Visitors browse books on Dunhuang Studies at the Dunhuang International Convention and Exhibition Center on Sept. 24, 2025. Photo: IC PHOTO

In recent years, local studies has emerged as a vibrant feature of China’s academic landscape. From established fields such as Dunhuang Studies and Huizhou Studies to Shanghai Studies, Beijing Studies, and Central Plains Studies; and from Guangzhou Studies, Wuhan Studies, and Chengdu Studies to Luoyang Studies, Wenzhou Studies, and Handan Studies, dozens of subfields of local studies have appeared in rapid succession, accompanied by a steady stream of research outputs. As a comprehensive field that takes specific geographical spaces as its object of inquiry and integrates theories and methods from multiple disciplines, local studies has displayed a distinctly “hot” growth trajectory—one that signals a positive academic turn toward “looking downward.”

Latent concerns beneath current boom

Since the inception of local studies, scholars have approached the field from multiple perspectives. One key line of inquiry concerns why particular geographical regions are able to give rise to distinct fields of study. Drawing on local historical and cultural heritage as well as patterns of socioeconomic development, some researchers argue that the emergence of local studies represents a natural and timely response to local realities. Another line of inquiry focuses on what local studies is, encompassing issues such as its basic concepts, rich connotations, research scope, and disciplinary formation. A third asks what local studies is for, seeking to clarify its contemporary value—for example, in promoting the flourishing of local culture, driving high-quality local socioeconomic development, and showcasing the breadth and depth of Chinese civilization. Finally, scholars have asked where local studies is headed, a question that mainly concerns the pathways for the field’s continued advancement.

However, it should also be acknowledged that the rapid development of local studies has been accompanied by a series of latent concerns, including a weak theoretical foundation, methodological anxiety, narrative homogenization, and academic utilitarianism.

From the perspective of theoretical construction, the conception and establishment of local studies still lack clear and unified standards, and related discussions remain limited. Some research suffers from an absence of problem awareness and theoretical depth, failing to pose questions of broader academic significance or to engage in substantive dialogue with theories in history, sociology, and other disciplines. More specifically, there remains insufficient reflection on the connotations, structure, boundaries, and developmental trajectory of local studies.

Methodologically, while many works claim strong interdisciplinarity, they often merely juxtapose methods drawn from history, geography, folklore studies, economics, and other disciplines in a mechanical manner, rather than integrating them organically. The result is an academic “hodgepodge” that fails to foster a methodological system distinctive to local studies.

In terms of narrative features, local studies—originally intended to highlight distinctive local characteristics—often falls into homogeneous patterns. Its content typically centers on a fixed set of themes, including historical evolution, geographical environment, economic resources, cultural relics, and folk customs. Such formulaic narration struggles to capture the diversity and complexity of local societies and may instead obscure their particularities.

With regard to academic standpoint, some researchers tend to focus on areas that promise tangible benefits, while inadequately exploring issues such as the essence and core meaning of cultural classics or the underlying structures of local societies. This selective and utilitarian approach, to some extent, undermines the integrity of local history and culture.

Cool reflection necessary

To transform the current boom in local studies into lasting momentum and enable the field to achieve genuine prominence, sustained “cool” reflection is essential. In particular, it is necessary to continuously strengthen reflective, critical, and constructive academic self-awareness, thereby effecting a paradigm shift from the exploration of local knowledge to the disciplinary construction of local studies.

Theoretically, scholars of local studies should continue to enhance their theoretical awareness by actively engaging in dialogue with frontier theories on the basis of solid empirical investigation, while striving to establish a scientific and systematic theoretical framework capable of explaining the logic of socioeconomic development in specific regions. Here, systematic discussion of the core concepts, fundamental connotations, disciplinary framework, and disciplinary development of local studies remains vital.

Methodologically, local studies should grasp the inherent patterns of disciplinary development and explore a distinctive methodological system. For example, it can develop a relatively comprehensive “space–history–society” analytical framework, within which dynamic analysis is conducted by taking local space as the geographical boundary, historical change as the temporal axis, and the explanation of social operation as the foundation. At the same time, scholars should actively embrace, familiarize themselves with, and apply digital humanities technologies.

In terms of narrative, local studies should neither serve as a “data repository” for grand narratives nor function as “local chronicles” devoted to micro-level description. Researchers should endeavor to move beyond homogeneous narration and present the characteristics and strengths of local societies in a more comprehensive and systematic manner.

With respect to academic standpoint, local studies should emphasize autonomy and strive for an optimal balance between theory and application, with the aim of showcasing characteristics, revealing patterns, empowering practice, and anticipating future trends. Scholars must uphold academic ethics and safeguard academic integrity, resist the temptation to pursue short-term utilitarian goals, guard against the commodification of academic research, and ensure that scholarly research contributes to high-quality socioeconomic development.

Shi Yongwei is an associate research fellow from the Institute of History and Archaeology at the Henan Academy of Social Sciences.