主管：教育部
主办：中国人民大学
ISSN 0257-2826  CN 11-1454/G4
教学与研究

教学与研究 ›› 2026, Vol. 60 ›› Issue (2): 51-63.

• 中共党史党建基本问题研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

海外中共学的研究论域、学科关系与建设前瞻

  

  1. 高晓林，复旦大学马克思主义学院、复旦大学海外中共学研究中心；骆良虎，复旦大学马克思主义学院、哈佛大学肯尼迪学院阿什民主治理与创新中心。

  • 出版日期:2026-02-15 发布日期:2026-02-05
  • 作者简介:高晓林，复旦大学马克思主义学院教授、复旦大学海外中共学研究中心主任；骆良虎，复旦大学马克思主义学院博士研究生、哈佛大学肯尼迪学院阿什民主治理与创新中心访问学者（上海 200433）。

  • 基金资助:
    本文系国家社科基金重点项目“中国共产党的国际形象塑造研究”（项目号：21AKS010）、教育部哲学社会科学研究重大专项项目“中共党史党建学话语体系研究”（项目号：2024JZDZ032）、国家留学基金委国家建设高水平大学公派研究生项目（项目号：202506100036）的阶段性成果。

Research Scope, Disciplinary Relationships, and Development Prospects of Overseas Studies on the Communist Party of China

  1. 1School of Marxism, and Center for Overseas CPC Studies, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, China;
     2School of Marxism, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, China
  • Online:2026-02-15 Published:2026-02-05

PDF

摘要： 中国共产党国际影响力的日渐跃升催生了海外知识界的认知重构，“海外中共学”逐步兴起。“海外”在国内政治实践和学术研究中是一个极具弹性的概念，“海外中共学”则是具有双重指向性和主体性的学术概念。海外中共学双重指向性和主体性的交织既构成了中国共产党研究知识再生产的图景，也实现了中共党史党建学研究本体论、认识论、价值论的范式突破。就学科关系来说，海外中共学与海外汉学、海外中国学之间既存在联系又有区别，海外中共学与中共党史党建学一级学科及其二级学科“中共党史党建学理论”三者是辩证统一的关系，同时在学科本质、研究取向和知识生产逻辑上又存在深刻的范式差异。当前国内学界海外中共学研究还存在学科定位模糊与边界重叠、理论解释的深化转化不足、研究碎片化与整合性平台缺失、国际话语权与传播效能不足等问题，需要从明确主体功能定位建立学科分类体系研究方向、构建自主理论框架进行批判性对话与理论创新、搭建协同研究平台构建动态学科发展支撑体系、培育期刊人才队伍强化学科发展资源整合建设等方面加强海外中共学学科建设。


关键词: 海外中共学, 中国共产党, 中共党史党建学, 海外中国学, 学科建设

Abstract: The growing international influence of the Communist Party of China (CPC) has prompted a cognitive reconfiguration within the overseas intellectual community, giving rise to the gradual emergence of “overseas CPC studies”. In the context of Chinas domestic political practice and academic research, while the term “overseas” is highly flexible and contextdependent, “overseas CPC studies” is an academic concept with dual directionality and subjectivity. The intertwining of these characteristics in overseas CPC studies not only shapes a dynamic landscape of knowledge reproduction in CPC studies but also represents a paradigm breakthrough in the ontology, epistemology, and axiology of studies on CPC history and Party building. In terms of disciplinary relationships, overseas CPC studies is both connected to and distinct from overseas sinology and overseas China studies. Moreover, overseas CPC studies, the firstlevel discipline of “CPC history and Party building”, and its secondlevel subdiscipline “theory of CPC history and Party building”, form a dialectically unified relationship. Yet, profound paradigmatic differences remain among them regarding the disciplinary essence, research orientation, and logic of knowledge production. Currently, scholarly research in overseas CPC studies within the domestic academic community faces several challenges, such as the ambiguous disciplinary positioning with overlapping boundaries, insufficient deepening and transformation of theoretical explanations, fragmented research efforts with a lack of integration platforms, and limited international discourse power and communication effectiveness. To strengthen the  development of overseas CPC studies, it is essential to clarify its functional positioning and establish research directions for a disciplinary classification system, construct an independent theoretical framework to enable critical dialogue and theoretical innovation, build collaborative research platforms to support dynamic discipline construction, and cultivate academic journals, talent communities, and institutional resources to enhance integrated development of the discipline.


Key words: overseas studies on the Communist Party of China, Communist Party of China, studies on CPC history and Party building, overseas China studies, discipline construction ,