one’s school of thought over its alternatives and then compete to gain as much concept space in that school as possible with the goal of private gains from notoriety, position, salary, books, and consulting); it is not to advance scientific truth orto try to make a manager’s job easier. Until we actively try to change that reality— a reality that the powerful have no incentive to alter— no amount of special topic forums will help. So, while one can appreciate Cronin et al.’s (2021) optimistic view that some concerns about the state of theory can be easily addressed by shifting the focus up from units to programs, the real concerns run deeper and the real solutions entail difficulties that are insurmountable in the near future. There is no ready program to get out of this, nor, ironically, any practical theory for doing so—but, isn’t that the point? （个人思想流派与其他流派竞争，以尽可能占据该流派的概念空间，目的是通过知名度、职位、薪水、书籍和咨询获得私人利益）；这不是为了推进科学真理，也不是为了让管理者的工作更轻松。除非我们主动尝试改变这种现实——而这种现实中，有权势者没有改变它的动机——否则再多的专题论坛也无济于事。因此，尽管我们可以赞赏克罗宁等人（2021）的乐观观点，即通过将关注点从单元提升到项目层面，可以轻松解决一些关于理论现状的担忧，但真正的问题更深层次，而真正的解决方案所涉及的困难在不久的将来是无法克服的。没有现成的项目可以摆脱这种困境，具有讽刺意味的是，也没有实用的理论可以做到这一点——但，这难道不正是问题所在吗？

REFERENCES

参考文献

Arend, R. J. 2019. On theory: Brain-mind teleology and the failure in the success of the human use of science. Newcastle upon Tyne, U.K.: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Arend, R. J. 2019. 论理论：脑-心目的论与人类科学运用成功中的失败。英国纽卡斯尔：剑桥学者出版社。

Arend, R. J., Sarooghi, H., & Burkemper, A. 2015. Effectuation as ineffectual? Applying the 3E theory-assessment framework to a proposed new theory of entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Review, 40: 630651.
Arend, R. J., Sarooghi, H., & Burkemper, A. 2015. Effectuation as ineffectual? Applying the 3E theory-assessment framework to a proposed new theory of entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Review, 40: 630651.

Arend, R. J., Sarooghi, H., & Burkemper, A. C. 2016. Effectuation, not being pragmatic or process theorizing, remains ineffectual: Responding to the commentaries. Academy of Management Review, 41: 549556.
Arend, R. J., Sarooghi, H., & Burkemper, A. C. 2016. 效果逻辑（而非务实或过程理论化）仍无效果：对评论的回应。《管理学会评论》，41：549-556。

Byron, K., & Thatcher, S. M. 2016. Editors’ comments: “What I know now that I wish I knew then”—teaching theory and theory building. Academy of Management Review, 41: 18.
拜伦（Byron, K.）和撒切尔（Thatcher, S. M.），2016年。编辑评论：“我现在所知道的，是我当时希望自己知道的”——教学理论与理论构建。《管理学会评论》，41卷：18页。

Cronin, M. A., Stouten, J., & van Knippenberg, D. 2021. The theory crisis in management research: Solving the right problem. Academy of Management Review, 46: 667 683.
Cronin, M. A., Stouten, J., & van Knippenberg, D. 2021. The theory crisis in management research: Solving the right problem. Academy of Management Review, 46: 667 683.

Davis, G. F. 2010. Do theories of organizations progress? Organizational Research Methods, 13: 690709.
戴维斯，G. F. 2010. 组织理论是否在进步？《组织研究方法》，13: 690-709。

Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W. A., & Buckley, M. R. 2012. Theory in the organizational sciences: How will we know it when we see it? Organizational Psychology Review, 2: 94106.
Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W. A., & Buckley, M. R. 2012. 组织科学中的理论：当我们看到它时如何确认？《组织心理学评论》，2：94106.

（注：此处仅对非格式、非专有名词的文本部分进行翻译调整，确保学术引用格式完整，作者、年份、标题、期刊名及卷期页码等保持原样。）

修正说明：根据规则，需严格保留所有格式和专有名词（如期刊名《Organizational Psychology Review》），仅翻译标题中的可译部分。原标题中“how will we know it when we see it?”译为“当我们看到它时如何确认？”更符合学术语境。

Gray, P. H., & Cooper, W. H. 2010. Pursuing failure. Organizational Research Methods, 13: 620643.
Gray, P. H., & Cooper, W. H. 2010. Pursuing failure. Organizational Research Methods, 13: 620643.

