through on your study is also needed.
• Time constraints : Researchers might also face challenges in meeting research deadlines due to a lack of timely participant availability or funds, among others. The impacts of time constraints must be acknowledged by mentioning the need for a future study addressing this research problem.
• Conflicts due to biased views and personal issues : Differences in culture or personal views can contribute to researcher bias, as they focus only on the results and data that support their main arguments. To avoid this, pay attention to the problem statement and data gathering.

Steps for structuring the limitations section

Limitations are an inherent part of any research study. Issues may vary, ranging from sampling and literature review to methodology and bias. However, there is a structure for identifying these elements, discussing them, and offering insight or alternatives on how the limitations of the study can be mitigated. This enhances the process of the research and helps readers gain a comprehensive understanding of a study’s conditions.

• Identify the research constraints : Identify those limitations having the greatest impact on the quality of the research findings and your ability to effectively answer your research questions and/or hypotheses. These include sample size, selection bias, measurement error, or other issues affecting the validity and reliability of your research.
• Describe their impact on your research : Reflect on the nature of the identified limitations and justify the choices made during the research to identify the impact of the study’s limitations on the research outcomes. Explanations can be offered if needed, but without being defensive or exaggerating them. Provide context for the limitations of your research to understand them in a broader context. Any specific limitations due to real-world considerations need to be pointed out critically rather than justifying them as done by some other author group or groups.
• Mention the opportunity for future investigations : Suggest ways to overcome the limitations of the present study through future research. This can help readers understand how the research fits into the broader context and offer a roadmap for future studies.

Frequently Asked Questions

• Should I mention all the limitations of my study in the research report?

Restrict limitations to what is pertinent to the research question under investigation. The specific limitations you include will depend on the nature of the study, the research question investigated, and the data collected.

• Can the limitations of a study affect its credibility?

Stating the limitations of the research is considered favorable by editors and peer reviewers. Connecting your study’s limitations with future possible research can help increase the focus of unanswered questions in this area. In addition, admitting limitations openly and validating that they do not affect the main findings of the study increases the credibility of your study. However, if you determine that your study is seriously flawed, explain ways to successfully overcome such flaws in a future study. For example, if your study fails to acquire critical data, consider reframing the research question as an exploratory study to lay the groundwork for more complete research in the future.

• How can I mitigate the limitations of my study?

Strategies to minimize limitations of the research should focus on convincing reviewers and readers that the limitations do not affect the conclusions of the study by showing that the methods are appropriate and that the logic is sound. Here are some steps to follow to achieve this:

• Use data that are valid.
• Use methods that are appropriate and sound logic to draw inferences.
• Use adequate statistical methods for drawing inferences from the data that studies with similar limitations have been published before.

Admit limitations openly and, at the same time, show how they do not affect the main conclusions of the study.

• Can the limitations of a study impact its publication chances?

Limitations in your research can arise owing to restrictions in methodology or research design. Although this could impact your chances of publishing your research paper, it is critical to explain your study’s limitations to your intended audience. For example, it can explain how your study constraints may impact the results and views generated from your investigation. It also shows that you have researched the flaws of your study and have a thorough understanding of the subject.

• How can limitations in research be used for future studies?

The limitations of a study give you an opportunity to offer suggestions for further research. Your study’s limitations, including problems experienced during the study and the additional study perspectives developed, are a great opportunity to take on a new challenge and help advance knowledge in a particular field.

References:

• Brutus, S., Aguinis, H., & Wassmer, U. (2013). Self-reported limitations and future directions in scholarly reports: Analysis and recommendations.  Journal of Management ,  39 (1), 48-75.
• Ioannidis, J. P. (2007). Limitations are not properly acknowledged in the scientific literature.  Journal of Clinical Epidemiology ,  60 (4), 324-329.
• Price, J. H., & Murnan, J. (2004). Research limitations and the necessity of reporting them.  American Journal of Health Education ,  35 (2), 66.
• Boddy, C. R. (2016). Sample size for qualitative research.  Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal ,  19 (4), 426-432.

R Discovery is a literature search and research reading platform that accelerates your research discovery journey by keeping you updated on the latest, most relevant scholarly content. With 250M+ research articles sourced from trusted aggregators like CrossRef, Unpaywall, PubMed, PubMed Central, Open Alex and top publishing houses like Springer Nature, JAMA, IOP, Taylor & Francis, NEJM, BMJ, Karger, SAGE, Emerald Publishing and more, R Discovery puts a world of research at your fingertips.  

Try R Discovery Prime FREE for 1 week or upgrade at just US$72 a year to access premium features that let you listen to research on the go, read in your language, collaborate with peers, auto sync with reference managers, and much more. Choose a simpler, smarter way to find and read research – Download the app and start your free 7-day trial today !  

Related Posts

How Publishers Can Enhance Reader Engagement with R Discovery’s Article Recommendation System

Turabian Format: A Beginner’s Guide

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Starting the research process
• How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates

How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates

Published on October 12, 2022 by Shona McCombes and Tegan George. Revised on November 21, 2023.

A research proposal describes what you will investigate, why it’s important, and how you will conduct your research.

The format of a research proposal varies between fields, but most proposals will contain at least these elements:

Introduction

Literature review.

• Research design

Reference list

While the sections may vary, the overall objective is always the same. A research proposal serves as a blueprint and guide for your research plan, helping you get organized and feel confident in the path forward you choose to take.

Table of contents

Research proposal purpose, research proposal examples, research design and methods, contribution to knowledge, research schedule, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about research proposals.

Academics often have to write research proposals to get funding for their projects. As a student, you might have to write a research proposal as part of a grad school application , or prior to starting your thesis or dissertation .

In addition to helping you figure out what your research can look like, a proposal can also serve to demonstrate why your project is worth pursuing to a funder, educational institution, or supervisor.

Research proposal length

The length of a research proposal can vary quite a bit. A bachelor’s or master’s thesis proposal can be just a few pages, while proposals for PhD dissertations or research funding are usually much longer and more detailed. Your supervisor can help you determine the best length for your work.

One trick to get started is to think of your proposal’s structure as a shorter version of your thesis or dissertation , only without the results , conclusion and discussion sections.

Download our research proposal template

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Writing a research proposal can be quite challenging, but a good starting point could be to look at some examples. We’ve included a few for you below.

• Example research proposal #1: “A Conceptual Framework for Scheduling Constraint Management”
• Example research proposal #2: “Medical Students as Mediators of Change in Tobacco Use”

Like your dissertation or thesis, the proposal will usually have a title page that includes:

• The proposed title of your project
• Your supervisor’s name
• Your institution and department

The first part of your proposal is the initial pitch for your project. Make sure it succinctly explains what you want to do and why.

Your introduction should:

• Introduce your topic
• Give necessary background and context
• Outline your  problem statement  and research questions

To guide your introduction , include information about:

• Who could have an interest in the topic (e.g., scientists, policymakers)
• How much is already known about the topic
• What is missing from this current knowledge
• What new insights your research will contribute
• Why you believe this research is worth doing

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

As you get started, it’s important to demonstrate that you’re familiar with the most important research on your topic. A strong literature review  shows your reader that your project has a solid foundation in existing knowledge or theory. It also shows that you’re not simply repeating what other people have already done or said, but rather using existing research as a jumping-off point for your own.

In this section, share exactly how your project will contribute to ongoing conversations in the field by:

• Comparing and contrasting the main theories, methods, and debates
• Examining the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches
• Explaining how will you build on, challenge, or synthesize prior scholarship

Following the literature review, restate your main  objectives . This brings the focus back to your own project. Next, your research design or methodology section will describe your overall approach, and the practical steps you will take to answer your research questions.

To finish your proposal on a strong note, explore the potential implications of your research for your field. Emphasize again what you aim to contribute and why it matters.

For example, your results might have implications for:

• Improving best practices
• Informing policymaking decisions
• Strengthening a theory or model
• Challenging popular or scientific beliefs
• Creating a basis for future research

Last but not least, your research proposal must include correct citations for every source you have used, compiled in a reference list . To create citations quickly and easily, you can use our free APA citation generator .

Some institutions or funders require a detailed timeline of the project, asking you to forecast what you will do at each stage and how long it may take. While not always required, be sure to check the requirements of your project.

Here’s an example schedule to help you get started. You can also download a template at the button below.

Download our research schedule template

If you are applying for research funding, chances are you will have to include a detailed budget. This shows your estimates of how much each part of your project will cost.

Make sure to check what type of costs the funding body will agree to cover. For each item, include:

• Cost : exactly how much money do you need?
• Justification : why is this cost necessary to complete the research?
• Source : how did you calculate the amount?

To determine your budget, think about:

• Travel costs : do you need to go somewhere to collect your data? How will you get there, and how much time will you need? What will you do there (e.g., interviews, archival research)?
• Materials : do you need access to any tools or technologies?
• Help : do you need to hire any research assistants for the project? What will they do, and how much will you pay them?

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

Methodology

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

Once you’ve decided on your research objectives , you need to explain them in your paper, at the end of your problem statement .

Keep your research objectives clear and concise, and use appropriate verbs to accurately convey the work that you will carry out for each one.

I will compare …

A research aim is a broad statement indicating the general purpose of your research project. It should appear in your introduction at the end of your problem statement , before your research objectives.

Research objectives are more specific than your research aim. They indicate the specific ways you’ll address the overarching aim.

A PhD, which is short for philosophiae doctor (doctor of philosophy in Latin), is the highest university degree that can be obtained. In a PhD, students spend 3–5 years writing a dissertation , which aims to make a significant, original contribution to current knowledge.

A PhD is intended to prepare students for a career as a researcher, whether that be in academia, the public sector, or the private sector.

A master’s is a 1- or 2-year graduate degree that can prepare you for a variety of careers.

All master’s involve graduate-level coursework. Some are research-intensive and intend to prepare students for further study in a PhD; these usually require their students to write a master’s thesis . Others focus on professional training for a specific career.

Critical thinking refers to the ability to evaluate information and to be aware of biases or assumptions, including your own.

Like information literacy , it involves evaluating arguments, identifying and solving problems in an objective and systematic way, and clearly communicating your ideas.

The best way to remember the difference between a research plan and a research proposal is that they have fundamentally different audiences. A research plan helps you, the researcher, organize your thoughts. On the other hand, a dissertation proposal or research proposal aims to convince others (e.g., a supervisor, a funding body, or a dissertation committee) that your research topic is relevant and worthy of being conducted.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. & George, T. (2023, November 21). How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved June 18, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/research-process/research-proposal/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a problem statement | guide & examples, writing strong research questions | criteria & examples, how to write a literature review | guide, examples, & templates, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

• Privacy Policy

Home » Research Proposal – Types, Template and Example

Research Proposal – Types, Template and Example

Table of Contents

Research Proposal

Research proposal is a document that outlines a proposed research project . It is typically written by researchers, scholars, or students who intend to conduct research to address a specific research question or problem.

