limitations in research work

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.

• Privacy Policy

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

Limitations in Research – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Limitations in Research

Limitations in research refer to the factors that may affect the results, conclusions , and generalizability of a study. These limitations can arise from various sources, such as the design of the study, the sampling methods used, the measurement tools employed, and the limitations of the data analysis techniques.

Types of Limitations in Research

Types of Limitations in Research are as follows:

Sample Size Limitations

This refers to the size of the group of people or subjects that are being studied. If the sample size is too small, then the results may not be representative of the population being studied. This can lead to a lack of generalizability of the results.

Time Limitations

Time limitations can be a constraint on the research process . This could mean that the study is unable to be conducted for a long enough period of time to observe the long-term effects of an intervention, or to collect enough data to draw accurate conclusions.

Selection Bias

This refers to a type of bias that can occur when the selection of participants in a study is not random. This can lead to a biased sample that is not representative of the population being studied.

Confounding Variables

Confounding variables are factors that can influence the outcome of a study, but are not being measured or controlled for. These can lead to inaccurate conclusions or a lack of clarity in the results.

Measurement Error

This refers to inaccuracies in the measurement of variables, such as using a faulty instrument or scale. This can lead to inaccurate results or a lack of validity in the study.

Ethical Limitations

Ethical limitations refer to the ethical constraints placed on research studies. For example, certain studies may not be allowed to be conducted due to ethical concerns, such as studies that involve harm to participants.

Examples of Limitations in Research

Some Examples of Limitations in Research are as follows:

Research Title: “The Effectiveness of Machine Learning Algorithms in Predicting Customer Behavior”

Limitations:

• The study only considered a limited number of machine learning algorithms and did not explore the effectiveness of other algorithms.
• The study used a specific dataset, which may not be representative of all customer behaviors or demographics.
• The study did not consider the potential ethical implications of using machine learning algorithms in predicting customer behavior.

Research Title: “The Impact of Online Learning on Student Performance in Computer Science Courses”

• The study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, which may have affected the results due to the unique circumstances of remote learning.
• The study only included students from a single university, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other institutions.
• The study did not consider the impact of individual differences, such as prior knowledge or motivation, on student performance in online learning environments.

Research Title: “The Effect of Gamification on User Engagement in Mobile Health Applications”

• The study only tested a specific gamification strategy and did not explore the effectiveness of other gamification techniques.
• The study relied on self-reported measures of user engagement, which may be subject to social desirability bias or measurement errors.
• The study only included a specific demographic group (e.g., young adults) and may not be generalizable to other populations with different preferences or needs.

How to Write Limitations in Research

When writing about the limitations of a research study, it is important to be honest and clear about the potential weaknesses of your work. Here are some tips for writing about limitations in research:

• Identify the limitations: Start by identifying the potential limitations of your research. These may include sample size, selection bias, measurement error, or other issues that could affect the validity and reliability of your findings.
• Be honest and objective: When describing the limitations of your research, be honest and objective. Do not try to minimize or downplay the limitations, but also do not exaggerate them. Be clear and concise in your description of the limitations.
• Provide context: It is important to provide context for the limitations of your research. For example, if your sample size was small, explain why this was the case and how it may have affected your results. Providing context can help readers understand the limitations in a broader context.
• Discuss implications : Discuss the implications of the limitations for your research findings. For example, if there was a selection bias in your sample, explain how this may have affected the generalizability of your findings. This can help readers understand the limitations in terms of their impact on the overall validity of your research.
• Provide suggestions for future research : Finally, provide suggestions for future research that can address the limitations of your study. This can help readers understand how your research fits into the broader field and can provide a roadmap for future studies.

Purpose of Limitations in Research

There are several purposes of limitations in research. Here are some of the most important ones:

• To acknowledge the boundaries of the study : Limitations help to define the scope of the research project and set realistic expectations for the findings. They can help to clarify what the study is not intended to address.
• To identify potential sources of bias: Limitations 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.
• To provide opportunities for future research: Limitations can highlight areas for future research and suggest avenues for further exploration. This can help to advance knowledge in a particular field.
• To demonstrate transparency and accountability: By acknowledging the limitations of their research, researchers can demonstrate transparency and accountability to their readers, peers, and funders. This can help to build trust and credibility in the research community.
• To encourage critical thinking: Limitations can encourage readers to critically evaluate the study’s findings and consider alternative explanations or interpretations. This can help to promote a more nuanced and sophisticated understanding of the topic under investigation.

When to Write Limitations in Research

Limitations should be included in research when they help to provide a more complete understanding of the study’s results and implications. A limitation is any factor that could potentially impact the accuracy, reliability, or generalizability of the study’s findings.

It is important to identify and discuss limitations in research because doing so helps to ensure that the results are interpreted appropriately and that any conclusions drawn are supported by the available evidence. Limitations can also suggest areas for future research, highlight potential biases or confounding factors that may have affected the results, and provide context for the study’s findings.

Generally, limitations should be discussed in the conclusion section of a research paper or thesis, although they may also be mentioned in other sections, such as the introduction or methods. The specific limitations that are discussed will depend on the nature of the study, the research question being investigated, and the data that was collected.

Examples of limitations that might be discussed in research include sample size limitations, data collection methods, the validity and reliability of measures used, and potential biases or confounding factors that could have affected the results. It is important to note that limitations should not be used as a justification for poor research design or methodology, but rather as a way to enhance the understanding and interpretation of the study’s findings.

Importance of Limitations in Research

Here are some reasons why limitations are important in research:

• Enhances the credibility of research: Limitations highlight the potential weaknesses and threats to validity, which helps readers to understand the scope and boundaries of the study. This improves the credibility of research by acknowledging its limitations and providing a clear picture of what can and cannot be concluded from the study.
• Facilitates replication: By highlighting the limitations, researchers can provide detailed information about the study’s methodology, data collection, and analysis. This information helps other researchers to replicate the study and test the validity of the findings, which enhances the reliability of research.
• Guides future research : Limitations provide insights into areas for future research by identifying gaps or areas that require further investigation. This can help researchers to design more comprehensive and effective studies that build on existing knowledge.
• Provides a balanced view: Limitations help to provide a balanced view of the research by highlighting both strengths and weaknesses. This ensures that readers have a clear understanding of the study’s limitations and can make informed decisions about the generalizability and applicability of the findings.

Advantages of Limitations in Research

Here are some potential advantages of limitations in research:

• Focus : Limitations can help researchers focus their study on a specific area or population, which can make the research more relevant and useful.
• Realism : Limitations can make a study more realistic by reflecting the practical constraints and challenges of conducting research in the real world.
• Innovation : Limitations can spur researchers to be more innovative and creative in their research design and methodology, as they search for ways to work around the limitations.
• Rigor : Limitations can actually increase the rigor and credibility of a study, as researchers are forced to carefully consider the potential sources of bias and error, and address them to the best of their abilities.
• Generalizability : Limitations can actually improve the generalizability of a study by ensuring that it is not overly focused on a specific sample or situation, and that the results can be applied more broadly.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Ethical Considerations – Types, Examples and...

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Thesis – Structure, Example and Writing Guide

How to Publish a Research Paper – Step by Step...

Conceptual Framework – Types, Methodology and...

Research Paper Introduction – Writing Guide and...

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-2/ 10 Reasons you’re Perpetually Single
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 20 Montessori Toddler Bedrooms (Design Inspiration)
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 21 Montessori Homeschool Setups
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 101 Hidden Talents Examples

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

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

Instant insights, infinite possibilities

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: 22 August 2024

Last updated: 5 February 2023

Last updated: 16 April 2023

Last updated: 9 March 2023

Last updated: 30 April 2024

Last updated: 12 December 2023

Last updated: 11 March 2024

Last updated: 4 July 2024

Last updated: 6 March 2024

Last updated: 5 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, 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: Sep 27, 2024 1:09 PM
• 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.

Sign Up for Free

Try the best infographic maker and promote your research with scientifically-accurate beautiful figures

no credit card required

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

• Affiliate Program

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

APA Citation Generator

MLA Citation Generator

Chicago Citation Generator

Vancouver Citation Generator

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

Limitations of the Study – How to Write & Examples

What are the limitations of a study?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Limitations of the Study Examples

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

Common Methodological Limitations of Studies

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

1. Issues with research samples and selection

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

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

2. Insufficient sample size for statistical measurements

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

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

3. Lack of previous research studies on the topic

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

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

4. Methods/instruments/techniques used to collect the data

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

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

Common Limitations of the Researcher(s)

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

1. Limited access to data

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

2. Time constraints

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

3. Conflicts arising from cultural bias and other personal issues

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

Steps for Organizing Your Study Limitations Section

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

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

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

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

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

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

Step 2. Explain these study limitations in detail

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wordvice Resources

Proofreading & Editing Guide

Writing the Results Section for a Research Paper

How to Write a Literature Review

Research Writing Tips: How to Draft a Powerful Discussion Section

How to Captivate Journal Readers with a Strong Introduction

Tips That Will Make Your Abstract a Success!

APA In-Text Citation Guide for Research Writing

Additional Resources

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

Article References

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

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

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.

• Industry News
• AI in Academia
• Career Corner
• Infographics
• Expert Video Library
• Other Resources
• Enago Learn
• Upcoming & On-Demand Webinars
• Peer Review Week 2024
• Open Access Week 2023
• Conference Videos
• Enago Report
• Journal Finder
• Enago Plagiarism & AI Grammar Check
• Editing Services
• Publication Support Services
• Research Impact
• Translation Services
• Publication solutions
• AI-Based Solutions
• Thought Leadership
• Call for Articles
• Call for Speakers
• Author Training
• Edit Profile

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

Which among these features would you prefer the most in a peer review assistant?

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 .

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  

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

Research Limitations & Delimitations

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

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

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

Overview: Limitations vs Delimitations

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

First things first…

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

Research Limitations

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

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

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

Research Delimitations

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

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

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

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

Need a helping hand?

Conclusion: Limitations vs Delimitations

Ok, so let’s recap.

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

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

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

19 Comments

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

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

Thank you for this explanation – very clear.

Thanks for the explanation, really got it well.

This website is really helpful for my masters proposal

Thank you very much for helping to explain these two terms

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

when I came across your notes everything became very clear

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

Very helpful Many thanks 🙏

Excellent it resolved my conflict .

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

How do I cite this article in APA format

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

Getting more clear regarding Limitations and Delimitation and concepts

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

This is a good sources of research information for learners.

thank you for this, very helpful to researchers

Very good explained

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

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

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

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

Limitations of the Study

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Descriptions of Possible Limitations

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

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

Possible Methodological Limitations

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

Possible Limitations of the Researcher

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

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conference Paper vs. Journal Paper: What’s the Difference 

Literature Mapping in Research: Definition, Types, and Benefits

Discussing your limitations

• First Online: 21 September 2023

Cite this chapter

• Adrian Wallwork 3  

Part of the book series: English for Academic Research ((EAR))

1185 Accesses

Chapter 7 highlights the importance to the scientific community of discussing the possible limitations in your research and explains how to present your negative results. Of course, you may have got negative results for other reasons: i) your hypothesis was incorrect and needs to be reformulated, ii) you had a bad experimental design and / or low statistical power. However, this chapter is based on the assumption that both your hypothesis and experimental design were reasonably sound, but still did not produce optimal results.

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Pisa, Italy

Adrian Wallwork

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Wallwork, A. (2023). Discussing your limitations. In: English for Writing Research Papers . English for Academic Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31072-0_7

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31072-0_7

Published : 21 September 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-31071-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-31072-0

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Limitations of Research

• January 2017
• In book: The SAGE Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods (pp.863-864)
• Publisher: SAGE Publications, Inc

• University of Oklahoma

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Vania Azalia Audrey Lesmana
• Antonetta Tina
• Sugesti Retno Yanti
• INFORM SYST

• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Behavioral Theories Limitations: Identifying Key Shortcomings in Psychological Research

For decades, behavioral theories have served as the bedrock of psychological research, yet their limitations have sparked heated debates among scholars seeking to unravel the complexities of the human mind. The allure of behaviorism lies in its simplicity and measurability, offering a tangible framework for understanding human actions. But as we delve deeper into the labyrinth of the psyche, we find ourselves questioning whether these theories can truly capture the essence of what makes us human.

Let’s take a journey through the fascinating world of behavioral psychology, exploring its roots, triumphs, and the growing chorus of voices calling for a more nuanced approach to understanding the mind. Buckle up, dear reader, for we’re about to embark on a rollercoaster ride through the peaks and valleys of human behavior!

The Rise of Behaviorism: A Brief History

Picture this: It’s the early 20th century, and psychology is still finding its footing as a scientific discipline. Enter John B. Watson, a maverick psychologist with a bold vision. He proclaims that psychology should focus solely on observable behaviors, tossing aside the murky waters of introspection and consciousness. Talk about a plot twist in the academic world!

Watson’s radical ideas gave birth to behaviorism, a school of thought that would dominate psychology for decades. His famous (or infamous, depending on your perspective) “Little Albert” experiment demonstrated how fears could be conditioned in humans. It was groundbreaking stuff, but also raised eyebrows about the ethics of such research.

Fast forward a few years, and we meet B.F. Skinner, the rockstar of behaviorism. Skinner took Watson’s ideas and ran with them, developing the concept of operant conditioning. His work on reinforcement and punishment became the cornerstone of behavioral theory. B.F. Skinner: Father of Behavior Analysis and His Lasting Impact is still felt today, influencing fields from education to animal training.

But why did behaviorism catch on like wildfire? Well, it offered something that previous psychological theories lacked: measurability. You could observe, quantify, and predict behavior. It was science with a capital S, baby!

The Good, the Bad, and the Oversimplified

Now, don’t get me wrong. Behavioral theories have given us some pretty nifty tools for understanding and modifying behavior. They’ve helped us develop effective therapies for phobias, design educational programs, and even train our furry friends. The concept of Behavior Chains: Unraveling Complex Patterns in Psychology and Learning has been particularly useful in breaking down complex behaviors into manageable steps.

But here’s the rub: human beings are not simple stimulus-response machines. We’re more like those fancy Swiss watches with a gazillion moving parts, each influencing the others in ways we’re only beginning to understand.

Behavioral theories, in their quest for simplicity and measurability, often reduce the rich tapestry of human experience to a series of conditioned responses. It’s like trying to explain the plot of “Inception” using only emojis – you might get the gist, but you’re missing all the mind-bending nuances!

This oversimplification is particularly problematic when it comes to cognitive processes and internal mental states. Behaviorism, in its purest form, tends to treat the mind as a “black box” – focusing only on inputs (stimuli) and outputs (behaviors) while ignoring the complex mental processes in between.

But let’s face it, we humans are not just passive responders to our environment. We’re active thinkers, dreamers, and problem-solvers. We have rich inner lives filled with thoughts, emotions, and motivations that can’t always be directly observed or measured.

The Motivation Conundrum: More Than Just Carrots and Sticks

Speaking of motivation, here’s where behavioral theories really start to show their limitations. They tend to focus heavily on extrinsic motivation – rewards and punishments from the external environment. But what about those times when we’re driven by pure passion or curiosity?

Intrinsic motivation, that inner fire that drives us to pursue goals for their own sake, is often overlooked in traditional behavioral models. It’s like trying to explain why someone climbs Mount Everest using only the concepts of positive and negative reinforcement. Sure, the glory and bragging rights (positive reinforcement) might play a role, but what about the internal drive to challenge oneself or the sheer love of adventure?

This limited view of motivation becomes even more apparent when we consider complex emotional responses. Behavioral theories struggle to explain why we sometimes act against our own best interests, or why we experience conflicting emotions. The Mentalistic Explanation of Behavior: Exploring the Mind’s Role in Human Actions offers a more nuanced approach to understanding these complex motivational and emotional processes.

And let’s not forget about self-awareness and consciousness – those pesky little things that make us uniquely human. Behaviorism, with its focus on observable actions, tends to sidestep these crucial aspects of our mental lives. It’s like trying to understand a smartphone by only looking at its outer casing – you’re missing all the cool stuff happening inside!

The Ethical Tightrope: Walking the Line Between Science and Morality

Now, let’s dive into a thorny issue that’s been pricking the conscience of psychologists for years: the ethical concerns surrounding behaviorist research and application. It’s a bit like opening Pandora’s box, but hey, who said psychology was all sunshine and rainbows?

First up, we’ve got the potential for manipulation and control. Behavioral techniques can be incredibly powerful tools for shaping behavior. That’s great when we’re talking about helping people overcome phobias or teaching children to read. But what happens when these techniques fall into the wrong hands? The idea that behavior can be so easily manipulated raises some serious questions about free will and autonomy.

Then there’s the sticky wicket of informed consent in behavioral experiments. Remember our friend Little Albert? That poor kid had no idea what he was getting into. While ethical standards have come a long way since then, the nature of some behavioral experiments still raises eyebrows. How much should participants know about the true purpose of a study? It’s a delicate balance between maintaining the integrity of the research and respecting the rights of participants.

And don’t even get me started on the debates surrounding the use of punishment in behavior modification. Sure, it can be effective in the short term, but at what cost? The potential for psychological harm and the erosion of trust in relationships make this a hotly contested issue. The concept of Limiting Code of Behavior: Balancing Boundaries and Personal Freedom becomes particularly relevant here, as we grapple with the ethical implications of behavior modification techniques.

Nature vs. Nurture: The Biological Blind Spot

Now, let’s shift gears and talk about something that behavioral theories often overlook: the role of biology and genetics in shaping behavior. It’s like trying to bake a cake without considering the ingredients – you might end up with something that looks like a cake, but it probably won’t taste right!

Behavioral theories, with their focus on environmental influences, tend to underestimate the importance of genetic predispositions. But here’s the thing: we’re not blank slates when we’re born. We come into this world with a unique genetic makeup that influences everything from our personality traits to our susceptibility to certain mental health conditions.

Take Behavioral Inhibition: Recognizing and Managing This Temperamental Trait , for instance. This tendency to be cautious in novel situations has a strong genetic component, yet it’s often viewed through a purely environmental lens in behavioral theories.

Moreover, behavioral approaches often pay insufficient attention to neurological processes. It’s like trying to understand how a car works without looking under the hood! The brain is the command center for all our behaviors, and ignoring its complex workings leaves a massive gap in our understanding.

The field of neuroscience has made incredible strides in recent years, revealing the intricate dance of neurons and neurotransmitters that underlies our thoughts and actions. Yet, many behavioral theories struggle to integrate these findings into their frameworks. It’s high time we bridged this gap, don’t you think?

One Size Fits All? The Cultural Conundrum

Alright, let’s tackle another elephant in the room: the limited applicability of behavioral theories across cultures and contexts. It’s like trying to use a map of New York to navigate Tokyo – you might find some similarities, but you’re bound to get lost!

Much of the foundational research in behavioral psychology was conducted in Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) societies. But here’s the kicker: these populations represent a tiny slice of human diversity. Applying findings from these studies to diverse populations around the world is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole – it just doesn’t work!

Cultural bias in behavioral research is a real issue. What’s considered “normal” or “adaptive” behavior can vary wildly across cultures. For example, in some cultures, making direct eye contact is a sign of respect, while in others, it’s considered rude. A behavioral approach that doesn’t account for these cultural differences is bound to misinterpret a lot of behaviors.

This cultural myopia also makes it difficult to generalize findings to diverse populations. What works for behavior modification in a US college student might not be effective for a rural farmer in India. The Fit Behavior Analysis: A Comprehensive Approach to Understanding Human Conduct emphasizes the importance of considering cultural and contextual factors in behavioral research.

Moreover, traditional behavioral theories often fail to adequately consider the complex web of social and environmental influences that shape behavior. They tend to focus on immediate environmental stimuli, overlooking the broader societal factors that can profoundly impact behavior. It’s like trying to understand a tree without considering the forest it’s part of!

The Way Forward: Integrating Perspectives for a Fuller Picture

So, where do we go from here? Are we throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Absolutely not! Behavioral theories have given us valuable insights and tools. The key is to recognize their limitations and integrate them with other perspectives for a more comprehensive understanding of human behavior.

One promising approach is the integration of behavioral theories with cognitive and social psychology. This cognitive-behavioral approach acknowledges the importance of both observable behaviors and internal mental processes. It’s like combining the best of both worlds – the measurability of behaviorism with the depth of cognitive theories.

Another exciting frontier is the intersection of behavioral psychology with neuroscience and genetics. By understanding how our genes and brain structures influence our behavior, we can develop more nuanced and personalized approaches to behavior modification. The Philosophical Assumptions of Behavior Analysis: Foundations and Implications are being challenged and expanded as we incorporate these new insights.

We also need to broaden our research horizons. Conducting more cross-cultural studies and including diverse populations in our research can help us develop more universally applicable theories. It’s time to step out of our WEIRD bubble and embrace the rich tapestry of human diversity!

Conclusion: Embracing Complexity in the Quest for Understanding

As we wrap up our whirlwind tour of behavioral theories and their limitations, let’s take a moment to appreciate the journey. We’ve explored the oversimplification of human behavior, the challenges in explaining motivation and emotion, the ethical tightrope of behavioral research, the biological blind spot, and the cultural conundrum.

But here’s the exciting part: recognizing these limitations isn’t a setback. It’s an opportunity for growth and innovation in the field of psychology. By integrating behavioral approaches with other psychological perspectives, we can develop more comprehensive and nuanced understandings of human behavior.

The future of behavioral psychology lies in embracing complexity rather than shying away from it. It’s about recognizing that human behavior is influenced by a myriad of factors – from our genes to our culture, from our immediate environment to our inner thoughts and feelings.

As we move forward, let’s keep pushing the boundaries of what’s possible in behavioral research. Let’s explore new methodologies, integrate findings from diverse fields, and always keep an open mind. After all, the human mind is the most complex system in the known universe – unraveling its mysteries is bound to be a thrilling, challenging, and never-ending journey.

So, the next time you find yourself pondering the intricacies of human behavior, remember that it’s okay to embrace the complexity. In fact, it’s in grappling with these complexities that we truly begin to understand what it means to be human. And isn’t that what psychology is all about?

References:

1. Skinner, B. F. (1938). The Behavior of Organisms: An Experimental Analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

2. Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the Behaviorist Views it. Psychological Review, 20, 158-177.

3. Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

4. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 61-83.

5. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. New York: Plenum.

6. Chomsky, N. (1959). A Review of B. F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. Language, 35(1), 26-58.

7. Kagan, J. (1994). Galen’s Prophecy: Temperament in Human Nature. New York: Basic Books.

8. Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On Depression, Development, and Death. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

9. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

10. Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York: Putnam.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Warning: The NCBI web site requires JavaScript to function. more...

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
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan-.

StatPearls [Internet].

Common pitfalls in the research process.

Jacob Shreffler ; Martin R. Huecker .

Affiliations

Last Update: March 6, 2023 .

• Definition/Introduction

Conducting research from planning to publication can be a very rewarding process. However, multiple preventable setbacks can occur within each stage of research. While these inefficiencies are an inevitable part of the research process, understanding common pitfalls can limit those hindrances. Many issues can present themselves throughout the research process. It has been said about academics that “the politics are so harsh because the stakes are so low.” Beyond interpersonal and political / funding concerns, prospective authors may encounter some disenchantment with the publish or perish culture. With a metric of (any) publication, the motivation to contribute meaningfully to science can be overshadowed by a compulsive drive to publish. [1]  We believe in quality over quantity and highlight the importance of channeling creativity when pursuing scholarly work.

