Polarisation in Extended Scientific Controversies: Towards an Epistemic Account of Disunity

Sociocognitive Relationships for Innovation under Institutional Constraints

“…However, there have also been calls for peace. Zemplén (2016, p. 54) suggests that “it becomes hard to understand some of the tension” as the seemingly conflicting philosophies are “closely interwoven” in reality. This article incorporates tradition by acknowledging the presence of individualist actors—at the individualistic side of the individualistic–relational continuum.…”

“…Instead, the “sense of belongingness to a social relation may become so strong that it makes better sense to think of the relationship as the functional unit of conscious reflection” (Markus & Kitayama, 1991, p. 221). Researchers have started to recognize the potential of adopting a relational perspective and have highlighted a need for paradigms that are not individual centric (Alvesson, 2001; Chakrabarty & Woodman, 2009; Gittell & Douglass, 2012; Zemplén, 2016).…”

“…Instead, the "sense of belongingness to a social relation may become so strong that it makes better sense to think of the relationship as the functional unit of conscious reflection" (Markus & Kitayama, 1991, p. 221). Researchers have started to recognize the potential of adopting a relational perspective and have highlighted a need for paradigms that are not individual centric (Alvesson, 2001;Chakrabarty & Woodman, 2009;Gittell & Douglass, 2012;Zemplén, 2016). At this relational extreme of the continuum, it would be very hard to distinctively identify and attribute any contribution made during innovative action (that is, knowledge, motivation, and sensemaking) to any single actor.…”