Less ＂written research＂

Once upon a time, there was a new way of investigation and research, which was called "written investigation". Some units had a special liking for this way of investigation, but whenever they were ready to carry out a work, they first sent a notice to the grassroots to carry out "written investigation", which made grassroots cadres overwhelmed and complained.

Why can "written research" be favored? The author summarizes the following "benefits". One is to save energy. "Written investigation" doesn’t have to go to the grassroots level to see, turn around, or dissect sparrows at the grassroots level. Originally, it was necessary to go to the grassroots level for three or four days of field research and throw this burden to the grassroots units. "You will know what’s going on in the world without going out." The second is peace of mind. The purpose of investigation is to understand and solve problems. Generally, an investigation report is required, and "written investigation" is the most convenient way to summarize the investigation report, and the investigation report submitted by grass-roots units is summarized and sorted out … After some processing, a "perfect" investigation report is released. The third is to save responsibility. The original purpose of conducting research is to carry out the work more effectively. Under the current situation of vigorously conducting research, leaders generally ask, have you conducted research? Is there any data support? But some problems are really not mastered, and it is impossible to carry out research. At this time, the "written research" came just in time. "There was no early step, no late step, and it happened to catch up."

What is the effect of "written investigation"? This should also be viewed from the grassroots perspective of "being investigated". At present, people at the grass-roots level have less work and more work, which can be described as "a thousand lines and one needle". There is not so much manpower and energy to carry out special research on a certain issue. Moreover, grass-roots cadres are not in place in accurately grasping the research items, and they are not sure what they need to investigate. In this case of not knowing what to investigate and having no energy to investigate, they can only make a research "achievement" by relying on experience and "brain supplement". Even so, In fact, at present, grass-roots cadres are the hardest and most pragmatic, and they directly contact and serve the masses face to face. Many grass-roots cadres are reluctant to do these deceptive articles, but the "written investigation" has pressed for time, so they can only put their efforts outside the investigation. Moreover, there are indeed some grass-roots cadres who "report good news but not bad news". One grass-roots cadre reveals his heart, "Others report good practices, and if they ask many questions, will they leave a bad impression on their superiors". The reason seems to be that grass-roots work is floating, but in fact, the research method is improper and the style is not true.

As the saying goes, "hearing is empty, seeing is believing". Investigation and research is the fine tradition and style of our party. The Supreme Leader General Secretary has repeatedly stressed that "investigation and research is the foundation of seeking things and the way to accomplish things". At the above rate, I visited the masses to get to know the truth, "lift the lid" to see what the masses eat, and "pull home" to ask the masses about their income. This pragmatic research style is worth learning from the majority of leading cadres … Some people say that "written research" is one of the things that the grassroots are most disgusted with now. In fact, what the grassroots dislike is not the real research that solves the problem, but the superficial "written research", which not only increases the burden on the grassroots, but also fails to find out the truth in the end, which is naturally not conducive to making correct decisions.

To sum up, the wind of "written investigation" should be killed, and we must make great efforts to break the false style of "waiting for the investigation to be delivered to the door" and prevent the investigation from being "out of tune". Only by going deep into the grassroots and working hard can we understand the real situation, find the real problems and find the real countermeasures, and then do good things and do things well.