Bibliography

Author: Peng Feizhang / Qiao Haoqin / Chen Chuanfu (editors)
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2003-11-01
Features: In the fundamental theoretical research of bibliography, the study of the theoretical foundation and system of bibliography has not been into, and ended up unsatisfactorily. The debate on "bibliographic information" () however, has begun. "Bibliographic information" is a core concept of modern and contemporary bibliography that Professor Peng Feizhang has vigorously advocated and actively promoted. In the early 1990s, the research on "bibliographic information" was considered the main trend in Chinese bibliography studies. Driven by the wave, the bibliography community focused solely on "bibliographic information," producing a large number of papers around it. However, by 1996, when bibliographic information theory was entering a harvest season, with works such as "Organization and Management of Bibliographic Information Services" and "Theoretical Research on Bibliographic Information Systems" published, the theory of bibliographic information had reached its best state in terms of both research teams and achievements. Yet unexpectedly, it faced a strong challenge. The challenger, Liu Guohua, argued that the rise and prosperity of "bibliographic information" theory were not because it was a reasonable academic growth point, but rather due to the active advocacy of leaders and blind responses from followers, creating a collective momentum. The theory of bibliographic information has several flaws, prominent among which are:
1. The Chinese term "" (information) is polysemic. Regardless of how proponents define "bibliographic information," it easily leads to confusion in understanding. Moreover, when "" (information) has already replaced "" (intelligence) as the dominant term, persistently emphasizing "bibliographic information" clearly violates academic norms.
2. The term "bibliographic information" is used too arbitrarily, like a girl who can be dressed however one pleases. Among advocates and supporters of bibliographic information theory, "bibliographic information" is often used interchangeably with "bibliographic information systems," "bibliographic information work," "bibliography," "catalog," and "bibliography studies," creating a disorganized, tangled, and unclear hierarchy.
3. Is the theory of bibliographic information to establish itself as an independent discipline, legitimately becoming a sub-discipline of bibliography or information science? Or should it continue to maintain an "undefined identity," wearing a oversized hat labeled "bibliography"? Is the theory of bibliographic information an alias or nickname for modern and contemporary bibliography?... To these questions, the proponents and supporters of bibliographic information theory have not provided direct or in-depth answers, leaving many doubts.
In addition to questioning the numerous flaws and lack of rigor in the theory of bibliographic information, Liu Guohua also challenged the term "" (bibliography studies) long used in the bibliography field. He argued that the translation of "" is inaccurate and does not correspond well to the English "bibliography." The accurate Chinese translation should be "" (bibliography studies). Correspondingly, the core conceptual system of bibliography studies, structured as "--," is illogical. The scientific expression should be "--," hence he strongly advocated establishing "" to replace the traditional concept of "."
Other papers skeptical of the theory of bibliographic information include Wang Bo's "Bibliography Studies Since 1990: From 'Bibliographic Information' to Start." In this paper, the author not only expressed views similar to Liu Guohua but also pointed out that bibliography studies should guard against "language paralysis." The introduction of Western bibliography concepts should be restrained, otherwise, when we become accustomed to discussing and writing using Western concepts, there will come a day when we suddenly realize we lack a unique discourse system. Without a distinct academic discourse, we will become academic mute.