The Paradox of Controversial Innovation: Insights From the Rise of Impressionism

Abstract

This article considers the strategies developed by a coalition of innovators and supporters to contribute to the consecration of a controversial innovation that transgresses the established codes. It does so through the analysis of Impressionism (1874–1900) that provoked a dramatic shift from classical to modern art. The case study suggests that such consecration can be achieved while claiming the distinctiveness of the controversial innovation, instead of toning it down. The findings reveal the importance of distributed strategies developed by loosely coordinated coalition members. More specifically, they point to simultaneous, and potentially contradictory, strategies: strategies aimed to enforce the distinctiveness of this controversial innovation, and strategies aimed to extend support for it, insisting that contradictory tensions between those strategies can prove useful in achieving consecration. Overall, the article contributes to research on the consecration of controversial innovations, as well as to the literature on framing and brokerage.

Uncertainty, strategic sensemaking and organisational failure in the art market: What went wrong with LVMH's investment in Phillips auctioneers?

“…Uncertainty is a key characteristic of the art market. Demand in the primary market is uncertain because emerging artists often lack the legitimacy required to attract buyers (Delacour & Leca, 2017); while in the secondary market, demand is uncertain, as it is not known whether a new buyer will be prepared to pay a higher price than the previous one. As a result, galleries and auction houses develop exhibitions and sales without being able to predict demand and critical acclaim with accuracy (Caves, 2000).…”

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

“…Publications that used paradox to verbalize something puzzling were found to predominantly limit their acknowledgments of paradox to the opening or closing periphery of their study (e.g. Delacour and Leca ; Eikhof and Haunschild ; Marrone et al . ), or to searchable content, such as title, abstract, or keywords (e.g.…”

“…() use paradox to prime the reader's notion of potential downsides of organizational success; Kacperczyk and Younkin () and Garud et al . () raise the term to offer conceptual reference for their research on legitimacy; Delacour and Leca (), Miron‐Spektor et al . (), and Wadhwa et al .…”

“…Publications that used paradox to verbalize something puzzling were found to predominantly limit their acknowledgments of paradox to the opening or closing periphery of their study (e.g. Delacour and Leca 2017;Eikhof and Haunschild 2007;Marrone et al 2007), or to searchable content, such as title, abstract, or keywords (e.g. Aram 1989;Ruefli 1990;Shaver 2006;Zhang et al 2006) -in both cases, paradox seemed primarily utilized for its semantic bearing, aimed at solidifying the reader's appreciation of either research objective or research findings.…”

“…Marking the study with the conceptual denotation of paradox, scholars put forward points of reference for how one is to navigate throughout the publication's discourse -offering some handhold on how to maneuver an obscure and complex reality. For example, Audia et al (2000) use paradox to prime the reader's notion of potential downsides of organizational success; Kacperczyk and Younkin (2017) and Garud et al (2014) raise the term to offer conceptual reference for their research on legitimacy; Delacour and Leca (2017), Miron-Spektor et al (2011), andWadhwa et al (2017) delineate paradox as a way to grasp the ambiguity present in innovation and disruption. With references to paradox being but sparsely present in the overall textual discourse of these studies, publications in this category were found to use paradox allusion much like a rhetorical trope, guiding the reader's basic apprehension of the contribution as put forward by means of semantic priming.…”