APG5642 Investigative and data journalism
The Complete Study & Assessment Guide · Semester 2 2026APG5642 Overview
- Monash University
- Semester 2, 2026
- Postgraduate journalism unit
- Assessment-led production unit
APG5642 Investigative and data journalism is a hands-on postgraduate production unit about finding, testing and communicating stories that require more than routine reporting.
- Test the proposition A promising topic becomes reportable only when the claim, evidence path, public significance and feasibility can be stated clearly.
- Triangulate the record Documents, data and interviews play different roles; strong investigations use them to test one another rather than decorate a fixed conclusion.
- Make analysis auditable Preserve source context, define categories, check missing values and denominators, and keep a trail from raw record to published claim.
What you get in the full APG5642 Study & Assessment Guide
- 6 chapters, 30 pages — every assessed topic
- 16 original practice questions, each with a model answer
- 6 worked examples, solved the way APG5642 marks
- 17 computed figures, redrawn from the course’s own numbers
- Before-you-submit checklist for the 3 - Artefact (60%) — what markers reward, what costs marks
Free on this page: assessment table, chapter map, one worked example, key terms, FAQ. The rest is in the full study & assessment guide.
How APG5642 is assessed
| Component | Weight | Format |
|---|---|---|
| 1 - Presentation | 0% | Story pitch presented verbally in the tutorial, with the issue, driving proposition, sources, records, methods, feasibility, timeline and potential obstacles. |
| 2 - Artefact | 40% | Story draft and reflection. The captured task instructions require an individual Word submission and journalistic attribution. |
| 3 - Artefact | 60% | Final investigative story or project and reflection. The captured task instructions require an individual Word submission with relevant hyperlinks. |
The official handbook publishes the Presentation without a numeric weight; the captured Moodle course labels the story pitch not graded, represented here as 0%. The two Artefact rows are 40% and 60%, and the assessed weights total 100%.
What other students are asking about APG5642
- Where can I find lecture notes or study guides for APG5642 at Monash?
- The APG5642 study guide in AskSia Library covers Investigative and data journalism in 6 chapters, with the assessment table, a chapter-by-chapter topic map, key terms and a worked example, free to read on this page.
- Is there a final exam in APG5642?
- No final exam is listed in the offering this AskSia Library guide is built from; APG5642 is assessed by 2 - Artefact 40%, 3 - Artefact 60%.
- What does APG5642 cover on story viability, records and interviews?
- In AskSia Library's APG5642 guide, the Story Viability, Records and Interviews chapter explains test feasibility, map public records, plan interviews, scrutinise source incentives, and decide whether an investigation should proceed.
- What does APG5642 cover on finding and structuring data?
- In AskSia Library's APG5642 guide, the Finding and Structuring Data chapter explains locate public datasets, preserve provenance, define rows and fields, inspect missing values, and build an auditable reporting table.
- What does APG5642 cover on analysing and visualising evidence?
- In AskSia Library's APG5642 guide, the Analysing and Visualising Evidence chapter explains check denominators, comparisons and categories, then select a chart that communicates evidence accurately and clearly.
What APG5642 covers
Follow an investigation from a viable proposition through records, interviews and data to a verified, clearly edited story.
Investigative Story Foundations
Define the public-interest question, distinguish revelatory from explanatory work, and turn a broad topic into a testable story proposition.Investigative reporting begins by converting concern into a question that evidence can answer. A broad topic such as housing, procurement or environmental harm is not yet a story.
- Investigative journalism as sustained research and accountability
- Revelatory and explanatory contributions
- Public interest and the public right to know
- Broad topics, reporting questions and driving propositions
- Evidence that could support or weaken a proposition
- Story scope, feasibility and decision points
Story Viability, Records and Interviews
Test feasibility, map public records, plan interviews, scrutinise source incentives, and decide whether an investigation should proceed.A promising proposition becomes viable when the reporter can identify an evidence path, a realistic timeline and a fair reporting process. This chapter combines three decisions: whether to proceed, how to obtain the record and whom to interview.
- Feasibility as evidence access, time, scope and safety
- Go, narrow, pause or stop decisions
- Public records and likely record holders
- Proactive publication before formal access requests
- Precise descriptions of documents, dates and custodians
- Interview roles: expertise, experience, inside knowledge and accountability
Finding and Structuring Data
Locate public datasets, preserve provenance, define rows and fields, inspect missing values, and build an auditable reporting table.Data journalism starts before analysis. The reporter first asks what record exists, who created it, which unit each row represents and whether the fields can answer the reporting question. A large file is not automatically useful evidence.