Types of Research Proposal

Research proposals can vary depending on the nature of the research project and the specific requirements of the funding agency, academic institution, or research program. Here are some common types of research proposals:

Academic Research Proposal

This is the most common type of research proposal, which is prepared by students, scholars, or researchers to seek approval and funding for an academic research project. It includes all the essential components mentioned earlier, such as the introduction, literature review , methodology , and expected outcomes.

Grant Proposal

A grant proposal is specifically designed to secure funding from external sources, such as government agencies, foundations, or private organizations. It typically includes additional sections, such as a detailed budget, project timeline, evaluation plan, and a description of the project’s alignment with the funding agency’s priorities and objectives.

Dissertation or Thesis Proposal

Students pursuing a master’s or doctoral degree often need to submit a proposal outlining their intended research for their dissertation or thesis. These proposals are usually more extensive and comprehensive, including an in-depth literature review, theoretical framework, research questions or hypotheses, and a detailed methodology.

Research Project Proposal

This type of proposal is often prepared by researchers or research teams within an organization or institution. It outlines a specific research project that aims to address a particular problem, explore a specific area of interest, or provide insights for decision-making. Research project proposals may include sections on project management, collaboration, and dissemination of results.

Research Fellowship Proposal

Researchers or scholars applying for research fellowships may be required to submit a proposal outlining their proposed research project. These proposals often emphasize the novelty and significance of the research and its alignment with the goals and objectives of the fellowship program.

Collaborative Research Proposal

In cases where researchers from multiple institutions or disciplines collaborate on a research project, a collaborative research proposal is prepared. This proposal highlights the objectives, responsibilities, and contributions of each collaborator, as well as the overall research plan and coordination mechanisms.

Research Proposal Outline

A research proposal typically follows a standard outline that helps structure the document and ensure all essential components are included. While the specific headings and subheadings may vary slightly depending on the requirements of your institution or funding agency, the following outline provides a general structure for a research proposal:

• Title of the research proposal
• Name of the researcher(s) or principal investigator(s)
• Affiliation or institution
• Date of submission
• A concise summary of the research proposal, typically limited to 200-300 words.
• Briefly introduce the research problem or question, state the objectives, summarize the methodology, and highlight the expected outcomes or significance of the research.
• Provide an overview of the subject area and the specific research problem or question.
• Present relevant background information, theories, or concepts to establish the need for the research.
• Clearly state the research objectives or research questions that the study aims to address.
• Indicate the significance or potential contributions of the research.
• Summarize and analyze relevant studies, theories, or scholarly works.
• Identify research gaps or unresolved issues that your study intends to address.
• Highlight the novelty or uniqueness of your research.
• Describe the overall approach or research design that will be used (e.g., experimental, qualitative, quantitative).
• Justify the chosen approach based on the research objectives and question.
• Explain how data will be collected (e.g., surveys, interviews, experiments).
• Describe the sampling strategy and sample size, if applicable.
• Address any ethical considerations related to data collection.
• Outline the data analysis techniques or statistical methods that will be applied.
• Explain how the data will be interpreted and analyzed to answer the research question(s).
• Provide a detailed schedule or timeline that outlines the various stages of the research project.
• Specify the estimated duration for each stage, including data collection, analysis, and report writing.
• State the potential outcomes or results of the research.
• Discuss the potential significance or contributions of the study to the field.
• Address any potential limitations or challenges that may be encountered.
• Identify the resources required to conduct the research, such as funding, equipment, or access to data.
• Specify any collaborations or partnerships necessary for the successful completion of the study.
• Include a list of cited references in the appropriate citation style (e.g., APA, MLA).

———————————————————————————————–

Research Proposal Example Template

Here’s an example of a research proposal to give you an idea of how it can be structured:

Title: The Impact of Social Media on Adolescent Well-being: A Mixed-Methods Study

This research proposal aims to investigate the impact of social media on the well-being of adolescents. The study will employ a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews to gather comprehensive data. The research objectives include examining the relationship between social media use and mental health, exploring the role of peer influence in shaping online behaviors, and identifying strategies for promoting healthy social media use among adolescents. The findings of this study will contribute to the understanding of the effects of social media on adolescent well-being and inform the development of targeted interventions.

1. Introduction

1.1 Background and Context:

Adolescents today are immersed in social media platforms, which have become integral to their daily lives. However, concerns have been raised about the potential negative impact of social media on their well-being, including increased rates of depression, anxiety, and body dissatisfaction. It is crucial to investigate this phenomenon further and understand the underlying mechanisms to develop effective strategies for promoting healthy social media use among adolescents.

1.2 Research Objectives:

The main objectives of this study are:

• To examine the association between social media use and mental health outcomes among adolescents.
• To explore the influence of peer relationships and social comparison on online behaviors.
• To identify strategies and interventions to foster positive social media use and enhance adolescent well-being.

2. Literature Review

Extensive research has been conducted on the impact of social media on adolescents. Existing literature suggests that excessive social media use can contribute to negative outcomes, such as low self-esteem, cyberbullying, and addictive behaviors. However, some studies have also highlighted the positive aspects of social media, such as providing opportunities for self-expression and social support. This study will build upon this literature by incorporating both quantitative and qualitative approaches to gain a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between social media and adolescent well-being.

3. Methodology

3.1 Research Design:

This study will adopt a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews. The quantitative phase will involve administering standardized questionnaires to a representative sample of adolescents to assess their social media use, mental health indicators, and perceived social support. The qualitative phase will include in-depth interviews with a subset of participants to explore their experiences, motivations, and perceptions related to social media use.

3.2 Data Collection Methods:

Quantitative data will be collected through an online survey distributed to schools in the target region. The survey will include validated scales to measure social media use, mental health outcomes, and perceived social support. Qualitative data will be collected through semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of participants. The interviews will be audio-recorded and transcribed for thematic analysis.

3.3 Data Analysis:

Quantitative data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics and regression analysis to examine the relationships between variables. Qualitative data will be analyzed thematically to identify common themes and patterns within participants’ narratives. Integration of quantitative and qualitative findings will provide a comprehensive understanding of the research questions.

4. Timeline

The research project will be conducted over a period of 12 months, divided into specific phases, including literature review, study design, data collection, analysis, and report writing. A detailed timeline outlining the key milestones and activities is provided in Appendix A.

5. Expected Outcomes and Significance

This study aims to contribute to the existing literature on the impact of social media on adolescent well-being by employing a mixed-methods approach. The findings will inform the development of evidence-based interventions and guidelines to promote healthy social media use among adolescents. This research has the potential to benefit adolescents, parents, educators, and policymakers by providing insights into the complex relationship between social media and well-being and offering strategies for fostering positive online experiences.

6. Resources

The resources required for this research include access to a representative sample of adolescents, research assistants for data collection, statistical software for data analysis, and funding to cover survey administration and participant incentives. Ethical considerations will be taken into account, ensuring participant confidentiality and obtaining informed consent.

7. References

Research Proposal Writing Guide

Writing a research proposal can be a complex task, but with proper guidance and organization, you can create a compelling and well-structured proposal. Here’s a step-by-step guide to help you through the process:

• Understand the requirements: Familiarize yourself with the guidelines and requirements provided by your institution, funding agency, or program. Pay attention to formatting, page limits, specific sections or headings, and any other instructions.
• Identify your research topic: Choose a research topic that aligns with your interests, expertise, and the goals of your program or funding opportunity. Ensure that your topic is specific, focused, and relevant to the field of study.
• Conduct a literature review : Review existing literature and research relevant to your topic. Identify key theories, concepts, methodologies, and findings related to your research question. This will help you establish the context, identify research gaps, and demonstrate the significance of your proposed study.
• Define your research objectives and research question(s): Clearly state the objectives you aim to achieve with your research. Formulate research questions that address the gaps identified in the literature review. Your research objectives and questions should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART).
• Develop a research methodology: Determine the most appropriate research design and methodology for your study. Consider whether quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods approaches will best address your research question(s). Describe the data collection methods, sampling strategy, data analysis techniques, and any ethical considerations associated with your research.
• Create a research plan and timeline: Outline the various stages of your research project, including tasks, milestones, and deadlines. Develop a realistic timeline that considers factors such as data collection, analysis, and report writing. This plan will help you stay organized and manage your time effectively throughout the research process.
• A. Introduction: Provide background information on the research problem, highlight its significance, and introduce your research objectives and questions.
• B. Literature review: Summarize relevant literature, identify gaps, and justify the need for your proposed research.
• C . Methodology: Describe your research design, data collection methods, sampling strategy, data analysis techniques, and any ethical considerations.
• D . Expected outcomes and significance: Explain the potential outcomes, contributions, and implications of your research.
• E. Resources: Identify the resources required to conduct your research, such as funding, equipment, or access to data.
• F . References: Include a list of cited references in the appropriate citation style.
• Revise and proofread: Review your proposal for clarity, coherence, and logical flow. Check for grammar and spelling errors. Seek feedback from mentors, colleagues, or advisors to refine and improve your proposal.
• Finalize and submit: Make any necessary revisions based on feedback and finalize your research proposal. Ensure that you have met all the requirements and formatting guidelines. Submit your proposal within the specified deadline.

Research Proposal Length

The length of a research proposal can vary depending on the specific guidelines provided by your institution or funding agency. However, research proposals typically range from 1,500 to 3,000 words, excluding references and any additional supporting documents.

Purpose of Research Proposal

The purpose of a research proposal is to outline and communicate your research project to others, such as academic institutions, funding agencies, or potential collaborators. It serves several important purposes:

• Demonstrate the significance of the research: A research proposal explains the importance and relevance of your research project. It outlines the research problem or question, highlights the gaps in existing knowledge, and explains how your study will contribute to the field. By clearly articulating the significance of your research, you can convince others of its value and potential impact.
• Provide a clear research plan: A research proposal outlines the methodology, design, and approach you will use to conduct your study. It describes the research objectives, data collection methods, data analysis techniques, and potential outcomes. By presenting a clear research plan, you demonstrate that your study is well-thought-out, feasible, and likely to produce meaningful results.
• Secure funding or support: For researchers seeking funding or support for their projects, a research proposal is essential. It allows you to make a persuasive case for why your research is deserving of financial resources or institutional backing. The proposal explains the budgetary requirements, resources needed, and potential benefits of the research, helping you secure the necessary funding or support.
• Seek feedback and guidance: Presenting a research proposal provides an opportunity to receive feedback and guidance from experts in your field. It allows you to engage in discussions and receive suggestions for refining your research plan, improving the methodology, or addressing any potential limitations. This feedback can enhance the quality of your study and increase its chances of success.
• Establish ethical considerations: A research proposal also addresses ethical considerations associated with your study. It outlines how you will ensure participant confidentiality, obtain informed consent, and adhere to ethical guidelines and regulations. By demonstrating your awareness and commitment to ethical research practices, you build trust and credibility in your proposed study.

