Follow the Governance (FTG)

the FTG methodology

Follow the Governance (FTG) is an investigative approach, methodology and toolset to help journalists and other researchers to look — in a systematic and structured way — into the governance systems behind the activities, fields and sectors we investigate.

The name “Follow the Governance” is inspired by the “Follow the Money” approach to and methodology for investigative journalism. You can read more about how FTG relates to “Follow the Money”, and about what I mean by “governance system”, on the page “follow the money — and the governance“.

On this page, “the FTG methodology“, I go into detail about how I think the FTG approach and methodology can be useful to newsrooms and journalists and other researchers regarding_

EDITORIAL (back to top)

“Follow the governance” is, to start with, an approach to think of what issues and topics are relevant and interesting to be covered and investigated. Journalists and other researchers, and newsrooms, may look at and consider the governance system connected to any topic, or behind any given activity, field or sector, to decide what issues and and research questions to investigate.

For example, journalists can ask themselves whether their audiences know about and understand the governance systems behind air pollution, water delivery or public health in their city or country; or behind the lottery, professional football or the school system; or green spaces in their city; or the so-called gig economy; or algorithmic systems in the public administration; or…

Journalists then can decide what are the most relevant or urgent topics of which the governance systems the public should know about and understand, and which therefore need to be investigated.

Such approach may be useful to help us reclaim the old agenda-setting role of the media, whereby journalists — instead of simply reacting to newsy events — decide proactively to prioritise and give attention to some issues and topics rather than others (ideally, with a strong focus on defending the public interest). That way, the media contribute to set the public agenda by promoting some particular issues and topics into the public conversation — and the FTG approach may help us make particular governance systems themselves the topic of public discussion.

Looking at potential topics through the FTG approach may also help us generate potential leads and research questions that could launch particular investigations. And keeping the FTG methodology at hand will also be useful as a guide or checklist to make sure we do cover all the governance aspects that we deem relevant, or that we can cover given our existing resources.

RESEARCH (back to top)

When doing the research as part of an investigation or of topical news coverage, the FTG methodology provides journalists with a set of categories containing lists of questions to ask and issues to consider, so that one can look into the governance of any given topic in a structured and systematic way.

These categories and questions are like a toolset or guide journalists can use and adapt as they investigate a particular topic, and they can also be used and adapted as checklists to make sure one is covering all the relevant aspects of a given governance system.

Every journalist and newsroom will have their own ways of working and will manage information and data in their own ways. Because when following the governance one needs to look at so many document and will get so much information and data, I find that a good way of managing and handling the information is by using software like ICIJ’s Datashare or OCCRP’s Aleph, which have been purposely developed for investigative journalists.

The FTG methodology, as I’m presenting it here, covers these basic categories:

  • scope of the research and jurisdiction where the governance system applies
  • ownership of resources and physical and digital infrastructure
  • actors and stakeholders, and responsibility chain, including communities affected
  • decision-making processes, including how the public can engage with them
  • current norms and established practices
  • timeline of the most important moments that shaped the current governance system
  • particular types of sources of information and data that may be useful to research governance

Scope and jurisdiction_ this is an editorial decision based on what issues and topics journalists or a newsroom thinks are the most relevant or urgent to investigate, given their resources and intended audience.

first, one needs to think of the scope of the research_
  • will it cover a particular issue (e.g. the data people generate when using a particular app on their phones)?
  • or a whole field (e.g. online adversing and personal data)?
  • or one or more particular companies (e.g. Google or Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp)?
  • or one or more particular public institutions (e.g. the EU Data Protection Supervisor)?
  • or one country or a region (e.g. Spain or the EU)?
  • or will the scope cover one ore more particular events (e.g. the 2024 European Elections)?
  • or will the scope cover something else?
then, you decide on the relevant jurisdiction_
  • global
  • extra-EU transnational (bilateral or multilateral international jurisdictions)
  • EU
  • intra-EU
  • national
  • regional
  • local
  • other

Ownership_ here, you look at the ownership of raw resources, and physical and digital infrastructure, and at other ownership issues connected to your topic.

research questions and issues to consider about ownership_
  • list, categorise and map all or the most relevant raw resources_
    • who owns, legally or de facto, those resources?

