This lesson plan provides investigative journalists with a comprehensive checklist of key research areas essential for conducting a successful investigation.
It’s based on the article ‘Compiling an investigative journalism dossier‘ by Don Ray, which we recommend trainers read before adapting this lesson plan for your own purposes.
Introduction
Investigative journalism requires more than just a keen eye for a story; it demands meticulous organisation and the ability to manage vast amounts of complex data. This day-long lesson is designed to equip media trainees with the practical skills needed to build and maintain an investigative dossier. By the end of the day, participants will understand how to structure their findings, protect their sources, and ensure their research is robust enough to withstand legal and editorial scrutiny.
Sessions timetable
09:00–10:00 – Session 1: Introduction to the investigative dossier
Aims: To define what an investigative dossier is and understand its role as the brain of a long-term project.
Presentation: Define the dossier as a central repository for all evidence. Explain the importance of starting early to avoid losing track of threads. Introduce the concept of verification-as-you-go rather than at the end of the process.
Activity: Trainees are given a messy folder of disparate notes, photos, and links. They must spend 20 minutes trying to find three specific facts to demonstrate how easily information is lost without structure.
Discussion: Why is mental memory insufficient for investigative work? Discuss the risks of information overload in digital investigations.
10:00–11:00 – Session 2: Structuring your data
Aims: To learn how to categorise information into manageable sections.
Presentation: Using material from the MHM guide, set out the key sections of a dossier: the master chronology (timeline), the cast list (profiles of individuals/organisations), and the evidence log (documents, recordings, and metadata).
Activity: Trainees create a skeleton outline for a dossier based on a provided mock investigation (e.g., local government corruption). They must decide which categories are most relevant.
Discussion: How does a structured dossier help in spotting patterns or gaps in an investigation?
11:00–11:15 – Break
11:15–12:45 – Session 3: The master chronology and fact-checking
Aims: To master the creation of a timeline and the four-eyes principle of verification.
Presentation: Focus on the importance of the timeline in proving cause and effect. Explain the MHM recommendation for cross-referencing every entry with a source ID.
Activity: Participants are provided with a series of social media posts, public records, and interview snippets. They must assemble them into a chronological order and highlight any contradictions.
Discussion: Discussion on how a timeline can expose lies or alibis in investigative subjects’ stories.
12:45–13:45 – Lunch
13:45–15:00 – Session 4: Sourcing and evidence management
Aims: To understand how to handle physical and digital evidence securely.
Presentation: Explain the difference between primary and secondary sources. Set out the MHM guidelines on maintaining a chain of custody for evidence to ensure it is legally defensible.
Activity: A source evaluation exercise. Trainees are given five pieces of evidence and must rank them by reliability, identifying what further steps are needed to bulletproof the weaker ones.
Discussion: Ethics and safety: How do we store sensitive information about whistleblowers without putting them at risk?
15:00–15:15 – Break
15:15–16:15 – Session 5: Mapping relationships and the cast list
Aims: To learn how to track networks of influence and shell companies.
Presentation: Focus on building profiles for key players. Explain how to use a dossier to map connections between individuals, companies, and government entities.
Activity: Trainees use link analysis (drawing lines between entities) to map out a network based on a case study of corporate money laundering.
Discussion: How to avoid conspiracy thinking by ensuring every link in the map is backed by a document in the dossier.
16:15–17:00 – Session 6: Preparing for the write-up and legal review
Aims: To understand how a well-kept dossier simplifies the final writing process and protects the news organisation.
Presentation: Explain how a dossier serves as the primary defence against defamation. Show how to foot-note a draft story using the dossier source IDs.
Activity: Trainees take a single paragraph of an investigative lead and must attach the corresponding proof from their mock dossier to every claim made in the text.
Discussion: Closing thoughts on the discipline of record-keeping. Trainer leads a final Q&A.
Assignment
Participants are required to choose a local news topic that requires investigation (e.g., the use of public funds for a local park, or a rise in local environmental complaints). They must produce a “mini-dossier containing:
- A master chronology of at least 10 dated events.
- A cast list of at least three key entities with brief profiles.
- A list of five specific documents or sources they would need to acquire to prove their hypothesis.
Materials needed
- Handouts of the MHM article on investigative dossiers.
- Access to spreadsheets (Excel or Google Sheets) or specialised dossier software.
- Mock sets of raw evidence (emails, receipts, news clippings).
- Whiteboards and markers for relationship mapping.
Assessment
- Organisation: Was the mock dossier easy for another person to navigate?
- Verification: Did the trainee identify gaps and contradictions in the provided data?
- Accuracy: Are the timeline entries correctly sourced?
- Participation: Engagement in group mapping and discussion.
Summary
This lesson plan provides a comprehensive framework for teaching the essential skills of investigative journalism. By focusing on the organisation of a dossier, trainees move from being gatherers of stories to managers of evidence. For further reading and the original source material, please refer to the article: Compiling an investigative journalism dossier.
