HL Paper 3: Guide to Conducting the Inquiries

What you must study (minimum setup)

• Global Political Challenges (GPCs): Borders • Environment • Equality • Health • Identity • Poverty • Security • Technology.

• Coverage: Research at least two different HL topic areas (the GPCs) and at least two different case studies. Emphasize interconnections—don’t treat topic areas as silos.

• Purpose: HL inquiries build on the core + thematic studies; there’s no extra prescribed content at HL.

The six fixed Lines of Inquiry (use these every time)

Ask these for each case so you can answer any Paper 3 prompt:

1. Links to the core topics

2. Links to the thematic studies (Rights & justice; Development & sustainability; Peace & conflict)

3. Interconnections among GPCs

4. Different contexts & perceptions

5. Frameworks/systems/organizations/mechanisms addressing the challenge

6. Cross-topic lenses: how looking at the same case from different topic areas changes analysis/solutions
   (Paper 3 is based on these.)

Step-by-step inquiry prompts (fill these for each case)

1) Information & interpretation (build your factual base)

• Main drivers/causes (recent first; note key historical roots)

• Current status (who/where/when; indicators/trends)

• Key terminology beyond actors/stakeholders

• The political issues at stake

• Key actors & stakeholders (levels: local/national/transnational)

• Impacts (political, social, economic)—with 2–3 concise, sourced data points
  
  

2) Perspectives (compare, then evaluate)

• How do different actors/stakeholders see the issue—and why?

• Sources used; likely biases/limitations; how that affects the evidence

• What other sources would add a contrasting view?
  
  

3) Connections (situate the case)

• Which two or three GPCs best connect to this case—and why?

• Apply relevant concepts, theories, frameworks from the course

• Similarities/links to other cases; related global issues to watch
  
  

4) Responses (what’s being done; what should be done)

• How are actors responding now (individual, community, national, international)?

• Your recommendations to specific actors—feasible, with mechanism (how it helps), conditions for success, and risks/implications (especially for vulnerable groups)

• Cite other cases where similar actions worked; note relevant frameworks/agreements/organizations already in place

• What factors are likely to shape outcomes? Why is this case significant?
  
  

5) Always loop back to the Lines of Inquiry

Close each case by answering the six LoIs explicitly so you’re exam-ready.

How this maps to Paper 3 (exam day)

• 1h30 • 28 marks • One stimulus + four compulsory questions. The stimulus focuses you; most evidence must come from your cases.

  • Q1 (3, AO2): Analyse/explain something signalled by the stimulus.

  • Q2a (4, AO2): Explain/analyse one political issue from one of your cases.

  • Q2b (6, AO3): Recommend a feasible course of action for that issue; evaluate implications/challenges.

  • Q3 (15, AO3): Synthesize & evaluate across your researched case(s) using the Lines of Inquiry.
    
    

Minimum viable plan that always works: choose two topic areas and build two case studies that each connect to both topic areas—perfect for Q3 interconnections.

Products & practice (what to hand in / how teachers can assess)

• For each inquiry, produce one Issue Brief (maps to Q2a), one Policy Memo (maps to Q2b), and a short Synthesis Essay (maps to Q3).

• Whatever the product (slide, podcast, infographic), make sure your rubric includes the six LoIs and a Q2b-quality recommendation. Have students write a Paper 3 for each inquiry.
  
  

One-page student checklist (pre-exam)

• I have 2+ topic areas and 2+ cases, with cross-links.

• Each case has: drivers, actors, levels, 2–3 data points, perspectives (evaluated), mechanisms/frameworks, a feasible recommendation + risks, and answers to the six LoIs.

• I can plan/write: Q1 in ~6 min, Q2a in ~10, Q2b in ~15, Q3 in ~45–50—using my case notes.
  
  

Teacher note (optional to show)

Model one teacher-led inquiry first; then have students lead two more (≈ three cases total is realistic). Assess any product they make, but always add a written Paper 3 for that inquiry.

Case: The Rohingya (Myanmar/Bangladesh)
Primary HL topic areas (GPCs): Identity and Borders
Secondary links you may draw on as needed: Security, Poverty, Health, Equality, Technology, Environment
Why this setup: IB wants depth in at least two HL topic areas and at least two researched case studies, with emphasis on interconnections and solution-oriented analysis. This inquiry delivers one strong case that clearly connects Identity ↔ Borders, while giving you usable bridges to other GPCs for Q3.

A. What students must do (and why it matches Paper 3)

1. Build a case one-pager covering facts, actors, issues, and mechanisms, and answer the six Lines of Inquiry for HL. (Paper 3 questions are based on these Lines.)
   
