Why Investigation and Research Is “Important Yet Underappreciated”

The repeated emphasis on the foundational status of investigation and research stems from its direct bearing on “where problems come from and what conclusions can stand on.” Without a comprehensive and objective understanding of conditions at the grassroots level, theoretical construction easily becomes hollow, and policy design easily becomes biased; analyses that appear to be “evidence-based” may merely be reprocessing existing data calibers. The underestimation of investigation and research appears on the surface to be a matter of “it’s not worth the effort,” but the deeper cause is that the feedback loop between knowledge production and governance operations regarding the real world is not smooth enough. The weakening of investigation and research harms not only the interests of individual researchers but also our capacity to identify contradictions and solve problems.

反复强调调查研究的基础性地位，是因为它直接关系到“问题从哪里来、结论靠什么立得住”。离开对基层一线情况的全面客观了解，理论构建容易失之于空，政策设计容易失之于偏；看似“有依据”的分析，可能只是对既有数据口径的重复加工。调查研究被低估，表面上看是“做了不划算”，深层原因则是知识生产与治理运行对真实世界的反馈不够顺畅。调查研究被弱化，损害的不只是研究者个体的利益，还有我们识别矛盾、解决问题的能力。

Investigation and research is the foundation of academic research and a key link in advancing the modernization of national governance. Investigation and research cannot be regarded as a dispensable “add-on task”; rather, it is an important means of gaining insight into the foundations of society, implementing national strategies, and drawing wisdom and strength from the masses. It is the most fundamental and critical connection between philosophy and social sciences and the modernization of national governance.

调查研究是学术研究的基础，是推进国家治理现代化的关键环节。调查研究不能被视为一种可有可无的“附加工作”，而是洞察社会根基、落实国家战略、从人民群众中汲取智慧和力量的重要手段，是哲学社会科学与国家治理现代化之间最基础、最关键的连接方式。

Many localities and departments do not actually disregard investigation and research; rather, they treat it as a “completed action.” Documents are written fully, procedures are processed quickly, but the identification of key contradictions, interest structures, and implementation constraints is insufficiently sharp and profound, ultimately resulting in the awkward situation where “investigation is written on paper, policy lands in documents, and problems remain on the scene.” If investigation and research cannot enter the key links of decision-making, it is difficult for it to form an effective force supporting decisions. To avoid “implementation” becoming “empty implementation,” investigation and research must be extended from the preliminary link to the entire process of policy implementation: before a policy is introduced, investigation and research is used to identify real problems and real needs; during policy implementation, follow-up investigation captures deviations; after a policy concludes, independent evaluation reviews effectiveness, thereby making investigation and research the “sensory system” and “calibration device” of the governance closed loop.

不少地方和部门并非不重视调查研究，而是将其当成“完成动作”。材料写得满、流程走得快，但对关键矛盾、利益格局、执行约束的识别却不够锐利深刻，最终出现“调研写在纸上、政策落在文件上、问题留在现场”的尴尬局面。调查研究若不能进入决策的关键环节，就很难形成有效的决策支撑力量。要避免“落实”成“落空”，就必须把调查研究从前置环节延伸到政策实施全过程：政策出台前以调查研究辨明真问题、真需求；政策实施过程中以跟踪调研捕捉偏差；政策收官后以独立评估复盘成效，从而使调查研究成为治理闭环的“感知系统”和“校准装置”。

Investigation and research is the foundation for policy adjustment and improvement. Yet in many policy-making processes, investigation and research often remains at the formal level of a “necessary procedure,” its feedback mechanism lacks stable guarantees, and the results of investigation show a tendency to be weakened in policy practice. Why is investigation and research “important yet underappreciated”? This is closely related to its unstable position in the decision-making chain. The feedback pathway for investigation reports is relatively vague, and relevant recommendations often find it difficult to enter the policy framework. To this end, it is necessary to further “embed investigation and research into institutions,” establish a more stable interaction and feedback mechanism between investigation and policy, and promote the formation of a policy evaluation system centered on investigation and research. This not only helps improve the effectiveness of policy implementation but also ensures that policy design is closer to reality, more targeted, and more effective.