Huff, A. S. 2008. Finding the right conversation. In A. S. Huff (Ed.), Designing research for publication: 114. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
赫夫，A. S. 2008. 找到合适的对话。载于A. S. 赫夫（编），《为发表而设计研究》：114。加利福尼亚州洛杉矶：塞奇出版公司。

Kuhn, T. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
库恩，T. 1962. 科学革命的结构。伊利诺伊州芝加哥：芝加哥大学出版社。

McGuire, W. J. 1989. A perspectivist approach to the strategic planning of programmatic scientific research. In B. Gholson (Ed.), Psychology of science: Contributions to metascience: 214245. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
麦圭尔，W. J. 1989. 一种透视主义视角下的计划性科学研究项目战略规划方法。载于B. 戈尔森（编），《科学心理学：对元科学的贡献》：214-245。英国剑桥：剑桥大学出版社。

McKinley, W. 2010. Organizational theory development: Displacement of ends? Organization Studies, 31: 4768.
麦金利，W. 2010. 组织理论的发展：目标的转移？《组织研究》，31: 4768.

Pfeffer, J. 1995. Mortality, reproducibility, and the persistence of styles of theory. Organization Science, 6: 681686.
Pfeffer, J. 1995. 死亡率、可重复性与理论风格的持续性。《组织科学》，6：681-686。

Royce, J. R. 1987. A strategy for developing unifying theory in psychology. In A. W. Staats & L. Mos (Eds.), Annals of theoretical psychology, Vol. 5: 275285. Boston, MA: Springer.
罗伊斯，J. R. 1987. 心理学中发展统一理论的策略。载于 A. W. 斯塔茨与 L. 莫斯（编），《理论心理学年鉴》，第 5 卷：275 - 285。马萨诸塞州波士顿：施普林格。

Van Maanen, J. 1995. Style as theory. Organization Science, 6: 132143.
范·曼嫩，J. 1995. 作为理论的风格。《组织科学》，6：132-143。

Wagner, D. G., & Berger, J. 1985. Do sociological theories grow? American Journal of Sociology, 90: 697728.
瓦格纳，D. G.，& 伯杰，J. 1985. 社会学理论会发展吗？《美国社会学期刊》，90: 697728.

Weismann, M. F. 2009. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act: The failure of the self-regulatory model of corporate governance in the global business environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 88: 615661. 魏斯曼，M. F. 2009. 《反海外腐败法》：全球商业环境下公司治理自我监管模式的失败。《商业伦理杂志》，88: 615-661。

Richard J. Arend University of Southern Maine https://doi.org/AMR_20210251 Richard J. Arend 南缅因大学 https://doi.org/AMR_20210251

Why Theory on “How Theory Fits Together” Benefits Management Scholarship

关于“理论如何整合”的理论为何有利于管理学研究

We presented a theoretical analysis of the knowledge production process in scientific research (Cronin, Stouten, & van Knippenberg, 2021), and, from this, concluded that the proposed remedies to the current problems with theory in management (see Antonakis, 2017; Davis, 2015; Hambrick, 2007; Johnson, Payne, Wang, Asher, & Mandal, 2017; Mathieu, 2016, among many others) are not enough. These remedies focus only on unit theory without considering programmatic theory. “Unit theory” refers to specific models that are proposed and tested empirically, whereas “programmatic theory” refers to the general knowledge on a topic that is derived from the collection of verified unit theories. Thus, unit theories make specific predictions about the various aspects of some topic, and collectively these justify what management science can claim to be true in relation to the topic. It is why unit theories are explicitly proposed and tested in research papers while programmatic theory becomes implicitly shared among those in the community who research a topic. Thus, while it is important to have clearly defined and rigorously tested unit theory, it is equally important to be mindful of how unit theories are structured together. Our key insight in the Cronin et al. (2021) paper was, therefore, about the dynamics in this knowledge production system. Thinking about programmatic theory amounts to shifting the focus of current management thinking from how empirical work verifies unit theory to how unit theory integrates into coherent programmatic theory. When current solutions only address the former, the system remains broken. 我们对科学研究中的知识生产过程进行了理论分析（Cronin, Stouten, & van Knippenberg, 2021），并据此得出结论：针对当前管理学理论问题提出的补救措施（见Antonakis, 2017；Davis, 2015；Hambrick, 2007；Johnson, Payne, Wang, Asher, & Mandal, 2017；Mathieu, 2016等众多学者的研究）并不充分。这些补救措施仅关注单元理论，而未考虑程序化理论。“单元理论”指的是被提出并通过实证检验的特定模型，而“程序化理论”指的是从已验证的单元理论集合中推导出来的关于某一主题的一般性知识。因此，单元理论对某一主题的各个方面做出具体预测，而这些预测共同支撑了管理科学在该主题上能够声称的真理。这就是为什么单元理论在研究论文中会被明确提出和检验，而程序化理论则在研究该主题的学者群体中被默认共享。因此，虽然清晰界定和严格检验单元理论很重要，但同样重要的是要注意单元理论是如何整合在一起的。因此，我们在Cronin等人（2021）的论文中的关键见解是关于这一知识生产系统中的动态关系。思考程序化理论相当于将当前管理学思维的焦点从实证研究如何验证单元理论，转变为单元理论如何整合为连贯的程序化理论。当当前的解决方案仅解决前者时，整个系统仍然是不完善的。

