Bibliography-(Revised Edition)

Author: Peng Feizhang Qiao Haoqin, Chen Chuanfu
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2003-11-01
Features: In the basic theoretical research of bibliography, the study on the theoretical foundation and system of bibliography has not been thoroughly explored and has been left unfinished. The debate on "bibliographic information" has, however, 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 study of "bibliographic information" was considered the main trend in Chinese bibliography research. Driven by the wave, the bibliography community focused solely on "bibliographic information," publishing a large number of papers around it. However, by 1996, when bibliographic information theory was entering a harvest season, with works such as The Organization and Management of Bibliographic Information Services and Theoretical Research on Bibliographic Information Systems, the theory had reached its peak in terms of both research teams and achievements. Yet, it unexpectedly faced a strong challenge. The challenger, Liu Guohua, argued that the rise and prosperity of "bibliographic information" theory were not due to it being a reasonable academic growth point, but rather the result of active advocacy by leaders and blind responses from followers, creating a collective momentum. The theory of "bibliographic information" has several flaws, prominent among them being:
1. The Chinese term "information" () is polysemous. Regardless of how proponents define "bibliographic information," it easily leads to confusion in understanding. Moreover, as the trend of replacing "information" with "" has become inevitable, 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 its advocates and supporters, "bibliographic information" is often used interchangeably with "bibliographic information systems," "bibliographic information work," "bibliography," "catalog," and "bibliography," creating a disorganized, tangled, and unclear hierarchy.
3. Is the theory of "bibliographic information" to become an independent discipline, legitimately becoming a subfield of bibliography or information science? Or should it continue to remain ambiguous, wearing a oversized hat labeled "bibliography"? Is "bibliographic information" theory merely an alias or nickname for modern and contemporary bibliography?...... None of these questions have been answered directly or in depth by its proponents and supporters, leaving many doubts.
In addition to questioning the numerous flaws and lack of rigor in the theory of "bibliographic information," Liu Guohua also raised doubts about the term "bibliography" () long used in the bibliography field. He argued that the translation of "" is inaccurate and does not correspond well to the English term "bibliography." The accurate Chinese translation should be "bibliography." Correspondingly, the core conceptual system of bibliography constructed by "bibliography-bibliographic work-bibliography" lacks logic. The scientific expression should be "bibliography-bibliographic work-bibliography," hence he strongly advocated establishing "bibliography" to replace the traditional sense of "bibliography."
Another paper skeptical of the theory of "bibliographic information" is Wang Bo's Bibliography Research Since 1990: From "Bibliographic Information". In this paper, the author not only expressed views similar to Liu Guohua's but also pointed out that bibliography research should guard against "language paralysis." The introduction of Western bibliography concepts should be restrained, otherwise, when we become accustomed to discussing and writing about issues using Western concepts, we may one day suddenly realize that we lack a unique discourse system. Without a Western academic discourse, we would become academic.