Interview scorecard template

Anthropologist interview scorecard

Evaluate Anthropologist candidates across 4 weighted areas: method and rigour, real casework, interpretation and judgement, and reporting and testimony. Method and rigour leads at 35%, so probe their methods training: participant observation, semi-structured interview guides, kinship or network mapping, NVivo or Atlas.ti coding, sampling logic, and IRB or ethics board approval they. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
science investigationethnographyfieldworkirb ethicsqualitative coding
TL;DR
For method and rigour, look for evidence the candidate names specific methods, defends sampling and coding choices, and describes consent protocols and IRB conditions they wrote and worked under. For real casework, look for evidence the candidate cites named sites and months in field, working language ability, and concrete design changes forced by conditions or informants. Apply the written 1–5 anchors to every answer, record the evidence behind each rating, and use the factor weights to reach a consistent overall assessment.
Complete evaluation framework

What to assess and how to score it

Review the evidence signals before interviewing. Then use the anchored descriptions—not instinct alone—to choose the score that best matches each answer.

01
Evaluation factor

Method and rigour

35% weight

Probe their methods training: participant observation, semi-structured interview guides, kinship or network mapping, NVivo or Atlas.ti coding, sampling logic, and IRB or ethics board approval they personally secured.

Evidence to listen for

  • Follows and can justify an established methodology
  • Understands contamination, bias, and chain of custody as they apply to the field
  • Knows the limits of their techniques and says so
  • Documents procedure so results are reproducible and defensible

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Careless method; unaware of contamination, bias, or procedural integrity.

2
Needs Improvement

Knows procedures but applies them inconsistently; gaps in documentation.

3
Satisfactory

Sound standard practice; less certain outside familiar techniques.

4
Very Good

Rigorous and well documented; understands the limits of each method.

5
Excellent

Names specific methods, defends sampling and coding choices, and describes consent protocols and IRB conditions they wrote and worked under.

02
Evaluation factor

Real casework

25% weight

Ask about actual field sites: duration of residence, language competence, gatekeepers and permits, informant recruitment, and what changed in the research design once on the ground.

Evidence to listen for

  • Brings specific cases, sites, or projects rather than general description
  • States their own role and what they personally handled
  • Can describe an ambiguous or degraded case and how they proceeded
  • Knows what happened to the work afterwards

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No hands-on casework; experience is entirely academic.

2
Needs Improvement

Limited exposure; cannot describe their own contribution clearly.

3
Satisfactory

Real casework with adequate detail; ownership sometimes vague.

4
Very Good

Specific cases with clear personal scope and outcomes.

5
Excellent

Cites named sites and months in field, working language ability, and concrete design changes forced by conditions or informants.

03
Evaluation factor

Interpretation and judgement

25% weight

Test how they move from field notes to claim: handling contradictory informant accounts, avoiding overgeneralisation from small samples, reflexivity about their own positionality, and triangulating with archival or survey data.

Evidence to listen for

  • Separates what the evidence shows from what they infer
  • States confidence levels and what would change their conclusion
  • Comfortable saying the result is inconclusive
  • Handles pressure to reach a preferred conclusion without bending

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Overstates findings; no separation of evidence from inference.

2
Needs Improvement

Reaches conclusions the evidence does not support; uneasy with uncertainty.

3
Satisfactory

Reasonable judgement; qualifies findings when prompted.

4
Very Good

Clearly separates evidence from inference and states confidence unprompted.

5
Excellent

Separates observation from inference, flags where evidence was thin, and shows a case where fieldwork overturned their initial hypothesis.

04
Evaluation factor

Reporting and testimony

15% weight

Look for published outputs: peer-reviewed articles, monographs, applied consultancy reports, or expert declarations for courts, plus how they returned findings to the communities studied.

Evidence to listen for

  • Writes findings that a non-specialist can act on
  • Has presented or defended work to an external audience: court, client, review board, publication
  • Withstands challenge without overclaiming or retreating
  • Keeps records that hold up to scrutiny

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot communicate findings; records would not withstand review.

2
Needs Improvement

Reporting is unclear or incomplete; avoids external scrutiny.

3
Satisfactory

Adequate reports; limited experience defending work externally.

4
Very Good

Clear reporting and real experience presenting to an external audience.

5
Excellent

Points to concrete publications or client reports, writes for both academic and lay readers, and describes reciprocal feedback to participants.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Anthropologist

Use these prompts to surface evidence for the weighted factors above and compare candidates against the same role-specific criteria.

  1. 01

    Can you discuss your experience conducting field research?

  2. 02

    Are there specific regions, cultures or issues you specialise in?

  3. 03

    What is the most challenging research project you have completed, and why was it challenging?

  4. 04

    Can you talk about published anthropological research you have been part of?

  5. 05

    Can you explain your experience with qualitative and quantitative research methods?

See the complete Anthropologist question set
Put this rubric to work

Score every candidate against the same standard

Add these weighted factors to Hirevire and let AI evaluate recorded answers against your rubric.

Explore AI Scorecards