1 · Concepts, culture and reflexivity
emic · reflexivity
U1-Q1 · 2 marks
Which evidence most directly supports an emic interpretation?
Answer and reasoning
Participants' accounts of what the exchange means to them.
U1-Q2 · 4 marks
Explain the mechanism or reasoning in this original case: Two visitors describe the same shared meal as generosity and social obligation. Their descriptions may reveal different positions, not a simple factual contradiction.
Answer and reasoning
A participant says taking food creates a duty to help later. An observer initially records only the food exchange. The participant's explanation changes the interpretation from an isolated gift to a relationship of reciprocity.
- Accurate relevant concept (1)
- Specific evidence from the case (1)
- Connected reasoning (2)
Do not treat one participant as the voice of an entire community. / Distinguish what was observed, what was said and what you infer before using theory to explain the case.
2 · Reading and comparing ethnographies
ethnography · reciprocity
U2-Q1 · 2 marks
What makes the comparison anthropological rather than a list of similarities?
Answer and reasoning
Using a concept to explain contextual evidence and differences in social relationships.
U2-Q2 · 4 marks
Explain the mechanism or reasoning in this original case: A village study and an urban workplace study both discuss belonging. A shared concept permits comparison without making their social relations identical.
Answer and reasoning
Compare how membership is recognized in each setting: invitations, language or duties may matter differently. Identify the source, fieldwork setting and method before arguing that one pattern explains both cases.
- Accurate relevant concept (1)
- Specific evidence from the case (1)
- Connected reasoning (2)
SL studies one area per group; HL studies a fourth. The map does not replace the teacher's selected ethnographies. / Avoid comparison by loose similarity: explain a relationship and a meaningful contrast supported by specific evidence.
3 · Ethical fieldwork and analysis
fieldwork · informed consent
U3-Q1 · 2 marks
Which conclusion fits one short observation?
Answer and reasoning
It suggests a seating pattern worth investigating further, rather than proving a general rule about friendship.
U3-Q2 · 4 marks
Explain the mechanism or reasoning in this original case: You want to study how students choose seats in a club. The research question must be narrow enough to investigate without exposing classmates.
Answer and reasoning
Ask how seating relates to existing friendship groups in a consenting club. Record anonymized positions and voluntary explanations. Compare the first interpretation with a second collection, then reflect on how your membership of the club affected access.
- Accurate relevant concept (1)
- Specific evidence from the case (1)
- Connected reasoning (2)
Do not covertly observe sensitive settings or infer friendship from one seat choice. / The school approves the method and retains the actual fieldwork evidence; a simulated worksheet cannot replace IA fieldwork.
4 · Theory and competing interpretations
theory · power
U4-Q1 · 2 marks
Which evidence helps evaluate a power-focused interpretation?
Answer and reasoning
Who controls the exchange, who may refuse, and how obligations differ.
U4-Q2 · 4 marks
Explain the mechanism or reasoning in this original case: A gift can be explained as a symbol of belonging or as a way of maintaining unequal power. Different theoretical lenses direct attention to different evidence.
Answer and reasoning
A symbolic interpretation studies the meanings attached to the gift. A power-focused interpretation studies who may refuse it and who gains status. Look for participant accounts and patterns of obligation before deciding whether the lenses compete or complement each other.
- Accurate relevant concept (1)
- Specific evidence from the case (1)
- Connected reasoning (2)
Do not use theories as interchangeable labels after an example. / HL analysis must make the theory's mechanism and limitations clear in relation to particular evidence.