Most scholars believe that in-depth fieldwork is a major means of ensuring that research topics possess real-world relevance and experiential sensitivity. Photo: TUCHONG
Recently, CSST conducted a survey titled “How Humanities and Social Science Researchers Refine and Optimize Research Topics,” shedding light on how outstanding research topics are formed. The findings indicate that high-quality topics combining academic vitality with real-world relevance typically share three core attributes: the “height” of engagement with the academic frontier, the “depth” grounded in a scholar’s accumulated expertise, and the “warmth” that resonates with the needs of the times.
The survey covered nearly 150 scholars from universities and research institutes nationwide, spanning a wide range of disciplines, and was complemented by in-depth interviews with more than 20 renowned experts. Together, their responses provide the basis for a systematic analysis of the internal logic and practical pathways through which outstanding research topics in the humanities and social sciences take shape.
Diverse pathways of academic innovation
The survey clearly illustrates the pressures and challenges scholars face when selecting research topics. More than 60% of respondents identified “posing new questions, perspectives, or theories” as the primary criterion for topic selection, while over 30% emphasized the importance of “making significant theoretical contributions or demonstrating strong real-world relevance.” At the same time, nearly 60% candidly acknowledged that their greatest difficulty lies precisely in “ensuring the theoretical value and innovativeness of a research topic.”
Some respondents observed that, for a period of time, segments of humanities scholarship have fallen into what they described as “academic involution,” characterized by blurred problem awareness, low-level repetition, and growing detachment from real social practice. As several scholars observed, when academic evaluation relies excessively on quantitative metrics, researchers are especially likely to lose the sensitivity needed to discover and articulate genuine problems.
To break through these constraints, scholars have pursued a range of exploratory approaches. Jian Shengyu, a professor from the College of Fine Arts and Design, shared his experience with what he calls “wall-facing” reading: devoting long stretches of time to systematically working through entire shelves of academic books. While this approach may seem cumbersome, he noted, sustained practice over months or even longer can significantly cultivate a deep and reliable “academic sensibility.”
There is broad consensus that research in the humanities and social sciences must engage with the demands of the times with the courage and capacity to respond to the fundamental questions raised by contemporary reality. This shift—from inward-looking scholarly contemplation to attentiveness to social life—is particularly evident among younger scholars. Survey data show that among researchers under the age of 35, more than 70% favor problem-driven approaches, directing their academic attention increasingly toward the vivid and complex terrain of social practice.
Maintaining “height” by remaining anchored in the academic frontier is essential to ensure that research builds on existing scholarship rather than duplicating prior work. Nearly 80% of respondents regard “in-depth and systematic reading of specialized literature” as their primary means of identifying and refining research topics. Even when research encounters obstacles, more than 30% choose to return to the literature, viewing “broader and more extensive reading” as a pathway to overcoming intellectual bottlenecks.
The “depth” provided by personal scholarly accumulation constitutes the bedrock that allows a research topic to be pursued in a sustained and meaningful way. In the survey’s open-ended responses, phrases such as “refining topics from one’s own research practice,” “starting from long-term research interests,” and “building on sustained personal exploration” appeared with high frequency. This suggests that narrowing broad interests into concrete, workable, and genuinely compelling questions is a crucial step in generating strong research topics.
Equally important is the “warmth” that connects research to the needs of the times, lending topics real-world vitality and value. Nearly half of respondents explicitly stated a clear preference for problem-driven topics, underscoring a research orientation firmly grounded in China’s realities and responsive to societal concerns. As Wang Lei, director of the Institute of Sociology at the Liaoning Academy of Social Sciences, observed, “Every field of research—whether more application-oriented disciplines or foundational fields in the humanities—should face the social base and real-world practice, maintaining a sense of warmth toward the lived world.”
From inspiration to topic selection
The survey and interviews point to four effective pathways through which research topics are generated and refined.
The first is deep engagement with the classics alongside dialogue with the academic frontier. Respondents widely agreed that meaningful innovation begins with the inheritance of and critical reflection upon classical works. A professor of Chinese literature from a “985 Project” university noted “Almost all of my major research topics began with a renewed close reading of classical texts and persistent questioning.” At the same time, classical issues must be reexamined within contemporary academic contexts and real-world settings, allowing for constructive and critical dialogue with international scholarly frontiers and thereby generating new insights.
