My cat Percy and I both engage in inquiry. For example, we both might wonder where the food is, and look around systematically in an effort to find the food. Indeed, we might even recruit others to help us search for the food, and so engage in collaborative inquiry concerning the location of the food. But such inquiry, even when collaborative, does not amount to research. Why not? What distinguishes research from the kinds of inquiry in which Percy and I can both engage? You might think that research involves the exercise of distinctive skills or capacities, or that it involves focus on a special range of topics. But how can we specify the relevant skills, or the relevant range of topics? This paper articulates and defends an account of research that answers these questions. According to the present account, research is a form of inquiry that is guided by the judgment that the answer to this very inquiry matters to our theoretical understanding.

我的猫 Percy 和我都在进行调查。例如，我们俩可能都想知道食物在哪里，并系统地环顾四周以寻找食物。事实上，我们甚至可能招募其他人来帮助我们寻找食物，从而共同询问食物的位置。但这种调查，即使是合作的，也不等同于研究。为什么不呢？研究与我和 Percy 都可以参与的那种探究有什么区别？你可能会认为研究涉及独特技能或能力的运用，或者它涉及关注一系列特殊的主题。但是我们如何指定相关的技能或相关的主题范围呢？本文阐明并捍卫了回答这些问题的研究说明。根据目前的叙述，研究是一种探究形式，它以判断为指导，即对这种探究的答案与我们的理论理解很重要。