Investigative studies are the most basic and essential bridge between philosophy and the social sciences and the modernization of state governance. Photo: IC PHOTO

Investigative studies constitute the foundation of academic inquiry and are a key link in advancing the modernization of state governance. Investigative studies should not be treated as optional or supplementary work, but as an important means of grasping the foundations of society, implementing national strategies, and drawing on the wisdom and strength of the people. They are the most basic and essential bridge between philosophy and the social sciences and the modernization of state governance.

Reduced to a box-ticking exercise

In many localities and government departments, investigative studies are not neglected so much as reduced to a box-ticking exercise. Reports may be drafted at length and procedures completed quickly, yet the identification of key tensions, interest configurations, and implementation constraints often lacks sharpness and depth. The result is an awkward situation in which “research remains on paper, policies remain in documents, and problems remain on the ground.” If investigative studies fail to enter the crucial stages of decision-making, they can hardly provide effective support for policy formulation.

Investigative studies underpin policy adjustment and improvement. Yet in many policymaking processes, they remain at the formal level of a “required procedure.” Their feedback mechanisms lack stable safeguards, and their findings tend to be marginalized in policy practice. Why, then, are investigative studies so underappreciated if they are so important? The answer is closely related to their unstable position within the decision-making chain. Feedback channels for investigative research reports are relatively unclear, and their recommendations often struggle to be incorporated into policy frameworks.

More specifically, the marginalization of investigative studies within evaluation systems is reflected in three main aspects. First, such studies are time-consuming and slow to yield results, making them poorly aligned with project cycles and assessment timelines. Second, their outputs—typically presented as process-based evidence and context-specific interpretation—cannot be easily quantified. Third, the contribution of investigative practice is frequently reduced to “data collection,” leaving it insufficiently recognized in authorship, performance evaluation, and professional promotion. Without making investigative practice institutionally recognizable, it will be difficult to reverse scholars’ tendency to avoid such high-cost research activities.

Reasons for marginalization

Investigative studies require long-term accumulation and solid groundwork, and their findings often take time to translate into tangible outcomes. Within the current academic evaluation system, short cycles and quantitative indicators are given greater weight, while in-depth, longitudinal fieldwork is often overlooked, leaving certain research outcomes “invisible” and marginalized. This not only denies due recognition to scholars who invest sustained effort in primary-level investigative research, but can also create a disconnect between practice-oriented research and academic evaluation.

It should be noted that data and models are not the problem in themselves. The real issue is whether researchers retain critical thinking and a clear sense of the problems they are studying: How data definitions are constructed and whether variables can adequately represent concepts are questions that require boundary conditions supplied by investigative studies. Only by integrating quantitative analysis with qualitative evidence, and micro-level narratives with macro-level logic, can research be both rigorous and compelling. In this sense, investigative studies offer not only empirical evidence, but also interpretive frameworks for understanding the evidence; they not only supplement information, but also help identify which information is crucial and which conclusions should be treated with caution.

Growing importance

Today, the broad availability of data and rapid technological advances are profoundly reshaping the pathways of knowledge production. Big data and complex quantitative methods—especially secondary analyses based on existing databases—appear to be replacing primary data collection methods such as fieldwork and interviews. In this context, many researchers prefer to conduct in-depth analyses of readily available data rather than undertake on-the-ground inquiry. Yet no matter how large the dataset or how novel the model, without rigorous investigative research, conclusions may still diverge from reality. Social phenomena are highly situational, and analyses detached from the field often yield conclusions that are formally sophisticated but substantively hollow. As technology continues to advance, the value of investigative studies becomes increasingly indispensable. This is an inherent requirement of identifying problems through practice and drawing insight from the people.

Methodologically, the most reliable approach often involves defining questions through fieldwork, testing mechanisms with data, and refining conclusions through feedback. Investigative studies help researchers clarify conceptual boundaries and causal chains before modeling, preventing the conflation of available indicators with actual mechanisms. They also allow for post-modeling follow-up and verification, guarding against the replacement of real-world explanation with self-consistent inference. Advancing this research paradigm requires universities and research institutions to strengthen their capacities in fieldwork methodology, research ethics, and evidence verification, build interdisciplinary teams, and allocate adequate funding, time, and organizational support for long-term investigative studies.

Hao Yu is a professor and head of the Department of Resource and Environmental Economics at the School of Economics under Beijing Institute of Technology.