diaocha-yanjiu

R — Original text (Reading)

"'No investigation, no right to speak.' Although this statement was once mocked as 'narrow empiricism,' I have never regretted it to this day; not only do I not regret it, I still insist that without investigation it is impossible to have the right to speak. There are many people who, 'the moment they step off the carriage,' start chattering away, offering opinions, criticizing this and blaming that; in fact, ten out of ten such people will fail." — Preface to Rural Surveys (1941)

I — Methodological skeleton (Interpretation)

1. "No investigation, no right to speak" is not a suggestion but a prohibition—matters that have not been investigated do not deserve conclusions.
2. The core principle of investigation is "do it yourself": (1) go to the site yourself, rather than sending someone to report back; (2) keep the records yourself, not through others; (3) hold investigation meetings, finding representatives from all strata/all roles, not just successful people or friendly subjects.
3. Investigation must listen to both the positive and the negative—hearing only one side is more dangerous than not investigating at all.
4. Investigation is not the goal but the "entrance"—"after entering the door, one must still grasp the essence." After investigation obtains perceptual materials, the processing skill of "discarding the coarse and selecting the essential" is still needed.
5. Secondhand reports are not equivalent to investigation—reading reports is "eating steamed bread chewed by others," and the information has already been distorted. The founder's feel comes from the front line.
6. Investigation is a continuous behavior, not a one-time action—the environment changes, and cognition needs continuous updating.

A1 — Application in the book (Past Application)

Application 1: A 32-day field investigation in Hunan reversed cognition

• Problem: In 1927, evaluations of the peasant movement inside and outside the Party were sharply opposed—the gentry class said it was "terrible," and within the Party Chen Duxiu tended to suppress the peasant movement. In Hankou and Changsha, Mao Zedong heard reasoning from the gentry class that was completely opposite to the actual situation of the peasants.
• Method use: Mao Zedong used 32 days of field investigation in the five counties of Xiangtan, Xiangxiang, Hengshan, Liling, and Changsha, convening investigation meetings with experienced peasants and peasant movement workers, carefully listening to their reports, and keeping records himself.
• Conclusion: The peasant movement was "very good," not "terrible." The gentry class's judgment represented landlord interests, not the truth.
• Result: The investigation conclusion was rejected by Chen Duxiu, but history proved Mao Zedong correct. This investigation became the source case for "no investigation, no right to speak."

Application 2: The Xunwu Investigation — dissecting a sparrow by going deep into one point

• Problem: It was necessary to understand the social structure and class conditions of China's rural economy, but the Party lacked reliable first-hand data.
• Method use: Mao Zedong conducted the famous Xunwu Investigation—going deep into one county town and investigating and recording in detail, one by one, everything from commercial conditions to land distribution, from the conditions of each class to daily prices.
• Conclusion: By "dissecting a sparrow" (going deep into one typical case), a cognitive framework for the social structure of rural China as a whole was obtained.
• Result: The Xunwu Investigation became a model of investigation and research for the CPC, and its methodology influenced the investigative tradition for decades thereafter.

A2 — Trigger Scenarios (Future Trigger)

1. About to make a major decision based on secondhand reports: The CEO is preparing to enter a new market, launch a new product, or make a major investment after reading a few industry reports. Users will say: "Industry reports show this market is worth XX billion" "Analysts say the trend is like this."
2. The team sits in the office making guesses: Product/strategy decisions are based entirely on internal discussions and data analysis, and no one has gone to the front line. Users will say: "According to our data analysis" "The result of the team discussion is."
3. Cognition is disconnected from market feedback: The company's judgment is inconsistent with actual market performance, but no one goes to the front line to verify it. Users will say: "Users should like this feature" "Market feedback is different from what we expected."
4. Parachuted-in executives/new to the industry: Newcomers or those newly entering an industry lack firsthand feel. Users will say: "I just took over this business" "This is our first time doing this field."
5. Major disagreements cannot be adjudicated: There is major disagreement within the team about a key judgment, each side has its own data and logic, but both lack firsthand verification. Users will say: "Team A says this, Team B says that, and we don't know who is right."

Language signals: When users mention words such as "report" "analysis" "someone else said" "data shows" "I think it should be" "our internal discussion" and do not mention firsthand research, this skill should be activated to remind them of the necessity of investigation.

