| 闫静.学科史研究与理论化阐释:档案学科叙事的两种维度[J].中国图书馆学报,2026,52(2):72~90 |
| 学科史研究与理论化阐释:档案学科叙事的两种维度 |
| Disciplinary History Research and Theorizing Interpretation:The Dual Dimensions of Archival Disciplinary Narrative |
| 投稿时间：2025-09-29 修订日期：2025-12-01 |
| DOI： |
| 中文关键词: 档案学 学科叙事 学科史研究 理论化阐释 学科认同 |
| 英文关键词: Archival science Disciplinary narrative Disciplinary history research Theorizing interpretationDisciplinary identification |
| 基金项目: |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 309 |
| 全文下载次数: 165 |
| 中文摘要: |
在构建中国特色哲学社会科学的时代背景下,档案学亟须在回访学科传统与强化理论阐释中寻求知识自主性。本文以“学科叙事”为核心概念,从“学科史研究”与“理论化阐释”两大维度论述二者在塑造学科身份、实现学科认同、建构学术体系和生成理论话语中的关键作用。学科史研究通过厘清学科历史脉络、追溯学科历史渊源、评述学科发展功过,对学科叙事发挥规范性作用。但长期存在的“去理论化”“浅表化”等认知偏见削弱了档案学科史研究的历史深度,亟须强化“历史经验”“历史诠释”与“历史导向”能力,以明确研究要点。理论化阐释是对“知识何以可能”的元理论追问,构成学科叙事的思想之维。但长期以来的“域外借鉴”和“场外借鉴”模式限制了档案学的“本土化和自主化建构”能力,亟须以唯物辩证法为方法论根基,以历史哲学为分析工具,以叙事认同为价值导向,走出“实践化”叙事窠臼。学科史研究和理论化阐释在互构中统一,共同推动档案学科叙事的深化。参考文献36。
|
| 英文摘要: |
Against the backdrop of the accelerating development of philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics,archival science,as an independent discipline,urgently needs to seek intellectual autonomy by revisiting its disciplinary traditions and strengthening theoretical interpretation. Using the disciplinary narrative as a core concept,this paper focuses on the narrative logic and knowledge construction of archival science with Chinese characteristics. It systematically examines the pivotal roles of disciplinary history research and theorizing interpretation in shaping the disciplinary identity,achieving disciplinary consensus,constructing academic systems,and generating theoretical discourse.
From the first dimension,disciplinary history research plays a crucial role in clarifying origins and consolidating foundations. By delineating academic lineages,it constructs historical contexts,thereby internally shaping the disciplinary narrative；by tracing historical origins,it reconstructs the disciplinary narrative；by evaluating historical lessons,it provides normative guidance. However,long standing cognitive biases in archival scholarship,such as de theorization and superficiality,have diminished the historical depth of archival science. Strengthening the capacities for historical experience,historical interpretation,and historical orientation within disciplinary history research is key to deepening archival historiography and to forming the historical dimension of the archival disciplinary narrative.
From the second dimension,theorizing interpretation in the disciplinary narrative constitutes a meta theoretical inquiry into how knowledge becomes possible,serving as the main element of contemporary disciplinary self awareness. However,the long standing practice of drawing on extrinsic and extra disciplinary models has constrained the ability of archival science to develop in a localized and autonomous manner,which may undermine the discipline's theoretical explanatory power. As the intellectual dimension of Chinese archival disciplinary narrative,theorizing interpretation must take Marxist materialist dialectics as the methodological foundation,employ the philosophy of history as an analytical tool,and adopt narrative identity from narratology as a value orientation to transcend practice centered narrative convention.
As the dual dimensions of the disciplinary narrative,disciplinary history research and theorizing interpretation are unified through mutual construction. The historical materials of disciplinary history research and theorizing interpretation serve as a foundation for one another. The historical lessons of disciplinary history research and theorizing interpretation function as mutual premises. The historical records of disciplinary history research and theorizing interpretation constitute outcomes for one another. All of the above jointly promote the deepening of the archival disciplinary narrative toward disciplinary self consciousness and theoretical awareness with Chinese characteristics. 36 refs.
|
|
查看全文
查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
|
|
|
京公网安备11010802047316号