RESEARCH MOVEMENTS AND THEORIZING DYNAMICS IN MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION STUDIES
管理与组织研究中的研究动态与理论化动态
STEWART CLEGG University of Technology Sydney 斯图尔特·克莱格 悉尼科技大学
MIGUEL PINA E CUNHA Nova School of Business and Economics 米格尔·皮纳·埃·库尼亚 新经济与商学院
MARCO BERTI University of Technology Sydney MARCO BERTI 悉尼科技大学
In this article, we propose a conceptual model of the processes that regulate theory selection and retention in management and organization studies. Considering the many sources of theoretical variety that characterize our field, what requires explanation is both the proliferation of theories as well as the decline of some schools of thought. We argue that research programs (ordered sequences of theories) lose momentum when the research movements that develop and maintain them fail to attend to some organizing priorities. By conceptualizing theorizing as form of organizing, we describe how research movements dynamically arrange sociomaterial elements (grammars, thought styles, material artifacts, and empirical craft), arguing that their sustainability depends on their capacity effectively to navigate the paradoxical tensions that derive from these organizing efforts. 在本文中，我们提出了一个概念模型，用于解释管理与组织研究中理论选择和留存的过程。考虑到我们这一领域存在众多理论多样性的来源，需要解释的是理论的激增以及某些思想流派的衰落。我们认为，当发展和维护研究项目的研究运动未能关注某些组织优先事项时，这些研究项目（即理论的有序序列）就会失去动力。通过将理论化概念化为一种组织形式，我们描述了研究运动如何动态地安排社会物质要素（语法、思维风格、物质人工制品和实证技艺），并认为它们的可持续性取决于其有效应对这些组织努力所产生的矛盾张力的能力。
We cannot improve the theorizing process until we describe it more explicitly. 在我们更明确地描述理论化过程之前，我们无法改进它。
—Weick (1989: 516) —Weick (1989: 516)
No canon, no collective, no institution can go outside itself to a world of independent objects for criteria of knowledge, since there is no other way except by its own rules to describe what’s being done with regard to knowledge. 没有经典（canon）、没有集体、没有机构能够脱离自身去一个独立对象的世界中寻找知识的标准，因为除了通过自身规则来描述与知识相关的行为外，不存在其他方式。
—McHugh (1970: 335) —McHugh (1970: 335)
Theory building has been described as an evolutionary process including variation, selection, and retention (Weick, 1989). In management and organization studies (hereafter, “MOS”) much attention has been given to “variation,” which has been attributed to a number of factors. In MOS, there are multiple paradigms grounding different theories (Burell & Morgan, 1979; Gioia & Pitre, 1990; Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2011) 理论构建被描述为一个包含变异、选择和保留的进化过程（Weick，1989）。在管理与组织研究（以下简称“MOS”）中，“变异”受到了广泛关注，其原因被归因于多种因素。在MOS中，存在多种范式为不同的理论提供基础（Burell & Morgan，1979；Gioia & Pitre，1990；Sandberg & Tsoukas，2011）
as well as frequent borrowing from other disciplines (Oswick, Fleming, & Hanlon, 2011). The term “theory” is seen as part of the problem, affording multiple meanings (Åbend, 2008; Suddaby, 2014). The popularity of various theories and their meanings, in turn, are seen to be unduly influenced by fads and fashions (Abrahamson, 1991; Bort & Kieser, 2011). In this paper, we propose understanding theory as constituted by texts formulating an abstract statement of relations in an argument that is engaged with competing theories and that addresses empirical practices. 以及频繁借鉴其他学科（Oswick, Fleming, & Hanlon, 2011）。“理论”这一术语被视为问题的一部分，具有多种含义（Åbend, 2008; Suddaby, 2014）。反过来，各种理论及其含义的流行程度被认为受到潮流和时尚的不当影响（Abrahamson, 1991; Bort & Kieser, 2011）。在本文中，我们主张将理论理解为由文本构成，这些文本在一个论证中阐述关系的抽象陈述，该论证涉及相互竞争的理论并针对经验实践。
We know from the philosophy of science that research programs (organized sequences of theories) are resistant to straightforward empirical refutation, since their conceptual “hard core” is protected by a belt of “expendable” auxiliary hypotheses, as Lakatos (1978) argued, adding to Popper’s (1959) falsifiability criterion. Additionally, there have to be rival theories developed that can provide better explanation of the contested issues. Representing the field of theory as a competition in which, depending on the mix of criteria, only the fittest survive has a clear Darwinian echo. Less clear is what determines theory retention: why do certain theoretical perspectives persist and evolve, while others lose traction, especially given that the assumptions bounding each theory (Bacharach, 1989) vary across alternative paradigms and disciplines? While theories can be “problematized’ (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2011) by challenging their postulates, this operation is always framed from within a set of epistemological and ideological orientations. In science, a plurality of theory entails a plurality of rival hard cores to protect in the tournament of ideas, which occur as revolutionary moments marked by incommensurable paradigms (Kuhn, 1962/1970). 我们从科学哲学中了解到，研究纲领（有组织的理论序列）不易受到直接的经验证伪，正如拉卡托斯（1978）所论证的，其概念上的“硬核”受到“可消耗”辅助假设带的保护，这补充了波普尔（1959）的可证伪性标准。此外，还需要发展出能够更好解释争议问题的竞争理论。将理论领域表征为一场竞争，在这场竞争中，根据标准的混合情况，只有最适者生存，这明显带有达尔文主义的回响。不太明确的是，是什么决定了理论的保留：为什么某些理论视角会持续并发展，而另一些则失去影响力，特别是考虑到每个理论的假设（巴卡拉奇，1989）在不同的范式和学科中有所不同？虽然理论可以通过挑战其假设而被“问题化”（阿尔维森 & 桑德伯格，2011），但这种操作总是在一组认识论和意识形态取向的框架内进行。在科学中，理论的多元性意味着在思想的竞争中需要保护多元的硬核，这种竞争会以不可通约的范式为标志的革命性时刻出现（库恩，1962/1970）。
Kuhn’s (1962/1970) ideas, when translated into MOS by Burrell and Morgan (1979), lost their evolutionary momentum, becoming atemporal as the incommensurability of rival paradigms was stressed in a move to make space for more plural approaches. The subsequent development of MOS in the past 40 years attests to a great degree of plurality across the field. Various voices lament the consequences of excessive theoretical proliferation that has subsequently occurred in MOS (Davis, 2010; Grandori, 2001; Pfeffer, 2007). Nonetheless, our discipline is a dynamic field, which transforms as the vitality and influence of different theoretical approaches waxes and wanes. Once leading approaches, such as contingency theory (Burns & Stalker, 1961; Donaldson, 2001; Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967), lose influence, despite attempts at revival (Qiu, Donaldson, & Luo, 2012). Theories’ vitality and capacity to attract scholarly interest decline with the lack of evolution in new directions. Over the past 40 years contingency, population ecology and institutional theories jostled for dominance, with institutional theory gaining current ascendancy. These theories not only strive to represent reality but also performatively shape practices (D’Adderio & Pollock, 2014; Garud, Gehman, & Tharchen, 2018; Marti & Gond, 2018). Diverse theories organize phenomena differently and thus are powerful in their effects (Foucault, 1977, 1980). 库恩（1962/1970）的思想在伯勒尔和摩根（1979）将其转化为组织研究（MOS）时，失去了其进化动力，变得无时间性，因为对手范式的不可通约性被强调，以腾出空间容纳更多多元方法。过去40年中组织研究的后续发展证明了该领域存在高度的多元性。有多种声音哀叹组织研究中随后出现的过度理论增殖的后果（戴维斯，2010；格兰多里，2001；费弗，2007）。尽管如此，我们的学科是一个动态领域，随着不同理论方法的生命力和影响力此消彼长而不断演变。曾经占主导地位的方法，如权变理论（伯恩斯和斯塔克，1961；唐纳德森，2001；劳伦斯和洛希，1967），尽管有人试图复兴（邱、唐纳德森和罗，2012），但其影响力仍在下降。理论的生命力和吸引学术兴趣的能力随着新方向缺乏演进而减弱。在过去40年中，权变理论、种群生态学理论和制度理论争夺主导地位，其中制度理论目前占据上风。这些理论不仅力求表征现实，还具有塑造实践的能动性（达德里奥和波洛克，2014；加鲁德、格曼和塔尔琴，2018；马尔蒂和贡德，2018）。不同的理论以不同方式组织现象，因此具有强大的影响力（福柯，1977，1980）。
The research question we pose is why do some MOS theories decline and others persist, and what are the dynamics of theorizing by which some theories lose momentum, exhausting their vitality and capacity to contribute to the practice of theory? The activity of theorizing (D’Adderio, Glaser, & Pollock, 2019; Weick, 1995b) is a social process, implicating power struggles, organizing and informal practices (Frickel & Gross, 2005; Kuhn, 1962/1970; Lamont, 2009), as well as tacit knowledge (Michailova, Piekkari, Plakoyiannaki, Ritvala, Mihailova, & Salmi, 2014). The practice of theorizing entails the creation of instruments for data collection, creating artifacts to be analyzed though a formal theoretical language (Hambrick, 2007; Pfeffer, 2014; van Maanen, 1989). These practices, when displayed in public, become objects for promotion and discussion in journals, faculties, and conferences. We build on Lakatos’s (1970) idea that theories should be considered as components of a research program, sharing a common “hard core” of principles that cannot be renounced without abandoning the program altogether. Research programs exclusively concerned with exploiting their conceptual hard core degenerate, while vital ones carefully manage to develop and extend the core (Lakatos, 1970, 1978). 我们提出的研究问题是：为什么有些组织理论（MOS）会衰落，而另一些则能持续存在？以及，在某些理论失去动力、耗尽其活力并丧失对理论实践贡献能力的过程中，理论化的动态机制是什么？理论化活动（D’Adderio, Glaser, & Pollock, 2019；Weick, 1995b）是一个社会过程，涉及权力斗争、正式与非正式实践（Frickel & Gross, 2005；Kuhn, 1962/1970；Lamont, 2009）以及隐性知识（Michailova, Piekkari, Plakoyiannaki, Ritvala, Mihailova, & Salmi, 2014）。理论化实践包括创建数据收集工具，通过正式理论语言构建可供分析的人工制品（Hambrick, 2007；Pfeffer, 2014；van Maanen, 1989）。这些实践在公开场合展示时，会成为期刊、院系和会议中被推广和讨论的对象。我们借鉴拉卡托斯（Lakatos, 1970）的观点，认为理论应被视为研究纲领的组成部分，共享一个不可放弃的“硬核”原则体系，一旦放弃该硬核，整个研究纲领就不复存在。仅专注于开发其概念硬核的研究纲领会退化，而充满活力的研究纲领会精心管理以发展和扩展其核心（Lakatos, 1970, 1978）。
We expand this perspective by considering the role of “research movements,” the sociomaterial assemblages constituted and maintained through organized collective action (Frickel & Gross, 2005) that produce and support research programs. We thus consider theorizing practices as organizing not just ideas, observations, and methods but also people, material artifacts, and discourses. We argue that success or decline of a research program in MOS depends on the capacity of the research movement supporting it to attend to some fundamental organizing priorities: community boundedness, practices of intellectual craft, modes of heuristic regulation, and achieving research impact. To be sustainable, research movements need to implement effective strategies to navigate tensions entailed in each organizing process. Respectively, we see these tensions as those of openness—closure, noveltycontinuity, as well as rigor—applicability. 我们通过考虑“研究运动”的作用来拓展这一视角，“研究运动”是通过有组织的集体行动构成和维持的社会物质集合体（Frickel & Gross，2005），其产生并支持研究项目。因此，我们认为理论化实践不仅组织思想、观察和方法，还组织人员、物质制品和话语。我们认为，在MOS中研究项目的成功或失败取决于支持该项目的研究运动满足某些基本组织优先事项的能力：社区边界性、智力技艺实践、启发式调节模式以及实现研究影响力。为了实现可持续性，研究运动需要实施有效策略来应对每个组织过程中产生的张力。我们将这些张力分别视为开放性—封闭性、新颖性—连续性以及严谨性—适用性的张力。
We substantiate our argument in the following way. First, we argue that theorizing socially constructs a stock of knowledge posited as being of explanatory and generative value (van Maanen, 1995). Conceiving of theorizing as a form of organizing allows consideration of both the product of its activities (theory) as well as the practices enabling accumulation of intellectual capital and social legitimation as science. Second, we note how all research programs (Lakatos, 1978) must navigate a tension between centripetal forces (defending their conceptual cores) and centrifugal ones (expending the reach of the programs). Third, we introduce the key idea of a research movement, the sociomaterial assemblage that maintains and reproduces research programs. Fourth, we delineate what we take to be the constitutive components of such a movement (theoretical grammars, thought styles, empirics, and actor networks). Fifth, we identify organizing priorities and paradoxes in research movements, conceptualized in terms of four practices: community boundedness, intellectual craft, heuristic regulation, and research impact. Sixth, we elaborate how the interrelatedness of these practices gives rise to paradoxical tensions. Seventh, we elaborate strategies that research movements use in navigating these tensions (separation, oscillation, and transcendence). We submit that these dynamics of theorizing lead to selection/retention of research programs, maintaining or eroding their vitality. Exemplary cases from the history of MOs illustrate and ground our explanatory model. Finally, we move to our discussion and conclusion, in which the nature of our contribution is reiterated. In a nutshell, it consists of using organization studies constructs to explain organization theorizing as practices of organizing priorities and research movements, in terms of their constitution and interrelatedness through practices and strategies devised to navigate the tensions that these processes generate. 我们通过以下方式论证我们的观点。首先，我们认为理论化在社会层面构建了一种具有解释和生成价值的知识储备（van Maanen，1995）。将理论化视为一种组织形式，能够同时考虑其活动的产物（理论）以及实现智力资本积累和作为科学的社会合法性的实践。其次，我们注意到所有研究项目（Lakatos，1978）都必须在向心力（捍卫其概念核心）和离心力（扩大项目的影响力）之间的张力中进行平衡。第三，我们引入研究运动的核心概念，即维持和复制研究项目的社会物质组合体。第四，我们阐述了我们认为此类运动的构成要素（理论语法、思维风格、经验研究和行动者网络）。第五，我们识别研究运动中的组织优先事项和悖论，并用四种实践来概念化：社区边界性、智力技艺、启发式调节和研究影响力。第六，我们详细说明这些实践的相互关联性如何产生悖论性张力。第七，我们阐述研究运动在应对这些张力时使用的策略（分离、振荡和超越）。我们认为，这些理论化的动态导致研究项目的选择/保留，维持或削弱其活力。MO（组织研究）历史中的典型案例说明了并支撑了我们的解释模型。最后，我们进入讨论和结论部分，重申我们贡献的本质。简而言之，它包括使用组织研究的构念来解释组织理论化作为组织优先事项和研究运动的实践，从其构成以及通过实践和策略（这些策略旨在应对这些过程产生的张力）的相互关联性来进行解释。
THEORIZING AS ORGANIZING
作为组织的理论构建
What Is Science?