Distinguish from adjacent skills：

• vs Seeking Truth from Facts Information Processing Method: this skill = collecting information (obtaining good raw materials), the latter = processing information (turning raw materials into products)
• vs the Mass Line: this skill is the investigator's individual methodology for information collection, while the Mass Line is the organizational-level cycle of "from the masses, to the masses"
• vs the Epistemology of Practice: this skill is the specific operating method for the link of "obtaining perceptual knowledge" in the epistemology of practice

E — Executable Steps (Execution)

Step 1: Clarify the investigation question and scope

• Write down "What is the core question I need to answer," and "To answer this question, whose views/what current situation do I need to understand."
• Determine the investigation targets: not only friendly targets, but also holders of opposing views, front-line executors, and end users.
• Completion standard: Produce an investigation checklist: (1) core question (2) 3-5 categories of targets to investigate (3) at least 2-3 specific candidates for each category.

Step 2: Be present in person and listen face to face

• Go to the site, do not summon people to the office. Meet end users, do not only listen to sales secondhand accounts. Take your own notes, do not have an assistant organize them.
• When holding an investigation meeting: listen first and speak little, let the other party express themselves fully; ask about specific cases rather than opinions ("Can you give an example?" is more effective than "What do you think?"); listen to both the positive and the negative ("What do you think is bad?" carries more information than "What do you think is good?").
• Stopping point: If you find that the respondents' answers are highly consistent and all are what you want to hear, there may be sample bias—you must add opposing targets and front-line personnel.
• Completion standard: Complete in-depth interviews with at least 5 different roles, and have at least 3 findings in the records that are "different from expectations."

Step 3: From investigation to judgment

• Process the materials obtained from investigation through the four steps of "discarding the coarse and extracting the fine," and distill answers to the core questions.
• Compare the changes in judgment before and after the investigation: which hypotheses were verified? Which were overturned? Which were newly discovered?
• Completion standard: Produce a "judgment before investigation vs. judgment after investigation" comparison table, with at least 1 major cognitive revision. If the judgments before and after the investigation are completely identical, it indicates the investigation was not deep enough.

B — Boundary

Scenarios not to use

1. Low-risk small decisions: Not every decision requires field investigation. Small decisions in daily operations can rely on existing data and experience.
2. Extremely urgent time: If a decision must be made tomorrow, there is no time for a complete investigation. In this case, use the best available information to make a judgment, and supplement the investigation afterward.
3. An existing high-quality first-hand information stream: If the company has already established a continuous first-hand information collection mechanism (such as high-frequency user interviews or frontline rotation systems), there is no need to investigate from scratch every time.

Failure modes (from counterexamples)

• Dogmatism (ce01): After investigation, mechanically copying the opinions of the investigated subjects without analysis—"users say they want X, so we do X." Investigation is only a guide for entering the door; after entering, you still need to make your own judgment.
• "Imperial envoy"-style investigation (ce01 variant): Going down to investigate but carrying preset conclusions, collecting only evidence that supports one's own views and ignoring contrary information. This is more dangerous than not investigating.
• Party stereotype-style reporting (ce08): Investigating a great deal but reporting with empty talk and a list of phenomena—having the form of investigation but not its substance. A "A, B, C, D open a Chinese medicine shop"-style listing is not the same as analysis.

Author's blind spot

• In his later years, Mao Zedong gradually became detached from frontline investigation, and his decisions were based more on reports from those around him rather than personal investigation. During the Great Leap Forward, he believed obviously false per-mu yield data because he had not personally gone to the countryside to look. Lesson: even for someone who strongly advocates investigation, once he stops personally investigating, his judgment rapidly declines. Investigation is a continuous behavior and cannot be done once and for all.

Related skills

• Mass line (composes-with): Investigation and research is a single deep information collection, while the mass line is a continuous cycle of "from the masses, to the masses." Investigation and research is the foundational skill of the mass line—first learn to conduct high-quality investigation and research, then establish a continuous mass line cycle.
• Seeking truth from facts information processing method (composes-with): The investigation and research method is responsible for "collecting high-quality first-hand information" (raw material acquisition), while the seeking truth from facts information processing method is responsible for "processing raw materials into the basis for decision-making" (raw material processing). First investigate and collect, then process by seeking truth from facts.