• The research and paperwork we have used have their own limitations. The main example we can use is the research paper Tears or Fears? Comparing Gender Stereotypes about Movie Preferences to Actual Preferences. Indeed in this paper there are limitations (a) about the set of movie genres used within the study and (b) the population that was investigated. For the first limitation, while the researchers did use a range of genres, they did not include all of them (like they did not mention musicals or documentaries) and excluded sub-genres and hybrid genres. The effect of this is that there is a possibility that when a participant was answering a question about one genre, he was thinking about a specific sub-genre or hybrid genre, which means he/she did not properly answer the question. When it comes to limit (b), it is true that the study was conducted with middle and upper class German students aged between 18 and 35 years old. Thus we can assume that the result cannot be fully reliable, as movie preferences can differ between age groups, culture and class.
  • The limit of participants of the survey: most were UCL students (so, upper-middle class) aged between 19 and 25. According to Bourdieu, the way one appreciates and understands art changes depending on social class (Stougaard-Nielsen & Mussgnug, 2018). Hence their responses, and the way they might have felt about the movies may not reflect society in general.
  • All the members of the group are women of the same age group, class and culture, which might imply a form of bias. This implies a number of elements.
    – As stated above, it is true that age, class and culture does influence your movie preference, and therefore your judgement and perception of the movie. 
    – By being a group of only girls, we feel that because we are victims of the gender inequality we might have a different judgement then if it was only boys conducting this research.
    – The Sapir-Wharf hypothesis explains that language plays a crucial role in people’s lives because it is used not only to communicate but is also a tool that may influence people’s behaviour and their way of thinking (Horan, 2018). Speaking a different language hence means having a different perception of the world (Horan, 2018). This implies that being four non-Hindi speakers, we do not have the same perception of reality as a Hindi speaker. This consequently means that our analysis about KKHH might not be as reliable, as we might not have fully understood the meaning of the movie.
  • The limit of choice of movies: only three movies can’t be a generalisation on the whole movie industry.
  • The problem of objectivity:
    – Objectivity can be considered as an element free of prejudice and bias, free of all assumptions and values and it should be seen as a process rather than a result (Horan, 2018). By focusing on the first criteria to qualify an element as objective, we cannot consider that our research is totally free of bias, based on the limits stated above, and thus, our research cannot be considered fully objective. 
    – A movie is a piece of art, and art can have limitless interpretations. What we have explored today is an interpretation of the three movies through our own lens, with our own theories and judgement about power relations and characters. However this cannot be defined as the unique, objective interpretation.