  • list, categorise and map all or the most relevant infrastructure, including planned infrastructure_
    • who built and funded that infrastructure?, who’s building and funding new infrastructure?

  • who are the current owners of the infrastructure?, and were there key former owners?
    • when it’s a listed company, who are the main shareholders?

  • how is ownership legally or otherwise transferred between different actors?

  • what are the owners responsible for, whom are they accountable to, and what can they be liable for?

  • how can the public engage with the issue of ownership?

  • and think of other important questions or issues regarding ownership

Actors and stakeholders, and responsibility chain_ this is about the different types of actors, stakeholders and groups and communities connected to or affected by the topic you’re investigating, as well as about who is responsible for what and to whom.

research questions about actors and responsibility_
consider listing all or the most relevant categories of actors and stakeholders_
  • funders
  • owners
  • operators
  • producers
  • sellers
  • beneficiaries
  • policy-makers
  • regulator agencies
  • communities affected
  • …
consider listing all or the most relevant types of actors and stakeholders_
  • transnational non-corporate bodies and organisations (non-EU)
  • EU bodies and institutions
  • national state bodies and institutions
  • intra-national state bodies and institutions
  • corporate actors
    • corporate coalitions
    • publicly-listed corporations
      • and their main shareholders
    • privately owned corporations
    • corporate enablers
    • corporate services industry (e.g. consultancy, accounting and law firms, PR firms, think tanks…)
    • …
  • state-owned corporations
  • civil society groups active in the field
  • academic and other researchers
  • particular groups and communities affected
  • relevant individuals
  • media actors particularly engaged with the topic
  • …
Regarding each type of actor and stakeholder and the topic of the investigation_
  • identify and name the most relevant actors and stakeholders in each category and of each type (e.g. particular companies, organisations, public bodies, other organised groups, communities, particularly significant individuals…)

  • link categories and types of actors and stakeholders: who extracts, who processes, who produces, who sells, who consumes, who communicates, who taxes, who regulates, who monitors, who enforces, who is affected…
    • map who is in charge of what

  • what is each particular actor and stakeholder responsible for, whom is it accountable to, and what can it be liable for?

  • who benefits, and how, from the way the governance system is set up?, who loses out and how?
    • particularly, who has been making how much money due to how the governance system is set up?, who has been losing money?

  • who are the key people in each actor and stakeholder?

  • how can the public engage with the different types of actors and stakeholders?

Decision-making processes_ here, we try to describe the most relevant decision-making processes regarding our topic: who is responsible for key past decisions and who decides what now?

research questions about decision-making processes_
  • regarding the topic of the investigation, what are the most relevant decision-making processes to look into?
    • granting of permissions and licences
    • deciding where a particular infrastructure is to be built
    • public tenders and private concession
    • particular political decisions
    • key regulatory and judicial decisions
    • decisions taken by corporations and corporate coalitions
    • …

  • are the most relevant decision-making processes publicly, openly and transparently described and explained?
    • if not, then that should be newsworthy if those decisions affect the public interest

  • is it relevant to know who designed some decision-making processes and with which aims?

  • for particularly important decision-making processes, what are the different steps or phases?
    • establishing and using particular definitions
      • who decided on the definitions
    • information and data gathering
      • who can submit information and data, and who is not allowed?
      • who is and who isn’t consulted?
      • were there relevant information and data excluded or ignored?
    • public and/or private debates and negotiations
      • who are the key actors and their competing interests?
      • can affected communities participate?
    • listing or considering different alternatives
    • deciding on a particular choice

  • what monitoring, enforcement and conflict-resolution mechanisms were set up by the decision?
    • who is in charge of what?

  • what mechanisms to review the decision in the future are in place?
    • who can do what when?

