The IB Global Politics IA criteria reward an integrated political inquiry, not simply participation in an interesting activity. Markers assess how clearly you explain the political issue, connect research with engagement, analyse perspectives, evaluate the investigation, reflect on learning, and communicate your argument. HL students are also assessed on an evidence-based recommendation.
This article covers the course first assessed in 2026. Older resources may describe a previous 20-mark engagement activity, so check that every rubric and exemplar you use matches the current syllabus.
The current Global Politics IA mark scheme
The current internal assessment is called the engagement project. You investigate a political issue at a local or community level through research and experiential engagement, then communicate your findings in a written report.
Your teacher marks the project, after which the IB externally moderates a sample to check that the criteria have been applied consistently.
| Requirement | SL | HL |
|---|---|---|
| Recommended teaching time | 25 hours | 35 hours |
| Maximum length | 2,000 words | 2,000 words plus a separate recommendation of up to 400 words |
| Maximum mark | 24 | 30 |
| Final subject weighting | 30% | 20% |
| Criterion | Focus | Marks |
|---|---|---|
| A | Explanation and justification | 4 |
| B | Process | 3 |
| C | Analysis and synthesis | 8 |
| D | Evaluation and reflection | 6 |
| E | Communication | 3 |
| F, HL only | Recommendation | 6 |
Criteria A-E are identical at SL and HL. Criteria C and D provide 14 of the 24 shared marks, so political analysis, evaluation, and reflection should form the centre of the report. RevisionDojo's engagement project overview summarizes the requirements.
Criterion A: Explanation and justification, 4 marks
Criterion A asks what political issue you are investigating, why it matters, and why your activities were appropriate ways to investigate it.
A topic is not automatically a political issue. “Homelessness in my city” is broad, while “To what extent has the city government's reliance on charities weakened equitable access to emergency housing?” identifies a contestable issue involving responsibility, power, equality, and policy.
Lower-band work identifies the issue but gives limited explanation of its significance or the suitability of the engagement. Upper-band work clearly explains the issue, affected stakeholders, contested decisions, and political importance. It also justifies each activity rather than merely listing what happened.
For example, do not write only that you interviewed an NGO director to obtain information. Explain why that person's institutional role provided relevant evidence, what perspective the interview represented, and why another activity was needed to address its limitations.
Criterion B: Process, 3 marks
Criterion B assesses whether research and engagement formed a planned, connected inquiry. Markers are not counting interviews, meetings, or volunteer hours.
A limited process appears fragmented. A strong process shows how one stage informed another. You might begin with background research, use it to design interview questions, identify a disagreement between stakeholders, and conduct targeted follow-up research to test their claims.
Keep a process log recording preparation, dates, emerging findings, limitations, and changes to your plan. Although the log cannot replace evidence in the report, it helps you explain the development of the investigation. RevisionDojo's Criterion B process guide provides a practical planning framework.
Criterion C: Analysis and synthesis, 8 marks
Criterion C carries the most marks. It assesses whether you analyse the political issue in its specific context and synthesize diverse perspectives from research and engagement.
Analysis explains political relationships, causes, consequences, assumptions, tensions, and significance. Synthesis connects evidence and perspectives to construct an argument instead of presenting each source in a separate block.
Suppose a local official argues that surveillance cameras improve public security, while youth activists claim they produce discriminatory monitoring. A descriptive report summarizes both positions. An analytical report examines who defines security, how institutional power shapes that definition, and whether unequal exposure affects the policy's legitimacy.
Strong synthesis would connect those interviews with crime data and research on structural power before reaching a qualified judgement. Concepts such as power, legitimacy, justice, equality, rights, sovereignty, and interdependence should function as analytical tools. Merely inserting conceptual vocabulary does not demonstrate understanding.
Work in the highest band applies relevant course understanding accurately and integrates stakeholder and source perspectives into a coherent argument. Lower-band work is usually dominated by narrative, unsupported assertions, or isolated summaries.
Criterion D: Evaluation and reflection, 6 marks
Criterion D assesses evaluation of your research and engagement, recognition of your own position and biases, and reflection on what the inquiry changed in your understanding.
Evaluation must be specific. “My interviewee may have been biased” is weak because every participant has a perspective. Explain how the person's role, interests, access to information, or institutional loyalty affected what the interview could reveal and how you addressed that limitation.
