Li Shiyong: Accelerating the Innovation of Research Methods in Philosophy and Social Sciences

Philosophy and the social sciences are essential tools for understanding and transforming the world, and they constitute an important force in driving historical development and social progress. Research methods hold foundational and leading significance within the study of philosophy and the social sciences. On May 17, 2016, while presiding over a symposium on work in philosophy and the social sciences, General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasized: "We must persist in making the past serve the present and foreign things serve China ^[1]; we must integrate various resources and continuously promote innovation in knowledge, theory, and method." Among these, methodological innovation provides concrete path-based support for the innovation of knowledge and theory. At present, the rapid development of technologies such as artificial intelligence, big data, and cloud computing has provided new technical tools and research means, bringing about a profound transformation in research method paradigms. In August 2025, the "Opinions on the In-depth Implementation of the 'AI Plus' Action" issued by the State Council explicitly proposed to "innovate research methods in philosophy and the social sciences." Accelerating the promotion of methodological innovation in philosophy and the social sciences is an inevitable requirement for adapting to transformative trends and constructing philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics.

1. The Significance of Promoting Methodological Innovation in Philosophy and the Social Sciences is Profound

Viewed historically, any profound transformation of knowledge and ideological systems is inseparable from the iterative updating of research methods. Methodological innovation involves both changes in methodology ^[2] and the overall renewal of the knowledge system; in essence, it is a transformation in the mode of cognition. However, for a long time, many people have simply equated methodological innovation with the renewal of technical means and research tools, while neglecting the restructuring of knowledge systems brought about by methodological innovation. Particularly at present, the research objects, contexts, methods, and boundaries of philosophy and the social sciences are undergoing profound changes. Realistic problems involving complexity, interconnectedness, and uncertainty have increased significantly. This necessitates that knowledge and theoretical innovation increasingly reveal the deep links in human interaction based on the support of various methods, while reflecting on the profound changes in cognitive models, thinking patterns, and methodological significance that follow.

Research in philosophy and the social sciences is not abstract speculation in a study; rather, it must face governance needs, solve realistic problems, and serve decision-making practice. Especially currently, in cracking the difficult problems of national governance, research methods relying solely on empirical induction or qualitative speculation have found it difficult to reveal the complex mechanisms behind these challenges. The key to promoting methodological innovation in philosophy and the social sciences does not lie in simply adding a few new technologies or tools, but in pushing researchers to achieve a deeper understanding of the hidden connections between various complex events in human interaction. Combining advanced technology to promote methodological innovation can clarify ambiguous issues, structure complex phenomena, and visualize dynamic processes. This allows for more precise identification of problem symptoms, revelation of occurrence mechanisms, clarification of evolutionary paths, and the search for countermeasures. Only by achieving such a methodological breakthrough can research in philosophy and the social sciences better reveal and resolve complex governance problems and serve national governance practices more precisely.

Methodological innovation is not only an issue of academic research but is also directly related to the development, study, and interpretation of the Party's innovative theories. Historically, the Party's innovative theories have always been integrated with China's reality, formed and developed on the basis of answering Chinese questions and summarizing Chinese experiences. Facing changes unseen in a century ^[3], the environment for our Party's governance has become more complex, the tasks of reform, development, and stability have become more arduous, and the questions to be answered by the Party's innovative theories have become more diverse. This actually places higher requirements on the innovation of research methods. What is needed here is a methodological renewal capable of adapting to Chinese practice in the New Era, requiring a more profound grasp of the laws of practice and an enhanced ability to identify and explain new phenomena, new problems, and new laws. Currently, some frontier technologies provide various research methods such as simulation, sand-table deduction, and augmented reality. Systematically applying these new technologies can more accurately identify new phenomena, deeply analyze new problems, and systematically summarize new experiences, thereby providing more solid scholarly support and knowledge supply for the development, study, and interpretation of the Party's innovative theories.

