Assumptions, Limitations, Delimitations, and Scope of the Study

By Marilyn K. Simon, PhD and Jim Goes PhD

Includes excerpts from Simon & Goes (2013), Dissertation and Scholarly Research:
Recipes for Success. Seattle, WA: Dissertation Success LLC.
Of all the elements in scholarly research, few are more confusing to learners than assumptions, limitations, and delimitations. Many
students have difficulty understanding and differentiating between these elements. However, these elements of the proposal are
essential elements in explaining and framing the proposed study.
Assumptions
Assumptions are a necessary element in proposals, because they are required to enable and conduct the study. Often there are beliefs
in the proposed research that are necessary to conduct the research, but cannot be proven. A classic example is the assumption that
participants in a study will answer survey or interview questions honestly and factually. Since it would take considerable time and
effort to validate answers of each participant, we assume honest responses. Similarly, we might have a common belief about a
phenomenon within the study population, yet be unable to prove it. If there is evidence that supports the assumption, we usually defer
to refer to that evidence with a source citation, rather than assume it. Otherwise, we only assume what we cannot prove, but must
assume to conduct the research.
However, it is not sufficient just to assume what cannot be proven. You need to justify that each assumption will likely be met (in the
proposal) and was probably true (in the dissertation); otherwise, the study is of no value. To assume, for example, that participants will
respond honestly, you can explain how identities of participants will be (or were) concealed and their confidentiality preserved.
Assuring study participants that their responses are confidential and kept secure makes it much more likely that they will respond
honestly.
Scope
The scope of a study refers to the parameters under which the study will be operating—what the study covers. Think of the scope as
the domain of your research—what’s in the study domain, and what is not. You need to make it as clear as possible what you will be
studying and which factors are within the accepted range of your study. For example, if you are studying the negative effects of
bullying on middle school children, the scope of the study could include both face-to-face bullying and cyber-bullying in grades 6
through 8, but exclude other grades.
Limitations
Limitations are constraints that are largely beyond your control, but could affect the study outcome. Limitations often flow from
methodology and design choices. Each option in methodology and design has particular limitations. These limit the extent to which a
study can go, and sometimes affect the end result and conclusions that can be drawn.
Every study, no matter how well it is conducted and constructed, has limitations. These limitations relate to the specifics of each
methodology and design, and force the researcher into tradeoffs. This is one of the reasons why we do not use the words "prove" and
"disprove" with respect to research findings. It is always possible that future research may cast doubt on the validity of any hypothesis
or conclusion from a study, particularly if conducted using a different methodology or design. Your study might have access to only
certain people in an organization, certain documents, and certain data. These are limitations. Subsequent studies may overcome these
limitations.
Limitations of Qualitative Studies
A limitation associated with qualitative study is related to validity and reliability. “Because qualitative research occurs in the natural
setting it is extremely difficult to replicate studies” (Wiersma, 2000, p. 211). When you select certain method- ologies and designs, for
example phenomenology, you accept inherent limitations over which you may have little control.
Limitations of Case Studies
We cannot make causal inferences from case studies, because we cannot rule out alternative explanations. It is always unclear about
the generality of the findings of a case study. A case study involves the behavior of one person, group, or organization. The behavior
of this one unit of analysis may or may not reflect the behavior of similar entities. Case studies may be suggestive of what may be
found in similar organizations, but additional research would be needed to verify whether findings from one study would generalize
elsewhere. This is one reason why case studies tend to be used for poorly understood problems—there is a need for qualitative,
inductive research to understand the problem, which may inform subsequent quantitative, deductive research and potentially
generalizable results.
Limitations of Correlational Studies
Correlational research merely demonstrates that we can predict the behavior of one variable from the behavior of another variable. If a
relationship exists then there is an association between variables. However, two variables can be associated without there being a
causal relationship. If we find that X is associated with Y, it could mean that X caused Y, or Y caused X, or some “third”
(confounding) variable caused both X and Y without there being any causal relationship. Correlational research may also have
limitations with respect to the generality of the findings. Perhaps the study involved a specific group of people, or that the relationship
between the variables was only investigated under some situation or circumstance. Thus, it may be uncertain whether the correlational
findings will generalize to other people or situations.
Limitations of Randomized Experiments
Experiments involving the random assignment of participants to conditions sometimes allow us to make causal conclusions if the
variables that are manipulated are not confounded with other variables. Experiments gain rigor by controlling for influences outside of
the variables of interest. However, there still may be limitations with respect to the generality of the findings. The experiment may
have involved a specific group of people, certain situations, or only some of the possible variables. Thus, we may not know whether
the findings will generalize to other people, situations, or conceptualizations of the variables. Within particular bounds, significant
findings from an experimental study may infer a general cause, but the presence of other unmeasured variables can limit the scope of
that inference.
Limitations of Survey Instruments
Surveys that are distributed with time constraints were noted by Delva, Kirby, Knapper, and Birtwhistle (2002) as problematic in that
people who struggle with real or perceived time constraints are less likely to respond to surveys because these possible respondents
feel overworked—they just do not have the time to complete the survey. Surveys often also suffer the limitation of forcing
respondents into particular response categories, thereby
limiting the range of responses. Unlike an interview, where respondents can ask clarifying questions, respondents are usually limited
to the text in the survey itself for direction about how to complete it and where to respond.
Methodology has limitations such as generalizability. If the sample size is small, then generalizability is not possible. Researcher bias
could potentially influence approach and analysis. If standardized instruments are used, then the information obtained is limited, in
part, by the accuracy and applicability of the instrument selected. If you plan to use a Likert-type scale, the difference between “agree”
and “strongly agree” could be irrelevant to the participant but could affect the study results. There can also be practical limitations
such as time, money, accessibility, and human resources.
Delimitations
Delimitations arise from limitations in the scope of the study (defining the boundaries) and by the conscious exclusionary and
inclusionary decisions made during the development of the study plan. Unlike limitations, which flow from implicit characteristics of
method and design, delimitations result from specific choices made by the researcher. Among these are the choice of objectives and
questions, variables of interest, theoretical perspectives that were adopted, the paradigm (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed), the
theoretical framework, and the choice of participants.
The first delimiting step is the choice of problem, implying that there were other problems that were rejected or screened off from
view. To elucidate the delimitations of your study, you should review each decision you had to make in putting together your study. In
your purpose statement you declare what your study is intended to accomplish. In the delimitations section you can repeat this
declaration along with a pronouncement of what the study is not intended to cover. In the latter case, your decisions for excluding
certain pursuits are likely based on such criteria as not directly relevant; too problematic because...; not feasible and the like. Make
this reasoning as explicit as possible.
References
Delva, M. D., Kirby, J. R., Knapper, C. K. & Birtwhistle, R. V. (2002). Postal Survey of approaches to learning among Ontario
physicians: Implications for continuing medical education. British Medical Journal, 325, 1218-1222.
Wiersma, W. (2000). Research methods in education: An introduction. Boston, MA. Allyn and Bacon.