Official IB Social and Cultural Anthropology IA criteria

The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

The written report is either organized or detailed, but not both. The discussion of the context of the observation is limited.

The written report is organized and detailed. The context of the observation is discussed either partially or fully.

The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

A second research method has been identified (it is possible for observation to be the second method). Its relevance or appropriateness to a key concept or inquiry-specific concept and initial observation is partially established. There is limited justification for the choice.

A second research method has been identified and described. Its relevance or appropriateness to a key concept or inquiry-specific concept and initial observation is established. There is some justification for the choice.

A second research method has been identified, described and explained. Its relevance and appropriateness to a key concept or inquiry-specific concept and the initial observation is clearly established. This connection is justified and either partially or fully discussed.

The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

Data is selected and analysed in relation to the key concept or inquiry-specific concept and chosen method; however, this analysis is superficial. The inclusion of inconsistent and irrelevant data detracts from the overall quality of the analysis.

Appropriate and relevant data is analysed in relation to the key concept or inquiry-specific concept and chosen method; this analysis is sound. The inclusion of minor inconsistencies does not hinder from the overall quality of the analysis.

The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

There is a limited attempt at reflection: there is a superficial comparison or evaluation of first observation and second research method the position of the researcher is mentioned but not discussed there is a description but no discussion of the process of gathering fieldwork data.

There is reflection although this is not critical: there is limited comparison or evaluation of first observation and second research method; the focus of the comparison or evaluation is not fully established and lacks balance and detail there is limited discussion of the position of the researcher; some of the observations have no relevance to the research there is limited discussion of what has been learned about the process of gathering fieldwork data; the relevance of the discussion to the fieldwork is only partially established.

There is some critical reflection: there is comparison and evaluation of first observation and second research method; the comparison or evaluation is established and is either balanced or detailed but not both there is discussion of the position of the researcher or how this may have affected the results but not both; the relevance of the discussion to the results is established, but it lacks clarity there is discussion of what has been learned through the process of gathering fieldwork data, but it lacks clarity.

There is a critical reflection: there is critical comparison and evaluation of first observation and second research method; the comparison or evaluation is balanced and detailed there is discussion of the position of the researcher and how this may have affected the results; the relevance of the discussion to the results is clearly established there is critical reflection that explicitly and consistently discusses what has been learned through the process of gathering fieldwork data; any inconsistencies in this reflection do not hinder from the overall quality.