Investigative journalism -case studies 2401-OG-EN-IJCS

1. INTRODUCTION: WHAT COUNTS AS INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM? OBLIGATIONS, BOUNDARIES, RISKS

2. DESCRIBING THE TOPICS. INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM – SPECIFICATION

3. HISTORICAL PATTERNS. “WATERGATE”

4. TRACE EVOLUTIONS IN REPORTING METHODS. “NEWS OF THE WORLD”

5. THE IMPACT OF INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM. “SPOTLIGHT”

6. SUPPORTING JOURNALISTS AND COLLABORATION- P1. “PEGASUS”

7. SUPPORTING JOURNALISTS AND COLLABORATION- P2. “PANAMA PAPERS”

8. DATA JOURNALISM AND DISINFORMATION. “CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA”

9. A SINGLE INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER. “RYWINGATE”

10. SUMMARY. GRADES: SYNTHESIS, GOOD PRACTICES, INTEGRITY AND TRANSPARENCY

Całkowity nakład pracy studenta

Direct teacher participation: Participation in discussion seminar and case-study classes: 20h (0.8 ECTS) Scheduled individual or small-group consultations on the pitch, verification plan, source map and presentation draft: 20h (0.8 ECTS) Presentation, moderated discussion, assessment and formative feedback: 10 (0.4 ECTS) Independent work: Reading assigned literature and preparing analytical notes for class discussion: 25 (1 ECTS) Preparation for short Moodle tests and review of key concepts and case evidence: 20 (0.8 ECTS) Preparation and revision of the individual presentation and discussion plan: 30 (1,2 ECTS) Total: 125h (5 ECTS)

Efekty uczenia się - wiedza

J_W01 (K_W03, K_W05) Explains the democratic and social functions of investigative journalism and critically discusses its relationship with political and economic power, using evidence from case studies. IJ_W02 (K_W03, K_W05, K_W06) Distinguishes major investigative reporting strategies - source cultivation, document work, freedom-of-information or records requests, undercover techniques, cross-border collaboration and data-driven investigation - and explains their strengths, limitations and relevance to contemporary media practice. IJ_W03 (K_W06) Identifies key legal and ethical constraints, including privacy, defamation, data protection, source protection, conflicts of interest and safety, and justifies decisions using a public-interest test.

Efekty uczenia się - umiejętności

IJ_U01 (K_U01, K_U02, K_U05) Designs a verification plan for a selected case or story, including triangulation, source-credibility assessment, document authentication and an evidence timeline, and identifies risks and mitigation measures. IJ_U02 (K_U01, K_U04) Analyses an investigative case study by reconstructing the reporting process, methods, chain of evidence and newsroom constraints, evaluates its societal impact and formulates justified conclusions. IJ_U03 (K_U06, K_U07) Prepares and delivers a structured 10-minute presentation in English with annotated references and moderates a short discussion, responding to questions and counterarguments. IJ_U04 (K_U01, K_U05, K_U07) Produces, in English and using appropriate specialist terminology, a concise investigative pitch or memo containing a problem statement, hypotheses, source map, verification steps, ethical and legal risks and safety considerations.

Koordynatorzy przedmiotu

Aleksandra Seklecka

Metody dydaktyczne

• Micro-lectures and guided reading introduce the functions, terminology, methods and constraints of investigative journalism [IJ_W01-IJ_W03]. • Case-study reconstruction and evidence mapping develop analysis of methods, chains of evidence, newsroom constraints and societal impact [IJ_U01, IJ_U02]. • Problem-based verification tasks, source maps and public-interest tests require students to apply methodological, legal, ethical and safety criteria [IJ_W02, IJ_W03, IJ_U01, IJ_U04]. • Student presentations and moderated discussions develop structured communication in English and reasoned responses to questions and counterarguments [IJ_U03]. • Consultations, peer review, reflective self-assessment and feedback support revision, recognition of knowledge limits, appropriate use of expert advice, academic integrity and responsible disclosure of tools and support [IJ_U04, IJ_K01, IJ_K02]. • Moodle tests provide regular formative and summative verification of conceptual knowledge and applied verification decisions [IJ_W01-IJ_W03, IJ_U01].

Metody dydaktyczne podające

- opis
- pogadanka
- opowiadanie

Metody dydaktyczne poszukujące

- ćwiczeniowa
- panelowa
- klasyczna metoda problemowa
- studium przypadku

Metody dydaktyczne w kształceniu online

- metody rozwijające refleksyjne myślenie
- metody wymiany i dyskusji
- metody służące prezentacji treści

Wymagania wstępne

English knowledge (min. B1)