什么是科学？
What is science? We regard it as an organizing practice that socially constructs a stock of knowledge taken to be of explanatory and generative value (Cannella & Paetzold, 1994; Frickel & Gross, 2005; Kuhn, 1962/1970). Its product, theory, is a coherent body of statements, methods, and models describing phenomena, fruit of an intersubjective agreement achieved though language, ritual, categories, and classification. Organizing practices work with “empirical material [that] is an artefact of interpretations and the use of specific vocabularies” (Alvesson & Kärreman, 2007: 1265). These organizing practices bear traces of historical and institutional processes producing consensus and conflict about which theorizing and research practices afford most value (Callon, 1995; Latour & Woolgar, 1979). The multiple usages of the name “theory,” which can refer to a set of general propositions, an explanation of phenomena, a conceptual perspective, an interpretation of texts, a normative position, etcetera (Abend, 2008), illustrate the ongoing process of social construction that is implicit in theorizing. Theories, similarly to other complex ideas, are rarely an individual but invariably a collective achievement, being produced in a dialogic relationship involving ideas, idea-makers, and idea-users (Coldevin, Carlsen, Clegg, Pitsis, & Antonacopoulou, 2019), engaging diverse subjects (Pickering, 1993) capable of resisting as well as accommodating specific inclusions and exclusions. 什么是科学？我们将其视为一种组织性实践，它在社会层面构建出一套被认为具有解释和生成价值的知识体系（Cannella & Paetzold, 1994；Frickel & Gross, 2005；Kuhn, 1962/1970）。其产物“理论”是一个连贯的陈述、方法和模型体系，用于描述现象，是通过语言、仪式、范畴和分类达成的主体间共识的成果。组织性实践所处理的“经验材料是解释和特定词汇使用的产物”（Alvesson & Kärreman, 2007: 1265）。这些组织性实践带有历史和制度过程的痕迹，这些过程会在哪些理论化和研究实践最具价值的问题上产生共识与冲突（Callon, 1995；Latour & Woolgar, 1979）。“理论”这一名称的多种用法——它可以指一组一般命题、对现象的解释、一种概念视角、对文本的解读、一种规范立场等等（Abend, 2008）——说明了理论化过程中隐含的社会建构的持续进行。理论与其他复杂思想类似，很少是个人成果，而总是集体成就，是在涉及思想、思想创造者和思想使用者的对话关系中产生的（Coldevin, Carlsen, Clegg, Pitsis, & Antonacopoulou, 2019），并涉及能够抵制或容纳特定包含与排除的多元主体（Pickering, 1993）。
Some recurrent concerns about how and what to include or exclude see some scholars stress prioritizing theorizing over reporting the “facts” of data (Birkinshaw, Healey, Suddaby, & Weber, 2014; Hambrick, 2007) as a mark of scientific legitimacy (Flyvbjerg, 2001; Ghoshal, 2005; Hambrick, 2007). In consequence, differing theoretical “language games” (Wittgenstein, 1958) ensue. Their fecundity is seen to hinder knowledge development (Pfeffer, 1993), “balkanizing” the field (Grandori, 2001), cluttering it with too many ideas (Pfeffer, 2014). The debate between “theoreticians” and “empiricists” is ongoing (Davis, 2015; Lounsbury & Beckman, 2015). Empiricists are charged with using observational data “as mirrors of reality” (Alvesson & Gabriel, 2013: 255) and their differences with the theory geeks are satirized as the Lilliputians’ trivial but ferocious diatribe between “big” and “little-enders” (Reed & Burrell, 2019). Alternative paradigms are underpinned by incompatible frames for interpretation (Weaver & Gioia, 1994), making it difficult to settle disputes (Cannella & Paetzold, 1994). Some voices celebrate and defend this polyphony, treating as a sign of pluralism and fertility (Reed & Burrell, 2019; van Maanen, 1995). Others criticize pluralism, attributing it to the lack of confidence of an immature discipline, by promoting unification under one paradigm (usually that to which they adhere) (Donaldson, 1995; Pfeffer, 2014). Closing ranks, unifying under a dominant paradigm, becomes the rallying call (Donaldson, 1996; Pfeffer, 1993; Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006), which would require scholars whose careers and reputation were built on a less favored paradigm to “liquidate” their intellectual capital. Given the time spent investing in intellectual capital as well as the subsequent illiquidity of these as marginal investments, liquidation is less likely than struggle. These are the tensions that give rise to centripetal and centrifugal tendencies in MOS science. 一些学者反复强调，在如何以及包含或排除哪些内容上存在担忧，他们认为应优先进行理论构建而非仅仅报告数据的“事实”（Birkinshaw, Healey, Suddaby, & Weber, 2014; Hambrick, 2007），这被视为科学合法性的标志（Flyvbjerg, 2001; Ghoshal, 2005; Hambrick, 2007）。因此，不同的理论“语言游戏”（Wittgenstein, 1958）随之产生。这些理论的多产性被认为阻碍了知识发展（Pfeffer, 1993），使该领域“巴尔干化”（Grandori, 2001），并因过多的观点而变得混乱（Pfeffer, 2014）。“理论家”与“经验主义者”之间的争论仍在继续（Davis, 2015; Lounsbury & Beckman, 2015）。经验主义者被指责将观察数据“视为现实的镜子”（Alvesson & Gabriel, 2013: 255），他们与理论狂热者的分歧被讽刺为小人国里“大端者”与“小端者”之间琐碎却激烈的长篇大论（Reed & Burrell, 2019）。替代范式建立在相互矛盾的解释框架之上（Weaver & Gioia, 1994），这使得解决争端变得困难（Cannella & Paetzold, 1994）。一些声音对这种多元性表示赞赏和捍卫，认为这是多元性和生产力的标志（Reed & Burrell, 2019; van Maanen, 1995）。另一些人则批评多元性，认为这是不成熟学科缺乏信心的表现，他们主张在一个范式（通常是他们所坚持的那个）下实现统一（Donaldson, 1995; Pfeffer, 2014）。团结起来，在主导范式下统一，成为了一个号召（Donaldson, 1996; Pfeffer, 1993; Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006），这将要求那些职业生涯和声誉建立在不太受青睐的范式上的学者“清算”他们的知识资本。考虑到学者们在知识资本上投入的时间以及这些资本作为边缘投资后续的非流动性，清算比抗争更不可能。这些紧张关系导致了管理、组织与战略（MOS）科学中出现向心和离心的趋势。
Research Movements and Centripetal and Centrifugal Tensions
研究运动及向心与离心张力
Lakatos proposed that change and development in theories can be understood only if we do not regard individual theories as abstract statements of relationships so much as organized sequences. Research programs are characterized by a central set of assumptions, constituting the hard core around which tacit consensus is built that is relatively resistant to refutation, being protected by a “negative heuristic” that tells what paths of research to avoid (Lakatos, 1970: 191). Criticism and empirical refutation are concentrated on the “protective belt of auxiliary hypothesis which .. bear the brunt of test and get adjusted and re-adjusted or even completely replaced” (Lakatos, 1970: 191). Research programs can be progressive, making novel predictions possible, or they can be degenerative, continuously producing ancillary hypotheses that do not help to understand new phenomena so much as defending the hard core by justifying unexplained data. These opposite forces are in an interdependent relationship that determines the vitality of any paradigm. Attempts to falsify the conceptual core of a theory empirically can be thwarted by recurring to “some auxiliary hypothesis or by a suitable reinterpretation” of its terms (Lakatos, 1970: 182). 拉卡托斯提出，理论的变革与发展只有在我们不将单个理论视为抽象的关系陈述，而是将其视为有组织的序列时才能被理解。研究纲领的特征是一组核心假设，构成了硬核，围绕硬核形成了相对难以被证伪的隐性共识，这种共识受到“负面启发法”的保护，该方法指示应避免哪些研究路径（拉卡托斯，1970：191）。批评和经验证伪集中在“辅助假设的保护带……承受检验的冲击，并被调整、再调整甚至完全替换”（拉卡托斯，1970：191）。研究纲领可以是进步的，能够做出新颖的预测，也可以是退化的，不断产生辅助性假设，这些假设与其说是帮助理解新现象，不如说是通过为无法解释的数据辩护来维护硬核。这两种相反的力量处于相互依存的关系中，决定了任何范式的活力。试图从经验上证伪理论的概念核心可能会因诉诸“某个辅助假设或对其术语进行适当的重新解释”而受挫（拉卡托斯，1970：182）。
We employ the term “research movement” to describe the sociomaterial assemblage (made up of researchers, methods, theories, research centers, publication outlets, software, and other actants) that— through its organizing—supports knowledge production. It is within research movements that the tensions between centrifugal and centripetal forces become salient. Where there are competing theories, without some counterbalancing factors, centrifugal forces can splinter a discipline into countless “schools of thought” or “paradigms.” We need to consider what the dynamics are that enable a degree of stability and homogeneity in theorizing, since the capacity to build consensus, a “social justification of belief” (Rorty, 1979: 170), is essential for the maintenance and diffusion of a theoretical perspective. “Both centripetal and centrifugal forces fuel theory development” (Schad, Lewis, & Smith, 2019: 4); the former allows the establishment of a common grammar, while the latter drives expansion and development, provoking debates that are useful both to clarify conceptual boundaries and to spark new insights. 我们使用“研究运动”这一术语来描述社会物质组合体（由研究人员、方法、理论、研究中心、出版机构、软件和其他行动者组成），该组合体通过自身的组织方式支持知识生产。正是在研究运动中，离心力和向心力之间的张力变得尤为突出。当存在相互竞争的理论时，如果没有一些平衡因素，离心力可能会将一个学科分裂成无数个“思想流派”或“范式”。我们需要考虑是什么动态因素使得理论化过程能够达到一定程度的稳定性和同质性，因为构建共识的能力——一种“信念的社会正当性”（罗蒂，1979：170）——对于理论视角的维持和传播至关重要。“向心力和离心力共同推动理论发展”（沙德、刘易斯和史密斯，2019：4）；前者有助于建立共同的语法，而后者则推动扩张和发展，引发的辩论既有助于明确概念边界，也能激发新的见解。
Centripetal forces solidify theorizing as a zone of concordance, establishing the assumptions, vocabularies, grammars, and principles that bound each paradigm. Centripetal forces cluster theories around coherent research programs (Lakatos, 1970, 1978), creating research movements that tend to develop fixed repertoires of highly reproducible routines, due to pressures to perform reliably and be internally consistent, which determine a degree of inertia that restrains change (Hannan & Freeman, 1984). The “core” aspects of research movements are particularly subject to organizational inertia; this is both a positive survival trait, enabling program reproducibility, thanks to (methodological) reliability and (program members’) accountability, while it can also be a constraint, limiting innovation (Hannan & Freeman, 1984). The relations between the elements making up the outer ring of centrifugal tendencies are pulled toward concordance by centripetal institutional pressures arising from the relations between the elements. Different paradoxical tensions emerge from the need to navigate this central opposition between centrifugal and centripetal forces. There is a consequent need to navigate these to preserve research program vitality. In the next section, we consider the four sociomaterial components that, combined, enable and constitute theorizing within a research movement, highlighting the specific tensions generated by their coupling. 向心力使理论化凝固为一个一致区域，确立了界定每个范式的假设、词汇、语法和原则。向心力将理论围绕连贯的研究项目聚集起来（拉卡托斯，1970，1978），形成研究运动，这些运动往往会发展出高度可重复的固定常规库，这是由于对可靠执行和内部一致性的压力，这种压力决定了一定程度的惯性，从而限制了变革（汉南和弗里曼，1984）。研究运动的“核心”方面特别容易受到组织惯性的影响；这既是一种积极的生存特质，通过（方法论）可靠性和（项目成员的）责任感实现项目可重复性，同时也可能成为一种约束，限制创新（汉南和弗里曼，1984）。构成离心趋势外环的要素之间的关系，受到来自要素之间关系的向心制度压力的拉动，趋向于一致。由于需要在离心力和向心力之间的这种核心对立中进行导航，产生了不同的矛盾张力。因此，需要在这些张力中进行导航以保持研究项目的活力。在下一节中，我们将考虑四个社会物质组成部分，这些部分共同作用，使研究运动中的理论化成为可能并构成其基础，同时突出它们耦合所产生的特定张力。
COMPONENTS CONSTITUTINGRESEARCH MOVEMENTS
构成研究运动的组成部分
We identify four essential elements that contribute to the centripetal and centrifugal organization of a research movement in MOS that, combined, allow the enactment of the four organizing and sense-making processes necessary to this collective heuristic effort (Figure 1). 我们确定了四个关键要素，这些要素共同构成了分子轨道模拟（MOS）中研究运动的向心和离心组织，结合这些要素能够实现该集体启发式努力所需的四个组织和意义建构过程（图1）。
Theoretical Grammars
理论语法
Theorizing, conceptualized as a social activity (Callon, 1995), requires a shared grammar rather than singular individuality in creative processes (Garud, Gehman, Kumaraswamy, & Tuertscher, 2017; Mueller & Whittle, 2011). The notion of “grammar” indicates the specific languages adopted within a research movement to identify key concepts and correct ways to relate them, aligning a coherent set of ontological and epistemological assumptions, objects of study, and heuristic purposes. Grammars serve as organizing devices for achieving social agreement about the nature of things being discussed, both within the scholarly community and broader society (Frickel & Moore, 2006). Different grammars signal the values upon which that knowledge is built” (Suddaby, 2014: 407). 理论化被概念化为一种社会活动（Callon，1995），在创造性过程中需要共享的语法而非单一的个性（Garud、Gehman、Kumaraswamy & Tuertscher，2017；Mueller & Whittle，2011）。“语法”这一概念指的是研究运动中为识别关键概念及正确关联它们而采用的特定语言，它与一套连贯的本体论和认识论假设、研究对象及启发式目的相契合。语法作为组织工具，旨在在学术界和更广泛的社会中就所讨论事物的本质达成社会共识（Frickel & Moore，2006）。不同的语法反映了构建该知识所依据的价值观”（Suddaby，2014：407）。
Theoretical grammars derive from language games in which language is interwoven with action, with meaning deriving from the rules of the game being played (Wittgenstein, 1958). As a consequence, different idiomatic ways of thinking and arguing develop to support theoretical claims (Cornelissen, 2017: 2), each implying different metaphorical associations (Cornelissen, 2005; Morgan, 2006), reflecting different ideas about how sound knowledge can be produced (Boxenbaum & Rouleau, 2011). Grammars become embodied, embedded and embrained. Embodied in the process of writing and citation, the naming of names, the indexing of this rather than that community of practice; embodied grammars also materialize as repertoires of buzzwords that support the “brand strategy” of a research movement (Mehrpouya & Willmott, 2018). Theorizing is embedded because its language is socially constructed and situated as sensemaking developed by a community of practice in which scholars create distinct co-citation networks (Üsdiken & Pasadeos, 1995). Theorizing is embrained because, as Lakoff and Johnson (1980) argued, customary metaphors of theorizing become fused in neural pathways to which cognition defaults. For instance, if the notion of causality is invariably associated with the interaction of coterminous variables in the same space and time, on a simulacrum of the experimental method, then it becomes difficult to entertain notions of ontogenetic causality embedded in the nature of things (Bhaskar, 1975/2008) or historical genealogy (Pezet, 2012). Metaphors that use nouns produce structure while verbs reveal processes (Bakken & Hernes, 2006); thus, grammar can reveal different ontological positioning. 理论语法源于语言游戏，在这些游戏中，语言与行动交织在一起，意义源于正在进行的游戏规则（维特根斯坦，1958）。因此，发展出不同的思维和论证习惯用语来支持理论主张（科尼利森，2017：2），每种习惯用语都暗示不同的隐喻关联（科尼利森，2005；摩根，2006），反映了关于如何产生可靠知识的不同观点（博克森鲍姆和鲁洛，2011）。语法变得具身化、嵌入化和脑化。在写作和引用过程中，在命名名称、索引该社区而非其他实践社区的过程中，语法是具身的；具身语法还体现为俚语（时髦用语）的集合，这些集合支持研究运动的“品牌策略”（梅尔普亚和威尔莫特，2018）。理论化是嵌入性的，因为其语言是社会建构的，并且是由实践社区发展出来的意义建构，学者在其中创建独特的共引网络（乌斯迪肯和帕萨迪奥，1995）。理论化是脑化的，因为正如莱考夫和约翰逊（1980）所论证的，理论化的习惯性隐喻会融合到认知默认的神经通路中。例如，如果因果关系的概念始终与同一时空内共时变量的相互作用相关联（在实验方法的模拟中），那么就很难接受嵌入事物本质中的发生学因果关系（巴斯卡尔，1975/2008）或历史谱系（佩泽特，2012）。使用名词的隐喻产生结构，而动词揭示过程（巴克肯和赫内斯，2006）；因此，语法可以揭示不同的本体论定位。
FIGURE 1 Organizing Processes and Paradoxical Tensions within Research Programs 图1 研究项目中的过程组织与矛盾张力
The grammar of theorizing has performative effects shaping the “objects” depicted (D’Adderio & Pollock, 2014; Marti & Gond, 2019). For example, what scholars of organizational culture describe as “basic assumptions” become, for Foucauldian discourse analysts, “dominant discourse statements,” while, for neo-institutional theorists, they are “schemas” and “scripts.” Analogously, different research movements use similar terms to identify separate phenomena; examples include discourse (Alvesson & Kärreman, 2000), power (Fleming & 理论化的语法具有塑造所描述“对象”的施为性效果（D’Adderio & Pollock, 2014；Marti & Gond, 2019）。例如，组织文化学者描述的“基本假设”，在福柯式话语分析师看来是“主导话语陈述”，而在新制度主义理论家看来则是“图式”和“脚本”。类似地，不同的研究流派使用相似的术语来识别不同的现象；例如话语（Alvesson & Kärreman, 2000）、权力（Fleming &
Spicer, 2014), performativity (Gond, Cabantous, Harding, & Learmonth, 2016), and routines (Parmigiani & Howard-Grenville, 2011). 斯派塞，2014）、表演性（贡德、卡邦图、哈丁与利尔茅斯，2016）以及惯例（帕米贾尼与霍华德 - 格林维尔，2011）。
Theoretical Thought Styles
理论思维风格
Thought styles" is a concept that derives from Fleck (1935/2012). Fleck used the concept of “thought collectives,” or “thought worlds” as they were labeled by Douglas (1986), to describe those who share a thought style to explore “shared meaning through notions of thought collectives and thought styles, examining the work of scientists and the production of scientific knowledge” (Logue, Clegg, & Gray, 2016: 6). Scientific work is characterized by a “tradition of shared assumptions, which are largely invisible to members and thus are rarely questioned” (Logue et al., 2016: 6). Each research movement has a thought style “which leads perception and trains it and produces a stock of knowledge” (Douglas, 1986: 12). The stress is on shared intersubjectivity as a cognitive trait. “思维风格”（Thought styles）是源自弗莱克（Fleck，1935/2012）的一个概念。弗莱克使用“思维集体”（thought collectives）的概念，或道格拉斯（Douglas，1986）所标注的“思维世界”（thought worlds），来描述那些通过“思维集体和思维风格的概念探索‘共享意义’的人”（Logue, Clegg, & Gray, 2016: 6）。科学研究工作的特征是“一种共享假设的传统，这种传统对成员来说大多是无形的，因此很少受到质疑”（Logue et al., 2016: 6）。每一个研究运动都有一种思维风格，“这种风格引导并训练感知，并产生知识储备”（Douglas, 1986: 12）。其重点在于将共享主体间性作为一种认知特质。
Social organization shapes thought style, in terms of repertoires for human cognition, which became a core element in Douglas’s (1966, 1970, 1986) ideas (Logue et al., 2016). Thought styles encapsulate a process in which knowledge is shaped, silencing some approaches and giving relevance to others. 社会组织塑造思维方式，从人类认知的表现形式来看，这成为了道格拉斯（1966、1970、1986）思想中的核心要素（Logue等人，2016）。思维方式概括了一个知识被塑造的过程，在这个过程中，某些方法被淡化，而另一些方法则被赋予了重要性。
Thought styles make sense of the flow of experiences as something collectively enacted (Schütz, 1945; Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005) through shared language in terms of concepts, rituals of citation of particular works, the deployment of common categories and classifications as socially constructed facts. Thought styles, such as institutional theory (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983) and its subordinate networks of institutional logics (Thornton, Ocasio, & Lounsbury, 2012), institutional fields (Zietsma, Groenewegen, Logue, & Hinings, 2017), etc., embed and reproduce consensus about knowledge. In addition to common interpretive schemas, the members of a research movement are likely to share normative beliefs providing value-based rationales for action (Hassard & Wolfram Cox, 2013). For example, contingency, resource-based, or transaction cost theorists are likely to disagree with labor process or critical management scholars on what constitutes “bigger, better, and more challenging” (Birkinshaw et al., 2014: 38) research questions. 思维风格将经验流理解为通过共享语言（以概念、特定作品引用仪式、作为社会建构事实的共同类别和分类的运用为形式）共同实施的过程（Schütz，1945；Weick，Sutcliffe，& Obstfeld，2005）。诸如制度理论（DiMaggio & Powell，1983）及其下属的制度逻辑网络（Thornton，Ocasio，& Lounsbury，2012）、制度场域（Zietsma，Groenewegen，Logue，& Hinings，2017）等思维风格，嵌入并再现了关于知识的共识。除了共同的解释性框架，研究运动的成员还可能共享规范性信念，为行动提供基于价值的理性依据（Hassard & Wolfram Cox，2013）。例如，权变理论、资源基础观或交易成本理论学者，可能会在什么构成“更大、更好、更具挑战性”（Birkinshaw et al.，2014：38）的研究问题上与劳动过程或批判性管理学者产生分歧。