When considering embarking on a medical research project, one must begin with detailed planning. Do not underestimate the amount of time a project can take, often spanning years from conception to manuscript preparation. Will you conduct a retrospective chart review, a prospective study, or a true clinical trial with randomization and blinding? Will you systematically seek out and remove sources of bias from the study design and interpretation of results? Will you ensure the study is powered properly to justify conclusions? Will you eliminate or explain any conflicts of interest occurring among your author group? Will you fall victim to the temptation of frivolous subgroup analyses, or will you stick with the original plan? Will your study have a realistic chance at publication in a journal within your specialty, or perhaps another subfield? The study results may prove the null hypothesis, a ‘negative study,’ and therefore be difficult to publish. [2]  Additionally, the intervention you find beneficial may subsequently be proven unhelpful or even dangerous, leading to prudent medical reversal. [3]

These considerations and more necessitate meticulous planning and vigilant adherence to a sound protocol. Along the way, you will encounter obstacles, pitfalls, some of which are presented in this article. But remain persistent, and your efforts will be rewarded with publication and contribution to science. This review covers common pitfalls researchers encounter and suggested strategies to avoid them.

• Issues of Concern

There are five phases of research: planning phase, data collection/analysis phase, writing phase, journal submission phase, and rejections/revisions/acceptance phase.

Phase I Pitfalls: Planning a Study

The highest yield preempting of pitfalls in the research process occurs in the planning phase. This is when a researcher can set the stage for an optimal research process. Below are pitfalls that can occur during the planning phase.

Pitfall: Underestimating what committing to a research project requires

Conducting a research study and achieving publication sounds fulfilling, right?

Consider the many steps: conducting a literature search, writing an IRB proposal, planning and having research meetings, long and cumbersome data collection processes, working with statisticians or analyzing complex data, having unexpected research setbacks (e.g., subjects drop out, newly published papers on same topic, etc.), the possibility that after data collection you have no statistically (or clinically) significant findings, conducting an updated literature search, writing introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of a paper, going through the many journal options to determine best fit while aiming for high impact factors, adhering to journal guidelines/fixing drafts, writing cover letters stating importance of the topic to respective journals, creating journal portal accounts, possibly being rejected numerous times, waiting months for journal decisions, working on numerous revisions and being informed by numerous individuals about all of the flaws in your writing and research.

Does it sound, maybe less fulfilling ?

Conducting a research project from inception to publication can be a rewarding experience. Research requires significant time. Setbacks are normal. To produce an important and sought-after research product, an individual must understand the magnitude of commitment required.

Pitfall: Choosing the wrong research pursuit/topic lacks precision

Consider an investigator interested in substance use research. The first challenge is the immense amount of research already published on this topic. Fortunately, there is still a massive amount of uncharted territory in substance use research.

It is important to understand what has been done and what is still undiscovered in your area of research. Do not simply study a topic because you find it interesting; passion is advantageous, but you should ensure that your study will contribute to some field/specialty or research in a significant way.

How does your research differ from what has been done?

How will it impact practice in a way that no previous study has?

Consider these questions when choosing a topic for research. Otherwise, you may struggle to get the work published. It can be demoralizing if you have already written your paper and realize that your paper is not going to get accepted by a reputable journal due to the presence of other papers already describing the same concepts you have.

As always, the first step is a thorough literature search.

Pitfall: Not considering research bias

A common theme noted in literature is that bias can, unfortunately, lead to failure to reproduce results, raising concerns regarding the integrity of science. [4]  Bias can be considered various (inadvertent) poor strategies related to data design, analysis, and results reporting that produce spurious results and papers that perhaps should not be published. [5]

While one cannot completely eliminate bias from the research process, researchers should take steps to understand research bias in study endeavors and determine how to minimize bias during the planning phase of the study.  

Pitfall: Not focusing on which variables to collect

Researchers often want to collect as much data as possible but should not build a list of variables that includes every single detail about subjects if the variables collected are unlikely to yield insight into the topic of research. The longer the data collection instrument, the higher likelihood of (human) errors (if manually data entry) and the longer duration of the data collection phase. Instead of taking time to build a database with many variables, consider cutting irrelevant variables and use that time to increase the sample size. Determine, based on your own clinical knowledge and published empirical works, which variables are most crucial. 

Pitfall: Worrying about the statistics after the data has been collected

A vital part of the research process is ensuring you have a rigorous statistical approach. Involve your statistician very early in the project, preferably in the planning stages. They will have insight into the types of variables to collect and help shape the research methods. Statistical power is an important concept to consider before data collection to avoid false-negative results (Zlowodzki et al., 2006). Furthermore, other concepts, such as covariates, need to be part of the planning phase. Do not wait until after the data collection phase to give data to the statistician who cannot transform the data you have into outputs you want.

Pitfall: Not setting defined author roles

It is important to define who will be declared authors at the beginning of the research process to avoid conflict. Do most people want to be an author? Sure. Does everybody do the work worthy of authorship? No. While placing general comments in a shared document's margin may make the paper slightly better, it probably should not qualify for authorship. Review authorship criteria to determine what constitutes authorship. Clear expectations can ensure that everyone is on the same page and that everyone feels the process is fair, especially for individuals who plan to invest significant time in the project. Clear expectations for each author should occur before any writing begins, including deadlines and specific contributions. [6] [7] [6]

Pitfall: Not considering limitations of work before the paper is written

Avoid this pitfall by reviewing recent manuscripts and reading the limitations sections of these papers. Many of these limitations sections will make notions about generalizability to other populations. Some will discuss low power. Even the best papers in the top journals have many limitations. The best way to avoid or mitigate your work's limitations is to consider them during the planning phase.

How can you set up your project to limit your limitations section?

What (types of) samples should you include in your study?

Were you originally thinking of retrospective design, but it could be prospective?

What steps can you utilize to control baseline characteristics between groups?

Consider all limitations and think about how you can control these before data collection.

Phase II Pitfalls: Data Collection and Analysis

After the planning has occurred, typically after institutional review board (IRB) approval, the data collection and analysis phase can transpire. The entire team should typically stay involved throughout these phases. Below are pitfalls to avoid.

Pitfall: Not being involved in the data collection phase

It is important to be involved with the data collection phase, even if you do not personally collect data. Train the individuals who collect data to ensure all are on the same page and provide periodic oversight to ensure accuracy and quality of the data over time. [8]  Do not assume the data collection phase is going smoothly – you may find yourself with a huge dataset riddled with inconsistencies or errors. Schedule periodic meetings to review data.

Pitfall: Not being involved with the statistical analysis phase

If you are not conducting the statistical analysis, do not assume that the person who is analyzing the data is 100% on the same page. Have meetings about the data, how to interpret the data, and the limitations of the data. Ask what other ways the data could be analyzed and how reviewers might negatively critique the data itself or the statistical methods.

The person conducting the analysis will not have the same familiarity with the topic. You are not going to be as familiar with the outputs. By understanding each other, you will a) have clearer, more robust methods and results in sections of the paper, b) limit critiques regarding the statistical approach/data outcomes, c) understand your research better for any presentations, discussion, or future work, and d) develop a positive collaboration for future work.

Phase III Pitfalls: The Writing Phase

The next phase is the writing phase. While this section covers pitfalls during the writing phase, for recommendations on conducting a literature search, writing, and publishing research, see StatPearls Evidence-Base Medicine Chapter: How to Write and Publish a Scientific Manuscript. [9]  Below are pitfalls that can occur during the writing phase. 

Pitfall: Poor or outdated references

When writing your paper, perform multiple literature searches to ensure all recent, salient references are covered—claims about recent similar work or research that frames your study if the references are outdated. Journals may even ask reviewers to comment on the presence or absence of up-to-date/suitable references. Conduct a literature search prior to data collection and stay on top of references throughout the research process as new papers become available.

Pitfall: No clearly defined purpose of the paper

Many aspects of manuscripts can get overlooked. Lack of a clear purpose statement can doom a paper to futility. Remind the readers of the goal of the project. You do not want consumers of your research to read the results section and forget what the goals/main outcomes are. The purpose statement should be located at the end of the introduction section.  

Pitfall: Unclear methods making research hard to reproduce

A common concern in science is the lack of transparency in methods for reproducibility. The methods section should allow a reader to understand exactly what was done and conduct the study. Consider examining the S treng T hening the R eporting of OB servational studies in E pidemiology (STROBE) checklist for the methods (as well as other paper sections) to ensure best reporting practices for reproducibility. [10]

Pitfall: The tables and narratives are the same

Reviewers prefer you not to state findings in narratives that are in tables. Tables focus readers on the most important results and are not redundant with the written content. Make call-outs to the table in the paper's narrative sections, but do not state information found in tables.  

Pitfall: Not reporting all data/outcomes

Some authors will state the main outcome of interest or have a statement such as “there were no other statistically significant findings between other groups.” Authors must report all outcomes and statistical analyses for reproducibility of the research. While this may be difficult to do with a broad approach, utilize tables and appendices to report all outcomes to show transparency and limit researcher bias.

Pitfall: Repeating results in discussion

Do not simply restate in the discussion what you already have in the results section. Utilize this section of the paper to link other references to your work and reflect on other empirical investigations' similarities or differences. Explain why your research provides an impactful contribution to the topic.  

Pitfall: Making conclusions that do not align with your work

Authors sometimes note in their conclusions how the work impacts a topic due to X reason when X may be too broad a claim and the work doesn’t really support or prove that notion. Researchers should align their conclusions to their own results and highlight the significance of their findings.

Pitfall: Thinking the title is not a big deal

A strong title will help with the impact/readership of your paper. Consider keeping a short title that provides the main takeaway. Papers with more concise titles and present the study conclusion result in a bigger impact/receive more citations. [11]

Pitfall: Completing the abstract last minute

Similar to the title, do not underestimate an abstract. Journal and conference reviewers (and the general audience) may only read your abstract. The abstract must have the key results and contributions of the study and be well-written.

Phase IV Pitfalls: Submitting to a Journal

After the paper has been written, it is time to choose the journal. This phase also has numerous pitfalls. Below are pitfalls that can occur during this phase.  

Pitfall: Choosing the wrong journal

Choosing the journal for your work can be overwhelming due to the number of options. Always look at the aims and scope of prospective journals. Look through the author guidelines to ensure that your manuscript adheres. This will save time. Review your reference list for any journals that appear more than once; if so, consider submitting to that journal. You do not want to submit your paper, wait two weeks, and then get a desk rejection because the editors state the paper is not aligned to the journal's aims and scope.

Additionally, researchers can aim too high and spend months (and numerous hours in journal submission portals) trying to publish a manuscript in a journal with a very large impact factor. Though admirable, if the research design and results lacking “gold standard” reporting, authors should consider a journal that is more likely to accept. Find a balance between the quality of your paper and the quality of the journal. Seek feedback from the other authors and/or senior colleagues who can provide honest feedback.

Pitfall: Poor cover letter on journal submission

Do not submit work with a flawed cover letter (errors or lack of clarity in how your work contributes to the body of literature). Spend time writing a detailed cover letter once, have it edited by someone else, and utilize that for all future projects. You can highlight the differences (e.g., the purpose of this work, our results showed) with each project. Use the cover letter to highlight the significance of the study while adhering to the disclosure guidelines (e.g., conflicts of interests, authors contributions, data releases, etc.), which will help the editorial board determine not only the suitability of the paper for the journal but also streamline the review process. [12]

Pitfall: Assuming that after the paper has been submitted to a journal, the work is done             

The paper has been submitted! You think you are finished…but, unfortunately, the publishing game may still be far from over. Researchers often do not recognize the amount of time going into the submission/rejection/revisions phases. Revisions can sometimes be total overhauls, more work than writing a whole new paper. Be prepared to continue working.

Phase V Pitfalls: The Rejections, Revisions, and Acceptance Phase

Finally, perhaps the most unpredictable phase, the rejections, revisions, and acceptance phase, has unique pitfalls and other obstacles.

Pitfall: Mourning rejections too long/ “sitting on” a rejected paper             

Did you get a desk to reject (i.e., the manuscript was not even sent for blind review)? That is unfortunate but common. You do not have time to sulk. Get that paper submitted somewhere else. The older the data, the less desirable your paper becomes. If the paper went in for a full review and was rejected, that may be even tougher than a desk reject because more time has elapsed. The good news is that (hopefully) you received feedback to incorporate in a revision. Do not spend too much time grieving rejections.

Pitfall: Not laying to rest rejected papers when it is indeed their time to go

Did you write a paper a couple of years ago, and you’ve submitted it to 20 different journals? The data is getting old. The topic wasn’t focused on. The sample size was small. Perhaps the project is not worth pursuing any longer. Do not give in to the sunk cost fallacy. If, however, you are proud of the work and stand by the paper, do not give up. If you believe after the numerous rejections that the topic/project is flawed, you can use this failure as a personal learning/growth opportunity. Do not repeat controllable mistakes on future projects.

Pitfall: Not addressing all of reviewer feedback

Did you get a revise and resubmit? Great news! The reviewers and editors will likely ask you to respond to each comment when you resubmit. Address all of the reviewer feedback. Take your time reading through the feedback, digest it, and re-read it. Carefully respond and decide how to revise your manuscript based on the feedback. Share the reviews and the duties of revision with coauthors. In your response to reviewers, stay professional and address each statement, even if you disagree with what is stated. If you do not respond to each statement, the reviewers often highlight the concern(s) again.

Pitfall: Thinking you know what the reviewers are going to say

Research reviewers are like a box of chocolates. You never know what you are going to get. You may be worried about a section of your paper/research approach, and the reviewers do not mention it at all in their review; instead, they criticize a section of your manuscript that you are most proud of.

In some reviews, you may get feedback like the following:

Reviewer #1

Please change lines 104-108 as I believe they are irrelevant to your study.

Reviewer #2

Please build on lines 104-108, as I believe they are the foundation of your study.

Sometimes, after multiple revisions, there are new concerns presented by the reviewers. This can be disheartening. Should some regulations restrict reviewers from bringing up new ideas/concerns during revision #7? Perhaps. Does any current rule prevent them from doing this? No.

During the review process, we must have faith that the reviewers are knowledgeable and provide fair, insightful, and constructive feedback. While the review process can be arbitrary or frustrating in some cases, peer review remains the gold standard in a scientific publication. Stay positive and persistent. Stay professional in responses to the reviewers. Remember that the review process can be very beneficial as it often leads to feedback that truly elevates your work and makes the product (and you) look better. [13]

Pitfall: Not rewarding yourself for a published paper

You did it! Celebrate your accomplishment. Reflect on the merit of your effort before you move on to other work or re-enter the cycle of IRBs, data coding, journal submissions, etc. Remember and appreciate how remarkable it is that you just contributed knowledge to the world.

• Clinical Significance

Many pitfalls can occur throughout the research process. Researchers should understand these pitfalls and utilize strategies to avoid them to produce high-quality, sought-after research results that are useful for basic science and clinical practice.

• Review Questions
• Access free multiple choice questions on this topic.
• Comment on this article.

Disclosure: Jacob Shreffler declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.

Disclosure: Martin Huecker declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.

This book is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ), which permits others to distribute the work, provided that the article is not altered or used commercially. You are not required to obtain permission to distribute this article, provided that you credit the author and journal.

• Cite this Page Shreffler J, Huecker MR. Common Pitfalls In The Research Process. [Updated 2023 Mar 6]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan-.

In this Page

Bulk download.

• Bulk download StatPearls data from FTP

Related information

• PMC PubMed Central citations
• PubMed Links to PubMed

Similar articles in PubMed

• Publish or perish: ensuring longevity in nurse education-evaluation of a strategy to engage academics, students, and clinicians in publication activity. [J Prof Nurs. 2013] Publish or perish: ensuring longevity in nurse education-evaluation of a strategy to engage academics, students, and clinicians in publication activity. Wilson A, Sharrad S, Rasmussen P, Kernick J. J Prof Nurs. 2013 Jul-Aug; 29(4):210-6.
• Extent of publishing in predatory journals by academics in higher education institutions in Zimbabwe: A case study of a university. [Account Res. 2023] Extent of publishing in predatory journals by academics in higher education institutions in Zimbabwe: A case study of a university. Jingura RM, Chigwada J, Diver T, Shangwa D. Account Res. 2023 Sep 11; :1-15. Epub 2023 Sep 11.
• Has "Publish or Perish" Become "Publish and Payment"? Navigating Neurosurgical Research in an Innovative Industry. [World Neurosurg. 2017] Has "Publish or Perish" Become "Publish and Payment"? Navigating Neurosurgical Research in an Innovative Industry. Fraser JF. World Neurosurg. 2017 Aug; 104:987-989. Epub 2017 May 17.
• Review [Publish &amp; Perish; research on research and researchers]. [Tijdschr Psychiatr. 2017] Review [Publish &amp; Perish; research on research and researchers]. Tijdink JK. Tijdschr Psychiatr. 2017; 59(7):406-413.
• Review Publication Practices and Responsible Authorship: A Review Article. [J Public Health Afr. 2017] Review Publication Practices and Responsible Authorship: A Review Article. Tarkang EE, Kweku M, Zotor FB. J Public Health Afr. 2017 Jun 23; 8(1):723. Epub 2017 Jun 27.

Recent Activity

• Common Pitfalls In The Research Process - StatPearls Common Pitfalls In The Research Process - StatPearls

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance articles
• Editor's Choice
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• About The British Journal of Social Work
• About the British Association of Social Workers
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, limitations, supplementary material.

• < Previous

Social Workers’ Perceived Barriers and Facilitators to Social Work Practice in Schools: A Scoping Review

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Sarah Binks, Lyndal Hickey, Airin Heath, Anna Bornemisza, Lauren Goulding, Arno Parolini, Social Workers’ Perceived Barriers and Facilitators to Social Work Practice in Schools: A Scoping Review, The British Journal of Social Work , Volume 54, Issue 6, September 2024, Pages 2661–2680, https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcae046

• Permissions Icon Permissions

The aim of this scoping review was to establish the breadth of the academic literature regarding the barriers and facilitators to social work practice in schools as perceived by School Social Workers (SSWs). Following the PRISMA-ScR Scoping Review Framework, 42 articles were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria. Five interrelated themes related to the barriers and facilitators to SSW practice were identified: (1) Inadequacy of service delivery infrastructure; (2) SSWs’ role ambiguities and expectations; (3) SSWs’ competency, knowledge and support; (4) School climate and context; and (5) Cultivating relationships and engagement. This scoping review found that social workers perceive far greater barriers than facilitators when delivering services in school settings, with limited evidence related to the facilitators that enhance School Social Work (SSW) practice. Further research regarding the facilitators of SSW practice is needed, specifically in countries where research on this topic is emergent.

Within the field of Social Work (SW), School Social Work (SSW) practice is a unique specialization that is committed to supporting students to thrive and reach their full educational potential. There is a growing need for school-based mental health services due to the changing political, economic, cultural and environmental contexts and challenges of the last 10 years, that have seen an increase in xenophobia; racism; and social, economic and health inequalities ( Phillippo et al. , 2017 ; Capp et al. , 2021 ; Kelly et al. , 2021 ; Daftary, 2022 ; Villarreal Sosa, 2022 ). School Social Workers (SSWs) have been instrumental in providing effective psychosocial and mental health interventions to students and their families to overcome such educational barriers and inequities related to homelessness, family violence, bullying, school violence, sexuality, grief and loss, disabilities, school attendance and in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic ( Reid, 2006 ; Sawyer et al. , 2006 ; Allen-Meares et al. , 2013 ; Quinn-Lee, 2014 ; Rueda et al. , 2014 ; Miller et al. , 2015 ; Webber, 2018 ; Smith-Millman et al. , 2019 ; Johnson and Barsky, 2020 ; Karikari et al. , 2020 ; Capp et al. , 2021 ; Daftary, 2022 ). However, for SSWs to effectively respond to the increased need and demands for service, they must successfully overcome barriers to effective SSW practice such as: resource restrictions; unmanageable workloads; ambiguous roles and responsibilities; professional isolation; and limited supervision and training ( Agresta, 2006 ; Teasley et al. , 2012 ; Whittlesey-Jerome, 2012 ; Phillippo et al. , 2017 ; Beddoe, 2019 ; Capp et al. , 2021 ).

Failure to address barriers to SSW practice can significantly impact the provision of effective SSW services due to increased job-related stress, job dissatisfaction, compassion fatigue, vicarious trauma, burnout, absenteeism and attrition, which in turn can have a detrimental impact on the provision of effective SSW services addressing mental health and wellbeing needs of students, families and the school system ( Lloyd et al. , 2002 ; Agresta, 2006 ; Caselman and Brandt, 2017 ). Moreover, the existing research regarding the barriers and facilitators to SSW practice is substantially more deficit focused and provides limited understanding regarding how SSWs respond to these practice challenges, and how they facilitate effective SSW practice. The dearth of evidence regarding SSWs’ perspectives makes it challenging to assess the impact that these barriers may have on SSWs’ wellbeing and may hinder evidence-informed approaches to enhance practitioner wellbeing. Consequently, there is a growing evidence base emphasising that understanding how SSWs perceive the barriers and facilitators to SSW practice is essential to ensuring the continuity of care in the student-SSW relationships, contributing to the improvement of student, family and school outcomes ( Caselman and Brandt, 2017 ).

Despite the available evidence highlighting the importance of understanding the barriers and facilitators of SSW practice and the emergence of National SSW Practice Models in the USA ( Frey et al. , 2013 ) and Australia ( Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW), 2011 ), there is a lack of synthesis of the existing literature examining the barriers and facilitators that influence the successful integration of these SSW practice standards in real-world settings and across international perspectives.

The present study addresses this significant shortcoming by synthesising the existing research to identify themes related to the barriers and facilitators to SSW practice that will allow us to understand how SSWs resolve these practice-based challenges, to enhance evidence-informed best practice for SSWs, better inform SW’s education and preparation to enter the field and strengthen the linkages between research and SW practice. Using a scoping review methodology, this study aims to answer the following research question: What evidence exists in the academic literature regarding the perceived barriers and facilitators to SW practice experienced by social workers (SWs) in schools in Australia, Canada, Aotearoa NZ, the UK and USA?

This review follows the Tricco et al. (2018) , the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) framework methodology. A scoping review was chosen as the appropriate method to synthesise the existing research regarding the barriers and facilitators to SSW practice to map the relevant literature and identify key concepts and knowledge gaps ( Arksey and O’Malley, 2005 ; Levac et al. , 2010 ; Munn et al. , 2018 ). This study uses the population, concept and context (PCC) approach outlined by Peters et al. (2015) .

The study focused on Social Workers working in school settings. For this scoping review, a Social Worker is defined as a graduate of a SW education program at the bachelor’s or master’s degree level or is eligible for accreditation with the SW governing body in their location of practice.

SSWs are trained mental health professionals who provide SW services in a school setting, with the primary goal of supporting a student’s learning potential and facilitates successful learning outcomes and full participation for students, in consultation with school staff, parents and communities ( AASW, 2011 ; National Association of Social Workers (NASW), 2012 ; Frey et al. 2013 ; Constable, 2016 ). While there are a variety of SSW models used internationally, SSW practice broadly encompasses: (1) Evidence-based educationally relevant behaviour and mental health services with students, families and school personnel; (2) Promoting school climate, culture and system change to foster academic achievement; (3) Facilitating access and coordination with school and community resources; and (4) Research, education and professional development ( AASW, 2011 ; NASW, 2012 ; Frey et al. , 2013 ). For this study, we defined barriers as impediments to the implementation of SSW practice and facilitators as enablers that enhance SSW practice interventions and efficacy ( Teasley et al. , 2010 ; IGI Global, 2023 ).

