Internal assessment · SL and HL
Engagement Project
Investigate a real political issue through research, direct engagement, analysis and reflection.
The Engagement Project gives you an opportunity to explore politics as it operates in a local or community context.
You will identify a focused political issue, engage directly with people, groups or organizations connected to it, conduct supporting research and write an analytical report explaining what the engagement helped you understand.
The project is not simply a research essay. It is also not a diary describing where you went, whom you met or what you enjoyed. The strongest reports show how engagement, research and Global Politics knowledge work together to deepen understanding of a political issue.
The guiding question
“How has my engagement helped me understand this political issue better?”
Return to this question while planning, researching, engaging, writing and reflecting.
Assessment at a glance
| Requirement | SL | HL |
|---|---|---|
| Teaching time | 25 hours | 35 hours |
| Common report | Maximum 2,000 words | Maximum 2,000 words |
| HL recommendation | Not required | A separate recommendation of no more than 400 words |
| Marks | 24 marks | 30 marks |
| Weighting | 30% of the final SL grade | 20% of the final HL grade |
| Criteria | A–E | A–F |
For HL, the recommendation is separate from the common 2,000-word report. Do not describe the HL submission simply as one 2,400-word report.
What is not included in the word count?
- acknowledgements
- contents page
- tables of statistical data
- diagrams or figures
- equations, formulas and calculations
- citations in the body of the report
- references in footnotes or endnotes
- bibliography
- appendices
Definitions, explanations and quotations placed in footnotes do not avoid the word limit. Footnotes and endnotes should be used for references only.
A topic is not yet a political issue
Students often begin with a broad topic such as climate change, healthcare, migration, gender equality or education. A topic becomes a political issue when it identifies how power, decisions, interests, policies or unequal outcomes operate in a specific context.
A focused political issue will usually identify several of the following:
- a specific place or community
- relevant political actors
- affected stakeholders
- a policy, decision or political process
- a tension involving power, rights, resources, representation or authority
- a suitable time frame
Students who try to investigate everything usually analyse very little.
Turn the political issue into a workable question
Your research question should guide both the research and the engagement. It may develop as you encounter new evidence and perspectives, but it must remain focused enough to analyse within the word limit.
A workable research question should:
- focus on one political issue
- identify a specific context
- allow analysis rather than only description
- connect to power and relevant Global Politics content
- involve actors or stakeholders who can realistically be accessed
- be answerable through both engagement and secondary research
- allow consideration of more than one perspective
- avoid assuming the answer in advance
The research question is a tool for guiding the investigation. It may be refined when engagement and research reveal that the original question was too broad, too narrow or based on incomplete assumptions.
Engagement must contribute something that reading alone cannot provide
Engagement should give you direct experience of the political issue or access to perspectives that cannot be gained simply by reading websites and articles.
Possible engagement activities include:
- interviews
- structured discussions with stakeholders
- field observations
- community visits
- volunteering connected to the issue
- attending public meetings
- observing court, council or institutional processes
- participating in a relevant campaign
- working with a community or advocacy organization
- observing or participating in a political initiative
| Stronger engagement | Weaker engagement |
|---|---|
| You have an active and clearly explained role. | You are only a passive audience member. |
| The activity provides direct insight into the political issue. | The activity is interesting but only loosely connected to the issue. |
| The stakeholder has relevant experience, authority or lived knowledge. | The stakeholder is chosen only because they are easy to contact. |
| The engagement helps test, deepen or challenge your research. | The engagement simply confirms information already available online. |
| You explain what the activity contributed to your understanding. | You provide a long description of what happened. |
Quality, relevance and integration matter more than the number of activities or interviews. One engagement may provide valuable insight, but the overall project must still demonstrate a well-planned and integrated process of research and engagement.
A survey may supplement the project, but it should not replace meaningful direct engagement. Passive activities may also support the project, but they should not be the main form of engagement.
Choose perspectives, not merely people to interview
Before contacting anyone, identify which actors and stakeholders are relevant to the political issue and what perspective each might contribute.
For every possible stakeholder, ask:
- What is this person's or organization's connection to the issue?
- What authority, influence, expertise or lived experience do they possess?
- What interests might shape their perspective?
- What information could they provide that is not easily available elsewhere?
- What limitations or biases might affect their account?
- Which important perspective would still be missing?
| Stakeholder | Connection to the issue | Perspective or knowledge expected | Possible bias or limitation | Reason for engagement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Try to include contrasting or complementary perspectives where possible. Do not assume that one organization, official or affected person represents everyone connected to the issue.
Obtain teacher approval for the political issue and proposed engagement activities before making formal contact with external stakeholders.
A process of research, engagement and revision
Define the political issue
Identify a specific political issue that interests you and can be investigated in a local or community context.
Conduct preliminary research
Understand the basic context, actors, policies, concepts and existing debates before approaching stakeholders.
Plan the engagement
Select activities and stakeholders that can genuinely deepen your understanding. Obtain teacher approval before formal contact.
Prepare ethically and professionally
Prepare informed questions, obtain consent where necessary, protect confidentiality and plan how information will be recorded and stored.