As an antecedent idea, Fleck’s thought styles bear similarity to several subsequent core concepts used in discussions of the social organization of science. Frickel and Gross (2005: 206) referred to “scientific intellectual movements” to indicate “collective efforts to pursue research programs or projects for thought in the face of resistance from others in the scientific or intellectual community.” In the context of MOS, the concept of successful “schools of thought” (McKinley, Mone, & Moon, 1999: 634) has been used, where success is attributed to a capacity to combine novelty and continuity within a sufficient broad scope of application, allowing adoption and empirical validation, which frame legitimacy (McKinley et al., 1999). 作为一个先前的概念，弗莱克的思想风格与后来在科学社会组织讨论中使用的几个核心概念相似。弗里克和格罗斯（2005：206）提到“科学知识运动”以表示“在面对科学或知识界其他人士的阻力时，为追求研究项目或思想项目而进行的集体努力”。在科学组织研究（MOS）的背景下，成功的“思想流派”概念（麦金利、莫内和穆恩，1999：634）被使用，其中成功归因于在足够广泛的应用范围内结合新颖性和连续性的能力，这使得其能够被采纳和经验验证，从而构成合法性（麦金利等人，1999）。
Theoretical Empirics
理论实证研究
Theoretical empirics also play a role. The assumptions and principles bounding each research program will imply “privileging” certain empirical objects (and will even contribute to shaping them). Empirical objects achieve their status as interesting not because of any intrinsic objective features they possess but as a result of their being theorized as empirical objects. For instance, the Aston School (Pugh & Hickson, 1976) constituted some elements from within Weber’s (1922/1978) dimensions of bureaucracy as structural variables of organizations. Subsequently, Foucault (1977) focused on disciplinary power, a concept not too far removed from Weber’s disciplinary systems of knowledge. Had the developments of the Aston School taken place in the late 1970s, rather than the early 1960s, it may well have been the case that the notion of disciplinary knowledge would have played a role. In the early 1960s, the empirical object of disciplinary practices had no particular theoretical status in MOS. It took Foucault’s work for it to become considered by some theorists (Clegg, 1989b), while others decided to remain faithful to the entrenched perspective that “naturalized” organizational structures (Donaldson, 1987). Similarly, Weber’s discussion of “contract” as a basis of organization structure was interpreted strictly in terms of contracts of employment as the measure of organization size. By the turn of the century, after the widespread development of contracting out (Kolpakov & Anguelov, 2018) and supply chains (Vonderembse, Uppal, Huang, & Dismukes, 2006), the notion of contract would likely have been rethought to include forms other those of individual employment. 理论实证研究也发挥着作用。每个研究项目的假设和原则会暗示“优先考虑”某些经验对象（甚至会有助于塑造这些对象）。经验对象之所以成为有趣的对象，并非因为它们自身具有任何内在的客观特征，而是因为它们被理论化为经验对象。例如，阿斯顿学派（Pugh & Hickson，1976）将韦伯（1922/1978）提出的官僚制维度中的某些要素构建为组织的结构变量。随后，福柯（1977）关注纪律权力，这一概念与韦伯的知识纪律体系相去不远。如果阿斯顿学派的发展发生在20世纪70年代末而非60年代初，那么“纪律知识”的概念很可能会发挥作用。在20世纪60年代初，纪律实践的经验对象在MOS中并无特殊的理论地位。直到福柯的研究出现后，才被一些理论家（Clegg，1989b）所关注，而另一些人则坚持“自然化”组织结构的既定视角（Donaldson，1987）。同样，韦伯关于“契约”作为组织结构基础的论述，被严格解释为雇佣契约作为组织规模的衡量标准。到世纪之交，随着外包（Kolpakov & Anguelov，2018）和供应链（Vonderembse，Uppal，Huang，& Dismukes，2006）的广泛发展，“契约”的概念可能会被重新思考，以纳入除个人雇佣之外的其他形式。
Empirical objects both inspire and anchor theory. Theories provide an analytical system linking “different concepts in order to explain or predict empirical phenomena” (Marti & Gond, 2018: 489) that are intimately connected with empirical reality (Eisenhardt, 1989), leading to predictions that can be falsified or verified, even if they cannot be definitively “proven” (Shapira, 2011). At the same time, empirical material should be considered a “critical dialogue partner” rather than a determinant of theory (Alvesson & Kärreman, 2007: 1266), since knowledge is socially constructed: “strictly speaking, there are no such things as facts” (Schütz, 1953: 22) outside of the practices that enact them as such. Researchers are not “objective” interpreters: equivalence between facts, signs, and accounts is never perfect, so data are always fused with theory (Alvesson & Kärreman, 2007). 经验对象既启发理论，又为理论提供锚点。理论提供了一个分析体系，将“不同概念联系起来以解释或预测经验现象”（Marti & Gond，2018：489），而这些概念与经验现实密切相关（Eisenhardt，1989），由此产生的预测可以被证伪或验证，即便无法被最终“证明”（Shapira，2011）。同时，经验材料应被视为“批判性对话伙伴”，而非理论的决定因素（Alvesson & Kärreman，2007：1266），因为知识是社会建构的：“严格来说，不存在脱离实践而存在的‘事实’”（Schütz，1953：22），实践才使这些“事实”得以存在。研究者并非“客观”的解读人：事实、符号与叙述之间的等价性永远无法完美实现，因此数据始终与理论交织在一起（Alvesson & Kärreman，2007）。
Theoretical Actor Networks
理论行动者网络
“Theoretical actor networks” (Callon, 1995) may be defined as constantly shifting networks of relationships between objects, concepts, processes, materialities, and humans. They are dissimilar to thought styles because the networks may include relations that are simultaneously material (between things) and semiotic (between concepts), rather than being intersubjective. Observations are conducted through specific tools (e.g., a survey, a field note, a performance metric), through which phenomena are translated into inscriptions; these inscriptions are edited to become data that are then collated and framed into theories. The correspondence between theory and observed reality is achieved through a process of translation that “also implies betrayal” (Law, 2008: 144). Considering the role of actor networks acknowledges the role of material, nonhuman agency in scientific inquiry, as not all choices can be attributed to purposeful choices by individual scholars (Pickering, 1993). For example, the dynamics of publishing “games” (Broad, 1981; Gabriel, 2010), which embed further games such as reviewing, have elements of randomness (Starbuck, 2005). Moreover, technical constraints and opportunities, such as the affordances of technologies used for collecting and analyzing data, searching and accessing sources, writing and publicizing studies (conferences, publications, online repositories, etc.) are major actants in constituting theoretical actor networks. For instance, comparison of two randomly selected issues of AMR (a pre- and a post-Internet one) shows that the number of sources cited in articles has increased remarkably as a result of digital search. We counted the number of sources included in the reference lists of the first five articles from a randomly selected “old” issue (April 1989), comparing them with the ones included in a more recent one (April 2019), revealing a $6 4 %$ increase in the average number of cited sources (73 vs. 120). The notion of actor network also highlights the practical, situated character of collective idea work (Carlsen, Clegg, & Gjersvik, 2012; Coldevin et al., 2019) that implies an entwinement between agents and the sociomaterial reality in which they are immersed (Heidegger, 1927). “理论行动者网络”（Callon，1995）可被定义为对象、概念、过程、物质实体和人类之间不断变化的关系网络。它们与思维方式不同，因为这些网络可能同时包含物质关系（事物之间）和符号关系（概念之间），而非仅存在主体间关系。观察通过特定工具（例如调查、田野笔记、绩效指标）进行，现象通过这些工具被转化为铭文；这些铭文经过编辑成为数据，随后被整理并构建成理论。理论与观察到的现实之间的对应关系通过一种“也意味着背叛”的翻译过程实现（Law，2008：144）。考虑行动者网络的作用，承认了科学探究中物质性非人类能动性的作用，因为并非所有选择都能归因于个别学者的有意选择（Pickering，1993）。例如，发表“博弈”（Broad，1981；Gabriel，2010）的动态过程中，嵌入了如评审等进一步的博弈，这些过程具有随机性（Starbuck，2005）。此外，技术限制和机遇，如用于收集和分析数据、搜索和获取资料、撰写和宣传研究（会议、出版物、在线知识库等）的技术所提供的可能性，是构成理论行动者网络的主要行动者。例如，对比随机选取的两期《AMR》（一期互联网出现前，一期互联网出现后）显示，由于数字搜索，文章中引用的来源数量显著增加。我们统计了从随机选取的“旧”期（1989年4月）中前五篇文章的参考文献列表中的来源数量，并与较新一期（2019年4月）中的来源数量进行比较，发现平均引用来源数量增加了64%（73篇 vs. 120篇）。行动者网络的概念还凸显了集体观念工作的实践性和情境性（Carlsen，Clegg，& Gjersvik，2012；Coldevin et al.，2019），这意味着行动者与其所处的社会物质现实之间存在纠缠（Heidegger，1927）。
ORGANIZING PRIORITIES AND TENSIONS IN RESEARCH MOVEMENTS
研究运动中的优先级组织与张力
The four elements outlined interact in shaping four organizing practices and processes that constitute and maintain research movements. These four organizing priorities preserve vitality, success or decline, of a research movement in MOS while navigating the tensions entailed in exploiting existing theory and exploring new theory. These priorities, we shall argue, are practices of community boundedness (openness—closure), practices of intellectual craft (novelty—continuity), practices of heuristic regulation (rigor—applicability), as well as practices for research impact (representation—performativity). 大纲中阐述的四个要素相互作用，塑造了构成并维持研究运动的四种组织实践和流程。这四个组织优先事项在MO S中保持研究运动的活力、成功或衰落，同时在利用现有理论和探索新理论所涉及的张力中进行导航。我们将论证，这些优先事项是社区界限实践（开放性—封闭性）、智力技艺实践（新颖性—连续性）、启发式调节实践（严谨性—适用性）以及研究影响力实践（代表性—表现性）。
Four ideal typically distinct but practically overlapping organizing priorities need to be attended to and governed in order to preserve cohesion and identity in a research movement (Figure 1). Failing to maintain coherence in these areas would imply not only a loss of vitality in the research movement but its likely collapse, producing fragmentation or loss of legitimation. Automatic refutation of theories generated in the past does not necessarily follow. What is important is the presence or absence of an organized community supporting and enriching these theories, actively defending and expanding the conceptual hard core of the research program. Defense and expansion occur through developing and promoting new ancillary hypotheses, in the absence of which theories become more vulnerable to attack or simply fall into oblivion, overshadowed by more novel research programs, supported by more vital, visible and influential research movements. Each organizing priority implies a specific tension (Figure 1), a set of interdependent and persistent contradictions that cannot be “solved” but only navigated, “worked through” in practice (Smith & Lewis, 2011). 为了在研究运动中保持凝聚力和认同感，需要关注并管理四个理想状态下通常截然不同但实际上相互重叠的组织优先事项（图1）。在这些领域未能保持连贯性不仅意味着研究运动失去活力，还可能导致其崩溃，造成分裂或合法性丧失。自动反驳过去产生的理论并不一定是必然结果。重要的是是否存在一个有组织的社区来支持和丰富这些理论，积极捍卫和扩展研究项目的概念硬核。捍卫和扩展通过发展和推广新的辅助假设来实现，缺乏这些假设，理论会更容易受到攻击或被遗忘，被更具创新性的研究项目所掩盖，而后者得到更具活力、更具可见性和影响力的研究运动的支持。每个组织优先事项都意味着一种特定的张力（图1），即一组相互依存且持续存在的矛盾，这些矛盾无法“解决”，而只能在实践中“应对”（Smith & Lewis，2011）。
Practices of Community Boundedness: The OpennessClosure Tension
社区边界性实践：开放性与封闭性的张力
The organizing priority of community boundedness concerns the “maintenance” of the academic network and the broader community of practice (involving also students, practitioners, and sponsors). These are all directly involved in the development, study, and application of the theories generated under the aegis of the research movement. Organizing community boundedness occurs at the intersection of intersubjective agreements and actor networks, since it requires both social and material elements. It includes producing and testing theories within a research program, as well as socializing new scholars to the movement, attracting financial resources, promoting and publicizing its “brand” (Mehrpouya & Willmott, 2018). The outcome of this organizing is not a formal structure, nor does it imply clearly set and policed boundaries but involves the existence of liminal zones between fields of inquiry (Hassard & Wolfram Cox, 2013). Some scholars build a profile as knowledge brokers, participating in different research movements, while others prefer investing most of their energies in a single research program. Yet, all scientific movements are episodic, existing only for finite periods (Frickel & Gross, 2005). Consistent investments in fostering and supporting organized collective action (researching, teaching, editing, conference organizing, workshopping, etc.) oriented to theorizing aligned with a specific research program is a precondition of sustenance. These are necessary to replenish the ranks of senior scholars that fade away. Sometimes, in the absence of past charismatic anchors, research movements diminish fast. 社区边界的组织优先级涉及学术网络和更广泛的实践社区（也包括学生、从业者和赞助者）的“维护”。这些群体都直接参与在研究运动主持下产生的理论的发展、研究和应用。社区边界的组织发生在主体间协议与行动者网络的交叉点，因为它既需要社会要素，也需要物质要素。这包括在研究项目中产生和检验理论，以及让新学者融入该运动、吸引财政资源、推广和宣传其“品牌”（Mehrpouya & Willmott, 2018）。这种组织的结果并非正式结构，也不意味着明确划定并受到监控的边界，而是涉及探究领域之间存在的阈限区域（Hassard & Wolfram Cox, 2013）。一些学者以知识经纪人的身份建立个人形象，参与不同的研究运动，而另一些学者则倾向于将大部分精力投入到单一研究项目中。然而，所有科学运动都是阶段性的，仅存在有限的时期（Frickel & Gross, 2005）。持续投入以促进和支持与特定研究项目相关的理论化的有组织集体行动（研究、教学、编辑、会议组织、研讨会等）是维持的前提条件。这些投入对于补充逐渐流失的资深学者队伍是必要的。有时，在缺乏过去有魅力的核心人物的情况下，研究运动的衰退会很快发生。
Inclusion and exclusion from any body politic is the fundament of sovereignty, which is why borders assume such significance in national politics. The body politic is not only to be found at the national level; any association with membership rules, whether explicit, implicit, constitutive, or preferential, may be said to be a body politic. If this is the case with a golf club or trade association, it is no less the case for a research community. All research communities have a politics of recognition and non-recognition of what being in and out of the fold of membership entails. In organization theory, we refer to these as power dynamics (Clegg, 1989a). Power dynamics assume particular relevance when attending to the organizing priority of community boundedness. Boundedness does not just refer to formal membership; it “traverses and produces things, it induces pleasure, forms of knowledge, produces discourse” (Foucault, 1984: 120), it creates belongingness. 任何政治共同体的成员资格的纳入与排除，是主权的基础，这也是为什么边界在国家政治中具有如此重要的意义。政治共同体不仅存在于国家层面；任何具有成员规则的协会，无论其规则是明确的、隐含的、构成性的还是优先性的，都可以被视为一个政治共同体。高尔夫俱乐部或行业协会是如此，研究共同体也不例外。所有研究共同体都存在着关于成员资格的“纳入”与“排除”所意味的内容的认可与非认可的政治。在组织理论中，我们将这些称为权力动态（Clegg, 1989a）。当关注共同体边界这一组织优先事项时，权力动态具有特殊的相关性。边界不仅仅指正式的成员资格；它“贯穿并产生事物，引发愉悦感，形成知识形式，产生话语”（Foucault, 1984: 120），它创造归属感。
Collective acceptance is contingent on the interaction between thought styles and actor networks. Collective acceptance is signaled through esteemed journal publication, a process of many random contingencies but which is, nonetheless, an “obligatory passage point” to being fully recognized. These contingencies include matching a journal’s keywords to the thought styles informing the paper; the citation of the “usual suspects” that display affinity with these thought styles; the appreciation by the managing editor of the appropriate actor networks with elective affinities to these thought styles, as well as the more usual matter of substance, methods, etc. Such a situation produces multiple tensions. For instance, the review process operates on a “principle of exclusion and segregation” meant to protect the health and integrity of the intellectual field against abnormal elements (Foucault, 1984: 61). The review gatekeepers exercise the sovereign right to kill ideas in the name of the health of the intellectual field as a whole. Together with the right to kill, however, there is a duty of care of researchers (Schwarz, Cummings, & Cummings, 2017), a curatorial role that the journal editor strives to articulate. The opposition between these tendencies to kill and to care can become manifest as when there is a tension “between theory as a device for knowledge production and its role in legitimating the jurisdiction of professional expertise” (Suddaby, 2014: 409): does the paper constitute new knowledge or merely add to the sum of existing knowledge? Likewise, there may be a tension between care for the intellectual field and desire for peer recognition (Schwarz et al., 2017): intellectual dues may be redeemed or not, with the latter judgment being the killer. 集体接受取决于思维风格与行动者网络之间的相互作用。集体接受通过受尊敬的期刊发表来体现，这一过程包含诸多随机偶然因素，但仍是获得充分认可的“必经之路”。这些偶然因素包括：论文的思维风格与期刊关键词相匹配；引用与这些思维风格有亲和力的“常客”文献；执行编辑对与这些思维风格有选择性亲和力的行动者网络的认可；以及更常规的内容、方法等问题。这种情况会产生多重张力。例如，评审过程遵循“排斥与隔离原则”，旨在保护知识场域的健康与完整性，免受异常因素的影响（福柯，1984：61）。评审守门人以整个知识场域的健康之名，行使扼杀思想的主权权利。然而，与这种扼杀权相伴的，还有对研究者的关怀责任（施瓦茨、卡明斯和卡明斯，2017），这是期刊编辑努力阐述的策展角色。这种扼杀倾向与关怀倾向之间的对立可能会显现出来，例如当存在“理论作为知识生产工具与其在为专业知识管辖权赋予合法性方面的作用之间的张力”时（萨达比，2014：409）：这篇论文是构成新知识，还是仅仅为现有知识总量添砖加瓦？同样，也可能存在对知识场域的关怀与对同行认可的渴望之间的张力（施瓦茨等人，2017）：学术“会费”可能得到减免，也可能得不到，后者的判断就是“杀手”。
Tensions such as those discussed above engage a world of thought styles with the actor networks informing the world of the researchers as authors and the world of the researchers as reviewers. The more tightly constrained these inter-relations are, the greater the chance of winning in the publication, or in the research grant acquisition, games. It pays to know which actor networks and thought styles are in play for both reviewers and researchers, if a large potential source of interpretive error is to be avoided. These tensions push toward paradigm conformance (closure). At the same time, excessive closure can limit the capacity of a research movement to grow and remain vital, evolving a form of path dependence that inhibits its development (Schad et al., 2019). Under these circumstances, research movements can accept a degree of variance that allows for the development of new insights, instead of the generation of ancillary hypothesis aimed at protecting a static conceptual core (Lakatos, 1978). 上述讨论的紧张关系涉及一个充满各种思维方式的世界，其中行动者网络既影响着作为作者的研究者群体，也影响着作为评审者的研究者群体。这些相互关系越紧密受限，在发表成果或获取研究资助的“游戏”中获胜的机会就越大。如果要避免大量潜在的解释性错误，了解哪些行动者网络和思维方式在起作用是值得的。这些紧张关系促使范式趋同（封闭）。与此同时，过度封闭会限制研究运动的发展能力和活力，导致一种阻碍其发展的路径依赖形式（Schad等人，2019）。在这种情况下，研究运动可以接受一定程度的差异，以促进新见解的产生，而不是为了保护静态的概念核心而提出辅助性假设（Lakatos，1978）。
