IA Playbook
Move from observation to method, then show how your analysis and reflection earn the stronger bands.
This guide combines the SL and HL anthropology criteria so you can clearly track how observation, method, analysis, ethics, and reflection are rewarded.
Social and Cultural Anthropology IA
See what each criterion measures, how many marks it carries, and what stronger evidence usually looks like.
Criterion names, marks, and mark bands follow the IB subject guide. The band descriptions are our own summaries, so check your subject guide for the exact wording.
How organized and detailed the observation report is, and how well it discusses the context of the observation.
Stronger evidence
The report is organized and detailed, and the context of the observation is discussed at least partly.
Early-stage evidence
The report has organization or detail, but lacks one of them, and says little about the setting of the observation.
How well you choose, describe, and justify a second research method linked to a key or inquiry-specific concept and to your first observation.
Stronger evidence
A second method is described and explained, its fit with a concept and the first observation is clear, and that connection is justified and discussed.
Early-stage evidence
A second method is identified, its fit with a concept and the first observation is only partly shown, and its choice is barely justified.
How soundly the data from the second method is analysed in relation to the concept and the method.
Stronger evidence
Relevant data is analysed soundly against the concept and method; minor inconsistencies do not weaken it.
Early-stage evidence
Data is analysed against the concept and method only superficially, and irrelevant or inconsistent data weakens it.
How critically you compare the two methods, discuss your position as researcher, and reflect on what fieldwork taught you.
Stronger evidence
Critical reflection: a balanced, detailed comparison, clear discussion of your position and its effects, and explicit discussion of what fieldwork taught you.
Early-stage evidence
Reflection is superficial: the methods are barely compared, your position as researcher is only mentioned, and the fieldwork process is described rather than discussed.
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | Nothing in the work reaches the lowest band. |
| 1-2 | The report has organization or detail, but lacks one of them, and says little about the setting of the observation. |
| 3-4 | The report is organized and detailed, and the context of the observation is discussed at least partly. |
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | Nothing in the work reaches the lowest band. |
| 1-2 | A second method is identified, its fit with a concept and the first observation is only partly shown, and its choice is barely justified. |
| 3-4 | A second method is identified and described, its fit with a concept and the first observation is shown, and the choice is partly justified. |
| 5-6 | A second method is described and explained, its fit with a concept and the first observation is clear, and that connection is justified and discussed. |
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | Nothing in the work reaches the lowest band. |
| 1-2 | Data is analysed against the concept and method only superficially, and irrelevant or inconsistent data weakens it. |
| 3-4 | Relevant data is analysed soundly against the concept and method; minor inconsistencies do not weaken it. |
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | Nothing in the work reaches the lowest band. |
| 1-3 | Reflection is superficial: the methods are barely compared, your position as researcher is only mentioned, and the fieldwork process is described rather than discussed. |
| 4-6 | Reflection is present but not critical: limited comparison, an unclear focus, and limited discussion of your position and of what you learned. |
| 7-9 | Some critical reflection: an established comparison of the methods, discussion of your position or its effect on results, and discussion of learning that lacks some clarity. |
| 10-12 | Critical reflection: a balanced, detailed comparison, clear discussion of your position and its effects, and explicit discussion of what fieldwork taught you. |
Did You Know? Most weak drafts fail from sequence chaos, not lack of ideas.
Step 1
Define the setting, the people, and the anthropological idea you are observing before you write anything else.
Step 2
Explain why the follow-up method extends the observation and how it improves the quality of the fieldwork data.
Step 3
Keep the data tied to the key concept or area of inquiry so the writing stays analytical rather than descriptive.
Step 4
Discuss your position as a researcher, the limits of the method, and what the fieldwork process actually taught you.
Did You Know?
Marksy grades your anthropology IA against the rubric, highlights weak reflection or analysis, and shows exactly what to improve before submission. The result includes an estimated mark for every criterion, evidence from your draft, and the changes to make first. Your final mark may differ after teacher assessment or external moderation.
Instant Grading Results
See where your score is now, not just where it could be.
Criterion-By-Criterion Feedback
See the estimated mark, evidence, and next step for every assessment criterion.
Action List To Improve
Get concrete next edits instead of vague "improve analysis" advice.
Confidence And Integrity Signals
Review flagged sections and strengthen authenticity before submission.