  • how can the public engage with the process at the different steps and during the different phases?

Norms and established practices_ by “norms” I mean laws, regulations, and other formal and normally written norms that are to be followed. By “established practices”, I mean activities and ways of doing things that, while not formally or officially norms, have become the regular, standard or common way to act. In fact, some established practices may become or generate norms, and norms will also condition and generate particular established practices.

For instance, at the start of online advertising in the mid-1990s, and benefiting from a regulatory vacuum, online companies started collecting user’s personal data without asking for permission or informing about it; and that quickly became an established practice in the field, and even today public authorities are struggling to regulate such practice.

As a very different example, an established practice at the European Commission (EC) is to set up expert advisory groups that have mostly or only industry representatives — as it’s the case with the Energy Platform Industry Advisory Group, which only has corporate actors as members. While civil society representatives have, on paper, other ways to talk to the EC, those expert advisory groups give the industry a huge influence on the political process and policy-making at the EC.

Established practices and norms are the result of particular decisions made by actual people, which benefit some particular actors and stakeholders and make losers of — or even harm — others.

research questions about norms and established practices_
  • what are the relevant laws, regulations and other norms applying to the activity or field being investigated at every jurisdictional level?
    • international (non-EU)
    • bilateral
    • EU
    • national
    • intra-national
    • local
    • other

  • zooming into particularly relevant laws_
    • what does the norm regulate?, whom and what does the norm apply to?
    • how was the designing and approval process?
    • who were the main actors involved in that process and who did what?
    • was any significant actor, group or affected community excluded from the norm-making process?
      • were they ignored or excluded in practice even though on paper they had the right to have a say during the process?
    • was there significant or relevant information or data not taken into account during the norm-making process?
    • were some actors able to exert undue influence in their own private or vested interests, or against the public interest, during the norm-making process?
    • who benefits, and how, from the way this norm was approved and has been enforced?, and who loses out or is being harmed?
    • have there been significant reviews of the norm?
    • who is in charge of monitoring and enforcement?
    • what is the judicial pathway regarding this norm?

  • describe and list or map by category the relevant established practices, in the activity or field being investigated, regarding_
    • ownership of resources and infrastructure
    • extraction, processing, distribution
    • production, sale, consumption
    • management, accounting, PR
    • policy- and other political decision-making
    • media coverage and other monitoring and research
    • civil society activity
    • …

  • what’s the history of such practices?
    • who started them and in which situation or context?
    • who has benefiting from them and who has been losing out or being harmed?
    • are such practices breaking the spirit of the norm even if they are respecting the letter of the norm?
    • are there other, alternative practices that would benefit the public interest or the common good?

Timeline of the most relevant events and decisions_ here, the idea is to find out and be able to narrate the recent history of the current governance system: what were the main events and decisions that shaped such governance?, who were the main actors driving that process?

research questions about the timeline of events_
  • as you research the points mentioned above, you’ll be finding information and data that can be part of the timeline: start collecting them in a systematic and structured way

  • who and when started extracting / processing / distributing / selling the resource or the product?

  • who developed and who started using, and when, which infrastructure and technology, and how did that affect the field?

  • who and when set which guidelines or standards?

  • which relevant groups, associations or coalitions were formed when?

  • where and when was the activity or the field first regulated?

  • what other relevant norms and regulations have been appearing when?

  • what significant effects have such norms been having on what and whom, and when?

  • what particular practices became established and when?
    • have established practices become formalised as norms, and if so, when?
    • what significant established practices have been generated by particular norms and when?

  • have there been particular events or episodes that impacted the field in significant ways?, who were the main actors involved?

  • what are the key political, regulatory, corporate, judicial and other types of decisions that have influenced the field?

  • who has been benefiting and who has been losing out due to particular decisions and events shaping the field?

  • are there particular databases or datasets (about production, consumption, investment and other financial data, prices…) that could feed relevant data in a chronological way into your timeline?

  • who has planned or committed to do what in the future?

  • what else that’s relevant or interesting could you add to the timeline?