The dynamics of openness—closure not only affect the participants in the research movement but also concern the scope of the research program, “the range of phenomena encompassed by the theory” (Bacharach, 1989: 509). While a broad scope is thought to be a determinant of the sustained success of a school of thought (McKinley et al., 1999), expanding the range of a theory can be problematic, since it implies conceptual ambiguity (Astley & Zammuto, 1992). Ambiguity can be a resource for sensemaking, allowing multiple interpretations (Weick, 1995a); however, it can also impact the identity of a research program negatively, causing splintering and secessions, as happened in organizational culture studies (Martin, Frost, & O’Neill, 2006). 开放性与封闭性的动态不仅影响研究运动的参与者，还关乎研究项目的范围，即“理论所涵盖的现象范围”（Bacharach，1989：509）。虽然广泛的范围被认为是一个思想流派持续成功的决定因素（McKinley等人，1999），但扩大理论的范围可能会带来问题，因为这意味着概念上的模糊性（Astley & Zammuto，1992）。模糊性可以成为意义建构的资源，允许多种解释（Weick，1995a）；然而，它也可能对研究项目的身份产生负面影响，导致分裂和分离，这在组织文化研究中就曾发生过（Martin，Frost，& O’Neill，2006）。
Practices of Intellectual Craft: The Novelty-Continuity Tension
智力创作实践：新颖性与连续性的张力
Normative models prescribing the characteristics of “good theory” typically list a number of attributes that theory formulations should possess. Achieving these characteristics is the essence of the intellectual craft that journal editors urge as good “intellectual craftsmanship” (Mills, 1980). Usually, these include parsimony (Bacharach, 1989; Eisenhardt, 1989), utility (Corley & Gioia, 2011; Davis, 1971), clarity and specificity (Boxenbaum & Rouleau, 2011; Tsang & Ellsaesser, 2011), novelty and originality (Bacharach, 1989; Corley & Gioia, 2011), generality and abstraction (Davis, 1971; Sutton & Staw, 1995). Developing an organization theory that possesses all these desirable features appears not only difficult but also impracticable because of trade-offs between abstract generalizability and detail (Bacharach, 1989) and between generality, accuracy, and simplicity (Weick, 1979). Since “accurate-simple explanations say everything about nothing, general-simple explanations say nothing about everything, and general-accurate explanations say everything about everything but are unintelligible” (Weick, 1999: 801), the directions are less helpful than might at first appear to be the case. Such trade-offs are not necessarily “paradoxical,” since they can be resolved by choosing a particular balance between the two (e.g., sacrificing the “right” amount of accuracy to obtain the “right” degree of generalizability). 规范模型规定了“好理论”的特征，通常会列出理论表述应具备的若干属性。实现这些特征是期刊编辑所倡导的良好“学术素养”（Mills, 1980）这一智力技艺的精髓。通常，这些属性包括简约性（Bacharach, 1989；Eisenhardt, 1989）、实用性（Corley & Gioia, 2011；Davis, 1971）、清晰性与明确性（Boxenbaum & Rouleau, 2011；Tsang & Ellsaesser, 2011）、新颖性与原创性（Bacharach, 1989；Corley & Gioia, 2011）、普适性与抽象性（Davis, 1971；Sutton & Staw, 1995）。由于抽象的普适性与细节之间（Bacharach, 1989）以及普适性、准确性与简洁性之间（Weick, 1979）存在权衡，构建一个具备所有这些理想特征的组织理论不仅困难，而且不切实际。正如Weick（1999: 801）所言：“准确-简洁的解释对‘无物’而言无所不包，普适-简洁的解释对‘万物’而言一无所言，而普适-准确的解释对‘万物’而言无所不包却难以理解”，因此这些方向的帮助程度可能不如初看起来那么大。这种权衡并不一定是“矛盾的”，因为可以通过在两者之间选择特定的平衡来解决（例如，牺牲“适当”的准确性以获得“适当”的普适性）。
Each research movement must, however, also cope with a more specific tension, deriving from another organizing priority: the need to regulate the assumptions, beliefs, and normative principles that bound and direct theorizing within the movement. Normative regulation of intellectual craft occurs at the intersection of thought styles and grammars. Values consensually shared by a community (e.g., privileging critical or performative concerns in organizational inquiry; pursuing equilibrium or advocating disruptive transformation; favoring micro, meso, or macro perspectives, etc.) underpin the choice of assumptions and perspectives. Organization theories gain strength by articulating selection rules and by artificially isolating social entities, fabricating distinctions and creating differences. These assumptions become embedded and reproduced in crafting conventional language games and accepted grammars as a selectivity driven by specific interests, values, and political intents (Flyvbjerg, 2001). 然而，每一项研究运动还必须应对一种更具体的张力，这种张力源自另一个组织性优先事项：需要规范界定并指导运动内理论化的假设、信念和规范原则。知识技艺的规范调节发生在思维风格和语法的交汇点。一个社群共同认可的价值观（例如，在组织研究中重视批判性或表演性关切；追求均衡或倡导颠覆性变革；倾向微观、中观或宏观视角等）构成了假设和视角选择的基础。组织理论通过阐述选择规则、人为地孤立社会实体、构建区分并制造差异来获得力量。这些假设在构建常规语言游戏和公认语法的过程中被嵌入并复制，这种选择性是由特定的利益、价值观和政治意图驱动的（Flyvbjerg, 2001）。
The tension between novelty and continuity entails maintaining enough of the former to fuel interest, while avoiding straying too far from existing conceptions (McKinley et al., 1999). To be taken into account, authors need to join existing conversations (Lange & Pfarrer, 2017); to be influential, they must present original ideas, with the potential “for changing the conversation” (Corley & Gioia, 2011: 27). Being interesting is a middle way between the feeling of absurdity that comes with being too novel and the boredom that comes with restating the obvious or the already-known (Davis, 1971). The situation is similar to the problem encountered by new ideas and inventions: to be accepted, innovation must be located within the set of existing understandings and actions, while, at the same time, maintaining potential to allow the discovery of new possibilities of interaction (Hargadon & Douglas, 2001). 新颖性与连续性之间的张力需要维持足够的新颖性以激发兴趣，同时避免过度偏离现有认知（McKinley等人，1999）。为了被纳入考量，作者需要参与现有的学术对话（Lange & Pfarrer，2017）；为了产生影响力，他们必须提出具有“改变对话方向”潜力的原创观点（Corley & Gioia，2011：27）。有趣性是一种折中状态：既避免因过于新颖而产生荒谬感，也避免因重复显而易见或已知内容而导致枯燥（Davis，1971）。这种情况与新思想和发明面临的问题类似：创新要被接受，必须植根于现有认知和行动框架中，同时又要保留发现新互动可能性的潜力（Hargadon & Douglas，2001）。
Different research movements will be driven by distinctive assumptions about the nature of organization, the purpose of organizational research, and what constitute “relevance” or “rigor” in research (Berti, 2017). Hence, the definition of what constitutes an object of “tacit consent” or ““common ground” (Lange & Pfarrer, 2017: 408) will vary across movements. Ideological rifts separate scholars who believe in the emancipatory purposes of organizational studies and those who promote its functional role in support of productivity and capitalism (Gioia & Pitre, 1990). Judgment of the appropriateness of the representation is not an objective assessment made possible by the existence of universal normative principles. Rather, it is the outcome of an agreement whereby different forms of craft work will assemble different assemblages of objects, thought styles, and language games for different purposes. 不同的研究运动将由对组织本质、组织研究目的以及研究中何为“相关性”或“严谨性”的不同假设所驱动（Berti，2017）。因此，“默许共识”或“共同基础”（Lange & Pfarrer，2017：408）的定义在不同运动中会有所不同。意识形态分歧将相信组织研究具有解放目的的学者与主张其在支持生产力和资本主义方面发挥功能性作用的学者分隔开来（Gioia & Pitre，1990）。对表述适当性的判断并非是由普遍规范原则的存在所促成的客观评估。相反，它是一种协议的结果，通过这种协议，不同形式的技艺工作将为不同目的组合不同的对象集合、思维风格和语言游戏。
While accepting that pluralism and enabling dialogue among different forms of theorizing might help overcome tensions arising from different crafts (Weick, 1999), the consideration of the ideal attributes of any theory reveals a deeper tension, involving unstated background assumptions. Viewing a theory as a more coherent set of statements of relations explaining or predicting empirical phenomena (Corley & Gioia, 2011; Gioia & Pitre, 1990) implies privileging a conception of scientific rationality that views reality as a set of discrete entities separate from an observer capable of formulating a correct representation of them (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2011). It is coherent with research programs that assume the role of science is to simplify complexity, by uncovering the basic rules underlying empirical variety (Simon, 1962). Yet, in a different onto-epistemological perspective, social complexity neither can nor should be reduced. Instead, the role of theories is to aim either at complexifying understanding of reality (Tsoukas, 2017) or fostering ethically preferable ways to organize (Flyvbjerg, 2001). 虽然承认多元性并促进不同理论形式之间的对话可能有助于克服因不同研究方法产生的紧张关系（Weick, 1999），但对任何理论理想属性的考量揭示了更深层次的张力，涉及未明确说明的背景假设。将理论视为一组更连贯的关系陈述，以解释或预测经验现象（Corley & Gioia, 2011；Gioia & Pitre, 1990），意味着优先考虑一种科学理性的概念，这种概念将现实视为一组独立于能够对其形成正确表征的观察者的离散实体（Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2011）。这与认为科学的作用是通过揭示经验多样性背后的基本规则来简化复杂性的研究项目一致（Simon, 1962）。然而，在另一种本体论-认识论视角下，社会复杂性既不能也不应被简化。相反，理论的作用要么是旨在深化对现实的理解（Tsoukas, 2017），要么是促进伦理上更可取的组织方式（Flyvbjerg, 2001）。
Practices of Heuristic Regulation: The RigorApplicability Tension
启发式监管的实践：严格性与适用性的张力
A third organizing priority for research movements concerns the need to regulate research activities. Situated at the intersection of grammars and empirical objects of studies, these regulation processes are meant to position a specific research movement in relation to tensions between practice and theory, between rigor and relevance (Berti, 2017). MOS research and theorizing is often accused of being too abstract or circumscribed (Bennis & O’Toole, 2005), offering prevalently descriptive representations (Bazerman, 2005) and producing theories that have little connection to practice (Peters & Bogner, 2002). At the same time, relevance is a highly idiosyncratic concept (Weick, 2001), depending on an individual capacity to see possible connections (Paton, Chia, & Burt, 2014). Relevance also depends on fashions (Abrahamson, 1991) and rhetoric (Sillince, 2005), implicating an additional tension between acceptance and implementation. 研究运动的第三个组织优先事项涉及规范研究活动的必要性。这些规范过程处于语法和研究经验对象的交叉点，旨在将特定研究运动置于实践与理论、严谨与相关性之间的张力之中（Berti，2017）。管理与组织研究（MOS）的研究和理论化常被指责过于抽象或局限（Bennis & O’Toole，2005），主要提供描述性表征（Bazerman，2005），并产生很少与实践相关联的理论（Peters & Bogner，2002）。与此同时，相关性是一个高度特有的概念（Weick，2001），取决于个人发现可能联系的能力（Paton，Chia，& Burt，2014）。相关性也取决于时尚（Abrahamson，1991）和修辞（Sillince，2005），这又带来了接受与实施之间的额外张力。
Tension also exists between theorizing as a situated practical activity and theory as an abstract, timeless representation. In the latter, a legitimate contribution should ideally be complete, one that can both predict and explain the occurrence of phenomena (Bacharach, 1989), as well as include description, explanation, as well as boundaries/limitations (Whetten, 1989). The exemplar for the completeness of theory is the language game of correspondence in which the formulations of the theory should model the relevant material attributes of the phenomena to which it refers. Concordance in correspondence signifies theoretical strength. Concordance is somewhat easier to attain when the materiality attended to cannot answer back in disagreement with the representations made, or learn from them—a situation that all social science researchers must face. 理论化作为一种情境化的实践活动与理论作为一种抽象、永恒的表征之间也存在张力。在后一种情况下，理想的合法贡献应该是完整的，即既能够预测也能够解释现象的发生（Bacharach，1989），并且包括描述、解释以及边界/局限性（Whetten，1989）。理论完整性的范例是对应语言游戏，在该游戏中，理论的表述应模拟其所指现象的相关物质属性。对应中的一致性标志着理论的强度。当所关注的物质性无法以与所做表征的不一致方式回应，或无法从中学习时，一致性更容易实现——这是所有社会科学研究者都必须面对的情况。
These issues are common to all research movements in MOS and navigating them is essential for their sustainability. Each research movement will identify a specific set of heuristic regulation practices aimed at guaranteeing a satisfactory balance between rigor and applicability. These will be achieved in ways that are coherent with the assumptions and tacit agreements that underpin the movement and that shape its identity. For instance, even if individual scholars acknowledge the scientific validity of qualitative/idiographic accounts as well as quantitative/statistical studies, an audience of population ecologists is likely to consider absurd the attempt to contribute to their theorization with an ethnographic study. Post-modernists appear “allergic” to propositional styles of theorizing favored by positivists while, conversely, positivists are quite capable of elaborating narrative accounts of alternative paradigms constituted as anti-management (Donaldson, 1995). 这些问题是MOS中所有研究运动共有的，应对这些问题对于它们的可持续性至关重要。每个研究运动都会确定一组特定的启发式规范实践，旨在确保严谨性和适用性之间的令人满意的平衡。这些实践将以与支撑该运动并塑造其身份的假设和默认共识一致的方式实现。例如，即使个别学者承认定性/个案研究以及定量/统计研究的科学有效性，人口生态学家群体可能会认为用民族志研究来为其理论化做出贡献的尝试是荒谬的。后现代主义者似乎“反感”实证主义者青睐的命题式理论化风格，而相反，实证主义者完全有能力阐述构成反管理的替代范式的叙事性描述（Donaldson，1995）。
Attempts at heuristic regulation result in wars of position between different research movements, competing for limited resources and attention. One theory (say, paradox theory) can affirm itself by highlighting its contrasts with a previous theory (such as contingency theory) (Lewis & Smith, 2014). The contrast is important in establishing novelty and difference. Yet, promising theorizing opportunities lie at the intersection of the paradigms. For example, some scholars have explored how paradoxical “mindsets” are contingent upon culture (Keller, Loewenstein, & Yan, 2017; Peng & Nisbett, 1999) and others have articulated contingency and paradox theories, showing that different paradoxical tensions emerge in various contexts that face different contingencies (Cunha, Fortes, Gomes, Rego, & Rodrigues, 2019). In other words, paradoxes may be viewed as depending on contingencies rather than existing outside contingency. 尝试进行启发式监管会导致不同研究流派之间的立场之争，它们争夺有限的资源和关注。一种理论（例如悖论理论）可以通过突出其与先前理论（如权变理论）的对比来确立自身地位（Lewis & Smith, 2014）。这种对比对于确立新颖性和差异性至关重要。然而，有前景的理论构建机会存在于范式的交叉点。例如，一些学者探讨了悖论“心态”如何依赖于文化（Keller, Loewenstein, & Yan, 2017；Peng & Nisbett, 1999），而另一些学者则阐述了权变理论和悖论理论，表明在面对不同权变因素的各种情境中会出现不同的悖论张力（Cunha, Fortes, Gomes, Rego, & Rodrigues, 2019）。换句话说，悖论可能被视为依赖于权变因素，而非独立于权变之外存在。
Research on teams suggests that teams need both differentiation and bridging, or they risk losing opportunities for cross-fertilization (Ancona & Bresman, 2007). Bridging two fields can thus be more promising than splitting them. Different paradigms are cultivated in different moments by different scholars distinguishing themselves from other groups. Research movement teams’ paradigm bridging may offend those most protective of the hard core on either side of the bridge. Bridging leads not to greater conformance but to innovation across boundaries that may be more or less sustaining of the innovation. 对团队的研究表明，团队既需要差异化（differentiation），也需要桥接（bridging），否则它们可能会错失跨界融合（cross - fertilization）的机会（Ancona & Bresman，2007）。因此，将两个领域进行桥接可能比将它们割裂开来更有前景。不同的学者在不同的时期会培育出不同的范式，并且这些学者会使自己与其他群体区分开来。研究运动团队的范式桥接可能会冒犯那些最维护桥接两侧核心内容的人。桥接不会带来更高的一致性，而是会带来跨边界的创新，而这种创新对其自身的持续性可能或多或少。
Tensions become manifest in implicit calls to produce useful and “evidence based” organizational theory (Bazerman, 2005; Davis, 2010; Pfeffer, 2007). The aspiration for theoretical sophistication and objectivity in research practices clashes with achieving social acceptance in a practitioners’ community. The thought styles and language games in which practitioners are engaged will usually be far from those of the theorists. The latter, engaged in a struggle for the riches of publication, citation, and awards, compete in a market very different from that of practitioners’ more immediate concerns. To connect with the thought styles encountered in the latter context entails buying into a language of commerce in which theories that “win” in the marketplace for ideas model the intersubjective assumptions and language games embedded in the practices being attended to, thereby creating conditions that make them come “true” (Ferraro, Pfeffer, & Sutton, 2005). 紧张关系在对产生有用且“基于证据”的组织理论的隐含呼吁中显现（Bazerman, 2005; Davis, 2010; Pfeffer, 2007）。研究实践中对理论复杂性和客观性的追求，与在从业者群体中获得社会认可相冲突。从业者所参与的思维风格和语言游戏，通常与理论家的截然不同。后者为了在发表、引用和奖项方面获得丰厚回报而展开竞争，他们所处的市场与从业者更直接关切的市场大相径庭。要与后者所处环境中遇到的思维风格相连接，就需要接受一种商业语言，在这种语言中，在思想市场上“获胜”的理论会模仿从业者关注的实践中所嵌入的主体间假设和语言游戏，从而创造出使这些理论“成真”的条件（Ferraro, Pfeffer, & Sutton, 2005）。
Practices of Research Impact: The Representation-Performativity Tension
研究影响力的实践：表征-表演性张力
Research movements need to acquire and maintain legitimation, both in relation to their potential followers, as well as to other stakeholders on whose endorsement and active support their survival depends. Demonstrating the capacity to produce “high-impact” research (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2013) is increasingly crucial for legitimizing a research movement. Opinions diverge on whether this impact should be primarily on management practice (Tushman, O’Reilly, Fenollosa, Adam, & McGrath, 2007), the stimulation of academic interest and discussion (Judge, Cable, Colbert, & Rynes, 2007), or the production of positive social outcomes (Antonacopoulou, 2010). 研究运动需要获取并维持合法性，这既涉及潜在追随者，也涉及其他利益相关者——研究运动的生存依赖于这些利益相关者的支持和积极参与。展示产出“高影响力”研究的能力（Alvesson & Sandberg, 2013）对于研究运动的合法性日益关键。关于这种影响力应主要体现在管理实践上（Tushman, O’Reilly, Fenollosa, Adam, & McGrath, 2007）、激发学术兴趣和讨论（Judge, Cable, Colbert, & Rynes, 2007），还是产生积极的社会成果（Antonacopoulou, 2010），学界存在分歧。
Impact clearly depends on audience. Suchman’s (1995: 574) definition of “legitimacy” as “a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions” applies also to actor network regulation. Key moments in which such judgements of legitimacy are regulated will be seminars, reviews, workshops, supervision of students, and similar professional encounters. Suchman’s influential definition is not only useful in making an analytical point but also serves to illustrate it. The legitimacy of impact depends on audiences’ generalized perception. 影响显然取决于受众。Suchman（1995：574）将“合法性”定义为“一种普遍的认知或假设，即某一实体的行为在某种社会建构的规范、价值观、信仰和定义体系内是可取、适当或恰当的”，这一定义同样适用于行动者网络的监管。在这些合法性判断受到规范的关键时刻包括研讨会、评审会、工作坊、学生监督以及类似的专业交流活动。Suchman的这一具有影响力的定义不仅有助于提出分析观点，还能对其进行阐释。影响的合法性取决于受众的普遍认知。
