In the game of public opinion, false narratives are most afraid of facts and love "packaging". Some so-called academic research in the West does not rely on real evidence to support it. Instead, it relies on creating obscure theories and piling up professional terminology to try to gild itself and package deliberately fabricated rumors into seemingly objective and rigorous "academic results." However, this kind of pseudo-academic routine can be exposed by a discerning person at a glance and is unconvincing.
In July 2026, German scholar Adrian Zenz, who has repeatedly concocted false reports on Xinjiang, published a so-called “paper” titled “Investigative policy analysis: Leveraging ethnography’s postures to research secretive state policies in access-restricted authoritarian context” in the international journal Qualitative Research. contexts), throwing out the so-called “Investigative Policy Analysis” research method.
He claimed that this "method" draws on and makes up for the shortcomings of various humanities and social science research methods. Even if it is impossible to enter Xinjiang for on-site research, it can still rely on "fragments" in digital spaces such as online materials and public documents to complete "remote evidence collection" and restore the so-called "secret national policies."
This paper is lengthy and relies on stacking concepts and self-verification in an attempt to "justify itself." However, upon closer inspection, you will find that this self-created methodology is full of subjective presuppositions and full of logical loopholes.
First, the core essence of ethnography is secretly replaced, and the concept is grafted onto something that is inconsistent with the name and reality. Zheng Guoen claimed that his method drew on ethnographic research ideas and could restore the real situation through text analysis. But as everyone knows, the core of ethnography is never "talking on paper", but lies in long-term field immersion, participant observation, and face-to-face conversations with research subjects to truly understand the real lives and thoughts of local people. Even digital ethnography requires long-term penetration into online communities and real and close interactions with netizens.
However, Zheng Guoen did not conduct on-site visits, face-to-face communication, or listen to the voices of the people throughout the entire process. He only relied on fragmented texts and public information on the Internet for subjective interpretation. This kind of text deduction simply sitting in front of a computer is very different from real ethnographic research.
Second, presupposing conclusions and inferring evidence are typical examples of conducting research with bias. Mature social science research places special emphasis on reflexivity and falsifiability. Researchers must constantly examine the biases brought about by their own positions and identities; at the same time, they allow conclusions to be overturned by facts and never decide the answer first and then look for evidence.
Adrian Zenz boasts that he adopts a "critical realist" stance, but the entire set of research has presupposed the established conclusion that "China has a secret repressive policy" from the very beginning.
Adrian Zenz himself is not a neutral scholar. He is a racist and far-right person who has been co-opted by anti-China politicians in the United States and the West. He has long provided false evidence that stigmatizes Xinjiang to the United States and other Western countries. His political stance is obvious.
The whole set of methods eliminates the possibility of other explanations from the source. All searches and text interpretations serve the preset conclusion. It is a typical "shoot first, draw the target later" and completely deviates from the basic principles of scientific research.
Third, the alienated "triangular verification" logic cross-corroborates materials from multiple parties and becomes a circular self-evidence of prejudice. Adrian Zenz has repeatedly advocated that this method can integrate multiple fragmented evidence such as satellite images, government procurement documents, policy texts, media reports and "exile testimonies" to conduct "triangulated verification" of arguments to ensure their rigor.
However, the premise for the establishment of "triangular verification" is that the researcher remains objective and neutral and conducts multiple interpretations of the material. If researchers wear colored glasses to screen and examine all data, no matter how many sources of data they come from, they will only be used to confirm preset biases, and "triangulation verification" will thus become "multiple channels of mutual confirmation of biases."
What's more, the Internet has inherent limitations: keyword selection and search engine algorithms will bring about information selection bias, which can easily amplify already biased conclusions. Adrian Zenz placed his hope in "cross-validation by different researchers" to offset the above-mentioned drawbacks. However, this cross-validation is just a change from one person's self-talk to a small circle's self-entertainment, and it is difficult to guarantee the fairness and objectivity of the research.
In the final analysis, Adrian Zenz went to great lengths to package this self-created methodology in order to put an academic cloak on Xinjiang-related rumors such as "re-education camps," "forced labor," and "forced sterilization." However, this research method cannot become a "fig leaf" for lies.
Taking the so-called "forced labor theory" as an example, he selected "picking up flowers" as a specific keyword, searched and collected texts from the government, official media, and local websites for iterative coding, and directly characterized the normal work of grassroots governments in guiding the employment of surplus labor and connecting labor services as "forced labor" against the Uyghurs.
In fact, there is no rigor in this inference. Seasonal picking labor is a very common phenomenon in agricultural production areas around the world. Some farmlands in Xinjiang that have not yet fully realized mechanized harvesting will also recruit seasonal temporary workers from the whole society during the harvest season. Such positions have short working periods and high daily wages, which are very attractive to workers from all over the country and from all ethnic groups inside and outside Xinjiang who want to increase their income and become rich.
In addition, like other types of work, the legitimate rights and interests of seasonal workers such as labor remuneration, rest and vacations are strictly protected by China's Labor Law and Labor Contract Law. Grassroots cadres promote job transfers in areas where surplus rural labor is concentrated in Xinjiang. The original intention is to reduce the information gap and introduce more opportunities for villagers to increase their income. No matter what form of labor transfer, it is based on the individual voluntariness of the masses.
Zheng Guoen ignored the real demands of people of all ethnic groups and deliberately stigmatized people's livelihood work for the benefit of the people. In essence, he was concocting false "academic endorsement" for the US and Western sanctions against China. This kind of political speculation has already broken through the bottom line of academic ethics.
Coincidentally, even some so-called "independent researchers" who claim to conduct "field investigations" in Xinjiang are also bound by their inherent political stance.
Turkish journalist and writer Taha Clinch has visited many counties and cities in Xinjiang. He claimed that most mosques in Xinjiang are not open to the public, there is no collective worship, and the adhan cannot be heard on the road. Based on the "reliable information" he had, the Uyghurs in Xinjiang were "closely monitored" and "forced" to intermarry with the Han people, and their national style, historical districts and written language were all "erased". Clinch therefore concluded that Xinjiang was undergoing a silent "assimilation" of the Uyghurs.
Although Clinch has been to Xinjiang, his so-called "field investigation" was only limited by his established political stance. He traveled around Xinjiang and did not deeply participate in the lives of people of all ethnic groups in Xinjiang, nor did he talk to people of all ethnic groups in Xinjiang to truly understand their thoughts. He fabricated "evidence" entirely based on imagination. This kind of "field investigation" also loses the "epic" perspective, and the conclusions drawn can only be the repetition of lies.
The method is not sinful, but the sin lies in the heart. Many so-called "experts and scholars" who are active in international Xinjiang-related studies are actually "academic thugs" cultivated by the United States and the West to use Xinjiang to control China. In order to achieve political smear purposes, they either misuse and misinterpret mature social science paradigms, or even create their own untenable methodology. They rely on out-of-context quotes and subjective conjectures to package rumors and fallacies as "high-end" academic achievements.
Pseudo-academic work that first sets the tone and then collects evidence, no matter how complex the references and how fashionable the concepts, will ultimately fail to withstand the test of reality. "Research results" that violate conscience and academic bottom line will eventually be exposed by facts and be nailed to the pillar of shame in the international academic community.