Importance of Research Proposal

The research proposal holds significant importance in the research process. Here are some key reasons why research proposals are important:

• Planning and organization: A research proposal requires careful planning and organization of your research project. It forces you to think through the research objectives, research questions, methodology, and potential outcomes before embarking on the actual study. This planning phase helps you establish a clear direction and framework for your research, ensuring that your efforts are focused and purposeful.
• Demonstrating the significance of the research: A research proposal allows you to articulate the significance and relevance of your study. By providing a thorough literature review and clearly defining the research problem or question, you can showcase the gaps in existing knowledge that your research aims to address. This demonstrates to others, such as funding agencies or academic institutions, why your research is important and deserving of support.
• Obtaining funding and resources: Research proposals are often required to secure funding for your research project. Funding agencies and organizations need to evaluate the feasibility and potential impact of the proposed research before allocating resources. A well-crafted research proposal helps convince funders of the value of your research and increases the likelihood of securing financial support, grants, or scholarships.
• Receiving feedback and guidance: Presenting a research proposal provides an opportunity to seek feedback and guidance from experts in your field. By sharing your research plan and objectives with others, you can benefit from their insights and suggestions. This feedback can help refine your research design, strengthen your methodology, and ensure that your study is rigorous and well-informed.
• Ethical considerations: A research proposal addresses ethical considerations associated with your study. It outlines how you will protect the rights and welfare of participants, maintain confidentiality, obtain informed consent, and adhere to ethical guidelines and regulations. This emphasis on ethical practices ensures that your research is conducted responsibly and with integrity.
• Enhancing collaboration and partnerships: A research proposal can facilitate collaborations and partnerships with other researchers, institutions, or organizations. When presenting your research plan, you may attract the interest of potential collaborators who share similar research interests or possess complementary expertise. Collaborative partnerships can enrich your study, expand your resources, and foster knowledge exchange.
• Establishing a research trajectory: A research proposal serves as a foundation for your research project. Once approved, it becomes a roadmap that guides your study’s implementation, data collection, analysis, and reporting. It helps maintain focus and ensures that your research stays on track and aligned with the initial objectives.

When to Write Research Proposal

The timing of when to write a research proposal can vary depending on the specific requirements and circumstances. However, here are a few common situations when it is appropriate to write a research proposal:

• Academic research: If you are a student pursuing a research degree, such as a Ph.D. or Master’s by research, you will typically be required to write a research proposal as part of the application process. This is usually done before starting the research program to outline your proposed study and seek approval from the academic institution.
• Funding applications: When applying for research grants, scholarships, or funding from organizations or institutions, you will often need to submit a research proposal. Funding agencies require a detailed description of your research project, including its objectives, methodology, and expected outcomes. Writing a research proposal in this context is necessary to secure financial support for your study.
• Research collaborations: When collaborating with other researchers, institutions, or organizations on a research project, it is common to prepare a research proposal. This helps outline the research objectives, roles and responsibilities, and expected contributions from each party. Writing a research proposal in this case allows all collaborators to align their efforts and ensure a shared understanding of the project.
• Research project within an organization: If you are conducting research within an organization, such as a company or government agency, you may be required to write a research proposal to gain approval and support for your study. This proposal outlines the research objectives, methodology, resources needed, and expected outcomes, ensuring that the project aligns with the organization’s goals and objectives.
• Independent research projects: Even if you are not required to write a research proposal, it can still be beneficial to develop one for your independent research projects. Writing a research proposal helps you plan and structure your study, clarify your research objectives, and anticipate potential challenges or limitations. It also allows you to communicate your research plans effectively to supervisors, mentors, or collaborators.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

How To Write A Proposal – Step By Step Guide...

Grant Proposal – Example, Template and Guide

How To Write A Research Proposal – Step-by-Step...

Business Proposal – Templates, Examples and Guide

How To Write A Grant Proposal – Step-by-Step...

Proposal – Types, Examples, and Writing Guide

StarTribune

Bad management habits, even if they are small, are amplified in hybrid work.

Hybrid work is here to stay, and while many organizations are deciding how many days a week people can be remote and protocols for Microsoft Teams calls, they are forgetting to train staff on what human interactions should look like.

As a result, workers describe a "perceived frenzy." Meetings are canceled without clear explanations. Managers are multi-tasking during calls, and workers detect that they are distracted.

While these are certainly not malicious acts, they create a "heads down, get your work done" culture where workers are at best hesitant and at worst afraid to express concerns, questions and ideas. In other words, there is less "psychological safety" for workers, according to research conducted last year by Peggy Kendall, professor of communication studies, and Triston Thomas, a student, at Bethel University in Arden Hills.

The research started after surveys showed managers saw less creativity from their teams when workers were remote.

More than 36 million employees will work remotely by 2025, according to research. While most love it, nearly a quarter of managers find their teams are less creative when they work from home.

In Minnesota, the Federal Reserve estimates one-third of workers are remote at least part-time. Other surveys show workers would quit if forced to work in the office 100% of the time.

So managers need to figure out how to make the arrangement work.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota, ranked 34th on the Star Tribune's Top Workplaces list of large companies, has shifted the culture of achievement to be outcome-based instead of activity-based.

"You have to be very intentional when you have a remote workforce to understand what they need to deliver and being clear and setting expectations with that," said Lisa Kramer Rodacker, senior director of organization development and enterprise learning. "You're really focusing on: What do I expect out of them in terms of those outcomes and then holding individuals accountable to that. And that's a mindset shift, for some of our leaders."

Before the pandemic, 20% of BlueCross workers were fully remote. Now, two-thirds of the workforce is.

That reality means the organization's commitment to flexibility requires managers to know their employees on a deeper level, Kramer Rodacker said.

"What may work for somebody who's twenty-something is different than somebody who has little kids and something different maybe than empty nesters," Kramer Rodacker said.

That type of relationship needs to be built, said Kendall, who suggests managers make time during one-on-one meetings to ask about employees' well-being and build that relationship.

If you need to cancel the meeting, give a clear reason why and be fully present during it, she said. That means no background work or checking messages.

"If you're going to be an online manager, you have to give your employees enough information and check in often enough that they're not making up their own stories, like, 'My manager is too busy for me,' or, 'Nobody else really cares. I've got to figure this out on my own.' You have to interrupt the story," Kendall said.

To fully engage virtual participants in a meeting and show them their ideas are important, BlueCross teaches leaders to let those who are hybrid go first. Everyone also must have cameras on, so everyone's faces are seen, Kramer Rodacker said.

"If you're not actively including, you could be accidentally excluding," she said. "You can have a tendency of kind of 'out of sight, out of mind.' You've got to be really purposeful and intentional about making sure that you're engaging remote employees."

"Over-communicating" also can counter misperceptions, Kendall said. "Let's not assume that everything is OK."

In a physical workplace, employees can see when a manager or co-worker is intensely concentrating or busy, so during a lull, they can ask a process question.

But workers in the Bethel study said they were worried about seeming unprofessional, rude or disrespectful by expressing concerns through on-screen messaging because they didn't know their co-workers well, Thomas said during a presentation of the research at Bethel.

This meant that, at times, they went online to try to figure something out instead of asking a colleague. This resulted in a feeling of loneliness and being disconnected, he said.

So being intentional about communicating expectations and feedback on work, and asking regularly if workers need help or have questions can add to workers' comfort levels, Kendall said. Trust is essential in any work, but especially in a remote relationship.

"It takes longer to build; it has to be more intentional [with remote employees]," Kendall said. "It's going to take longer to build, and it can be destroyed much faster online as well."

About 30% of Field Nation's workers are remote, up from 10% before the pandemic.

Engagement scores at the company for remote U.S. employees were "very positive," which Teri Calderon, executive vice president for people and marketplace operations, attributes to a long-established corporate culture where cross-functional team members work together to solve problems.

Field Nation, which was 21st among midsize companies on the Top Workplaces list, brings all its U.S.-based workers to its Minneapolis corporate office twice a year for "Field Week." The event combines in-person learning and community building, which Calderon said is another important part of the culture for the company that matches information technology workers with companies.

The company also stresses regular one-on-one meetings with managers and remote employees and hybrid team meetings and town halls.

Field Nation also is intentional about helping employees build their internal networks, starting during the onboarding process. New employees are given a list of workers they should meet, Calderon said.

Another lesson: Training works better when employees in a session are all on site or all virtual, she said.

"Doing hybrid learning is really difficult because somebody feels left out of a conversation," Calderon said.

Employees also must feel connected to their employer's mission, said Dan Schiappa, chief product and services officer at Arctic Wolf, a cybersecurity firm based in Eden Prairie that ranks 11th among large companies on this year's Top Workplaces list.

"Great companies are built around employees who are empowered to take ownership of their individual mission, not just clock in for a paycheck," Schiappa wrote in an email. "That means granting all employees, especially those who are remote, the opportunity to speak their mind, share new ideas and influence those around them, regardless of their job title."

Strong leadership from managers is the only way to achieve that goal, though, Kendall said. Over-communicating and non-distracted talks are good techniques no matter who you manage but are key with remote workers.

"You have to be intentional about community," Kendall said.

Todd Nelson is a freelance writer in Lake Elmo. His email is [email protected] .

• Despite dramatic home run in ninth, Twins fall to Rays in 10 innings
• Secretive donor Timothy Mellon gives $50 million to pro-Trump group
• Flooding forces northeastern Minnesota town to 'a standstill'
• Dennis Oglesby, St. Paul pastor and half of Twin Cities power couple, dies at 64
• Is your employer on the 2024 list of Minnesota's Top Workplaces?
• Families at YMCA camp near Ely stuck on wrong side of washed-out road

South Korea will consider supplying arms to Ukraine after Russia and North Korea sign strategic pact

Politician who pushed philippines natural gas boom is behind firm that planned to profit, california workplace safety board approves heat protections for indoor workers, excluding prisons, how nvidia became an ai giant, federal officials are investigating a southwest airlines low flight over oklahoma city suburbs.

• From hybrid work to 4-day weeks, employers focus on flexibility 2:00pm
• Culture, values help drive employee retention 2:00pm
• What are Minnesota's Top Workplaces for 2024? • Business
• Is your employer on the 2024 list of Minnesota's Top Workplaces? • Business
• UnitedHealth cyberattack compromised credit cards, health history, Social Security numbers • Business
• Some home buyers are beating high interest rates with 1980s-style assumable mortgages • Business
• Target store employees' new helper? A generative AI chatbot to answer their questions • Business

© 2024 StarTribune. All rights reserved.

