Summary of Key Points
This article criticizes the academic views and research practices of Professor Zhang Dandan from Peking University in several aspects:
1. She refers to flexible employment as a form of “welfare” in economics, which contradicts common sense and aligns with overseas research findings.
2. Her research conclusions are inconsistent; for example, her stance on minimum wage standards has changed over time.
3. The methodology of some of her studies (such as using prison data to study air quality and consumption) is questionable.
4. Her collaboration with leading food delivery platforms may involve conflicts of interest, as she seems to be advocating for measures that reduce the platforms’ costs.
5. The author calls for reforms, such as making platform data publicly available and requiring the disclosure of research funding sources, to ensure academic integrity and prevent scholars from being influenced by large corporations.
Detailed Analysis
1. Is Flexible Employment Really a “Welfare”?
Zhang Dandan claims that flexible employment represents economic “welfare,” but for ordinary people, it means lack of stable social security, unpredictable income, and the constant risk of being fired—how can this be considered a benefit? The author argues that numerous overseas studies show that flexible employment may not necessarily be beneficial to workers, and even AI can identify the misuse of this concept. She questions whether experts’ views are simply contrary to the public’s intuitive understanding or whether there is a problem with their academic competence.
2. Changing Research Conclusions
In her 2018 paper, Zhang Dandan argued that raising the minimum wage would increase unemployment and crime among the migrant population. However, in a 2025 study on food delivery workers, she recommended raising the minimum wage. Such a dramatic shift in her opinion is perplexing. Did she simply refute her earlier findings, or have circumstances changed over the years to support the idea that raising wages does not increase crime? The author highlights the frequency of such inconsistent research outcomes.
3. Using Prison Data to Study Air Quality and Consumption
Zhang Dandan published an English paper using data from male prisoners in Shenzhen to study the relationship between air quality and consumption. She reasoned that prisoners, not being affected by poor air quality or reduced income, provided more “pure” data. The author wonders whether taxpayers’ money should be used for such research, given that prison life is vastly different from that of the general population, and whether the findings can be applied in real-world contexts.
4. Collaboration with Food Delivery Platforms
In 2024, Zhang Dandan collaborated with a major food delivery platform, obtaining data on over 40,000 workers. She suggested that workers are reluctant to contribute to social security, and the platform cannot afford to cover the costs, recommending government subsidies. The author suspects that the platform may have provided her with the data for this purpose. Her recommendation to subsidize social security could actually reduce the platform’s costs, raising questions about whether she is truly representing the workers’ interests or those of the platform. The author points out that many scholars are influenced by corporate funding, potentially leading them to advocate for corporate interests.
5. How to Ensure Academic Integrity?
The author proposes two solutions:
1. Legislation requiring platforms to provide and make public data of a public nature, allowing for diverse research perspectives and debates.
2. Mandating that scholars disclose the sources of their funding to reveal who their research is funded by and whose interests it represents. The author emphasizes that, unlike in science and engineering, academic misconduct in the humanities is harder to detect, and therefore more stringent regulations are needed to prevent scholars from claiming to represent the interests of the general public while actually being influenced by corporations.
This article essentially criticizes the issue of some scholars being detached from reality and beholden to corporate interests, calling for a return to more transparent and publicly accessible academic research that is understandable and credible to the general public.