Undertake the engagement
Listen carefully, record relevant insights and remain open to evidence that challenges your assumptions.
Follow up with research
Check claims, investigate new questions and compare engagement findings with reliable secondary sources.
Analyse, synthesize and reflect
Use course concepts and political reasoning to explain the issue. Compare perspectives and evaluate sources, activities and your own position.
Write and refine the report
Create a coherent argument focused on the political issue. HL students then produce the separate recommendation using further research.
The process is not perfectly linear. Research may change the question, engagement may reveal missing perspectives and reflection may require further investigation.
Bring three forms of knowledge together
Engagement findings
What did stakeholders, observations and activities reveal about the political issue?
Secondary research
What do academic studies, reliable reports, laws, statistics and other sources add, confirm or challenge?
Global Politics
Which concepts, actors, structures, theories and thematic content help explain what you found?
A strong report synthesizes all three. It does not place the interviews in one section, research in another and concepts in a third without connecting them.
Synthesis questions:
- Where do the sources and stakeholders agree?
- Where do they disagree?
- Why might their perspectives differ?
- Which evidence is more convincing, and why?
- How did the engagement challenge or deepen the research?
- Which concepts best explain the political relationships?
- Which voices remain absent?
Move from "what happened?" to "why does it matter politically?"
| Description | Political analysis |
|---|---|
| The NGO helped patients. | Why was the NGO able to provide services that the state did not provide? What does this reveal about state capacity, legitimacy and the distribution of power? |
| Farmers received less water. | Which policies, institutions and power relationships produced unequal access to water, and which groups benefited from the arrangement? |
| The official supported the policy. | What political interests, responsibilities or institutional pressures explain the official's support? |
| The community opposed the project. | Which groups opposed it, why did their interests differ and what forms of power or resistance were available to them? |
Keep asking
- Why?
- How?
- Who has power?
- Who is affected?
- Who benefits?
- Who carries the cost?
- What structures produce this outcome?
- Whose interpretation is more convincing?
- Under what conditions might the outcome change?
Apply concepts—do not decorate the report with them
The report should demonstrate relevant understanding of Global Politics, but it does not need to mention every Core or thematic concept.
Power should remain central because a political issue involves the distribution and exercise of power. Select additional concepts only when they genuinely explain the case.
- Power
- Sovereignty
- Legitimacy
- Interdependence
- Rights
- Justice
- Equality
- Development
- Sustainability
- Peace
- Conflict
- Violence
- Non-violence
Relevant theoretical perspectives or frameworks may also be used where they strengthen the analysis.
Naming a concept or theory does not demonstrate understanding. Explain how it helps interpret the evidence.
Understand the criteria
The criteria are holistic. They should be demonstrated across the report rather than used as section headings.
A · Explanation and justification — 4 marks
Have I clearly explained the political issue and justified the project and engagement activities?
- identify and clearly explain the political issue
- explain why the issue is politically important
- establish the specific context
- explain why the project is suitable
- explain why each engagement activity was selected
- show how the activities help investigate the issue
- connect the issue to relevant Global Politics content
- explain genuine personal motivation without allowing autobiography to dominate
Common weakness: the political issue is broad, and the activities are described without explaining why they were appropriate.
B · Process — 3 marks
Does the report show a well-planned and integrated process of research and engagement?
- show that preliminary research informed the engagement
- demonstrate purposeful selection of stakeholders and activities
- explain how engagement led to additional research
- show how the question or approach developed
- use research and engagement together rather than as separate tasks
- demonstrate planning, follow-up and adaptation
Common weakness: the student completed activities but does not show how the process developed or how research and engagement informed each other.
C · Analysis and synthesis — 8 marks
Have I clearly analysed the political issue and synthesized the perspectives of stakeholders and sources?
- analyse the issue in its specific context
- apply relevant course concepts and content
- explain power relationships and political mechanisms
- compare stakeholder perspectives
- integrate engagement findings with secondary research
- justify claims with evidence
- explain agreements, disagreements and differences in perspective
- maintain a clear line of argument linked to the research question
This is the highest-marked criterion. Analysis and synthesis should form the central part of the report.
Common weakness: the report narrates interviews or summarizes sources without comparing, interpreting or analysing them.
D · Evaluation and reflection — 6 marks
Have I critically evaluated my sources, activities, assumptions and learning?
- evaluate the strengths and limitations of engagement activities
- evaluate the reliability and limitations of selected sources
- examine stakeholder interests and possible bias
- acknowledge missing perspectives
- explain your own assumptions, position or bias
- show how your understanding changed
- distinguish genuine intellectual development from general personal feelings
- explain what could have been done differently
Common weakness: reflection becomes a description of feelings rather than an evaluation of learning, evidence and methodology.
E · Communication — 3 marks
Is the report clear, coherent and easy to follow?
- organize the report around arguments and insights
- use focused paragraphs
- maintain a visible connection to the political issue
- identify where evidence and perspectives come from
- cite sources consistently
- avoid repetition
- use headings only where they improve clarity
- communicate professionally and concisely
Do not organize the report under headings named Criterion A, Criterion B, Criterion C and so on.