The second pathway is grounding research in local realities while remaining responsive to broader social concerns. Survey data show that 97 respondents identified “sustained observation of and in-depth reflection on social realities and topical events” as important sources of inspiration. This reflects a conscious effort among contemporary Chinese scholars to align academic inquiry with the grand practice of Chinese modernization. Some research teams engaged in fieldwork, for example, have long emphasized cultivating “experiential sensitivity,” encouraging faculty and students to conduct extended on-site investigations in rural communities across China, where close interaction with practice often reveals genuine research problems.
The third pathway lies in cross-disciplinary integration. Interdisciplinary spaces are frequently fertile ground for innovation, with nearly 40% of respondents acknowledging that some of their most significant research achievements emerged directly from interdisciplinary exchange and collaboration. As several scholars noted, in an era when digital technologies are profoundly reshaping social structures, reliance on a single disciplinary perspective and methodology is increasingly insufficient to address complex real-world issues. Emerging topics such as platform governance, algorithmic ethics, and digital humanities are, by their very nature, inherently interdisciplinary.
The fourth pathway emphasizes adopting problem-driven approaches and making the most of seemingly small questions. “Avoiding overly broad and unfocused topics in favor of deep, precise inquiry is an important marker of scholarly maturity.” Zhai Chongguang, a young faculty member at Hebei Normal University, described a self-assessment method that involves repeatedly asking whether a research hotspot intrinsically aligns with one’s core agenda, offers new analytical perspectives, or addresses blind spots or pain points in existing studies. Such questioning helps ensure that research remains centered on a genuine problem and strives to be thorough, rigorous, and substantive.
Both the survey and interviews indicate that outstanding research topics are often nurtured within rich, sustained, and immersive sites of practice and within the broader context of the times. Fieldwork plays a particularly important role: 78.3% of respondents believe that “in-depth field investigation” is crucial for ensuring real-world relevance and experiential depth. In disciplines such as sociology, anthropology, and political science, agreement on this point exceeds 85%. One young lecturer recalled that his three-month residence in a poverty-stricken village in Hubei Province—especially his close observation of community-level policy implementation—directly gave rise to a new research project.
Major questions of the era also help locate the coordinates of academic inquiry. Strategic demands arising from national development and the pursuit of national rejuvenation continue to serve as a powerful engine driving research agendas and positioning academic inquiry. Around key contemporary themes such as common prosperity, rural revitalization, and the modernization of China’s system and capacity for governance, a growing number of forward-looking, strategic, and problem-oriented topics are now being actively pursued. Survey results show that 65.7% of scholars believe that organically integrating personal research interests with national strategic needs is an important way to ensure long-term value and significance.
Toward open, inclusive, and long-term-oriented academic ecosystems
The survey also reveals several challenges confronting the current academic environment. Approximately 32% of scholars believe that existing evaluation pressures and project-driven mechanisms have “both advantages and disadvantages, with the key lying in how individual researchers manage and balance them.” A further 35% tend to view their impact as “predominantly negative, as they easily push research topics toward short-term, quick-return projects and make it difficult to pursue long-term, in-depth studies that require sustained accumulation.” These responses point to persistent tension between academic evaluation systems and the intrinsic logic of scholarly innovation.
In response to these challenges, respondents offered a range of constructive suggestions. These include optimizing evaluation mechanisms and promoting assessment standards centered on innovative value, practical contribution, and academic impact, thereby creating a more relaxed and inclusive institutional environment for long-term, dedicated research. Strengthening academic communities is also seen as essential: Nearly 70% of scholars believe that high-quality, regular academic seminars, workshops, and reading groups are important platforms for stimulating new ideas and fostering intellectual exchange, and thus deserve strong institutional support.
Overall, respondents widely agree that moving from the initial identification of a promising topic to the cultivation of a truly outstanding one with lasting scholarly vitality is a systematic endeavor. It requires careful balance—between foundational research and frontier exploration, personal interests and national needs, and deep disciplinary specialization and cross-disciplinary dialogue. More importantly, it calls for the creation of an academic evaluation system that encourages innovation, tolerates failure, and prioritizes the long-term quality of outcomes, as well as the nurturing of an open, inclusive, pragmatic, and dynamic academic community.
Edited by YANG LANLAN