Kryteria oceniania

Assessment methods and criteria:
- Active participation and preparation: 16 points - IJ_W01-IJ_W03, IJ_U02, IJ_K01, IJ_K02- Up to 2 points in each of 10 meetings for evidence of reading, accurate use of concepts, reconstruction of evidence and methods, relevant questions, ethical reasoning, critical evaluation of received information, constructive use of feedback and responsible discussion.
- Individual presentation, investigative pitch/memo and discussion moderation: 30 points - IJ_W01-IJ_W03, IJ_U02-IJ_U04, IJ_K01, IJ_K02 - A 10-minute case presentation with annotated references, an English-language pitch/memo using specialist terminology, and at least 5 minutes of student-led discussion. The work must reconstruct the investigation, evaluate evidence and impact, justify verification, legal, ethical and safety decisions, and demonstrate revision after feedback and awareness of knowledge limits or expert-support needs.
- Short Moodle tests: 40 points - IJ_W01-IJ_W03, IJ_U01 - Ten short tests, normally completed after each meeting, worth up to 5 points each. Tasks verify concepts, case evidence, reporting strategies and applied decisions concerning source credibility, triangulation, authenticity, public interest and risk mitigation.

Participation scoring per meeting:
0 - not demonstrated - Absent without an approved make-up task, unprepared, or no meaningful contribution.
1 - satisfactory - At least one relevant contribution or question demonstrating basic familiarity with the assigned case or reading.
2 - strong - Evidence-based contribution that reconstructs methods or evidence, evaluates a source or decision, connects the case with course concepts and supports constructive discussion.

Presentation, pitch and moderation rubric - 30 points:
Investigative problem and pitch/memo (0-5): A focused public-interest problem, clear hypotheses or questions, relevant source map and feasible reporting purpose.
Reconstruction of methods and evidence (0-6): Accurate account of sources, documents, verification steps, collaboration and chain of evidence, with fact distinguished from inference.
Verification, risk and constraints (0-5): Appropriate triangulation and authentication steps and reasoned identification of legal, ethical, data-protection, source-safety and reporter-safety risks.
Analysis of impact and conclusions (0-5): Critical evaluation of newsroom constraints, publication choices and social or political impact, ending in justified conclusions.
Sources, English and visual communication (0-4): Credible and transparent references, clear academic English, correct terminology, effective visuals and respect for the time limit.
Discussion moderation and use of feedback (0-5): Purposeful questions, engagement of participants, relevant responses to counterarguments and evidence of revision after consultation or peer feedback.

Short-test scoring:
Each test is worth 0-5 points. A typical test contains short conceptual or case-evidence items and at least one applied verification, ethics or risk decision. One point is awarded for each correct and sufficiently precise response; no point is awarded for an incorrect, unsupported or missing answer.

Pass threshold and grading scale:
0-46 points - 2.0 - fail
47-54 points - 3.0 - satisfactory
55-62 points - 3.5 - satisfactory plus
63-70 points - 4.0 - good
71-78 points - 4.5 - good plus
79-86 points - 5.0 - very good

Praktyki zawodowe

not applicable

Literatura

Amponsah, P.N. 2024. Investigative Reporting: Its Practice, Boundaries and Implications. Accra: Sub-Saharan Publishers.

Borins, S., Herst, B. 2020. Beyond “Woodstein”: Narratives of Investigative Journalism. “Journalism Practice” 14(7), ss. 769-790.

Cancela, P. 2021. Between Structures and Identities: Newsroom Policies, Division of Labor and Journalists’ Commitment to
Investigative Reporting. “Journalism Practice” 15(9), ss. 1361-1382.

Cancela, P., Gerber, D., Dubied, A. 2021. “To Me, It's Normal Journalism” Professional Perceptions of Investigative Journalism and Evaluations of Personal Commitment. “Journalism Practice” 15(6), ss. 878-893.

Hahn, O., Stalph, F. (eds.). 2018. Digital Investigative Journalism Data, Visual Analytics and Innovative Methodologies in International Reporting. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hamilton, J.H. 2017. Democracy's Detectives: The Economics of Investigative Journalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Juniarti, G., Ageng Prathama, N. 2024. Hierarchy Needs of Investigation Journalist in Spotlight Movie: The Semiotics Study. “Jurnal Ilmu Komunikasi” 22(1), ss. 29-43.

Know-Lund, M., Park, M., Bebawi, S. (eds.). 2024. Hybrid Investigative Journalism. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lashmar D. 2009. Investigative journalism: a case for intensive care?, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=7C957C710C3A4F5
BF7DE500A28593169?doi=10.1.1.425.8314&rep=rep1&type=pdf (10.12.2018).

Opt, S.K., Delaney, T.A. 2001. Investigative Reporting: Reconsidering the Public View. “The New Jersey Journal of Communication 9(1), ss. 76-87.

Stray, J. 2019. Making Artiﬁcial Intelligence Work for Investigative Journalism. “Digital Journalism” 7(8), ss. 1076-1097.

Więcej informacji

Dodatkowe informacje (np. o kalendarzu rejestracji, prowadzących zajęcia, lokalizacji i terminach zajęć) mogą być dostępne w serwisie USOSweb:

Strona przedmiotu 2401-OG-EN-IJCS w USOSweb