ISSN 0439-755X
CN 11-1911/B
主办：中国心理学会
　　　中国科学院心理研究所
出版：科学出版社

心理学报 ›› 2012, Vol. 44 ›› Issue (1): 138-141.

• • 上一篇    下一篇

包容多样性的理论建构

康螢儀;周文芝   

  1. (1 南洋理工大学, 新加坡) (2北京师范大学，北京 100875) (3 香港科技大学, 香港)
  • 收稿日期:1900-01-01 修回日期:1900-01-01 出版日期:2012-01-28 发布日期:2012-01-28
  • 通讯作者: 康螢儀

Steps to Building a Good Theory — Embracing Diversity

Ying-yi HONG;Melody Manchi CHAO   

  1. (1 Nanyang Technological University, Singapore) (2 Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China)
    (3 Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, China)
  • Received:1900-01-01 Revised:1900-01-01 Published:2012-01-28 Online:2012-01-28
  • Contact: Ying-yi HONG

PDF (PC)

1325

摘要： Ye和Stam (2012)的评论中将Hong, Chao, Yang和Rosner (2010)标签成逻辑经验主义派, 他们认为这个派别常常“限制”了理论的应用和其本身的价值。为了向读者们提供一个对理论建立过程的更完整的理解, 同时也为了从这些迥异的观点中汲取更多知识, 在这篇文章中, 我们比较 Hong等人(2010)与Ye和Stam (2012)所建议的两种不同方法论之间的差异, 并将其放入更广阔的历史背景下进行论述。我们的主张是：每一种方法论都是有它自己的适用范围和局限性。对研究者来说, 保持在对待不同论点上开明和宽容的态度, 并避免本质化不同方法论间的差异也是十分重要的。

关键词: 理论, 理论心理学, 后经验主义

Abstract: In their commentary, Ye and Stam (2012) label Hong, Chao, Yang, and Rosner (2010) as logical empiricists who “restrict the nature and uses of theory,” and criticize their approach as limited. To provide a fuller understanding of theory building and to reap the knowledge offered by these diverse perspectives, in this rejoinder, we situate the discourse in the larger historical context, and argue that the apparent differences between the approaches proposed by Hong et al. (2010) and Ye and Stam (2012) can be bridged. We contend that each approach has its own scope and related limitations. While it is useful to inform readers of how these limitations might restrict the nature and uses of theory, it is also important to remain open and tolerant toward one another, and to avoid any essentialization of apparent differences.

Key words: theory, theoretical psychology, post-empiricism