Research programs as processes of social construction can enable performative impact by producing new materialities as well as relabeling old constructs anew. “Performativity” refers to “the constitution of new worlds through their articulation” (Garud & Gehman, 2019: 680). For instance, chemistry will create new materials and compounds the properties of which become further objects of study, while economic constructs produce concrete effect on the economy (Callon, 2007). The existence of performative effects is inherent to any use of language (Austin, 1962), in that words are not simply used to indicate and represent but are sometimes used to produce social effects. In scientific disciplines, performative effects reach their apex in the case of Barnesian performativity (Barnes, 1983), becoming manifest when the application of a theory in practice results in the enactment of those processes that had previously only been depicted in theory (MacKenzie, 2006). The acceptance of the model and its shaping of practice, such as agency theory (Fama & Jensen, 1983), becomes a recursive sign of legitimacy. What is afforded is correspondence from concepts to materialities, rather than the more conventional reverse. 作为社会建构过程的研究项目，可以通过产生新的物质性以及重新标记旧的建构来实现表演性影响。“表演性”指的是“通过其表述来建构新世界”（Garud & Gehman，2019：680）。例如，化学会创造新的材料和化合物，其性质会成为进一步研究的对象，而经济建构会对经济产生具体影响（Callon，2007）。语言的任何使用都固有表演性效应的存在（Austin，1962），因为词语不仅被用来指示和代表，有时还被用来产生社会效应。在科学学科中，表演性效应在巴恩斯式表演性（Barnesian performativity）的案例中达到顶峰（Barnes，1983），当理论在实践中的应用导致那些之前仅在理论中描述的过程被实际执行时，这种效应就变得明显（MacKenzie，2006）。该模型的接受及其对实践的塑造（例如代理理论，Fama & Jensen，1983）成为合法性的递归标志。所赋予的是从概念到物质性的对应关系，而非更常规的反向关系。
A performative view “shifts the focus from linguistic representations to discursive practices” (Barad, 2003: 807), helping to bridge the worlds of theory and practice. At the same time, considering performative effects reveals a tension between organizational theory and organizational practices. When theories shape everyday language games, it is their recursivity that is simultaneously vital and unacknowledged. Recursivity generates a paradoxical situation: how is it possible to produce a “coherent description” (Gioia & Pitre, 1990: 587) of the social facts of “new worlds” of materiality if both observation and theorizing affect and shape the nature of the phenomena in question? The success of a theory makes it so self-fulfilling that its statements become accepted as taken-for-granted truths (Marti & Gond, 2018), making the theory obvious, hence pointless. The theory’s task is done; its vitality has been translated into everyday practice and language: indeed, much of strategy theory has precisely this quality (Clegg, Pitelis, Schweitzer, & Whittle, 2020: 468). The phenomenon has practical effects: when a practice is legitimized and objectified as a “best” practice, it is more likely to be adopted, but this ready acceptance reduces the critical capacity to adapt and modify that is required for successful implementation (Gondo & Amis, 2013). Another tension is implied, one that affects “impactful theorizing,” between the desire to disseminate only tried and true (evidence-based) ideas and the demand of novel knowledge (Corley & Gioia, 2011). 一种施为性视角“将焦点从语言表征转向话语实践”（Barad，2003：807），有助于弥合理论与实践之间的鸿沟。与此同时，考虑施为性效应会揭示组织理论与组织实践之间的张力。当理论塑造日常语言游戏时，其递归性既至关重要又未被承认。递归性会产生一个悖论性情境：如果观察和理论化都会影响并塑造相关现象的本质，那么如何才能对“物质性新世界”的社会事实进行“连贯描述”（Gioia & Pitre，1990：587）？理论的成功使其具有自我实现性，以至于其陈述被接受为理所当然的真理（Marti & Gond，2018），这使得理论变得显而易见，因此毫无意义。理论的任务已完成；其生命力已转化为日常实践和语言：事实上，许多战略理论恰恰具有这种特质（Clegg，Pitelis，Schweitzer，& Whittle，2020：468）。该现象具有实际影响：当一种实践被合法化并被客观化为“最佳”实践时，它更有可能被采纳，但这种轻易的接受会削弱成功实施所需的适应和修改的批判能力（Gondo & Amis，2013）。另一种张力被暗示，它影响“有影响力的理论化”，即在只传播经过验证的（循证）想法的愿望与对新颖知识的需求之间（Corley & Gioia，2011）。
Impact can lead to black boxing. “Black boxing” is defined by Latour (1999: 304) as “the way scientific and technical work is made invisible by its own success.” When a device is performing efficiently or when a matter of fact is settled, the internal complexity of its processes is not a focus. As long as the transformation processes perform effectively, they will not be a matter for attention. “Thus, paradoxically, the more science and technology succeed, the more opaque and obscure they become” (Latour, 1999: 304). In the case of MOS, concepts such as “institution” or “dynamic capability” act as black boxes, exercising considerable power/knowledge effects. These effects are achieved by framing, in a collectively accepted way, bundles of data, interpretations, research practices, and theories that make real their objects of inquiry, generating the phenomena they analyze. Thus, the actor network translations become embedded in grammars and influence the empirics. The identification of objects of inquiry (the empirics) of a research program, which is clearly important in defining audiences, does not involve just selecting some naturally existing objects. It also implies a degree of social construction, as some entities (e.g., a “practice,” an “institutional field,” a “capability,” etc.) are artificially “carved” out of an interconnected social reality. 影响可能导致“黑箱化”。拉图尔（1999：304）将“黑箱化”定义为“科学和技术工作因其自身的成功而变得不可见的方式”。当一个装置运行高效，或者一个事实问题得到解决时，其过程的内部复杂性就不再是关注的焦点。只要转化过程有效执行，它们就不会成为关注的对象。“因此，矛盾的是，科学和技术越成功，它们就变得越不透明和晦涩”（拉图尔，1999：304）。在MOS（可能指特定领域或概念）的案例中，“制度”或“动态能力”等概念充当黑箱，产生相当大的权力/知识效应。这些效应是通过以集体接受的方式构建数据束、解释、研究实践和理论来实现的，这些数据束、解释、研究实践和理论使研究对象成为现实，并生成它们所分析的现象。因此，行动者网络的转化被嵌入到语法中，并影响经验事实。研究项目的研究对象（经验事实）的识别，在定义受众方面显然很重要，但这不仅仅是选择一些自然存在的对象。它还意味着一定程度的社会建构，因为某些实体（例如“实践”、“制度领域”、“能力”等）是从相互关联的社会现实中人为“切割”出来的。
STRATEGIES FOR NAVIGATING TENSIONS
应对矛盾的策略
Organizational paradox theory (Smith & Lewis, 2011) maintains that, when faced with paradoxes, organizations that deny their existence, or try to cope with them with either/or choices (focusing only on one pole of the contradiction), will engender vicious circles. Vicious circles ultimately undermine organizational sustainability. In the case of research movements, choosing to deal with the paradoxical tensions identified in the previous section would ultimately degrade the viability of the movement, causing decline of its research program. 组织悖论理论（Smith & Lewis，2011）认为，当组织面对悖论时，如果否认其存在，或试图通过非此即彼的选择（仅关注矛盾的一个方面）来应对，将会引发恶性循环。恶性循环最终会破坏组织的可持续性。在研究运动的案例中，选择处理上一节中识别出的悖论性张力，最终会降低该运动的生存能力，导致其研究项目衰退。
Excessive “closure” causes stagnation in the pool of theorists, which reduces the capacity to generate novel ideas, causing a vicious circle. The existence of other successful research programs that performatively transform the object of study, making the theory less applicable (this appears to have been the fate of contingency theory), exacerbate the tendency. Conversely, too much opening will strain continuity and coherence, with negative impacts on rigor and loss of performative impacts. Similarly, an excessive focus on rigor (which also reinforces continuity) can reduce applicability, limiting the capacity to attract support and investments. On the other hand, being “too practical” can minimize the “representational” potential of a theory, making it self-fulfilling rather than “influential,” likely causing loss of legitimacy in the scholarly community. 过度的“封闭性”会导致理论研究者群体陷入停滞，从而降低产生新颖想法的能力，形成恶性循环。其他成功的研究项目通过“表演性地”改变研究对象，使得理论的适用性降低（这似乎是权变理论的命运），这种情况加剧了上述趋势。相反，过度开放会破坏连续性和连贯性，对严谨性产生负面影响，并导致“表演性影响”的丧失。同样，过度关注严谨性（这也会强化连续性）会降低适用性，限制吸引支持和投资的能力。另一方面，过于“实用主义”会削弱理论的“代表性”潜力，使其自我实现而非“具有影响力”，这可能导致在学术界失去合法性。
In sum, lack of adequate management of the tensions inherent to organizing practices that sustain a research movement will ultimately cause it a loss of legitimacy. As legitimacy is a critical resource for the existence of any school of thought (McKinley et al., 1999), the mismanagement of tensions underlying theorizing will precipitate the decline of a research movement. Without constant support, even though developing new theories that can buffer as well as, in some cases, add to the conceptual core, the research program will progressively decay (Lakatos, 1978). 总之，由于对维系研究运动的组织实践中固有的张力缺乏充分管理，最终会导致其合法性丧失。由于合法性是任何思想流派存在的关键资源（McKinley等人，1999），理论构建中潜在张力的管理不善将促使研究运动走向衰落。即便开发出能够缓冲甚至在某些情况下充实概念核心的新理论，若缺乏持续支持，研究项目仍会逐渐衰减（Lakatos，1978）。
By contrast, the generative potential of tensions can be harnessed by their acceptance and synergistic combination (Smith & Lewis, 2011). Finding ways of “working through paradox,” so as to displace them temporarily, allows for action (Smith, 2014). Four fundamental strategies have been described in the literature: separation (Poole & van de Ven, 1989), oscillation (Smith, 2014), transcendence (Abdallah, Denis, & Langley, 2011), and practical coping (Smets, Jarzabkowski, Burke, & Spee, 2015). We consider each of these strategies, showing how they can be applied to preserve the vitality of a research movement. 相比之下，张力的生成潜力可以通过对其的接纳和协同组合来加以利用（Smith & Lewis，2011）。找到“解决悖论”的方法，以暂时消除它们，从而促成行动（Smith，2014）。文献中描述了四种基本策略：分离（Poole & van de Ven，1989）、振荡（Smith，2014）、超越（Abdallah，Denis，& Langley，2011）和实际应对（Smets，Jarzabkowski，Burke，& Spee，2015）。我们将探讨这些策略，展示如何应用它们来保持研究运动的活力。
Separation
分离
“Separation” can operate via temporization or spatialization (Czarniawska, 2017), detaching contradictory elements in time or attaching them to different units (Tracy, 2004); this strategy is frequently employed to tackle ambidexterity challenges in organizations (Papachroni, Heracleous, & Paroutis, 2016). In the case of theorizing, this separation can be achieved by division of research labor within the same paradigmatic framework, with some research teams involved in expanding conceptual boundaries, occupying “transition zones” toward other paradigms (Gioia & Pitre, 1990), or developing forms of meta-triangulation (Lewis & Grimes, 1999). “分离”可以通过时间化或空间化来实现（Czarniawska，2017），将矛盾元素在时间上分离或附着到不同单元（Tracy，2004）；这种策略常被用来应对组织中的双元性挑战（Papachroni、Heracleous & Paroutis，2016）。在理论构建的情况下，这种分离可以通过同一范式框架内的研究分工来实现，一些研究团队参与拓展概念边界，进入“过渡区域”以走向其他范式（Gioia & Pitre，1990），或发展元三角化形式（Lewis & Grimes，1999）。
Oscillation
振荡
“Oscillation,” as variation in magnitude or position around a central point occurring in public (Smith, 2014), opens the possibility of contradiction. Public contradictions can be managed through open discussion in conversational sparring sessions (Lüscher & Lewis, 2008). In theorizing circles, this is called a seminar; in more reflective practice, it characterizes processes of peer review. Oscillatory strategies are particularly employed to manage practice/theory tensions that can be pointed out and traced in normative recommendations about how to produce “good theory.” Together with the statement of general, abstract principles that should guide theory work, there are often references to “craft” (Rindova, 2008), tacit knowledge (Folger & Turillo, 1999), “art” (Byron & Thatcher, 2016), improvisation, and bricolage (Boxenbaum & Rouleau, 2011; van Maanen, 1995). Hence, balance is found by referring to abstract principles while constantly embodying (through socialization, apprenticeship, and lived experience, both as researchers and as reviewers, editors, and supervisors) the practical and ineffable elements of craft entailed in theorizing within specific actor networks. The creation of venues (e.g., conferences, workshops, journals) that allow both for this embodied learning and the transmission of general concepts becomes essential for building and maintaining theoretical vitality. “振荡”（Oscillation）指围绕中心点的幅度或位置变化，这种现象在公共领域中存在（Smith, 2014），它带来了矛盾的可能性。公共矛盾可以通过对话式争论环节中的公开讨论来解决（Lüscher & Lewis, 2008）。在理论研究领域，这被称为研讨会；在更具反思性的实践中，它体现了同行评审的过程。振荡策略尤其被用于管理实践/理论之间的张力，这些张力可以通过关于如何产出“优质理论”的规范性建议来识别和追溯。除了指导理论工作的一般抽象原则的陈述外，还经常提及“技艺”（Rindova, 2008）、隐性知识（Folger & Turillo, 1999）、“艺术”（Byron & Thatcher, 2016）、即兴创作和拼凑（bricolage，Boxenbaum & Rouleau, 2011；van Maanen, 1995）。因此，平衡是通过参考抽象原则实现的，同时通过社会化、学徒制和生活经验（作为研究者、评审人、编辑和导师）不断体现理论化过程中特定行动者网络所蕴含的实践和难以言喻的技艺要素。创建能够支持这种具身学习和一般概念传播的场所（例如会议、研讨会、期刊），对于构建和维持理论活力变得至关重要。
Transcendence
超越（Transcendence）
（注：这里“Transcendence”作为标题，通常保留英文或译为“超越”，根据上下文习惯。若仅需中文标题，可直接用“超越”；若需保留英文，可写“# 超越（Transcendence）”。但根据题目要求“Translate ALL human-readable content into zh-CN”，此处“Transcendence”是英文专有名词或通用词，若作为标题核心词，通常译为“超越”更符合中文标题习惯。）
最终输出（仅中文标题）：
超越
“Transcendence” refers to the capacity to move beyond oppositions by reframing the contradiction in a way that sees the opposites as mutually constitutive (Farjoun, 2010; Lewis, 2000). Transcendence is often achieved by means of rhetorical devices (Abdallah et al., 2011; Bednarek, Paroutis, & Sillince, 2017) and theorizing often has recourse to rhetoric to “sidestep” some of the contradictions generated. “超越”指的是通过重新构建矛盾，将对立双方视为相互构成的关系，从而超越对立的能力（Farjoun, 2010；Lewis, 2000）。超越通常通过修辞手段实现（Abdallah et al., 2011；Bednarek, Paroutis, & Sillince, 2017），且理论化过程常常借助修辞来“规避”一些产生的矛盾。
For instance, the notion of “reflexivity” (Hardy & Clegg, 1997; Hardy, Phillips, & Clegg, 2001) is often enrolled to transcend the contradictions between the social grounding and “objectivity” ambitions of theories, or to manage some of the contradictions that derive from the self-fulfilling characteristics of performativity. 例如，“反思性”（Hardy & Clegg, 1997; Hardy, Phillips, & Clegg, 2001）这一概念常被用来超越理论的社会根基与其“客观性”诉求之间的矛盾，或处理源于表演性自我实现特征的某些矛盾。
Practical Coping
实用应对策略
It is well established that possibilities for meaningful action in “practical coping” with contradictions can be restored through micro-practices that help actors make sense of the situation, such as choosing which clothes to wear (Lê & Bednarek, 2017), employing irony and sarcasm (Jarzabkowski & Lê, 2017; Tracy, 2004), or even making oneself scarce (Jarzabkowski & Lê, 2017). Micro-activities can also revitalize declining/declined theorizing. Examples would be when an established author ironically labels competing theories as anti-management (Donaldson, 1995); when a strong theorizing community, such as that of institutional theory, is confronted with a possible midlife crisis (Alvesson & Spicer, 2018) or when up-and-coming theorizing, such as, for example, paradox theory, is criticized for its premature aging (Cunha & Putnam, 2019). Ironical theorizing may prove a powerful lever for the advancement of MOS. It is well established that possibilities for meaningful action in “practical coping” with contradictions can be restored through micro-practices that help actors make sense of the situation, such as choosing which clothes to wear (Lê & Bednarek, 2017), employing irony and sarcasm (Jarzabkowski & Lê, 2017; Tracy, 2004), or even making oneself scarce (Jarzabkowski & Lê, 2017). Micro-activities can also revitalize declining/declined theorizing. Examples would be when an established author ironically labels competing theories as anti-management (Donaldson, 1995); when a strong theorizing community, such as that of institutional theory, is confronted with a possible midlife crisis (Alvesson & Spicer, 2018) or when up-and-coming theorizing, such as, for example, paradox theory, is criticized for its premature aging (Cunha & Putnam, 2019). Ironical theorizing may prove a powerful lever for the advancement of MOS.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
讨论与结论
In this paper, we have argued that the capacity of a research program (a coherent sequence of theories based on shared assumptions and perspectives) to persist over time is contingent upon the existence of a research movement (a group of scholars and institutions that is willing to develop new theories, preserving and adding to the conceptual core of the program). Such investment requires organizing four different elements: an agreement in thought styles about the meaning of categories to be employed; a common “grammar,” specifying key concepts and ways to relate them; a privileged set of empirical objects of inquiry; an actor network, incorporating human actors and non-human actants in research and theorizing activities. These different elements are analytically separable but interact in practice: some elements of actor networks become stable and embedded in grammars, while creating self-fulfilling prophecies in relation to empirics; thought styles exhibit grammars and define the salience and relevance of certain empirical objects of study, contributing to the stabilization of networks. 在本文中，我们认为，一个研究项目（基于共同假设和视角的连贯理论序列）的长期存续能力取决于研究运动（愿意发展新理论、保留并充实项目概念核心的学者和机构群体）的存在。这种投入需要组织四个不同的要素：关于所使用范畴意义的思维风格共识；一套明确关键概念及其关联方式的共同“语法”；一组受偏爱的经验研究对象；以及一个行动者网络，将人类行动者和非人类行动者纳入研究和理论构建活动中。这些不同要素在分析上是可分离的，但在实践中相互作用：行动者网络的某些要素会稳定下来并嵌入语法中，同时在经验层面形成自我实现的预言；思维风格体现语法并界定某些经验研究对象的显著性和相关性，从而促进网络的稳定。
Examining the interaction between the four components identifies four essential organizing priorities for any research movement: practices of community boundedness, intellectual craft, heuristic regulation, and research impact. We have further argued that these organizing processes are bound to generate paradoxical tensions that need to be navigated in order to preserve sustainability of the research movement, avoiding a loss of legitimation that would undermine its capacity to attract further investments. 考察这四个组成部分之间的相互作用，可确定任何研究运动的四个基本组织优先事项：社区界限实践、智力技巧、启发式规范和研究影响力。我们进一步论证，这些组织过程必然会产生矛盾张力，需要加以调和，以保持研究运动的可持续性，避免因合法性丧失而削弱其吸引更多投资的能力。
