Limit the Limitations: Rethinking How We Write About Constraints in Scholarly Work

Gabriel M. Peterson, PhD
Jacqueline Owens, PhD, RN, CNE
Marsha Fowler, PhD, RN, FAAN
Wyona M. Freysteinson, PhD, MN, RN, FAAN;
Jacqueline Fawcett, RN, PhD, ScD (Hon), FAAN, ANEF

Writer’s Camp Counselors

---

Authors often confuse real limitations with imagined ones.

---

Every research study has limitations; this is a fundamental truth of scholarly inquiry. Yet authors often struggle to describe those limitations clearly, accurately, and ethically. Some overemphasize weaknesses in an attempt to sound honest or humble. Others minimize limitations or bury them in language so inflated that it obscures the real issues. Still others confuse limitations of the study with limitations of the researcher, a mistake that muddies interpretation and inadvertently undermines credibility.

As editors and reviewers of nursology journals, we observe these patterns frequently. What we offer here is a synthesis of our collective experiences: a clearer understanding of what a limitation is, what it is not, and how scholars can present limitations with accuracy, transparency, and integrity. Our goal is not to discourage authors but to deepen their understanding of the limitations section as an essential component of rigorous scholarly writing and research reporting.

What a Limitation Is—and Is Not

A limitation is a factual constraint of the study that affects how readers should interpret the findings. These constraints arise from the design, context, instruments, sampling, analytic choices, or conditions under which the research was conducted. They are not confessions, apologies, or personal shortcomings. A well-written limitations section helps readers understand the boundaries of the study, not the biography of the researcher.

Too often, authors include statements such as “I did not have enough time to recruit a larger sample” or “We lacked funding for a more robust design.” These may explain why the study unfolded as it did, but they are not limitations of the work itself. They reflect circumstances of the researcher, not characteristics of the study. Including them blurs the distinction between methodological transparency and personal disclosure, and ultimately misdirects readers.

Equally problematic are value-laden statements that attempt to persuade rather than inform—phrases like “the strengths outweigh the weaknesses” or “despite a few shortcomings, the results remain exceptionally robust.” Such commentary is not only unnecessary; it diminishes credibility. Limitations should be presented plainly, without embellishment or defensiveness. Their purpose is clarity, not persuasion.

Misunderstandings in Qualitative Research

Nowhere do we see greater confusion about limitations than in qualitative research. Authors frequently label as limitations features that are, in fact, inherent to qualitative methodology.

A persistent example is the assertion that “the small sample size limits generalizability.” Qualitative studies are not designed for statistical generalizability, and sample size is not a limitation when saturation guides recruitment. The purpose of qualitative inquiry is depth, not breadth, and the value lies in rich description and interpretive insight. A small sample, therefore, is not a weakness but a hallmark of the method. To identify it as a limitation reflects a misunderstanding of qualitative approaches.

Similarly, studies conducted in a single setting are often described as limited when, depending on the design and purpose, a single context may be entirely appropriate. The question is not whether the setting is narrow, but whether the context meaningfully influences interpretation. Qualitative research privileges context; not every contextual boundary is a limitation.

True limitations in qualitative work might include insufficiently thick description, limited diversity of perspectives, or analytic decisions that leave interpretive gaps. These are issues that affect transferability—not generalizability—and authors should explain how they shape understanding of the findings.

Clarifying Limitations in Quantitative Research

Quantitative research brings its own set of misinterpretations. For example, sample size is a valid limitation if it does not meet the requirements of a power analysis. Many authors avoid stating this clearly, preferring instead to bury the issue in cautious phrases. Yet the consequence of insufficient power—a risk of failing to detect true effects—is central to interpretation and must be stated plainly.

Similarly, limitations may arise when the validity or reliability of instruments is uncertain, when a non-random sample may introduce bias, or when data are incomplete. These constraints directly influence internal validity and should be acknowledged without justification or apology. Readers do not need reassurance; they need clarity.

Examples From Published Literature: What Counts and What Doesn’t

In a review of 160 research articles published over a two-year period, the first author (GP) identified a wide range of statements labeled as limitations. Some were indeed limitations. Others reflected misunderstandings. Still others were ambiguous because authors failed to explain their relevance.

