Abstract:

[Purpose/Significance] This paper explores the theoretical attributes and functional pathways of Chinese bibliographical studies as a fundamental methodology for constructing an autonomous knowledge system in Chinese philosophy and social sciences, and outlines possible trajectories of future development. In an era that demands indigenous theoretical innovation, it is crucial to re-examine the methodological essence of Chinese bibliography, particularly its core principle of "distinguishing scholarly traditions and tracing the evolution of knowledge" (bianzhang xueshu, kaojing yuanliu), in order to establish a knowledge system with Chinese subjectivity. [Method/Process] This study investigated the unique methodological characteristics of Chinese bibliography, as well as the original academic positioning and specific functions of bibliographic methods in constructing an autonomous knowledge system in Chinese philosophy and social sciences. The analysis focuses on two key dimensions: 1) the intrinsic attributes of Chinese bibliography, including its humanistic scholarly characteristics, its integration with the spirit of modern scientific rationality, its reliance on documentary and objective knowledge, and the unity of practical and research methods; and 2) the positioning and functions of bibliography in constructing an autonomous knowledge system, particularly its role in interdisciplinary knowledge production, scholarly guidance for researchers, and exploration of academic frontiers. [Results/Conclusions] The study draws several conclusions. First, the Chinese bibliography should return to its core scholarly function of "distinguishing scholarly traditions and tracing the evolution of knowledge," serving as both a method and a product of academic research. This requires us to move beyond the modern divide between classical and descriptive bibliography, drawing on bibliographic compilation practices and their resulting outputs, such as catalogs and indexes, to explore the historiographical functions of modern bibliography. Second, we should explore specific academic disciplines to improve the compilation of subject bibliographies (zhuanke mulu) and the development of subject bibliographic studies. The compilation of subject bibliographies helps define disciplinary boundaries, construct knowledge structures, and shape academic trajectories in fields ranging from traditional humanities (e.g., literature and history) to emerging interdisciplinary areas. Third, we should develop guided-reading bibliographies and knowledge indexes to strengthen bibliography's function of showing pathways and guiding scholarly inquiry. This helps researchers to navigate information overload, identify core literature, and provide clear research pathways - a function that is largely underutilized in contemporary library OPAC systems. Fourth, we should conduct comparative Sino-foreign research into the history of Chinese bibliography. While Western bibliography emphasizes the scientific description of textual form and transmission, Chinese bibliography prioritizes the humanistic interpretation of textual content and value. This distinction offers profound insights into the development of an autonomous Chinese knowledge system. By studying the exchange of bibliographic knowledge between China and the West since the modern era, we can better understand their historical interaction and close relationship. Reaffirming and revitalizing the methodological value of bibliography signifies a return to the disciplinary roots of information resource management and a commitment to them. It also propels the field to reassert its irreplaceable academic value in the process of constructing an autonomous knowledge system in Chinese philosophy and the social sciences. These efforts will facilitate a fundamental shift from discourse based on Western paradigms to an autonomous Chinese scholarly approach. This shift will provide valuable historical insights and solid theoretical support for the broader endeavor of achieving intellectual self-reliance.

Key words: bibliography, philosophy and social sciences, autonomous knowledge system, methodology, information resources management