Bibliography (Revised Edition)

Author: Peng Feizhang, Qiao Haoqin, et al.
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 research on "bibliographic information" was considered the main trend in Chinese bibliography studies. Driven by the wave, the bibliography community solely focused 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 Organization and Management of Bibliographic Information Services and Theoretical Research on Bibliographic Information Systems, the theory had reached its best state 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 because it was a reasonable academic growth point, but rather due to the active advocacy of leading scholars and the blind response of followers, resulting in 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, as the trend of replacing "information" with "intelligence" 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 as anyone pleases. Among its advocates and supporters, "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 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 thoroughly by the proponents and supporters of the theory, leaving many doubts.
In addition to pointing out the numerous flaws and inconsistencies in the theory of "bibliographic information," Liu Guohua also questioned the term "bibliography" widely used in the bibliography community. He argued that the translation of "bibliography" is inaccurate and does not correspond well to the English term "bibliography." The accurate Chinese translation should be "bibliography studies." Correspondingly, the core conceptual system of bibliography, consisting of "bibliography-bibliographic work-bibliography studies," is illogical. The scientific expression should be "bibliography-bibliographic work-bibliography studies." Therefore, he strongly advocated establishing "bibliography studies" to replace the traditional concept of bibliography.
Another paper skeptical of the theory of "bibliographic information" is Wang Bo's Bibliography Studies 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 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, we may one day suddenly realize that we lack a unique discourse system. Without a Western academic discourse, we would become academic.