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