This study focused on SW practice in primary and secondary schools, which comprise of students in Grades: Kindergarten/Prep to 12. The study included all schools that fit this category, regardless of funding or religious affiliation. To ensure that the identified evidence is comparable and manageable in scope, the inclusion criteria were restricted to published studies of SSWs’ perspectives in Australia, Canada, Aotearoa NZ, the UK and USA. These countries were selected given the similarities in linguistics, governance structures, school systems, colonial histories and the historical development of the social work profession in response to industrialization, urbanization and social inequalities; while at the same time providing a meaningful comparative analysis that recognises the diversity of cultural, historical, political and socioeconomic factors. Given the contextual differences across the five countries, such as the existence or absence of SSW practice models, the variety of SSW roles and responsibilities, the availability of SSW-specific tertiary education, licencing, accreditation and professional representation and specific legislation and funding guiding SSW practice (e.g. No Child Left Behind Act (2002) and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2004) in the USA), this study has, where relevant, specified the context specific barriers and facilitators in the results section ( Slovak et al. , 2006 ; NASW, 2012 ).

Eligibility criteria

This study focused on academic, peer-reviewed literature, written in English, between the years January 2000 to February 2022. We limited the search to post-2000 given societal and mental health service system changes that have increased focus on students’ social and emotional wellbeing to reflect the contemporary educational landscape. For full inclusion and exclusion criteria for this scoping review see Table 1 .

Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Search strategy

The search strategy and databases were selected in consultation with an expert librarian and authors (SB, AP and LH). In February 2022, the lead author searched seven academic databases: PsycInfo (OVID), CINAHL (EBSCO), ERIC (EBSCO), Medline (OVID), INFORMIT (‘A+ education’ and ‘humanities and social sciences’), ASSIA (ProQuest) and SocINDEX (EBSCO). These databases were chosen given their broad coverage of the SW and social care parameters and fields with the ability to focus results on those most relevant.

Title and abstract were searched in all databases. The following search terms were intentionally broad to capture the relevant literature given the multiple possible terms representing the perspectives of SSWs: ‘Social Work*’ AND (School* OR Education*) AND (Perception* or perceive* or attitude* or perspective* or view* or belie* or opinion* or impression* or experience* or encounter* or identif*). Where available, the search was expanded to subject headings. We included peer reviewed and research chapters in edited books to ensure we captured the depth and breadth of empirical evidence that matched the inclusion criteria. We did not include search terms related to ‘barrier’ or ‘facilitator’ to practice, given we found that this limit introduced bias into the search and excluded some results that would otherwise have been included.

Selection of sources of evidence

All articles were screened by two independent reviewers to minimise potential reviewer bias. The lead author (SB) reviewed all 14,317 articles for title and abstract screening; and 285 for full-text review, while other authors (LH, AH, AB, LK) were second reviewers during both screening stages. During the title and abstract phase, a third reviewer (AP) resolved any conflicts. After the full-text review, a third reviewer (AP) resolved conflicts related to exclusion reasons (e.g. wrong concept or setting), any remaining conflicts were resolved by consensus.

Data charting process

The authors developed a data charting form specifying which variables to extract. Authors (SB, LH and AP) independently charted the data, discussed the results and updated the data charting form in an iterative process. Disagreements on data charting were resolved by consensus and discussion with other authors, if required. Results were reviewed by all authors. The research aim and question guided the data synthesis process, with relevant data being charted into the following categories: the study characteristics (e.g. authors, title, publication year, country, aims/purpose, population, sample size, methodology/methods, relevant outcomes/findings, relevant findings and recommendations (by study authors)). Data regarding the barriers and facilitators to SSW practice was charted based on whether or not the SSWs perceived it to be a barrier or facilitator to SSW practice. Key findings data was synthesised into common themes, guided by the research question, with a focus on the barriers and facilitators to SSW practice ( Hsieh and Shannon, 2005 ). Initially, the data were coded under broad themes of ‘barriers’ or ‘facilitators’ and were subsequently grouped into the themes following the conventional content analysis deductive approach, where all data were sorted into categories based on how the different codes were related and linked, and then, organised into meaningful clusters ( Hsieh and Shannon, 2005 ). See Supplementary Table S1 for an overview of data synthesised.

Study selection

The final search results ( n  = 25,865) from seven academic databases were exported into ENDNOTE (version X9) bibliographic software ( Clarivate Analytics, 2018 ) and duplicates ( n  = 11,492) were removed ( Figure 1 ). Screening of articles ( n  = 14,373) was conducted using COVIDENCE software ( Veritas Health Innovation, 2022 ). Following the title and abstract screening, 14,032 articles were excluded. 285 full-text articles were retrieved and screened, with 242 excluded. One full-text article could not be retrieved. Overall, 42 articles met the inclusion criteria.

PRISMA flow chart of article selection process.

Majority ( n  = 36) of studies were from the USA, with the remaining six studies divided between Australia ( n  = 2), New Zealand ( n  = 2), Canada ( n  = 1) and the UK (England and Wales) ( n  = 1). There appears an increasing research interest in this area, with over 75% of studies published after 2010 ( n  = 32); almost half were published after 2015 ( n  = 19); and 23.8% published since 2020 ( n  = 10).

Characteristics of sources of evidence

For the included studies, a range of methodologies were employed: qualitative ( n  = 16), quantitative ( n  = 10) and mixed methods ( n  = 16). Methods including interviews, focus groups, questionnaires and document archival records analysis. Ten studies did not disaggregate, or only partially aggregated their data, preventing delineation of SSWs responses from other professionals ( Crepeau-Hobson et al. , 2005 ; Reid, 2006 ; Sawyer et al. , 2006 ; Peabody, 2014 ; Avant and Lindsey, 2016 ; Smith-Millman et al. , 2019 ; Sweifach, 2019 ; Johnson and Barsky, 2020 ; Heberle et al. , 2021 ; Goodcase et al. , 2022 ). Smith-Millman et al. (2019) noted SSWs perceived ‘barriers’ without defining further.

Synthesis of results: SSW practice barrier and facilitator themes

The analysis of available evidence identified five interrelated themes: (1) Inadequacy of service delivery infrastructure; (2) SSW role ambiguities and expectations; (3) SSWs’ competency, knowledge and support; (4) School climate and context and (5) Cultivating relationships and engagement.

Inadequacy of service delivery infrastructure

SSWs reported that an adequate service delivery infrastructure, such as the availability of human and material resources, were essential requirements to meet student needs, and that a lack of such resources hampered their ability to do their job and increased their stress levels and job dissatisfaction ( Agresta, 2006 ). Of the 42 included papers, 81% ( n  = 34) identified SSW practice barriers and facilitators related to an inadequacy of service delivery infrastructure. Out of these, 67% ( n  = 28) reported on barriers only, no articles reported on facilitators only, and 14% ( n  = 6) identified both barriers and facilitators to SSW practice. SSWs perceived restrictive funding requirements (e.g. limited school resources, scarcity of funding for SSW positions and SSW salaries) as a barrier to SSW service delivery, and some SSWs expressed concerns for the future of SSW practice and job security, particularly during economic hardship ( Crepeau-Hobson et al. , 2005 ; Raines, 2006 ; Teasley et al. , 2010 , 2012 ; Bronstein et al. , 2011 ; Lee, 2012 ; Whittlesey-Jerome, 2012 ; Peckover et al. , 2013 ; Peabody, 2014 ; Rueda et al. , 2014 ; Miller et al. , 2015 ; Avant and Swerdlik, 2016 ; Johnson and Barsky, 2020 ; Capp et al. , 2021 ; Drew and Gonzalez, 2021 ; Heberle et al. , 2021 ). SSWs reported that insufficient SSW staff levels impacted their ability to meet student needs, and resulted in unmanageable caseloads, unrealistic SSWs to student ratios, serving multiple schools and the inability to provide services in some areas ( Crepeau-Hobson et al. , 2005 ; Raines, 2006 ; Teasley et al. , 2010 , 2012 ; Bronstein et al. , 2011 ; Lee, 2012 ; Whittlesey-Jerome, 2012 ; Peckover et al. , 2013 ; Peabody, 2014 ; Rueda et al. , 2014 ; Miller et al. , 2015 ; Avant and Swerdlik, 2016 ; Johnson and Barsky, 2020 ; Capp et al. , 2021 ; Drew and Gonzalez, 2021 ; Heberle et al. , 2021 ).

Time and logistics were consistently mentioned as resource barriers to SSW practice when inadequate, but were seen as facilitators when SSWs were able to access appropriate and confidential work and meeting space, and were able to be informally present and visible in schools and in the community ( Blair, 2002 ; Crepeau-Hobson et al. , 2005 ; Teasley, 2005 ; Agresta, 2006 ; Mann, 2008 ; Chanmugam, 2009 ; Teasley et al. , 2010   Lee, 2012 ; Peckover et al. , 2013 ; Avant, 2014 ; Peabody, 2014 ; Quinn-Lee, 2014 ; Rueda et al. , 2014 ; Miller et al. , 2015 ; Avant and Lindsey, 2016 ; Avant and Swerdlik, 2016 ; Beddoe, 2019 ; Johnson and Barsky, 2020 ; Drew and Gonzalez, 2021 ; Elswick and Cuellar, 2021 ; Kelly et al. , 2021 ; Goodcase et al. , 2022 ).

The research evidence identified SSWs reported a lack of material resources, (e.g. specialised curricula or evidence-based practice (EBP) resources) to guide SSW practice; and that documentation and reporting requirements were barriers to SSW practice ( Agresta, 2006 ; Bates, 2006 ; Reid, 2006 ; Sawyer et al. , 2006 ; Chanmugam, 2009 ; Garrett, 2012 ; Lee, 2012 ; Quinn-Lee, 2014 ; Avant and Lindsey, 2016 ; Phillippo et al. , 2017 ; Elswick and Cuellar, 2021 ; Heberle et al. , 2021 ). During the COVID-19 school shutdowns, SSWs reported barriers regarding insufficient access to internet, technology and school-based resources and associated software skills, knowledge and support ( Capp et al. , 2021 ; Kelly et al. , 2021 ; Daftary, 2022 ). Only in three studies did SSWs identify resources that facilitated SSW practice, such as: electronic records system for data tracking; sharing information and resources; and during the COVID-19 school shutdowns, availability and access to tele-health curricula and activities ( Johnson and Barsky, 2020 ; Capp et al. , 2021 ; Daftary, 2022 ).

SSW role ambiguities and expectations

SSWs reported numerous challenges regarding the roles, responsibilities and expectations of the social worker role within the school setting. In thirty-five studies (83%), SSWs reported barriers and facilitators to SSW practice regarding SSW role ambiguities and expectations. Out of these, 45% ( n  = 19) listed barriers only, <1% ( n  = 4) reported facilitators only and 29% ( n  = 10) covered both. SSWs reported barriers resulting from insufficient understanding of the SSW role; role ambiguities and conflicts; and an absence of respect or recognition for SSW perspectives and scope of practice ( Blair, 2002 ; Teasley, 2005 ; Raines, 2006 ; Reid, 2006 ; Teasley et al. , 2010 ; Bronstein et al. , 2011 ; Lee, 2012 ; Whittlesey-Jerome, 2012 ; Peckover et al. , 2013 ; Avant, 2014 ; Rueda et al. , 2014 ; Miller et al. , 2015 ; Avant and Swerdlik, 2016 ; Phillippo et al. , 2017 ; Webber, 2018 ; Beddoe, 2019 ; Gherardi and Whittlesey-Jerome, 2019 ; Karikari et al. , 2020 ; Capp et al. , 2021 ; Drew and Gonzalez, 2021 ; Elswick and Cuellar, 2021 ; Heberle et al. , 2021 ). SSWs identified roles dominated by reactionary working conditions; and crisis driven-work, that was overwhelmed by competing demands, expectations and interruptions ( Blair, 2002 ; Sawyer et al. , 2006 ; Chanmugam, 2009 ; Lee, 2012 ; Avant, 2014 ; Peabody, 2014 ; Miller et al. , 2015 ; Avant and Swerdlik, 2016 ; Phillippo et al. , 2017 ; Beddoe, 2019 ; Gherardi and Whittlesey-Jerome, 2019 ; Elswick and Cuellar, 2021 ; Heberle et al. , 2021 ; Goodcase et al. , 2022 ). SSWs reported insufficient professional autonomy and professional identity as barriers to practice and some SSWs identified challenges with maintaining boundaries during times of crises response and when providing services remotely during the pandemic ( Blair, 2002 ; Chanmugam, 2009 ; Lee, 2012 ; Peckover et al. , 2013 ; Webber, 2018 ; Capp et al. , 2021 ; Kelly et al. , 2021 ; Goodcase et al. , 2022 ). The environments that facilitated SSW practice consisted of low professional role discrepancy, appreciation of the SSW role and expertise, high professional autonomy, support for clinical interventions and special programs and empowered SSWs to balance the complexity of the role with making meaningful contributions ( Agresta, 2006 ; Teasley et al. , 2010 , 2012 ; Lee, 2012 ; Peckover et al. , 2013 ; Peabody, 2014 ; Johnson and Barsky, 2020 ; Heberle et al. , 2021 ).

There was evidence that SSWs perceived tensions regarding EBP outcome measure reporting and EBP adaptation to school context; and SSWs noted the dearth of research and failure by SSWs to report practice outcomes negatively impacted cases and justification for the SSW role ( Bates, 2006 ; Raines, 2006 ; Phillippo et al. , 2017 ). Some SSWs identified successfully adapting EBP and utilizing data tracking to: improve measurement strategies and guide implementation decisions, which increased their ability to meet students’ needs, provide school-wide capacity and support, demonstrate program effectiveness, professional credibility and justified SSW funding ( Bates, 2006 ; Avant, 2014 ; Avant and Lindsey, 2016 ; Avant and Swerdlik, 2016 ; Webber, 2018 ; Elswick and Cuellar, 2021 ; Heberle et al. , 2021 ).

SSWs’ competency, knowledge and support

SSWs perceived barriers and facilitators regarding the competencies, knowledge, training and support that they require to effectively responding to the needs of students, families and the school community, while maintaining their own mental health and wellbeing ( Teasley et al. , 2010 ; Bronstein et al. , 2011 ). Twenty-eight studies (67%) examined SSWs’ competency, knowledge and support as barriers and facilitators to SSW practice. Of these, only 36% ( n  = 15) reported barriers only, 14% ( n  = 6) facilitators only and 17% ( n  = 7) both. SSWs felt their SW skills, attitudes and compassion were facilitators to SSW practice ( Teasley et al. , 2010 , 2012 ). Some SSWs identified that inadequate preparation, training or required skills and knowledge from their generalist SW education, specifically lacking school-specific practice knowledge, an understanding of relevant legislation, special education policies and practices, interdisciplinary teams and EBPs specific to SSW practice ( Bates, 2006 ; Reid, 2006 ; Sawyer et al. , 2006 ; Bronstein et al. , 2011 ; Lee, 2012 ; Phillippo et al. , 2017 ; Beddoe, 2019 ; Elswick and Cuellar, 2021 ). SSWs who completed a school-based field placement, who had professors with practice experience, who felt knowledgeable about diversity issues and felt culturally competent, felt better prepared ( Teasley et al. , 2010 , 2012 ; Phillippo et al. , 2017 ; Beddoe, 2019 ). During COVID-19 school shutdowns, some SSWs were overwhelmed by student/family difficulties, felt unprepared and unsupported to deliver online services, unbalanced home/work boundaries and felt remote SSW services as a modality was ineffective or unfair ( Capp et al. , 2021 ; Kelly et al. , 2021 ; Daftary, 2022 ).

There was evidence that SSWs perceived barriers resulted from insufficient professional development, training opportunities, support and guidance, which impacted SSW services ( Agresta, 2006 ; Teasley et al. , 2010 ; Lee, 2012 ; Peckover et al. , 2013 ; Avant, 2014 ; Peabody, 2014 ; Avant and Lindsey, 2016 ; Avant and Swerdlik, 2016 ; Phillippo et al. , 2017 ; Elswick and Cuellar, 2021 ; Kelly et al. , 2021 ). SSWs reported increased competence, knowledge and awareness when supported to attend or provided with training and professional development ( Teasley, 2005 ; Teasley et al. , 2008 , 2010 , 2012 ; Lee, 2012 ; Peckover et al. , 2013 ; Peabody, 2014 ).

SSWs repeatedly mentioned the scarcity of professional support and/or clinical or SW supervision as barriers to SSW practice ( Teasley et al. , 2010 ; Lee, 2012 ; Peckover et al. , 2013 ; Peabody, 2014 ; Quinn-Lee, 2014 ; Rueda et al. , 2014 ; Phillippo et al. , 2017 ; Webber, 2018 ; Sweifach, 2019 ; Capp et al. , 2021 ). SSWs reported consultation and support from SW supervisors and peers facilitated SSW practice; and SSWs also valued constructive consultation and relational support with non-SW administrators on non-counselling topics ( Chanmugam, 2009 ; Peabody, 2014 ; Phillippo et al. , 2017 ; Sweifach, 2019 ; Heberle et al. , 2021 ). Some SSWs noted that SSW association membership and SW licensure were facilitators to SSW practice ( Raines, 2006 ; Teasley et al. , 2012 ).

School climate and context

SSWs reported adapting their SW practice to be successful working within a ‘host setting’ that is guided by educational policy and processes ( Beddoe, 2019 ). Almost half ( n  = 19, 43%) of the included studies examined barriers and/or facilitators related to School climate and context. Of these, 38% reported barriers only ( n  = 16), <1% ( n  = 1) facilitators only and <1% ( n  = 2) both. Some SSWs reported a fundamental conflict at times between student and organizational needs of the school, prompting the question ‘Who is the client?’ ( Phillippo et al. , 2017 ; Webber, 2018 ). There was evidence that SSWs identified SW ethics and values as barriers pertaining to issues of confidentiality, privacy and best interest of the client; with school district policies (e.g. sexual health and religion) ( Sawyer et al. , 2006 ; Chanmugam, 2009 ; Quinn-Lee, 2014 ; Rueda et al. , 2014 ; Miller et al. , 2015 ; Phillippo et al. , 2017 ; Webber, 2018 ; Daftary, 2022 ; Goodcase et al. , 2022 ). SSWs reported barriers related to the school context and their location within the school landscape as a ‘guest’ in the ‘host setting’ and that school climate and internal dynamics shaped interprofessional relationships and collaboration and a schools’ response to issues (e.g. bullying) ( Testa, 2012 ; Sawyer et al. , 2006 ; Peabody, 2014 ; Miller et al. , 2015 ; Phillippo et al. , 2017 ; Beddoe, 2019 ; Goodcase et al. , 2022 ). Some SSWs reported limited ability to meet with students during the school day given prioritisation of academics over student wellbeing ( Blair, 2002 ; Peabody, 2014 ; Quinn-Lee, 2014 ). Some SSWs reported policy and bureaucracy barriers from district and administrative policies that were inflexible or inadequate in addressing the needs of vulnerable students ( Crepeau-Hobson et al. , 2005 ; Reid, 2006 ; Sawyer et al. , 2006 ; Teasley et al. , 2010 ; Lee, 2012 ; Oades, 2021 ). Some SSWs felt that having a system-wide united purpose and commitment, with rules and policies that supported SSW practice and addressed barriers to learning, facilitated SSW practice ( Teasley et al. , 2010 , 2012 ; Miller et al. , 2015 ).

Cultivating relationships and engagement

SSWs perceived that cultivating effective relationships, through consultation and collaboration with students, families, staff and the community was an essential facilitator for effective SSW practice ( Beddoe, 2019 ; Daftary, 2022 ). Thirty-three (79%) of the included studies identified barriers and/or facilitators to SSW practice regarding cultivating relationships and engagement. Of these, 38% ( n  = 16) listed barriers only, 14% ( n  = 6) facilitators only and 26% ( n  = 11) both. SSWs reported that power imbalances and dynamics with school administrators were barriers to SSW practice ( Chanmugam, 2009 ; Webber, 2018 ; Beddoe, 2019 ; Karikari et al. , 2020 ). SSWs perceived a lack of agency and marginalization and that the relational dynamics influence a schools’ culture and norms, which in turn impacts SSW referrals and collaboration ( Chanmugam, 2009 ; Testa, 2012 ; Miller et al. , 2015 ; Beddoe, 2019 ; Karikari et al. , 2020 ).

SSWs noted that interprofessional relationships, consultation and collaboration were barriers to SSW practice due to staff attitudes and expectations and disrespect for SSWs’ perspectives ( Blair, 2002 ; Teasley, 2005 ; Sawyer et al. , 2006 ; Mann, 2008 ; Teasley et al. , 2008 ; Lee, 2012 ; Testa, 2012 ; Whittlesey-Jerome, 2012 ; Avant, 2014 ; Quinn-Lee, 2014 ; Gherardi and Whittlesey-Jerome, 2019 ; Elswick and Cuellar, 2021 ; Goodcase et al. , 2022 ). Some SSWs experienced barriers resulting from inaccessible support or idiosyncratic relationships between multidisciplinary staff (e.g. school psychologists, school counsellors) ( Reid, 2006 ; Lee, 2012 ; Peckover et al. , 2013 ; Webber, 2018 ).

SSWs noted the importance of utilising relationship-based strategies in response to challenging relational and power dynamics, that strong and positive system-wide relationships with open-communication and consultation facilitated SSW practice ( Teasley, 2005 ; Mann, 2008 ; Chanmugam, 2009 ; Teasley et al. , 2010 ; Lee, 2012 ; Peckover et al. , 2013 ; Avant, 2014 ; Peabody, 2014 ; Rueda et al. , 2014 ; Miller et al. , 2015 ; Avant and Lindsey, 2016 ; Beddoe, 2019 ; Johnson and Barsky, 2020 ; Heberle et al. , 2021 ; Daftary, 2022 ).

Some SSWs were concerned with their ability to engage and cultivate relationships with students, families and the community. SSWs identified barriers associated with a lack of student and family engagement ( Teasley, 2005 ; Reid, 2006 ; Sawyer et al. , 2006 ; Teasley et al. , 2008 , 2010 , 2012 ; Lee, 2012 ; Quinn-Lee, 2014 ; Rueda et al. , 2014 ; Miller et al. , 2015 ; Johnson and Barsky, 2020 ; Capp et al. , 2021 ; Kelly et al. , 2021 ; Goodcase et al. , 2022 ). Some SSWs found barriers to community engagement due to the accessibility of community supports/services, community misperceptions of SSW role, strained school relationships and community and environmental risk factors ( Teasley, 2005 ; Reid, 2006 ; Sawyer et al. , 2006 ; Teasley et al. , 2010 , 2012 ; Lee, 2012 ; Peckover et al. , 2013 ; Rueda et al. , 2014 ; Goodcase et al. , 2022 ). There was evidence that SSWs perceived that positive formal and informal relationship building and collaboration and availability of community resources and referrals facilitated SSW practice ( Teasley, 2005 ; Mann, 2008 ; Teasley et al. , 2010 ; Quinn-Lee, 2014 ; Heberle et al. , 2021 ; Oades, 2021 ; Daftary, 2022 ).