In a nutshell, we argue that—at least in the case of MOS—the unit of selection of theories is the way in which theories are created and supported, through theorizing, rather than some transcendental attribute of theories themselves. Practical consequences follow. First, if we want to assess the vitality of the theory, we should direct our attention to the sociomaterial assemblage that supports that theory (the research movement). It is the capacity of this “informal organization” to manage a set of organizing priorities and to navigate their contradictions that determines the sustained success or decline of a “school of thought.” The implication is that it is impossible to devise a set of metatheoretical methodological principles that can be used to assess theories independently from the frame set by their research program. 简而言之，我们认为——至少在MOS（可能是指某种特定理论体系）的情况下——理论选择的单位是理论被创造和支持的方式，即通过理论化过程，而非理论自身的某种超验属性。实际后果随之而来。首先，如果我们想评估一个理论的生命力，我们应该关注支持该理论的社会物质组合（即研究运动）。正是这种“非正式组织”管理一系列组织优先事项并应对其矛盾的能力，决定了一个“思想流派”的持续成功或衰落。这意味着，不可能设计出一套元理论方法论原则，能够脱离研究项目所设定的框架来独立评估理论。
While some “universal” principles exist that can be used to assess the quality of a theoretical statement (e.g., parsimony, coherence, falsifiability, etc.), these are employed within the frame of reference (grammar, assumptions, black boxes, etc.) that defines and distinguishes the research movement that developed them. Each research movement will continuously “maintain” the research program it expresses, by assessing, refining, and rejecting theories (since this is one of the preconditions for their sustainability); however, this operation cannot be legitimately conducted by a follower of an alternative research movement. This does not mean that it is not possible or useful to use a problematization strategy to challenge the assumptions that bound a research program or a specific theory (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2011; Sandberg & Alvesson, 2011). Rather, we claim that a problematization strategy will—in most cases—add to another research program, rather than to the one being tested. 虽然存在一些可用于评估理论陈述质量的“通用”原则（例如简约性、一致性、可证伪性等），但这些原则是在定义和区分发展出这些原则的研究流派的参照框架（语法、假设、黑箱等）内被运用的。每个研究流派都会通过评估、完善和摒弃理论来持续“维护”其表达的研究项目（因为这是其可持续性的前提之一）；然而，这一操作不能由替代研究流派的追随者合法地进行。这并不意味着使用问题化策略来挑战限制研究项目或特定理论的假设是不可能或无用的（Alvesson & Sandberg, 2011; Sandberg & Alvesson, 2011）。相反，我们认为，在大多数情况下，问题化策略会为另一个研究项目增添内容，而非为正在被检验的研究项目增添内容。
Contribution to Theory
对理论的贡献
By stressing the sociomaterial components of theorizing activities, we do not intend to question the usefulness of “general,” metatheoretical advice offered by many AMR editorials. The clarity, consistency, and relevance of attempts to contribute to theory are invariably open to improvement, as our process of being reviewed illustrates all too clearly.1 Any research movement must make good use of such recommendations. Yet, in our discipline, because of the presence of different paradigms, heuristic frameworks, grammars, and the performative effects of organizational theories, multiple incompatible theorizations that meet these “technical requirements” can and do coexist. 通过强调理论化活动的社会物质组成部分，我们无意质疑许多AMR社论所提供的“一般性”元理论建议的有用性。理论贡献尝试的清晰度、一致性和相关性始终有改进的空间，我们的审稿过程就非常清楚地说明了这一点。1 任何研究流派都必须充分利用这些建议。然而，在我们这一学科中，由于存在不同的范式、启发式框架、语法以及组织理论的表演性影响，能够满足这些“技术要求”的多种不相容的理论化方式确实可以共存。
Our model describes the social dynamics underpinning theorizing, offering an answer to our original research question: why do some MOS theories decline and others persist? The model extends the seminal contribution offered by Lakatos (1978), integrating it with more contemporary discussions from the sociology of science (Callon, 1995; Frickel & Gross, 2005), which draw attention to the sociomaterial components of theorizing. Our model also extends that developed by McKinley et al. (1999) to describe the dynamics that allow for the persistence of schools of thought in organization theory. It also helps to make sense of the debate between proponents of paradigmatic unification in MOs (e.g., Pfeffer, 2007) and advocates of pluralism (e.g., Reed & Burrell, 2019) as well as discussion of the production of “non-sense” in organizational research (Bartunek, 2020; Tourish, 2020). Rather than “taking sides,” we articulate the reasons why these debates exist and will continue to do so in the future. While the central idea (the role of social dynamics in shaping scientific production) is rooted in a tradition that dates back to Kuhn (1962/1970), our model allows for the integration of discursive, material, and cognitive components of theorizing, highlighting the role of organizing practices and paradoxical tensions. 我们的模型描述了支撑理论构建的社会动态，回答了我们最初的研究问题：为什么一些组织研究（MOS）理论会衰落，而另一些却能持续存在？该模型扩展了拉卡托斯（Lakatos, 1978）的开创性贡献，并将其与科学社会学领域更具当代性的讨论（卡隆，1995；弗里克尔 & 格罗斯，2005）相结合，这些讨论关注理论构建中的社会物质性要素。我们的模型还扩展了麦金利等人（McKinley et al., 1999）的理论，以描述组织理论中思想流派得以持续存在的动态机制。它还有助于理解组织理论（MOs）中范式统一论支持者（如 Pfeffer, 2007）与多元论倡导者（如 Reed & Burrell, 2019）之间的争论，以及组织研究中“无意义”生产的相关讨论（Bartunek, 2020；图里什，2020）。我们没有“站队”，而是阐明了这些争论存在的原因以及未来仍将持续的原因。虽然核心思想（社会动态在塑造科学产出中的作用）根植于可追溯至库恩（Kuhn, 1962/1970）的传统，但我们的模型允许整合理论构建中的话语、物质和认知要素，强调组织实践和悖论性张力的作用。
Implications for (Theorizing) Practice
对（理论化）实践的启示
By focusing on theorizing, researchers may approach tensions as fundamental to achieving both plurality and paradigmatic integration. Doing so makes a contribution that, in turn, reframes theory building from a concern with structure to process. In a structural view, researchers defend their research programs from other research programs by, for example, buffering the paradigmatic core with ancillary elements. In a process perspective, researchers integrate contradictory evidence not to defend their theoretical constructions but to renew their foundations through hybridization. Overall, the constant tension between conservatism and radicalism, consensus and dissent, order and disorder, are critical to fuel the vitality and progressive nature of our discipline. It is the dynamism of debate that keeps hegemonies, with their calcifying effects, at bay. Our contribution helps to offer a more nuanced and dynamic view of the elements that produce successful theorizing as the interplay between plurality and paradigmatic integration. 通过专注于理论构建，研究人员可以将张力视为实现多元性和范式整合的核心要素。这样做会带来一种贡献，反过来又将理论构建从对结构的关注重新定义为对过程的关注。在结构视角下，研究人员通过例如用辅助元素缓冲范式核心的方式，来捍卫自己的研究项目免受其他研究项目的冲击。而在过程视角下，研究人员整合矛盾证据并非为了捍卫其理论构建，而是通过杂交化来更新其理论基础。总体而言，保守主义与激进主义、共识与异议、秩序与无序之间的持续张力，对于推动我们学科的活力和进步性质至关重要。正是辩论的动态性将那些具有僵化影响的霸权主义排除在外。我们的贡献有助于更细致和动态地看待产生成功理论构建的要素，即多元性与范式整合之间的相互作用。
In sum, this contribution will aid theorists in understanding what needs to be done to ensure a sustained return on their investment in theorizing as well as enabling more critical reflection on the relationship between conceptualizing and the sociomaterial practices of grammars, thought styles, language games, and actor networks. In our view, theorizing implicates all of these. At the same time, potential users of theories (students, managers, and other organizational actors) can be made aware of the fact that different theories are not just more or less accurate representations mirroring an objective reality (Alvesson & Kärreman, 2007). Theories, as the effect of theorizing, provide different practical tools with which to represent and to interface with the reality represented, tools that are aligned with different purposes, interests, and values, produced through tapping into different materialities in data. 总之，这一贡献将帮助理论家理解为确保其在理论构建方面的投资获得持续回报需要采取哪些行动，同时也有助于更批判性地反思概念化与语法的社会物质实践、思维风格、语言游戏及行动者网络之间的关系。在我们看来，理论构建涉及所有这些方面。同时，理论的潜在使用者（学生、管理者和其他组织行动者）可以意识到，不同的理论不仅仅是更准确或较不准确地反映客观现实的表征（Alvesson & Kärreman, 2007）。作为理论构建的结果，理论提供了不同的实用工具，用于表征和与所表征的现实进行交互，这些工具与不同的目的、利益和价值观相契合，是通过利用数据中的不同物质性而产生的。
The contribution also overcomes what is an insufficient degree of reflection on theorizing as a process (Suddaby, 2014). For instance, an increasing awareness of the sociomaterial implications of theorizing and of the performative consequences of theories can help MOS to examine its own performative “footprint,” which should lead to reflecting on the negative impact of “academic navel gazing” (Reed & Burrell, 2019: 3). Investing resources, researching, writing, publishing, and conferencing in questions not “worth answering” (Davis, 2015: 314) creates a potential double negative impact. Aware of the capacity of theories to influence practices, first, there are the communities of theoretical practice acting as journal gatekeepers screening content through review procedures; second, there are potential users of theory in other actor networks of practice, less tolerant of the intricacies that tightly coupled actor networks can produce and more tolerant of solutions they can understand to problems that they think they know. Organizational theories, in small ways, enable and restrict transformation of the world, not just the world of theory. Small wins, perhaps, but, with Machado de Assis (1881/1997), we can conclude that theorizing, as a form of thinking errata, a constant production of new editions, each connected to predecessors, is ultimately destined for the book worms. All heated debate eventually turns to dust. The present contribution casts light on the processes that precede such reduction and does so by using organization theories to explain organization theorizing. 这一贡献还克服了对理论构建过程思考不足的问题（Suddaby, 2014）。例如，对理论构建的社会物质影响以及理论的执行性后果日益增强的认识，可以帮助MOS审视自身的执行性“足迹”，这应促使其反思“学术自说自话”（Reed & Burrell, 2019: 3）的负面影响。在不值得回答的问题上投入资源、进行研究、写作、发表和参加会议（Davis, 2015: 314）会产生潜在的双重负面影响。意识到理论对实践的影响力，首先，存在着理论实践社区，它们充当期刊守门人，通过评审程序筛选内容；其次，在其他实践行动者网络中存在理论的潜在使用者，他们对紧密耦合的行动者网络可能产生的复杂性耐受性较低，而对他们认为已知的问题的解决方案耐受性较高。组织理论在细微层面上，既推动也限制着世界的变革，而不仅仅是理论世界的变革。或许这只是小胜利，但与Machado de Assis（1881/1997）的观点一致，我们可以得出结论：理论构建作为一种纠错性思维形式，是一种持续产生新版本的过程，每个版本都与先前版本相连，最终注定是为书虫而存在的。所有激烈的争论最终都会化为尘土。本研究揭示了导致这种简化的过程，并通过运用组织理论来解释组织理论构建。
REFERENCES
参考文献
Auualal, U., Deils, J.-L., α Ldngiey, A. Zu11. naving your cake and eating it too: Discourses of transcendence and their role in organizational change dynamics. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24: 333348.
Auualal, U., Deils, J.-L., α Ldngiey, A. Zu11. naving your cake and eating it too: Discourses of transcendence and their role in organizational change dynamics. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24: 333348.
Abend, G. 2008. The meaning of “theory.” Sociological Theory, 26: 173199.
阿本德，G. 2008. “理论”的意义。《社会学理论》，26: 173-199.
Abrahamson, E. 1991. Managerial fads and fashions: The diffusion and rejection of innovations. Academy of Management Review, 16: 586612.
亚伯拉罕森，E. 1991. 管理潮流与风尚：创新的传播与排斥。《管理学会评论》，16：586-612。
Alvesson, M., & Gabriel, Y. 2013. Beyond formulaic research: In praise of greater diversity in organizational research and publications. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12: 245263.
阿尔维森，M.，& 加布里埃尔，Y. 2013. 超越公式化研究：倡导组织研究与出版物的更大多样性。《管理学会学习与教育》，12: 245-263。
Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. 2000. Varieties of discourse: On the study of organizations through discourse analysis. Human Relations, 53: 11251149.
阿尔维森（Alvesson），M.，& 卡尔曼（Kärreman），D. 2000. 话语的多样性：通过话语分析研究组织。《人际关系》（Human Relations），53：1125-1149。
Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. 2007. Constructing mystery: Empirical matters in theory development. Academy of Management Review, 32: 12651281.
阿尔维森（Alvesson, M.）和卡尔雷曼（Kärreman, D.）。2007。构建谜团：理论发展中的实证问题。《管理学会评论》，32：12651281。
Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. 2011. Generating research questions through problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36: 247271.
阿尔维森，M.，& 桑德伯格，J. 2011. 通过问题化生成研究问题。《管理学会评论》，36: 247-271.
Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. 2013. Has management studies lost its way? Ideas for more imaginative and innovative research. Journal of Management Studies, 50: 128152.
阿尔维森，M.，& 桑德伯格，J. 2013. 管理学研究是否迷失了方向？对更具想象力和创新性研究的思考。《管理研究杂志》，50：128152。
Alvesson, M., & Spicer, A. 2018. Neo-institutional theory and organization studies: A mid-life crisis? Organization Studies, 40: 199218.
阿尔维森，M.，& 斯派塞，A. 2018. 新制度主义理论与组织研究：中年危机？《组织研究》，40: 199218.
Ancona, D. G., & Bresman, H. 2007 . X-teams: How to build teams that lead, innovate, and succeed. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
安科纳（Ancona）、D.G.，& 布雷斯曼（Bresman）、H. 2007年。X团队：如何建立引领、创新并取得成功的团队。马萨诸塞州波士顿：哈佛商学院出版社。
Antonacopoulou, E. P. 2010. Making the business school more critical: Reflexive critique based on phronesis as a foundation for impact. British Journal of Management, 21: S6-s25.
安东纳科普洛，E. P. 2010. 让商学院更具批判性：以实践智慧为基础的反思性批判作为影响力的基石。《英国管理杂志》，21：S6-S25。
Astley, W. G., & Zammuto, R. F. 1992. Organization science, managers, and language games. Organization Science, 3: 443460.
Astley, W. G., & Zammuto, R. F. 1992. Organization science, managers, and language games. Organization Science, 3: 443460.
Austin, J. L. 1962. How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
奥斯汀，J. L. 1962. 如何以言行事。马萨诸塞州剑桥：哈佛大学出版社。
Bacharach, S. B. 1989. Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14: 496515.
巴卡拉赫，S. B. 1989. 组织理论：一些评估标准。《管理学会评论》，14：496515。
Bakken, T., & Hernes, T. 2006. Organizing is both a verb and a noun: Weick meets Whitehead. Organization Studies, 27: 15991616.
巴肯（Bakken, T.）和赫内斯（Hernes, T.）. 2006. 组织既是动词也是名词：韦克（Weick）与怀特海（Whitehead）的相遇. 《组织研究》（Organization Studies）, 27: 1599-1616.
Barad, K. 2003. Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs, 28: 801831.
巴拉德，K. 2003. 后人类主义的表演性：迈向理解物质如何成为物质。《符号》，28：801-831。
Barnes, B. 1983. Social life as bootstrapped induction. Sociology, 17: 524545.
巴恩斯，B. 1983. 作为自举归纳的社会生活。《社会学》，17：524-545。
Bartunek, J. M. 2020. Theory (what is it good for?). Academy of Management Learning & Education, 19: 223226.
Bartunek, J. M. 2020. 理论（它有什么用？）. 管理学会学习与教育, 19: 223226.
Bazerman, M. H. 2005. Conducting influential research: The need for prescriptive implications. Academy of Management Review, 30: 2531.
Bazerman, M. H. 2005. Conducting influential research: The need for prescriptive implications. Academy of Management Review, 30: 2531.
Bednarek, R., Paroutis, S., & Sillince, J. 2017. Transcendence through rhetorical practices: Responding to paradox in the science sector. Organization Studies, 38: 77101.
Bednarek, R., Paroutis, S., & Sillince, J. 2017. 通过修辞实践实现超越：科学领域中对悖论的回应。《组织研究》，38：77101。
Bennis, W. G., & O’Toole, J. 2005. How business schools lost their way. Harvard Business Review, 83(5): 96104.
Bennis, W. G., & O’Toole, J. 2005. How business schools lost their way. Harvard Business Review, 83(5): 96104.
Berti, M. 2017. Elgar introduction to organizational discourse analysis. Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar.
Berti, M. 2017. 《爱德华·埃尔加组织话语分析导论》。英国切尔滕纳姆：爱德华·埃尔加出版社。
Bhaskar, R. 2008. A realist theory of science. London, U.K.: Routledge. (Original work published 1975)
Bhaskar, R. 2008. 科学的实在论理论. 英国伦敦: 劳特利奇出版社. (原作发表于1975年)
Birkinshaw, J., Healey, M. P., Suddaby, R., & Weber, K. 2014. Debating the future of management research. Journal of Management Studies, 51: 3855.
伯金肖（Birkinshaw, J.）、希利（Healey, M. P.）、萨达比（Suddaby, R.）和韦伯（Weber, K.）。2014年。《管理研究辩论未来》。《管理研究杂志》，51: 3855。
Bort, S., & Kieser, A. 2011. Fashion in organization theory: An empirical analysis of the diffusion of theoretical concepts. Organization Studies, 32: 655681.
Bort, S. & Kieser, A. 2011. 组织理论中的时尚：理论概念传播的实证分析。《组织研究》，32：655-681。
Boxenbaum, E., & Rouleau, L. 2011. New knowledge products as bricolage: Metaphors and scripts in organizational theory. Academy of Management Review, 36: 272296.
博克恩鲍姆（Boxenbaum）, E. & 鲁洛（Rouleau）, L. 2011. 作为拼贴艺术的新知识产品：组织理论中的隐喻与脚本。《管理学会评论》, 36: 272-296.
Broad, W. J. 1981. The publishing game: Getting more for less. Science, 211: 11371139.
布罗德，W. J. 1981. 出版游戏：以更少获取更多。《科学》，211：1137-1139。
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. 1961. The management of innovation. London, U.K.: Tavistock.
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. 1961. The management of innovation. London, U.K.: Tavistock.
Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. 1979. Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis. London, U.K.: Heinemann.
伯勒尔，G.，& 摩根，G. 1979. 社会学范式与组织分析。英国伦敦：海涅曼出版公司。
Byron, K., & Thatcher, S. M. B. 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. B.），2016年。编辑评论：“我现在所知道的，是我当时希望知道的”：教学理论与理论构建。《管理学会评论》，41：18。
Callon, M. 1995. Four models for the dynamics of science. In S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen, & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies: 2963. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
卡隆，M. 1995. 科学动力学的四种模型。见 S. 贾萨诺夫、G. E. 马克尔、J. C. 彼得森与 T. 平奇（编），《科学与技术研究手册》：2963。千橡市，加利福尼亚州：塞奇出版公司。
Callon, M. 2007. What does it mean to say that economics is performative? In D. MacKenzie, F. Muniesa, & L. Siu (Eds.), Do economists make markets? On the performativity of economics: 311357. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
卡隆，M. 2007. 说经济学具有“施动性”意味着什么？载于D. 麦肯齐、F. 穆尼萨及L. 萧编《经济学家是否创造市场？论经济学的施动性》，第311-357页。普林斯顿，新泽西州：普林斯顿大学出版社。
Cannella, A., & Paetzold, R. 1994. Pfeffer’s barriers to the advance of organizational science: A rejoinder. Academy of Management Review, 19: 331341.
卡内拉（Cannella, A.）和帕策尔德（Paetzold, R.），1994年。《Pfeffer关于组织科学发展障碍的观点：再回应》。《管理学会评论》，19卷：331-341。
Carlsen, A., Clegg, S. R., & Gjersvik, R. 2012. Idea work: Lessons of the extraordinary in everyday creativity. Oslo, Norway: Cappelen Damm Akademisk.
卡尔森（A. Carlsen）、克莱格（S. R. Clegg）和耶尔夫维克（R. Gjersvik）。2012年。创意工作：日常创造力中非凡事物的启示。挪威奥斯陆：卡佩伦·达姆学术出版社。
Clegg, S. R. 1989a. Frameworks of power. London, U.K.: SAGE.
克莱格，S. R. 1989a. 权力框架。英国伦敦：塞奇出版公司。
Clegg, S. R. 1989b. Radical revisions: Power, discipline and organizations. Organization Studies, 10: 97115.