Common weakness: the report contains useful information, but its organization makes the argument difficult to follow.
F · Recommendation — 6 marks · HL only
Is the separate recommendation specific, contextualized, well supported and realistic?
- respond directly to the political issue analysed in the report
- recommend a clear and advisable course of action
- identify the actor or stakeholder responsible
- explain how the recommendation would work
- support it with specific and relevant evidence
- use additional research
- consider similar initiatives where genuinely comparable
- explain challenges, implications or unintended consequences
- show awareness of the specific political context
Common weakness: the recommendation is generic, unsupported or disconnected from the report's findings.
A structure that can work
There is no single compulsory report format. Do not use the assessment criteria as report headings. Organize the report according to the political issue and the argument you develop.
Introduction
- focused political issue
- research question
- significance of the issue
- relevant context
- course connections
- personal motivation
- selected engagement activities and why they are suitable
Process and engagement
- preparation and preliminary research
- stakeholder selection
- how activities were conducted
- how engagement influenced further research
- relevant methodological choices
- only the details needed to understand the investigation
Analysis and synthesis — the largest part of the report
For each central argument:
- make a political claim
- explain the relevant concept or mechanism
- use evidence from engagement
- integrate secondary research
- compare stakeholder perspectives
- evaluate the evidence
- connect back to the research question
Evaluation and reflection
- strengths and limitations of research
- strengths and limitations of engagement
- stakeholder and source bias
- missing perspectives
- your own positionality
- how your understanding changed
- how the project could have been improved
Conclusion
- a direct answer to the research question
- the most important analytical findings
- a balanced judgment
- no entirely new argument or evidence
HL recommendation — a separate section, maximum 400 words
- what should be done
- who should act
- why the action is advisable
- how it could be implemented
- evidence supporting it
- relevant comparable examples where appropriate
- challenges
- implications or unintended consequences
This structure is guidance, not a compulsory template. Students should adapt it to the logic of their own investigation.
Build a recommendation from your findings
Problem
Which precise aspect of the political issue will the recommendation address?
Responsible actor
Which stakeholder, institution or policymaker has the authority or capacity to act?
Action
What specifically should be done?
Mechanism
How would the action improve the situation?
Evidence
Which findings, data, theories or comparable initiatives support the recommendation?
Context
Why is the proposal suitable for this particular political and social setting?
Challenges
What obstacles, implications or unintended consequences may arise?
The recommendation should grow naturally from the analysis. Do not introduce a completely new problem or unrelated solution.
Ethics are part of the project
Unethical conduct can result in zero marks for the Engagement Project.
Do not publish full interview transcripts or personal details unless permission has been obtained and disclosure is ethically appropriate.
The Engagement Project and CAS must remain distinct
A CAS experience may inspire an Engagement Project, and one larger activity may contain different elements suitable for CAS and Global Politics.
However, the same element cannot be counted for both.
The Engagement Project must focus on political inquiry, experiential learning and analysis. CAS should document the separate creativity, activity or service experience agreed with the CAS coordinator.
The project must also remain distinct from the Extended Essay and work completed for other subjects.
Examiner-informed guidance
Common problems
1 · A topic instead of a political issue
The investigation is too broad to analyse effectively.
2 · Engagement becomes a diary
The student describes meetings and activities without explaining their political significance.
3 · The project becomes a research essay
Secondary research dominates, and engagement has little effect on the argument.
4 · Stakeholders are named but not analysed
The report does not explain their interests, power, perspective or limitations.
5 · Concepts are mentioned but not applied
Terms such as power or legitimacy appear without helping explain the evidence.
6 · Perspectives remain separate
Each interview or source is summarized individually instead of being compared and synthesized.
7 · Reflection remains personal
The student says that the experience was enjoyable or interesting but does not evaluate assumptions, bias, sources or methods.
8 · Too much background
Context consumes the word count and leaves little room for analysis.
9 · Claims lack evidence
General political statements are not supported by engagement findings or reliable research.
10 · A generic HL recommendation
The proposal is vague, unrealistic or disconnected from the context and findings.
The strongest projects are not those with the most interviews, the longest bibliography or the most complicated vocabulary. They are the projects that remain focused and consistently show how engagement, evidence, political analysis and reflection deepen understanding.
Before submitting
Focus
Engagement
Process
Analysis
Synthesis
Evaluation and reflection
Communication
HL recommendation
Engagement Project resources
Learn how senior examiners read your report
Guidance on focus, engagement, political analysis, synthesis, reflection and the HL recommendation.
Political issue and research-question planner
A worksheet for narrowing the issue, identifying stakeholders and planning suitable engagement.
Stakeholder and engagement audit
A planning tool for comparing stakeholder relevance, expected perspectives, access and possible limitations.
Consent, confidentiality and ethical checklist
A checklist for preparing and conducting engagement responsibly.
Criteria A–F student checklist
A criterion-based checklist for reviewing the draft without structuring the report under criterion headings.
Recommendation planner
A structured tool for developing a contextualized, evidenced and realistic recommendation.
This student guidance is independently prepared using the IB Global Politics course framework, published course materials, classroom practice and examiner experience. It is not an official IB publication.