By examining and synthesizing the barriers and the facilitators to SSW practice, this study demonstrates the challenges that SSWs experience and highlights the facilitators that support effective SSW practice. This review found that barriers to SSW practice were reported in greater detail than facilitators and a dearth regarding facilitators that were considered under the themes: Inadequacy of service delivery infrastructure, SSW role ambiguities and expectations, SSWs’ competency, knowledge and support and School climate and context. There was evidence that SSWs perceived that the barriers related to SSW role expectations and ambiguities, resulted in unrealistic workloads and significantly impacted SSWs’ ability to provide effective services. These findings support existing evidence that these barriers impact SSWs job satisfaction and intent to stay, and can result in burnout, compassion fatigue, vicarious trauma, absenteeism and attrition, which impacts SSW practice effectiveness and negatively impacts student and family outcomes in schools ( Agresta, 2006 ; Caselman and Brandt, 2017 ). However, it is important to note that only a few included studies specifically referenced burnout in their results, with little to no discussion of their implications. With so little research regarding the barriers and facilitators to SSW practice related to compassion fatigue and burnout, this scoping review has identified a potentially important area for future research.

This study demonstrates the importance for SSW practice of cultivating effective interprofessional relationships and collaboration amongst school staff, students, families and the community to improve student and school outcomes. SSWs perceived that the barriers to establishing strong interprofessional relationships were related to significant SSW staff turnover, insufficient funding and time, schedule conflicts, high caseloads and servicing multiple schools ( Bronstein et al. , 2011 ; Lee, 2012 ; Miller et al. , 2015 ; Drew and Gonzalez, 2021 ). These findings highlight the need to mitigate these barriers to ensure effective interprofessional relationships and collaboration and facilitate effective SSW practice to help students thrive.

An interesting finding is that SSWs in Daftary (2022) reported increased time, during COVID-19 school shutdowns, for planning and preventative work due to the absence of school crises and interruptions, which increased accessibility to students due to minimised interruptions and improved SSWs’ ability to better meet the needs of students and their families. However, there is little research identifying which facilitators support SSWs to overcome the barriers that prevent them from effective engagement, consultation and collaboration; and what facilitates their ability to respond to challenges, such as role conflicts, competing demands, unrealistic workloads and crisis-driven, reactive environments. Future research is warranted to explore whether the facilitators that were effective in supporting SSW practice during the COVID-19 school shutdowns have continued with the return to in-person learning, which may inform school leaders and SSW practitioners to develop practices that integrate these facilitators into ongoing SSW services and may provide important contextual information for SW educators to include in their preparation of new SSW graduates. It is also notable that the impact of natural disasters was not discussed in any of the included studies and provides an opportunity for future research contributions in this area.

This study highlighted the importance of school-context specific training, education and support as a facilitator to SSW practice, which can inform policy makers, school leaders and SW educators to better support SSWs so that they have the competencies and knowledge required to enhance student’s educational and wellbeing outcomes. Furthermore, the absence of any discussion in the included studies regarding the specialist SSW education programs available in the USA is interesting. Given the findings from this study highlight the importance of supervision and SW consultation in facilitating SSW practice, school leaders and SSWs must ensure that appropriate supervision and supports are available to ensure that SSWs are supported to effectively respond to the diverse needs of students and their families. However, given the paucity of information in the included articles regarding how SSWs navigate the barriers to accessing supervision and support, further understanding regarding the perspectives of how SSWs engaged creatively to overcome these barriers is warranted. Furthermore, little attention to the role of membership of an SSW specific association or SW licensure as facilitators to SSW practice indicates that further research into their role as a barrier and/or facilitator to SSW practice is warranted.

This review also highlighted the disconnect between the SW professional ethics/values and their experiences in practice within school settings. The lack of attention given to SSWs’ perspectives regarding their engagement with the SSW practice standards (where available) or SW Codes of Ethics to align their day-to-day practice, support their professional autonomy, decrease role discrepancy, resolve ethical dilemmas and support their interprofessional relationships, is an interesting finding in itself. This is important given that SSW practice standards and code of ethics provide a framework for effective SSW practice based on SW values and principals and are an important tool in legitimising the SSW profession ( Altshuler and Webb, 2009 ; AASW, 2011 ).

The scoping review as a methodology mapped the existing academic literature, and as a result, the quality of the evidence included was not assessed. Limiting the context to empirical evidence from USA, UK, Australia, Canada and Aotearoa New Zealand and excluding grey literature and non-English language articles, faces the risk of excluding a greater international perspective of SSWs. By including articles that aggregated responses from interprofessional staff, which prevented delineation of SSWs responses from other professionals, the findings may not purely reflect SSWs perspectives. However, the inclusion of these studies was preferred considering the risk of omitting important evidence arising from reducing the number of included articles to only those that solely focused on SSWs in the study sample. While this scoping review compared five countries that have similar structures of education, political institutions and colonial histories, this study does not take into consideration all contextual differences that exist within each country. It was also beyond the scope of this study to focus specifically on specialised SSW programming or on barriers and facilitators regarding SW practice with specialised populations. These limitations highlight important areas for further consideration.

This scoping review examined the existing academic SW literature regarding the barriers and facilitators to SSW practice. The five main themes are an extensive summary of the factors that inhibit or enable SSWs to provide effective services to meet the diverse needs to students, families and the school community. With so little evidence regarding the facilitators to SSW practice, specifically regarding how SSWs operationalise practice-based strategies and skills to overcome barriers to SSW practice, this scoping review has identified an important area for further research, particularly in countries where research is emerging. This article furthers the understanding of the barriers to effective SSW practice, which provides important contextual information to inform the development of policies and practices that social workers, school leaders, SW educators and policy makers can take into consideration to effectively facilitate SSW practice and enhance students’ wellbeing and ability to thrive in school.

This research was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship.

Conflict of interest statement. None declared.

Supplementary material is available at British Journal of Social Work Journal online.

Agresta J. ( 2006 ) ‘ Job satisfaction among school social workers: The role of interprofessional relationships and professional role discrepancy ’, Journal of Social Service Research , 33 ( 1 ), pp. 47 – 52 .

Google Scholar

Allen-Meares P. , Montgomery K. , Kim J. ( 2013 ) ‘ School-based social work interventions: A Cross-National Systematic Review ’, Social Work , 58 ( 3 ), pp. 253 – 62 .

Altshuler S. , Webb J. ( 2009 ) ‘ School social work: Increasing the legitimacy of the profession ’, Children & Schools , 31 ( 4 ), pp. 207 – 18 .

Arksey H. , O’Malley L. ( 2005 ) ‘ Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework ’, International Journal of Social Research Methodology , 8 ( 1 ), pp. 19 – 32 .

Australian Association of Social Workers ( 2011 ) Practice Standards for School Social Workers , available online at: www.aasw.asn.au/document/item/814 (accessed November 14, 2022).

Avant D. ( 2014 ) ‘ The role of school social workers in implementation of response to intervention ’, School Social Work Journal , 38 ( 2 ), pp. 11 – 31 .

Avant D. , Lindsey B. ( 2016 ) ‘ School social workers as response to intervention change champions ’, Advances in Social Work , 16 ( 2 ), pp. 276 – 91 .

Avant D. , Swerdlik M. ( 2016 ) ‘ A collaborative endeavor: The roles and functions of school social workers and school psychologists in implementing multi-tiered system of supports/response to intervention ’, School Social Work Journal , 41 , 56 – 72 .

Bates M. ( 2006 ) ‘ A critically reflective approach to evidence-based practice ’, Canadian Social Work Review , 23 ( 1/2 ), pp. 95 – 109 .

Beddoe L. ( 2019 ) ‘ Managing identity in a host setting: School social workers’ strategies for better interprofessional work in New Zealand schools ’, Qualitative Social Work , 18 ( 4 ), pp. 566 – 82 .

Blair K. ( 2002 ) ‘ School social work, the transmission of culture, and gender roles in schools ’, Children & Schools , 24 ( 1 ), pp. 21 – 33 .

Bronstein L. , Ball A. , Mellin E. , Wade-Mdivanian R. , Anderson-Butcher D. ( 2011 ) ‘ Advancing collaboration between school- and agency-employed school-based social workers: A mixed-methods comparison of competencies and preparedness ’, Children & Schools , 33 ( 2 ), pp. 83 – 95 .

Capp G. , Watson K. , Astor R. , Kelly M. , Benbenishty R. ( 2021 ) ‘ School social worker voice during COVID-19 school disruptions: A national qualitative analysis ’, Children & Schools , 43 ( 2 ), pp. 79 – 88 .

Caselman T. , Brandt M. ( 2017 ) ‘ School social workers’ intent to stay ’, School Social Work Journal , 31 ( 2 ), pp. 33 – 48 .

Chanmugam A. ( 2009 ) ‘ A qualitative study of school social workers’ clinical and professional relationships when reporting child maltreatment ’, Children & Schools , 31 ( 3 ), pp. 145 – 61 .

Clarivate Analytics ( 2018 ) Endnote reference management software , Version X9. https://endnote.com/ (accessed February 18, 2022).

Constable R. ( 2016 ) ‘Chapter 1. The Role of the School Social Worker’, in Massat C. R. , Kelly M. , Constable R. (eds), School Social Work: Practice, Policy and Research , 8th edn, Chicago, IL, US, Oxford University Press , pp. 3 – 24 .

Google Preview

Crepeau-Hobson M. F. , Filaccio M. , Gottfried L. ( 2005 ) ‘ Violence prevention after Columbine: A survey of high school mental health professionals ’, Children & Schools , 27 ( 3 ), pp. 157 – 65 .

Daftary A. H. ( 2022 ) ‘ Remotely successful: Telehealth interventions in K-12 schools during a global pandemic ’, Clinical Social Work Journal , 50 ( 1 ), pp. 93 – 101 .

Drew M. , Gonzalez M. ( 2021 ) ‘ Making the time: Relationships among the school specialists ’, The School Community Journal , 31 ( 1 ), pp. 171 – 204 .

Elswick S. E. , Cuellar M. J. ( 2021 ) ‘ School social workers perceptions of the use of functional behavior assessments ’, Research on Social Work Practice , 31 ( 5 ), pp. 503 – 12 .

Frey A. J. , Alvarez M. E. , Dupper D. R. , Sabatino C. A. , Lindsey B. C. , Raines J. C. ( 2013 ) National school social work practice model , available online at: https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/426a18_09cc4457882b4138bb70d3654a0b87bc.pdf (accessed February 9, 2023).

Garrett K. J. ( 2012 ) ‘ Managing school social work records ’, Children & Schools , 34 ( 4 ), pp. 239 – 48 .

Gherardi S. A. , Whittlesey-Jerome W. K. ( 2019 ) ‘ Exploring school social worker involvement in community school implementation ’, Children & Schools , 41 ( 2 ), pp. 69 – 78 .

Goodcase E. , Brewe A. , White S. , Jones S. ( 2022 ) ‘ Providers as stakeholders in addressing implementation barriers to youth mental healthcare ’, Community Mental Health Journal , 58 ( 5 ), pp. 967 – 81 .

Heberle A. , Sheanáin Ú. , Walsh M. , Hamilton A. , Chung A. , Eells Lutas V. ( 2021 ) ‘ Experiences of practitioners implementing comprehensive student support in high-poverty schools ’, Improving Schools , 24 ( 1 ), pp. 76 – 93 .

Hsieh H. , Shannon S. ( 2005 ) ‘ Three approaches to qualitative content analysis ’, Qualitative Health Research , 15 ( 9 ), pp. 1277 – 88 .

IGI Global ( 2023 ) Dictionary: What is Enablers and Barriers? Available online at: www.igi-global.com/dictionary/enablers-and-barriers/9793 (accessed March 17, 2023).

Johnson D. , Barsky A. ( 2020 ) ‘ Preventing gun violence in schools: Roles and perspectives of social workers ’, School Social Work Journal , 44 ( 2 ), pp. 26 – 48 .

Karikari I. , Brown J. , Ashirifi G. , Storms J. ( 2020 ) ‘ Bullying prevention in schools: The need for a multiple stakeholder approach ’, Advances in Social Work , 20 ( 1 ), pp. 61 – 81 .

Kelly M. , Benbenishty R. , Capp G. , Watson K. , Astor R. ( 2021 ) ‘ Practice in a pandemic: School social workers’ adaptations and experiences during the 2020 COVID-19 school disruptions ’, Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services , 102 ( 3 ), pp. 400 – 13 .

Lee J. ( 2012 ) ‘ School social work in Australia ’, Australian Social Work , 65 ( 4 ), pp. 552 – 70 .

Levac D. , Colquhoun H. , O’Brien K. K. ( 2010 ) ‘ Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology ’, Implementation Science , 5 ( 1 ), pp. 69 .

Lloyd C. , King R. , Chenoweth L. ( 2002 ) ‘ Social work, stress and burnout: A review ’, Journal of Mental Health , 11 ( 3 ), pp. 255 – 65 .

Mann K. ( 2008 ) ‘ How school social workers use consultation to aid clinical decision making ’, School Social Work Journal , 33 ( 1 ), pp. 65 – 79 .

Miller P. , Pavlakis A. , Samartino L. , Bourgeois A. ( 2015 ) ‘ Brokering educational opportunity for homeless students and their families ’, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education , 28 ( 6 ), pp. 730 – 49 .

Munn Z. , Peters M. , Stern C. , Tufanaru C. , McArthur A. , Aromataris E. ( 2018 ) ‘ Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach ’, BMC Medical Research Methodology , 18 ( 1 ), pp. 143 .

National Association of Social Workers ( 2012 ) NASW Standards for School Social Work Services’, Social Work , available online at: www.socialworkers.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=1Ze4-9-Os7E%3D&portalid=0 (accessed March 9, 2023).

Oades L. ( 2021 ) ‘ Mamae Nui me te Takiwātanga: Surplus suffering and autism spectrum disorder in school social work practice ’, Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work Review , 33 ( 1 ), pp. 55 – 66 .

Peabody M. ( 2014 ) ‘ Exploring dimensions of administrative support for play therapy in schools ’, International Journal of Play Therapy , 23 ( 3 ), pp. 161 – 72 .

Peckover C. , Vasquez M. , Van Housen S. , Saunders J. , Allen L. ( 2013 ) ‘ Preparing school social work for the future: An update of school social workers’ tasks in Iowa ’, Children & Schools , 35 ( 1 ), pp. 9 – 17 .

Peters M. , Godfrey C. , Khalil H. , McInerney P. , Parker D. , Soares C. ( 2015 ) ‘ Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews ’, International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare , 13 ( 3 ), pp. 141 – 6 .

Phillippo K. , Kelly M. , Shayman E. , Frey A. ( 2017 ) ‘ School social worker practice decisions: The impact of professional models, training, and school context ’, Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services , 98 ( 4 ), pp. 275 – 83 .

Quinn-Lee L. ( 2014 ) ‘ School social work with grieving children ’, Children & Schools , 36 ( 2 ), pp. 93 – 103 .

Raines J. ( 2006 ) ‘ SWOT! A strategic plan for school social work in the twenty-first century ’, School Social Work Journal , 31 ( 3 ), pp. 132 – 50 .

Reid K. ( 2006 ) ‘ The views of education social workers on the management of truancy and other forms of non-attendance ’, Research in Education , 75 ( 1 ), pp. 40 – 57 .

Rueda H. , Linton K. , Williams L. ( 2014 ) ‘ School social workers’ needs in supporting adolescents with disabilities toward dating and sexual health: A qualitative study ’, Children & Schools , 36 ( 2 ), pp. 79 – 90 .

Sawyer R. , Porter J. , Lehman T. , Anderson C. , Anderson K. ( 2006 ) ‘ Education and training needs of school staff relevant to preventing risk behaviors and promoting health behaviors among gay, lesbian, bisexual, and questioning youth ’, Journal of HIV/AIDS Prevention in Children & Youth , 7 ( 1 ), pp. 37 – 53 .

Slovak K. , Joseph A. L. , Broussard A. ( 2006 ) ‘ School social workers’ perceptions of graduate education preparation ’, Children & Schools , 28 ( 2 ), pp. 97 – 105 . https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/28.2.97

Smith-Millman M. , Harrison S. , Pierce L. , Flaspohler P. ( 2019 ) ‘ Ready, willing, and able”: Predictors of school mental health providers’ competency in working with LGBTQ youth ’, Journal of LGBT Youth , 16 ( 4 ), pp. 380 – 402 .

Sweifach J. ( 2019 ) ‘ A look behind the curtain at social work supervision in interprofessional practice settings: Critical themes and pressing practical challenges ’, European Journal of Social Work , 22 ( 1 ), pp. 59 – 68 .

Teasley M. ( 2005 ) ‘ Perceived levels of cultural competence through social work education and professional development for urban school social workers ’, Journal of Social Work Education , 41 ( 1 ), pp. 85 – 98 .

Teasley M. , Canifield J. P. , Archuleta A. J. , Crutchfield J. , Chavis A. M. ( 2012 ) ‘ Perceived barriers and facilitators to school social work practice: A mixed-methods study ’, Children & Schools , 34 ( 3 ), pp. 145 – 53 .

Teasley M. , Gourdine R. , Canfield J. ( 2010 ) ‘ Identifying perceived barriers and facilitators to culturally competent practice for school social workers ’, School Social Work Journal , 34 ( 2 ), pp. 90 – 104 .

Teasley M. , Randolph K. , Cho H. ( 2008 ) ‘ School social workers’ perceived understanding of inner city and urban community and neighborhood risk and protective factors and effectiveness in practice tasks ’, School Social Work Journal , 33 ( 1 ), pp. 47 – 64 .

Testa D. ( 2012 ) ‘ Cross-disciplinary collaboration and health promotion in schools ’, Australian Social Work , 65 ( 4 ), pp. 535 – 51 .

Tricco A. C. , Lillie E. , Zarin W. , O’Brien K. K. , Colquhoun H. , Levac D. , Moher D. , Peters M. D. J. , Horsley T. , Weeks L. , Hempel S. , Akl E. A. , Chang C. , McGowan J. , Stewart L. , Hartling L. , Aldcroft A. , Wilson M. G. , Garritty C. , Lewin S. , Godfrey C. M. , Macdonald M. T. , Langlois E. V. , Soares-Weiser K. , Moriarty J. , Clifford T. , Tunçalp Ö. , Straus S. E. ( 2018 ) ‘ PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. The PRISMA-ScR statement ’, Annals of Internal Medicine , 169 ( 7 ), pp. 467 – 73 .

Veritas Health Innovation ( 2022 ) Covidence systematic review software. Melbourne, Australia, available online at: www.covidence.org (accessed March 8, 2022).

Villarreal Sosa L. ( 2022 ) ‘ School social work: Challenges and opportunities ’, Children & Schools , 44 ( 2 ), pp. 67 – 9 .

Webber K. ( 2018 ) ‘ A qualitative study of school social workers’ roles and challenges in dropout prevention ’, Children & Schools , 40 ( 2 ), pp. 82 – 90 .

Whittlesey-Jerome W. ( 2012 ) ‘ Selling the need for school social work services to the legislature: A call for advocacy ’, School Social Work Journal , 36 ( 2 ), pp. 44 – 55 .

Supplementary data

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1468-263X
• Print ISSN 0045-3102
• Copyright © 2024 British Association of Social Workers
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

The library building will be open from 9:00am-3:00pm on Friday, March 29th. Our services will be available online 7:45am-4:30pm for your convenience.

• University of Wisconsin-Superior
• Jim Dan Hill Library
• Help Guides
• TRIO McNair Undergraduate Research Guide
• Limitations of the Study

TRIO McNair Undergraduate Research Guide: Limitations of the Study

• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Ethics of Research
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Expanding the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Academic Writing Style
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• The Abstract
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/The Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Mining
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tertiary Sources
• Scholarly v. Popular Sources
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Annotated Bibliography
• Preparing Your Poster
• Dealing with Nervousness
• Using Visual Aids
• Peer Review Process
• Informed Consent
• Writing Field Notes

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 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 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 must 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 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 types 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 way 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 is 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. An 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 limitations of your study. Inflating the importance of your study's findings in an attempt to 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: The Discussion
• Next: The Conclusion >>

• Open access
• Published: 27 September 2024

Doctors’ experience providing primary care for refugee women living with chronic pain: a qualitative study

• Areni Altun 1 ,
• Helen Brown 2 ,
• Elizabeth Sturgiss 3 &
• Grant Russell 3  

BMC Health Services Research volume  24 , Article number:  1117 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

The experiences of GPs in Australia highlight key considerations regarding workload demands, remuneration incentives and the practical implications of working in regions with high ethnic density. This exploration helps to understand the elements that influence GPs delivery of care, particular for refugee women who exhibit disproportionately higher rates of chronic pain. This qualitative study explored the experiences of GPs providing care for refugee women living with chronic pain.

Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 10 GPs (9 female and 1 male) practicing across metropolitan Melbourne, Australia. GPs were recruited via purposive sampling and a snowballing strategy. Participants work experience ranged from one to 32 years. Audio recordings of the interviews were transcribed verbatim and stored in qualitative data Nvivo 12 software for coding. Transcripts of interviews were analysed thematically using a phenomenological approach.

Three overarching themes were identified: (1) meeting the needs of refugee women living with chronic pain; (2) the role of the GP; and (3) the challenges of the health care system. These themes reflected the complexity of consultations which arose, in part, from factors such as trust, the competencies of clinician’s and the limitations posed by time, funding and interpreter use.

GPs acknowledged the uniqueness of refugee women’s chronic pain needs and whilst doctors welcomed care, many were often challenged by the complex nature of consultations. Those that worked in settings that aligned with refugee women’s needs highlighted the importance of cultivating culturally safe clinical environments and listening to their patients’ stories. However, system level challenges such as time, funding and resource constraints created significant challenges for GPs. Exploring GPs experiences allows for a better understanding of how vectors of disadvantage intersect in health care and highlights the need to better support doctors to improve health care provision for refugee women living with chronic pain.

Peer Review reports

Currently, there are more than 110 million people forcibly displaced worldwide due to persecution, conflict, violence and human rights violations [ 1 ], with Australia serving as a primary site for the resettlement of displaced individuals. The Australian Humanitarian Settlement Program adjusts the size and focus of the program annually to respond to evolving humanitarian situations and global resettlement needs. Between 2018 and 2022, the Humanitarian Settlement Program allocated 18,750 positions for displaced persons to resettle [ 2 , 3 ]. In 2024, this figure increased to 20,000 [ 2 , 3 ], indicating a return to pre-pandemic refugee population figures [ 4 ]. People from refugee backgrounds arriving to Australia face numerous challenges related to their mental and physical well-being, often exhibiting poorer health outcomes compared to the general population [ 5 , 6 , 7 ].

Refugee women, in particular, are at a heightened risk of experiencing chronic pain [ 8 ]. Disparities in health outcomes persist between people with and without a migration background due to a confluence of factors. These factors, originating from both migration-related experiences and non-immigration-related factors contribute to this health gap. Refugee women are particularly susceptible to encountering various mental and physical health risk factors, including exposure to violence, feelings of insecurity, and challenges related to gender-based abuse. Moreover, in comparison to non-minority compatriots, refugee women experience barriers to accessing healthcare in host countries as a result of language, limited understanding of the healthcare system, and insufficient cultural competence among healthcare providers [ 9 ].