• eLibrary Home
• eLibrary Login
• < Previous Event
• Next Event >

Home > Conferences > AMCIS > AMCIS 2024 Proceedings > IS in Educ, IS Curriculum, and Teaching Cases (SIG ED) > 12

IS in Educ, IS Curriculum, and Teaching Cases (SIG ED)

Proposal - Security Certifications, Degrees, & Work Experience: Which is better?

Presenter Information

Garry White , Texas State Univeristy Follow

Description

In this document we describe the formatting requirements for the Proceedings of the AMCIS Conference. Please review this document carefully. You can use this document as a template and copy/paste your paper content here (this might be the best or easiest way). Please be sure to adhere to the formatting requirements as this will be your camera-ready version, and a PDF format will be generated directly from your submitted final Word version. Please note several limitations on length: (1) your abstract should be no more than 150 words, as the abstract will also be used for the conference program, (2) your completed research paper should be no more than 10 pages (approx. 5,000 words, including figures, tables, references, and appendices). Emergent Research Forum papers are limited to 5 pages (approx. 2,500 words, including figures, tables, references, and appendices.) This paper length is intended to encourage authors to publish full-length papers in journals or other outlets later.

Paper Number

Recommended citation.

White, Garry, "Proposal - Security Certifications, Degrees, & Work Experience: Which is better?" (2024). AMCIS 2024 Proceedings . 12. https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2024/is_education/is_education/12

Since June 13, 2024

• https://amcis2024.aisconferences.org/

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS
• All Content

Author Corner

• eLibrary FAQ
• AMCIS 2024 Conference

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS. A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

NSF and AACC announce 2024 Community College Innovation Challenge winners

Today, the U.S. National Science Foundation, in partnership with the  American Association of Community Colleges (AACC), announced the three winning teams of the 2024 Community College Innovation Challenge (CCIC) .

The annual competition seeks to strengthen entrepreneurial thinking among community college students by challenging them to develop STEM-based solutions to real-world problems. It also enables students to discover and demonstrate their ability to translate knowledge into action and initiate real-world change. 

"Year after year, I am thrilled to witness the promising talent that the Community College Innovation Challenge brings together," said James L. Moore III, assistant director for STEM Education. "The student participants represent both the present and future of STEM by addressing some of the most pressing challenges of our times. NSF is proud to co-sponsor CCIC and to congratulate the students for doing an outstanding job translating their knowledge into action." 

The first, second and third-place winning teams and their innovations are listed below.

First Place Winner Perimeter College at Georgia State University, Georgia: The Perimeter College team seeks to redesign cervical cancer screening by offering a noninvasive alternative to the speculum. By making screening more accessible, this alternative has the potential to impact cervical cancer mortality rates, especially in low-income countries.

Second Place Winner Dallas College, Texas: Autonomous Monitoring for Blaze Emergency Response (AMBER) is an early detection system that uses infrared cameras and sensors to alert farmers and local authorities to fire risks. With a third-party drone provider, AMBER can quickly track and mobilize a rapid-fire response and preserve agricultural land.

Third Place Winner County College of Morris, New Jersey: The County College of Morris team proposes to safely and efficiently increase the world's energy supply through a molecular solar thermal system. This system is nontoxic, cost-efficient and can capture light energy as heat, converting stored heat into usable energy.

This week, 12 community colleges selected as finalists in a national competition attended an innovation boot camp, where they learned from entrepreneurs and experts in business planning, stakeholder engagement, strategic communication and marketplace dynamics. The boot camp culminated in a student poster session with STEM leaders and congressional stakeholders and a 5-minute pitch presentation to a panel of industry and entrepreneurial professionals determining the winning teams.

"Truly inspiring," said Walter G. Bumphus, president and CEO of AACC. "We are so proud to be afforded the opportunity to provide these resources for community college students to showcase their innovative and creative solutions to real-world issues. The projects featured show the amazing potential these students have to make meaningful economic and societal impact. Congratulations to the team from Georgia Perimeter College at Georgia State University and to all of the finalists."

This year, the  12 finalist teams presented solutions that addressed clean water, renewable energy and energy storage, HIV treatment, women's health care, fire prevention, combating plastic waste, and accessibility for people with disabilities.

• For more information about CCIC, visit the AACC web page.

Research areas

Writing A Research Proposal

8 common (and costly) mistakes to avoid 🤦.

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) & David Phair (PhD) . Reviewed By: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | June 2021

At Grad Coach, we review a lot of research proposals , including dissertation proposals and thesis proposals. Some are pretty good, while others are, well, not fantastic. Sadly, many students only approach us after their proposal has been rejected , meaning they’ve wasted a lot of time and effort.

We’ll look at 8 common mistakes and issues we see cropping up in research proposals so that you can craft your proposal with confidence and maximise the chances of it being approved.

Overview: 8 Research Proposal Killers

• The research topic is too broad (or just poorly articulated).
• The research aims, objectives and questions don’t align .
• The research topic is not well justified .
• The study has a weak theoretical foundation .
• The research design is not well articulated well enough.
• Poor writing and sloppy presentation.
• Poor project planning and risk management.
• Not following the university’s specific criteria .

#1: The research topic is too broad.

One of the most common issues we see in dissertation and thesis proposals is that the research topic is simply too broad . In other words, the focus of the research is not ringfenced tightly enough (or just not defined clearly enough), resulting in a proposal that has an unclear direction or attempts to take on too much.

For example, a research project that aims to “investigate trust in the workplace” would be considered very broad. This topic has no specific focus and leaves many questions unanswered, for example:

• What type(s) of trust?
• Between whom?
• Within what types of workplaces?
• Within what industry or industries?

As a general rule of thumb, you should aim for a fairly narrow focus when you craft your research topic. Doing this will allow you to go deep and investigate the topic in-depth , which is what the markers want to see. Quality beats quantity – or rather, depth beats breadth – when it comes to defining and refining your research topic.

A related problem is that oftentimes, students have a more refined topic within their mind, but they don’t articulate it well in their proposal. This often results in the proposal being rejected because the topic is perceived as being too broad. In other words, it’s important to ensure you not only have a clear, sharp focus for your research, but that you communicate that well in your dissertation or thesis proposal. Make sure that you address the who , what , were and when, so that your topic is well defined.

Let’s look at an example.

Sticking with the topic I mentioned earlier, a more refined and well-articulated research aim could be something along the lines of:

“To investigate the factors that cultivate organisational trust (i.e. a customer trusting an organisation) within the UK life insurance industry.”

As you can see, this is a lot more specific and ringfences the topic into a more manageable scope . So, when it comes to your research topic, remember to keep it tight .

#2: The research aims, objectives and questions don’t align.

Another common issue that we see with weaker research proposals is misalignment between the research aims and objectives , as well as with the research questions . Sometimes all three are misaligned , and sometimes there’s only one misfit. Whatever the case, it’s a problem that can lead to proposal rejection, as these three elements need to link together tightly.

Let’s look at an example of a misaligned trio.

Research Aim:

To identify factors that cultivate organisational trust in British insurance brokers.

Research Objectives:

To measure organisational trust levels across different demographic groups within the UK.

To investigate the causes of differences in organisational trust levels between groups.

Research Question:

What factors influence organisational trust between customers and insurance brokers within the UK?

As you can see, the research aim and research question are reasonably aligned (they are both focused on the factors that cultivate trust). However, the research objectives are misaligned, as they focus on measuring trust levels across different groups, rather than identifying what factors stimulate trust. This will result in a study that’s pulling in different directions – not good.

A related issue we see is that students don’t really understand the difference between research aims (the broader goal), research objectives (how you’ll achieve that goal) and research questions (the specific questions you’ll answer within your study). So, when you’re preparing your proposal, make sure that you clearly understand how these differ and make sure they’re all tightly aligned with each other.

#3: The research topic is not well justified.

A good research topic – in other words, a good set of research aims, research objectives and research questions – needs to be well justified to convince your university to approve your research. Poor justification of the research topic is a common reason for proposals to be rejected.

So, how do you justify your research?

For a research topic to be well justified, you need to demonstrate both originality and importance .

Originality means that your proposed research is novel , or at least that it’s novel within its context (for example, within a specific country or industry). While the extent of this novelty will vary depending on your institution, programme and level of study (e.g. Masters vs Doctorate), your research will always need to have some level of originality. In other words, you can’t research something that’s been researched ad nauseam before.

Simply put, your research needs to emerge from a gap in the existing literature . To do this, you need to figure out what’s missing from the current body of knowledge (by undertaking a review of the literature) and carve out your own research to fill that gap. We explain this process in more detail here .

Importance is the second factor. Just because a topic is unique doesn’t mean it’s important . You need to be able to explain what the benefits of undertaking your proposed research would be. Who would benefit? How would they benefit? How could the newly developed knowledge be used in the world, whether in academia or industry?

So, when you’re writing up your research proposal, make sure that you clearly articulate both the originality and importance of your proposed research, or you’ll risk submitting an unconvincing proposal.

#4: The study has a weak theoretical foundation.

As I mentioned in the previous point, your research topic needs to emerge from the existing research . In other words, your research needs to fill a clear gap in the literature – something that hasn’t been adequately researched, or that lacks research in a specific context.

To convince your university that your topic will fill a gap in the research, your proposal needs to have a strong theoretical foundation . In other words, you need to show that you’ve done the necessary reading and are familiar with the existing research. To do this, you need to provide an integrated summary of the existing research and highlight (very clearly) the theoretical gap that exists.

Some common signs of a weak theoretical foundation that we’ve encountered include:

• A general lack of sources and a reliance on personal opinion and anecdotes, rather than academic literature.
• Failing to acknowledge and discuss landmark studies and key literature in the topic area.
• Relying heavily on low-quality sources , such as blog posts, personal websites, opinion pieces, etc.
• Relying heavily on outdated sources and not incorporating more recent research that builds on the “classics”.

While it’s generally not expected that you undertake a comprehensive literature review at the proposal stage, you do still need to justify your topic by demonstrating a need for your study (i.e. the literature gap). So, make sure that you put in the time to develop a sound understanding of the current state of knowledge in your space, and make sure that you communicate that understanding in your proposal by building your topic justification on a solid base of credible literature.

#5: The research design is not articulated well enough (or is just impractical).

Once you’ve made a strong argument regarding the value of your research (i.e., you’ve justified it), the next matter that your research proposal needs to address is the “how” – in other words, your intended research design and methodology .

A common issue we see is that students don’t provide enough detail in this section. This is often because they don’t really know exactly what they’re going to do and plan to just “figure it out later” (which is not good enough). But sometimes it’s just a case of poor articulation – in other words, they have a clear design worked out in their minds, but they haven’t put their plan to paper.

Whatever the reason, a dissertation or thesis proposal that lacks detail regarding the research design runs a major risk of being rejected. This is because universities want to see that you have a clearly defined, practical plan to achieve your research aims and objectives and answer your research questions.

