Suggested weeks: 1 to 4; Main output: Approved issue, inquiry question, actor map and engagement plan
Research and preparation
Suggested weeks: 5 to 7; Main output: Context notes, source base, questions and consent materials
Engagement
Suggested weeks: 8 to 10; Main output: Field notes, stakeholder evidence and follow-up questions
Analysis and drafting
Suggested weeks: 11 to 14; Main output: Working judgment and complete first draft
Revision and submission
Suggested weeks: 15 to 16; Main output: Audited, referenced and proofread final submission
Key Idea
Core point: A staged schedule protects time for access problems, ethical approval, analysis and redrafting.
Action: Support the principle with evidence from both research and engagement.
Evidence check: Ask what evidence would disprove or qualify the claim.
Weeks 1 to 2: orientation
Review the assessment task, criteria, ethics and current school deadlines.
List possible local political issues and test their feasibility.
Begin a process log and preliminary source list.
Discuss safeguarding and access with the teacher.
Common Mistake
Core point: Secure formal approval before contacting external participants or beginning engagement.
Action: Resolve this issue before submission and explain any resulting limitation.
Evidence check: State what could go wrong and how the risk has been reduced.
Weeks 3 to 4: inquiry design
Narrow the issue and draft several inquiry questions.
Map actors, concepts, competing perspectives and missing voices.
Select engagement activities and prepare backup options.
Draft consent materials and contact messages.
Tip
Core point: Secure access early. Public officials and organizations may take several weeks to respond.
Action: Use this advice on a specific claim, source or engagement activity.
Evidence check: Confirm that the change improves the answer to the inquiry question.
Weeks 5 to 7: preparatory research
Establish the legal, institutional and political context.
Read authoritative and contrasting sources.
Refine interview or observation prompts.
Check that questions are open, neutral and relevant.
Common Mistake
Core point: Do not begin formal engagement until approval, consent and safety arrangements are complete.
Action: Resolve this issue before submission and explain any resulting limitation.
Evidence check: State what could go wrong and how the risk has been reduced.
Weeks 8 to 10: engagement
Conduct interviews, observations, participation or other approved activity.
Write field notes immediately after each activity.
Record factual details separately from interpretation.
Identify follow-up questions and gaps.
Thank participants and confirm any quotation or anonymity arrangements.
Activity
Core point: After each activity, write three claims it might support, one limitation and one new question.
Action: Complete the task in your process log and retain evidence of the decision.
Evidence check: Note what changed in your understanding after completing it.
Weeks 11 to 12: analysis
Analytical output
Details
Claim map
Minimum evidence before drafting: A provisional answer and two or three supporting claims; Decision it enables: Which evidence belongs in each paragraph
Perspective matrix
Minimum evidence before drafting: Stakeholder position, interest, evidence and constraint; Decision it enables: Where perspectives genuinely agree or conflict
Concept map
Minimum evidence before drafting: Concept linked to a named actor, mechanism or outcome; Decision it enables: Whether the concept explains rather than labels
Evidence evaluation
Minimum evidence before drafting: Value, limitation and consequence for each central source or engagement; Decision it enables: How strongly each claim can be stated
Reflection record
Minimum evidence before drafting: Initial assumption, triggering encounter and revised understanding; Decision it enables: How learning changes the final judgment
HL policy test
Minimum evidence before drafting: Actor, action, feasibility, opposition and measurable outcome; Decision it enables: Whether the recommendation is implementable
Code notes by actor, concept, claim and perspective.
Compare engagement findings with published research.
Create a working answer to the inquiry question.
Identify counterarguments and limits.
Key Idea
Core point: Draft from claims and evidence, not from the chronological order of activities.
Action: Support the principle with evidence from both research and engagement.
Evidence check: Ask what evidence would disprove or qualify the claim.
Weeks 13 to 14: first draft
Write a complete report within the word limit.
Integrate citations and engagement evidence as you draft.
Write reflection around specific moments of learning.
For HL, draft the separate recommendation.
Note
Core point: Leave enough time between drafting and revision to see gaps in logic.
Action: Apply this point to the relevant section and make the connection explicit.
Evidence check: Name the paragraph or decision where this guidance is visible.
Weeks 15 to 16: revision and submission
Check every paragraph against the inquiry question.
Strengthen evaluation and remove repetition.
Verify citations, consent, anonymity and factual accuracy.
Complete the checklist and submit before the school deadline.
Active recall
Core point: A safe timeline includes a backup participant, a backup activity and at least one full revision cycle.
Action: Record your answer, identify the weakest evidence and revise the affected claim.
Evidence check: Write the quickest concrete fix beside any answer that is incomplete.