Arend’s (2022) critique of our paper claimed that our knowledge production process model is not a theory, and that ambiguity in how others discuss programmatic theory makes it neither a useful concept nor an anchor for solving the problems identified with theory in management. He said the concerns we identified drawing on the current discourse around management theory— concerns with the amount of theory, the role of novelty, and the lack of practicality—are actually of little concern, and that the real concern is theory quality and management scholars’ role in it. He concluded that there exists “no ready program to get out ofthis,” and that “the real concerns run deeper and the real solutions entail difficulties that are insurmountable in the near future.” We will own that there may be some confusion as to the aims in the Cronin et al. (2021) paper, as well as the boundaries around the concept of programmatic theory. For example, Arend mistakes our claim that theorists and reviewers should think about how unit theories fit with other unit theories as the imposition of a paradigm, which is not at all what we intended. Yet, to say there is no solution to the problems in our field seems more a proclamation to relinquish the discussion than a rebuttal to our theory. As such, it seems the core problem is clarity, so we will focus on clarifying what our knowledge production model actually says, and, in doing so, we will respond to Arend’s (addressable) concerns. 阿伦德（2022）对我们论文的批评称，我们的知识生产过程模型并非一种理论，并且由于他人对“纲领性理论”的讨论存在歧义，这一概念既无实用价值，也无法成为解决管理学中理论相关问题的锚点。他认为，我们基于当前管理学理论讨论提出的担忧——即对理论数量的关注、对创新性的作用的关注以及对实用性缺失的关注——实际上并不值得担忧，真正的担忧在于理论质量以及管理学学者在其中的角色。他总结称，“没有现成的方案可以摆脱这种困境”，并且“真正的问题更为深刻，而真正的解决方案在短期内难以克服”。我们承认，科罗宁等人（2021）的论文中对目标的阐述可能存在一些混淆，以及“纲领性理论”这一概念的边界也可能存在模糊之处。例如，阿伦德将我们提出的“理论家与评审者应思考单元理论如何与其他单元理论相契合”的主张误认为是范式的强加，而这完全不是我们的本意。然而，声称我们领域的问题无法解决，更像是一种放弃讨论的宣言，而非对我们理论的反驳。因此，核心问题似乎在于“清晰度”，所以我们将专注于澄清我们的知识生产模型究竟阐述了什么，并且通过这样做，回应阿伦德（可回应）的关切。

The fundamental concern over whether or not we have a testable theory is best addressed by formalizing the knowledge production process presented in our original work. The causal relationships in our original depiction can be recast as a dynamic system (Cronin & Vancouver, 2019; Sterman, 2000; Sterman, Oliva, Linderman, & Bendoly, 2015). We do this in Figure 1, where the rectangles represent stocks that hold and accumulate knowledge (in the form of supported hypotheses, unit theories, and programmatic theories) that our science creates. Such stocks are filled or emptied by processes called flows, represented by arrows with hourglass shapes (e.g., to add to the stock of unit theory, one builds a model out of supported hypotheses; to take away from that stock, one removes less accurate or incorrect unit theories).1 The curved arrows represent causal influence processes (e.g., the current stock of programmatic theories limits which research questions are important) that can create feedback loops within the system (e.g., the more unit theories you have in the stock, the easier to justify faulty hypotheses, thus shutting the “rejection” outflow). All of the causal relationships modeled are testable. 我们是否拥有可检验理论这一根本关切，最好通过将我们原始研究中呈现的知识生产过程形式化来解决。我们原始描述中的因果关系可重塑为动态系统（Cronin & Vancouver, 2019；Sterman, 2000；Sterman, Oliva, Linderman, & Bendoly, 2015）。我们在图1中进行了这一重塑，其中矩形代表积累知识（以得到支持的假设、单元理论和纲领性理论的形式）的存量，这些知识由我们的科学创造。这类存量通过被称为“流”的过程填充或清空，“流”由带有沙漏形状的箭头表示（例如，为了增加单元理论的存量，人们用得到支持的假设构建模型；为了减少该存量，人们移除准确性较低或错误的单元理论）。1 弯曲箭头代表因果影响过程（例如，当前纲领性理论的存量限制了哪些研究问题是重要的），这些过程可能在系统内形成反馈循环（例如，存量中的单元理论越多，就越容易为错误假设辩护，从而关闭“拒绝”这一流出）。所有被建模的因果关系都是可检验的。