This was a pilot semantic analysis of limitations: statements from a nursing journal included in the PubMed Central Open Access (PMCOA) subset. Only 32% of sentences in the sampled limitations paragraphs were classified by the machine-learning model as limitations with high confidence (>=0.85). Only 4% of sentences were classified with high confidence as not-limitations. The remaining 64% of sentences failed to meet the confidence threshold and could not be reliably classified (<=0.85). These results indicate that a substantial proportion of published “limitations” sections may be ambiguous or structured in ways that challenge algorithmic detection.

From this analysis, we found statements like “our cross-sectional design prevents conclusions about causality” or “data collected during the pandemic may influence responses due to survey fatigue” and classified them as genuine limitations—clear constraints of the study. In contrast, “future studies should improve this work” or “findings were consistent with previous research” were neither limitations nor needed in the limitations section.

The ambiguous category was particularly revealing. Statements such as “interviews were conducted in Chinese and translated into English” or “data were collected in specialty clinics” may or may not be limitations depending on how these factors influenced the study. Without explanation, readers are left with uncertainty. Ambiguity signals a missed opportunity for clarity.

Avoiding “Marshmallow Fluff”

“Marshmallow fluff” can describe another type of limitation—this term was coined by the fourth author (WF). Marshmallow fluff is language that attempts to soften, justify, or compensate for perceived weaknesses. This fluff appears often in statements such as this:

• “The advantages of this study far outweigh the limitations.”
• “These limitations pale in comparison to the significance of the findings.”

Such statements are rhetorical, not scholarly. They weaken the argument by shifting from fact to persuasion. Limitations must be rooted in fact, not value judgments. When authors insert emotional language, they introduce bias and obscure the purpose of the section.

A strong limitations section is neither self-deprecating nor self-congratulatory. It is descriptive, transparent, and free of defensiveness.

Distinguishing Researcher Limitations From Study Limitations

One of the most important distinctions we make as editors is between the limitations of the study and the limitations of the researcher. Readers need to know constraints that affect the interpretation of findings, not the circumstances of the individuals conducting the study.

Claiming that the study is limited because the researcher lacked expertise, did not have enough time, or was conducting the work to support career advancement shifts attention away from the study to the researcher’s biography. These statements suggest a lack of scholarly rigor and, when included in manuscripts, raise ethical questions about responsibility for the work. Authors must not conflate personal challenges with methodological constraint.

Toward a Clearer Understanding of Limitations

Across methodological traditions, our collective experiences converge on several core principles:

A limitation must describe a factual boundary of the study—something that affects how readers should understand or apply the findings. It should not express frustration, self-critique, or opinion. It should not attempt to justify the study or persuade the reader to overlook weaknesses. And it should not confuse features inherent to the methodology—such as small sample size in qualitative research—with flaws.

Well-written limitations sections share three qualities. They are specific, not vague; factual, not emotional; and concise, not padded with speculative or rhetorical language. They demonstrate respect for readers by offering the information needed to interpret findings realistically and responsibly.

Conclusion: Clear, Honest, and Necessary

A limitations section is not an obligation to apologize for a study, nor is it a place to compensate for perceived shortcomings. It is a place to illuminate the boundaries of knowledge—to show where the study ends and where further inquiry may begin. When written with clarity and integrity, this section strengthens rather than weakens a manuscript.

We invite scholars to examine their own writing practices and to reflect on whether the limitations they describe are truly limitations of the work itself. In doing so, you affirm the core values of transparency, rigor, and honesty that sustain scholarly communication and allows research to advance.

Authors: Gabriel M. Peterson, Jacqueline Owens, Marsha Fowler, Wyona M. Freysteinson, Jacqueline Fawcett

Reviewed and Edited by: Leslie H. Nicoll

Copyright © 2025 Writer’s Camp and the Authors. CC-BY-ND 4.0

Citation: Peterson GM, Owens J, Fowler M, Freysteinson WM, Fawcett J. Limit the limitations: Rethinking how we write about constraints in scholarly work. The Writer’s Camp Journal. 2025;1(3):17. 10.5281/zenodo.19355092