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。 In the commentary of Ye and Stam (2012), Hong, Chao, Yang, and Rosner (2010) were labeled as logical empiricists who argue that this faction often “limits” the application of the theory and its own value. In order to provide the reader with a fuller understanding of the theory-building process and to learn more from these disparate perspectives, in this article we compare Hong et al. (2010) with Ye and Stam (2012) ) Suggests the differences between the two different methodologies and places them under the wider historical context. Our claim is that every methodology has its own scope and limitations. It is also important for researchers to maintain an open and tolerant attitude toward different points of view and to avoid the differences between essentially different methodologies.