Refract Investigations — restricted access · apply below Original research · primary source documents · on-record interviews Access is individually reviewed and approved by the editorial team Refract Investigations — restricted access · apply below Original research · primary source documents · on-record interviews Access is individually reviewed and approved by the editorial team
Refract
Split the light.
Investigations Mission Impact
🔍 Investigations

The stories
behind the stories.

Original research, primary source documents, video investigations, and survey results — available to approved readers only. Apply below.

What's inside

Access requires
approval.

Refract's Investigations section contains original research, survey data, primary source documents, and video investigations that require editorial review before access is granted. This protects sources and ensures content reaches the right audience.

01
Request access — fill out the form with your name, email, and reason for requesting access.
02
Editorial review — we review your request manually. This usually takes 24–48 hours.
03
Receive your code — if approved, we email you a personal access code. Keep it private.
04
Enter the code — paste it in the field on the right to unlock the investigations section.
Already have a code?
Invalid code. Check your email and try again.
Request access
Your request has been received. If approved, you will receive your personal access code within 24–48 hours at the email you provided.
Investigations
🔓 Access granted — you are viewing restricted content. Do not share your access code.
Written Investigation
Your investigation title goes here

Summary of what this investigation covers. Who was interviewed, what documents were reviewed, what the findings show. Keep this to 2–3 sentences.

Key findings
Add your findings, quotes, and source notes here. This can include tables, data, or narrative text.
Month YYYY Investigation
Video Investigation
Your video investigation title goes here

Brief description of what the video covers. Who is speaking, what was filmed, what the viewer will learn.

▶
Video coming soon — replace placeholder with YouTube embed
Month YYYY Video
Research Results
Your research title goes here

What was studied, how many participants, what methodology was used. A plain-language summary of the research design.

Results summary
Present your data and conclusions here. You can also link to external documents or embed charts if needed.
Month YYYY Research
Survey Data
Your survey title goes here

Who was surveyed, how many respondents, what questions were asked, and what the data shows at a high level.

Survey findings
Paste your survey results summary here. Include response rates, notable patterns, and any statistical observations.
Month YYYY Survey
Survey Data
The First Refract Reader Survey: How Peruvian Students See the News

Before Refract published a single article, the team ran a baseline survey of secondary school students in Lima to test two assumptions behind the whole project: that young people felt ignored by mainstream media, and that LGBTQ+ news specifically was hard to find in the first place. The survey wasn't a formality — it directly shaped what Refract became.

Bar chart of baseline survey results: 85.7% rated LGBTQ+ news accessibility 1-2 out of 5, 42.9% say media never focuses on youth opinion, 78.6% want to stay informed rather than be entertained
Key findings
85.7% of respondents rated the accessibility of LGBTQ+ news coverage at 1–2 out of 5.
42.9% said mainstream media never focuses on youth opinion.
78.6% said the thing they wanted most from a platform like Refract was simply staying informed, not entertainment.
What it changed
These three numbers became the direct basis for how Refract was built, not just what it covers. The LGBTQ+ accessibility gap led to a dedicated LGBTQ+ Rights category rather than folding those stories into general news. The youth-opinion finding shaped an editorial voice that reports directly from young people's own words instead of paraphrasing adults' opinions about them. And the preference for "staying informed" over entertainment led to Refract's fact-check-first publishing standard — no article goes out without a sourced methodology page, even when a punchier, less-sourced version would get more engagement.
Follow-up
A second survey, run after Refract's first months of publishing, measured whether those changes actually moved the numbers: 85.7% of respondents reported feeling more able to identify a reliable news source after reading Refract, and 78.6% said they felt heard by Refract's coverage — up 35.7 points from the baseline survey above.
2026 Survey
Survey Data
The Second Refract Reader Survey: Did Any of It Actually Work?

The baseline survey told Refract what to build. This one asked whether building it made any difference. The team went back to the same population, students, months later, after Refract's first stretch of publishing, and asked the same questions again.

Bar chart comparing baseline to follow-up survey results: feeling represented rose from 25% to 90%, feeling heard rose from 42.9% to 78.6%
Key findings
90% of surveyed LGBTQ+ readers now feel represented in Refract's coverage, up from a 25% baseline, a 65 point increase.
78.6% feel heard by Refract's coverage, up from 42.9% at baseline, a 35.7 point increase.
85.7% of respondents report feeling more able to identify a reliable news source after reading Refract.
What it changed
This survey didn't just confirm the baseline findings, it fed back into how the team operates. The 4.6 out of 5 satisfaction score from writers led to a formal internal editorial guide (minimum five sources, APA 7th edition, mandatory fact-check sheet) that new contributors are now trained on directly, instead of learning the standard article by article.
Methodology note
Same population as the baseline survey: secondary school students in Lima. 6 of 7 active Refract writers also completed a separate internal feedback questionnaire on mentorship and editorial support, scoring it 4.6 out of 5.
2026 Survey