A limitations section states what your data, method, and design can and cannot show, and how that affects the way your findings should be read. Many university guides place it in the discussion or the conclusions chapter. Boundaries you chose on purpose, such as one country or one time period, are scope and are usually explained in the introduction.
No one sees their own blind spots, with or without AI help. Esmond points them out in your draft from within your field, along with factual errors and inconsistencies.
Every study has limits: a sample that could have been larger, a measure that captures only part of a concept, an interview group that speaks for one setting. The limitations section names the ones that matter for your conclusions and says what they mean for how a reader should take the findings. It shows that you know what your own study can carry.
NTNU in Norway frames it as part of looking back on the study in the discussion, where you evaluate how valid and reliable the research has been, and asks two direct questions: “What could you have done differently? What are its strengths and weaknesses?” The University of Helsinki's master's program in social research lists what its conclusions should reflect on: the method used, the reliability and general applicability of the results in quantitative research, the limitations affecting the interpretation of results, the ethical aspects, and the possible social relevance of the results.
A hypothetical example of a commentYour limitations section says the survey reached only one company, but your conclusion recommends the approach to the whole sector. How far do your findings carry beyond that one company?
A first comment on one part of your own draft, right away and without an account.
Get a free previewScope is what you decided to include and leave out before you started. Limitations are the constraints of the study as it was carried out. The words overlap in practice. Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden lists "Scope / Limitations" as one element of the introduction and describes it like this: “Outlines scope of the work (what has been included) and why certain limitations have been made (what has been excluded)”. Some programs call those deliberate exclusions delimitations. Whatever your program calls them, keep the two apart in your draft: explain the choices in the introduction, and discuss the consequences in the limitations section.
| Scope (delimitations) | Limitations | |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | A boundary you set on purpose | A constraint of the study as carried out |
| Example | Only firms in one country, only 2015 to 2024 | A response rate lower than planned, a measure with known gaps |
| Where it usually goes | The introduction, sometimes the methods | The discussion or conclusions; in technical work, also the design section |
| What the reader needs | Why you drew the line there | What it means for how the findings can be read |
The guides differ on placement, though most of them put it after the results. The Helsinki program is explicit: “The section with the conclusions and discussion also includes a subsection on the limitations of research.” An Aalto University guide on master's thesis structure in Finland, based on the thesis guide of the IBC (business communication) program, gives an example outline whose conclusions chapter ends with “6.3 Limitations of the study 6.4 Suggestions for further research”.
Chalmers places it in the discussion. Its possible structure for that chapter runs from background and key results through comments on the results to “Move 4 : Stating the limitations of the study”, followed by recommendations for future research. So the limitations come after the results have been compared with earlier work, and before the look ahead.
Two other places come up. In an article-based PhD thesis at Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, the introductory chapter that frames the articles carries them: “The introductory chapter must contain a methodological discussion, wherein the candidate examines methodological and ethical challenges such as those pertaining to their role as researcher, as well as the durability of methodology and results, and limitations of the completed work.” And in technical reports, DTU in Denmark asks for the approximations and limitations of the design in the design section: “State the applied approximations and limitations of the design.”
For each limitation that matters, a reader should find four things. The guides above ask for them in different words; the order is our suggestion.
The table is a starting point for your own list, not a set of items to copy. Name only what applies to your study.
| Kind of study | Limitations that often matter | Question to ask about your own |
|---|---|---|
| Survey or other quantitative study | Sample size and selection, response rate, self-reported measures, a design that shows association and not cause | Do my conclusions claim a cause, or more generality, than the design allows? |
| Interview or case study | Who took part and who didn't, one setting, your own role in the interviews and the coding | To which settings could the findings plausibly transfer, and on what basis? |
| Experiment or engineering design | Approximations in the model, test conditions that differ from real use, measurement uncertainty | Under which conditions does the result hold, and where was it not tested? |
| Literature-based thesis | Databases and search terms used, languages included, the period covered | Could studies that the search missed change the picture? |
A list of generic limitations, such as limited time or limited resources, tells the reader little unless you say what they changed in the study. An overly apologetic section can make a sound study look weaker than it is; an overly short one can leave a reader wondering whether you saw the problems. Chalmers adds a qualifier to one point in its possible structure for the discussion: “Anticipate and deal with potential criticisms (only if necessary)”.
The most serious problem is a mismatch between the limitations and the conclusions: the section admits that the sample came from one company, and the conclusion then speaks for a whole sector. A limitation that you name has to show up in how far you take your claims. Where a limitation bears on one specific finding, it can also help to mention it next to that finding in the discussion, and not only in a separate section at the end.
This example is made up. A master's student in management surveys employees of one logistics firm about hybrid work and finds that people who work from home two days a week report higher job satisfaction. Her limitations section has one sentence: the sample was small. Reading it again, she asks three questions. Small for what: is the issue the number of respondents, or that all of them work for one firm with its own culture? Which finding does it touch: the link between home days and satisfaction, or the overall level of satisfaction? And does the conclusion respect it: her conclusion says that hybrid work raises satisfaction, while a survey at one point in time can show an association at most. She brings the conclusion in line with the design and explains in the limitations what the single firm and the single survey mean for the findings.
Points drawn from the guides above. The last two are our suggestions.
Esmond evaluates every assignment before you submit. It never writes it.
Esmond is an AI tool that doesn't write for you. If your course doesn't allow any AI tools, don't use Esmond for that work. If you're unsure, ask your instructor or advisor.
Esmond reads your thesis as a whole, from within your field, and flags factual errors, inconsistencies, and blind spots. For limitations, that can mean a conclusion that claims more than your design or sample supports, a limitation mentioned in the methods chapter that the discussion never comes back to, or a causal claim based on data that can show an association at most. Esmond only sees what is in your text: it doesn't know your data beyond what you report, and it doesn't decide which limitations your supervisor expects to see. It adds no text to the thesis. See how Esmond works and the sample report for what a review looks like.
Usually in the discussion or the conclusions chapter, after the results. The University of Helsinki's social research program asks for a subsection on limitations in the conclusions and discussion; Chalmers places it in the discussion. Check your program's guidelines.
Delimitations, or scope, are boundaries you chose on purpose, explained in the introduction. Limitations are constraints of the study as carried out, discussed where your program expects them, usually after the results, with what they mean for the findings.
There is no set length. It should cover the limitations that matter for your conclusions, each with its cause and its effect on the findings. Its length follows from that, and from what your field and your supervisor expect.
Not when they are stated clearly and reflected in your conclusions. A study whose conclusions go further than its limitations allow is easier to question than one that names its limits.
Read on November 7, 2026.
Get your paper evaluated before you submit