克莱格，S. R. 1989b. 根本性修订：权力、规训与组织。《组织研究》，10：97115。
Clegg, S. R., Pitelis, C., Schweitzer, J., & Whittle, A. 2020. Strategy: Theory & practice, London, U.K.: Sage.
克莱格（Clegg, S. R.）、皮泰利斯（Pitelis, C.）、施韦策（Schweitzer, J.）与惠特尔（Whittle, A.）。2020年。《战略：理论与实践》。英国伦敦：塞奇出版社（Sage）。
Coldevin, G. H., Carlsen, A., Clegg, S., Pitsis, T. S., & Antonacopoulou, E. P. 2019. Organizational creativity as idea work: Intertextual placing and legitimatingimaginings in media development and oil exploration. Human Relations, 72: 13691397.
Coldevin, G. H., Carlsen, A., Clegg, S., Pitsis, T. S., & Antonacopoulou, E. P. 2019. Organizational creativity as idea work: Intertextual placing and legitimating imaginings in media development and oil exploration. Human Relations, 72: 13691397.
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.）和乔伊亚（Gioia, D. A.），2011年。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。
Cornelissen, J. P. 2005. Beyond compare: Metaphor in organization theory. Academy of Management Review, 30: 751764.
科尼利森，J. P. 2005. 超越比较：组织理论中的隐喻。《管理学会评论》，30: 751-764.
Cornelissen, J. P. 2017. Editor’s comments: Developing propositions, a process model, or a typology? Addressing the challenges of writing theory without a boilerplate. Academy of Management Review, 42: 19.
科内利森，J. P. 2017. 编辑评论：提出命题、构建过程模型还是建立类型学？应对无模板写作理论的挑战。《管理学会评论》，42: 19.
Cunha, M. P. E., Fortes, A., Gomes, E., Rego, A., & Rodrigues, F. 2019. Ambidextrous leadership, paradox and contingency: Evidence from Angola. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30: 702727.
Cunha, M. P. E., Fortes, A., Gomes, E., Rego, A., & Rodrigues, F. 2019. 双元领导、悖论与权变：来自安哥拉的证据。《国际人力资源管理杂志》，30：702727。
Cunha, M. P., & Putnam, L. L. 2019. Paradox theory and the paradox of success. Strategic Organization, 17: 95106.
Cunha, M. P. & Putnam, L. L. 2019. 悖论理论与成功悖论。《战略组织》，17：95106。
Czarniawska, B. 2017. Bruno Latour and Niklas Luhmann as organization theorists. European Management Journal, 35: 145150.
Czarniawska, B. 2017. 布鲁诺·拉图尔和尼克拉斯·卢曼作为组织理论家。《欧洲管理杂志》，35：145-150。
D’Adderio, L., Glaser, V., & Pollock, N. 2019. Performing theories, transforming organizations: A reply to Marti and Gond. Academy of Management Review, 44: 676679.
D’Adderio, L., Glaser, V., & Pollock, N. 2019. 践行理论，变革组织：对Marti和Gond的回应。《管理学会评论》，44：676-679。
D’Adderio, L., & Pollock, N. 2014. Performing modularity: Competing rules, performative struggles and the effect of organizational theories on the organization. Organization Studies, 35: 18131843.
D’Adderio, L., & Pollock, N. 2014. 执行模块化：竞争规则、表演性斗争以及组织理论对组织的影响。《组织研究》，35：18131843。
Davis, M. S. 1971. That’s interesting! Towards a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1: 309344.
Davis, M. S. 1971. That’s interesting! Towards a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1: 309344.
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.
Davis, G. F. 2015. Celebrating organization theory: The after-party. Journal of Management Studies, 52: 309319.
戴维斯，G. F. 2015. 庆祝组织理论：派对之后。《管理研究杂志》，52：309-319。
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48: 147160.
迪马吉奥，P. J.，& 鲍威尔，W. W. 1983. 重探铁笼：组织领域中的制度同构与集体理性。《美国社会学期刊》，48：147160。
Donaldson, L. 1987. Strategy and structural adjustment to regain and performance: In efenc contingency theory. Journal of Management Studies, 24: 124.
Donaldson, L. 1987. 战略与结构调整以恢复和提升绩效：基于权变理论。《管理研究杂志》，24：124。
Donaldson, L. 1995. American anti-management theories of organization: A critique of paradigm proliferation. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Donaldson, L. 1995. 美国反管理组织理论：对范式泛滥的批判。英国剑桥：剑桥大学出版社。
Donaldson, L. 1996. For positivist organization theory: Proving the hard core. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Donaldson, L. 1996. For positivist organization theory: Proving the hard core. 千橡市，加利福尼亚州：SAGE.
Donaldson, L. 2001. The contingency theory of organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Donaldson, L. 2001. The contingency theory of organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Douglas, M. 1966. Purity and danger: An analysis of the concepts of pollution and taboo. London, U.K.: Routledge.
道格拉斯，M. 1966. 纯洁与危险：对污染和禁忌概念的分析。英国伦敦：劳特利奇出版社。
Douglas, M. 1970. Natural symbols: Explorations in cosmology. London, U.K.: Routledge.
道格拉斯，M. 1970. 自然符号：宇宙学探索。英国伦敦：劳特利奇出版社。
Douglas, M. 1986. How institutions think. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
道格拉斯，M. 1986. 机构如何思考。纽约州锡拉丘兹：锡拉丘兹大学出版社。
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14: 532550.
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14: 532550.
Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. 1983. Agency problems and residual claims. Journal of Law & Economics, 26: 327349.
法玛（Fama, E. F.）和詹森（Jensen, M. C.），1983年。代理问题与剩余索取权。《法律与经济学杂志》，26卷：327-349。
Farjoun, M. 2010. Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality. Academy of Management Review, 35: 202225.
Farjoun, M. 2010. 超越二元论：稳定性与变化的二元性。《管理学会评论》，35：202225。
Ferraro, F., Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. 2005. Economics language and assumptions: How theories can become self-fulfilling. Academy of Management Review, 30: 824.
费拉罗（Ferraro, F.）、费弗（Pfeffer, J.）和萨顿（Sutton, R. I.）。2005年。《经济学语言与假设：理论如何成为自我实现的预言》。《管理学会评论》，30卷：824页。
Fleck, L. 2012. Genesis and development of a scientific fact. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1935)
弗莱克，L. 2012. 科学事实的起源与发展。伊利诺伊州芝加哥：芝加哥大学出版社。（原作发表于1935年）
Fleming, P., & Spicer, A. 2014. Power in management and organization science. Academy of Management Annals, 8: 237298.
弗莱明（P.）和斯派塞（A.），2014年。管理与组织科学中的权力。《管理学会年鉴》，8：237298。
Flyvbjerg, B. 2001. Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Oxford, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Flyvbjerg, B. 2001. 让社会科学发挥作用：为何社会研究会失败以及如何使其再次成功。英国牛津：剑桥大学出版社。
Folger, R., & Turillo, C. J. 1999. Theorizing as the thickness of thin abstraction. Academy of Management Review, 24: 742758.
Folger, R., & Turillo, C. J. 1999. Theorizing as the thickness of thin abstraction. Academy of Management Review, 24: 742758.
Foucault, M. 1977. Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
福柯，M. 1977. 规训与惩罚：监狱的诞生。纽约，纽约州：文图里奇出版社。
Foucault, M. 1980. Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 19721977. New York, NY: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
福柯，M. 1980. 权力/知识：1972-1977年精选访谈及其他著作。纽约，纽约州：海维斯特·惠特谢夫出版社。
Foucault, M. 1984. The history of sexuality: Vol 1. An introduction. New York, NY: Vintage.
福柯，M. 1984. 性史：第一卷。导论。纽约，纽约州：文图里奇出版社。
Frickel, S., & Gross, N. 2005. A general theory of scientific/intellectual movements. American Sociological Review, 70: 204232.
Frickel, S., & Gross, N. 2005. A general theory of scientific/intellectual movements. American Sociological Review, 70: 204232.
Frickel, S., & Moore, K. 2006. The new political sociology of science: Institutions, networks, and power. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Frickel, S., & Moore, K. 2006. The new political sociology of science: Institutions, networks, and power. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Gabriel, Y. 2010. Organization studies: A space for ideas, identities and agonies. Organization Studies, 31: 757775.
加布里埃尔，Y. 2010. 组织研究：思想、身份与痛苦的空间。《组织研究》，31: 757775。
Garud, R., & Gehman, J. 2019. Performativity: Not a destination but an ongoing journey. Academy of Management Review, 44: 679684.
加鲁德（Garud, R.）和格曼（Gehman, J.）. 2019. 表演性：不是目的地，而是一场持续的旅程. 《管理学会评论》（Academy of Management Review）, 44: 679-684.
Garud, R., Gehman, J., Kumaraswamy, A., & Tuertscher, P. 2017. From the process of innovation to innovation as process. In A. Langley & H. Tsoukas (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of process organizational studies: 451465. London, U.K.: SAGE.
加鲁德（Garud, R.）、格曼（Gehman, J.）、库马拉斯瓦米（Kumaraswamy, A.）和图特舍（Tuertscher, P.）。2017年。从创新过程到作为过程的创新。载于A.兰利（A. Langley）和H.图卡斯（H. Tsoukas）（编），《SAGE组织过程研究手册》：451465。英国伦敦：SAGE出版社。
Garud, R., Gehman, J., & Tharchen, T. 2018. Performativity as ongoing journeys: Implications for strategy, entrepreneurship, and innovation. Long Range Planning, 51: 500509.
Garud, R., Gehman, J., & Tharchen, T. 2018. 作为持续旅程的表演性：对战略、创业精神和创新的影响。《长期规划》，51: 500509。
Ghoshal, S. 2005. Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4: 7995.
Ghoshal, S. 2005. 糟糕的管理理论正在摧毁良好的管理实践。《管理学会学习与教育》，4：79-95。
Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. 1990. Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. Academy of Management Review, 15: 584602.
Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. 1990. 多范式视角下的理论构建。《管理学会评论》，15：584602。
Gond, J. P., Cabantous, L., Harding, N., & Learmonth, M. 2016. What do we mean by performativity in organizational and management theory? The uses and abuses of performativity. International Journal of Management Reviews, 18: 440463.
Gond, J. P., Cabantous, L., Harding, N., & Learmonth, M. 2016. 组织与管理理论中的“能动性”究竟意味着什么？能动性的运用与滥用。《国际管理评论》，18：440-463。
Gondo, M. B., & Amis, J. M. 2013. Variations in practice adoption: The roles of conscious reflection and discourse. Academy of Management Review, 38: 229247.
Gondo, M. B., & Amis, J. M. 2013. 实践采用的变化：有意识反思和话语的作用. 管理学会评论, 38: 229247.
Grandori, A. 2001. Methodological options for an integrated perspective on organization. Human Relations, 54: 3747.
格兰多里，A. 2001. 组织综合视角的方法论选择。《人际关系》，54：3747。
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. The field of management’s devotion to theory: Too much of a good thing? Academy of Management Journal, 50: 13461352.
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. 1984. Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49: 149164.
汉南，M. T.，& 弗里曼，J. 1984. 结构惯性与组织变革。《美国社会学期刊》，49: 149-164.
Hardy, C., & Clegg, S. R. 1997. Relativity without relativism: Reflexivity in post-paradigm organization studies. British Journal of Management, 8: 517.
哈迪，C.，& 克莱格，S. R. 1997. 无相对主义的相对论：后范式组织研究中的反思性。《英国管理期刊》，8：517。
Hardy, C., Phillips, N., & Clegg, S. R. 2001. Reflexivity in organization and management theory: A study of the production of the research subject. Human Relations, 54: 531560.
哈迪（Hardy, C.）、菲利普斯（Phillips, N.）和克莱格（Clegg, S. R.）。2001年。组织与管理理论中的反思性：一项关于研究对象生产的研究。《人际关系》（Human Relations），54卷：531-560。
Hargadon, A. B., & Douglas, Y. 2001. When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of the electric light. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46: 476501.
哈加登，A. B.，& 道格拉斯，Y. 2001. 当创新遭遇制度：爱迪生与电灯的设计。《行政科学季刊》，46：476501。
Hassard, J., & Wolfram Cox, J. 2013. Can sociological paradigms still inform organizational analysis? A paradigm model for post-paradigm times. Organization Studies, 34: 17011728.
哈萨德（Hassard, J.）和沃尔夫拉姆·考克斯（Wolfram Cox, J.），2013年。社会学范式是否仍能为组织分析提供启示？后范式时代的范式模型。《组织研究》，34: 1701-1728。
Heidegger, M. 1927. Being and time (J. Stambaugh, Trans.). New York, NY: State University of New York Press.
海德格尔，M. 1927. 存在与时间（J. 斯坦博，译）。纽约，纽约州：纽约州立大学出版社。
Jarzabkowski, P. A., & Lê, J. K. 2017. We have to do this and that? You must be joking: Constructing and responding to paradox through humor. Organization Studies, 38: 433462.
Jarzabkowski, P. A., & Lê, J. K. 2017. We have to do this and that? You must be joking: Constructing and responding to paradox through humor. Organization Studies, 38: 433462.
Judge, T. A., Cable, D. M., Colbert, A. E., & Rynes, S. L. 2007. What causes a management article to be cited: Article, author, or journal? Academy of Management Journal, 50: 491506.
Judge, T. A., Cable, D. M., Colbert, A. E., & Rynes, S. L. 2007. What causes a management article to be cited: Article, author, or journal? Academy of Management Journal, 50: 491506.
Keller, J., Loewenstein, J., & Yan, J. 2017. Culture, conditions and paradoxical frames. Organization Studies, 38: 539560.
凯勒，J.，洛温斯坦，J.，& 严，J. 2017. 文化、条件与悖论框架。《组织研究》，38: 539–560.
Kolpakov, A., & Anguelov, L. G. 2018. Decision-making approaches to contracting out. Journal of Strategic Contracting and Negotiation, 4: 148166.
科尔帕科夫（Kolpakov, A.）和安格洛夫（Anguelov, L. G.），2018年。外包决策方法。《战略承包与谈判杂志》，4：148166。
Kuhn, T. S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1962)
库恩，T. S. 1970. 《科学革命的结构》（第2版）。芝加哥，伊利诺伊州：芝加哥大学出版社。（原著出版于1962年）
Lakatos, I. 1970. Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, 4: 91196.
拉卡托斯，I. 1970. 证伪与科学研究纲领方法论。《批评与知识的增长》，4：91-196。
Lakatos, I. 1978. The methodology of scientific research programmes (J. Worrall, Trans.). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
拉卡托斯，I. 1978. 科学研究纲领方法论（J. 沃拉尔 译）. 英国剑桥：剑桥大学出版社.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. 1980. 我们赖以生存的隐喻。伊利诺伊州芝加哥市：芝加哥大学出版社。
Lamont, M. 2009. How professors think: Inside the curious world of academic judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
拉蒙特，M. 2009. 教授们如何思考：学术判断的奇妙世界内幕。马萨诸塞州剑桥市：哈佛大学出版社。
Lange, D., & Pfarrer, M. D. 2017. Editors’ comments: Sense and structure—the core building blocks of an AMR article. Academy of Management Review, 42: 407416.
兰格（Lange, D.）和普拉弗（Pfarrer, M. D.），2017年。编辑评论：意义与结构——AMR文章的核心构建块。《管理学会评论》，42: 407416。
Latour, B. 1999. Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
拉图尔，B. 1999. 潘多拉的希望：科学研究的现实性论文集。马萨诸塞州剑桥：哈佛大学出版社。
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. 1979. Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
拉图尔，B.，& 伍尔加，S. 1979. 实验室生活：科学事实的社会建构。加利福尼亚州贝弗利山庄：塞奇出版公司。
Law, J. 2008. Actor network theory and material semiotics. In B. S. Turner (Ed.), The new Blackwell companion to social theory: 141158. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Law, J. 2008. Actor network theory and material semiotics. In B. S. Turner (Ed.), The new Blackwell companion to social theory: 141158. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. 1967. Organization and environment: managing differentiation and integration. Boston, MA: Harvard University.
劳伦斯，P. R.，& 洛尔施，J. W. 1967. 组织与环境：管理差异化与整合。马萨诸塞州波士顿：哈佛大学。
Lê, J. K., & Bednarek, R. 2017. Paradox in everyday practice. In W. K. Smith, M. W. Lewis, P. Jarzabkowski, & A. Langley (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational paradox: 490509. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
Lê, J. K., & Bednarek, R. 2017. Paradox in everyday practice. In W. K. Smith, M. W. Lewis, P. Jarzabkowski, & A. Langley (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational paradox: 490509. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
Lewis, M. W. 2000. Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25: 760776.
Lewis, M. W. 2000. 探索悖论：迈向更全面的指南。《管理学会评论》，25：760-776。
Lewis, M. W., & Grimes, A. J. 1999. Metatriangulation: Building theory from multiple paradigms. Academy of Management Review, 24: 672690.
Lewis, M. W., & Grimes, A. J. 1999. 元三角剖分：从多元范式构建理论。《管理学会评论》，24：672-690。
Lewis, M. W., & Smith, W. K. 2014. Paradox as a metatheoretical perspective: Sharpening the focus and widening the scope. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50: 127149.
Lewis, M. W., & Smith, W. K. 2014. 悖论作为一种元理论视角：聚焦与拓展范围。《应用行为科学杂志》，50: 127149.
Logue, D. M., Clegg, S., & Gray, J. 2016. Social organization, classificatory analogies and institutional logics: Institutional theory revisits Mary Douglas. Human Relations, 69: 15871609.
Logue, D. M., Clegg, S., & Gray, J. 2016. 社会组织、分类类比与制度逻辑：制度理论重访玛丽·道格拉斯。《人际关系》，69：15871609。
Lounsbury, M., & Beckman, C. 2015. Celebrating organization theory. Journal of Management Studies, 52: 288308.
Lounsbury, M., & Beckman, C. 2015. 组织理论的庆祝。《管理研究杂志》，52: 288308.
Lüscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. 2008. Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51: 221240.
吕舍尔（Lüscher, L. S.）和刘易斯（Lewis, M. W.），2008年。组织变革与管理者的意义建构：通过悖论开展工作。《管理学会期刊》，51：221240。
Machado de Assis, J. M. 1997. The posthumous memoirs of Brás Cubas (G. Rabassa, Trans.). Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1881)
马查多·德·阿西斯（Machado de Assis），J. M. 1997. 《布拉兹·库巴斯的遗作回忆录》（G. 拉巴萨译）。英国牛津：牛津大学出版社。（原作出版于1881年）
MacKenzie, D. 2006. Is economics performative? Option theory and the construction of derivatives markets. In D. MacKenzie, F. Muniesa, & L. Siu (Eds.), Do economists make markets?: On the performativity of economics: 54-86. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
麦肯齐，D. 2006. 经济学是否具有建构性？期权理论与衍生品市场的构建。载于 D. 麦肯齐、F. 穆尼萨和 L. 萧（编），《经济学家是否创造市场？论经济学的建构性》：54-86。新泽西州普林斯顿：普林斯顿大学出版社。
Marti, E., & Gond, J.-P. 2018. When do theories become self-fulfilling? Exploring the boundary conditions of performativity. Academy of Management Review, 43: 487508.
Marti, E., & Gond, J.-P. 2018. 理论何时会自我实现？探索表演性的边界条件。《管理学会评论》，43: 487508.
Marti, E., & Gond, J.-P. 2019. How Do Theories Become Self-Fulfilling? Clarifying the Process of Barnesian Performativity. Academy of Management Review, 44: 686694.