A programmatic theory is the justified true knowledge about a topic at a point in time, so the stock of programmatic theories represents the collection of topics that management scholars study and understand. Nevertheless, programmatic theory serves many different functions in the knowledge production system (Figure 1), which is why we and others (e.g., Davis, 2015; Gray & Cooper, 2010; Huff, 2008; Wagner & Berger, 1985) can talk about programmatic theory in different ways—the difference is in what programmatic theory does. Yet, the critical contribution of our theory is not about any specific component of this system, it is about the dynamics of this system as a whole. Our model is a normative theory for how the system should work. 一种程序性理论是在特定时间点上关于某个主题的合理真实知识，因此程序性理论的存量代表了管理学者所研究和理解的主题集合。尽管如此，程序性理论在知识生产系统（图1）中发挥着许多不同的功能，这就是为什么我们和其他人（例如，Davis, 2015；Gray & Cooper, 2010；Huff, 2008；Wagner & Berger, 1985）可以从不同角度谈论程序性理论——区别在于程序性理论的作用。然而，我们理论的关键贡献不在于该系统的任何特定组成部分，而在于整个系统的动态性。我们的模型是一个关于该系统应如何运作的规范性理论。

The first and most important claim is that coherent programmatic theory, not unit theory, drives the system. Anyone seeking to engage with an organizational problem has to start by classifying what the problem is about, and then using that classification to identify what is currently known. What is currently known is programmatic theory. Every research question is oriented to the constructs that have accumulated within the stock of programmatic theory (Kessler, 2017). That research question may test, merge, refine, or elaborate unit theory, but the entire reason to do so relates to how and why doing so will advance what is known more broadly—the programmatic theory. The verified unit theories lead to a coherent understanding of the settled science when the unit theories make sense collectively. When this is true, the programmatic theory on a topic provides useful and usable frameworks that we teach to students as well as the knowledge that we give to managers. Programmatic theory as the aim of scientific inquiry has been discussed since Lakatos (1970), and so it does not seem controversial to suggest that all our empirical tests and unit theory propositions should be aimed at developing a coherent understanding of what is true about some topic. 第一个也是最重要的主张是，驱动该系统的是连贯的程序性理论，而非单元理论。任何试图解决组织问题的人都必须首先对问题的性质进行分类，然后利用这种分类来确定当前已知的内容。当前已知的内容就是程序性理论。每个研究问题都针对在程序性理论储备中积累起来的构念（Kessler，2017）。这个研究问题可能会检验、合并、完善或阐述单元理论，但进行这些工作的全部原因都与如何以及为何这样做能更广泛地推进我们所了解的内容——即程序性理论——有关。当单元理论能够共同解释时，经过验证的单元理论会带来对既定科学的连贯理解。当这一点成立时，某个主题的程序性理论会提供有用且可应用的框架，我们会将这些框架传授给学生，也会将相关知识提供给管理者。自拉卡托斯（1970）以来，将程序性理论作为科学探究的目标一直是讨论的话题，因此，认为我们所有的实证检验和单元理论命题都应旨在发展对某个主题真实情况的连贯理解，这似乎并不存在争议。

FIGURE 1 A Stock and Flow Model of the Knowledge Production System
图1 知识生产系统的存量-流量模型

. .

