Story-Based Inquiry

Story-Based Inquiry (SBI) is an investigative methodology developed by Mark Lee Hunter and Luuk Sengers that treats journalism not as a random collection of facts, but as an integrated process focused on producing an original narrative from the outset.

The Hypothesis as the Engine of Inquiry

The core of SBI is the hypothesis: a provisional answer to the investigative question based on available, though incomplete, evidence. It serves as a navigational beacon in the ocean of data.

Formulation

Instead of a vague topic like "I want to look into corruption in the construction industry," the hypothesis would be:

"I suspect that Company X is bribing local officials to bypass safety regulations, resulting in the structural failure of Building Y."

This specific statement enables rapid assessment. If you cannot find evidence of Company X working on Building Y, the hypothesis fails quickly, saving weeks of wasted effort.

The Scientific Method

The research process then becomes a rigorous attempt to disprove the hypothesis. If the evidence contradicts the hypothesis, you must revise the story, not the facts. This protects against confirmation bias—a fatal flaw in investigative work.

The Chronology as an Analytical Tool

In the SBI model, the timeline is described as the "royal road" to the heart of a story. Constructing a master chronology is not merely a way to organize dates for a script; it is a primary analytical tool.

Why Chronology Matters

• Causality and Sequence: If a large deposit hits a politician's bank account two days before a crucial vote, the chronology reveals a potential bribe that a thematic list of "assets" and "votes" would obscure.
• The Sound of Silence: Gaps in a timeline often indicate where the cover-up exists. If a prolific emailer suddenly goes silent for three days during a crisis, that silence is a data point.
• Impossibility: A subject cannot be in two places at once. A rigorous timeline reveals contradictions in alibis or official accounts immediately.

The "Write-Around" Technique

A common challenge in deep research is the "uncooperative subject." When your primary subject refuses to speak, employ the write-around:

1. Interview everyone around the subject—former employees, estranged friends, rivals
2. Mine court depositions where the subject was forced to speak under oath
3. Analyze public statements and compare them to private communications (emails, texts)

This often produces a more honest portrait than a controlled PR interview.

The Knowledge Cycle

For long-form projects, research cannot be effectively separated from writing. The "waterfall" model—where one researches for three months and then writes for one—often leads to "research paralysis."

The Knowledge Cycle suggests an iterative approach:

1. Capture: Fleeting ideas, interesting URLs, and potential leads are captured immediately in an "Inbox"
2. Process: Sources are read and annotated. Extract "Information Units"—atomic facts or claims
3. Connect: New information is linked to existing notes. Does this new police report contradict the witness testimony?
4. Draft: Small sections or "zero drafts" are written to test the strength of the research
5. Loop: The act of writing reveals holes (e.g., "I don't actually know what the weather was like that night"), triggering a new cycle of inquiry

This cyclical approach ensures that the research remains focused on the final output, preventing the accumulation of "knowledge clutter" that never makes it into the final episode.

Key Takeaways

• Start with a testable hypothesis, not a vague topic
• Build a master chronology to reveal causality and detect gaps
• Use the "write-around" when subjects won't cooperate
• Iterate between research and writing—don't separate them
• Revise the story to fit the facts, never the reverse