Abstract：There have been three climaxes in Chinese frontier studies since modern times and the studies experienced the greatest development in the third climax starting from the 1980s to the present. In order to have a clear picture of Chinese frontier studies over the past 40 years, the paper, based on the Chinese academic papers on China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and supported by a few monographs on Dangdang.com since the 1980s, analyzes and reviews the history, predicaments and expected scenarios of Chinese frontier studies in the past 41 years with the thread of the construction and development of frontier studies discipline by means of data analysis, time sequence and summary of contents.
In the analysis, the paper divides the evolution trajectory of Chinese frontier studies into four stages: Incubation and Referring (1980-1990), Proposing and Interpreting (1991-2000), Appealing and Constructing (2001-2010), Deepening and Contending (2011-2020) according to the relevant data graphs, the number of papers on frontiers and frontier studies, and the reality of Chinese frontier studies in each period on the CNKI. It is found that Chinese frontier studies originated from Chinese frontier history and geography. Chinese frontier history and geography had the greatest number of achievements and the greatest impact. However, Chinese frontier studies have expanded from Chinese frontier history and geography to other fields with deeper frontier studies in academia and major achievements are as follows. First, mature frontier theories, e.g. “National Space Organism Theory,” “Frontier Theory of Activity” and “Mutual Frontier Theory,” were introduced into Chinese mainland from Chinese Taiwan and some foreign countries. Second, scholars of different fields have made multi-faceted and multi-dimensional interpretations of “frontier,” so the concept of frontier comes to be diverse, the characteristics and attributes of frontiers to be clear. Third, some new branches of Chinese frontier studies or related disciplines, e.g. frontier economics, frontier politics, frontier security, are constructed. Fourth, the basic disciplinary system of Chinese frontier studies has been established, and the disciplinary nature, research contents, and research methods of Chinese frontier studies come to be clarified. Fifth, there have been academic debates on Chinese frontier studies, e.g. on “frontier construction theory” and “frontier realism.”
Chinese frontier studies are still facing some predicaments though major achievements have been made in the past 41 years. First, the disciplinary system needs to be further integrated, the disciplinary orientation to be made clear, more theoretical research to be done, comprehensive studies to be made, research scope to be broadened and more dialogues between China and foreign countries to be expected. In the future, Chinese frontier studies should aim at the following aspects. First, national interests and national security should be taken into account in the definition of frontiers, and both “hard frontiers” and “soft frontiers” should be studied. Second, studies should go beyond China in research perspectives and shift from “Chinese frontier studies” to Chinese “frontier studies” in research patterns; third, disciplinary boundary and disciplinary orientation should be clarified; meanwhile, theoretical research and practical research should be equally highlighted. Only in this way can Chinese frontier studies be scientific, systematic, intensive and refined.
谢贵平、张会丽. 中国边疆学研究41年(1980-2020)：脉络与展望[J]. 浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版), 0, (): 1-.
Xie Guiping Zhang Huili. Chinese Frontier Studies for 41 Years (1980-2020): History and Prospects. JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY, 0, (): 1-.
