2.2 Process | RevisionDojo

2.2 Process

Global Politics

Criterion B: Process (3 marks)

Use this page when	Details
Planning	Read these subsections first: What Criterion B assesses; Research and engagement as one process; Output to produce: A question, evidence map and justified activity plan
Before engagement	Read these subsections first: Preparation before engagement; Engagement design; Output to produce: Neutral prompts, consent, logistics and a backup
After each activity	Read these subsections first: During engagement; Reflective checkpoint; Output to produce: Field notes, emerging claims, limits and follow-up questions

Focus	What strong work does
Overall workflow	Present research and engagement as one connected process with a clear sequence and timeline. Explain how each stage led to the next instead of listing unrelated tasks.
Secondary research	Describe a developed research process by naming where and how information was found, the search terms or methods used, why particular sources were selected and how they shaped the inquiry.
Primary engagement	Explain each engagement activity precisely, including what happened, who was involved, where and when it occurred, how the student prepared and what record was retained.
Integration	Show the feedback loop between research and engagement. Explain how research shaped questions or activities, and how engagement prompted follow-up reading, revised questions or a change of direction.
Adjustment and feasibility	Explain how the plan responded to real constraints. Record contact attempts, alternatives, boundaries and changes, then justify why each adjustment kept the inquiry feasible and purposeful.

Yes or no check	Quick fix if no
Does the report show a clear chain from planning to engagement?	Add a concise timeline and first, then and because connections.
Is the secondary research method explicit?	State where you searched, which terms you used and why sources were selected.
Are engagements specific and evidenced?	Add a one-line engagement-log summary for every activity.
Does research shape engagement and vice versa?	Add two or three explicit informed or led-me-to sentences.
Are constraints and adjustments explained?	Add one constraint, decision and backup example.

Focus	What strong work does
Overall project workflow	Present research and engagement as one connected process with a clear sequence and timeline. Explain how each stage led to the next instead of listing unrelated tasks.
Research process (secondary)	Describe a developed research process by naming where and how information was found, the search terms or methods used, why particular sources were selected and how they shaped the inquiry.
Engagement process (primary)	Explain each engagement activity precisely, including what happened, who was involved, where and when it occurred, how the student prepared and what record was retained.
Integration (research ↔ engagement)	Show the feedback loop between research and engagement. Explain how research shaped questions or activities, and how engagement prompted follow-up reading, revised questions or a change of direction.
Adjustments + feasibility	Explain how the plan responded to real constraints. Record contact attempts, alternatives, boundaries and changes, then justify why each adjustment kept the inquiry feasible and purposeful.

Yes / No test	If no, make this repair
Yes/No check	If “No”, quick fix
Does my report show a clear chain of steps from planning to engagement?	Add a 1–2 sentence timeline + “first/then/because” connectors
Is my secondary research method explicit (where searched; how selected)?	Add a short “I searched… using… and chose… because…” line
Are my engagements described with specifics (who/what/when/where) and records?	Add a one-line “engagement log” summary for each activity
Do I prove integration (research shaped engagement; engagement shaped research)?	Insert 2–3 explicit “this informed/led me to” sentences
Do I show planning realism (access steps, backups, adjustments)?	Add “constraint → decision → backup” for at least one moment

Focus	What strong work does
Recommendation quality	State one specific recommendation, identify the actor responsible for carrying it out and explain the action, policy instrument and realistic timeframe. Avoid vague proposals such as simply raising awareness.
Evidence support	Support every important part of the recommendation with traceable evidence from engagement and relevant secondary research. Make the connection between the evidence, the claim and the proposed action explicit.
Fit to context	Adapt the recommendation to the powers, capacity and constraints of the relevant actors and locality. A smaller pilot or phased proposal is stronger than generic best practice that ignores the context.
Addresses the issue	Explain the mechanism through which the recommendation would address the political issue. Connect the proposed action to a leverage point and then to the intended political effect.
Implications/challenges	Evaluate likely risks, unintended consequences and implementation challenges. Explain suitable mitigation and identify how progress or impact could be monitored.