At a minimum, you should provide detail regarding the following:

• Research philosophy – the set of beliefs your research is based on (positivism, interpretivism, pragmatism)
• Research approach – the broader method you’ll use (inductive, deductive, qualitative and quantitative)
• Research strategy – how you’ll conduct the research (e.g., experimental, action, case study, etc.)
• Time horizon – the number of points in time at which you’ll collect your data (e.g. cross-sectional or longitudinal)
• Techniques and procedures – your intended data collection methods, data analysis techniques, sampling strategies , etc.

For more information about each of these design decisions, check out our post detailing the Research Onion.

Of course, your research design can (and most likely will) evolve along the way , but you still need a starting point. Also, your proposed research design needs to be practical, given your constraints. A brilliant design is pointless if you don’t have the resources (e.g. money, equipment, expertise, etc.) to pull it off. So, get detailed in this section of your proposal and keep it realistic to maximise your chances of approval.

Need a helping hand?

#6: Poor writing and sloppy presentation.

As with any document, poor writing and sloppy presentation can heavily detract from your research proposal, even if you tick all the other boxes. While poor writing and presentation alone probably won’t result in your proposal being rejected, it will definitely put you at a disadvantage , as it gives a negative impression regarding the overall quality of your work.

The main issues we see here are:

• Directionless or scattered writing – for example, writing that jumps from one point to another with poor flow and connectivity, disjointed points, etc.
• Poor argument formation – for example, a lack of premises and conclusions, disconnected conclusions and poor reasoning (you can learn more about argument development here ).
• Inappropriate language – for example, using a very informal or casual tone, slang, etc).
• Grammar and spelling issues, as well as inconsistent use of UK/US English.
• Referencing issues – for example, a lack of references or incorrectly formatted references.
• Table and figure captions – for example, a lack of captions, citations, figure and table numbers, etc.
• Low-quality visuals and diagrams.

The good news is that many of these can be resolved by editing and proofreading your proposal beforehand, so it’s always a good idea to take the time to do this. It’s also a good idea to ask a friend to review your document, as you will invariably suffer from blindspots when editing your own work. If your budget allows, having your work reviewed by an academic editor will ensure you cover all bases and submit a high-quality document.

#7: Poor project planning and risk management.

While different universities will have varying requirements, there is usually a requirement (or at least an expectation) for a project plan of sorts. As I mentioned earlier, a strong research proposal needs to be practical and manageable, given your constraints. Therefore, a well-articulated project plan that considers all the practicalities (and risks) is an important part of a strong research proposal.

We generally recommend that students draw up a fairly detailed Gantt chart , detailing each major task involved in the dissertation writing process. For example, you can break it down into the various chapters ( introduction , literature review, etc.) and the key tasks involved in completing each chapter (research, planning, writing, etc). What’s most important here is to be realistic – things almost always take longer than you expect, especially if you’re a first-time researcher.

We also recommend including some sort of risk management plan . For this, you could make use of a basic risk register , listing all the potential risks you foresee, as well as your mitigation and response actions, should they occur. For example, the risk of data collection taking longer than anticipated, the risk of not getting enough survey responses , etc.

What’s most important is to demonstrate that you have thought your research through and have a clear plan of action . Of course, as with your research design, plans can (and likely will) change – and that’s okay. However, you still need to have an initial plan, and that plan needs to be realistic and manageable, or you’ll risk your proposal getting rejected.

#8: Not following the university’s specific criteria.

While research proposals are fairly generic in terms of contents and style, and tend to follow a reasonably standardised structure, each university has its nuances in terms of what they want to be included in the dissertation or thesis proposal.

Some universities want more or less detail in certain sections, some want extra sections, and some want a very specific structure and format (down to the font type and size!). So, you need to pay very close attention to whatever institution-specific criteria your university has set out.

Typically, your university will provide some sort of brief or guidance document to direct your proposal efforts, so be sure to study this document thoroughly and ask the faculty for clarity if you’re uncertain about anything. Some universities will also provide a proposal template . Pay careful attention to any specific structure they recommend as well as formatting requirements (such as font, line spacing, margin sizes, referencing format, etc.).

If your university provides an assessment criteria matrix , you’ve hit the jackpot, as that document will detail exactly what you need to achieve in each section of the proposal. Study that matrix inside out and make sure that your research proposal tightly aligns with the assessment criteria.

Recap: 8 Research Proposal Mistakes

We’ve covered a lot here – let’s recap on the 8 common mistakes that can hurt your research proposal or even get it rejected:

• The research design is not articulated well enough.
• Not following the university’s specific criteria.

If you have any questions about these common mistakes, leave a comment below and we’ll do our best to answer. You may also want to have a look at some examples of successful proposals here . If you’d like to get 1-on-1 help with your research proposal , book a free initial consultation with a friendly coach to discuss how we can move you forward.

Psst… there’s more!

This post is an extract from our bestselling short course, Research Proposal Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .

You Might Also Like:

Thanks a lot for sharing these tips, very usefull and help me a lot, Many thanks

I just want to express my sincere gratitude for everything you guys are doing. You held my hand when I was doing my dissertation. I successfully completed it and got good marks. I just got myself reviewing this so I could help others struggling. May God bless you. May he bless you abundantly.

Thank you so much, I got it very important, and your presentation is also very attractive.

I find the text very educative. I am just preparing to start work on my PhD thesis. I must admit that I have learnt so much about how to organize myself for the task ahead of me. Thank you so much for being there to support people like me.

I found this video highly educative, it gave me a full glance at what is ahead of me – starting my Ph.D. now! Thank you for these amazing facts.

Thanks a lot for such an insightful video and explanation on Research Proposal design. I’m a beginner and pursuing my B.ed , these tips are really helpful to get a good start.

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

• Skip to main content
• Skip to FDA Search
• Skip to in this section menu
• Skip to footer links

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

•   Search
•   Menu
• News & Events for Human Drugs
• CDER Conversations

An Update on Sunscreen Requirements: The Deemed Final Order and the Proposed Order

FDA regulates sunscreens, which are nonprescription drugs, to help make sure that consumers have access to safe and effective sun protection products. There have been several developments involving sunscreen regulation in the past few years. Today, there are two more: FDA is posting the deemed final order for over-the-counter (OTC) sunscreens and is issuing a proposed order for sunscreens.

In this CDER Conversation, Theresa Michele, M.D., director of the Office of Nonprescription Drugs, explains today’s activities and what the orders mean for consumers, health care providers, industry, and other stakeholders.

What are the big changes in sunscreen regulation over the past few years that have brought us to today’s activities?

Sunscreens have been regulated by FDA since the 1970s, but they have garnered a lot of attention recently. In 2019, FDA issued a proposed rule on sunscreens , which proposed to revise the requirements for sunscreen active ingredients; maximum sun protection factor (SPF) levels ; broad spectrum requirements (protection against both ultraviolet A and B rays); and dosage forms (for example, cream, lotion, or spray), among other things. The proposed rule also included updates on how sunscreens are labeled to make it easier for consumers to identify key information.

The 2019 proposal aimed to bring sunscreens up to date with the latest science, including new information showing that certain sunscreen ingredients can be absorbed through the skin into the body. For more information on this issue, I co-authored two FDA Voices articles, one in 2019 and an update in 2020 , explaining sunscreen absorption studies. 

Then came the 2020 Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, also known as the CARES Act , which Congress enacted in March 2020 in response to COVID-19. Most of its provisions focus on economic relief to individuals, families, businesses, and other groups. However, the CARES Act also reformed and modernized the way FDA regulates certain OTC monograph drugs, including sunscreen. As background, an OTC monograph is a “rule book” for each therapeutic category that establishes conditions, such as active ingredients, uses (indications), doses, labeling, and testing, under which an OTC drug is “generally recognized as safe and effective” (“GRASE” for short) and can be marketed without a new drug application and FDA pre-market approval.

The CARES Act replaced the rulemaking process for OTC monograph drugs with an administrative order process for issuing, revising, and amending the OTC monographs.  The administrative order process gives FDA new tools to help revise the OTC monographs as science changes, innovation progresses, new data become available, or emerging safety signals arise.

In addition, the CARES Act established deemed final orders for certain OTC monograph therapeutic categories, which became effective in March 2020. The deemed final orders establish a baseline of current GRASE conditions for the therapeutic categories. To learn more about OTC monograph reform, please see this FDA Voices article I wrote in 2020 on the topic.

For sunscreens specifically, in addition to establishing a deemed final order, the CARES Act requires FDA to issue a proposed order to amend and revise the deemed final order for sunscreens. 

It is important to remember that the proposed order is a proposal, and any new sunscreen requirements will not take effect until after the agency issues a final order. A 45-day public comment period began when FDA issued the proposed order. After reviewing and considering the comments, FDA will issue a final order with an effective date, which, by law, will not be earlier than one year after the agency issues the final order.

FDA has now posted the deemed final order for sunscreens and has also issued a proposed order. What are the main components of these two orders, and what do they mean for the sunscreen market?

The requirements of the sunscreen deemed final order essentially keep the status quo.

The deemed final order for sunscreens includes certain requirements about active ingredients from the 1999 final monograph regulation for OTC sunscreen products , which never took effect, and the labeling and effectiveness requirements from a final 2011 labeling and effectiveness testing rule .

In addition to incorporating requirements already in effect under the final 2011 regulation, the deemed final order largely corresponds to the approach of an FDA sunscreen enforcement policy guidance, which had been in place before the CARES Act because the sunscreen monograph was not in effect.

Meanwhile, the proposed order proposes changes to these requirements to bring them up to date with the current science. When finalized, the proposed order will fully replace the deemed final order with new requirements for sunscreens.

FDA first articulated its proposed changes to the sunscreen OTC monograph in the 2019 proposed rule. We are now using this proposed order to efficiently transition our ongoing consideration of the appropriate requirements for OTC sunscreens from the previous rulemaking process to the new order process that the CARES Act created.

The CARES Act did not change the scientific standard for making a GRASE determination. For that reason, the proposed requirements in the proposed order are substantively the same as those in the 2019 proposed rule.

There are notable differences between the sunscreen deemed final order and the proposed order. Below are a few key examples and short explanations. For more information, please visit this webpage .

The deemed final order does not impose an upper limit on SPF values.

The proposed order, in contrast, proposes a maximum labeled SPF of 60+ and also proposes a maximum on the formulated SPF value of a sunscreen.

The deemed final order makes sunscreens containing 16 specified sunscreen active ingredients GRASE by incorporating the ingredients from the (not in effect) 1999 sunscreen monograph.

However, the proposed order proposes GRASE status for sunscreens containing zinc oxide and titanium dioxide; not GRASE status for sunscreens containing aminobenzoic acid and trolamine salicylate because of data showing safety issues; and not GRASE status for sunscreens containing cinoxate, dioxybenzone, ensulizole, homosalate, meradimate, octinoxate, octisalate, octocrylene, padimate O, sulisobenzone, oxybenzone, and avobenzone because of inadequate data to support a safety finding.

