It is only a month since the riots broke out in Tottenham. In that time we have seen further disturbances in many English cities, thousands arrested, all-night sittings in the magistrates courts as they attempted to deal with the flood of prosecutions, and no end of speculation about what lay behind the worst civil disorder in more than two decades.

Although the initial disturbances in Tottenham were recognisable in their origins and development when compared with previous riots on the mainland, the following days saw evidence of a type of systematic looting that did not appear to fit previous experience. There is also emerging evidence that the disorder was not the same across the country, but subject to significant geographical differences.

A major political debate about the causes of the riots and the appropriate policy response is under way, but this has been characterised more by rhetoric than evidence thus far. Opinion has been extraordinarily varied. The prime minister rejected the idea that the riots could be considered protests. On the contrary, in his view, it was "people showing indifference to right and wrong, people with a twisted moral code, people with a complete absence of self-restraint." Beyond this sheer criminality, as he called it, an array of other ideas have been floated.

From a different political position, fingers were pointed at increasing social inequalities, growing alienation among the young, and the poor example set by the greed of bankers and by MPs' fraudulent expenses. Other commentators have weighed in, with absent fathers and family breakdown, poor discipline in schools, the influence of gangs and rap music all held up as possible causes.

Then there are social media. Twitter, Facebook and BlackBerry Messenger have come in for particular attention, with critics arguing that they played a crucial role in the orchestration of the riots.

Speculation is easy, however. What has been missing among all the clamour is much of a desire to stand back and collect evidence. Unlike the Brixton riots in the early 1980s, there is to be no Lord Justice Scarman on this occasion. Yes, there is the victims panel established by the deputy prime minister, and there will be other interdepartmental reviews or examinations of both the "broken society" and "gang culture". But as yet there is little sense of commitment to attempting a full-scale review.

Such inquiries can serve a number of functions. Initially, they help dampen down some of the less helpful speculation about what went on and what the causes might have been.

Then, in the process of collecting evidence, they allow people to speak. Those caught up in the events, in whatever way, have some opportunity to have their views heard. Finally, in the longer term, if successful, they provide an account and an analysis of the events, and a basis on which future social policy might be built.

There is now a pressing need for credible research into the causes and the consequences of the recent riots. In an attempt to inject some evidence into the ongoing public debate, the LSE is pleased to be joining the Guardian, with the support of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Open Society Foundations, in the Reading the Riots study. This will not be able to answer all the big questions. Nor is it a substitute for a formal, government-sponsored inquiry – one that would have much greater resources and no doubt a longer timescale. But our hope is that it will begin the process of filling parts of the current information gap.

In our view, to be useful it must be done quickly, not necessarily something one associates with social research or universities. But there is a model that can be used. In the aftermath of the Detroit riots in 1967, a journalist, Philip Meyer, teamed up with social scientists from the University of Michigan to recruit and train interviewers to speak with local residents in the affected neighbourhoods in an attempt to understand what had happened, and why. Their work took three weeks and had a marked impact. We can't quite compete with that timescale, but by reporting in the next few months we hope to show how a national newspaper and a leading research university can contribute in a timely fashion to public and political debate.