Hao Yu: Why Research and Investigation Are "Important but Undervalued"
The repeated emphasis on the foundational status of investigation and research [1] is because it directly relates to the questions of "where do problems come from" and "on what basis can conclusions stand." Without a comprehensive and objective understanding of the situation at the primary level [2], theoretical construction is prone to becoming hollow, and policy design is liable to drift off course; analyses that appear "evidence-based" may merely be the repetitive processing of existing data metrics. That investigation and research are undervalued appears on the surface to be a matter of it "not being cost-effective," but the deeper reason is that the feedback loop between knowledge production, governance operations, and the real world is not sufficiently smooth. The weakening of investigation and research harms not only the interests of individual researchers but also our collective ability to identify contradictions and solve problems.
Investigation and research constitute the foundation of academic study and are a key link in advancing the modernization of national governance. They must not be viewed as dispensable "additional work," but rather as an important means of gaining insight into the foundations of society, implementing national strategies, and drawing wisdom and strength from the masses [3]. They serve as the most fundamental and critical connection between the philosophy and social sciences and the modernization of national governance.
Many localities and departments do not so much disregard investigation and research as treat them as a "task to be checked off." Materials are written extensively and processes move quickly, yet the identification of key contradictions, interest patterns, and implementation constraints lacks sharpness and depth. This ultimately leads to the awkward situation where "the investigation is written on paper, the policy stays in the document, and the problem remains on site." If investigation and research cannot enter the critical stages of decision-making, it is difficult for them to form an effective supporting force for policy. To prevent "implementation" from becoming "emptiness," we must extend investigation and research from a preliminary stage to the entire process of policy implementation: using investigation and research to identify true problems and real needs before a policy is issued; using tracking investigations to capture deviations during implementation; and using independent evaluations to review effectiveness after a policy concludes. In this way, investigation and research become the "sensing system" and "calibration device" of the governance closed-loop.
Investigation and research are the basis for policy adjustment and refinement. However, in many policy-making processes, they often remain at the formal level of a "mandatory procedure," lacking a stable feedback mechanism, and investigative results tend to be marginalized in policy practice. Why is investigation and research "important yet neglected"? This is closely related to its unstable position within the decision-making chain. The feedback path for investigation reports is relatively vague, and relevant suggestions often find it difficult to enter the policy framework. To this end, it is necessary to further "embed investigation and research into the system," establishing a more stable interaction and feedback mechanism between investigation and policy, and promoting the formation of a policy evaluation system centered on investigation and research. This will not only help improve the effectiveness of policy execution but also ensure that policy design is closer to reality, more targeted, and more effective.
Specifically, the weakening of investigation and research within the evaluation system is manifested in three aspects. First, investigation and research are time-consuming and slow to yield results, which does not match project cycles and assessment deadlines. Second, investigative results are often presented as procedural evidence or contextual explanations, which are difficult to quantify simply. Third, the contribution of investigative practice is often compressed into "data collection," making it difficult to gain full recognition in matters of authorship, performance reviews, and professional titles. If investigative practice is not made identifiable within the system, it will be difficult to avoid the problem of scholars evading high-cost investigations. In response, we could consider adding a "procedural outputs" list in project acceptance and result evaluation—such as research designs, sampling plans, interview outlines, field notes, verification logs, anonymized datasets, and replication materials. This would encourage the long-term maintenance and sharing of high-quality investigative data, transforming investigative practice from "hidden labor" into "verifiable academic assets."
Investigation and research require long-term accumulation and a solid foundation; their results are often difficult to transform or manifest quickly. Under the current academic evaluation system, short cycles and quantitative indicators are prioritized. Many investigative results based on in-depth, front-line, and comprehensive tracking are ignored, causing some results to become "invisible" or "marginalized." This phenomenon not only makes it difficult for scholars who invest long-term in primary-level investigation to receive returns but also tends to create a rupture between practical research and academic evaluation.
It must be pointed out that data and models are not the problem; the key lies in whether the research maintains critical thinking and a "problem consciousness": how data metrics are formed and whether variables can represent concepts all require investigation and research to provide boundary conditions. Only by integrating quantitative analysis with qualitative evidence, and micro-narratives with macro-logic, can research be both "precisely calculated" and "logically sound." In this sense, investigation and research do not merely provide facts, but provide an interpretive framework for those facts; they do not just supplement information, but help us identify which information is critical and which conclusions should be treated with caution.
Today, the widespread availability of data and rapid technological development are having a profound impact on the paths of knowledge production. Big data and complex econometric methods—especially secondary data analysis based on databases—seem to be replacing primary data collection such as field investigations and interviews. In this environment, many researchers tend to conduct deep analysis based on ready-made data rather than visiting the primary level to conduct investigations. However, no matter how large the data or how new the model, if there is no solid investigation and research as support, conclusions may still deviate from reality. Social phenomena are highly contextual; analysis detached from the site often leads to conclusions that are formally exquisite but empty in content. Alongside technological development, the value of investigation and research appears increasingly indispensable—this is an inherent requirement of persisting in discovering problems from practice and gaining wisdom from the masses.
In terms of methodology, the most reliable path is often to "determine the problem through investigation, verify the mechanism through data, and revise the conclusion through feedback." Investigation and research can help researchers clarify conceptual boundaries and causal chains before entering a model, avoiding the mistake of treating available indicators as real mechanisms; they can also be used to revisit and verify abnormal results after entering the model, preventing "self-consistent deduction" from replacing real-world explanations. Advancing this research paradigm requires universities and research institutions to strengthen investigative methods, research ethics, and evidence verification capabilities, establish interdisciplinary teams, and leave space for long-term investigation in terms of funding, time, and organizational support.
As a "validator of concepts and mechanisms," investigation and research should play a more prominent role. To this end, we need to restore their core function and clarify their foundational role in academic development, especially their value in identifying problems, clarifying mechanisms, and revising theories. Research should not rely solely on existing data and models; it must also go deep into the social site to investigate, explore genuine social problems, and integrate them into the research framework.
At the same time, a clearer "mechanism for results to enter [policy]" should be established. For example, major policies and pilot projects could set necessary investigative and evaluative nodes, specifying who evaluates, what is evaluated, how feedback is given, and how rectifications are made. For reform measures involving the immediate interests of the masses, third-party or cross-regional cross-investigations could be introduced to reduce the bias of "self-evaluation and self-certification." For high-quality problem lists and evidence chains formed through investigation and research, evaluation should be permitted based on "the degree to which suggestions are adopted, the extent of policy adjustment, and the effectiveness of risk mitigation," thereby forming positive incentives for the value of investigation.
To change the current marginalization of investigation and research, we must "establish a position" for them within the academic evaluation system. Whether in project management or result evaluation, the long-term and procedural characteristics of investigation should be fully recognized. Review standards should focus on the actual role and social impact of investigation and research, rather than relying solely on quantifiable short-term results.
The reason investigation and research deserve to be "elevated" once again is that, ultimately, they uphold the bottom line of seeking truth from facts and maintain a people-centered value orientation. Restoring investigation and research to their proper place does not require everyone to "go down" [4] for a look; rather, it means truly respecting and utilizing investigation in our work practice—clearing up the actual situation, identifying key contradictions, and calibrating governance tools. We must truly give play to the role of investigation and research as a "heirloom" [5]. Only in this way can investigation and research build a more solid bridge between academic innovation and the modernization of national governance.