Evaluate your research methods by judging how effectively they answered your research question, using specific evidence of their strengths, limitations and effects on your findings. In the IB World Religions SL investigative study, this belongs under Critical reflection and evaluation, where criterion D rewards thoughtful evaluation of methods, assumptions and bias.
Move From Description to Evaluation
Describing a method means stating what you did. Evaluating it means explaining what it enabled you to understand, what it could not establish and how this affects your conclusions about religious belief, practice or experience.
A common misconception is that evaluation means listing everything that went wrong. Effective evaluation weighs strengths as well as limitations and explains their consequences.
| Aspect | Questions to Apply to Your Investigation |
|---|---|
| Relevance | Did the method produce evidence that directly answered your research question? |
| Interviews | Was the participant appropriately knowledgeable? Did leading questions or your relationship influence responses? |
| Observation | What did you witness directly? Could observation alone reveal participants’ beliefs or the ritual’s personal meaning? |
| Sources | Were sources authoritative, relevant and sufficiently varied? Did they represent different perspectives within the tradition? |
| Ethics | Did informed participation, confidentiality and permission to quote support respectful, trustworthy research? |
Explain the Effect on Your Findings
For example: “Interviewing one British Reform rabbi clarified the congregation’s interpretation of Shabbat. However, this represented a leadership perspective, not necessarily congregants’ experiences. My conclusions therefore concern this rabbi’s account rather than all Reform Jews.”
Use triangulation, comparing evidence from different methods or sources, to test interpretations. Comparing the interview with observation and congregants’ accounts could reveal differences between stated teaching and lived practice, rather than simply confirm one supposedly correct account.
IA Technique
Use the sequence: method, evidence, strength or limitation, effect on the conclusion, justified improvement. Explain how your investigation changed your understanding, identify assumptions you reconsidered and suggest focused future research. Avoid generic claims such as “more interviews would improve reliability” without explaining whose perspectives are missing and why they matter.