The construction of an independent knowledge system for Chinese philosophy and social sciences cannot do without the support of research methods. For a long time, China's research methods in philosophy and the social sciences have, to some extent, suffered from a problem of dependence on the West, which has derived phenomena such as unreasonable theoretical presuppositions, mismatched problem awareness, and the "tailoring" of empirical materials. Ultimately, this is not just a question of choosing specific technical methods, but a problem of a lack of subjectivity at the methodological level. The key to promoting methodological innovation lies in being grounded in Chinese practice, transforming the experiences of Chinese practice into theoretical knowledge, and refining conceptual categories and theoretical propositions with Chinese characteristics, Chinese style, and Chinese flair ^[4]. Especially in the context of the digital-intelligence era, methodological innovation can also expand analytical objects and research data, promote organized scientific research, and realize a transformation in the paradigm of knowledge production. This is crucial for constructing an independent knowledge system for Chinese philosophy and social sciences.

2. Principles to be Upheld in Promoting Methodological Innovation in Philosophy and the Social Sciences

Uphold the fundamentals and break new ground to ensure the correct direction of methodological innovation. To accelerate the promotion of methodological innovation in philosophy and the social sciences, we must first handle the relationship between "upholding the fundamentals" (shouzheng) and "breaking new ground" (chuangxin). Accelerating methodological innovation may appear to be a technical and path-oriented issue, but it actually concerns the research standpoint, research direction, and value orientation. To "uphold the fundamentals" means to uphold the fundamental system of the guiding position of Marxism in the ideological field, the fundamental requirement of the "Two Combinations" ^[5], and the CPC's cultural leadership and the cultural subjectivity of the Chinese nation. It means persisting in the guiding position of Marxism in the field of philosophy and the social sciences, adhering to a people-centered research orientation, accurately understanding the era-based significance and scientific connotation of the "Two Combinations," and consolidating the cultural subjectivity of the Chinese nation. No matter how research methods in philosophy and the social sciences are innovated, they must not deviate from Chinese practice, Chinese tradition, or the standpoint of the people. To "break new ground" means to create new ideas, new discourses, new mechanisms, and new forms. Under the guidance of Marxism, we must truly achieve the goal of making the past serve the present and foreign things serve China, engaging in dialectical selection and "weeding through the old to bring forth the new" ^[6] to achieve an organic connection between tradition and modernity. This requires adapting to the new trends of profound changes in the mode of knowledge production, enhancing the scientific and refined nature of research, and ensuring that methods serve theoretical innovation and practical development. Only by persisting in the unity of "upholding the fundamentals" and "breaking new ground" can we ensure that methodological innovation in philosophy and the social sciences always advances in the correct direction.

Adhere to a demand-oriented approach to anchor the realistic coordinates of methodological innovation. In promoting methodological innovation, we cannot blindly discuss "technology" for technology's sake or "innovate" for innovation's sake. Methodological innovation cannot be detached from real-world scenarios or fall into the trap of conceptual rebranding and technical stacking. Various forms of "data-onlyism," "model-onlyism," and "tool-onlyism" are not methodological innovations in the true sense. Particularly in the era of artificial intelligence, research in philosophy and the social sciences is increasingly embedded in specific application scenarios and oriented toward complex realistic problems. This dictates that methodological innovation must adhere to a demand-oriented approach, be established upon real problems and real scenarios, and be committed to improving the efficacy of national governance. For example, as society progresses, new difficulties will emerge in fields such as economic development, ecological protection, and public safety. These need to be effectively identified and resolved. To this end, we must reveal problems, analyze causes, and sort out mechanisms through methodological innovation combined with the diverse possibilities of technical development, thereby enhancing the realistic value and era-based significance of research in philosophy and the social sciences.

