|
Abstract As technology reshapes the publishing ecosystem and the Cultural Power Strategy demanding disciplinary contribution, Chinese Publishing Studies stands at a critical juncture for theoretical breakthroughs and systemic reconstruction. As one of the pioneering disciplines advocating interdisciplinary integration, practice orientation and value-led development, its explorations not only embody the paradigmatic significance of new liberal arts development but also furnish an instructive model in its endeavor to build an autonomous knowledge system, offering a reference for balancing applied vitality with theoretical depth within the New Liberal Arts framework.
Integrating systematic historical analysis with theoretical explication, this paper delineates the three-stage evolutionary trajectory of the autonomous knowledge system in Chinese Publishing Studies: (1) The Germination Period (1900s—1970s): Publishing studies had not yet formed an independent disciplinary structure. Knowledge production, both in China and abroad, was primarily dominated by summaries of industry experience. Publishing knowledge at this stage resembled professional know-how more than disciplinary knowledge. (2) As global higher education and disciplinary development in publishing entered a new phase, driven jointly by policy guidance and industry needs in China, universities began to engage systematically. Institutions like Wuhan University established relevant programs, marking the emergence of distinct disciplinary institutionalization. (3) The Differentiation Period (2000s to present): Divergences in disciplinary orientation and developmental paths became apparent between Chinese and Western publishing studies. Although China’s postgraduate education (Master’s and PhD) in publishing started relatively late and long remained affiliated with other disciplines, it gradually embarked on a path towards theoretical autonomy by deepening interdisciplinary dialogue and constructing a full-chain knowledge system.
The formation of the publishing knowledge system is deeply isomorphic with Knowledge Production Mode I, exhibiting distinct characteristics of problem-context-driven research, interdisciplinary collaboration and participation by multiple actors. (1) Problem Context-Driven: Industry challenges guide knowledge production. For instance, researches addressing the knowledge supply imbalance behind the “book scarcity crisis” in the 1980s, and studies on the convergence of traditional publishing with digital technologies in the new century, have continuously propelled disciplinary development. (2) Interdisciplinary Collaboration: Moving beyond closed theoretical systems, this approach builds up an open knowledge system capable of addressing the publishing industry’s complex issues by incorporating insights from multiple disciplines. For example, early textbooks introduced knowledge from economics, law and other fields, transforming and reconstructing it centered around publishing activities. (3) Multiple Actors: A knowledge production network involving collaboration among universities, enterprises, and industry organizations has formed. Examples include university-industry linkage through dual-mentor programs and joint research platforms, and the participation of industry associations and the government through resource support and co-establishment of standards.
To achieve systemic reconstruction, the paper proposes four strategic pathways. (1) Reverting to core elements of Mode Ⅰ knowledge production: constructing an accumulable and transmissible disciplinary nucleus through the systematic collation of publishing practice laws and theoretical achievements. (2) Upholding Marxist value orientation: Align with knowledge production Mode III’s pursuit of public interest, transcend mere instrumental rationality in knowledge production and forge an indispensable spiritual core and academic distinctiveness for the discipline. (3) Methodological Reinvention:?Introduce and adapt exogenous methods to establish a problem-oriented, interdisciplinary integration paradigm. (4) Reconstituting the Academic Community:?Reconstruct the academic community to consolidate endogenous momentum for disciplinary development.
The evolution of Chinese Publishing Studies demonstrates that the formation of an autonomous knowledge system is not a conceptual deduction conceived in isolation but an organic whole gradually shaped in response to practical needs such as civilization inheritance and technological change. Although challenges remain, including insufficient depth in multi-actor collaboration and the need for continuous theoretical iteration, Chinese Publishing Studies has already provided a reference sample for China’s New Liberal Arts construction, characterized by practical grounding, value stance, and theoretical depth. This reflects the disciplinary self-awareness of publishing studies and represents an essential path for the Chinese humanities and social sciences to gain global recognition.
|
|
Published: 20 September 2025
|
|
|
|