- Reporting questions that can be answered with records
- Dataset provenance, scope and documentation
- The unit of observation represented by one row
- Identifiers, duplicates and repeated events
- Missing values and unknown categories
- Field definitions, coding changes and date coverage
Analysing and Visualising Evidence
Check denominators, comparisons and categories, then select a chart that communicates evidence accurately and clearly.Analysis turns records into a defensible comparison. Before calculating, define the claim in words: what is being compared, over which period, for which population and under which classification rule.
- Claims written before calculations
- Counts, rates, shares and appropriate denominators
- Comparable groups, periods and definitions
- Outliers as errors, events or analytical clues
- Uncertainty and limitations in the record
- Chart choice based on the relationship
Drafting and Source Integration
Build a lead and evidence sequence, integrate interviews and documents, mark research gaps, and use feedback to revise the story.A draft is a reporting instrument. Putting the story into sentences reveals whether the proposition is supported, which transitions depend on assumption and where a reader will ask for evidence.
- Drafting as a test of reporting completeness
- Leads built from the strongest verified development
- Evidence sequence rather than chronology of research
- Context, consequence and accountability
- Quotation, paraphrase and documentary attribution
- Hyperlinks that connect claims to source material
Final Editing and Submission
Run factual, structural and line edits, verify attribution and hyperlinks, complete the reflection, and prepare the required submission.Final editing protects the investigation from two opposite risks: factual weakness and unreadable presentation. The most reliable method uses separate passes. First verify claims, names, dates, figures, quotations, links and the representation of responses.
- Verification before stylistic polishing
- Names, dates, figures, quotations and links
- Fair representation and final right of reply
- Structure, pacing and paragraph purpose
- Active, simple and precise journalistic language
- Captions, bylines and visual consistency
The captured Monash materials frame the subject around the democratic role of investigative journalism, the public right to know, public records and databases, interviewing, data journalism, visualisation, drafting and final editing.
The unit asks students to develop an investigation of their own and to show how their evidence supports either a revelatory or explanatory contribution.
The central habit is intellectual honesty. A reporter begins with a question or provisional proposition, not a conclusion that must be defended.
The reporting plan identifies what information would support the proposition, what would weaken it, where relevant records may sit, which people can provide expertise or lived experience, and which accountable party needs a fair opportunity to respond. As evidence arrives, the working idea may narrow, change or fail. That is not wasted work.
It is the method working as intended.
Research depth is judged through the quality and scrutiny of evidence. Documentary sources need provenance and context. Interviewees need a clear relationship to the issue, and their expertise, experience and possible incentives must be understood. Data needs a traceable route from collection through cleaning and analysis to the final claim.
A chart is useful only when it expresses the relevant comparison accurately and can be understood without exaggerating certainty.
The unit then moves from reporting to composition. A draft should expose the state of the investigation: what is established, what remains uncertain, where additional reporting is required, and which structural choices will help a reader follow the evidence.
Feedback is therefore part of the reporting process, not a cosmetic check. The final edit separates factual verification, organisation and sentence-level clarity so that a smooth line never survives at the expense of accuracy or fairness.
Assessment is built around production. The official handbook lists a Presentation without a numeric weight, followed by an Artefact worth 40% and an Artefact worth 60%.
The captured unit materials identify the weighted tasks as a story draft with reflection and a final story with reflection. The numeric rows total 100%. The presentation functions as a story pitch that states the issue, driving proposition, likely sources and documents, investigative techniques, feasibility, timeline and potential obstacles.
Worked example · free
Turn a broad topic into a reportable proposition
- 1Define the observable issue: whether repair times differ from the published target and how often delays occur.
- 1Name the evidence path: service standards, work-order records, tenant accounts, contractor information and an agency response.
- 1Write a provisional proposition using conditional language so that contrary evidence can change the story.
- 1Set a decision point: proceed only if records and independent accounts establish a pattern rather than isolated frustration.
- 1Identify the public significance: effects on safety, habitability, public spending or accountability.
Key terms
- Driving proposition
- A provisional, testable statement that focuses reporting while remaining open to revision or rejection as evidence develops.
- Public interest
- The broader social value served by disclosure or explanation, distinct from material that is merely interesting to an audience.
- Right of reply
- A fair opportunity for a person or organisation facing significant criticism to understand the substance and respond before publication.
- Source triangulation
- The practice of comparing independent records, data and testimony so that each source can confirm, qualify or challenge the others.
