CAJ | 학술논문

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。
Ye화Stam（2012）적평론중장Hong，Chao，Yang화Rosner（2010）표첨성라집경험주의파，타문인위저개파별상상“한제”료이론적응용화기본신적개치。위료향독자문제공일개대이론건립과정적경완정적리해，동시야위료종저사형이적관점중급취경다지식，재저편문장중，아문비교Hong등인（2010）여Ye화Stam（2012）소건의적량충불동방법론지간적차이，병장、기방입경엄활적역사배경하진행논술。아문적주장시：매일충방법론도시유타자기적괄용범위화국한성。대연구자래설，보지재대대불동론점상개명화관용적태도，병피면본질화불동방법론간적차이야시십분중요적。
In their commentary, Ye and Stam （20!2） 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 Stare （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.