Sources of information and data_ much of the relevant information and data will be in principle publicly available, even if probably scattered through different types of documentary and human sources, and even if many documents might only be accessed by request and negotiation. And there will also be relevant information and data that won’t be in principle publicly available, and which you might be able to get through human sources.

The challenge — and the added value the FTG methodology aims to bring — is to be able to collect and connect enough relevant information and data so that you can produce a clear explanation of the key aspects of the governance system, without having to research the topic for years.

Much of the information and data required can be found through conventional journalistic research and using common sources. Here, I’m trying to list types and examples (at the EU level) of sources that may be useful when researching governance systems.

information and data on public bodies and institutions_

  • secondary and other documentary sources
    • general and specialised press reports
    • scientific and other academic reports
    • other specialised research
      • think tanks, activist research, other research organisations…
    • always be aware of how and by whom is the research funded

  • other strategic data research, collection and analysis

  • human sources
    • officials and other insiders, and former officials and other former insiders; other experts; people affected or with relevant knowledge for other reasons…

information and data on corporate and other non-state actors_
  • the sources and techniques mentioned in the point above can also be used to find information and data on corporate and other non-state actors; and here are other possibilities_

  • primary documentary sources
    • corporate documents and reports (including their PR), and corporate financial accounts and records
      • from individual companies as well as from corporate groups and coalitions
    • similar documents, reports, accounts and records from non-corporate groups and organisations

JOURNALISTIC OUTCOMES (back to top)

Narrative stories and graphics_ after researching a governance system, journalists and newsrooms may of course publish different kind of stories in their usual styles and formats, either as parts of a wider investigation or on their own. Apart from those, here I am listing a few possibly unconventional particular types of stories that I believe may work well to describe and explain governance systems clearly and in a structured way.

Media outlets could consider having a section about “Governance”, where they may publish stories, data and graphics explaining particular governance systems. Then, whenever the media outlet publishes a news story, feature or investigation into any given topic, the text could link to the related content under the “Governance” section, and/or the text could include little boxes, that are open and closed with a click, summarising the related governance system and linking to the additional content under the “Governance” section.

types of journalistic stories to explain governance systems_
  • investigative explainer_ a narrative story or series of shorter stories, maybe including graphic or infographic components, that provides an overview of the governance system
  • timeline of key decisions and events_ which tells the recent history of the current governance set-up, whether in a graphic or interactive style or text-based
  • mapping of actors and responsibilities_ which, as a dataset or database, or text-based, lists the main actors and stakeholders, and shows who’s responsible for what, accountable to whom, and liable for what; this mapping can be published in a graphic or interactive style or a text-based story
  • mapping of norms and established practices_ which, as a dataset or database, or text-based, lists the main norms and established practices, and indicates what and whom they cover, how they relate to each other, and whom they benefit and harm; this mapping can be published in a graphic or interactive style or a text-based story
  • summary of key points_ including possible points of engagement for the public

Work documents_ as I see it, an important part of the “follow the governance” methodology is for journalists and newsrooms researching governance systems to make their work documents publicly available, so that other journalists and researchers don’t need to repeat the work, but can instead already use it, adapt it and contribute to it.

Depending on the topic, a given newsroom or media outlet, or another organisation working on the public interest, might want to host, maintain and promote an online hub, to keep the information and data about the governance connected to that topic up to date and accessible to others.

While different journalists and newsrooms may use different kinds of work documents and software, having FTG as a common approach and methodology should hopefully help to standardise up to a point, and make mutually understandable and usable, work documents produced and shared by diverse journalists and newsrooms.

FTG work documents_
  • stories published as investigative explainers, timelines of main decisions and events, and mappings of actors and responsibilities, and of norms and established practices, should already be useful to other journalists and researchers to build their work upon
  • datasets in standard formats
  • spreadsheets and other structured documents
  • content exported from their own or shared instances of Aleph, Datashare and other such software
  • other kinds of documents and ways to share information and data in a clearly structured way