Editor’s note: Journalists often get bogged down in reporting on problems. But growing evidence shows that readers want coverage of solutions. We’re republishing the third instalment from The Fix’s course on solutions journalism by Emma Löfgren. Subscribe to access the full course for free in seven weekly instalments delivered to your email inbox.

Evidence is one of the hardest things for new solutions journalists to get right.

A common mistake is to spend too much time sourcing hard, data-based evidence, neglecting other key sources. In some aspects, reporters get over-ambitious (I know, I’ve been one).

In others, they’re not ambitious enough.

If there’s no evidence at all, we won’t know that a response is actually solving a problem.

But it can also feel intimidating, so it’s crucial to set realistic expectations.

If you have reporters who easily get bogged down in details, reassure them that they’re not writing a thesis defence or appearing in court. They should think of evidence more as signs of success, anything that indicates that the response may be working, even if it’s vague, small scale or relatively new.

This could be data that suggest a positive trend. But it could also be qualitative evidence, such as interviews with people who are affected by the problem and response, or interviews with independent experts who could give their opinion on whether the response could work.

If a response has been given an award, or is being copied elsewhere, that’s “evidence”. Just be careful that in efforts to lower the bar, you don’t rely on too tenuous signs of success. Winning an award is not enough to show that a response is working, but together with other factors such as interviews or renewed funding, it supports the response as circumstantial evidence.

If there are gaps in the evidence, say so. Journalism that admits to not having all the answers, that invites the audience to join in figuring them out, is more powerful than journalism that over-claims. This helped me go beyond my own comfort zone when I first started out.

To steer colleagues, direct reports and even yourself in the right direction, you might be able to find a story where the evidence is readily available, such as academic research which has already assessed the evidence for you. This could allow more time for interviews.

Speaking of which, if you’ve been paying attention so far, you know that I’m a fan of small tweaks that improve your reporting but don’t take up too much of your time (in theory, dedicating days to articles is fantastic, but the reality is different for a lot of newsrooms). Efficient reporting. It doesn’t cut corners or ignore due diligence, but it has a laser focus on the right bits.

One such bit is interviewing the people affected by a story. Too often do new solutions journalists wear themselves thin trying to find as much data and expert interviews as possible to back up their story; too rarely do they go straight to those who know the issue the best.

Just as there’s plenty of great journalism that isn’t solutions journalism, there’s plenty of journalism that meets the basic four pillars of solutions journalism, but isn’t as good as it could have been. Here’s a made-up example of well-intended reporting that gets the balance wrong:

An article interviews a council official who has set up a soup kitchen for homeless people. They are now able to get one hot meal a day. The article asks the official to explain homelessness in the area and what needs to be done to meet people’s immediate needs. It also speaks to a researcher who explains whether similar facilities have worked elsewhere. It asks soup kitchen users what it feels like not to have a roof over your head and what such a place means to them.

It seems like a decent article, right? It has interviewed a person involved with the response, an external expert about the evidence, and at least one person who’s affected by the problem.

But it forgets one crucial part. People who are affected by a problem are experts too.

Yet much of journalism tends to ask people with titles or positions of authority what they think should be done, and people on the receiving end how they feel about their situation. It focuses too strongly on their emotions, and not as much as it should on their, very real, knowledge.

When you instead ask people impacted by the problem (and solution) what they think, what they need and what they want to see happen, you could get answers you didn’t expect.

Your solutions challenge

This edition’s solutions challenge is to start asking these 10 questions in interviews to help you dig out evidence. There’s some overlap between questions for someone affected by a response and for someone in charge of a response (there may be overlap between these people too), but the first ones are perhaps especially suitable for the former and the last ones for the latter:

1) What do you value the most about this response?

2) What has this response actually changed about your life?

3) If this response were to spread further, would it solve the problem?

4) Imagine a future where the problem has been solved for everyone, what does that look like? What factors brought it to that point, what challenges had to be overcome and how?

5) If you could make one wish to improve the response, what would you wish for?

6) What’s a question no one has asked you?

7) What do you wish you had known at the start?

8) If someone were to replicate this response, what would they need to know?

9) What were your goals when you started? Have they been met? How do you measure success?

10) How does the response actually work and how does it solve the problem – in detail?

Learn from others

The crashing Syrian economy after a long conflict has led to a rampaging cost of living which affects people’s lives in many ways – including in unexpected and sometimes taboo areas.

One such area is period poverty, with the cost of menstrual products soaring so high that many can no longer afford to buy hygiene pads. One small NGO has taken it upon itself to sew reusable pads by hand and offer them as a cost-efficient and eco-friendly solution to women in Syria.

This article, which was published by the New Humanitarian in collaboration with Egab, relies on a wide range of what in isolation are relatively limited pieces of evidence hinting at only a few small signs of success – but together they show us that the response may be working.

First, there’s quantitative evidence. The NGO has sold or donated 370 menstrual pads, which isn’t a lot, but the number is rising which gives us an indication it’s becoming more successful.

Experts tell the article that once such organisations manage to overcome the obstacle of advertising their products, the idea of reusable pads should gain greater acceptance.

Finally it speaks with not just one but several users of the response from whom we get information we would perhaps not have got from the NGO alone. We find out that although the initial cost of the pads is high, they’re worth it. But there are also several obstacles, such as washing the pads in a country affected by shortages of power, fuel and boiling water.

Read this because: it’s a fascinating article about an under-covered subject, which uses a range of pieces of evidence and treats the users with as much respect as the experts and organisers.

What’s next?

The brilliant thing about interviewing people who are affected by a problem with an “expert interview” mindset is that you might find out things you wouldn’t otherwise have known.

For example, they might tell you that although they appreciate a response, it doesn’t solve their immediate needs.

That doesn’t mean the solutions story falls, it just gives you important context to include in the reporting.

In the next edition, we’ll talk about how to include the third pillar of solutions journalism (limitations) in your work and why I don’t play the ukulele.

Solutions journalism course: ten foolproof questions to get the answers you need

Emma Löfgren

The Fix’s course on solutions journalism, edition #3

Author

Emma Löfgren

‌

‌‌‌

‌‌‌