当今如果有人企图改写某一学科的理论，这种企图总让人怀疑。

《传播学场理论》的写作就有这种令人怀疑的企图。

1987年，笔者求学于复旦大学新闻系。那时，传播学刚译介到中国。其相较于新闻学的学理性、对应于现实的真切性，都令人耳目一新。时过30年，笔者经历了报社记者、电视台主持人、电影厂管理者这些职业角色后，回到大学。吃惊的是，当下大学的传播学理论和30年前并无二致。

唯物主义绝不相信会有什么绝对真理。但是，西方传来的传播学似乎成了某种不可逾越的高峰。当然，不只笔者看到这样的现实，相信也有学者试图改变。由于各种纵向科研项目大致都采用了“家有千般事，先就急处说”这样的评审标准，纯理论的研究难以立项。人是要吃饭的，知识分子也难免俗。静下心来，抛开名利去做纯理论的研究算是一种“病”。

可是，这一切让笔者有了强烈的撕裂感。

首先，这种撕裂感是因为学生无法学以致用。新闻传播专业的学生在“象牙塔”里学到的，到了现实中往往使不出来。理论和实践是无法黏合的“两张皮”。

其次，这种撕裂感来自于传播学理论版图的学派分立。我国的传播学教材多采用的是经验学派的理论，对批判学派和技术主义学派的理论仅限于介绍。三个学派各执一端，互不理会。可以算是一种学术的冷暴力。

最后，这种撕裂感来自于“行道于邦”与“真理至上”的抵牾。“行道于邦”与“真理至上”之间的争论一直没有停止。如果把这个争论转译为是“为祖国做研究”还是“为人类做研究”，这个争议就成了知识在不同时空中的功能性差异的命题。这个命题近来确乎有了答案。抛开争议，无论是为祖国还是为人类，科学研究都必须立足于学理性。缺乏学理性的研究当然就没有任何功用。

从业界到学校，笔者成了年轻的老同志。入教育行不长，因此算年轻，年龄又不小，当然是老同志。一个在业界打拼多年的人，要回来大学做学术，难免让人怀疑。

这本书的写作基本上来自于一些基于常识性的思考，笔者将其称为三个回归。

其一，学术回归常识。阅读一些论文和著作常惊叹于它们在玄妙的词汇和深邃的语句之下表述出的一些有违常识的判断。简单地将社会文化现象归结为单一的传媒因子是一种；大而无当的政治、经济、文化归因分析是另一种；当然，还有各种“正确的废话”所表达的“建议”。当学术研究与常识抵触时，我们更希望研究可以改写常识。可悲的是，研究总在常识之下显得荒诞。

其二，学术回归实践。大学被称为象牙塔。学者做的工作很大一部分在于自圆其说。如果研究成果完全不能对应现实，那又有何意义？传播学传入、沿袭、发展了这么多年，现在的基本框架和主要理论都无法对应现实：第一个现实叫中国情境，第二个现实叫互联网情境。中国传媒实践的复杂性及其可资研究的价值一直被低估。学习者和研究者还把套用西方理论验证中国情境和互联网情境作为主要的学术贡献。那些引用和转载的因子都拱卫了这种研究的权威性。

其三，学术回归理性。传播学三大学派理论的分立态势如此明显；我们的教科书在采信某些理论时的功利主义态度如此明显；前互联网时代的理论体系在解释现实中的无力感如此明显；西方语境下的基本概念和中国传媒实践的差异性如此明显，以致我们根本不需要科学哲学，只要回归基本的理性就可以产生改写的冲动。因此，整合传统理论，对应现实和时代就是基本的理念和方法。

本书的研究方法非常简单，用20年去业界做实践，再用10年来研究文献和理论，把过去的实践经验力所能及地理论化，写一点来自实践又可以回归实践的东西。

当然，真理是相对的。笔者相信这部著作当中的许多观点和结论乃至整个的理论框架和体系，都会被或认同或批判，被或证实或证伪。

儿时喜欢朝湖里丢进一粒石子，看着湖面平静的状态被打破。石子终归沉入水底，不再看见。可喜的是，它曾激起一些涟漪。

Today's attempts to rewrite the theories of a particular discipline are always doubtful. The writing of "Communication Field Theory" has this dubious attempt. In 1987, I studied journalism at Fudan University. At that time, communication studies had just been translated into China. Compared with the academic rationality of journalism, it corresponds to the reality of reality, which is refreshing. After 30 years, the author returned to university after experiencing professional roles such as newspaper reporter, TV host, and film studio manager. Surprisingly, the theory of communication in universities today is the same as it was 30 years ago. Materialism never believes that there will be any absolute truth. However, the communication from the West seems to have become some kind of insurmountable peak. Of course, not only the author has seen such a reality, I believe that there are also scholars who have tried to change. Since various longitudinal scientific research projects generally adopt the evaluation criteria of "there are a thousand things at home, first say it urgently", it is difficult to establish a project for purely theoretical research. People want to eat, and intellectuals are inevitably vulgar. Calm down and put aside fame and fortune to do pure theoretical research is a "disease". However, all this gave the author a strong sense of tearing. First, this sense of tearing is because students can't apply what they have learned. What journalism and communication students learn in the "ivory tower" is often not realized in reality. Theory and practice are "two skins" that cannot be glued. Second, this sense of rift comes from the separation of schools on the theoretical map of communication. Most of China's communication textbooks use empirical theories, and the theories of the critical school and the technocratic school are limited to introduction. The three schools of thought have their own ends and ignore each other. It can be regarded as a kind of academic cold violence. Finally, this sense of tearing comes from the conflict between "walking in the state" and "truth is supreme." The debate between "the way in the state" and "the supremacy of truth" has not stopped. If this controversy is translated as "research for the motherland" or "research for mankind", this controversy becomes a proposition of the functional differences of knowledge in different time and space. This proposition has indeed recently been answered. Controversy aside, whether for the motherland or for mankind, scientific research must be based on academic reason. Research without rationality certainly serves no purpose. From industry to school, the author became a young old comrade. He has not been in the education line for a long time, so he is young, and he is not young, of course, he is an old comrade. A person who has worked hard in the industry for many years will inevitably make people doubt that he wants to return to university to do academic work. The writing of this book basically comes from some common-sense thinking, which I call three regressions. First, academics return to common sense. Reading essays and writings, you often marvel at the judgments they express under their esoteric words and profound sentences, which defy common sense. Simply reducing sociocultural phenomena to a single media factor is one; Big and bad political, economic, and cultural attribution analysis is another; And, of course, "advice" expressed by all sorts of "correct nonsense". When academic research conflicts with common sense, we prefer that research can rewrite common sense. Sadly, research always seems absurd under common sense. Second, academic return to practice. The university is called the ivory tower. A large part of what academics do is to justify themselves. What is the point if the research results do not correspond to reality at all? Communication has been introduced, inherited and developed for so many years, and the current basic framework and main theories cannot correspond to reality: the first reality is called the Chinese situation, and the second reality is called the Internet situation. The complexity of Chinese media practice and its value for research have been underestimated. Learners and researchers also regard the application of Western theories to verify the Chinese and Internet contexts as their main academic contributions. The factors cited and reprinted guard the authority of this research. Third, academia returns to rationality. The separation of the three theories of communication is so obvious; The utilitarian attitude of our textbooks when it comes to embracing certain theories is so obvious; The theoretical system of the pre-Internet era is so powerless in explaining reality; The difference between basic concepts in the Western context and Chinese media practice is so obvious that we do not need a philosophy of science at all, and we can simply return to basic reason to generate the urge to rewrite. Therefore, integrating traditional theories and corresponding to reality and times is the basic concept and method. The research method of this book is very simple, take 20 years to practice in the industry, and then spend 10 years to study literature and theory, theorize the past practical experience as much as possible, and write something that comes from practice and can return to practice. Of course, truth is relative. The author believes that many of the views and conclusions in this work, as well as the entire theoretical framework and system, will be recognized or criticized, confirmed or falsified. As a child, he liked to throw a pebble into the lake and watch the calm state of the lake be broken. The stone eventually sank to the bottom and was no longer seen. Fortunately, it has stirred up some ripples.（AI翻译）