A hands-on investigation of a real political issue in your local/community context. You research, plan, engage with stakeholders, do complementary research, and then write up your learning and analysis. It’s about power and agency in practice, not an extended essay of pure research.

• SL: 25 teaching hours • 24 marks • 30% of SL grade • Report max 2,000 words.
  
  

• HL: 35 teaching hours • 30 marks • 20% of HL grade • Report max 2,000 words + a separate recommendation (≤400 words). Combined HL submission is capped at 2,400 words.
  
  

Engagement ≠ EE. You’ll move back and forth between engaging (interviews, meetings, participation, observation) and researching to deepen understanding and balance perspectives.

What you will submit

• A structured report that: explains the project and process; analyses the political issue; justifies your engagement choices; synthesizes perspectives; and critically reflects on what you learned. (HL adds a separate, evidence-based recommendation.)
  
  

Word count rules (what does NOT count): acknowledgements, contents, data tables, figures, equations, in-text citations, footnotes/endnotes (references only), bibliography, appendices. Include a word count; over-length work is marked only up to the cap.

The five project tasks (the workflow you’ll follow)

1. Exploratory research (map the context, actors, constraints).
   
   

2. Identify a concrete political issue you can analyse adequately.
   
   

3. Plan & undertake engagement activities that genuinely deepen your understanding.
   
   

4. Do complementary research to balance/triangulate perspectives.
   
   

5. Write the report (analysis first; description only as needed).
   
   

Tip: Keep the political issue at the centre of every decision (who to engage, what to ask, which data matter).

Choosing engagements (good choices vs weak ones)

Good: activities that let you see decision-making, trade-offs, and power dynamics (e.g., interviewing a local councillor/NGO, shadowing a community forum, volunteering with a campaign while documenting policy impacts).
Weak: activities that don’t add insight into the political issue (pure charity hours with no policy link), or that rely mainly on relatives as sources (discouraged; must be declared).

Ethics, data & CAS crossover

Act with tact and sensitivity, respect confidentiality, don’t falsify data, and delete any personal data collected online once your research is complete. Unethical work = zero marks.
Links to CAS are fine, but double-counting is not. One element may count for GloPo, others may count for CAS, but not the same element twice.

Suggested steps:

• 1st- exploratory reading; issue short-list; teacher approval.

• 2nd: engagement plan; contact stakeholders; pilot questions.

• 3rd: do engagements; log evidence; complementary research.

• 4th: draft analysis & perspectives; reflect on limitations.

• 5th: finalize report (HL adds the 400-word recommendation).

How you’re marked (rubric snapshot)

SL (24 marks)

• A. Explanation & justification (4): clear political issue; why these engagements?

• B. Process (3): well-planned, integrated research + engagement.

• C. Analysis & synthesis (8): apply course concepts; analyse the issue in context; synthesize diverse perspectives.

• D. Evaluation & reflection (6): evaluate sources/engagements; identify biases; reflect deeply.

• E. Communication (3): clear, coherent structure.

HL (30 marks) = SL criteria A–E + F

• F. Recommendation (6): a clear, well-supported recommendation that fits the context and considers implications/challenges (presented in a separate ≤400-word section).

A simple structure that scores well

Title & issue statement → Why this matters (A) → Process (B) → Analysis of the issue with course concepts + evidence (C) → Perspectives synthesized (C) → Evaluate sources & your engagement + reflect on bias/limits (D) → Clear signposting and tidy references (E) →
HL ONLY: Separate 400-word “Recommendation” (who should do what, why it’s feasible, risks/mitigations).

Common pitfalls (and fixes)

• Descriptive logbook → Turn description into analysis (“so what?” for the political issue).

• One-sided narrative → Seek contrasting stakeholders and triangulate with complementary research.

• Vague/unsafe engagements → Get teacher approval before contacting externals; check ethics.

Final checklist (before submission)

• Have I named and analysed a concrete political issue with course concepts? (C)

• Do I justify my engagements and show an integrated process? (A,B)

• Have I synthesized perspectives, not just listed them? (C)

• Did I evaluate sources/activities and reflect on my bias/learning? (D)

• Is my writing clear and within the word limit? (E; SL 2,000 / HL 2,400)