Reflection is not a diary of feelings. A strong reflection identifies a previous assumption, the evidence that challenged it, and the resulting change in political understanding. For example, interviews might reveal that residents disagree sharply about what legitimate consultation requires, challenging your initial assumption that participation automatically produces democratic legitimacy.
Your positionality can influence access, question wording, interpretation, and how participants respond. Recognizing this does not invalidate the project. It demonstrates the methodological awareness expected in the upper mark band.
Criterion E: Communication, 3 marks
Criterion E concerns clarity, organization, and coherence. Effective reports use an argument-led structure in which each paragraph makes a political claim, provides research or engagement evidence, explains its significance, and connects back to the inquiry.
Use headings only when they improve navigation. Apply a consistent citation system, identify interview evidence clearly, and remove quotations that do not support analysis. Grammatically accurate writing can still lose marks when ideas appear in an illogical order or key reasoning remains implicit.
Criterion F: Recommendation, HL only, 6 marks
HL students submit a separate recommendation of no more than 400 words, in addition to the 2,000-word report. It must respond to the investigated issue and be supported by relevant research.
A strong recommendation identifies who should do what, through which mechanism, and under what constraints. “The government should raise awareness” is too vague. A stronger proposal might assign a municipal department responsibility for multilingual consultations, identify implementation steps, and consider limited funding, low participation, or stakeholder resistance.
The recommendation must follow logically from the analysis rather than introduce an unrelated solution. Higher-band work is specific, context-sensitive, evidence-based, and attentive to political feasibility, competing interests, implementation barriers, and unintended consequences.
How markers apply the criteria
The criteria are applied through best-fit judgement. Markers do not award one point for every technique or deduct a fixed number for each weakness. They select the descriptor that most accurately represents the work under each criterion.
One piece of evidence can support several criteria. An interview may help justify activity selection under Criterion A, demonstrate a connected process under Criterion B, contribute a perspective under Criterion C, and provide methodological limitations for Criterion D. Repeating the quotation will not increase marks unless each use develops distinct reasoning.
Common mistakes that reduce marks
The most common mistake is writing a chronological diary. Explaining what you did may establish that engagement occurred, but it does not produce sustained political analysis.
Other weaknesses include:
- choosing a broad social topic without a disputed political issue
- relying on one stakeholder perspective
- mentioning concepts without applying them to evidence
- separating research and engagement instead of connecting them
- naming source bias without evaluating its effect
- claiming personal growth without showing changed understanding
- proposing an unrealistic HL recommendation
- expecting an appendix to compensate for missing analysis
RevisionDojo's Global Politics IA exemplars can show how evidence becomes analysis. Study exemplars for technique rather than copying their structures or arguments.
A criterion-based editing method
Complete a separate editing pass for each criterion:
- Criterion A: Locate the issue, its political significance, and the justification for every activity.
- Criterion B: Trace how research informed engagement and how engagement prompted further inquiry.
- Criterion C: Label paragraphs as description, analysis, or synthesis, then revise sections dominated by description.
- Criterion D: Identify methodological limitations, positionality, and specific changes in understanding.
- Criterion E: Check whether claims follow logically and evidence is clearly attributed.
- Criterion F: For HL, confirm the recommendation names an actor, action, mechanism, evidence base, constraints, and consequences.
RevisionDojo's engagement project guide, SL project grader, and HL project grader can support this review. Automated feedback is diagnostic, not an official IB mark, so compare it with the current guide and your teacher's advice.
Conclusion
The current IB Global Politics IA criteria reward a focused, integrated inquiry. Strong reports justify a political issue, connect research with engagement, synthesize perspectives, evaluate limitations, reflect critically, and communicate a coherent argument. HL students must also produce a feasible, evidence-based recommendation.
Use the mark allocation to prioritize Criteria C and D. RevisionDojo's notes, exemplars, and criterion-based graders can help identify weaknesses before submission, while your teacher and the current IB documentation remain the final authorities.
Sources and referenced URLs
- IB Global Politics subject page
- Official IB Global Politics subject brief, first assessment 2026
- Official IB Global Politics curriculum update
- RevisionDojo engagement project essentials
- RevisionDojo Criterion B process guide
- RevisionDojo engagement project guide
- RevisionDojo Global Politics IA exemplars
- RevisionDojo SL engagement project grader
- RevisionDojo HL engagement project grader