调查研究是政策调整与完善的基础。但在许多政策制定过程中，调查研究往往停留在“必经程序”的形式层面，其反馈机制缺乏稳定保障，调研成果在政策实践中出现被弱化倾向。调查研究为何“重要却不受重视”？这与其在决策链条中的不稳定位置密切相关。调研报告的反馈路径相对模糊，相关建议往往难以进入政策框架。为此，有必要进一步为调查研究“嵌入制度”，建立调研与政策之间更加稳定的互动和反馈机制，推动形成以调查研究为核心的政策评估体系。这不仅有助于提升政策执行效果，也能够确保政策设计更加贴近现实、更具针对性和实效性。

Specifically, the weakening of investigation and research in the evaluation system is mainly manifested in three aspects. First, investigation and research is time-consuming and slow to produce results, mismatching project cycles and assessment deadlines. Second, the results of investigation are often presented as procedural evidence and contextual explanations, making them difficult to simply quantify. Third, the contribution of investigative practice is often compressed into “data collection,” making it hard to gain full recognition in areas such as authorship, performance evaluation, and professional title assessment. If investigative practice is not made identifiable within the institutional framework, the problem of scholars avoiding high-cost investigation will be difficult to avoid. In response, consideration could be given to adding a list of “process outcomes” in project acceptance and outcome evaluation, such as investigation design, sampling plans, interview outlines, field records, verification logs, anonymized datasets, and reproducibility materials, encouraging the long-term maintenance and sharing of high-quality investigation data, so that investigative practice transforms from “hidden labor” into “verifiable academic assets.”

具体而言，调查研究在评价体系中被弱化的现象，主要体现在三个方面。一是调查研究耗时长、见效慢，与项目周期和考核节点不匹配。二是调研成果往往以过程性证据、情境性解释呈现，难以被简单量化。三是调研实践的贡献常被压缩为“数据收集”，难以在署名、绩效、职称等环节得到充分认可。若不在制度上对调研实践进行可识别化，学者规避高成本调研的问题就难以避免。对此，可考虑在项目验收与成果评价中增加“过程成果”清单，如调研设计、抽样方案、访谈提纲、田野记录、核验日志、匿名化数据集与复现材料等，鼓励对高质量调研数据的长期维护与共享，让调研实践从“隐性劳动”变成“可核验的学术资产”。

Investigation and research requires long-term accumulation and a solid foundation, and its results are often difficult to quickly transform and manifest. Under the current academic evaluation system, short cycles and quantitative indicators are given greater weight, and many in-depth, comprehensive follow-up investigation results are overlooked, causing some investigation results to become “invisible” and “marginalized.” This phenomenon not only makes it difficult for scholars who invest long-term in grassroots investigation to receive returns but also tends to create a rift between practice-oriented research and academic evaluation.

调查研究需要长期的积累和扎实的基础，其成果往往难以迅速转化、体现。在当前学术评价体系下，短周期和量化指标被看得更重，很多深入一线、全面跟踪的调研成果被忽视，造成部分调研成果“隐形”与“边缘化”。这一现象不仅令长期投入基层调研的学者难以获得回报，也容易使实践性研究与学术评价之间形成割裂。

It should be pointed out that data and models are not the problem; the key is whether research maintains critical thinking and problem awareness: how data calibers are formed, whether variables can represent concepts—these 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 both “calculate clearly” and “explain convincingly.” In this sense, investigation and research not only provides facts but also provides a framework for interpreting facts; it not only supplements information but also helps us identify which information is key and which conclusions need to be treated with caution.

需要指出的是，数据与模型并非问题所在，关键在于研究是否保持批判性思维与问题意识：数据口径如何形成、变量能否代表概念，这些都需要调查研究来提供边界条件。只有把定量分析与定性证据、微观叙事与宏观逻辑贯通起来，研究才能既“算得清”又“说得通”。在此意义上，调查研究不仅提供事实，更能提供对事实的解释框架；不仅补充信息，更能帮助我们识别哪些信息是关键、哪些结论需要被谨慎对待。

Today, the widespread availability of data and the rapid development of technology have a profound impact on the pathways of knowledge production. Big data and complex econometric methods, especially secondary data analysis based on databases, seem to be replacing original data collection such as field investigation and interviews. In this context, many researchers tend to rely on ready-made data for in-depth analysis rather than visiting the grassroots to conduct investigation. But no matter how large the data volume or how new the model, without solid investigation and research as support, conclusions may still deviate from reality. Social phenomena have strong situationality; analysis detached from the field can only produce conclusions that are formally refined but substantively hollow. With the development of science and technology, the value of investigation and research appears increasingly indispensable—this is the inherent requirement of adhering to discovering problems from practice and gaining wisdom from the masses.

如今，数据的广泛可得和技术的快速发展，对知识生产路径产生深远影响。大数据与复杂计量方法尤其是基于数据库的二手数据分析，似乎正在取代现场调研和访谈等原始数据采集。在此情况下，许多研究者倾向于依据现成的数据进行深度分析，而非走访基层进行调研。但数据量再大、模型再新，若没有扎实的调查研究作支撑，结论依然可能偏离实际。社会现象具有强烈的情境性，脱离现场分析往往只能得出形式精致但内容空洞的结论。伴随科技发展，调查研究的价值愈发显得不可或缺——这是坚持从实践中发现问题、从群众中获取智慧的内在要求。

Methodologically, the most reliable path is often “using investigation to define problems, using data to test mechanisms, and using feedback to revise conclusions.” Investigation and research can help researchers clarify conceptual boundaries and causal chains before entering models, avoiding treating available indicators as real mechanisms; it can also allow follow-up visits and verification of anomalous results after entering models, preventing “self-consistent deduction” from replacing real-world explanation. Promoting the development of this research paradigm requires universities and research institutions to strengthen investigation 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.

于方法论而言，最可靠的路径往往是“以调研定问题、以数据验机制、以反馈修结论”。调查研究可以帮助研究者在进入模型之前厘清概念边界和因果链条，避免把可得指标当作真实机制；也可以在进入模型之后对异常结果进行回访与核验，防止“自洽推导”替代现实解释。推进这种研究范式的发展，需要高校与科研机构强化调研方法、研究伦理与证据核验能力，建立跨学科团队，并在经费、时间与组织保障上为长期调研留出空间。

Investigation and research, as a “verifier of concepts and mechanisms,” should play a more significant role. To this end, it is necessary to restore the core function of investigation and research, clarify its foundational role in academic development, especially its value in identifying problems, clarifying mechanisms, and correcting theories. Research should not rely solely on existing data and models but should also go deep into social fields to investigate, seek out real social problems, and integrate them into the research framework.

调查研究作为“概念与机制的校验器”，应发挥出更加显著的作用。为此，需要恢复调查研究的核心功能，明确其在学术发展中的基础作用，特别是在识别问题、澄清机制和修正理论方面的价值。研究不应仅依赖已有数据和模型，还要深入社会现场调查，探寻真正的社会问题，并将其融入研究框架。

At the same time, a clearer “mechanism for results to enter [the policy process]” should be established. For example, major policies and pilot projects could set necessary investigation and evaluation nodes, clarifying who evaluates, what is evaluated, how feedback is given, and how rectification is carried out; for reform measures involving the vital interests of the masses, third-party or cross-regional cross-investigation could be introduced to reduce the bias of “self-evaluation and self-certification”; high-quality problem lists and chains of evidence formed through investigation and research should be allowed to be evaluated in ways such as “degree of recommendation adoption, extent of policy adjustment, effect of risk mitigation,” forming positive incentives for the value of investigation.

同时，还应建立更清晰的“成果进入机制”。例如，重大政策和试点项目可设置必要的调研评估节点，明确谁来评、评什么、如何反馈、如何整改；对涉及群众切身利益的改革举措，可引入第三方或跨区域交叉调研，减少“自评自证”的偏差；对调查研究形成的高质量问题清单和证据链条，应允许其以“建议被采纳程度、政策调整幅度、风险化解效果”等方式被评价，形成对调研价值的正向激励。

To change the current marginalization of investigation and research, it is necessary to “establish a position” for investigation and research within the academic evaluation system. Whether in project management or outcome evaluation, the long-term and processual characteristics of investigation should be fully recognized; evaluation criteria should focus on the actual role and social impact of investigation and research, rather than relying solely on quantifiable short-term outcomes.

改变当前调查研究被边缘化的局面，需要在学术评价体系中为调查研究“确立位置”。无论在项目管理还是成果评价中，都应充分认识到调研的长期性与过程性特点，评审标准应注重调查研究的实际作用与社会影响，而非仅依赖可量化的短期成果。

The reason investigation and research is worth being “elevated” again ultimately lies in its adherence to the baseline of seeking truth from facts and its adherence to the people-centered value orientation. Returning investigation and research to its proper place does not mean requiring everyone to “go down and take a walk”; rather, it means truly respecting and using investigation in our work practice, clarifying the real situation, accurately identifying key contradictions, calibrating governance tools, and truly playing the role of investigation and research as a “family heirloom.” [1]1 “Family heirloom” (传家宝) is a common metaphor in CPC discourse for a working method or principle that has been passed down and is considered invaluable, often used to refer to the mass line or investigation and research. Only in this way can investigation and research build a more solid bridge between academic innovation and the modernization of national governance.

调查研究之所以值得被重新“抬高”，归根到底在于它守住了实事求是的底线，也守住了以人民为中心的价值取向。让调查研究回到应有位置，不是要求人人都“下去走一走”，而是要在我们的工作实践中真正尊重调研、使用调研，把真实情况摸清、把关键矛盾找准、把治理工具校准，真正发挥调查研究这个“传家宝”的作用。如此，调查研究才能在学术创新与国家治理现代化之间架起更坚实的桥梁。

(The author is a professor and director of the Department of Resource and Environmental Economics, School of Economics, Beijing Institute of Technology.)

（作者系北京理工大学经济学院资源与环境经济系主任、教授）