Page 174 - JOURNAL OF LIBRARY SCIENCE IN CHINA 2018 Vol. 44

173
Extended English abstracts of articles published in the Chinese edition of Journal of Library Science in China 2018 Vol.44 173

standards to accompany SUSHI protocol. Content providers should raise awareness of normalizing
usage statistics and cooperate with the libraries/library consortia to provide technical support for
SUSHI services, become SUSHI compliant and register with the SUSHI server Registry. Libraries
should also raise awareness of implementing SUSHI, and join the library consortia’s SUSHI
service, encourage content providers to provide SUSHI services, purchase or independently
develop ERMS/usage consolidation application. The library consortia should urge the content
providers to comply with SUSHI, and require SUSHI compliance as part of their agreements,
provide trainings on usage statistics, and strengthen SUSHI publicity and promotion.

“Macrohistory” and “Microhistory” in the writing of library history: From
the perspective of library archives in the periods of late Qing Dynasty and
Republican of China
YAO Leye〇, LIU Chunyu & REN Jiale
〇a*
Research paradigms determine the ways the history is written and the consequent research
products. By analyzing the present historiography paradigms in library history, their characteristics
and limitations, this study proposes new paradigms based on library archives in the periods of Late
Qing Dynasty and Republican China.
Current historiography has three paradigms: cognition, identification and recognition,
represented respectively by progressive history emerging after the Enlightenment, ethnohistory
and post-modern history. The mainstream library historiography paradigms are cognition and
identification, which focus on the grand, the significant, and the macrohistory. While recognition
history, as a newly-emerging paradigm, highlights the often neglected or suppressed “others”.
Typical schools of recognition history include the new cultural history, micro-history, and social
history, etc. The ideas of subjective literature and objective literature are introduced to classify
library history materials based on whether they are created by scholars to promote thinking or
recorded facts. This study examines present library literature and finds that most publications are
concerned about academic history of library as a science and library elites’ history.
Current research and historiography on library history have the following features and
limitations: first, the majority of them are about scholarly thinking. Second, they are written by
elites. Third, they emphasize the macrohistory of Library Science. Fourth, they focus on academic
changes and interactions among scholars. Library archives basically are concerned about social
history of libraries rather than academic history, and make it possible to study libraries from the
perspectives of social aspects and micro aspects, and enable research to touch on new areas and
deepen present study. This study proposes to examine library history from the perspective of grass-
roots librarians rather than elites, from social history rather than academic history.
* Correspondence should be addressed to YAO Leye, Email: leyeyao@scu.edu.cn, ORCID: 0000-0002-9676-7470