When planning and presenting research, one should be able to critically evaluate the scope (also known as “delimitations”) of one’s research and its limitations. The scope refers to the boundaries or limits to carrying out the study as determined by the researcher. For instance, these boundaries can relate to the timeframes for conducting the study, the types of data to be collected, the time period to which specific data sources (e.g., historical documents) will be limited, the sample size, specific social groups to be included in the study, etc. In other words, the scope usually sets limits on what the proposed research does or does not promise to achieve.
Limitations explain what potential barriers or problems one might face in the course of the research which are beyond the researcher’s control. For example, one may be limited in terms of:
The scope and limitations have to be explicitly stated to communicate to the reader how the quality of the results can be affected. If no mention is made of the study’s scope and limitations, one may assume that the author is not aware of the imperfections of the approach or believes he/she has control over any inherent barriers which may arise and which will ultimately affect how the results will be obtained and interpreted, and whether they will be generalizable to other contexts and participants.
Here are two Methods extracts from two studies in the field of political science. As you read each extract, identify the sentences that explain each study’s scope. Does any of them outline the limitations?
Places and Preferences: A Longitudinal Analysis of Self-Selection and Contextual Effects |
Our analysis uses eighteen waves of data from 1991 to 2008 inclusive, with almost 10,000 individuals clustered within over 5,000 households in the first wave (1991). We restrict our focus to England only, excluding households in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland because the party systems in these countries are sufficiently different from England to make combined analyses difficult to interpret. We also exclude observations of those aged under 18 in order to match our analysis sample with the voting age population in England. We include ‘new sample members’ who join the BHPS through the formation of new households with ‘original sample members’ as well as ‘re-entrants’ (i.e. those who had been non-respondents in the previous wave). These inclusion criteria yield an analysis sample of 17,373 individuals, who provide a combined total of 158,000 unique observations over the eighteen waves. The average number of waves completed by individuals is 9.14 and 4,100 individuals responded in all eighteen waves. Source: Gallego, A., Buscha, F., Sturgis, P., & Oberski, D. (2014). Places and preferences: A longitudinal analysis of self-selection and contextual effects. British Journal of Political Science, 46(3), 529–550. |
All Policies are Glocal: International Environmental Policy Making with Strategic Subnational Governments |
1We will examine the national and international effects of strategic policy formation at the subnational level. 2We will analyze games of complete information, with no uncertainty about preferences and ideal points. 3To simplify, we assume that there are only two national governments. 4We do not attempt to construct a multilateral negotiation game, because the dynamics of coalition formation would greatly complicate the solution of the game. 5This limitation notwithstanding, we believe a simple two-player game can offer insights into how subnational policy makers strategically shape their national policy makers’ negotiation positions and the ultimate outcome. Adapted from: Bechtel, M., & Urpelainen, J. (2015). All policies are glocal: International environmental policy making with strategic subnational governments. British Journal of Political Science, 43(3), 559–582. |
The language used to indicate the scope and limitations of a study tends to build on negative verb forms, as well as words and phrases that are negative in meaning. Present and Future tenses are most common:
The following nouns often feature in statements about the study’s limitations, the first four of them being quite similar in meaning:
Boundaries, constraints, limitation(s), restriction(s), scope
The following adjectives can be useful in discussing the limitations of the research. These can be used with “too” or “very” for emphasis. Negative prefixes can be used as well:
Complex, complicated, difficult, impossible, limiting, limited, (not) generalizable, less likely
To be bound by, be limited/ restricted to, be limited by, to (not) allow/ permit smb to do smth
Beyond/ outside the scope of …
Linking words of contrast are often used to show to describe a study’s limitations. These may include:
Although + clause (or an adjective), despite/ in spite of + noun (or V-ing), while/ whereas + clause