The case coach

Six everyday action-researchers — pick a tab. Each is a real decision worked the way that person would: you decide, the consequence is realistic, then you reflect. Not mascots; the ideas made human. Every choice is scored on good process, never on politics.

A real case · you decide

Farah — the issue-framer

Farah — frames a public issue at its root — a fixable mechanism, never a villain

The idea in play: a mechanism-frame invites everyone in; a blame-frame ends the conversation.

Your neighbourhood park floods every spring. You are about to write the issue down — and how you frame it will decide who helps.

The easy frame is “the city is lazy.” It feels satisfying — and it ends the conversation before any research begins.

Farah keeps asking “what would actually have to change?” until the frame is a system: the storm drains, the budget cycle, who maintains what.

How should you frame the flooding issue?

Farah reframes a complaint into a fixable mechanism — so the research has somewhere to go and the plan has people willing to help.

Practise framing an issue →

A real case · you decide

Devrim — the lateral-reader

Devrim — evaluates a source by leaving the page to check who is behind it

The idea in play: “trustworthy” is earned by looking around, not by how a page looks.

A slick, professional-looking site has the exact statistic your project needs. You can cite it now, or check it first.

Devrim’s rule: before trusting a page, open new tabs. Who runs this site? Who funds it? What do other sources say about them?

A polished page is easy to build; “professional-looking” tells you nothing about whether the number is real.

What should Devrim do before using the statistic?

Devrim keeps unreliable claims out of the evidence by checking who is behind a source — so the plan rests on facts that hold up.

Practise lateral reading →

A real case · you decide

Marco — the stakeholder-mapper

Marco — maps who is affected AND who can decide, before proposing anything

The idea in play: a plan aimed at the wrong table dies politely.

Your flooding plan is ready. You can send it to the neighbours who already agree — or find out who can actually change the drains.

Marco draws two columns before every plan: affected (who lives with this?) and deciding (who can actually change it?).

His plan looked great until the map showed the deciders were a drainage board he had never contacted, and the most-affected were renters with no vote on it.

Who should the plan be aimed at?

Marco maps before he proposes — so the plan reaches the people who can actually respond, carrying the voices of those most affected.

Practise stakeholder mapping →

A real case · you decide

Leila — the feasibility-checker

Leila — turns a wish into a plan: by when, with what, and what is step one

The idea in play: “raise awareness” fails by-when, with-what, and step-one.

Your team has a big, inspiring goal. You can present it as-is, or find the feasible first step inside it.

Leila’s question for any idea is “by when, with what, and what’s step one?” “Raise awareness” fails all three.

She would rather ship a small real step than propose a big vague one — a specific ask, to a specific decider, by a specific date.

How should the team present its goal?

Leila names the feasible first step inside the big vision — so the plan gets done and earns the next step, instead of stalling on applause.

Practise designing a feasible plan →

A real case · you decide

Dr. Okonkwo — the fair panel-examiner

Dr. Okonkwo — chairs the action-plan panel — probes the reasoning, never the person

The idea in play: the panel scores the process, never whose side you are on.

A candidate has just presented a plan for a cause you happen to disagree with. As chair, you decide how to question it.

Dr. Okonkwo’s move after any proposal: “who did you check that with, and what would change your mind?” — never “are you right.”

She scores the process — evidence, stakeholders, feasibility, defensibility — never whether she personally agrees with the cause.

How should the panel question a plan whose cause you disagree with?

Dr. Okonkwo probes every plan the same way — process, not politics — so a defence rewards the work, not the position.

Build your plan defence →

A real case · you decide

Dario — the reporter

Dario — reports the honest result — including what did not work

The idea in play: an honest partial result is a real contribution; a fake win teaches no one.

Your action did not fully work — the drainage board tabled your proposal. Now you decide what your report says.

Most students would bury a tabled proposal and spin a win. Dario reports it straight: what he tried, what happened, what he would do next.

His report ends with a hand-off, not a trophy — because next year’s team can build on an honest partial result, but a fake win sends them in circles.

What should the report say about the tabled proposal?

Dario reports the honest result and hands it forward — so a tabled proposal becomes next year’s starting line instead of a buried defeat.

Practise reporting the result →