Pain is a global health priority and its effective management frequently falls under the purview of general practice. Chronic pain, defined as pain that lasts longer than three months , or in many instances beyond its normal tissue healing time frame , presents as a major public health challenge for refugee populations and health care providers [ 10 ]. In multicultural societies such as Australia, General practitioners (GPs) are increasingly required to provide care to patients from various backgrounds, including those arriving on humanitarian grounds [ 11 , 12 ]. Women from refugee backgrounds face multiple stressors related to displacement, culture and language, and evidence highlights a number of challenges associated with navigating health care in host countries such as Australia [ 8 , 13 , 14 ]. Refugee women who present to primary care settings often have multiple distressing experiences, including trauma [ 15 ], and therefore mental, physical and social health needs are likely to be high and complex [ 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ].

In Australia, individuals holding a refugee visa are entitled to the same healthcare rights as Australian citizens. This parity doesn’t extend to asylum seekers. Nonetheless, at the state level, various programs exist to facilitate access to healthcare for asylum seekers. The main burden of addressing refugee and asylum seeker health needs falls to primary care providers. However, people from refugee backgrounds struggle to access care, and primary care services often struggle to provide appropriate care for complex presentations such as chronic pain [ 20 ]. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, GPs remain the most frequently consulted health professional with 82.3% of the population reported to visit a GP as of 2023 [ 21 ]. GPs are often the first point of contact for patients seeking medical care and are integral in the management and coordination of ongoing care for patients with chronic conditions such as pain. However, the local healthcare system of a country shapes the design and implementation of services, and funding within primary care will determine the services available for refugee populations. In Australia and Canada, primary care funding is predominantly based on a fee-for-service model, where GPs are compensated based on individual consultations [ 22 ]. In contrast, the United Kingdom (UK) follows a patient enrolment system, where GPs are remunerated through contractual agreements with the National Health Service [ 22 ].

Medicare, which is Australia’s nationally funded health care scheme, subsidises the costs of some medical and allied health services [ 23 , 24 ]. One way Medicare assists GPs is through Chronic Disease Management Plans (CDM) plans which in turn help patients with chronic medical conditions, such as pain, by providing an organised approach to care. A CDM offers a plan of action by the GP that identifies the patients’ health and care needs; sets out the services to be provided by the GP; and lists the actions to take to help manage patient’s chronic condition [ 25 ]. Evidence shows that CDM plans are appropriately targeting those most in need; however, there is limited uptake by GPs [ 26 ]. Moreover, the dose response observed for the effectiveness of subsidised referrals to allied health care suggest that five visits may not be adequate to facilitate improvement for some individuals [ 26 , 27 ]. Unlike Australia, the UK and Canada have no out-of-pocket costs for patients seeking allied health services [ 22 ].

GPs face many challenges in clinical practice and those working in densely populated areas are particularly at risk of burn-out. This vulnerability has been heightened considering their crucial role in mitigating the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic within the community [ 28 ]. A systematic review evaluating workload in 45 different countries shows that burn-out is common among GPs and importantly influenced by contextual differences within countries [ 29 ]. For instance, in primary care GPs are responsible for identifying at risk groups such as refugee women. However, distress and emotional demands often prevail among GPs particularly if healthcare providers find themselves unable to provide the desired patient care due to a lack of resources [ 30 ].

To date, there are limited studies exploring GPs perspectives on health care provision for refugee women living with chronic pain [ 31 ]. These studies highlight the need for coordinated efforts between providers, policymakers and community organisations due to the complexity of care required. Most studies also propose remuneration be provided to GP’s for the extra time and effort required to manage complex presentations such as chronic pain in refugee patients [ 32 , 33 ]. A range of strategies for consideration such as improving access to interpreter services, increasing the capacity of the local healthcare workforce, and provide targeted education and support to improve refugees’ health literacy [ 34 , 35 , 36 ] were also cited, highlighting the need to explore strategies to improve support systems for GPs in primary care.

Despite the call for enhancing primary care practices, there is a paucity of research that qualitatively explores the perspectives of GPs when managing chronic pain in refugee populations. For this reason, our qualitative study employed a phenomenological approach to explore the lived experiences of GPs providing care for refugee women. Phenomenology is a form of qualitative research that analyses an individual’s lived experience within the world [ 37 ]. Adopting a phenomenological approach allows for an in-depth understanding of GPs experiences when providing chronic pain care in refugee-specific contexts. This will help distinguish the enablers and barriers of care within the Australian health care system and contributes to the development of patient-centered approaches that are tailored to the needs of refugee women experiencing chronic pain.

Aim/objective

To explore the experiences of Australian General Practitioners (GPs) managing chronic pain in refugee women.

Study design

A qualitative methodology using a phenomenological approach was taken to explore GP’s lived experiences managing chronic pain in refugee women [ 38 , 39 ]. In parallel to GP interviews, qualitative interviews were also conducted with community members from refugee backgrounds who were living with or had lived with chronic pain, to understand their experiences navigating health care in Melbourne, Australia. The findings from this study have been published previously [ 8 ].

The reporting of this qualitative study follows the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research [ 40 ] and was approved by the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee in February 2022.

Study participants

Purposive sampling with a snowballing strategy was initially undertaken to recruit GPs who provided primary care services to women from refugee backgrounds living with chronic pain. Eligible participants were accredited with AHPRA and with the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, who were practicing in Melbourne, Victoria and were required to be conversant in English.

The project was promoted through flyers and information statements emailed to a range of GPs across Melbourne through partner organisations, including emails to clinic practices, newsletters and promotion through each region’s Primary Health Networks website. GPs were invited via email to participate if they had a consultation with at least one patient from a refugee or asylum seeker background. In addition, we invited GPs working specifically in refugee and asylum seeker health to participate. Where appropriate, professional networks of the research team were also contacted for possible recruitment.

Participant recruitment

Once contact was made with the lead researcher in the research team (AA), the flyer, consent form and plain language statement was sent to the potential participant. Online correspondence allowed for an opportunity to further explain the project and ask questions regarding the information statement. Upon agreement, the interview time and date were decided, and a signed consent form was returned before the interview commenced. Participants were reminded that participation was voluntary and offered $100 honoraria in recognition of the time for study participation.

Data collection

The study sought to explore experiences of GPs through semi-structured, in-depth interviews (AA). The individual interviews were based on a flexible topic guide (Supplementary file) which was developed by the research team. Question sequencing was flexible, allowing participant responses to guide the course of the interview, while keeping the overall style conversational and situational [ 41 ]. The development of the interview guide was based on the research question and guided by our previous research relating to the importance of cultural understanding, trust and compassionate care among refugee women [ 8 ]. We oriented the guide to reflect key components of phenomenology and experts in the field such as academics and experienced GPs were consulted in the design. Their insights and knowledge, as well as drawing on the existing work of Harding and colleagues 2017 were instrumental in the formulation of question topics [ 42 ]. The interview guide was revised throughout data collection, and informed by iterative data analysis [ 43 ]. Interviews concluded once a full and complete understanding of the research topic was achieved and data saturation had been met [ 44 ]. Field notes were also used to contextualise the interviews and brought into focus deeper meaning and understanding of the cultural and social context. All transcripts were de-identified before data analysis.

Data were collected between June and November 2022. Interviews were conducted online mostly via Zoom videoconferencing ( n  = 9) or via the telephone ( n  = 1) and lasted between 45 and 90 min.

Data management

Interviews were audiotaped and detailed field notes were taken. This served as a record of observations, reflections and insights made while conducting interviews to support the interpretation and meaning behind participants responses upon analysis. On completion of interviews, de-identified audio recordings were transcribed verbatim in English, and transferred into a word document. Transcripts were imported into qualitative analysis software NVivo version 12 to help organise the data [ 45 ].

Data analysis

The research team consisted of AA (PhD student with clinical experience in Osteopathy) and three senior qualitative researchers (HB, GR and ES), two of whom are academic family physicians/general practitioners (GPs) (GR and ES). It was important to include GPs in the research team as it offered contextual insights into the health-related topics discussed by participants.

Phenomenology provides the philosophical and theoretical foundation for exploring lived experience, while thematic analysis offers a structured approach to interpret the patterns and meanings of GPs lived experiences [ 46 ]. This integrated approach explores qualitative data in a meaningful way and contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon – in this context, physicians’ experiences. The interview data were analysed using the inductive thematic analysis method, with data managed in word and Nvivo [ 47 ].

The team met regularly to discuss analyses, and potential categories and sub-category codes. Data was analysed in an iterative manner, using inductive coding early in the analysis process. Codes evolved as the analysis progressed with reflexive interpretations of the data that reflected emerging patterns and themes [ 48 ]. Themes based on the pattern of shared meaning were developed, united by a central concept. The themes underwent several revisions by the research team to ensure a correct representation of the concept was being conveyed. Ambiguities were resolved and themes were developed from categories through discussion among the research group members and re-reading of transcripts.

Reflexivity

Intersecting relationships between participants and researchers play a role in the collection and analysis of qualitative data [ 49 ]. Reflexivity refers to the process by which researchers critically examine their own biases and influences to ensure rigour is established in qualitative research [ 43 ].

All researchers in this study have prior professional experience working with refugee and/or migrant health issues, therefore, to avoid the influence of any pre-conceived assumptions, subjectivities and/or potential prejudices; self-reflexivity was a particularly important component throughout the research process. Reflexivity during data collection and analysis was acknowledged through reflexive journaling, positionality of the primary researcher (AA), and triangulation for the ongoing and critical examination of the researcher’s influence on the research process. Reflexivity was also achieved more broadly through the regular research team meetings where possible influences and potential biases were discussed. It was also valuable to have the primary researcher (AA) who is a woman and born to migrant parents (born in Lebanon and Turkey), to be involved in data collection and analysis. Experience as a registered Osteopath in clinical practice facilitated a sense of understanding between the primary researcher (AA) and the participants (GPs). This helped to build rapport and created an environment of openness to discuss the intimate details surrounding the many topics of trauma, mental health and their experience of health care provision for chronic pain in populations who are systematically marginalised.

We interviewed 9 female GPs and 1 male GP. Participants’ time working in general practice ranged from one to 32 years. Clinical context varied: Four worked exclusively in refugee health and the remaining six GPs worked in mainstream general practice or community health clinics across Melbourne. Those who worked exclusively in refugee health had spent a number of years practicing in mainstream or community health clinics before specialising in refugee health. In addition to English, four GPs spoke the languages of some refugee patients. These languages included Nepali, Spanish, French, Cantonese, Mandarin and Hindi (Table  1 ).

We identified three overarching themes from the interview data with GPs. These themes and subthemes are summarised in Table  2 . The three overarching themes reflected were: (1) meeting the needs of refugee women with chronic pain; (2) the role of the GP and (3) the challenges of the healthcare system.

Theme 1: meeting the needs of refugee women living with chronic pain

Complex presentations.

The multifaceted nature of chronic pain, combined with the cultural and linguistic barriers often presented with refugee patients, made consultations more complex. GPs spoke of individual expressions of complex illness in refugee women patients presenting with chronic pain and those working in mainstream general practice found this to be particularly challenging to manage:

“She had just so many complex comorbidities and it was quite overwhelming because of all of these medical problems , a lot of her comorbidities were interlinked , and centered around chronic pain… I always find those consultations really difficult and really complex to navigate… " P2 female GP , mainstream practice .

GPs also described how patients’ pre- and post-settlement situations also contributed to their pain presentation. Many refugee women often had a history of inadequate or limited access to health care services upon arrival to Australia, adding to the layers of clinical complexity expressed by GPs:

“It’s really complex , chronic pain , because women have often had very poor health care , very little health care , or truncated or fragmented health care when they arrive , and many of the things that present with chronic pain actually have other factors that are unique to refugee women” P6 female GP , refugee-specific practice .

Part of the clinical complexity was related to traumatic experiences, which was a frequent and complicating factor in the management of chronic pain. One GP sharing the impact upheaval and uncertainty placed on refugee women’s chronic pain experience:

“Chronic pain in women is really common , particularly in the people who have been living in uncertainty , often for very long periods , most have been in detention. So the history of trauma in home country and then traumas on the boat trip , and in detention and so all that uncertainty often shows up with chronic pain… a lot of the people that we see , it’s really clear that the pain is related to trauma” P3 female GP , refugee-specific practice .

Moreover, language barriers in patients who often presented with pain as a consequence of trauma made clinical care even more challenging as one GP explained:

“[They are] actually being expected to talk about traumative experiences and these complex complaints of pain and other stuff that your concerned about and in a language that is your second , third , fourth or fifth language” P3 female GP , refugee-specific practice .

Building trust

Establishing rapport and trust with refugee women patients was important for GPs as it formed the foundation for a therapeutic relationship that was grounded in empathy and understanding. GPs placed considerable value on the doctor-patient relationship and believed it significantly impacted the patient’s ability to communicate concerns and consequently the quality of medical care provided:

“The first is to establish a good therapeutic relationship , and that takes time , that takes a lot more time than actually doing the medical stuff… it may take a few consultations to really understand the patient , their life , how their condition impacts on their life , and I think if you are able to do that well , the patient will engage with you , and come back and trust you” P2 female GP , mainstream practice .

However, building trust was challenging as GPs observed that the narratives of many patients revealed a history in which figures of authority had perpetrated harm, leading to many patients exhibiting a sense of distrust:

“I mean there’s a large cultural component , so often people who come from countries where people in positions of authority have done bad things to them , there’s that distrust” P3 female GP , refugee-specific practice .

Trust played an equally important role in enabling GPs to appropriately manage chronic pain. Chronic pain management often involves multiple factors and requires ongoing care between patients and often several health care providers. Trust helped GPs tailor their care, educate refugee women patients about their condition and led to a more comprehensive chronic pain management plan:

“You have to rebuild the trust again… once they’ve had a bad experience , don’t feel like they’ve been heard or if their pain continues , and explain to them that it’s an involved cause , it’s not purely a physical cause , I think that sometimes it’s difficult for them to understand that we can’t just give a tablet and make the pain go away” P7 female GP , refugee-specific practice .

Contrastingly, some GPs also spoke of situations where patients showed unwavering trust towards doctors’ medical decisions. Whilst this perception was not necessarily preferred, it was in contrast to mainstream Australia where the doctor-patient dynamic often resembles a consumer-provider relationship.

“They tend to have a very paternalistic view of medicine , that the doctor’s always right , the doctor knows best. In mainstream Australia it’s a very horizontal relationship , it’s like a consumer , you go with an ailment , you get the treatment you want and if you don’t you just move onto another doctor seeking the same treatment.” P10 , female GP , mainstream practice .

Listening to people’s story

GPs acknowledged that building rapport and establishing trust was important. Active listening was an important strategy to achieving a therapeutic relationship and many participants highlighted that their approach to caring for their patients who presented with complex clinical needs such as chronic pain was grounded in the art of listening:

“I’m really focused on hearing people’s stories , it’s so easy to make assumptions for what’s happening for a person based on physical symptoms , but I try and carve out time during an initial consultation to say , ‘tell me about what life is like for you , what was life like for you before you came here?’. To hear people’s stories , I think that’s incredibly powerful. One , because people feel heard , and two because you understand the context of what has been going on for that person.” P9 female GP , community practice .

Many refugee women patients had a complex history of trauma or protracted unrest, for this reason GPs highlighted that it was especially important to listen to refugee women’s stories relating to pain, as both trauma and pain were often interlinked.

“You’re there to listen to their story and understand what might be just back pain for one patient… could be completely debilitating for the other patient because it has to do with pain perception… affected by life experience… you need to give them time to tell their story and understand their story you know even if it’s completely or [seemingly] unrelated.” P10 female GP , mainstream practice .

Creating culturally safe environments

As a result of the complexities arising in GPs consultations with refugee women exhibiting chronic pain, almost all GPs working specifically in refugee health emphasised the importance of establishing culturally welcoming environments:

“[I] recognise that there are things that I may not know or understand about their language or their culture and try to be open to learn from them too… I do try and build rapport also try and let them know that this is their space and that what we talk about stays in that space and it’s private” P8 female GP , refugee-specific practice .

Some GPs also spoke of the importance of paying attention to non-verbal communication through noticing and attending to body language. Attending to non-verbal cues helped doctors connect with their patients and helped inform culturally appropriate ways to educate patients. Non-verbal cues such as body language were also employed by doctors themselves to enhance their care delivery:

“Consultations [are] a bit more challenging because often I will have to use more body language to convey my care and develop rapport… sometimes I have to be very slow in my speech , use pamphlets and take extra time , so longer appointment times , and see them a few times before I fully comprehend what their problem is” P5 female GP , mainstream practice .

In some instances, cultural concordance helped doctors establish a stronger connection with their patients. It enabled doctors to align their cultural knowledge, beliefs, and practices with those of their patients. According to one GP, sharing a cultural background helped them to understand the socio-cultural influences that can impact patients:

“Because I’m also of a CALD [culturally and linguistically diverse] background , I can feel like I can relate to them in a sense whereby , potentially sociocultural things trump or predominate their life over things like their job , or going to the doctor " P2 female GP , mainstream practice .

Nevertheless, doctors who shared a cultural background with their patients’ also described difficulties when it came to maintaining professional boundaries:

“When I am seeing for example patients [from the same culture] , I find it really difficult to maintain… boundaries… being their GP versus being a person of the community is really difficult” P2 female GP , mainstream practice .

Theme 2: the role of the GP

Capabilities of clinicians.

Many GPs felt unprepared when it came to the unique challenges specifically regarding refugee women who exhibited chronic pain. GPs spoke of needing more refugee specific education in both undergraduate general practice training and government-level policies that prioritise and support educational initiatives:

“There isn’t a lot of content in this area , it wasn’t in GP training there was nothing specific about caring for refugee people , or how to deliver the care for these women” P5 female GP , mainstream practice .

Some GPs also highlighted that their skills working in refugee health was aided by being a member of the migrant community themselves. This helped to contextualize concepts of cultural safety and competency learned during their GP training:

“It’s based a lot on personal experience and being a part of a migrant community… honing in on the skills we were taught in our training that relates to approaching culturally diverse people… even our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health training has been useful to contextualize what cultural safety and sensitivity and competency looks like , and you can apply that to any one [or] culture” P2 female GP , mainstream practice .

Moreover, many working in both mainstream and refugee specific health centres spoke of informal learning channels such as colleagues and experiential observations to supplement their understanding and expertise around care provision for refugee women presenting with chronic pain:

“[From] experience and a lot of informal education from mentors and colleagues , a lot of looking stuff up as I went along , looking for appropriate guidelines or reading… I honestly felt incredibly unsupported when I started doing this work and had to kind of find people and resources to educate myself around it” P9 female GP , community practice .

Contrastingly, irrespective of the setting in which they practiced (i.e., specific refugee health, mainstream general practice or community health) all GPs felt competent managing the clinical condition of chronic pain. One GP provided a routine example of how multidisciplinary care would be enacted when chronic pain was presented in practice:

“What I’ve done for most people as a baseline foundation is coordinate their care between a multidisciplinary environment , that’s the only way you can really manage chronic pain well… it’s really about referring yes to allied health , and then linking them in with a pain specialist , mainly for de-prescribing… then I refer them onto a psychologist to manage the comorbid mood disorder , so that’s where I start generally , and then the flow on effects of that depend on the individual circumstance , so depending on how that effects their life then I’ll think about what else they need.” P2 female GP , mainstream practice .

Beyond a profession

GPs working in refugee health shared accounts of cautiously and selectively bending professional boundaries for patients who had experiences of pre-migration trauma. One doctor giving the example where they gave personal contact information to a patient who faced isolation, loneliness and needed additional support.

“ For this [one] woman , because it was Christmas and everything was closed , I gave her my mobile number and email address , and I don’t do that all the time , because I’m very conscious of boundaries but there are some people and when they are so isolated , and alone and just need to be able to contact you , then I do actually bend the rules… with some patients , particularly with people who have been through really traumatic experiences and need to feel safe” P3 female GP , refugee-specific practice .

Another GP described an unconventional approach of learning words in their patient’s native language, to foster a sense of connection and comfort:

“I’ll say my one word of Arabic ‘Insha’Allah’ and they will laugh hysterically , so showing some interest or knowledge of culture and how that might impact on their medical health decision making and trying to learn a few words of the language” P6 female GP , refugee-specific practice .

Despite ethical challenges, some GPs extended beyond the boundaries of professionalism to ensure patients received appropriate care. One example of this commitment is the reality of working beyond standard billing hours to attend to the needs of refugee patients.

“I think I spent about two hours with the health and bicultural worker , to get him seen in hospital , talking to various doctors to work out the best way to get him into hospital and get him seen quickly…and for that two hours for both mine and the bicultural workers time we got paid 39$” P9 female GP , refugee-specific practice .

In order to deliver appropriate care and maintain professional boundaries, many GPs who served patients from disadvantaged backgrounds either worked pro-bono or in community health clinics where they were inadequately compensated for their time. Although this was common in refugee health care, GPs were also aware that this system was not representative of the care delivery possible by all GPs across Australia:

“The way that we work is certainly not representative of what’s possible for every other GP in Australia , I mean the cost is we don’t get paid… we do it voluntarily , but the benefit is that you do actually get to deliver really good quality care , so there is a really huge gap there” P3 female GP , refugee-specific practice .

Willingness to provide care

There was a shared sense of purpose reflected among GPs who worked specifically in refugee health that extended beyond professional responsibility:

“[it] is worthy work… I feel like at the end of the day I need to be proud of myself , that I have made a difference , even if it’s a small difference , even if it’s something like relating to the patients pain , it’s not just by prescribing medicine , it’s by understanding their story , showing that you genuinely care , and just making a small difference to that patients life.” P10 female GP , mainstream practice .

However, the multifaceted nature of chronic pain management when combined with the contextual challenges of refugee women patients, impacted some GPs willingness to provide care.

“From my experience , people from culturally diverse backgrounds , especially women , do present a bit later , and they don’t have the full understanding of the value of medicine and the acuity and complexity of it” P5 female GP , mainstream practice .

Those working in refugee specific practices highlighted how complex chronic pain was better managed with clinical supports such as refugee health nurses:

“I can speak to one of our refugee health nurses and say ‘can you find a physio for this patient can you organise this x-ray , can you ring them in a week’s time , and see how they’re going with their medications , can they come back in , or can you follow them up and can you make an appointment for them to see me in a month’s time’ and then you feel like your encasing that person in a bit more support” P7 female GP , refugee-specific practice .

Given the many clinical challenges presented, some doctors described the ‘heart-sink’ phenomena in reference to refugee women presenting with chronic pain. This term has been used in medical discourse to describe how doctors can have a feeling of helplessness in the face of complex patients where resolution or healing is unlikely [ 50 ]:

“It’s clear that certain GPs won’t see certain conditions… certain people are more adept to treat certain conditions than others , so doctors who have a heart-sink patient , an abysmal expression , that patient that when you see them , your heart sinks because it’s going to be such a challenging consultation , it’s an appalling concept but it’s well entrenched in doctors psyches. I think that where the patient is seen as ‘heart-sink’ than the doctors approach needs to change because it’s not correct… " P4 male GP , community practice .

As a result, some GPs expressed burnout as a consequence of the frustration arising from the challenges arising in clinical practice:

“Being a GP is actually really tough work and a lot of people get burnt out as a consequence , cause we’re expected to know a little thing about a lot of stuff , [many] might only have a few patients in their clinic who are of refugee background so people don’t delve deeper because they’re so busy and overwhelmed with their workload…” P3 female GP , refugee-specific practice .

Theme 3: challenges of the health care system

Lack of time.

Many GPs believed that their willingness to provide care was centered around having sufficient time to provide comprehensive care to refugee women experiencing chronic pain.

“I think for GPs it can be challenging to make the time for patient education , make the time for calling an interpreter… practising good medicine takes time. Unfortunately , experienced GPs are so time poor and they have so many complex patients , they would be running two hours behind and everyone would be unhappy” P10 female GP , mainstream practice .