Clarifying that programmatic theory—and not unit theory—is the goal of scholarship expands the discussion about the use oftheory. Now it centers on how scientists reconcile theory with data; we think it should include how theories are reconciled with one another. It means that, in addition to understanding how to improve the production and refinement of a unit theory, we also need to understand how to design unit theories so that they can be integrated into coherent and parsimonious programmatic theory. Our work, therefore, complements writing on construct clarity (Suddaby, 2010), theory-method alignment (Aguinis & Vandenberg, 2014), and theory testing (Edwards & Berry, 2010). Such work is about construction processes; ours is about architectural processes (the right side of Figure 1). Construction and architectural processes are different. Our theory says that fixing one does not fix the other, and both need to be considered. 明确指出，学术研究的目标是理论纲领而非单元理论，这一观点拓展了关于理论运用的讨论。现在，讨论的核心在于科学家如何调和理论与数据；我们认为，这还应包括理论之间的调和方式。这意味着，除了理解如何改进单元理论的构建与完善外，我们还需了解如何设计单元理论，使其能够整合为连贯且简约的理论纲领。因此，我们的研究补充了关于构念清晰度（Suddaby, 2010）、理论-方法一致性（Aguinis & Vandenberg, 2014）以及理论检验（Edwards & Berry, 2010）的相关研究。这类工作关注的是构建过程，而我们的研究关注的是架构过程（如图1右侧所示）。构建过程与架构过程截然不同。我们的理论认为，修正其中一个过程并不意味着修正另一个过程，两者都需要被考虑。

For example, the “too much theory” critique (Antonakis, 2017; Hambrick, 2007; Miller, 2007) actually means that there are too many disconnected unit theories, which is the real problem. Building and testing unit theories is undermined when you can find a stray unit theory to explain any hypothesis—it makes it support flawed hypotheses or explain false positives. Disconnected unit theories are also harder to pit against each other to reveal the superior unit theory. Current solutions advocate decreasing the production of unit theory (Greenwald & Pratkanis, 1988; Hambrick, 2007; Mathieu, 2016), which means shutting the “building” inflow. Yet, shutting an inflow to decrease the amount of theory is like closing a faucet to drain a tub. To reduce the oversupply of unit theories, we need to increase the outflows from the unit theory stock. Some of this comes from comparing unit theories and eliminating the weaker ones (the comparison outflow in Figure 1), but this does not help disconnectedness. Disconnectedness is remedied by integration, which forces people to reconcile different unit theories on the same topic. Importantly, integration acts as an outflow—it lessens the “amount” of unit theory by chunking (in the cognitive sense, see Gobet et al., 2001) multiple unit theories into single structures of programmatic theory. Chunking makes it possible to process a lot of information—it is why people can follow what is going on in Game of Thrones despite the magnitude of characters and plotlines. Integration brings parsimony, and highlights the importance of judging parsimony at the level of programmatic theory, not just the unit theory. What’s the test? We said that integration happens through reviews—the clarity and impact of a line of work will be increased by the number of reviews published—and such a proposition has precedent (McMahan & McFarland, 2021). 例如，“理论过多”的批评（Antonakis, 2017；Hambrick, 2007；Miller, 2007）实际上指的是存在过多相互孤立的单元理论，这才是真正的问题所在。当你能找到一个孤立的单元理论来解释任何假设时，构建和检验单元理论的工作就会受到破坏——这会使它支持有缺陷的假设或解释假阳性结果。孤立的单元理论也更难相互比较以揭示更优的单元理论。当前的解决方案主张减少单元理论的产出（Greenwald & Pratkanis, 1988；Hambrick, 2007；Mathieu, 2016），这意味着切断“构建”的流入。然而，切断流入以减少理论总量，就像关闭水龙头来排空浴缸一样。为了减少单元理论的过度供应，我们需要增加单元理论库存的流出。其中一部分来自比较单元理论并淘汰较弱的理论（图1中的比较流出），但这并不能解决孤立问题。孤立问题需要通过整合来解决，整合迫使人们调和同一主题下的不同单元理论。重要的是，整合起到了流出的作用——通过认知意义上的“组块化”（见Gobet等人，2001）将多个单元理论整合成单一的程序性理论结构，从而减少单元理论的“数量”。组块化使得处理大量信息成为可能——这就是为什么尽管《权力的游戏》中角色和情节线众多，人们仍然能够理解剧情发展的原因。整合带来了简约性，并强调了在程序性理论层面而非仅在单元理论层面判断简约性的重要性。检验方法是什么？我们认为整合是通过综述实现的——一项研究工作的清晰度和影响力会随着发表的综述数量增加而提升——并且这一观点已有先例（McMahan & McFarland, 2021）。

