What else must have happened? Who else is involved?

If you began your investigation with a hypothesis, you already have the start of an imagined timeline. The hypothesis is the most important event in your story: the revelation, the crux of the matter. It therefore deserves a central place in the timeline: type it in the middle of a text document so that there is space above and below. Then try to think what else must have happened. Make a list of all the events connected to your hypothesis: examples, causes, effects and solutions. Start with events that are already known, that you know (from the media or documents) have taken place. Then continue with events that you suspect have taken place. The technique is to ask for each event: what must have happened before and after this? Most events have a cause and an effect; one cannot happen without the other, and one inevitably leads to the other. The list that emerges we call a timeline, plot lines or scenario. It serves several functions. To begin with, it is an in‑depth analysis of the problem you want to tackle. You can also use it as an action plan for your investigation. And finally, it can serve as the script for your eventual story. A scenario provides guidance from beginning to end. Of course, depending on the facts you encounter, things in your scenario will change, and that is fine. The point is that from the outset you have a narrative line in mind that defines your scope, points you in a search direction, and can be tested against the facts. It is as if you are cutting a path for yourself through a seemingly impenetrable jungle.

The eight questions below have proved useful for identifying the different events and actors (stakeholders) in a story:

  1. Problem: Who performs an unlawful, unjust or hazardous act? Who is principally responsible (‘perpetrator’)? And how does this party intervene in their environment?
  2. Motive: What prompts the perpetrator to act? Which decision, measure or intervention by others? Or: which discovery or explicitly stated ambition of their own?
  3. Means: Which means (money, licence, knowledge, material, manpower) does the perpetrator use for the act? How did they obtain those means?
  4. Opportunity: Which circumstance (e.g. physical proximity) or omission (e.g. poor oversight, political support) makes it possible for the perpetrator to carry out the act?
  5. Victims: Which individuals or groups are affected? How do they respond physically (flee, fight back, seek protection), verbally (protest, report) or socially (co‑operate, isolate)? What adjustments do they make (move house, change lifestyle)? Which means do they deploy (legal action, technology, membership drives, fundraising)?
  6. Beneficiaries: Which individuals or groups benefit from the situation? How do they respond physically (expand assets, invest, increase production), verbally (boast, make demands) or socially (expand networks, help others)? What adjustments do they make (change consumption patterns)? Which means do they deploy (investments, donations, political influence, technology, people)?
  7. Witnesses: Which individuals, agencies or organisations observe the problem? How do they observe it (test, inspect)? How do they record it (produce a report, write a publication)? How do they help those affected (physically, legally, financially)?
  8. Solution: Which individuals, agencies or organisations contribute to a solution to the problem? How do they prevent the problem (alternative course of action)? How do they repair the damage? How do they look for alternatives or solutions (advocate, invest, research)?

Example:

PROBLEM (HYPOTHESIS):

CAUSES: