编辑学的研究对象问题是编辑学领域中又一个引人注目的课题。十几年来,理论研究者对其辨析之激烈大概仅次于对“编辑”概念的争议。其原因当然是因为编辑学研究对象如不明确,真正意义上的编辑学就不可能成立,编辑学研究对象框定着编辑学研究内容,关涉到编辑学的任务、目的,一系列重要范畴以及理论体系的构筑,编辑学研究对象更与编辑学学科特征有着内在联系。而目前我国的编辑学还处在探索阶段,还是一门不成熟的学科,所以探索编辑学研究对象不能不显得特别重要。多年来,编辑学研究者见仁见智,在对象问题上提出了各种有益的看法,但经过多年编辑出版实践活动的检验和不同观点的对撞,我们可以看到,分歧少了,一些观点被淘汰了,另有些见解得到更多的支持和认同。 较早的几种观点认为编辑学研究对象是“整个编辑活动”,也就是“编辑活动的全部和整体”,“不仅指著作物转化为出版物的过程,而且包括著作物产生以前及出版物产生以后的全部编辑活动”。或者说是“各种编辑现象”。或者说“包括编辑工作的一切方面。宏观与微观、纵向与横向、历史与现实、全局与局部……”甚至著述活动、阅读活动也被囊括其中。我认为这些看法太浮泛了,姑且称为“泛化论”。这种“泛化论”的观点很难抓住编辑学的特殊矛盾,揭示? The issue of editorial study is yet another compelling topic in the field of editorial science. For more than a decade, the discerning theoretical researchers have been second only to the controversy over the concept of “editing.” The reason of course is that if the subject of editorial study is ambiguous and the editorial theory in real sense can not be established, the object of editorial study is framed with the content of editorial study, which involves the tasks and purposes of editorial study, a series of important categories and theories The construction of the system and the objects of editing study are intrinsically linked with the subject characteristics of editing science. At present, editorial education in our country is still in the exploratory stage, or an immature subject, so it is particularly important to explore the subject of editorial study. Over the years, editorial researchers have taken different opinions and put forward various beneficial opinions on the issue of objects. However, after many years of examination and publication of practical activities and collisions of different points of view, we can see that there are fewer differences and some opinions are eliminated And some other views get more support and recognition. Earlier views held that the object of study of editors was “the entire editorial activity,” that is, “the whole and the whole of the editorial activity,” not only referring to the process of converting crops into publications, but also to the production of crops before publication Generate all future editorial activities. “ Or a ”variety of editing phenomenon.“ Or ”all aspects of the editorial work, including macro and micro, vertical and horizontal, history and reality, global and local ...“ and even writing activities, reading activities are also included. I think these views are too broad, tentatively called ”generalization.“ This ”generalization" point of view is difficult to seize the special contradictions of editing science, reveal?