Check question
Yes/No
If “No”, quickest fix
Is there one clear recommendation with a named actor and timeframe?
Rewrite into actor + action + target + date/period
Is it well supported with relevant and specific evidence (engagement + secondary)?
Add 2–4 explicit evidence links (appendix items + 1–2 key sources)
Does it effectively address the political issue (explicit mechanism) in your local context?
Add a “This works by…” mechanism sentence
Is it appropriate to the analysed context (constraints + feasibility)?
Add one constraint + one adaptation (pilot/phase/partnership)
Are implications/challenges explained (not just listed) and paired with mitigation?
Add 2 risks with “why it matters” + “how to reduce it”
Is it grounded in your engagement (not detached policy opinion)?
Tie at least 2 proposal elements to what engagement showed about capacity/constraints
Criterion F - Recommendation (model ~400 words)
I recommend that Milwaukee Water Works (MWW) and the Milwaukee Common Council adopt an accelerated, equity-weighted plan to fully replace all remaining lead service lines (LSLs), moving faster than the city’s currently stated end date (often cited as 2037) and setting an updated completion target no later than 2030–2032. This recommendation is appropriate because lead exposure creates unequal harm across neighborhoods and because replacing LSLs is a structural solution (it removes the hazard rather than relying only on behavior change, filters, or partial fixes). It is also feasible because Milwaukee already operates an LSL replacement program and uses prioritization methods that can target the highest-risk areas first.
To implement the recommendation, MWW should (1) set a clear annual replacement rate that matches the revised deadline, (2) expand contractor capacity and streamline permitting to reduce delays, and (3) use an equity-first sequencing rule so that neighborhoods with higher vulnerability (e.g., higher lead risk indicators, higher deprivation, older housing stock) receive replacements earlier rather than later. The city should also adopt a single, city-led replacement process that replaces both the public and private portions in one coordinated project, minimizing situations where the work stops at the property line. Where homeowner consent is required, the city should use standardized outreach and appointment systems to reduce “opt-out by confusion,” including multilingual communication and predictable scheduling.
Because large infrastructure programs can lose legitimacy if residents feel ignored or if quality varies, MWW should publish a public dashboard that shows progress by neighborhood, timelines, and quality-control checks. It should also strengthen oversight with random audits of contractor work and transparent reporting of any failures. Finally, to reduce short-term risks during replacement (and to maintain trust), the city should pair replacements with clear risk communication and temporary protections where appropriate (e.g., guidance on flushing and certified filters during the transition), while emphasizing that the endpoint is permanent removal of lead-containing lines.
The main challenges are political (budget trade-offs and neighborhood conflict over who goes first), practical (road closures and disruption to homes), and social (mistrust of official assurances). However, an equity-weighted accelerated plan is justified because it aligns public spending with harm reduction and can be defended as a legitimate use of state capacity to protect health.

Stage	Details
Broad interest	Worked example: Short-term rentals and housing pressure; Why it improves the project: Provides a relevant starting area but is not yet an inquiry
Political issue	Worked example: How one city district regulates short-term rentals while balancing housing protection, enforcement power and small-host livelihoods; Why it improves the project: Identifies actors, contested resources, authority and affected groups
Inquiry question	Worked example: To what extent has enforcement of the city’s short-term-rental registration policy improved housing protection in District X without disproportionately restricting small-scale hosts?; Why it improves the project: Creates an evaluative judgment with a defined policy, place and tension
Initial hypothesis	Worked example: The policy improves regulatory control, but benefits residents unevenly and imposes higher relative costs on small hosts; Why it improves the project: Gives research a proposition to test rather than confirm
Concepts	Worked example: Power, legitimacy and equality; Why it improves the project: Directs attention to enforcement capacity, acceptance and distribution
Research base	Worked example: Policy text, registration data, housing statistics, council minutes, tenant-group reports and host-association claims; Why it improves the project: Establishes law, outcomes and competing interpretations
Engagement one	Worked example: Observe a district housing meeting and code who speaks, whose evidence is accepted and how officials frame enforcement; Why it improves the project: Reveals agenda control and public legitimacy
Engagement two	Worked example: Interview a tenant advocate and a registered small host using matched questions; Why it improves the project: Creates contrasting evidence about lived effects and unequal burdens
Adaptation	Worked example: After officials cite complaint data, seek the dataset and ask both interviewees how reporting access varies; Why it improves the project: Shows engagement reshaping complementary research
Working judgment	Worked example: Enforcement strengthens formal control and resident confidence, but limited reporting access and compliance costs make the benefits unequal; Why it improves the project: Synthesises institutional and experiential evidence
Reflection	Worked example: The meeting challenges the assumption that speaking time equals influence because officials privilege administratively measurable evidence; Why it improves the project: Shows a specific encounter revising political understanding
HL recommendation	Worked example: The enforcement office should introduce a six-month assisted-registration pathway for one-property hosts, with quarterly publication of complaints, approvals and enforcement outcomes by district; Why it improves the project: Names an actor, mechanism, timeframe and indicators

2.2 Process

Criterion B: Process (3 marks)

What Criterion B assesses

Recommended architecture

Build analytical paragraphs

Integrate engagement evidence

Use concepts and theories

Evaluate evidence and method

HL recommendation

Final process check

Criterion B: Process (3 marks)

Structure guide (what to write for Criterion B)

Final self-check (Yes/No)

Why this is good

How it could be better

Criterion F: Recommendation (6 marks at HL only)

Structure guide

Final self-check (Yes/No)

Why this is good

Complete worked project

Worked analytical paragraph