Many write about the problems created by overvaluing novelty (Mathieu, 2016; Pillutla & Thau, 2013), yet our model shows that we actually need some kind of novelty to prevent bloating programmatic theory with obvious relationships (the balancing loop in Figure 1). Again, if we are trying to make the world understandable to managers and researchers with limited cognitive capacity, chunking still has its limits. In the same way that good writing is not encumbered by excessive descriptive detail, good programmatic theory needs to not lose the insight amid a litany of true but obvious unit theories. Once again, construction processes such as rigorous testing do not fix this issue, as there are infinite mundane unit theories that can be verified. Our theory suggests that novelty should be understood in reference to a unit theory’s ability to contribute to integration and coherence in programmatic theory, not to the unit theory in isolation. Understanding novelty from the perspective of integration and coherence in programmatic theory leads to more long-term impactful research than understanding novelty from the perspective of stand-alone unit theory (the usual prescription; see Bergh, 2003; Corley & Gioia, 2011; Kilduff, 2006). 许多人都在探讨过度重视新颖性所带来的问题（Mathieu, 2016；Pillutla & Thau, 2013），但我们的模型表明，实际上我们需要某种程度的新颖性来避免用明显的关系（图1中的平衡回路）使程序化理论膨胀。同样，如果我们试图让认知能力有限的管理者和研究人员理解这个世界，分块（chunking）仍然存在局限性。就像好的写作不会被过多的描述性细节所困扰一样，好的程序化理论也需要在一系列真实但明显的单元理论中不失其洞察力。再一次，严格测试等构建过程并不能解决这个问题，因为存在无限多可以验证的平凡单元理论。我们的理论认为，新颖性应该参照单元理论对程序化理论的整合与连贯性的贡献能力来理解，而不是孤立地看待单元理论。从程序化理论的整合与连贯性角度理解新颖性，会比从独立单元理论的角度理解新颖性（通常的建议；见Bergh, 2003；Corley & Gioia, 2011；Kilduff, 2006）带来更具长期影响力的研究。

Thinking about how programmatic theory guides the knowledge production system should alter how the field evaluates what it means for theory to be practical (Ashkanasy, 2016; Tourish, 2020; Vermeulen, 2005). Our theory says that what is practical to the manager right now is not necessarily relevant for building useful and usable knowledge. Theorizing goes beyond the mere answering of acute managerial problems. Much of our science need not be directly applicable to managers anyway (e.g., level of analysis issues, data gathering methods) because it improves how scholars do their work; therefore, practicality applies to more than just what the manager deals with at this moment. Our proposition, then, is that programmatic theory can help clarify what managers might need to know, though they do not yet realize it, and that we should not limit our scholarly investigation to only what we see right now. We suppose this is less testable than it is logical, but that makes it no less important if we want to be a science that leads rather than lags (Kilduff, 2006). 思考一下，程序化理论如何指导知识生产系统，应该会改变该领域对理论实用性的评估方式（Ashkanasy, 2016; Tourish, 2020; Vermeulen, 2005）。我们的理论认为，目前对管理者而言实用的东西，未必对构建有用且可用的知识有帮助。理论构建不仅仅是解决紧急的管理问题。我们的许多科学研究（例如分析层面问题、数据收集方法）无论如何都不必直接适用于管理者，因为它能改进学者的研究工作；因此，实用性不仅仅适用于管理者此刻处理的事务。因此，我们的主张是，程序化理论可以帮助明确管理者可能需要了解但尚未意识到的内容，并且我们不应将学术研究局限于我们当下所见的事物。我们认为这一主张虽然逻辑性强，但可检验性较弱，不过如果我们希望成为引领而非滞后的科学，这一点就同样重要（Kilduff, 2006）。

Our propositions about how and why to focus on programmatic theory as the desired end goal ofscience are intended to increase the quality ofknowledge production—not just forunit theorybut empirical work as well. These suggestions are actually rather modest; they simply require shifting our attention from the left ofour Figure 1 to the right. It requires changinghabits and practices in how we teach, write, and review theory, and then testing and refining these new practices to improve our model. It does not require social upheaval or raging against the powerful elites (whomever they are); it is modest and doable. And, yeah, that is the point. 我们关于为何以及如何将程序化理论作为科学期望的最终目标的主张，旨在提高知识生产的质量——不仅是为了单元理论，也是为了实证研究。这些建议实际上相当温和；它们只需要我们将注意力从图1的左侧转移到右侧。它需要改变我们在教学、撰写和评审理论时的习惯和做法，然后测试和改进这些新做法以完善我们的模型。它不需要社会动荡或对有权势的精英（无论他们是谁）的愤怒反抗；它是温和且可行的。而且，是的，这就是重点。

