Choosing & Using Areas of Knowledge (DP IB Theory of Knowledge): Revision Note

Choosing and using areas of knowledge (AOKs)

• All of the prescribed titles refer to AoKs that you will need to use to explore the question in more than one knowledge context

• Some titles name the AoKs you must use, while other titles give you a choice about one or both areas

• Check the title requirements carefully, because your essay must match any AoKs named in the question

  • A title that says “discuss with reference to the arts and the human sciences” specifies both areas, so both the arts and the human sciences must be included

  • For a title that says “history and one other area of knowledge”, you must write about history, but can choose a second area

• You only need to select areas of knowledge when the prescribed title gives you a choice, such as when it states:

  • “one other area of knowledge”

  • “two areas of knowledge”

• There are several factors to consider when you are choosing areas of knowledge

  • A strong pair of AoKs should allow for effective debate, i.e., they should each provide different arguments, rather than both providing evidence for the same argument

  • A strong choice should make it easy to keep linking back to the title’s key concepts

    • E.g. it may be easy to maintain focus on a title about “reliability” when writing about the natural sciences, as this AoK allows a discussion of evidence and testing

  • Each chosen AoK must offer precise examples that you understand well.

Use AoKs comparatively rather than sequentially

• A comparative approach will usually allow you to answer the prescribed title more effectively than a sequential approach

• A comparative approach makes one clear claim about the title, and then immediately discusses the claim in the context of both areas of knowledge, e.g.:

  • a claim about the title’s key concept: reliability is stronger when there are shared checking methods, and weaker when interpretation plays a larger role

  • AOK 1 point: in the natural sciences, shared checking methods like controlled testing and replication can support agreement, which makes reliability easier to defend

  • AOK 2 contrast: in history, the same level of agreement is harder to reach because sources can be incomplete and interpretations can reasonably differ, which weakens reliability

  • comparative judgement: this matters for the title because it shows that reliability is not equally achievable across AoKs, so a claim needs conditions rather than being universally true

• A sequential approach may use one paragraph to develop a claim about the first AoK, a separate paragraph to develop counterclaims about the first AoK, a separate paragraph to develop a claim about the second AoK, a separate paragraph to develop counterclaims about the second AoK, and then finish with a comparison of the two AoK

• This approach is can be less effective for arguing two points of view because it keeps the AoKs separate for most of the essay, so the debate between the two positions is delayed rather than developed through direct comparison, but it offers different perspectives on the title within each AoK so it allows for effective devaluation of claims within the AoK

Avoiding superficial or “Token” AoK references

• A token reference is when you mention an AoK, but you do not use it to shape the argument you are making about the key concept in the prescribed title, e.g.:

  • token version: reliability is important in the natural sciences because it helps us know which claims to trust, so this supports my answer to the prescribed title

    • Why this is token: the point only explains what reliability is in general, so the phrase “in the natural sciences” is interchangeable with any other AoK

  • improved version: in the natural sciences, reliability is strengthened when independent teams can replicate a result using the same method, because replication can expose random error, uncontrolled variables or biased sampling

    • Why this is not token: If you remove “in the natural sciences”, the point loses its basis, because replication as a standard check is a feature of how this AoK builds and tests knowledge

Revisiting AoKs throughout the essay

• Revisiting AoKs means bringing the same AoK back later in the essay to test a new point about the prescribed title

  • This matters because it shows your thinking is developing; each return to an AoK makes your claims stronger and shows consideration of multiple perspectives

• One clear way to revisit without repeating yourself and still maintain a comparative approach is to use each return for a different job in answering the title, while discussing both AoKs each time, e.g.:

  • First use: you use AoK 1 and AoK 2 to support a claim about the key concept in the title

  • Second use: you return to AoK 1 and AoK 2 to test a weakness in that claim/ a counterclaim

  • Third use: you return to the same AoKs to develop a different point about the key concept in the title

  • Fourth use: you return to AoK 1 and AoK 2 to test a weakness in that claim/ a counterclaim