Consistent with the requirements in the labeling and effectiveness rule for sunscreens issued in 2011, the deemed final order does not require broad spectrum testing, but it creates an optional broad spectrum labeling claim and broad spectrum testing that is required to include this claim on labeling.

To address the growing evidence of significant harms associated with UVA exposure, the proposed order proposes a requirement that all sunscreens with SPF values of 15 and above satisfy broad spectrum requirements.

Why doesn’t the proposed order address comments the agency received in response to the 2019 proposed rule? Will FDA address those comments?

FDA will consider the on-time comments we received on the 2019 proposed rule as comments submitted on this proposed order. For this reason, FDA is asking people not to resubmit the same comments, or rewrites of the same comments, to the proposed order if they submitted those comments during the comment period for the 2019 proposed rule. This will make things easier for both the commenters and for FDA and will help keep the process moving quickly. In addition, this proposed order gives the public an opportunity to submit new information that has become available since the comment period closed on the 2019 proposed rule.

In response to the 2019 proposed rule, manufacturers requested that FDA defer action on eight sunscreen active ingredients while data were being gathered to fill the identified safety gaps. What if data collection is still underway at the close of the comment period for the proposed order?

If at any time, sufficient evidence becomes available to answer the outstanding questions about whether a sunscreen containing any of these eight ingredients is GRASE, FDA plans to proceed to a final order reflecting our conclusion about that ingredient’s status. However, if there is not sufficient data to resolve the questions about each of these ingredients at the end of the proposed order comment period, FDA could consider deferring further action on the GRASE status of sunscreens containing the particular ingredient(s) to allow additional time for data to be developed and submitted. This would be the case if the agency has received adequate indication that the party seeking the deferral had made timely and diligent progress in trying to obtain that safety information.

In addition, if FDA initially defers further action regarding sunscreens containing a specific active ingredient, FDA plans to re-evaluate the progress of studies periodically. If FDA later decides that the studies are not progressing or otherwise are not productive, we expect we would move forward with a final order on sunscreens containing this ingredient. Moving forward, to make decisions on the GRASE status for OTC sunscreen products with certain active ingredients, the agency will use the administrative order process as established by the CARES Act. The statute gives FDA the authority to use the order process to add, remove or change conditions for an OTC monograph drug.

This is a complex area of medicine and policy right now, to say the least. As a trained health care provider and the director of CDER’s Office of Nonprescription Drugs, what do you want the public to know about sunscreen?

One thing — please protect yourself from the sun! Incidence rates for both melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancers have been rising for the past quarter century. The relationship between skin cancers and overexposure to the sun is well-documented.

Sun safety is important for everyone, including people of all skin tones. Consumers should continue to use sun protection measures, including using broad spectrum sunscreen of SPF 15 or higher, as we gather more safety data on sunscreen ingredients. 

However, sunscreen is only one part of the solution. People should engage in sun protective behaviors, such as wearing protective clothing; wearing sunglasses and a hat that provides adequate shade; and finding shade whenever possible during periods of peak sunlight. Also, consumers should use adequate protection and appropriate precaution with sunlamps and tanning beds/booths. Both are sources of UV radiation that have been linked to skin cancer, skin burns, premature skin aging, and both short-term and long-term eye damage. More about sun protection and sunscreens is available on the  FDA website . Check out these resources and stay safe in the sun.

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• Anniversary
• BMJ Journals

You are here

• Online First
• Tobacco endgame goals and measures in Europe: current status and future directions
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8814-1021 Hanna Ollila 1 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9601-7330 Otto Ruokolainen 1 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6614-4782 Tiina Laatikainen 1 , 2 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3339-8441 Helena Koprivnikar 3
• and JATC-2 WP9 co-authors
• 1 Department of Public Health , Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare , Helsinki , Finland
• 2 Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition , University of Eastern Finland , Kuopio , Finland
• 3 National Institute of Public Health of the Republic of Slovenia , Ljubljana , Slovenia
• Correspondence to Hanna Ollila, Department of Public Health, Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki 00271, Finland; hanna.ollila{at}thl.fi

The European Union (EU) aims for a tobacco use prevalence of less than 5% by 2040 with its Tobacco-Free Generation goal, aligning with the tobacco endgame approach. In the Joint Action on Tobacco Control 2 (JATC-2) -project, we examined adopted and planned endgame goals and measures as well as preparedness to counter tobacco industry interference in the process. We surveyed key informants in 24 out of 50 countries in the WHO European Region (19 of the 27 EU Member States, MS). Altogether, eight countries (7 EU MS) had official governmental endgame goals, and an additional six EU MS had similar proposals from government, civil society or research entities. Movement towards tobacco endgame was most evident in retail-oriented and consumer-oriented policies. These include restricting the sales of tobacco and related products and raising the age limit above 18 years. Product standards were used especially to regulate flavours but no measures to substantially reduce addictiveness were reported. Market-oriented measures that tap into industry profits were predominantly missing, and countries often lacked concrete tools to prevent industry interference. Respondents’ concerns around tobacco endgame were related to high smoking prevalence in some population groups, non-combustible and new nicotine products, cross-border marketing, political will, challenges with the existing regulations and industry interference. Results indicate both momentum and challenges in adopting and disseminating measures that facilitate achieving tobacco endgame goals. The EU goal can be used to advocate for national endgame goals and measures, and for the strengthened implementation of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

• Public policy
• Tobacco industry

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See:  https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

https://doi.org/10.1136/tc-2024-058606

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC

In the tobacco endgame approach, the focus is shifted from controlling the tobacco epidemic to ending it by reducing use to a minimal level in the population with structural, political and social changes. In the European Union, this is supported by the recently launched Tobacco-Free Generation goal.

Tobacco endgame is well aligned with the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which encourages parties to implement measures beyond the convention to better protect human health and obliges them to adopt effective measures to prevent and reduce nicotine addiction besides tobacco consumption.

WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

While several European countries already have governmental tobacco endgame goals or proposals towards these, there is substantial variation in their definitions, timelines and coverage of tobacco and nicotine products.

Adopted and planned tobacco endgame measures centre around product-oriented, retail-oriented and consumer-oriented policies, such as product standards to reduce appeal, restricting sales and increasing the age limit above 18 years.

HOW THIS STUDY MIGHT AFFECT RESEARCH, PRACTICE OR POLICY

Knowledge sharing facilitates the dissemination of tobacco endgame approach.

More focus is needed on measures that can be expected to have a substantial impact on product availability, appeal and addictiveness.

Concrete tools to prevent and counter tobacco industry interference are needed, as it is seen as a clear challenge in tobacco endgame.

Introduction

In the WHO European Region, encompassing 53 countries including 27 European Union (EU) Member States, 25% of adults use tobacco. 1 This prevalence ranks second highest among the WHO regions, with a relatively slow decline compared with other regions. In 2021, as part of Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan, the EU announced a ‘Tobacco-Free Generation’ goal for the region. 2 While the concept of tobacco-free generation originates in a proposal to limit tobacco sales by year born, 3 the EU goal is defined as less than 5% of the population using tobacco by 2040. The EU goal aligns with the tobacco endgame approach, where the focus shifts from controlling the tobacco epidemic to ending it by reducing use to a minimal level in the population with structural, political and social changes. 4 The EU goal is well justified under the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), which encourages parties to implement measures beyond the convention to better protect human health (Article 2.1) and obliges them to adopt effective measures and cooperate in developing appropriate policies to prevent and reduce tobacco consumption, nicotine addiction and exposure to tobacco smoke (Article 5.2b). 5 Several European countries have already set their national tobacco endgame goals prior to the EU goal. 6 We examine the current status of adopted and planned national goals and measures in the WHO European region, and how these reflect the EU goal among the Member States. We also examine how experts perceive the likelihood of adopting or achieving the endgame goal in their own country, and countries’ preparedness to counter tobacco industry interference in the process.

In the Joint Action on Tobacco Control 2 (JATC-2) project, 7 Work Package 9 (WP9) is tasked to identify national tobacco endgame strategies and forward-looking tobacco control policies, to explore and exchange best practices in the development, implementation and evaluation of these strategies and policies, and to facilitate their development in the European region. The WP9 involves 21 partner organisations from 15 European countries (Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Norway, Portugal, Serbia, Slovenia and Spain), with the Netherlands collaborating. As part of this work, we surveyed key tobacco control informants in the WHO European region between 15 September 2022 and 13 January 2023.

Participants

Key informants consisted primarily of national WHO FCTC focal points, who are nominated by their country to participate in the official treaty reporting. Contacting them was made possible through assistance from the WHO FCTC Knowledge Hub on Surveillance and Convention Secretariat. In the absence of a functional contact with the focal point (eg, due to personnel changes), other national tobacco control experts were identified with assistance from JATC-2 partners and the WHO European Office for the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases. We excluded Switzerland and Monaco due to lack of contacts, and the Russian Federation due to the suspension of research collaboration because of the war in Ukraine. From each country, one coordinated response was requested if the respondent engaged other stakeholders. The questionnaire gathered information and expert opinions on national-level policies and was, therefore, not subjected to an ethics approval. Respondents gave an informed consent on their participation.

Responses were received from 24 of 50 countries (19 of 27 EU Member states), with response rates of 48% across the region and 70% within the EU. The respondents were from Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Finland, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway, Portugal, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and Uzbekistan. The majority of the respondents were officials from health ministries/departments/directorates in the government. One respondent was from the interior ministry, two from national authorities specialised in addictions or substance use and one from a public health institute. Respondents were contacted back in March 2023 for potential updates, which were received from Uzbekistan. The JATC-2 partners could further update the information on new national policies up to May 2024. Partner updates were provided by Belgium, Finland, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia and Spain.

Questionnaire

The questionnaire assessed the existence of national tobacco endgame goals, their definition, the selected time frame, tobacco or nicotine products covered by the goals and the perceived likelihood of adopting/achieving these goals (from 0=very unlikely to 10=very likely). The reason for the selected response was asked. Furthermore, we inquired about adopted or planned endgame measures and measures to prevent industry interference ( table 1 ). The endgame measures for the questionnaire were identified from earlier reviews. 4 8 In WP9, harm reduction measures are outside the scope of work and were, therefore, not included in the questionnaire. The measures on tobacco industry interference were derived from screening the recommendations of the WHO FCTC Article 5.3 guidelines. Some additional measures of interest to WP9 partners were also added (marked with * in table 1 ). The questionnaire and more details of its development are available in the WP9 indicator compendium at www.jaotc.eu . 9

• View inline

Measures included in the JATC-2 WP9 questionnaire

We describe adopted goals and measures based on respondent-provided details supplemented with publicly available information on the goals and measures (from, eg, governmental and EU websites). For plans or proposals, we disclose country names only if the information is publicly available to prevent industry interference. We present quotes from the experts’ open-ended responses. This article does not seek to present an exhaustive list of endgame goals and measures in Europe but provides examples and experiences, which can help draw an overview of their status and future directions.