REFERENCES

参考文献

Aguinis, H., & Vandenberg, R. J. 2014. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure: Improving research quality before data collection. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1: 569595.
阿吉尼丝（Aguinis, H.）和范登伯格（Vandenberg, R. J.），2014年。预防胜于治疗：在数据收集前提高研究质量。《组织心理学与组织行为年度评论》，1：569595。

Antonakis, J. 2017. On doing better science: From thrill of discovery to policy implications. Leadership Quarterly, 28: 521.
安东纳基斯，J. 2017. 论开展更高质量的科学研究：从发现的喜悦到政策启示。《领导力季刊》，28：521。

Arend, R. J. 2022. We are crisis: Runtime errors in programmatic theory. Academy of Management Review, 47: 331333.
Arend, R. J. 2022. 我们正处于危机之中：程序化理论中的运行时错误。《管理学会评论》，47：331-333。

Ashkanasy, N. M. 2016. Why we need theory in the organization sciences. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37: 11261131.
Ashkanasy, N. M. 2016. 为何组织科学需要理论。《组织行为学杂志》，37：1126-1131。

Bergh, D. D. 2003. Thinking strategically about contribution. Academy of Management Journal, 46: 135136.
Bergh, D. D. 2003. Thinking strategically about contribution. Academy of Management Journal, 46: 135136.

Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. 2011. Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 36: 1232.
科利（Corley, K. G.）和乔亚（Gioia, D. A.）. 2011. 构建关于理论构建的理论：理论贡献的构成要素是什么？《管理学会评论》，36: 1232.

Cronin, M. A., Stouten, J., & van Knippenberg, D. 2021. The theory crisis in management research: Solving the right problem. Academy of Management Review, 46: 667 683.
Cronin, M. A., Stouten, J., & van Knippenberg, D. 2021. The theory crisis in management research: Solving the right problem. Academy of Management Review, 46: 667–683.

Cronin, M. A., & Vancouver, J. B. 2019. The only constant is change: Expanding theory by incorporating dynamic properties into one’s models. In S. Humphrey & J. L. Le Breton (Eds.), Handbook of multilevel theory, measurement, and analysis: 89114. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Cronin, M. A., & Vancouver, J. B. 2019. The only constant is change: Expanding theory by incorporating dynamic properties into one’s models. In S. Humphrey & J. L. Le Breton (Eds.), Handbook of multilevel theory, measurement, and analysis: 89114. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Davis, G. F. 2015. Editorial essay: What is organizational research for? Administrative Science Quarterly, 60: 179188.
戴维斯，G. F. 2015. 社论文章：组织研究的目的是什么？《行政科学季刊》，60：179 - 188。

Edwards, J. R., & Berry, J. W. 2010. The presence of something or the absence of nothing: Increasing theoretical precision in management research. Organizational Research Methods, 13: 668689.
爱德华兹，J. R.，& 贝里，J. W. 2010. 存在某物或不存在虚无：提高管理研究的理论精确性。《组织研究方法》，13：668-689。

Gobet, F., Lane, P. C. R., Croker, S., Cheng, P. C.-H., Jones, G., Oliver, I., & Pine, J. M. 2001. Chunking mechanisms in human learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5: 236243.
戈贝尔（Gobet, F.）、莱恩（Lane, P. C. R.）、克罗克（Croker, S.）、程（Cheng, P. C.-H.）、琼斯（Jones, G.）、奥利弗（Oliver, I.）和派恩（Pine, J. M.）。2001年。人类学习中的组块机制。《认知科学趋势》，5: 236-243。

Gray, P. H., & Cooper, W. H. 2010. Pursuing failure. Organizational Research Methods, 13: 620643.
Gray, P. H., & Cooper, W. H. 2010. 追求失败. Organizational Research Methods, 13: 620643.

Greenwald, A. G., & Pratkanis, A. R. 1988. On the use of “theory” and the usefulness of theory. Psychological Review, 95: 575579.
格林沃尔德，A. G.，& 普拉特坎尼斯，A. R. 1988. 论“理论”的运用与理论的有用性。《心理评论》，95：575-579.

Hambrick, D. C. 2007. The field of management’s devotion to theory: Too much of a good thing? Academy of Management Journal, 50: 13461352.
Hambrick, D. C. 2007. 管理学领域对理论的执着：好事过头了吗？《管理学会期刊》，50：1346-1352.

