5742 
5294科学视角主义是在逻辑主义基础上发展的一种科学哲学思想，其核心思想在于强调科学知识的条件性。本文分析了现行的管理研究范式，探讨了引入科学视角主义的动机及可行策略。目前管理学界流行的研究范式是：强调研究的理论基础、偏爱验证性研究、追求研究结果的统计意义显著。研究者为了迎合这些要求，可能会采取一些有问题的研究行为。而这些行为的一个严重后果是：现有的管理知识库中，充斥着大量假阳性研究结果，这对管理学的发展无疑是不利的。本文分析了上述研究范式的科学哲学思想根源，指出逻辑主义对这一研究范式的影响甚深，论证了以科学视角主义为指导思想进行管理研究，一方面有助于减少有问题的研究行为，另一方面也可以破除目前管理研究忽视假设条件与情境因素的弊病。
科学视角主义对管理研究的启示
摘要
参考文献
1 （德）爱因斯坦著, 许良英, 范岱年, 译. 爱因斯坦文集（第一卷）[M]. 北京: 商务印书馆, 1976.
4 （英）卡尔•波普尔著, 傅季重, 纪树立, 周昌忠, 等译. 猜想与反驳[M]. 上海: 上海译文出版社, 2005.
6 刘大椿. 科学哲学[M]. 北京: 中国人民大学出版社, 2011.
12 魏屹东. 语境实在论: 一种新科学哲学范式[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2015.
13 曾国屏, 高亮华, 刘立, 等. 当代自然辩证法教程[M]. 北京: 清华大学出版社, 2005.
16 Aguinis H, Gottfredson R K, Joo H. Best-practice recommendations for defining, identifying, and handling outliers[J]. Organizational Research Methods, 2013, 16（2）: 270–301. DOI:10.1177/1094428112470848
17 Anonymous. The case of the hypothesis that never was; uncovering the deceptive use of post hoc hypotheses[J]. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2015, 24（2）: 214–216. DOI:10.1177/1056492614567042
18 Baker M. Statisticians issue warning over misuse of values[J]. Nature, 2016, 531（7593）: 151.
19 Banks G C, O’Boyle JrE H, Pollack J M, et al. Questions about questionable research practices in the field of management: A guest commentary[J]. Journal of Management, 2016, 42（1）: 5–20. DOI:10.1177/0149206315619011
20 Bernerth J B, Aguinis H. A critical review and best-practice recommendations for control variable usage[J]. Personnel Psychology, 2016, 69（1）: 229–283. DOI:10.1111/peps.12103
21 Boxenbaum E, Rouleau L. New knowledge products as bricolage: Metaphors and scripts in organizational theory[J]. Academy of Management Review, 2011, 36（2）: 272–296.
22 Busse C, Mahlendorf M D, Bode C. The ABC for studying the too-much-of-a-good-thing effect:A competitive mediation framework linking antecedents, benefits, and costs[J]. Organizational Research Methods, 2016, 19（1）: 131–153. DOI:10.1177/1094428115579699
23 Chambers C D. Ten reasons why journals must review manuscripts before results are known[J]. Addiction, 2015, 110（1）: 10–11. DOI:10.1111/add.12728
24 Cornelissen J P, Durand R. More than just novelty: Conceptual blending and causality[J]. Academy of Management Review, 2012, 37（1）: 152–154.
25 Davison R M, Martinsons M G. Context is king! Considering particularism in research design and reporting[J]. Journal of Information Technology, 2016, 31（3）: 241–249. DOI:10.1057/jit.2015.19
26 Franco A, Malhotra N, Simonovits G. Publication bias in the social sciences: Unlocking the file drawer[J]. Science, 2014, 345（6203）: 1502–1505. DOI:10.1126/science.1255484
27 Goldsby T J, Michael Knemeyer A, Miller J W, et al. Measurement and moderation: Finding the boundary conditions in logistics and supply chain research[J]. Journal of Business Logistics, 2013, 34（2）: 109–116. DOI:10.1111/jbl.12013
28 Hambrick D C. The field of management’s devotion to theory: Too much of a good thing?[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2007, 50（6）: 1346–1352. DOI:10.5465/AMJ.2007.28166119
29 John L K, Loewenstein G, Prelec D. Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling[J]. Psychological Science, 2012, 23（5）: 524–532. DOI:10.1177/0956797611430953
30 Kerr N L. Harking: Hypothesizing after the results are known[J]. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1998, 2（3）: 196–217. DOI:10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4
31 Leek J T, Peng R D. Statistics: values are just the tip of the iceberg[J]. Nature, 2015, 520（7549）: 612.
P DOI:10.1038/520612a
32 Mazzola J J, Deuling J K. Forgetting what we learned as graduate students: Harking and selective outcome reporting in I-O journal articles[J]. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2013, 6（3）: 279–284. DOI:10.1111/iops.12049
33 Nosek B A, Alter G, Banks G C, et al. Promoting an open research culture: Author guidelines for journals could help to promote transparency, openness, and reproducibility[J]. Science, 2015, 348（6242）: 1422–1425. DOI:10.1126/science.aab2374
34 Nuzzo R. How scientists fool themselves-and how they can stop[J]. Nature, 2015, 526（7572）: 182–185. DOI:10.1038/526182a
35 O’Boyle E H, Banks G C, Gonzalez-Mulé E. The chrysalis effect: How ugly initial results metamorphosize into beautiful articles[J]. Journal of Management, 2014, 43（2）: 376–399.
36 Oswick C, Fleming P, Hanlon G. From borrowing to blending: Rethinking the processes of organizational theory building[J]. Academy of Management Review, 2011, 36（2）: 318–337.
37 Pierce J R, Aguinis H. The too-much-of-a-good-thing effect in management[J]. Journal of Management, 2013, 39（2）: 313–338. DOI:10.1177/0149206311410060
38 Podsakoff P M, MacKenzie S B, Podsakoff N P. Recommendations for creating better concept definitions in the organizational, behavioral, and social sciences[J]. Organizational Research Methods, 2016, 19（2）: 159–203. DOI:10.1177/1094428115624965
39 Schaubroeck J M. Pitfalls of appropriating prestigious theories to frame conceptual arguments[J]. Organizational Psychology Review, 2013, 3（1）: 86–97. DOI:10.1177/2041386612459536
40 Sijtsma K. Playing with data-or how to discourage questionable research practices and stimulate researchers to do things right[J]. Psychometrika, 2016, 81（1）: 1–15. DOI:10.1007/s11336-015-9446-0
41 Sparrowe R T, Mayer K J. Publishing in AMJ-part 4: Grounding hypotheses[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2011, 54（6）: 1098–1102. DOI:10.5465/amj.2011.4001
42 Van Fraassen B C. Scientific representation: Paradoxes of perspective[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2008.
43 Wasserstein R L, Lazar N A. The ASA’s statement on-values: Context, process, and purpose[J]. The American Statistician, 2016, 70（2）: 129–133.
引用本文
姜红丙. 科学视角主义对管理研究的启示[J]. 外国经济与管理, 2017, 39(3): 99–113.
导出参考文献，格式为：