   

2. Practise the four tasks that always appear on the paper: Q1 (3, AO2) stimulus analysis; Q2a (4, AO2) political issue in one case; Q2b (6, AO3) feasible recommendation + implications; Q3 (15, AO3) synthesis & evaluation across cases using the Lines of Inquiry.
   
   

3. Keep evidence ready: short, dated indicators and perspective notes you can deploy fast in Q2a/b and Q3. (Paper 3 expects candidates to draw mainly from their researched case studies.)
   
   

B. Student case one-pager (Rohingya) — prompts to fill

Use these prompts to produce concise notes (1 page). They mirror InThinking’s inquiry guide and IB’s LoIs.

1) Information & interpretation

• Issue (1–2 lines): e.g., Statelessness and displacement of Rohingya and its effects on rights, protection and prospects for return.
  
  

• Recent drivers/causes + key historical roots
  
  

• Current status (who/where/when) + 2–3 indicators (with dates)
  
  

• Political issues (citizenship, asylum/protection, repatriation conditions, camp governance, cross-border politics)
  
  

• Key actors & stakeholders (state, IGO, NGO, host communities, diaspora, platform/media)
  
  

• Impacts (political/social/economic) on each stakeholder group.
  
  

2) Perspectives (compare, then evaluate)

• How do Myanmar authorities, Bangladesh, UNHCR/INGOs, host communities, and Rohingya voices view the issue—and why?
  
  

• Sources used, likely biases/limits, how this affects your evidence; which other sources would balance it.
  
  

3) Connections (situate the case)

• Strongest GPC links beyond Identity/Borders (pick 1–3 and explain): Security (securitization, protection), Poverty (livelihoods/exclusion), Health (service access), Technology (platform incitement, digital ID), Equality (legal inequality), Environment (camp exposure).
  
  

• Apply course concepts/theories/frameworks (legitimacy, sovereignty, rights & justice; securitization; development & sustainability).
  
  

• Note similar cases (e.g., Venezuela, Syria, Uyghurs) for later comparison in Q3.
  
  

4) Responses (what’s being done; what should be done)

• Current responses at individual, community, national, international levels.
  
  

• Your recommendation to a specific actor with: mechanism (why it helps), conditions for success, risks/implications (esp. for vulnerable groups).
  
  

• Reference frameworks/organizations/agreements already in place and any analogous cases where similar actions worked.
  
  

• Note factors likely to shape outcomes and briefly state the significance of this case.
  
  

5) Close by answering the six Lines of Inquiry explicitly

(This is your bridge to Q3 on exam day.)

C. Assessment-shaped mini tasks (ready for class)

These map directly to Paper 3’s questions and markbands.

Q1 drill (3 marks, AO2) — Stimulus reading (≈6 min)

• Identify the HL idea the stimulus signals (e.g., identity-based exclusion; border externalization; protection vs sovereignty).
  
  

• Cite a specific feature of the stimulus and state one implication.
  (Q1 tests understanding/analysis of the stimulus + knowledge of GPC ideas.)
  
  

Q2a brief (4 marks, AO2) — One political issue in the case (≈10 min)

• Issue: e.g., Conditions for safe/voluntary return vs protracted displacement and rights in host state.
  
  

• Context (who/where/when) + analysis (drivers, actors, level/s).
  Top band lens: clear analysis + relevant, accurate context. Avoid narrative.
  
  

Q2b memo (6 marks, AO3) — One feasible recommendation (≈15 min)

Use the scaffold Actor → Action → Mechanism → Conditions → Risks/implications.
Sample options to model:

• Bangladesh ministry + UNHCR: establish non-biometric fallback & independent grievance redress for assistance delivery; mechanism: reduce exclusion errors; conditions: staff, audits; risks: fraud—mitigate via random checks.
  
  

• Platform company: create independent escalation for credible hate-speech alerts in Burmese/Bangla; mechanism: faster removal of incitement; conditions: language capacity, CSO MoUs; risks: over-removal—publish transparency reports.
  
  

• Regional IGO (e.g., ASEAN) / donors: tie monitoring & benchmarks to any repatriation plan; mechanism: conditions-based returns; risks: low leverage—pair with incentives.
  Top band lens: clear, well-supported recommendation that addresses the issue and considers challenges/implications.
  
  

Q3 essay plan (15 marks, AO3) — Synthesize & evaluate (≈45–50 min)

• Prompt style: “To what extent…?” / “Examine links between at least two HL topic areas…” (based on the LoIs).
  
  

• Positioned thesis + two cases (Rohingya + a contrasting case you’ve studied).
  
  

• Weave the LoIs: links to core and themes; interconnections (Identity↔Borders↔Security/Poverty); different contexts & perceptions; frameworks/mechanisms that address the challenge; what changes when you view the same case through a second topic area.
  
  

• Markband focus: clear structure, accurate knowledge, developed examples, evaluated perspectives and implications for top band.