中国现代史学的制度建设及其运作

发布时间：2018-06-21 19:22

本文选题：现代史学 + 制度建设　；参考：《郑州大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2004年02期

【摘要】：关于20世纪以来我国现代史学的建设历程,以往论者关注的重点,多集中在理论、方法、现念或学术成就的总结方面。从制度层面上说,中国现代史学的制度建设酝酿于清末,几经曲折,至20世纪20年代,在专业设置、人才培养模式、研究机构与学术团体的组织等方面已初步形成了一套比较完整的体制。它的运作,对以后直至当代中国的史学发展产生了深远的影响。这一体制,就其基本框架而言,显然仿自西方近代的学术运行模式,其间虽也有人注意到对某些传统制度的借鉴问题(如清华国学研究院之兼采旧书院制度等),但总的来说,效果不著。另一方面,由于各种条件的限制,其对西方制度的引入实际上又是残缺不全的,最明显的是没有建立起自己较为稳定和独立运作的社会性学术基金资助体系(当时较为规范的这类机构,其资金来源多半与国外有关),以致一定程度上影响了某些学术研究事业的持久正常开展。
[Abstract]:As to the construction of modern historiography in China since the 20th century, the focus of the previous scholars is mainly on the theory, method, present thought or the summary of academic achievements. From the institutional level, the institutional construction of Chinese modern history was conceived in the late Qing Dynasty, and after several twists and turns, in the 1920s, in the professional setup, the talent training model, The organization of research institutions and academic groups has formed a relatively complete system. Its operation had a profound influence on the development of historiography in contemporary China. As far as its basic framework is concerned, it is obvious that this system is modelled on the modern western academic operation model. Although some people have also noticed the problems of drawing lessons from some traditional systems (such as the Tsinghua Academy of Chinese Studies and the old academy system, etc.), it is generally stated that It doesn't work. On the other hand, due to the restrictions of various conditions, the introduction of Western institutions is in fact incomplete. The most obvious is the absence of a more stable and independent system of funding for social academic funds. Most of its sources of funds are related to foreign countries, which to some extent affect the lasting and normal development of some academic research undertakings.
【作者单位】：华东师范大学历史系
【分类号】：K092

【共引文献】