A Critical Discourse Analysis of WEIRD-Related Limitation Reporting in Psychology

Critiques of WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich and Democratic) sampling have raised concerns regarding the representativeness and generalisability of psychological research. While previous work has largely focused on the prevalence of WEIRD sampling, less attention has been given to how such limitations are negotiated within research reporting. This study used Critical Discourse Analysis to examine how psychological research papers linguistically negotiate WEIRD-related sampling limitations and claims of generalisability within limitation sections. A purposive sample of 39 empirical articles from the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology was analysed using CDA informed by Fairclough's three-dimensional framework and complementary discourse-oriented concepts relating to language, rhetoric and disciplinary norms. Three interpretive repertoires were identified: future-oriented repair, disciplinary constraint and contextual reflexivity. Analysis suggests that limitation sections function as rhetorical spaces through which sampling limitations are managed, disciplinary assumptions are reproduced, and broader commitments to generalisability are maintained, albeit alongside emerging constructions that foreground contextual specificity as epistemically meaningful. The findings contribute to WEIRD-related research reporting literature by demonstrating how assumptions surrounding universality and representativeness may be reproduced through routine academic discourse.