Almost all GPs believed that time was a clear barrier to effective chronic pain management in refugee populations. GPs spoke of needing more time particularly because chronic pain in women from refugee backgrounds also presented with a complex history of trauma and overlapping health issues:

“What would help me provide care for these women , I would say is definitely time , I would prefer to have more time to speak , so time is a big factor” P5 female GP , mainstream practice .

Time was also a complicating factor in the management and coordination of chronic pain. Many GPs highlighted concerns around the long wait times and restrictions placed on pain clinics which further challenged clinical care:

“Pain clinics are getting more restrictive and harder to access , and more… sort of yes restrictive in what they will accept and also longer waiting lists” P4 male GP , community practice .

Clinical limitations with medicare funding

Most doctors working in refugee health, or in community health settings felt that the lack of funding in mainstream GP clinics restricted scope of care. GPs spoke of challenges with the current health care system as it incentivised quick care which was often in contrast to the care required to manage chronic pain in refugee women:

“Medicare funding has been really stagnant for a very long time , it funds quick care…a six minute medical consult is inadequate for most things , but for someone who can’t advocate for themselves , can’t spit out a medical history really quickly , tell the doctor what they’re needing and wanting and worried about , which is almost all of my patients… it takes time and it takes tact and it takes kind of cultural contextualization. That system doesn’t work for patients who are refugees , who are women trying to seek care for complex conditions " P9 female GP , community practice .

Similarly, GPs spoke of general practice moving towards “churn and burn” medicine which does not supports doctors’ needs. This speaks to a growing trend seen in general practice where GPs are required to see a high volume of patients within limited timeframes, and without sufficient resources:

“The [clinical] systems weren’t supportive of GPs doing the work , there was this pressure from management to see more and more patients , which is that kind of churn and burn type medicine , it’s really antithetical to looking after someone who has complex medical and health needs but also might have complex communication needs” P9 female GP , community practice .

Medicare also offers CDM plans to support GPs coordination of chronic diseases such as pain. CDM plans assists GPs management of chronic pain by providing patients with five annual visits to an allied health professional at a subsidised cost. However, despite the perceived benefits, GPs stance on CDM plans were mixed. Many felt that funding was inadequate, with little actual benefit for the patient:

“I mean their role is to get five , rather badly subsidised sessions of allied health [only $55 dollars per session of allied health reimbursed]… for too many [patients] , it doesn’t make them affordable at all ” P4 male GP , community practice .

In contrast, some GPs explained that the benefits of CDM when used to extend appointment times allowed consultations to be better funded. However, this was in part dependent on whether GPs were well supported by administrative staff that could facilitate the processes of CDM plans, as one doctor explained:

“Medicare doesn’t delineate for where people are from or what their background is , …[incorporating] a chronic disease management plan as a part of the process means then some of the following consultations are more well-funded… but those take time in themselves to do , but it’s a matter of having those systems in place at your clinic…” P1 female GP , mainstream practice .

As a result, many GPs described not feel adequately supported by the health care system when managing refugee patients presenting with complex health issues such as chronic pain:

“That system doesn’t work for patients who are refugees , who are women trying to seek care for complex conditions” P9 female GP , community practice .

Navigating the use of interpreters in general practice

Navigating interpreter use in general practice varied. Whilst all GPs described professional interpreter use as an integral component to culturally appropriate care, experiences with the actual use of interpreters in the real world of general practice were varied. Some GPs described the use of interpreters as a simple and straightforward:

“I don’t think it’s difficult to provide care for someone from culturally diverse communities , I mean we’re doctors that’s our job , and finding interpreters are not difficult , 13 14 50 , call up and you get an interpreter , it’s super easy” P10 female GP , mainstream practice .

However, many other GPs working in mainstream GP clinics described the process as burdensome as one GP shared:

“It’s challenging , it takes so long , way more that 2 minutes and often you have to set it up in advance… if you have good reception staff or good administrative staff it will happen very efficiently. You spend the majority of your consult trying to get a hold of the interpreter , then you have them on speaker and you’re also doing an examination , and then explaining the diagnosis and everything… it’s really difficult” P2 female GP , mainstream practice .

The adoption of interpreter by GPs was heavily dependent on the presence of well-established clinical support systems. An example provided by a GP illustrated that interpreter use when coordinated by administrative staff, could alleviate many clinical challenges that present with refugee women who exhibit chronic pain:

“ If for example reception , the administrative side of the clinic , if they’re more willing to support me , like with the interpreting service to help with these women that would encourage me more to see them” P5 female GP , mainstream practice .

Doctors less commonly relied on family for interpreting. Whilst all GPs highlighted the harms that may result from having family and friends interpret on behalf of their patients, others felt that in certain situations and with the time-constraints often imposed on GPs, family members were better than no interpreting service at all:

“[Family] are less difficult to navigate than the interpreting service to be honest but I’m not sure that the accuracy is on par… it’s really hard… [you have to] weigh up the risk and the benefit of not being examined and if we delay this and it affects their health , so it’s really that risk-benefit kind of conversation” P2 female GP , mainstream practice .

Our phenomenological study explored GPs lived experience providing care for refugee women living with chronic pain. Whilst GPs welcomed care, they were challenged by the complex needs of refugee women, the role of the GP profession and the hurdles associated with the Australian healthcare system. The experiences of GPs suggest that there are numerous difficulties that arise when providing care for refugee women patients presenting with chronic pain relating to culture, language, inadequate administrative resources and additional system level hurdles such as time and funding. As research suggests, it became evident that establishing trust and finding meaning in their work held significant importance for doctors [ 51 ]. Notwithstanding the challenges of chronic pain management, GPs found it difficult to abstract chronic pain from the unique characteristics of refugee women and the numerous complexities that accompany a fragmented life. Many women from refugee backgrounds arrive in host countries such as Australia following periods of considerable unrest, disruption and emotional turmoil. Thus, GPs found it difficult to address chronic pain in refugee women patients without firstly taking into account the broader contextual challenges associated with resettlement and displacement [ 8 ]. These complexities faced by GPs highlight an urgent need for improved clinical supports and a more comprehensive approach to health care provision for women of refugee background seeking care for chronic pain.

Central to providing compassionate, ongoing and equitable care to refugee women is the concept of cultural safety to ensure refugee women patients are able to meaningfully engage in medical dialogue. Patel’s study on appropriate care delivery for refugee and asylum seekers in Australian primary care highlights the importance of drawing on available resources [ 52 ]. Resources such as shared language and establishing continuity through follow up appointments help to build trust over time [ 53 ]. Petrocchi and colleagues (2019) also suggest that medical trust is positively associated with adherence to treatment, continuity of care and ultimately better patient outcomes [ 20 , 54 , 55 ]. However, building a therapeutic relationship that was grounded in trust required time, and the scarcity of time in general practice was frequently cited as a major obstacle to effective clinical care [ 56 ].

Tsiga and colleagues (2013) study on workplace stress demonstrate how time can influence GPs’ capacity to adhere to clinical care standards such as following medical guidelines, comprehensive history assessments, and patient education [ 57 ]. Furthermore, other organisational factors that shape routine primary care can impact health outcomes for patients and doctors alike. Cultural factors associated with refugee patients such as limited health literacy, language discordance and the need to explain system-related information led to increased consultation times and financial losses for GPs and their practices. However, there are several clinical support systems that help to alleviate time pressure exhibited in primary care. In line with our findings, Davison and colleagues (2023) suggest that clinical supports such as refugee health nurses who assist with intake procedures, coordinating chronic disease management plans, mental health care plans and interpreter use, allow doctors more time to attend to their patients’ more complex health needs [ 58 ]. This may also help mitigate economic challenges associated with managing complex conditions in underserved communities and incentivise other GP clinics to accept more patients from refugee backgrounds.

Trauma and resulting psychological conditions such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) was a frequent and complicating factor in the management of chronic pain [ 59 ]. In line with our findings, both Miro and colleagues (2008) and Shaw and colleagues (2010) posit that PTSD may potentially contribute to a heightened pain perception and pose as a risk factor for the onset of chronic pain [ 60 , 61 ]. To effectively address the complex presentations and meet the unique needs of refugee women exhibiting chronic pain, it was essential for GPs to engender trust and listen to their patients’ stories. Whilst many GPs did not report implementing trauma informed care, many of the practices and values being applied by participants in their efforts to deliver appropriate care to refugee women patients were consistent with the principles of trauma informed care. Trauma informed care acknowledges the need to understand a patient’s life experiences and how the experience of trauma impacts someone and how they engage with health care services [ 62 ]. The values of trauma informed care, as suggested by Bowen and Colleagues (2016), include; safety, trustworthiness, transparency, collaboration and peer support, empowerment and choice [ 63 ]. Brook’s study of trauma informed care in general practice within a women’s health center suggest that recognising the impact of trauma in consultations offers long-term and safe relationships among patients and doctors [ 64 ]. Furthermore, it highlights a holistic model of care to manage the health consequences of adversity and trauma [ 64 ]. Doctors’ ability to embrace a person-centered approach that recognises the significance of trauma informed care within clinical practice has enormous potential for improving refugee women’s chronic pain outcomes in general practice.

Although the importance of medical interpreters was acknowledged by all GPs, those working in mainstream practices recounted numerous challenges when integrating phone-based interpreting services during routine care with refugee women patients. According to The Royal Australian College of General Practice guidelines, qualified medical interpreters should be the interpretation medium of choice and the College advises caution when using family or friends to interpret [ 65 ]. In line with our findings, White and colleagues (2018) highlight that language discordant clinical encounters can seriously compromise patients’ quality of care and health outcomes, particularly when managing complex medical conditions such as chronic pain [ 11 , 66 ]. Contrastingly, an Australian study exploring the experiences of refugee women seeking care for chronic pain showed that a number of participants expressed a greater sense of comfort when relying on family members rather that professional interpreters for language interpretation [ 8 ]. Similarly, national GP data shows that one in five GPs continue to used family or friends to interpret during consultations in a language other than English [ 67 ]. Reasons underlying GPs preferences for informal interpreter use over professional healthcare interpreters vary; however, potential reasons include the availability of healthcare interpreters, the necessity of scheduling in advance and time constraints faced by doctors [ 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 ]. Other contributing factors include patient’s privacy concerns, familiarity with family members, confidence derived from one owns language proficiency, challenges accurately assessing the need for an interpreter and a lack of familiarity with the interpreter service or booking system [ 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 ]. Notwithstanding these limitations, many GPs in our study underscored the importance of a neutral information bridge between doctors and patients particularly when managing chronic pain.

According to the inverse care law, the availability of high-quality medical care is inversely related with demand for it within a given population [ 75 , 76 ]. The reasons behind this disparity in quality healthcare received by individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds, comparted to their wealthier and healthier compatriots is complex; however, supply-side factors contribute to this phenomenon [ 77 , 78 ]. Supply side influences such as resource allocation, healthcare infrastructure, workforce distribution and funding mechanisms tend to favour more affluent regions and create challenges for individuals such as those from refugee backgrounds to receive the same high quality medical care. GP participants that worked in environments that were aligned with refugee women’s needs found that the clinical demands when working with refugee women presenting with chronic pain were easier. Moreover, many felt that their work helped to minimise health disparities by advocating for equitable health care access among individuals who faced systematic disadvantages. However, this vocational commitment by some GPs who worked exclusively with disadvantaged groups like refugee women came at a cost. Oftentimes, GPs who worked pro bono or in community health felt they were insufficiently remunerated.

for the time they spent with their patients [ 12 ]. A review by Goupil and Colleagues (2020) examined the effectiveness of pro bono health care delivery in addressing the critical gap in healthcare services. Their findings indicate that pro bono initiatives have shown considerable success in addressing the gap created by limited access to primary health care for underserved populations [ 79 ]. Nonetheless, the need to work with inappropriate remunerated limits the number of GPs who can engage in refugee work. For instance, those who have alternative sources of income, such as a partner, may be more likely to afford this limitation. The current reliance on altruism, or selfless dedication by GPs to sustain the system may not be an effective strategy in the long-term [ 80 , 81 , 82 ]. Thus, it becomes increasingly challenging for GPs who lack additional financial support to commit fully to their professional duties and reinforces broader implications for the primary care workforce.

General practice inherently presents stressors that subject many GPs to high levels of stress, resulting in adverse consequences such as frustration and burnout [ 83 , 84 ]. The effects of burnout on individuals’ overall well-being are substantial; however, among doctors, its significance is far greater due to its potential to detrimentally affect patient care. Riley and Colleagues (2017) highlight how stress and uncertainty at work can contribute to distress and dysfunction among adults. GPs who are under-resourced are not able to offer the same level of patient-centred care for refugee women patients presenting with complex issues such as pain. The increase in workloads and demands on GPs demonstrates a need to re-evaluate policies and agendas affecting primary care both in GP training and within the public health system. As Linzer and colleagues (2015) suggest, a supportive work environment supplemented with educational opportunities and system level interventions that help to mitigate clinical constraints can improve doctor’s resilience and confidence within the workplace [ 85 ]. This is supported by Shanafelt’s research who suggests that enhancing meaning in work may also serve as a prescription for mitigating physician burn out and better patient centered care [ 86 ].

There are some limitations of this study that should be noted when considering the findings. The study was conducted between June 2022 and November 2022, under a high stress period for GPs inundated with COVID-19 cases. This meant that under time and feasibility constraints, the interviews were conducted virtually which may have created some limitations around disclosure and open dialogue for some GPs. A further limitation arises from the fact that networks used to recruit participants and snowballing sampling may have biased our findings as many may share similar professional backgrounds, experiences and perspectives, restricting the breadth of insights captured in the study. Our sample size was limited meaning it may not accurately mirror the experiences of all GPs or the generalisability of our findings to a broader context. Furthermore, the specific challenges experienced by GPs may not be universally applicable to other healthcare professionals with different roles, specialities or interests. Notwithstanding these limitations, the depth and richness of data gained from the interviews produced valuable and meaningful insights of the GP experience. Lastly, to ensure diverse perspectives and experiences were included in our sample, the research team regularly engaged in reflexivity to critically examine our own professional assumptions and biases.

Conclusions

Understanding GP experiences offers valuable insights that can inform targeted interventions and policies to enhance the quality of care for refugee women living with chronic pain. Future policies should look to enhance collaboration between GPs and refugee community members and liaise with refugee specific health professionals to better care for refugee women patients in mainstream primary care. These initiatives should prioritise administrative support systems such as refugee health nurses and work towards streamlining the integration of medical interpreters in general practice. Furthermore, improved awareness and uptake of existing Medicare fundings streams such as CDM, mental health and refugee health assessments plans are needed to effectively address the distinct requirements of refugee communities. Lastly, postgraduate curricula should look to integrate more refugee health topics to better equip GPs with the necessary skills and knowledge to bolster their confidence and clinical acumen when providing care for refugee women facing complex chronic pain.

Data availability

Transcripts from the interviews are confidential and not publicly available. A subset of de-identified data is available from the corresponding author.

Abbreviations

General practitioner

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Global Trends Forced Displacement in 2022. Forced Displacement in 2022 2022 Accessed 5 Sept 2023]; https://www.unhcr.org/flagship-reports/globaltrends/

Affairs DoH. Australia’s offshore humanitarian program: 2018–19. Australian Government; 2019.

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Projected global resettlement needs 2023. Editor: The United Nations Refugee Agency; 2023.

Google Scholar  

Australian Bureau of Statistics. Overseas Migration. 2021–2022: ABS.

Steel Z, et al. Association of torture and other potentially traumatic events with mental health outcomes among populations exposed to mass conflict and displacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2009;302(5):537–49.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Baauw A et al. Health needs of refugee children identified on arrival in reception countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Paediatrics open, 2019. 3(1).

Hadgkiss EJ, Renzaho AM. The physical health status, service utilisation and barriers to accessing care for asylum seekers residing in the community: a systematic review of the literature. Aust Health Rev. 2014;38(2):142–59.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Altun A, et al. Experiences of assyrian refugee women seeking care for chronic pain: a qualitative study. Int J Equity Health. 2023;22(1):83.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Altun A, et al. Evaluating chronic pain interventions in recent refugees and immigrant populations: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2022;105(5):1152–69.

Treede RD, et al. A classification of chronic pain for ICD-11. Pain. 2015;156(6):1003–7.

White J, et al. The experience of interpreter access and language discordant clinical encounters in Australian health care: a mixed methods exploration. Int J Equity Health. 2018;17(1):151.

Lauralie R, et al. Providing care to refugees through mainstream general practice in the southern health region of New Zealand: a qualitative study of primary healthcare professionals’ perspectives. BMJ Open. 2019;9(12):e034323.

Article   Google Scholar  

Riggs E, et al. Cultural safety and belonging for refugee background women attending group pregnancy care: an Australian qualitative study. Birth. 2017;44(2):145–52.

Pangas J, et al. Refugee women’s experiences negotiating motherhood and maternity care in a new country: a meta-ethnographic review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2019;90:31–45.

Robertson CL, et al. Somali and Oromo refugee women: trauma and associated factors. J Adv Nurs. 2006;56(6):577–87.

Zander V, et al. Struggling for sense of control: everyday life with chronic pain for women of the Iraqi diaspora in Sweden. Scand J Public Health. 2013;41(8):799–807.

Williams ACdC, Peña CR, Rice ASC. Persistent Pain in survivors of torture: a Cohort Study. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2010;40(5):715–22.

Thomsen AB, Eriksen J, Smidt-Nielsen K. Chronic pain in torture survivors. Forensic Sci Int. 2000;108(3):155–63.

Müllersdorf M, Zander V, Eriksson H. The magnitude of reciprocity in chronic pain management: experiences of dispersed ethnic populations of muslim women. Scand J Caring Sci. 2011;25(4):637–45.

Cheng I-H, Drillich A, Schattner P. Refugee experiences of general practice in countries of resettlement: a literature review. Br J Gen Pract. 2015;65(632):e171–6.

Australian Bureau of Statistics, Services H. Patient experiences. ABS: Canberra; 2023.

Sturgiss E, et al. Metabolic syndrome and weight management programs in primary care: a comparison of three international healthcare systems. Aust J Prim Health. 2018;24(5):372–7.

Biggs A. Medicare: a quick guide. Parliamentary Library; 2016.

Angeles MR, Crosland P, Hensher M. Challenges for Medicare and universal health care in Australia since 2000. Med J Aust. 2023;218(7):322–9.

Government A. In: Care, editor. Chronic Disease Management Patient Information. T.D.o.H.a.A.: Canberra; 2014.

Welberry H, et al. Increasing use of general practice management and team care arrangements over time in New South Wales, Australia. Aust J Prim Health. 2019;25(2):168–75.

Barr ML, et al. Understanding the use and impact of allied health services for people with chronic health conditions in Central and Eastern Sydney, Australia: a five-year longitudinal analysis. Volume 20. Primary Health Care Research & Development; 2019. p. e141.

Månsson Sandberg H, et al. COVID-19- related work, managerial factors and exhaustion among general practitioners in Sweden: a cross-sectional study. BMC Prim Care. 2023;24(1):269.

Rotenstein LS, et al. Prevalence of Burnout among Physicians: a systematic review. JAMA. 2018;320(11):1131–50.

Svantesson M, et al. Moral and exhausting distress working in the frontline of COVID-19: a Swedish survey during the first wave in four healthcare settings. BMJ Open. 2022;12(7):e055726.

Peñuela-O’Brien E, et al. Health professionals’ experiences of and attitudes towards mental healthcare for migrants and refugees in Europe: a qualitative systematic review. Transcult Psychiatry. 2023;60(1):176–98.

Richard L, et al. Providing care to refugees through mainstream general practice in the southern health region of New Zealand: a qualitative study of primary healthcare professionals’ perspectives. BMJ open. 2019;9(12):e034323.

Davison R, et al. General practitioners’ perspectives on the management of refugee health: a qualitative study. BMJ open. 2023;13(3):e068986.

Johnson DR, Burgess T, Ziersch AM. I don’t think general practice should be the front line: Experiences of general practitioners working with refugees in South Australia. Volume 5. Australia and New Zealand health policy; 2008. 1.

Wu S, et al. Time-varying associations of pre-migration and post-migration stressors in refugees’ mental health during resettlement: a longitudinal study in Australia. Lancet Psychiatry. 2021;8(1):36–47.

Manchikanti P, et al. Acceptability of general practice services for Afghan refugees in south-eastern Melbourne. Aust J Prim Health. 2017;23(1):87–91.

Neubauer BE, Witkop CT, Varpio L. How phenomenology can help us learn from the experiences of others. Perspect Med Educ. 2019;8:90–7.

Creswell JW, Poth CN. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. Sage; 2016.

Van Manen M. Researching lived experience: human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. Routledge; 2016.

Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57.

Levesque J-F, Harris MF, Russell G. Patient-centred access to health care: conceptualising access at the interface of health systems and populations. Int J Equity Health. 2013;12(1):18.

Harding C, et al. General practitioner and registrar involvement in refugee health: exploring needs and perceptions. Aust Health Rev. 2019;43(1):92–7.

Braun V, Clarke V. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Res Sport Exerc Health. 2019;11(4):589–97.

Braun V, Clarke V. To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales. Qualitative Res Sport Exerc Health. 2021;13(2):201–16.

(Version12), L.N.

Cohen MZ. A historical overview of the Phenomenologic Movement. Image: J Nurs Scholarsh. 1987;19(1):31–4.

CAS   Google Scholar  

Clarke V, Braun V, Hayfield N. Qualitative psychology: a practical guide to research. SAGE; 2015. pp. 222–48.

Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook, 2nd ed . Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook, 2nd ed. 1994, Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc. xiv, 338-xiv, 338.

Olmos-Vega FM, et al. A practical guide to reflexivity in qualitative research: AMEE Guide 149. Med Teach. 2023;45(3):241–51.

Heartsink. Australian J Gen Practitioners. 2012;41:455–455.

Harris SM, Binder PE, Sandal GM. General practitioners’ experiences of clinical consultations with refugees suffering from Mental Health problems. Front Psychol. 2020;11:412.

Patel P, et al. Approaches to delivering appropriate care to engage and meet the complex needs of refugee and asylum seekers in Australian primary healthcare: a qualitative study. Volume 30. Health & Social Care in the Community; 2022. pp. e6276–85. 6.

Patel P, et al. Communication experiences in Primary Healthcare with refugees and Asylum seekers: a Literature Review and Narrative Synthesis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(4):1469.

Cheng IH, et al. Rites of passage: improving refugee access to general practice services. Aust Fam Physician. 2015;44(7):503–7.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Petrocchi S, et al. Interpersonal trust in doctor-patient relation: evidence from dyadic analysis and association with quality of dyadic communication. Volume 235. Social Science & Medicine; 2019. p. 112391.

Henderson J, et al. Estimating non-billable time in Australian general practice. Med J Aust. 2016;205(2):79–83.

Evangelia T, et al. The influence of time pressure on adherence to guidelines in primary care: an experimental study. BMJ Open. 2013;3(4):e002700.

Rachel D, et al. General practitioners’ perspectives on the management of refugee health: a qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2023;13(3):e068986.

Kind S, Otis JD. The interaction between chronic pain and PTSD. Current pain and headache reports, 2019. 23: pp. 1–7.

Siqveland J, et al. Prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder in persons with chronic pain: a meta-analysis. Front Psychiatry. 2017;8:164.