Tobacco endgame goals

Official goals adopted or acknowledged by governments.

Altogether eight countries reported official tobacco endgame goals ( table 2 ). These were divided into general population goals without subgroup targets and goals including certain generations or subgroups. Most of the countries are aiming for less than 5% prevalence of use, but three countries aim at no use at all in certain subgroups addressing children or pregnant women. Three countries define their prevalence goals specifically as daily use. All countries except Norway have set a target year between 2025 and 2040. The official definitions focus on smoking or tobacco use, except for three countries that also mention nicotine products or tobacco-related products. Some countries extend the scope of endgame compared with the main definition: Belgium and the Netherlands reported including all tobacco and non-pharmaceutical nicotine products, while France and Norway also reported including heated tobacco products (HTPs) under their smoking targets. Finland and Norway have integrated the endgame goal into the objective of the tobacco control law.

Official tobacco endgame goals among the countries responding to the JATC-2 WP9 questionnaire

Proposals from governmental bodies or other relevant organisations or entities (eg, NGOs, political parties, public health organisations)

Altogether seven countries reported endgame proposals from their countries. In Denmark, the former government introduced a Nicotine-Free Generation goal where no one born since 2010 should start smoking or using nicotine products, 10 but this proposal has not progressed. A strategy for tobacco-free Germany by the German Cancer Research Center, supported by several NGOs and research entities, aims for <5% adult and <2% adolescent prevalence in tobacco and non-pharmaceutical nicotine use by 2040. 11 Additionally, the German government’s strategy for the Sustainable Development Goals contains a goal close to the common endgame prevalence level, namely, of 7% smoking prevalence among youth by 2030. 12 In Italy, scientific societies and independent scientists have allied to advocate for the development of a national tobacco endgame strategy. 13 In Spain, a new comprehensive plan for the prevention and control of tobacco for years 2024–2027 includes a goal to achieve <5% prevalence of daily use among 14–18-year olds. 14 Previously, public health organisations and civil society associations published an endgame declaration calling for a goal of <5% smoking prevalence by 2030 and 2% by 2040 in Spain. 15 Two other countries reported that an endgame proposal exists but is not yet publicly available. One was part of national health strategy discussions, where a goal in line with the EU goal has been proposed. From the second, no details were provided.

Perceived challenges and opportunities in tobacco endgame

Among the respondents from eight countries with official endgame goals, six provided a score for the likelihood of achieving their goal. On a scale of 0–10, the responses were either 6 (three countries) or 7 (three countries), reflecting moderately positive expectations. Concerns were expressed in relation to non-combustible and new nicotine products, differences between population groups, industry interference, cross-border marketing and sales, sustaining the political will and challenges in estimating the impact of the measures ( table 3 ).

Respondents’ reflections on the perceived likelihood of achieving their official governmental tobacco endgame goals (six countries, panel A), and on the perceived likelihood of adopting such goals in their country (12 countries, panel B).

Among 12 of the 16 countries without an endgame goal who provided a score, the expectations of adopting such a goal in their own country varied greatly: from very negative 0–2 (five countries) and somewhat unsure 5 (three countries) to rather positive 7–8 (two countries). Two countries perceived the adoption very likely, scoring 10. Concerns among these countries related to lack of political will, industry interference and problems in current tobacco control processes, shifting the focus to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the current high use of tobacco and related products ( table 3 ). Some countries reported a preference for general addiction or non-communicable disease (NCD) prevention strategies over tobacco control strategies. Having previously established governmental prevalence reduction goals in a cross-cutting way was seen as a strength for moving towards an endgame approach.

Tobacco endgame measures

Independently of whether a national tobacco endgame goal exists, a few measures that can contribute to such a goal were already implemented to some extent. These are presented in table 4 according to the taxonomy set in table 1 and summarised below.

Adopted and planned tobacco endgame measures and forward-looking tobacco control measures among the countries responding to the JATC-2 WP9 questionnaire

Product-oriented measures

The EU Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) and the delegated directive 2022/2100 prohibit characterising flavours in cigarettes, roll-your-own and HTPs, but some countries go beyond this to reduce product appeal with different product standards. Five countries had fully prohibited menthol as an additive that facilitates inhalation in combustibles, and seven countries had prohibited all or most flavours in e-cigarette liquids ( table 4 ). These measures were also planned in some countries, and Finland was processing regulation on nicotine pouch flavours. Plain packaging had been extended from tobacco products to e-cigarette packaging in three countries and was also considered for nicotine pouch packaging in two. Some countries had standardised or were standardising the appearance of individual cigarettes, nicotine e-liquids, e-cigarette refill containers and/or nicotine pouches. Health warnings on individual cigarette sticks were considered in Norway, which had also prohibited imports and sales of waterpipe tobacco, therefore partially addressing a ban on combustibles.

The TPD allows Member States to prohibit a certain category of tobacco or related products if the Commission approves it after considering whether national provisions are justified, necessary and proportionate, and whether they constitute a disguised barrier to trade. Belgium has received approval to prohibit disposable e-cigarettes, and two other countries also have proposals to introduce such a ban. Two countries reported an authorisation scheme for novel tobacco products, where the government authorises or rejects market entry applications. Non-pharmaceutical nicotine products (other than e-cigarettes) are not under TPD and countries regulate their market entry independently. An authorisation scheme for novel nicotine products was reported by two countries. Two countries have prohibited nicotine pouches. One country reported considering a ban on products that do not fall into existing product categories or are placed on the market after a certain date, but no specification was available.

Retail-oriented measures

Some countries reported prohibiting or restricting tobacco or related product sales in retail types or locations related to minors, and Cyprus was planning to restrict points of sales near schools ( table 4 ). Broader restrictions were still rare. New stepwise sales reductions were adopted in two countries, and a substantial reduction in retailers was set to the strategy in Norway but without concrete proposals. Two countries limited tobacco sales to specialist shops, and one country was considering including also e-cigarette sales to these. Hungary has set numerical limits to the density of the specialist tobacco shops. Finland introduced high annual supervisory fees to retail license holders and has had a proposal to prohibit the granting of a retail license to temporary and mobile sales places. France supported the transition of tobacco retailers into other local shops and no longer selling tobacco.

Consumer-oriented, market-oriented and other innovative measures

Most of the proposed endgame measures in these categories were not in place or planned. Plans focused on consumer-oriented measures, mainly age limits of 20 or 21 years, where altogether six countries have had proposals to raise the age of sale above 18. Of these, Ireland already approved in May 2024 a proposal for legislation that will increase the age of sale of tobacco to 21, aiming to be the first EU country to do so. 16 In Norway, a tobacco-free and nicotine-free generation to those born in 2010 is envisaged in a national strategy, but decisions and details on its implementation are awaited. In Denmark, the new prevention agreement proposes prohibiting the import, purchase and possession of nicotine products that are illegal to market in the country. Sweden is utilising excise duty for curtailing industry to set its own retail prices. Five countries have a regulated market model where the state has a monopoly on tobacco sales.

Preparedness to counter tobacco industry interference

While many respondents referred to implementing Article 5.3 of the WHO FCTC, concrete tools to prevent industry interference were often missing. However, some examples of adopted measures were shared. These addressed legislative measures, lobbying registers, a code of conduct/procedure, public disclosure of necessary correspondences, disclosure of lobbying expenses, plans to better regulate production and industry reporting obligations, and ethical guidelines preventing state investments in the tobacco industry ( table 5 ). As for planned measures, three countries were developing guidelines on contact between the industry and governmental organisations, one country was planning to develop a transparency register of contacts between the tobacco industry and government, and another country for the disclosure of the records from necessary interactions.

Regulations and measures to prevent tobacco industry interference among the countries responding to the JATC-2 WP9 questionnaire

Our results indicate both momentum and challenges in adopting and disseminating measures that facilitate achieving the EU Tobacco-Free Generation goal of less than 5% tobacco use by 2040. Almost half of the 27 EU Member States either have already adopted a national tobacco endgame goal or have a proposal for such a goal from the government, civil society or research entities. Outside the EU in the WHO European Region, Norway reported an official tobacco endgame goal. While most of the countries with an official goal aim for a similar <5% prevalence level as the EU goal, the definitions of goals and their specifications in the government documents vary considerably. For some countries, this can also pose challenges in measuring the progress. In Ireland and Sweden, the target year of 2025 is approaching soon, calling for the first comprehensive evaluations of national tobacco endgame strategies in the region. Including tobacco endgame as an objective of tobacco control legislation—like in Finland and Norway—may provide sustainability behind changing governmental programmes or strategies and political will.

In the EU, the Member States have benefitted from common minimum product standards set in the TPD. While several countries already go beyond the TPD to address attractiveness and appeal, no measures that would substantially reduce addictiveness were adopted or planned. To meet the <5% prevalence level by 2040, the TPD should be developed from this perspective in a forward-looking way. The EU has invested substantial effort and resources into the advisory mechanism for the prohibition of characterising flavours. 17 Yet a simplified, effective approach would be to follow the WHO FCTC Article 9 and 10 guidelines to prohibit the use of all ingredients that make tobacco products attractive, including flavouring agents. Furthermore, the EU-level nicotine limits for cigarettes could be lowered to make them less or non-addictive, leading to their gradual phase-out from the market. Based on the evidence, reducing nicotine content in cigarettes to very low levels could improve public health and have benefits across different population groups by decreasing the uptake of regular smoking, decreasing the amount smoked and increasing smoking cessation. 18 Introducing very low nicotine cigarettes on the EU level could be a balanced and justified measure considering the increased product supply caused by the continuous entrance of novel tobacco or nicotine products to the market. These novel products were mainly seen as challenges in tobacco endgame by the respondents, and several countries are already covering nicotine products such as e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches in their endgame goals or measures. This can be seen as a forward-looking approach to respond to tobacco industry strategies, which aim to increase product portfolio and profit, attract new customers and delay and distract from effective control policies. 19 Clear separation between measures to only reduce harm and measures to end the tobacco epidemic may help regulators and policymakers to understand and identify measures that are feasible and likely to produce substantial impact in their local context.