Marti, E., & Gond, J.-P. 2019. 理论如何成为自我实现的？澄清巴恩斯式建构性的过程。《管理学会评论》，44: 686-694.
Martin, J., Frost, P. J., & O’Neill, O. A. 2006. Organizational culture: Beyond struggles for intellectual dominance. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organization studies: 725753. London, U.K.: SAGE.
马丁，J.，弗罗斯特，P. J.，&奥尼尔，O. A. 2006. 组织文化：超越智力主导权之争。载于 S. R. 克莱格、C. 哈迪、T. B. 劳伦斯 & W. R. 诺德（编），《组织研究 SAGE 手册》：725753。英国伦敦：SAGE。
McHugh, P. 1970. On the failure of positivism. In J. D. Doulas (Ed.), Understanding everyday life: 320336. London, U.K.: Routledge.
麦克休，P. 1970. 实证主义的失败。载于J. D. 杜拉斯（编），《理解日常生活》：320336。英国伦敦：劳特利奇出版社。
McKinley, W., Mone, M. A., & Moon, G. 1999. Determinants and development of schools in organization theory. Academy of Management Review, 24: 634648.
麦金利（McKinley）、W.，莫内（Mone）、M. A.，及穆恩（Moon）、G. 1999年。组织理论中学校的决定因素与发展。《管理学会评论》，24：634-648。
Mehrpouya, A., & Willmott, H. 2018. Making a niche: The marketization of management research and the rise of “knowledge branding.” Journal of Management Studies: 55: 728734.
梅尔普亚（Mehrpouya）, A.，& 威尔莫特（Willmott）, H. 2018. 打造利基市场：管理研究的市场化与“知识品牌”的兴起。《管理研究杂志》：55: 728734.
Michailova, S., Piekkari, R., Plakoyiannaki, E., Ritvala, T., Mihailova, I., & Salmi, A. 2014. Breaking the silence about exiting fieldwork: A relational approach and its implications for theorizing. Academy of Management Review, 39: 138161.
米哈伊洛娃（Michailova, S.）、皮埃卡里（Piekkari, R.）、普拉科扬纳基（Plakoyiannaki, E.）、里塔拉（Ritvala, T.）、米哈伊洛娃（Mihailova, I.）和萨尔米（Salmi, A.）。2014年。打破实地调研退出的沉默：一种关系性方法及其对理论构建的启示。《管理学会评论》，39: 138161。
Mills, C. W. 1980. On intellectual craftsmanship (1952). Society, 17: 6370.
米尔斯，C. W. 1980. 《论智力技艺（1952）》. 社会，17：6370.
Morgan, G. 2006. Images of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
摩根，G. 2006. 组织的意象。千橡市，加利福尼亚州：塞奇出版公司。
Mueller, F., & Whittle, A. 2011. Translating management ideas: A discursive devices analysis. Organization Studies, 32: 187210.
米勒，F.，& 惠特尔，A. 2011. 翻译管理理念：话语手段分析。《组织研究》，32：187210。
Oswick, C., Fleming, P., & Hanlon, G. 2011. From borrowing to blending: Rethinking the process of organizational theory building. Academy of Management Review, 36: 318337.
Oswick, C., Fleming, P., & Hanlon, G. 2011. From borrowing to blending: Rethinking the process of organizational theory building. Academy of Management Review, 36: 318337.
Papachroni, A., Heracleous, L., & Paroutis, S. 2016. In pursuit of ambidexterity: Managerial reactions to innovation—efficiency tensions. Human Relations, 69: 17911822.
帕帕乔尼（Papachroni, A.）、赫拉克利奥斯（Heracleous, L.）和帕鲁蒂斯（Paroutis, S.）。2016年。追求双元性：管理者对创新—效率张力的反应。《人际关系》（Human Relations），69卷：17911822。
Parmigiani, A., & Howard-Grenville, J. 2011. Routines revisited: Exploring the capabilities and practice perspectives. Academy of Management Annals, 5: 413453.
帕米贾尼，A.，& 霍华德-格林维尔，J. 2011. 惯例再探：探索能力与实践视角。《管理学会年鉴》，5：413-453。
Paton, S., Chia, R., & Burt, G. 2014. Relevance or “relevate”? How university business schools can add value through reflexively learning from strategic partnerships with business. Management Learning, 45: 267288.
Paton, S., Chia, R., & Burt, G. 2014. 相关性还是“提升相关性”？商学院如何通过从与企业的战略伙伴关系中反思性学习来创造价值。《管理学习》，45: 267-288.
Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. 1999. Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54: 741754.
Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. 1999. 文化、辩证法与矛盾推理。《美国心理学家》，54: 741-754.
Peters, T., & Bogner, W. C. 2002. Tom Peters on the real world of business. Academy of Management Executive, 16: 4044.
彼得斯（T.）和博格纳（W. C.），2002年。《汤姆·彼得斯谈商业的真实世界》。《管理学会执行杂志》，16：40-44。
Pezet, E. 2012. Pacifying the social: Creating the French citizen worker, 19681975. Management & Organizational History, 7: 6171.
Pezet, E. 2012. 安抚社会：1968-1975年塑造法国公民工人。《管理与组织历史》，7：61-71。
Pfeffer, J. 1993. Barriers to the advance of organizational science: Paradigm development as a dependent variable. Academy of Management Review, 18: 599620.
Pfeffer, J. 1993. 组织科学发展的障碍：范式发展作为因变量。《管理学会评论》，18：599620。
Pfeffer, J. 2007. A modest proposal: How we might change the process and product of managerial research. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 13341345.
Pfeffer, J. 2007. 一个适度的建议：我们如何改变管理研究的过程和成果。《管理学会期刊》，50：1334-1345。
Pfeffer, J. 2014. The management theory morass: Some modest proposals. In J. A. Miles (Ed.), New directions in management and organization theory: 457468. Newcastle upon Tyne, U.K.: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Pfeffer, J. 2014. 管理理论的困境：一些适度的建议。载于 J. A. Miles（编），《管理与组织理论的新方向》：457468。英国泰恩河畔纽卡斯尔：剑桥学者出版社。
Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. 2006. Hard facts, dangerous half-truths, and total nonsense: Profiting from evidence-based management. Harvard, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. 2006. 确凿事实、危险的半真半假陈述与完全的胡言乱语：从循证管理中获利。马萨诸塞州剑桥市：哈佛商学院出版社。
Pickering, A. 1993. The mangle of practice: Agency and emergence in the sociology of science. American Journal of Sociology, 99: 559589.
皮克林，A. 1993. 实践的混乱：科学社会学中的能动性与涌现。《美国社会学期刊》，99: 559-589。
Poole, M. S. & van de Ven, A. H. 1989. Using paradox o build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14: 562578.
普尔，M. S. & 范德芬，A. H. 1989. 运用悖论构建管理与组织理论。《管理学会评论》，14：562 - 578。
Popper, K. R. S. 1959. The logic of scientific discovery. London, U.K.: Hutchinson.
波普尔，K. R. S. 1959. 科学发现的逻辑。英国伦敦：哈钦森出版社。
Pugh, D. S., & Hickson, D. J. 1976. Organizational structure in its context: The Aston Programme 1. Farnborough, U.K.: Saxon House.
Pugh, D. S., & Hickson, D. J. 1976. Organizational structure in its context: The Aston Programme 1. 法恩伯勒，英国：萨克森出版社。
Qiu, J., Donaldson, L., & Luo, B. N. 2012. The benefits of persisting with paradigms in organizational research. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26: 93104.
邱, J., 唐纳德森, L., & 罗, B. N. 2012. 坚持组织研究范式的益处。《管理学会展望》, 26: 93104.
Reed, M., & Burrell, G. 2019. Theory and organization studies: The need for contestation. Organization Studies, 40: 3954.
里德（Reed, M.）和伯勒尔（Burrell, G.），2019年。理论与组织研究：对争论的需求。《组织研究》，40卷：3954页。
Rindova, V. 2008. Editor’s comments: Publishing theory when you are new to the game. Academy of Management Review, 33: 300303.
Rindova, V. 2008. 编辑评论：初入行业时的出版理论。《管理学会评论》，33: 300303。
Rorty, R. 1979. Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
罗蒂，R. 1979. 哲学与自然之镜。新泽西州普林斯顿：普林斯顿大学出版社。
Sandberg, J., & Alvesson, M. 2011. Ways of constructing research questions: Gap-spotting or problematization? Organization, 18: 2344.
桑德伯格（Sandberg, J.）和阿尔维森（Alvesson, M.）。2011年。构建研究问题的方法：发现空白还是问题化？《组织》期刊，18卷：2344页。
Sandberg, J., & Tsoukas, H. 2011. Grasping the logic of practice: Theorizing through practical rationality. Academy of Management Review, 36: 338360.
桑德伯格（Sandberg, J.）和楚卡斯（Tsoukas, H.），2011年。把握实践的逻辑：通过实践理性进行理论构建。《管理学会评论》，36卷：338-360。
Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., & Smith, W. K. 2019. Quo vadis, paradox? Centripetal and centrifugal forces in theory development. Strategic Organization, 17: 107119.
Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., & Smith, W. K. 2019. 何去何从，悖论？理论发展中的向心力与离心力。《战略组织》，17: 107119.
Schütz, A. 1945. On multiple realities. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 5: 533576.
舒茨，A. 1945. 论多重实在。《哲学与现象学研究》，5：533-576.
Schütz, A. 1953. Common-sense and scientific interpretation of human action. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 14: 138.
舒茨，A. 1953. 人类行动的常识与科学解释。《哲学与现象学研究》，14：138。
Schwarz, G. M., Cummings, C., & Cummings, T. G. 2017. Devolution of researcher care in organization studies and the moderation of organizational knowledge. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16: 7083.
施瓦茨（Schwarz, G. M.）、卡明斯（Cummings, C.）和卡明斯（Cummings, T. G.）。2017。组织研究中研究者关怀的退化及组织知识的调节作用。《管理学会学习与教育》（Academy of Management Learning & Education），16卷：7083页。
Shapira, Z. 2011. “I’ve got a theory paper—do you?”: Conceptual, empirical, and theoretical contributions to knowledge in the organizational sciences. Organization Science, 22: 13121321.
Shapira, Z. 2011. “我有一个理论论文——你有吗？”: 对组织科学领域知识的概念、实证和理论贡献。《组织科学》, 22: 13121321.
Sillince, J. A. A. 2005. A contingency theory of rhetorical congruence. Academy of Management Review, 30: 608621.
Sillince, J. A. A. 2005. A contingency theory of rhetorical congruence. Academy of Management Review, 30: 608621.
Simon, H. 1962. The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106: 467482.
西蒙，H. 1962. 复杂性的架构。《美国哲学学会会刊》，106：467-482。
Smets, M., Jarzabkowski, P., Burke, G. T., & Spee, P. 2015. Ranadi Lloy Londo: Balc conflicting-yet-complementary logics in practice. Academy of Management Journal, 58: 932970.
Smets, M., Jarzabkowski, P., Burke, G. T., & Spee, P. 2015. Ranadi Lloy Londo: Balc conflicting-yet-complementary logics in practice. Academy of Management Journal, 58: 932970.
Smith, W. K. 2014. Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal, 57: 15921623.
Smith, W. K. 2014. 动态决策：高管管理战略悖论的模型。《管理学会期刊》，57：15921623。
Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. 2011. Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36: 381403.
Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. 2011. 迈向悖论理论：组织的动态平衡模型。《管理学会评论》，36: 381-403.
Starbuck, W. H. 2005. How much better are the most-prestigious journals? The statistics of academic publication. Organization Science, 16: 180200.
星巴克，W. H. 2005. 最负盛名的期刊有多出色？学术出版的统计数据。《组织科学》，16: 180200。
Suchman, M. C. 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20: 571610.
Suchman, M. C. 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20: 571610.
Suddaby, R. 2014. Editor’s comments: Why theory? Academy of Management Review, 39: 407411.
Suddaby, R. 2014. 编辑评论：为何需要理论？《管理学会评论》，39: 407411.
Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. 1995. What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 371384.
萨顿（Sutton, R. I.）和斯托（Staw, B. M.），1995年。《什么不是理论》。《行政科学季刊》，40：371-384。
Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. 2012. The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
桑顿，P. H.，奥卡西奥，W.，& 朗斯伯里，M. 2012. 制度逻辑视角：文化、结构与过程的新方法。英国牛津：牛津大学出版社。
Tourish, D. 2020. The triumph of nonsense in management studies. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 19: 99109.
Tourish, D. 2020. 无意义在管理学研究中的胜利。《管理学会学习与教育》，19: 99109。
Tracy, S. J. 2004. Dialectic, contradiction, or double bind? Analyzing and theorizing employee reactions to organizational tension. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32: 119146.
特蕾西，S. J. 2004. 辩证、矛盾还是双重束缚？分析和理论化员工对组织张力的反应。《应用传播研究杂志》，32: 119146。
Tsang, E. W. K., & Ellsaesser, F. 2011. How contrastive explanation facilitates theory building. Academy of Management Review, 36: 404419.
曾（Tsang, E. W. K.）和埃尔斯瑟（Ellsaesser, F.），2011年。对比性解释如何促进理论构建。《管理学会评论》，36：404419。
Tsoukas, H. 2017. Don’t simplify, complexify: From disjunctive to conjunctive theorizing in organization and management studies. Journal of Management Studies, 54: 132153.
Tsoukas, H. 2017. 不要简化，要复杂化：组织与管理研究中从分离式到整合式理论构建。《管理研究杂志》，54：132153。
Tushman, M. L., O’Reilly, C. A., Fenollosa, A., Adam, M. K. A. M., & McGrath, D. 2007. Relevance and rigor: Executive education as a lever in shaping practice and research. Academy of Management Learning $\delta$ Education, 6: 345362.
Tushman, M. L., O’Reilly, C. A., Fenollosa, A., Adam, M. K. A. M., & McGrath, D. 2007. Relevance and rigor: Executive education as a lever in shaping practice and research. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6: 345-362.
Üsdiken, B., & Pasadeos, Y. 1995. Organizational analysis in North America and Europe: A comparison of co-citation networks. Organization Studies, 16: 503526.
乌斯迪肯，B.，& 帕萨迪奥，Y. 1995. 北美和欧洲的组织分析：共引网络的比较研究。《组织研究》，16：503526。
van Maanen, J. 1989. Some notes on the importance of writing in organization studies. Paper presented at the Harvard Business School Research Colloquium, Boston, MA.
van Maanen, J. 1989. Some notes on the importance of writing in organization studies. Paper presented at the Harvard Business School Research Colloquium, Boston, MA.
van Maanen, J. 1995. Style as theory. Organization Science, 6: 133143.
van Maanen, J. 1995. Style as theory. Organization Science, 6: 133143.
Vonderembse, M. A., Uppal, M., Huang, S. H., & Dismukes, J. P. 2006. Designing supply chains: Towards theory development. International Journal of Production Economics, 100: 223238.
Vonderembse, M. A., Uppal, M., Huang, S. H., & Dismukes, J. P. 2006. Designing supply chains: Towards theory development. International Journal of Production Economics, 100: 223238.
Weaver, G. R., & Gioia, D. A. 1994. Paradigms lost: Incommensurability vs. structurationist inquiry. Organization Studies, 15: 565589.
韦弗（Weaver, G. R.）和乔亚（Gioia, D. A.），1994年。范式的失落：不可通约性与结构化研究。《组织研究》，15: 565-589。
Weber, M. 1978. Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. (Original work published 1922)
韦伯, M. 1978. 经济与社会：解释社会学大纲。加利福尼亚州伯克利：加利福尼亚大学出版社。（原著出版于1922年）
Weick, K. E. 1979. The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Weick, K. E. 1979. The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Weick, K. E. 1989. Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of Management Review, 14: 516531.
Weick, K. E. 1989. 理论构建作为有纪律的想象。《管理学会评论》，14：516-531。
Weick, K. E. 1995a. Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Weick, K. E. 1995a. 组织中的意义建构。千橡市，加利福尼亚州：SAGE。
Weick, K. E. 1995b. What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 385390.
Weick, K. E. 1995b. What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 385390.
Weick, K. E. 1999. Conclusion: Theory construction as disciplined reflexivity—tradeoffs in the 90s. Academy of Management Review, 24: 797806.
Weick, K. E. 1999. 结论：理论构建作为有纪律的反思性——90年代的权衡。《管理学会评论》，24：797806。
Weick, K. E. 2001. Gapping the relevance bridge: Fashions meet fundamentals in management research. British Journal of Management, 12: S71S75.
Weick, K. E. 2001. 填补相关性桥梁：时尚与管理学研究的基础交汇。《英国管理杂志》，12：S71-S75。
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. 2005. Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16: 409421.
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. 2005. 组织与意义建构过程。《组织科学》，16：409 - 421。
Whetten, D. A. 1989. What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14: 490495.
Whetten, D. A. 1989. 什么构成了理论贡献？《管理学会评论》，14: 490-495.
Wittgenstein, L. 1958. Philosophical investigations (G. E. M. Anscombe, rans.). Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell.
维特根斯坦，L. 1958. 哲学研究（G. E. M. 安斯康姆，译）。英国牛津：布莱克韦尔出版社。
Zietsma, C., Groenewegen, P., Logue, D. M., & Hinings, C. R. 2017. Field or fields? Building the scaffolding for cumulation of research on institutional fields. Academy of Management Annals, 11: 391450. Zietsma, C., Groenewegen, P., Logue, D. M., & Hinings, C. R. 2017. 领域还是多个领域？构建关于制度领域研究累积的框架。《管理学会年鉴》，11: 391450.
Stewart Clegg (stewart.clegg@uts.edu.au) is a professor in the School of Project Management and the John Grill Institute for Project Leadership at the University Sydney. He received his PhD in management from Bradford University, and also holds doctoral degrees from Umeã and the University of Technology Sydney. His research is substantively wide ranging but invariably centered on power relations. 斯图尔特·克莱格（stewart.clegg@uts.edu.au）是悉尼大学项目管理学院和约翰·格里尔项目领导力研究所的教授。他从布拉德福德大学获得管理学博士学位，还拥有于默奥大学和悉尼科技大学的博士学位。他的研究范围广泛，但始终围绕权力关系展开。
Miguel Pina e Cunha (miguel.cunha@novasbe.pt) is the Fundação Amélia de Mello Professor at Nova School of Business and Economics, Universidade Nova de Lisboa. He received his PhD in management from Tilburg University. His research focuses on organization as process and paradox. 米格尔·皮纳·埃·库尼亚（miguel.cunha@novasbe.pt）是里斯本新大学新里斯本商学院的阿梅利亚·德·梅洛基金会教授。他在蒂尔堡大学获得管理学博士学位。他的研究重点是作为过程和悖论的组织。
Marco Berti (marco.berti@uts.edu.au) is senior lecturer in management at UTS Business School, University of Technology Sydney. He received his PhD in management from the University of Technology Sydney. His research focuses on organizational paradoxes and tensions, critical themes, and the role of power and discourse in organizations. Marco Berti (marco.berti@uts.edu.au) is a senior lecturer in management at the UTS Business School, University of Technology Sydney. He obtained his PhD in management from the University of Technology Sydney. His research focuses on organizational paradoxes and tensions, critical themes, and the role of power and discourse in organizations.
X X
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书面许可，其内容不得复制、发送至多个网站或发布到邮件列表。但是，用户可以为个人使用打印、下载或通过电子邮件发送文章。