Persist in comprehensive integration to expand the resource boundaries of methodological innovation. In the digital-intelligence era, accelerating methodological innovation cannot involve discussing methods in isolation, nor can it be limited to a single discipline, single tradition, or single source of knowledge. Instead, we must persist in interdisciplinary intersection and the integration of Chinese and foreign resources, promoting the organic integration of various methodological resources. On the one hand, we must break down disciplinary barriers and promote the cross-integration of philosophy and the social sciences with data science, information science, cognitive science, and engineering technology to form a more comprehensive methodological system for studying complex problems. On the other hand, we must persist in making the past serve the present and foreign things serve China. We must focus on drawing valuable methodological resources from fine traditional Chinese culture and our Party's long-term practice, while also focusing on drawing from the beneficial methodological achievements formed by foreign philosophy and social sciences in empirical analysis, experimental research, and causal identification. Of course, the cross-integration of methods is not mechanical stacking or simple splicing. Rather, it must be based on Chinese practice, Chinese problems, and Chinese scenarios, through the selective absorption and creative integration of different methodological resources, to form a methodological innovation system with Chinese characteristics, Chinese style, and Chinese flair.

3. Concrete Paths for Promoting Methodological Innovation in Philosophy and the Social Sciences

Strengthen the orientation toward scenario applications and construct an open and collaborative methodological innovation system. Promoting methodological innovation should, under the premise of specific application scenarios, drive the combination of methodological innovation with the resolution of concrete practical problems, allowing dispersed disciplines and research resources to become more concentrated and collaborative. With a problem-oriented approach, we should persist in identifying methodological needs from the starting point of the scenario, encouraging different disciplines to jointly condense major scientific questions, and collaboratively carry out research design and evidence acquisition to explore more scientific methodological combinations and research paths. Using data openness as a lever, we should promote the co-construction and sharing of various types of big data and small data, breaking down data barriers to provide a stable and rich data foundation for methodological innovation. With mechanism synergy as a guarantee, we should improve the model of cross-disciplinary team cooperation, pushing multi-disciplinary research forces from temporary cooperation toward stable synergy, and promoting the shift of methodological innovation from individual exploration to team collaboration.

Improve the achievement evaluation system and create a contribution-oriented environment for methodological innovation. The evaluation system for research achievements plays the role of a "wind vane" and "baton" in methodological innovation, possessing foundational and guiding significance. Based on classification-based evaluation, we should change the previous evaluation tendencies of "stressing paper publication over methodological innovation" and "stressing short-term output over long-term construction," ensuring that methodological innovation truly enters the achievement evaluation system. Focusing on contribution identification, we should prevent simply using technical complexity or model novelty as evaluation indicators for methodological innovation. Instead, we should primarily evaluate the actual contribution of new methods in problem discovery, evidence organization, and mechanism identification. Supported by long-term incentives, we should continuously explore scientific recognition mechanisms for methodological innovation achievements, encouraging researchers to carry out long-term data accumulation, tool development, method verification, and iterative improvement, avoiding short-term and utilitarian tendencies in the evaluation of methodological innovation.

Provide digital-intelligence platform support and improve intelligent and efficient facilities for methodological innovation. Currently, a new generation of information technology represented by artificial intelligence and big data is profoundly changing the ways knowledge is produced, disseminated, and acquired. Methodological innovation is increasingly dependent on data, computing power, algorithms, and models. We must change the previous dispersed state where researchers "built their own databases, collected their own data, and performed their own analysis," and promote digital-intelligence platforms to become an important support for methodological innovation. With the construction of data resources as the core, we should strengthen the systematic development and collection of various data resources and promote centralized data management to provide a high-quality material foundation for methodological innovation. With the improvement of platform facilities as a vehicle, we should accelerate the construction of laboratories for philosophy and the social sciences, computational social science platforms, and knowledge service platforms. This will facilitate the effective connection of data, models, and research scenarios, providing a solid supporting vehicle for methodological innovation. Using the development of intelligent tools as a bond, we should develop methodological tools that meet the needs of research in philosophy and the social sciences, enhancing researchers' ability to actually apply various frontier technologies, lowering research thresholds and costs, and enhancing academic capacity and scientific research efficiency.