就歷史研究而言，史料文獻是立論的重要基石；而以後見之明來看，客家是晚近才形成的概念。但臺灣在戰後展開客家研究時，已普遍存在客家有著悠久的中原南遷歷史的成說。隨著研究的愈加深入，卻在歷史文獻中找不到客家，於是開始反思何謂客家，進而重新認識客家。本文擬以自身研究客家歷史的經驗，參照既有研究成果，觀察臺灣在戰後以來，以史學方法研究客家的歷程中，如何將由不同成說所堆砌的客家樣貌予以解構後，再重新認識的過程。史學反思客家的過程，同時見證了社會科學的邊緣理論、建構理論等在歷史上真實發生的過程。那些族源論述不能直接視為歷史事實，必須回到發生的時空脈絡，理清其形成的經過，才可能還原歷史的事實。因此，就客家研究而言，史學除了固守對史料的重視之外，已難閉門造車，必須多方與其他學科溝通對話，才能探究出比較真確的客家歷史。

We both know that historical materials are an important cornerstone in historical research, but there has a special case in Hakka research. When Taiwan launched Hakka research after the war, the term ＂Hakka＂ has lately been formed, but the concept of ＂Hakka＂ has had a long history of the Central Plains moving to the south. However, as the research deepens, researchers could not find the term ＂Hakka＂ in historical materials, so they began to reflect on what Hakka was, and then re-recognized Hakka. This process witnesses the real process cycling from? the social history of the edge theory, to construction theory in the historiography. Those theories of ethnic origins cannot be directly regarded as historical facts. They mustreturn to the context of time and space, clarify the process of their formation, and then they can move a little close to historical facts. Therefore, take Hakka research as an example. I consider that in addition to the importance attached to historical materials, it is necessary to communicate with other disciplines in order to explore a more genuine/authentic Hakka history.