One thing we aim to highlight with this study is the silence in our data. With a topic as sensitive as IPV and with differing societal/cultural norms resulting in various perceptions of IPV across different regions, many limitations came with it. However, just as much as they are limitations to our study, they are the main point of our study. To this day, IPV is still a prevalent issue in many parts of the world. Discussion on the matter is often stigmatised, even to this day. As can be seen in the timeline, much of the work done to shed a light on and eliminate IPV had only begun to take place in recent years. Despite the establishment of the UDHR in 1948, no real change had been made until the 21st century, and even on that end only in the 2010s was there real change. 

Much of the conversation revolves around violence against women as they have been, and still continue to be, disproportionately affected by IPV. However, this dismisses the notion that men do not experience IPV. There are different types of IPV, intimate terrorism (IT) and situational couple violence (SCV). IT is derived from a general desire to control one’s partner whereas SCV arises from a specific conflict (Love et al.). Men are more likely to be perpetrators of the former, but are equally as likely as women to be victims of the latter, and the latter occurs more often (Johnson). While our study does focus on women as that is what the data collected can show us, we wanted to highlight the lack of data and conversation around men who experience IPV. Social norms and cultures that shape the way IPV is perceived has become a reason for men to downplay their experiences and struggle to seek help (Scott-Storey et al., 858-872). 

As discussed, varying norms across different cultures affect how IPV is perceived in different regions. Some regions see a greater justification of wife-beating, indicating differences in attitudes towards IPV. With that being said, data collected on IPV may not be the most accurate as questionnaires are very subjective. Answers seen on questionnaires could vary depending on the individual’s attitudes towards IPV which are shaped by their individual beliefs and the societal/cultural norms around them. The subjective nature of IPV is, in great part, a reason why there is no one universal assessment tool that can be deemed accurate enough to represent the true proportion of people, whether men or women, who have experienced IPV. Assessment tools that have existed cannot simply be adjusted for men by changing the pronouns in the questions. Rather, the nature of the questions in these assessments must also be reconsidered. IPV varies greatly between men and women. Understanding these differences are critical to be more inclusive in discussions of IPV across genders. 

The creation of a universal assessment tool is flawed in theory as this would lack the consideration of the roles of various societal/cultural norms in shaping understandings of and attitudes towards IPV. A deeper understanding of how societal/cultural norms shape perceptions of IPV is crucial not only for a better representation of the data but also to better inform solutions specific to regions in an effort to combat IPV. 

The role of societal/cultural norms in shaping attitudes towards IPV should not be underestimated. Various norms have contributed to painting the image of justifying IPV which in turn also contributes to the widespread stigmatised view on IPV. Justifying IPV almost allows people (this includes law enforcement) to turn a blind eye to IPV by saying it is a personal family matter that outsiders should not get involved in. This is all the more prevalent in some East Asian countries where only recent law changes have held people and law enforcement accountable for having to investigate these cases and protect victims. 

Another limitation of this study is the lack of data specifying which type of violence specifically is experienced. Various types of abuse stretching from physical to psychological are all considered forms of IPV. However, the lack of specification as to which form of violence specifically is experienced hinders the ability to address said violence. Regional laws have not included all forms of IPV either. This results in some forms of IPV going unpunished. Most of the discussion revolving around IPV has focused on domestic violence rather than intimate terrorism or situational partner violence. Only recently have countries begun to acknowledge other forms of violence that are not physical, such as psychological or emotional, as forms of IPV. A greater understanding of the different types of violence that occurs would help in informing strategies to combat IPV. 

As was discussed, the lack of data is a large limitation to any study exploring IPV, and this study is no exception. As the data utilised for this study was a compilation of regionally-collected data, it was a common occurrence that certain indicators were not available for certain countries. In order to better represent the proportion of women who have experienced IPV, we used the World Bank’s modeled estimate. While this is the most consistent indicator of IPV rates, it is not the most accurate. With awareness towards IPV only recently picking up, it comes as no surprise that the lack of available data poses a great limitation to this study. 

More than this study analyses and discusses the data, it highlights the silence in said data and the stories it tells. IPV continues to be a prevalent issue all over the world and it has taken decades to finally raise enough awareness on the issue. However, what is being addressed is merely the surface level of an issue with roots so deep that laws cannot begin to eliminate without a greater understanding of its foundations. The discussion around IPV and how to combat it is barely where it needs to be. Addressing issues such as perceptions and attitudes towards IPV require more discussion. Inclusivity of the discussion is also necessary as men should not be excluded from discussions on IPV. With IPV, there is more that is untold than what is told and this silence will always be a limitation to this study and any other study on IPV.