The updated Global Politics course was first assessed in May 2026. According to the IB's public course update, the engagement project is a core internal assessment involving research and engagement with people or groups connected to a political issue. The update specifically stresses planning, researching and reflection. The new HL external Paper 3 must not be confused with the engagement project.
Choose a local question that has a political decision inside it
Imagine a school-community discussion about whether a municipality should limit private cars near a public park on weekends. A weak question is: "Do people support clean air?" It is hard to imagine an informative disagreement because nearly everyone may agree with the abstract aspiration.
A more useful question is: "How do residents, small businesses and local officials justify competing claims about who should control weekend vehicle access to the park?" Now there are specific actors, a decision to make and plausible tensions among access, health, mobility and local economic activity. This is a fictional engagement scenario; it does not claim a real Ecuadorian municipality implemented such restrictions.
A complete perspective-to-claim evidence ledger
| Actor or source | What they might claim in the scenario | Political concept | What would corroborate or challenge it? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resident who walks to the park | Traffic restricts safe use of a public space | Rights; public goods | Road design, traffic counts and local accessibility records |
| Shop owner | Restrictions reduce access for some customers | Equity; competing interests | Footfall before and after comparable interventions; customer travel modes |
| Local transport official | Street restrictions can balance competing users | Legitimacy; public authority | Consultation process, legal mandate and enforcement plans |
| Person with reduced mobility | A blanket ban may introduce another barrier | Inclusion; rights | Accessible transport plans and detailed exemption policies |
All quotations above are hypothetical position summaries, not actual interviews. The point is to identify what evidence you would need before claiming an actor's interests have been represented accurately. In a real project, keep dated notes and distinguish a verbatim quotation from your paraphrase.
What engagement adds beyond desktop research
A government transport policy can be found online. Engagement might reveal that different residents interpret "access" in different ways, or that participation in consultation is difficult for some groups. Those experiences can improve your conceptual understanding, but a single interview is not representative polling.
Your research design should make its scope clear. Record whom you contacted, why, how the engagement actually occurred, relevant consent and privacy permissions, and whether some stakeholders were unreachable. Avoid claiming that an invited actor endorsed the project if they declined or never responded.
Turn engagement into a defensible political argument
Descriptive: "I spoke to local residents and learned that traffic is controversial."
Analytical model: "The competing meanings of access illustrate that a policy framed as a public-good intervention can distribute costs and benefits unevenly. A legitimate decision therefore depends not only on aggregate traffic reduction but also on which users were consulted and whether alternatives for vulnerable groups exist. Engagement with one resident group would provide one perspective, not a complete account of public legitimacy."
That paragraph is an illustrative analytical transformation, not a report of real fieldwork. Your actual argument must refer to named, properly documented engagement, balanced published evidence and relevant course concepts.
Ethics and reflection are evidence too
Political engagement can expose people to reputational or safety risks. Ask permission before recording and quoting, follow school safeguarding requirements, avoid collecting sensitive identities unnecessarily and do not promise anonymity you cannot provide. If someone refuses an interview, log the limitation; do not manufacture an alternate quote.
Reflection should identify what changed in your understanding. For example, you might have initially treated the dispute as environment versus business, then realized the overlooked accessibility perspective. State what caused the change, which evidence contradicted your assumptions, and what your engagement could not establish.
Original IB sources
- Official Global Politics updates (first assessment May 2026), engagement project and course changes: https://www-prod.ibo.org/university-admission/latest-curriculum-updates/global-politics-updates/
- IB Global Politics subject overview: https://ibo.org/programmes/diploma-programme/curriculum/individuals-and-societies/global-politics/
The park scenario and perspective table are fully fictional teaching material. This page does not claim verified local stakeholder comments. For student-controlled project feedback, see ibacalao.com.
Continue with related guides
Check your assessment session against the linked official IB sources. Read our editorial policy and sourcing method.