Subject guide

IB Social & Cultural Anthropology Internal Assessment guide

The IB Social & Cultural Anthropology Fieldwork critical reflection + main report (IA) is graded against 4 criteria worth 26 marks total. This guide explains exactly what each criterion expects and what examiners look for at each mark level.

4 criteria26 marks totalSL & HL available

Assessment criteria

Examiners score each criterion independently using the mark band descriptors below.

CriterionNameMarks
Observation and ReportObservation and Report4
Methodological and Conceptual Extension of Initial FieldworkMethodological and Conceptual Extension of Initial Fieldwork6
Second Fieldwork Data Collection and AnalysisSecond Fieldwork Data Collection and Analysis4
Critical Reflection of Fieldwork Research, Methods and ConceptsCritical Reflection of Fieldwork Research, Methods and Concepts12
Total26

Criterion-by-criterion breakdown

Observation and Report

Observation and Report

0-4

What this criterion assesses

The 450-word report of the initial one-hour observation: organized and detailed, purely descriptive at this stage, with the context of the observation discussed.

Mark band descriptors

Criterion A: Observation and report (0–4):
- 0: The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
- 1–2: The written report is either organized or detailed, but not both. The discussion of the context of the observation is limited.
- 3–4: The written report is organized and detailed. The context of the observation is discussed either partially or fully.

Common mistakes

Interpretation creeping into what should be pure descriptionReport organized but thin on observed detail (or vice versa)Context of the observation barely discussedSetting too empty or unfocused to sustain observation

Methodological and Conceptual Extension of Initial Fieldwork

Methodological and Conceptual Extension of Initial Fieldwork

0-6

What this criterion assesses

The 300-word justification of the second research method (participant observation, interviews, visual anthropology, surveys, life history…) and the key or inquiry-specific concept framing the further research — identified, described, explained, and their relevance to the initial observation clearly established and justified.

Mark band descriptors

Criterion B: Methodological and conceptual extension of initial fieldwork (0–6):
- 0: The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
- 1–2: 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.
- 3–4: 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.
- 5–6: 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.

Common mistakes

Method named but never explained or justifiedKey concept stated without connecting it to the observation siteChoice justified by convenience rather than anthropological relevanceNo link drawn between the first observation and the planned extension

Second Fieldwork Data Collection and Analysis

Second Fieldwork Data Collection and Analysis

0-4

What this criterion assesses

The 400-word report of the further research: appropriate and relevant data analysed soundly in relation to the key concept or inquiry-specific concept and the chosen method.

Mark band descriptors

Criterion C: Second fieldwork data collection and analysis (0–4):
- 0: The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
- 1–2: 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.
- 3–4: 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 the overall quality of the analysis.

Common mistakes

Data described rather than analysed through the conceptIrrelevant or inconsistent data diluting the analysisThe chosen method and concept disappear from the analysisNew data not connected back to the initial observation

Critical Reflection of Fieldwork Research, Methods and Concepts

Critical Reflection of Fieldwork Research, Methods and Concepts

0-12

What this criterion assesses

A critical reflection on doing anthropology: a balanced, detailed critical comparison and evaluation of the two fieldwork experiences, a discussion of the position of the researcher and how it may have affected the results, and an explicit account of what was learned about gathering fieldwork data.

Mark band descriptors

Criterion D: Critical reflection of fieldwork research, methods and concepts/area of inquiry (0–12):
- 0: The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
- 1–3: 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.
- 4–6: 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.
- 7–9: 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; there is discussion of what has been learned through the process of gathering fieldwork data, but it lacks clarity.
- 10–12: 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, with the relevance of the discussion to the results clearly established; there is critical reflection that explicitly and consistently discusses what has been learned through the process of gathering fieldwork data.

Common mistakes

Comparing what was seen rather than the methods used to see itResearcher's position mentioned but its effect on results never discussedReflection reads as a diary rather than a methodological critiqueWhat was learned about doing anthropology left implicit

Ready to get feedback on your Social & Cultural Anthropology Fieldwork critical reflection + main report (IA)?

Upload your draft and get criterion-by-criterion feedback using the exact Social & Cultural Anthropology rubric — the same way your examiner will mark it.

Get Social & Cultural Anthropology IA feedback →