The reported retail-oriented and consumer-oriented measures tended to focus on reducing the sales points by limiting sales to certain retailers and raising the age limit of sales above 18 years. For example, substantial stepwise reductions in retail outlets are beginning to be implemented in the Netherlands and in Belgium. Yet, most countries in the region would still need to introduce retail licensing to effectively control and reduce retail density. 20 In Finland, the licensing with high annual costs has gradually reduced the number of tobacco retailers to approximately a half. However, the number remains high and unequally distributed to more socioeconomically disadvantaged areas—reminding of the continued need to consider the impact of tobacco endgame measures in different population groups. 21 In Hungary, the introduction of state-owned specialist tobacco shops has decreased the density of tobacco shops by 85%, concurring with declining adolescent smoking. 22 The age limits that were under consideration focused on 20 or 21 years. In the European context, where no country yet has implemented an age limit above 18 years for tobacco, this measure could have a substantial impact considering most of the initiation occurs by the age of 20. 23 24 In Europe, Norway was first to publish in March 2023 a goal that children born since 2010 do not use tobacco and nicotine products, but its practical implementation is undecided. 25 The United Kingdom has then moved ahead by announcing in October 2023 that it will become an offence to sell tobacco products to anyone born on or after 1 January 2009. 26 Based on the evidence, the retail- and consumer-oriented measures, especially if combined, can be expected to have a notable impact on tobacco use prevalence and lead to health gains over time. 23 27

The EU goal can be used to support the development of similar national goals. Additionally, it can be used to bring the need for better implementation of the WHO FCTC to the political agenda, connected to the national work for NCD prevention and sustainable development goals. This can be beneficial especially in countries where adopting an endgame goal is not yet seen as feasible in the current tobacco control context. The implementation of the WHO FCTC as well as the capacity for tobacco control needs to be strengthened in Europe. 28 As part of this, countries should look into measures that tap into tobacco industry profits, which are mostly not even planned in the region. Together with the lack of concrete tools to prevent and counter industry interference, this enables the industry to mobilise resources for lobbying and distracting policymaking away from timely and effective measures. Industry interference was identified as a challenge both in adopting and achieving tobacco endgame goals. Better protection is needed even on the EU level, as shown in the recent European Ombudsman investigations. 29 Besides national actions, the EU-level investment and support for the enforcement of tobacco control, together with the regular revision of key directives and recommendations, are essential for achieving the EU goal. An interesting comparison can be found in food safety where the EU audits the application and effectiveness of the laws and controls and provides training to the responsible authorities. 30

Finally, the EU goal can be used to raise awareness of the tobacco endgame approach, leveraging support from civil society and the public. For instance, a study from Ireland showed low awareness but broad support for the local tobacco endgame goal. 31 In the Netherlands, key factors in accelerating tobacco control have been the genesis of a ‘Smoke-free Generation’ movement in the wider society, initiated by the three main national charities, combined with stricter adherence to Article 5.3 of the WHO FCTC and a comprehensive marketing ban. 32 In 2022, several European civil society associations launched a joint European Citizen’s Initiative calling for a broad range of measures including tobacco-free environments and ending the sale of tobacco and nicotine products to citizens born since 2010, but it did not reach enough signatories. 33 To facilitate the dissemination of measures that are likely to have a substantial impact within a reasonable timeframe, knowledge sharing between countries with different tobacco control contexts and approaches is needed. Multinational collaborations such as the JATC-2 can serve as platforms to share best practices and act as vehicles to overcome the barriers of lack of knowledge or political will. A great global opportunity for information exchange presents in the 11th session of the Conference of the Parties of the WHO FCTC in 2025, where an expert group established by the COP10 will present its report on Article 2.1 and forward-looking tobacco control measures. 34 The possibility of shifting the focus from controlling to ending the tobacco epidemic is an important message to convey to policymakers.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication.

Not applicable.

Ethics approval

This study gathered only information on national-level policies and expert opinions related to these and was therefore not subject to ethics approval. Participants gave informed consent to participate in the study before taking part.

Acknowledgments

The authors want to thank all the respondents of the questionnaire. The authors are grateful for the support and contributions from all JATC-2 WP9 partners in the development of the questionnaire and provision of feedback to the analysis and reporting of the results as part of the project reporting and deliverable drafting. Further, the authors are grateful for the support from the WHO FCTC Knowledge Hub on Surveillance, the Secretariat of the WHO FCTC and the WHO NCD Office in identifying the contacts for the questionnaire.

• World Health Organization
• European Commission
• McDaniel PA ,
• Ruokolainen O ,
• Laatikainen T , et al
• Straarup MS ,
• O’Donovan F ,
• Lambrou A , et al
• Puljević C ,
• Morphett K ,
• Hefler M , et al
• JATC-2 WP9 partners
• Sundshedsministeriet
• The German Cancer Research Center (Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum, DKFZ) 2021
• Die Bundesregierung
• TOBACCO ENDGAME
• Ministerio de Sanidad
• Cuadrado García de U ,
• Fernández Megina R , et al
• Government of Ireland, Department of Health
• Chaiton M ,
• Kuipers MAG ,
• Nuyts PAW ,
• Willemsen MC , et al
• Pätsi S-M ,
• Ollila H , et al
• Brys Z , et al
• Reitsma MB ,
• Mullany EC , et al
• Government of Norway
• Department of Health and Social Care
• van der Deen FS ,
• Cleghorn CL , et al
• González-Marrón A ,
• Koprivnikar H ,
• Tisza J , et al
• European Union
• Cosgrave EJ ,
• Murphy E , et al
• Willemsen MC ,
• ↵ Call to achieve a tobacco-free environment and the first European tobacco-free generation by 2030 . 2022 . Available : https://citizens-initiative.europa.eu/initiatives/details/2022/000005_en [Accessed 22 Apr 2024 ].
• Algemene Cel Drugsbereid
• Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Finland
• Tobacco Act
• Ministère de la Santé et de la Prévention
• Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport
• Lov om vern mot tobakksskader (Tobakksskadeloven) - Lovdata . Available : https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1973-03-09-14?q=1973-03-09-14 [Accessed 17 Oct 2023 ].
• Republica Slovenija
• Regeringskansliet
• Government proposal to Parliament for an Act amending the Tobacco Act. 2024/0210/FI (Finland) . TRIS - Eur Comm 2024 . Available : https://technical-regulation-information-system.ec.europa.eu/en/notification/25788
• The Danish Ministry of the Interior and Health
• National Addictions Authority Cyprus

Collaborators Co-authors of the Work Package 9 of the Joint Action on Tobacco Control 2 (JATC-2) -project: Adrián González-Marrón (Group of Evaluation of Health Determinants and Health Policies, Department of Basic Sciences, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Sant Cugat del Vallès, Spain), Alessandra Lugo (Department of Medical Epidemiology; Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri IRCCS, Milan, Italy), Angeliki Lambrou (Directorate of Epidemiology and Prevention of Non-Communicable Diseases and Injuries, National Public Health Organization (NPHO), Athens, Greece), Anna Mar Lopez Luque (Grupo de Investigación en Control del Tabaco, Institut d'Investigació Biomèdica de Bellvitge (IDIBELL), L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain; Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Respiratorias, (CIBERES), Madrid, Spain; Programa de Prevenció i Control del Càncer, Institut Català d'Oncologia, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain), Armando Peruga (Grupo de Investigación en Control del Tabaco, Institut d'Investigació Biomèdica de Bellvitge (IDIBELL), L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain, Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Respiratorias, (CIBERES), Madrid, Spain; Centro de Epidemiología y Políticas de Salud, Facultad de Medicina Clínica Alemana, Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile), Biljana Kilibarda,(Institute of Public Health of Serbia “Dr Milan Jovanovic Batut”, Belgrade, Serbia), Cristina Lidón-Moyan (Group of Evaluation of Health Determinants and Health Policies, Department of Basic Sciences, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Sant Cugat del Vallès, Spain), Daniela Alejandra Blanco-Escauriaza (Group of Evaluation of Health Determinants and Health Policies, Department of Basic Sciences, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Sant Cugat del Vallès, Spain), Dolors Carnicer-Pont (Grupo de Investigación en Control del Tabaco, Institut d'Investigació Biomèdica de Bellvitge (IDIBELL), L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain; Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Respiratorias, (CIBERES), Madrid, Spain; Programa de Prevenció i Control del Càncer, Institut Català d'Oncologia, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain), Efstathios Papachristou (Directorate of Epidemiology and Prevention of Non-Communicable Diseases and Injuries, National Public Health Organization (NPHO), Athens, Greece), Elena Demosthenous (Cyprus National Addictions Authority, Nicosia, Cyprus), Emilia Nunes (General Directorate of Health, Ministry of Health, Lisbon, Portugal), Esteve Fernández (Grupo de Investigación en Control del Tabaco, Institut d'Investigació Biomèdica de Bellvitge (IDIBELL), L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain; Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Respiratorias, (CIBERES), Madrid, Spain; Programa de Prevenció i Control del Càncer, Institut Català d'Oncologia, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain; School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Campus de Bellvitge, Universitat de Barcelona, L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain), Giulia Carreras (Institute for Cancer Research, Prevention and Clinical Network (ISPRO), Florence, Italy), Giuseppe Gorini (Institute for Cancer Research, Prevention and Clinical Network (ISPRO), Florence, Italy), Helma Slingerland (Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, the Hague, the Netherlands), Judit Tisza (National Korányi Institute of Pulmonology, Budapest, Hungary), Lorenzo Spizzichino (Ministry of Health, Rome, Italy), Maria-Alejandra Cardenas (Ministry of Health and Prevention, Paris, France), Maria Karekla (University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus), Maurice Mulcahy (National Environmental Health Service, Health Service Executive (HSE), Galway Business Park, Dangan, Ireland), Milena Vasic (Institute of Public Health of Serbia “Dr Milan Jovanovic Batut”, Belgrade, Serbia), Salla-Maaria Pätsi (Department of Public Health and Welfare, Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland), Silvano Gallus (Department of Medical Epidemiology; Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri IRCCS, Milan, Italy), Sotiria Schoretsaniti (Directorate of Epidemiology and Prevention of Non-Communicable Diseases and Injuries, National Public Health Organization (NPHO), Athens, Greece), Zsuzsa Cselkó (National Korányi Institute of Pulmonology, Budapest, Hungary).

Contributors Salla-Maaria Pätsi conducted initial analyses from the data. HO analysed the data for this manuscript and wrote the first draft. OR, TL and HK reviewed the first draft. HO developed and revised the following drafts as per the review and contributions from all other authors. All authors approved the final version of the paper. HO is responsible for the overall conduct of the study and the contents of this manuscript.

Funding This work was supported by the European Union’s Health Program (2014-2020) under grant agreement N°101035968. The content of this document represents the views of the authors only and is their sole responsibility; it cannot be considered to reflect the views of the European Commission and/or the European Health and Digital Executive Agency (HaDEA) or any other body of the European Union. The European Commission and the Agency do not accept any responsibility for use that may be made of the information it contains. DCP, AML and EF are partly supported by the Ministry of Universities and Research, Government of Catalonia (grant number: 2021SGR00906) and thank the CERCA programme for institutional support to IDIBELL.

Competing interests None declared.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer-reviewed.

Read the full text or download the PDF: