As society becomes increasingly complex and multifaceted, social science research at times struggles to produce conclusions that are both broadly meaningful and enduring. Some classical theories and findings have been overturned or shown to be irreproducible, while research into human behavior and the social environment often involves sensitive issues such as wealth disparity, social inequality, and power dynamics—topics that can trigger conflict over beliefs and positions and provoke strong emotional reactions. It can be argued that the complexity and variability of research subjects are both inherent characteristics of social sciences and major sources of the discomfort experienced by researchers. Yet if this discomfort is treated as an opportunity and recognized for its methodological guidance, it can help identify real-world issues worthy of scholarly attention and contribute to the advancement of social science paradigms.

Discomfort: not an impediment but an approach

Discomfort as a methodology refers to particular emotions arising from academic inquiry, akin to those felt in everyday life, such as curiosity, confusion, indignation, and doubt. Its methodological core encompasses three dimensions: reflection, sensitivity, and disruption. Reflection involves researchers continually questioning existing paradigms, theories, and methods, overcoming reliance on the familiar and the taken-for-granted, and rejecting the limitations of any single standpoint or opinion. Sensitivity denotes the infusion of researchers’ value concerns into the research process. The integration of one’s own positions, experiences, and emotions into the research process allows for a more realistic depiction of society and individuals, while also ensuring that academic work informs social practice. Disruption is a precondition for research innovation: when conventional thought patterns and research frameworks are challenged, new theories and methods emerge.

Methodologically, discomfort can guide researchers toward an effective perception of the fluid, ever-evolving structures and actions within the social world, facilitating the discovery of empirical phenomena with enduring academic vitality. Properly harnessing discomfort not only helps avoid the pitfalls associated with extreme empiricism—such as the “disappearance of the human”—but also reminds researchers to reaffirm a human-centered research philosophy, thus highlighting the complex, fluid nature of the real world.

Attention to anomalies, employing emerging tools, and integrating paradigms

Drawing on the theory of creative destruction, this article offers practical suggestions for leveraging the methodological role of discomfort at different stages of research.

Questioning anomalies: Robust research innovation often helps explain anomalies, and the identification of anomalies is itself a prerequisite for innovation. Discomfort can serve a guiding function at the problem-identification stage: when researchers encounter phenomena that contradict their existing knowledge, values, or emotions, it may signal the existence of meaningful research questions. However, not all anomalies merit investigation. Researchers must remain cautious and perceptive, examining whether the phenomenon can be accounted for by existing theories and concepts.

Embracing technological and methodological innovations: Today, an increasingly wider array of new technologies and methods—such as big data and AI—can be applied to explore the complexity and fluidity of society. Yet their introduction can also cause discomfort. Researchers who cling to traditional techniques, avoid or reject new developments, or engage superficially with new tools will find transformative outcomes elusive. Nonetheless, concerns about emerging technologies and methods are not entirely unfounded. Certain issues warrant serious consideration—such as the accuracy of AI-powered interpretation of qualitative data and analysis of human emotions, as well as the ethical risks associated with AI—but these concerns should not be used to justify outright rejection.

Exploring paradigm integration: Historically, social sciences have undergone several paradigm shifts. However, paradigms are not necessarily mutually exclusive; rather, they mutually influence and draw upon one another amid competition. Since the late 20th century, the heightened risks of modernity, political multipolarization, new technological revolutions, and the increasing heterogeneity of individual behavior have amplified society’s complexity and fluidity. No single paradigm suffices to offer comprehensive, robust explanations of new scientific discoveries, making paradigm integration an imperative.

However, the academic community has yet to sufficiently emphasize this integration, partly due to discomfort avoidance. Paradigm shifts and integration entail disruption and reconstruction of existing knowledge structures, inevitably accompanied by discomfort. Nonetheless, scholars must reflect on the limitations and weaknesses of current paradigms, and remain sensitive to discomfort as an opportunity for raising innovative research questions, thereby developing integrated paradigms that can effectively address contemporary changes.

Zang Leizhen is a professor from the School of Public Administration and Policy at Renmin University of China. Li Wei is from the College of Humanities and Development Studies at China Agricultural University.