Huff, A. S. 2008. Designing research for publication. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Huff, A. S. 2008. 设计用于发表的研究。洛杉矶，加利福尼亚州：SAGE。

Johnson, V. E., Payne, R. D., Wang, T., Asher, A., & Mandal, S. 2017. On the reproducibility of psychological science. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 112: 110.
Johnson, V. E., Payne, R. D., Wang, T., Asher, A., & Mandal, S. 2017. On the reproducibility of psychological science. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 112: 110.

Kessler, E. H. 2017. Why do management theories say what they do? Toward a management M-theory. Group & Organization Management, 42: 598629.
Kessler, E. H. 2017. 为什么管理理论会说它们所说的内容？迈向管理M理论。《群体与组织管理》，42: 598-629.

Kilduff, M. 2006. Editor’s comments: Publishing theory. Academy of Management Review, 31: 252255.
Kilduff, M. 2006. 编辑评论：出版理论。《管理学会评论》，31：252-255。

Lakatos, I. 1970. Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programs. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge: 205 259. New York, NY: Springer.
拉卡托斯，I. 1970. 证伪与科学研究纲领方法论。载于I. 拉卡托斯与A. 马斯格雷夫（编），《批评与知识的增长》：205-259。纽约，纽约州：施普林格出版社。

Mathieu, J. E. 2016. The problem with [in] management theory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37: 11321141.
Mathieu, J. E. 2016. The problem with [in] management theory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37: 11321141.

McMahan, P., & McFarland, D. 2021. Creative destruction: The structural consequences of scientific curation. American Sociological Review, 86: 341371.
麦克马汉（McMahan），P.，& 麦克法兰（McFarland），D. 2021. 创造性破坏：科学策展的结构性后果。《美国社会学期刊》，86: 341371.

Miller, D. 2007. Paradigm prison, or in praise of atheoretic research. Strategic Organization, 5: 177184.
米勒，D. 2007. 范式之囚，或论无理论研究的价值。《战略组织》，5: 177-184。

Pillutla, M. M., & Thau, S. 2013. Organizational sciences’ obsession with “that’s interesting!” Organizational Psychology Review, 3: 187194.
Pillutla, M. M., & Thau, S. 2013. Organizational sciences’ obsession with “that’s interesting!” Organizational Psychology Review, 3: 187194.

Sterman, J. D. 2000. Business dynamics. New York, NY: Irwin/McGraw Hill.
斯特曼，J. D. 2000. 商业动态学。纽约，纽约州：欧文/麦格劳-希尔。

Sterman, J., Oliva, R., Linderman, K. W., & Bendoly, E. 2015. System dynamics perspectives and modeling opportunities for research in operations management. Journal of Operations Management, 39: 15.
斯特尔曼（Sterman, J.）、奥利瓦（Oliva, R.）、林德曼（Linderman, K. W.）和本多利（Bendoly, E.）。2015年。运营管理研究的系统动力学视角与建模机遇。《运营管理杂志》，39（期）：15。

Suddaby, R. 2010. Editor’s comments: Construct clarity in theories of management and organization. Academy of Management Review, 35: 346357.
萨达比，R. 2010. 编辑评论：构建管理与组织理论的清晰度。《管理学会评论》，35：346-357。

Tourish, D. 2020. The triumph of nonsense in management studies. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 19: 99109.
Tourish, D. 2020. The triumph of nonsense in management studies. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 19: 99109.

Vermeulen, F. 2005. On rigor and relevance: Fostering dialectic progress in management research. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 978982.
Vermeulen, F. 2005. 论严谨性与相关性：促进管理研究中的辩证进步。《管理学会期刊》，48：978982。

Wagner, D. G., & Berger, J. 1985. Do sociological theories grow? American Journal of Sociology, 90: 697728. 瓦格纳，D. G.，& 伯杰，J. 1985. 社会学理论会发展吗？《美国社会学期刊》，90：697-728.

Matthew A. Cronin George Mason University 马修·A·克罗宁 乔治梅森大学

Jeroen Stouten KU Leuven University Jeroen Stouten 比利时鲁汶大学

Daan van Knippenberg Drexel University https://doi.org/AMR_20210517 Daan van Knippenberg 德雷塞尔大学 https://doi.org/AMR_20210517

Copyright of Academy of Management Review is the property of Academy of Management and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. 《管理学会评论》的版权归管理学会所有，未经版权所有者明确许可，其内容不得复制、通过电子邮件发送至多个网站或发布到邮件列表。不过，用户可打印、下载或通过电子邮件发送文章供个人使用。