- Data provenance
- The documented origin, collection context and transformation history that connects a dataset to the claims made from it.
- Denominator
- The reference population or total against which a count is interpreted, essential for comparing rates rather than raw totals.
- Editorial conference
- A structured discussion in which a reporter presents the story proposition, evidence plan, feasibility and unresolved risks for challenge and feedback.
- Journalistic attribution
- Clear identification of where a fact, quotation or claim comes from within the story, supported by hyperlinks where relevant.
- Verification pass
- A dedicated edit that checks names, dates, figures, quotations, source support and the accuracy of every material claim.
- Story architecture
- The deliberate order in which a lead, evidence, context, voices, counterevidence and conclusion guide a reader through the investigation.
APG5642 FAQ
How is the unit assessed?
The official handbook lists a non-weighted Presentation, a 40% Artefact and a 60% Artefact. The captured unit materials identify the weighted work as a story draft with reflection and a final investigative story with reflection.
What belongs in the story pitch?
The pitch should identify the issue and driving proposition, likely sources and public documents, any relevant access requests, other investigative techniques, feasibility, timeline and foreseeable obstacles. It should sound like a reportable plan, not a broad topic.
What makes research deep enough?
Depth comes from appropriate and varied sources, documentary support, scrutiny of evidence, contextualised interviews, accurate attribution and persistent testing of the central claim. A long source list cannot substitute for relevant evidence that has been checked.
Is data journalism required for every story?
The rubric treats data-journalism techniques as conditional because they may not suit every investigation. When data is relevant, it should be used clearly and appropriately; when it is not, forcing a chart into the story adds no value.
How should interviews support an investigation?
Interviews should serve distinct reporting roles, such as expertise, lived experience, accountability or corroboration. Prepare from the documentary record, ask open questions, test important claims, preserve accurate notes and give criticised parties a fair chance to respond.
What should a useful draft reveal?
A useful draft shows the current evidence and story structure while making gaps visible. It indicates missing reporting, uncertain claims, weak transitions and questions for feedback, allowing the next reporting cycle to be targeted rather than vague.
What should be checked before submission?
Check the required file type and components, then verify facts, quotations, attribution, hyperlinks, captions and bylines where relevant. Confirm that the reflection answers the task and that private contact information stays only in the required submission channel.
Questions students ask in each APG5642 chapter
- Does an investigation always need a major revelation?
- No. The unit explicitly recognises revelatory and explanatory contributions. A carefully evidenced explanation of how a consequential system works can be investigative even when it does not expose a single secret document. Chapter 01 · Investigative Story Foundations
- When should a reporter abandon a story idea?
- Pause, narrow or stop when essential evidence is inaccessible, the claim is immaterial, the timeline cannot support fair verification, or credible contrary evidence removes the proposed pattern. Ending a weak idea protects time and accuracy. Chapter 02 · Story Viability, Records and Interviews
- What should be checked before analysing a dataset?
- Confirm origin, coverage, row meaning, field definitions, identifiers, duplicates, missing values, category consistency and date formats. Compare the file with its documentation and preserve an untouched original before making changes. Chapter 03 · Finding and Structuring Data
- When should rates be used instead of counts?
- Use rates when groups differ in population, exposure or opportunity and the reporting question concerns relative frequency. Publish the underlying counts too when they help readers understand scale and uncertainty. Chapter 04 · Analysing and Visualising Evidence
- Should the story follow the order of the reporting process?
- Usually not. Readers need an evidence-led sequence, not a diary of discovery. Organise around the strongest verified finding, necessary context, consequence, corroboration and response, then provide chronology only where it explains the issue. Chapter 05 · Drafting and Source Integration
- Why should verification happen before line editing?
- Unsupported facts can change or disappear, taking surrounding sentences with them. Verifying first prevents wasted polishing and ensures that elegant language does not make a weak claim appear more certain than the evidence allows. Chapter 06 · Final Editing and Submission
How to prepare for the assessments
Work on one investigation as a sequence of decisions. Begin with a question and a conditional proposition. Build a source map that separates records, data, expert knowledge, affected voices and accountability. Keep a reporting log that records provenance and unresolved contradictions. Analyse only after checking fields, missing values, categories and denominators.
Draft early enough for the gaps to become visible, then use feedback to decide what reporting must happen next. Before submission, run three independent passes: factual verification, structural repair and line editing. Keep the current Moodle task page open for operational requirements and use this guide to practise the reasoning that links those stages.