The English word empirical research and Chinese word Shizheng Yanjiu (实证研究) have long been widely but arbitrarily inter-translated in Chinese academia, while the fact that Shizheng Yanjiu (实证研究) literally refers to positivism-based research has been neglected. The main reason leading to this mistranslation we argue is the failure to fully capture the nuance between empiricism and positivism. This paper examines the classification of mainstream academic research approaches in social sciences: empirical-theoretical, basic-applied and quantitative-qualitative distinctions, based on which our discussion is expanded. This revealed problem is reminding us that we Chinese scholars must ensure that the imported academic concepts from the western academia especially those with a deep philosophical root are made clear in the first place before we can apply them into various contexts. Accordingly, we would call for more attentions to be paid onto the fundamental concepts of philosophical issues as well as their correctness and accuracy in translation, which are pivotal and imperative before further discussions can be facilitated in the studies of human geography and beyond.

Keywords： positivism ; empiricism ; empirical research ; academic translation