Fishbain DA, et al. Chronic pain types differ in their reported prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and there is consistent evidence that chronic pain is associated with PTSD: an evidence-based structured systematic review. Pain Med. 2017;18(4):711–35.

Grossman S, et al. Trauma-informed care: recognizing and resisting re-traumatization in health care. Trauma Surg Acute Care Open. 2021;6(1):e000815.

Bowen EA, Murshid NS. Trauma-informed Social Policy: a conceptual Framework for Policy Analysis and Advocacy. Am J Public Health. 2016;106(2):223–9.

Brooks M, Barclay L, Hooker C. Trauma-informed care in general practice: findings from a womens health centre evaluation’. Australian J Gen Pract. 2018;47(6):370–5.

The Royal Australian Colllage of General Practitioners. Standards for general practices . 2015.

Harrison M, et al. Do patients and health care providers have discordant preferences about which aspects of treatments matter most? Evidence from a systematic review of discrete choice experiments. BMJ Open. 2017;7(5):e014719.

Bayram C, et al. Consultations conducted in languages other than English in Australian general practice. Aust Fam Physician. 2016;45(1):9–13.

van Rosse F, et al. Language barriers and patient safety risks in hospital care. A mixed methods study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2016;54:45–53.

Gray B, Hilder J, Donaldson H. Why do we not use trained interpreters for all patients with limited English proficiency? Is there a place for using family members? Aust J Prim Health. 2011;17(3):240–9.

Seers K, et al. Is it time to talk? Interpreter services use in general practice within Canterbury. J Prim Health Care. 2013;5(2):129–37.

Rose DE, et al. Use of interpreters by physicians treating limited English proficient women with breast cancer: results from the provider survey of the Los Angeles women’s Health Study. Health Serv Res. 2010;45(1):172–94.

Kale E, Syed HR. Language barriers and the use of interpreters in the public health services. A questionnaire-based survey. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;81(2):187–91.

Huang Y-T, Phillips C. Telephone interpreters in general practice: bridging the barriers to their use. Aus Fam Physician. 2009;38(6):443–6.

Sandler R, Myers L, Springgate B. Resident physicians’ opinions and behaviors regarding the use of interpreters in New Orleans. South Med J. 2014;107(11):698–702.

Hart JT. Commentary: three decades of the inverse care law. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2000. 320(7226): pp. 18–19.

Mercer SW, Watt GC. The inverse care law: clinical primary care encounters in deprived and affluent areas of Scotland. Annals Family Med. 2007;5(6):503–10.

Knox PL, Pacione M. Locational behaviour, place preferences and the inverse care law in the distribution of primary medical care. Geoforum. 1980;11(1):43–55.

Fiscella K, Shin P. The inverse care law: implications for healthcare of vulnerable populations. J Ambul Care Manag. 2005;28(4):304–12.

Goupil K, Kinsinger FS. Pro Bono Services in 4 Health Care professions: a discussion of Exemplars. J Chiropr Humanit. 2020;27:21–8.

Pro Bono Work and nonmedical volunteerism among U.S. women Physicians. J Women’s Health, 2003. 12(6): pp. 589–98.

McCardle K. O.R. for the public good: many lawyers, doctors and other professionals routinely do pro bono work for charitable organizations as a matter of company or personal policy. OR/MS Today. 2005;32:32.

Davis DS, Kodish E. Laws that conflict with the Ethics of Medicine: what should doctors do? Hastings Cent Rep. 2014;44(6):11–4.

Ruth R, et al. What are the sources of stress and distress for general practitioners working in England? A qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2018;8(1):e017361.

Cheshire A, et al. Influences on GP coping and resilience: a qualitative study in primary care. Br J Gen Pract. 2017;67(659):e428–36.

Linzer M, et al. A cluster Randomized Trial of interventions to Improve Work conditions and Clinician Burnout in Primary Care: results from the healthy work place (HWP) study. J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30(8):1105–11.

Shanafelt TD. Enhancing meaning in work: a prescription for preventing Physician Burnout and promoting patient-centered care. JAMA. 2009;302(12):1338–40.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the GPs who participated in the study.

The study was funded by Monash University.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Eastern Health Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Areni Altun

Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia

Helen Brown

Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

Elizabeth Sturgiss & Grant Russell

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

AA and GR conceived of the study. GR, HB and ES reviewed all aspects of the study design. AA collected data through interviews and conducted preliminary data analysis. AA coded the data and all authors participated in the data analysis. AA drafted the manuscript. All authors contributed to the manuscript writing, and final approval of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Areni Altun .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Ethics approval was granted by the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee 2022-32192-76209. Informed written consent was obtained from all participants in this study. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent for publication

Not required as data used in this study was de-identified.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Altun, A., Brown, H., Sturgiss, E. et al. Doctors’ experience providing primary care for refugee women living with chronic pain: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res 24 , 1117 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11506-x

Download citation

Received : 21 September 2023

Accepted : 28 August 2024

Published : 27 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11506-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Primary care
• Chronic pain
• Qualitative
• Refugee women
• Care experience

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

• General enquiries: [email protected]

• Open access
• Published: 27 September 2024

Patient mistreatment, emotional exhaustion and work-family conflict among nurses: a moderated mediation model of social sharing of negative work events and perceived organizational support

• Wei Yan 1 ,
• Zeqing Cheng 1 ,
• Di Xiao 2 ,
• Huan Wang 3 , 4 ,
• Li Li 6 &
• Caiping Song 7  

BMC Medical Education volume  24 , Article number:  1041 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Nursing literature suggested that patient mistreatment has significant impacts on nurses’ emotions and job burnout. Yet, further research is needed to understand the underlying mechanism and the spillover effect on nurses’ families. Leveraging the goal progress theory, this study aimed to examine the association between patient mistreatment, nurses’ emotional exhaustion, and work-family conflict, as well as the mediating role of social sharing of negative work events and the moderating role of perceived organizational support.

During the COVID-19 pandemic in China, a cross-sectional study was conducted with a sample of 1627 nurses from the Hematology Specialist Alliance of Chongqing from October to November 2022. Questionnaires were administered to measure patient mistreatment, perceived organizational support, social sharing of negative work events, emotional exhaustion, and work-family conflict. Hierarchical linear regression and conditional processes were used for statistical analyses.

Patient mistreatment was positively associated with emotional exhaustion ( β  = 0.354, p  < 0.001) and work-family conflict ( β  = 0.314, p  < 0.001). Social sharing of negative work events played a partial mediating role in the relationship between patient mistreatment and emotional exhaustion (effect = 0.067, SE = 0.013), and work-family conflict (effect = 0.077, SE = 0.014). Moderated mediation analysis found that the mediation effect was stronger when the perceived organizational support was high.

Our findings reveal the amplifying effect of social sharing of negative work events on nurses’ emotional exhaustion and work-family conflict. Perceived organizational support strengthens the positive effect of patient mistreatment on the social sharing of negative work events, thus resulting in increased emotional exhaustion and work-family conflict. We also discuss practical implications, limitations, and directions for future research.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

With the outbreak of COVID-19, workplace violence in medical organizations have intensified, putting tremendous pressure on healthcare workers [ 1 , 2 ]. A survey of 522 Chinese nurses found that 55% of respondents had experienced workplace violence in the past 12 months, including verbal and physical aggression [ 3 ]. Workplace violence directly affected nurses’ job performance and organizational citizenship behavior [ 4 , 5 ], reduced their quality of life [ 6 ], and increased their psychological distress and turnover intention [ 7 , 8 ]. Among these, the behavior of patients and their families abusing nurses through insults, unreasonable demands, or physical attacks was described as patient mistreatment [ 9 ]. Previous research has confirmed that when nurses were mistreated by patients, they may experience persistent work meaninglessness, emotional exhaustion and depression [ 10 , 11 , 12 ], which further predicted their career withdrawal behavior and turnover intention [ 12 ].

Additionally, the negative impact of experiencing abuse from service users may spread from service providers to their families [ 13 ]. Research on customer mistreatment has shown that abusive stress events encountered by front-line service providers in the workplace can detrimentally affect their role performance in the family domain [ 14 ], consume additional resources, and lead to work-family conflict [ 15 ].

Some studies indicate that after experiencing negative events, individuals tend to share negative events with their families or friends to alleviate negative emotions [ 16 , 17 ]. However, whether social sharing of negative work events can attenuate emotional exhaustion and reduce work-family conflict remains undetermined [ 18 ]. In this study, we examine the mediating effect of social sharing of negative work events between patient mistreatment and emotional exhaustion and work-family conflict.

One common solution for employees to address workplace violence was to seek organizational support [ 19 , 20 ]. However, evidence from several studies suggested that organizational support didn’t mitigate the relationship between workplace violence and stress [ 21 , 22 , 23 ], suggesting that the benefit of organizational support is controversial. Thus, this study explores the moderating role of perceived organizational support (POS) in the effect of patient mistreatment on emotional exhaustion and work-family conflict via social sharing of negative work events.

It can be observed that existing literature on the functional mechanism of patient mistreatment and its spillover impact on nurses’ family domain remains rare and far from unanimous. Therefore, this study establishes and tests a theoretical model of the effects of patient mistreatment on nurses’ emotional exhaustion and work-family conflict and explores the underlying mechanism and boundary condition of this relationship. To be more specific, we aim to answer the following questions: Does patient mistreatment increase nurses’ emotional exhaustion and work-family conflict through social sharing of negative work events? Could perceived organizational support intensify the mediating effect of social sharing of negative work events?

Patient mistreatment, emotional exhaustion and work-family conflict

Similar to customer mistreatment, patient mistreatment occurs when nurses experience unfair interpersonal treatment from patients and their families, such as various forms of verbal attacks, including anger, cursing, shouting, and rudeness [ 24 , 25 ]. Patient mistreatment adversely affects the quality of medical service and work performance of nurses, and imposes threats to their mental health. Previous studies have shown that employees exhibit negative emotions such as emotional dysregulation, declining morale, and post-traumatic stress disorder [ 7 , 18 , 26 ] when frequently or intensely exposed to interpersonal mistreatment. Negative job attitudes predict subsequent burnout, withdrawal, and service-destroying behaviors [ 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 ]. Drawing on the goal progress theory [ 31 ], we argue that patient mistreatment interrupts the service achievement process, and the failure of achieving service goals triggers a constantly cognitive rumination process that could result in continuous emotional exhaustion [ 32 , 33 , 34 ]. Research has also shown that individuals who experience customer abuse in the workplace may transfer their negative emotions to family members [ 14 ]. This causes the harmful effects of customer mistreatment to spread throughout the area of employees’ family life [ 35 ]. Hence, it can be expected that:

Patient mistreatment is positively correlated with emotional exhaustion.

Patient mistreatment is positively correlated with work-family conflict.

Patient mistreatment and social sharing of negative work events

Empirical evidence showed that individuals tend to share negative experiences with peers and friends in search of emotional support and to reduce burnout [ 18 , 36 ], which may occur from a few hours to several months after the event. This kind of sharing of negative sentiments in a relatively trusted environment can be generalized as social sharing of negative work events [ 18 ]. The more frequently nurses experience mistreatment, the stronger their intentions of social sharing will grow. Accordingly, we propose the following hypothesis:

Patient mistreatment is positively correlated with social sharing of negative work events.

The mediating role of social sharing of negative work events

Social sharing involves confronting negative emotions and expressing them verbally in a safe environment [ 37 ]. However, social sharing of negative work events may be a maladaptive coping strategy that employees adopt when facing patient mistreatment, falling under the domain of social cognitive rumination [ 18 , 38 ]. According to the goal progress theory, social sharing further promotes repetitive discussions or rehearsals of negative events [ 39 ]. It can engulf nurses in work rumination, affecting their subsequent work engagement [ 40 ]. Employees who are deeply immersed in negative work events for a long time may find it difficult to detach themselves from work and are unable to address the emotional needs generated by rumination [ 41 ]. Jeon (2021) also found that emotional rumination caused by work communication resulted in more emotional exhaustion [ 42 ]. Huang (2022) demonstrated that when peers engage in co-rumination due to negative events, it exacerbated working pressure, negative moods and psychological problems [ 43 ]. We believe that sharing negative events within a social context leads to a more negative view of patient mistreatment, thus aggravating emotional exhaustion after work [ 44 ] and causing further depletion of nurses’ cognitive and emotional resources [ 45 ].

Additionally, when employees focus on negative work events for extended periods, they invest a significant amount of time and energy into uncompleted work goals, thereby disrupting the time that could be allocated to family activities, often leading to disappointment and frustration for both employees and their families [ 46 , 47 ]. It is documented that individuals subjected to severe customer mistreatment have fewer resources available to meet family needs, thereby increasing work-family conflict (WFC) [ 48 ]. The repetitive thinking triggered by negative work events makes it difficult for individuals to sufficiently engage in family roles, thus resulting in negative emotions spilling over from workplace into family life [ 14 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 ]. Park and Kim (2019) also articulated that the harmful effects of customer mistreatment extended into the personal life domain [ 35 ]. Thus, we propose the following hypotheses:

Social sharing of negative work events plays a mediating role between patient mistreatment and emotional exhaustion.

Social sharing of negative work events plays a mediating role between patient mistreatment and work-family conflict.

The moderating role of perceived organizational support

Perceived organizational support refers to the overall perception of employees regarding the organization’s willingness to help them, value their contributions, and care about their overall well-being [ 53 ]. It is commonly believed to be helpful in dealing with the problems such as work frustration and burnout [ 54 , 55 ]. POS meets the socio-emotional needs of respect, belonging, emotional support and recognition in the workplace [ 56 ], providing a safer and more trusted environment in which employees are more likely to share negative events with colleagues or peers [ 57 ]. We propose that:

H4. Perceived organizational support moderates the relationship between patient mistreatment and social sharing of negative work events, and this positive relationship is stronger when perceived organizational support is high (vs. low).

As elaborated in H3, patient mistreatment could be perceived by nurses as a failure of personal service goals, indicating that nurses have not successfully fulfilled their obligations and job requirements. This brings huge psychological and role pressure [ 58 , 59 , 60 ]. Perceived stress leads to negative emotional focus and cognitive rumination, which manifests as recursive thinking and sharing of negative work events, thus triggering job burnout [ 61 ]. Combining Hypotheses 1, 2, 3a, 3b and 4, we propose that the mediating effect of social sharing of negative work events will be moderated by perceived organizational support:

H5a . Perceived organizational support moderates the indirect influence of.

patient mistreatment on emotional exhaustion through social sharing of negative work events, and the indirect influence is stronger when the level of perceived organizational support is high (vs. low).

H5b. Perceived organizational support moderates the indirect influence of.

patient mistreatment on work-family conflict through social sharing of negative work events, and the indirect influence is stronger when the level of perceived organizational support is high (vs. low).

We summarize our conceptual model in Fig.  1 .

Conceptual model

Study design and setting

This study exploited a cross-sectional design to investigate the relationship between patient mistreatment, emotional exhaustion, and work-family conflict among Chinese nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic after the lockdown was imposed in mainland China. During the pandemic, our participants performed heavy work tasks and experienced psychological stress.

Participants and data collection

Collaborating with the Chongqing Hematology Specialist Alliance, we initiated a call for research on patient mistreatment and obtained a convenient sample. Clinical nurses were invited to participate in the survey through one-to-one contact. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) possession of a nursing practice license; (2) working as a clinical nurse; and (3) informed consent and voluntary participation. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) nurses with further education; (2) interns; (3) trainees; and (4) off-duty nurses (on leave, sick leave, or out for studying). To prevent COVID-19 risk, we used an online electronic questionnaire for ease of operation.

A small-scale pilot survey was conducted before the formal survey to ensure the rationality of questions and the accuracy of expressions. An anonymous cross-sectional online survey was conducted via the questionnaire website of Wenjuanxing (link: https://www.wjx.cn/ ) from October 9 to November 1, 2022. Finally, we obtained a sample of 1627 valid responses.

The measurement used was originally published in English; therefore, we adopted Brislin’s (1986) suggestion and translated the scale forward and backward to ensure Chinese equivalence and prevent semantic bias problems [ 62 ].

• Patient mistreatment

We measured patient mistreatment using the 18 items developed by Wang et al. (2011) [ 63 ]. Some minor modifications were made to suit the hospital environment since the original scale was designed to assess customer mistreatment. Sample items included “Patients demanded special treatment” and “Patients took their bad temper out on you”. The respondents reported the frequency with which they had experienced mistreatment from their patients within the last three months. Each item was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (“0” = never and “4” = all of the time). The alpha coefficient was 0.95.

• Social sharing of negative work events

We used the four items developed by Baranik et al. (2017) to capture the social sharing of negative work events [ 18 ]. Participants were asked how frequently they had talked about unpleasant things that had occurred at work in the past month with their lovers, family members, friends, and coworkers. Responses were recorded on a five-point scale (“0” = never and “4” = often). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.86.

• Emotional exhaustion

Emotional exhaustion was measured using the emotional exhaustion component of Maslach et al.‘s (2001) MBI scale [ 64 ], which consisted of nine items. Sample items included “I feel emotionally drained from my work.” Responses were made on a seven-point scale (“1” = never and “7” = every day). The alpha coefficient for this scale was 0.93.

• Work-family conflict

Work-family conflict was measured using the five-item subscale of Netemeyer et al.’s (1996) [ 46 ]. A sample item is “The stress of my job makes it difficult for me to meet my family responsibilities.” Participants indicated their agreement with the items on a 7-point Likert scale (“1” = strongly disagree and “7” = strongly agree). The alpha coefficient for this scale was 0.94.

• Perceived organizational support

We used the eight items developed by Shen and Benson (2016) to measure perceived organizational support [ 65 ]. Sample items included “My organization values my contributions to the organization” and “The organization really cares about my health and welfare.” Responses were recorded on a seven-point Likert scale (“0” = strongly disagree and “6” = strongly agree). The alpha coefficient for the entire scale was 0.90.

Control variables

Following previous studies [ 19 , 20 ], we controlled for nurses’ gender, age, education, working years and position, all of which have been shown to possibly correlate with emotion exhaustion and work-family conflict. In addition, we controlled for marital status and children, two variables that may have an impact on work-family conflict [ 66 , 67 ].

Statistical analysis

We used SPSS 25.0, Amos 23.0 and Mplus 8.5 for data analysis. Descriptive statistics were used to present the demographic characteristics of the sample. Pearson correlation analysis was used to explore the correlations among patient mistreatment, social sharing of negative work events, perceived organizational support, emotional exhaustion, and work-family conflict. Harman’s single factor analysis and the confirmatory factor analysis were used to investigate the common methods variance (CMV). In addition, we tested the hypotheses using hierarchical regression analysis, bootstrapping tests, and conditional process analysis (specifically, moderated mediation in this study).

Characteristics of participants

The demographic characteristics of the participants are presented in Table  1 . A total of 1627 nurses participated in the study, with a mean age of 31.3 years (SD = 6.0). Among them, 94.7% were female and 5.3% were male. The average number of working years was 9.3 (SD = 6.4). Most participants were married (62.6%) and had undergraduate degree (89.7%). 76.8% of participants were primary nurses. More than half of the participants had children (56.5%).

Correlations among variables

Table  2 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations of all the measured variables. First, the results indicated that patient mistreatment was positively correlated with social sharing of negative work events ( r  = 0.198, p  < 0.01), emotional exhaustion ( r  = 0.361, p  < 0.01) and work-family conflict ( r  = 0.316, p  < 0.01), and negatively correlated with perceived organizational support ( r =-0.319, p  < 0.01). Furthermore, social sharing of negative work events, emotional exhaustion, and work-family conflict were all negatively correlated with perceived organizational support ( r =-0.193, p  < 0.01; r =-0.471, p  < 0.01; r =-0.460, p  < 0.01; respectively).

We used the Harman single-factor test to assess the common method variance (CMV). Factor analysis shows that the first principal component explained 33.20% of total variance, suggesting that the same source bias is not severe in this study. Before testing our hypotheses, we conducted confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) to confirm the factor structure of our measurement model. As shown in Table  3 , the proposed five-factor model fits the data better: χ 2  = 2492.156, df  = 831, Confirmatory Fit Index (CFI) = 0.971, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = 0.970, and root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.035. Thus, the distinctiveness of key constructs is supported [ 68 ].

Testing for the mediating effect

We used hierarchical regression and bootstrapping technique to test the mediation hypotheses. As shown in Table  4 , patient mistreatment was positively associated with emotional exhaustion in Model 5 ( β  = 0.354, p  < 0.001) and work-family conflict in Model 8 ( β =  0.314, p <  0.001), thus supporting H1. The test for the mediating effect followed the recommended procedures by Baron and Kenny (1986) [ 69 ]. First, Model 2 indicated a positive correlation between patient mistreatment and social sharing of negative work events ( β  = 0.201, p  < 0.001), supporting H2. Second, Model 6 and Model 9 indicated that social sharing of negative work events was positively associated with both emotional exhaustion ( β  = 0.199, p  < 0.001) and work-family conflict ( β =  0.206, p  < 0.001). Finally, although patient mistreatment was still significantly associated with emotional exhaustion in Model 6 ( β  = 0.314, p  < 0.001) and work-family conflict in Model 9 ( β  = 0.272, p  < 0.001) after the introduction of mediation variables, the size of effects was slightly weakened, suggesting that there exists a partial mediation effect.

We also calculated the indirect effects of patient mistreatment on two outcome variables via social sharing of negative work events and its 95% confidence interval, which was repeated 5000 times using bootstrapping technique. Bootstrapping is useful for testing indirect effects because it produces a repeated replacement sampling distribution of indirect effects rather than assuming a normal distribution (Preacher and Hayes, 2008) [ 70 ]. The results are presented in Table  5 . Social sharing of negative work events significantly mediated the relationship between patient mistreatment and emotional exhaustion (estimate = 0.067, 95% CI = [0.043, 0.094]) and work-family conflict (estimate = 0.077, 95% CI = [0.050, 0.108]). Taken together, these results support H3a and H3b.

Testing for the moderated mediation effect

In our conceptual model, perceived organizational support was proposed to moderate the relationship between patient mistreatment, emotional exhaustion and work-family conflict via social sharing of negative work events. Following Aiken and West (1991), we mean-centered the variables used to form the interaction term [ 71 ]. As shown in the Model 3 of Table  4 , the interaction between patient mistreatment and perceived organizational support was significantly correlated with social sharing of negative work events ( β  = 0.074, p  < 0.01), supporting H4.

We used the Process plug-in to conduct a simple slope analysis [ 70 , 72 ]; the results are shown in Table  6 . The interaction patterns are shown in Fig.  2 . The graph shows that when perceived organizational support was low (-1SD), patient mistreatment was positively correlated with social sharing of negative work events (simple slope = 0.156, p  < 0.001), which was smaller than the coefficient when perceived organizational support was high (+ 1 SD) (simple slope = 0.338, p  < 0.001).

Moderating effect of POS on the relationship between patient mistreatment and social sharing of negative work events. Note PM = Patient Mistreatment; POS = Perceived Organizational Support; SS = Social Sharing of Negative Work Events

Finally, we used Mplus 8.5 to examine the moderated mediating effects. The results in Table  7 show that the indirect effect of patient mistreatment on emotional exhaustion via social sharing of negative work events was positive and statistically significant when perceived organizational support was low (estimate = 0.029, 95% CI = [0.013, 0.047]) and high (estimate = 0.060, 95% CI = [0.035, 0.092]) There was a significant difference in indirect effects between high and low perceived organizational support (estimate = 0.037, 95% CI= [0.005, 0.074]), supporting H5a. Similarly, the indirect effect of patient mistreatment on work-family conflict via social sharing of negative work events was significant when perceived organizational support was low (estimate = 0.033,95% CI = [0.015, 0.055]) and high (estimate = 0.070, 95%CI = [0.039, 0.106]). The difference in indirect effects between high and low perceived organizational support was significant (estimate = 0.037, 95% CI= [0.005, 0.074]), supporting H5b.

