中国现代史学的制度建设及其运作

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、观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.

The System Construction of Modern Chinese History Science and its Operation

With regard to the process of the construction of our country's modern history science, since the 20th century, the stress point the past historians paid attention to has most concentrated on how to sum up theories, ways, ideals or learning achievements. As far as the system aspects is concerned, the system construction of the modern Chinese history science was fermented in the late period of Qing dynasty and in 1920s a comparatively complete system was initially formed in the respects of specialties setting, personality training mode, research organization and academic group organizing. Its operation exerted profound influence on the following even on the present development of Chinese history science. As far as its basic frame is concerned, this system apparently imitates the Western operation mode. Although some people have noted the experience from traditional systems (such as Qinghua National Science Research Institute concurrently adopts the old academy of classic learning), yet generally, the achievements are not so remarkable. On the other hand, owing to the limitation of various conditions, the Western systems they introduced in fact are not complete; the most remarkable one was that they hadn't set their own rather stable and independently operating society academic fund helping system (then the capital resources of comparative regular academic structures were most concerned with foreign organizations), thus the sustained and regular development of academic research works were affected on certain degrees.