On the Use of Paradox for Generating Theoretical Contributions in Management and Organization Research

Abstract

Although research relating to paradox has burgeoned throughout the past decades, how paradox has been used in generating theoretical contributions remains largely tacit. Hinging on the systematic analysis of 476 publications, this literature review uncovers how scholars have leveraged paradox in demarcating theoretical contributions in the area of management and organization research. First, scholars can make use of paradox as a means to theorize, adding to the core conceptual conversation on paradox. Second, scholars can make use of paradox as a means to understand or advance insight on particular phenomena, drawing from paradox's conceptual knowledge to push forth discussions or debates in other strands of the management and organization field. Finally, scholars can make use of paradox as a way to verbalize something puzzling or surprising, supporting how readers are to appreciate or make sense of theoretical contributions advanced. Denoting approaches identified as highly complementary, this paper offers explicit handholds for academics to develop theoretical contributions through paradox, supporting the consolidation and further elevation of scholarly impact for the paradox community as such.

In Praise of Paradox Persistence: Evidence from the Sydney Opera House Project

“…Paradoxes denote “persistent contradictions between interdependent elements” (Schad et al, 2016, p. 6) and are basic characteristics of organizational life (De Keyser et al, 2019). A wide array of organizational phenomena, including projects (Bygballe et al, 2021; Sabini & Alderman, 2021), are increasingly being investigated by paradox researchers, using different lenses to do so (see Gaim et al, 2018; Miron-Spektor, Ingram et al, 2018; Putnam et al, 2016).…”

Ambidexterity in strategic alliances: An integrative review of the literature

“…Further, we focussed only on full‐length academic journal articles as they are most likely to gather scholarly advances (Child et al., 2022). Hence, we excluded other materials including books, book chapters, editorials, commentary essays and conference proceedings (De Keyser et al., 2019). For the publication timeframe, we did not set any specific initial date and considered articles up to the date of writing the review (i.e., September 2021).…”

Trials of strength, paradoxes and competing networks in kaizen institutionalization

“…While drawing on ANT (Callon, 1986a, b;Hassard et al, 1999;Latour, 1987) and kaizen literature (Jacobson et al, 2009;Pettersen, 2009;von Thiele Schwarz et al, 2017), this study also presents the notions of paradox. The concept of paradox is curious (De Keyser et al, 2019). Organisations are rife with tension-flexibility versus control, exploration versus exploitation, autocracy versus democracy, social versus financial and global versus local (Lewis and Smith, 2014).…”