In addition, we use the Johnson-Neyman method to depict continuous confidence intervals for indirect effects [ 73 ]. Figure  3 shows that the continuous intervals of indirect effect are greater than zero, and increasing with the perceived organization support. The higher the perceived organizational support, the stronger the effect of patient mistreatment on emotional exhaustion through social sharing of negative work events. Figure  4 shows similar pattern when work-family conflict is the outcome variable.

Conditional indirect effects of patient mistreatment on emotional exhaustion (via social sharing of negative work events) at different levels of perceived organizational support (POS)

Conditional indirect effects of patient mistreatment on work-family conflict (via social sharing of negative work events) at different levels of perceived organizational support (POS)

Leveraging the goal progress theory, this study found that social sharing of negative work events mediated the relationship between patient mistreatment and work-family conflict and emotional exhaustion. The results of the moderated mediation analysis showed that the indirect effects of social sharing of negative events on the two outcomes caused by patient mistreatment were stronger among nurses with high (vs. low) perceived organizational support.

Our study contributes to the literature on the adverse consequences and negative emotions associated with patient mistreatment in several ways. Firstly, the research expands the scopes of literature on the outcomes of patient abuse by innovatively introducing the work-family conflict into the model. Previous research mainly focused on personal aspects directly related to work such as sleep quality, job satisfaction, and career withdrawal [ 27 , 74 , 75 ]. Our findings indicate that the boundary between work and family life is permeable, and negative emotions may flow from the work area into the family domain, causing certain conflicts.

Secondly, based on the goal progress theory [ 31 ], we explored the mediating role of social sharing of negative work events between patient mistreatment and negative outcomes, filling the research gap in this area. The social sharing of negative work events may be a maladaptive coping mechanism in stressful environments. It is a process of social cognitive rumination of service failure that challenges the self-concept of nurses and a typical manifestation of shared ruminative thinking that hinders the positive thinking at individual and/or team levels [ 34 ]. Our findings suggest that patient mistreatment, as a source of stress, produces a sufficiently long duration of negative emotions, which will be further amplified in the process of social sharing [ 40 ], eventually affecting the role conflict between work and family [ 43 ].

Thirdly, we incorporated perceived organizational support as a boundary condition and investigate its moderating role in the effects of patient mistreatment on emotional exhaustion and work-family conflict via social sharing of negative work events. The higher the perceived organizational support, the more likely employees were to experience severe rumination, resulting in further burnout. Perceived organizational support does not always produce positive outcomes [ 58 ] and in some circumstances it enhances the rumination of negative events, leading to greater occupational and psychological stress [ 61 ]. This finding enriches our understanding of the mechanism by which patient abuse affects nurses’ emotions and reactions in the context of the pandemic.

Limitations and future directions

This study has several limitations. First, our research was conducted in the context of the Confucian Chinese culture. Thus, Chinese nurses tend to show greater tolerance for patient mistreatment, since considering the overall interests of the organization is of great priority in a collective society. However, the same result may not hold for individualistic cultures. It is important to consider whether similar conclusions can be drawn in different cultural contexts.

Second, this cross-sectional study required nurses to recall patient mistreatment and negative emotions over previous months. Nurses’ subjective recall may have produced retrospective bias. Future research should use diary studies or experience-sampling techniques to record changes or fluctuations in patient mistreatment and nurses’ emotions over time.

Moreover, our findings supported the negative influences of the patient mistreatment. However, effective alleviations or remedies remained largely unexplored. It is highly recommended to study mindfulness interventions and other mechanisms to deal with patient mistreatment [ 74 ].

Practical implications

Previous research has indicated that patient mistreatment decreases frontline nurses’ job enthusiasm, thereby damaging job satisfaction and triggering withdrawal behaviors and dysfunction in the work-family domain [ 27 , 44 , 75 ]. This study shows that Chinese nurses suffer from emotional exhaustion and work-family conflict caused by patient mistreatment. Managers can employ certain techniques during recruitment to select individuals who are better equipped to handle patients’ incivility during frontline work [ 76 , 77 ].

Moreover, managers can provide frontline staff with training and guidance, simulate scenarios of patient mistreatment, and improve their ability to address patient incivility [ 78 ]. At the meantime, managers should be careful with the polices regarding the social sharing within the organization. Too much exposure and immersion into the rumination of negative work events may deteriorate morale and cause personal and family problems. Additionally, medical professionals should be encouraged to have a positive mindset and demonstrate empathy and compassion towards patients while providing medical services to minimize unnecessary conflicts [ 22 , 79 , 80 , 81 ].

Furthermore, hospital managers can establish eye-catching signs and indicators to guide patients to behave correctly and maintain a civilized manner throughout the treatment process. Society should collaborate with hospitals to create an appropriate medical environment for all patients by encouraging them and their families to take respectful and responsible actions, which will help nurses improve their work efficiency [ 82 ].

This study provides empirical evidence that patient mistreatment causes nurses’ emotional exhaustion and work-family conflict through the social sharing of negative work events. The findings of this study enrich the understanding of the mediating mechanism of patient mistreatment affecting nurses’ emotions and work-family conflict. We also reveal how perceived organizational support, as a moderating variable, enhances the positive relationship between patient mistreatment and the social sharing of negative work events and highlight that organizational support could result in greater psychological stress and family-related conflicts induced by patient mistreatment and mediated by social sharing of negative work events. Therefore, to effectively deal with patient mistreatment, hospital managers should provide training and other resources to nurses, help them regulate their negative emotions, and achieve a balance between work and family. Finally, patients should be educated to receive medical services in a civilized manner.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions. We affirm that the methods used in the data analyses are suitably applied to our data within our study design and context, and the statistical findings have been implemented and interpreted correctly.

Molero Jurado MDM, Gázquez Linares JJ, Pérez-Fuentes MDC. Martos Martínez Á. Aggression and burnout in nurses during COVID-19: a cross-sectional study. Nurs Health Sci. 2023;25(1):130–40.

Article   Google Scholar  

Nam S, Wong JYH, Wang T, An B, Fong DYT. Psychological distress as a mediator between workplace violence and turnover intention with caring for patients with COVID-19. Front Psychol. 2024;14:1321957.

Huang S, Zhai J, Lu X, Liang Y, Li Q, Lilenga HS. Prevalence of workplace violence in Chinese obstetric nurses under the new situation and its correlation with violence prevention knowledge-attitude-practice and climate perception: a cross-sectional study. BMC Nurs. 2023;22(1):473.

Duan X, Ni X, Shi L, Zhang L, Ye Y, Mu H, Li Z, Liu X, Fan L, Wang Y. The impact of workplace violence on job satisfaction, job burnout, and turnover intention: the mediating role of social support. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2019;17:93.

Ferri P, Stifani S, Accoto A, et al. Violence against nurses in the triage area: a mixed-methods study. J Emerg Nurs. 2020;46:384–97.

Choi SH, Lee H. Workplace violence against nurses in Korea and its impact on professional quality of life and turnover intention. J Nurs Manag. 2017;25:508–18.

Hong S, Nam S, Wong JYH, Kim H. Post-traumatic responses to workplace violence among nursing professionals: a collaborative and comparative study in South Korea and Hong Kong. BMC Nurs. 2023;22:354.

Chowdhury SR, Kabir H, Das DC, Chowdhury MR, Chowdhury MR, Hossain A. Workplace violence against Bangladeshi registered nurses: a survey following a year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Int Nurs Rev. 2023;70:219–28.

Bies RJ. Interactional (in)justice: The sacred and the profane. In Advances in Organizational Behavior (J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano, eds.), 2001;89 – 11. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.

Qi L, Wei X, Li Y, Liu B, Xu Z. The influence of mistreatment by patients on job satisfaction and turnover intention among Chinese nurses: A Three-Wave Survey. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17:1256.

Jang SJ, Son YJ, Lee H. Prevalence, associated factors and adverse outcomes of workplace violence towards nurses in psychiatric settings: a systematic review. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2022;31:450–68.

Yan W, Bao N, Zheng S, Wang H, Yue D, Chen L. The impacts of patient mistreatment on healthcare workers’ role behaviors: a study in Chinese Fangcang shelter hospitals. BMC Nurs. 2023;22:444.

Greenbaum RL, Quade MJ, Mawritz MB, Kim J, Crosby D. When the customer is unethical: the explanatory role of employee emotional exhaustion onto work-family conflict, relationship conflict with coworkers, and job neglect. J Appl Psychol. 2014;99:1188–203.

Chi NW, Yang J, Lin CY. Service workers’ chain reactions to daily customer mistreatment: behavioral linkages, mechanisms, and boundary conditions. J Occup Health Psychol. 2018;23:58–70.

Sarwar A, Imran MK, Hafeez H, Zaheer M, Fatima T. Does workplace ostracism negatively affect family life during a pandemic? Pers Rev. 2024;53(4):900-917.

Egloff B. You are not alone - social sharing as a necessary addition to the embracing factor. Behav Brain Sci. 2017;40:e358.

Spencer L. Social sharing of negative emotional events: whether or not sharing helps depends on the Listener’s response. The Pennsylvania State University; 2019.

Baranik LE, Wang M, Gong Y, Shi. Customer mistreatment, employee health, and job performance: cognitive rumination and social sharing as mediating mechanisms. J Manage. 2017;43:1261–82.

Google Scholar  

Yeh T, Chang Y, Hsu YH, Huang L, Yang C. Causes of nursing staff burnout: exploring the effects of emotional exhaustion, work-family conflict, and supervisor support. Jpn J Nurs Sci. 2021;18(2):e12392.

Cakal H, Keshavarzi S, Ruhani A, Dakhil-Abbasi G. Workplace violence and turnover intentions among nurses: the moderating roles of invulnerability and organisational support - A cross-sectional study. J Clin Nurs. 2021;00:1–11.

Kim J. The moderating effect of social support on the relationship between violence experiences and violence responses of psychiatric nurses. J Korean Acad Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2019;28(2):144.

Yeh TF, Chang YC, Feng WH, Sclerosis M, Yang CC. Effect of workplace violence on turnover intention: the mediating roles of job control, psychological demands, and social support. Inquiry. 2020;57:46958020969313.

Shahrour G, Taha I, Ali AM, Alibrahim M. The moderating role of social support on workplace violence and stress among psychiatric nurses. Nurs Forum. 2022;57:1281–8.

Grandey AA, Foo SC, Groth M, Goodwin RE. Free to be you and me: a climate of authenticity alleviates burnout from emotional labor. J Occup Health Psych. 2012;17:1–14.

Koopmann J, Wang M, Liu Y, Song Y. Customer mistreatment: a review of conceptualizations and a multilevel theoretical model. Mistreatment Organ. 2015;13:33–79.

Baranik LE, Zhu Y, Wang M, Zhuang W. When does witnessing patient mistreatment hurt nurses’ performance? Gauging the moderation roles of self-concern and other-orientation. J Manage Psychol. 2022;37:170–85.

Cai D, Li F, Feng T, Liu B, Qi L, Men C. Mistreatment from patients and nurses’ career withdrawal intention: does political skill matter? Asia Pac J Hum Resou. 2022;60:342–61.

Goussinsky R. The combined moderating effects of coworker support and occupational coping self-efficacy on the relationship between patients mistreatment and burnout. J Aggress Maltreat T. 2020;29:479–97.

Garcia PRJM, Restubog SLD, Lu VN, et al. Attributions of blame for customer mistreatment: implications for employees’ service performance and customers’ negative word of mouth. J Vocat Behav. 2019;110:203–13.

Kim S, Kitzmiller R, Baernholdt M, Lynn MR, Jones CB. Patient safety culture: the impact on workplace violence and health worker burnout. Workplace Health Saf. 2023;71:78–88.

Martin LL, Tesser A. Toward a motivational and structural theory of ruminative thought. In: Uleman JS, Bargh JA, editors. Unintended thought. New York: Guilford Press; 1989. pp. 306–26.

Arnold KA, Walsh MM. Customer incivility and employee well-being: testing the moderating effects of meaning, perspective taking and transformational leadership. Work Stress. 2015;29:362–78.

Jiang FB, Wang Z. Applications of cognitive appraisal theory of tress in managerial psychology research: scenes, methods, and myths. Adv Psychol Sci. 2022;30:2825–45.

Haggard DL, Robert C, Rose AJ. Co-rumination in the workplace: adjustment trade-offs for men and women who engage in excessive discussions of workplace problems. J Bus Psychol. 2011;26:27–40.

Park YA, Kim S. Customer mistreatment harms nightly sleep and next-morning recovery: job control and recovery self-efficacy as cross-level moderators. J Occup Health Psychol. 2019;24:256–69.

McCance AS, Nye CD, Wang L, Jones KS, Chiu C. Alleviating the burden of emotional labor: the role of social sharing. J Manage. 2013;39(2):392–415.

Zhan Y, Wang M, Shi J. Lagged influences of customer mistreatment on employee mood: moderating roles of maladaptive emotion regulation strategies. In: Ashkanasy, N.M., Zerbe, W.J., Härtel, C.E.J, editors. Research On Emotion in Organizations. Emerald Group, Bingley, UK. 2013;9:203–224. Further Reading.

Brown SP, Westbrook RA, Challagalla G. Good cope, bad cope: adaptive and maladaptive coping strategies following a critical negative work event. J Appl Psychol. 2005;90:792–8.

Nolen-Hoeksema S. Emotion regulation and psychopathology: the role of gender. Annu Rev Clin Psycho. 2012;8:161–87.

Wang HJ, Li PK, Bauer TN, Erdogan B. Patient mistreatment and new nurse adjustment: the role of rumination and work engagement. Hum Relat. 2023;0.

Geisler M, Buratti S, Allwood CM. The complex interplay between emotion regulation and work rumination on exhaustion. Front Psychol. 2019;10.

Jeon YJJ. The effects of after-working hours work contact through information and communication technology on emotional rumination, work-family conflict, and emotional exhaustion: a study of hotel and duty-free employees. J Tou Leis Res. 2021;33:407–23.

Huang YY, Bullock A, Liu J, Wang ZX, Xu G, Sang B. Co-rumination with friends exacerbates association between peer victimization and adjustment in adolescence. J Appl Dev Psychol. 2022;80:101410.

Shi X, Wang X. Daily spillover from home to work: the role of workplace mindfulness and daily customer mistreatment. Int J Contemp Hosp M. 2022;34:3008–28.

Knipfer K, Kump B. Collective rumination: when ‘problem talk’ impairs organizational resilience. Appl Psychol-Int Rev. 2022;71:154–73.

Netemeyer RG, Boles JS. Development and validation of work-family conflict and family-work conflict scales. J Appl Psychol. 1996;81:400–10.

Huyghebaert-Zouaghi T, Morin AJS, Fernet C, Austin S, Gillet N. Longitudinal profiles of work-family interface: their individual and organizational predictors, personal and work outcomes, and implications for onsite and remote workers. J Vocat Behav. 2022;134:103695.

He Y, Walker JM, Payne SC, Miner KN. Explaining the negative impact of workplace incivility on work and non-work outcomes: the roles of negative rumination and organizational support. Stress Health. 2021;37:297–309.

Junker NM, Baumeister RF, Straub K, Greenhaus JH. When forgetting what happened at work matters: the role of affective rumination, problem-solving pondering, and self-control in work-family conflict and enrichment. J Appl Psychol. 2021;106:1750–66.

Gillet N, Austin S, Huyghebaert-Zouaghi T, Fernet C, Morin AJS. Colleagues’ norms regarding work-related messages: their differential effects among remote and onsite workers. Pers Rev. 2022;53:173–92.

Zhang R, W YQ, Ferreira-Meyers K. The work-family spillover effects of customer mistreatment for service employees: the moderating roles of psychological detachment and leader-member exchange. Front Psychol 2019;10.

Karakurt N, Erden Y, Çelik AS. The relationship between nurses’ work stress levels and work-family conflict during the COVID-19 pandemic and the affecting factors: a study from Turkey. Arch Psychiat Nurs. 2023;42:61–7.

Eisenberger R, Wen X, Zheng D, Yu J, Liu Z, Zhang J, Wang L, Kim TY, Krivacek S, Zagenczyk TJ, Joo MK, Mesdaghinia S, Lee DR, Kim TH. Does felt obligation or gratitude better explain the relationship between perceived organizational support and outcomes? Group Organ Manage. 2023;0.

Yanbei R, Dongdong M, Yun L, et al. Does perceived organization support moderates the relationships between work frustration and burnout among intensive care unit nurses? A cross-sectional survey. BMC Nurs. 2023;22:22.

Bobbio A, Manganelli AM. Antecedents of hospital nurses’ intention to leave the organization: a cross sectional survey. Int J Nurs Stud. 2015;52(7):1180–92.

Baran B, Rhoades L, Miller L. Advancing perceived organizational support theory into the twenty-first century world of work. J Bus Psychol. 2012;27:123–47.

Hngoi CL, Abdullah NA, Sulaiman WSW, Nor NIZ. Examining job involvement and perceived organizational support toward organizational commitment: job insecurity as mediator. Front Psychol. 2024;15.

Pecino V, Mañas MA, Díaz-Fúnez PA, Aguilar-Parra JM, Padilla-Góngora D, López-Liria R. Organisational climate, role stress, and public employees’ job satisfaction. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16:1792.

Keller EG, Hittle BM, Boch S, Davis K, Gillespie GL. Modeling wellbeing for U.S. correctional nurses: a cross sectional survey. Int J Nurs Stud. 2023;147:104589.

Zhang J, Liu F, Smith AP. Exploring the relationship between work stress and work-related rumination. Psychol Rep. 2023;0(0).

Weigelt O, Gierer P, Syrek CJ. My mind is working overtime-towards an integrative perspective of psychological detachment, work-related rumination, and work reflection. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16:2987.

Brislin RW. The wording and translation of research instruments. In: Lonner WL, Berry JW, editors. Cross-cultural research and Methodology Series. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1986. pp. 137–64.

Wang M, Liao H, Zhan Y, Shi J. Daily customer mistreatment and employee sabotage against customers: examining emotion and resource perspectives. Acad Manage J. 2011;54:312–34.

Maslach CA, Schaufeli WB, Leiter MP. Job burnout. Annu Rev Psychol. 2001;52:397–422.

Shen J, Benson J. When CSR is a social norm: how socially responsible human resource management affects employee work behavior. J Manage. 2016;42:1723–46.

Nixon AE, Yang LQ, Zhang XC. Emotional labor in China: do perceived organizational support and gender moderate the process? Stress Health. 2011;27(4):289–305.

Labrague LJ, Ballad CA, Fronda DC. Predictors and outcomes of work-family conflict among nurses. Int Nurs Rev. 2021;68(3):349–57.

Feng TW, Huang YF, Avgerinos E. When marketing and manufacturing departments integrate: the influences of market newness and competitive intensity. Ind Market Manag. 2018;75:218–31.

Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986;51:1173–82.

Preacher KJ, Hayes AF. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav Res Methods. 2008;40:879–91.

Aiken LS, West SG. Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage; 1991.

Edwards JR, Lambert LS. Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: a general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychol Methods. 2007;12:1–22.

Hayes AF. An index and test of linear moderated mediation. Multivar Behav Res. 2015;50:1–22.

Yun M, Beehr T. When experiencing nice interactions at work: good sleep quality via well-being. Stress Health. 2024;40:e3390.

Karaeminogullari A, Erdogan B, Bauer TN. Biting the hand that heals: mistreatment by patients and the well-being of healthcare workers. Pers Rev. 2018;47:572–91.

Carlson D, Ferguson M, Hunter E, Whitten D. Abusive supervision and work-family conflict: the path through emotional labor and burnout. Leadersh Quart. 2012;23:849–59.

Giusti EM, Pedroli E, D’Aniello GE, Badiale CS, Pietrabissa G, Manna C, Badiale MS, Riva G, Castelnuovo G, Molinari E. The psychological impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on health professionals: a cross-sectional study. Front Psychol. 2020;11:1684.

Li S, Yan H, Qiao S, Chang X. Prevalence, influencing factors and adverse consequences of workplace violence against nurses in China: a cross-sectional study. J Nurs Manag. 2022;30:1801–10.

Hannemann J, Abdalrahman A, Erim Y, Morawa E, Jerg-Bretzke L, Beschoner P, Geiser F, Hiebel N, Weidner K, Steudte-Schmiedgen S, Albus C. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of medical staff considering the interplay of pandemic burden and psychosocial resources-A rapid systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2022;17:e0264290.

Wieckowski AG. The emotional toll of frontline labor. Harv Bus Rev. 2023;2:48–50.

Mahoney DA, Gopisetty D, Osterberg L, Nudelman MJR, Smith-Coggins R. Patient mistreatment of health care professionals. BMC Med Educ. 2022;22:133.

van Jaarsveld DD, Walker DD, Kim S. Encouraging good behavior from your customers. Harv Bus Rev. 2023;2:56–8.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all nurse participants and Zhang Yong, Li Hua, Ma Li, and Wee Chow Hou for their helpful comments as well as the seminar participants at Chongqing University, Peking University, and Nanyang Technological University.

This study was supported by the National Social Science Foundation of China (Grant number: 19BJY052, 22BGL141), National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant number: 72110107002, 71974021), Natural Science Foundation of Chongqing (Grant number: cstc2021jcyj-msxmX0689), Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant number: 2022CDJSKJC14), and Chongqing Social Science Planning Project (Grant number: 2018PY76).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Economics and Business Administration, Chongqing University, Chongqing, China

Wei Yan & Zeqing Cheng

Medical Insurance Office, Hospital of Chongqing University, Chongqing, China

School of Medicine and Health Management, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science & Technology, Wuhan, 430000, China

Development and Planning Department, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, 400000, China

Medical Center of Hematology, Xinqiao Hospital, State Key Laboratory of Trauma, Burn and Combined Injury, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Army Medical University, Chongqing, China

Human Resources Department, The Second Affiliate Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, No.74 Linjiang Road, Yuzhong District, Chongqing, China

President Office, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Army Medical University, No. 83 Xinqiao Main Street, Shapingba District, Chongqing, China

Caiping Song

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Wei Yan and Zeqing Cheng designed the study and prepared the first draft of this manuscript. Di Xiao and Xin Du participated in the data analysis. Huan Wang contributed to writing and revising the manuscript. Li Li and Caiping Song contributed to data collection and analysis. All the authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Li Li or Caiping Song .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval.

Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the School of Economics and Business Administration of Chongqing University (IRB No. SEBA201906). Authors explained research objectives and procedures to all participants who were assured that their participation in this study was voluntary and anonymous. All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the National Research Council and Helsinki Declaration of 2013. Informed consent was obtained from all subjects and/or their legal guardian(s).

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Yan, W., Cheng, Z., Xiao, D. et al. Patient mistreatment, emotional exhaustion and work-family conflict among nurses: a moderated mediation model of social sharing of negative work events and perceived organizational support. BMC Med Educ 24 , 1041 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-06022-9

Download citation

Received : 10 April 2024

Accepted : 13 September 2024

Published : 27 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-06022-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

• General enquiries: [email protected]