The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Tackling Grand Challenges Pragmatically: Robust Action Revisited
Open accessAbstract
In this article, we theorize a novel approach to addressing the world’s grand challenges based on the philosophical tradition of American pragmatism and the sociological concept of robust action. Grounded in prior empirical organizational research, we identify three robust strategies that organizations can employ in tackling issues such as climate change and poverty alleviation: participatory architecture, multivocal inscriptions and distributed experimentation. We demonstrate how these strategies operate, the manner in which they are linked, the outcomes they generate, and why they are applicable for resolving grand challenges. We conclude by discussing our contributions to research on robust action and grand challenges, as well as some implications for research on stakeholder theory, institutional theory and theories of valuation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Dilemmas in a general theory of planning
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973) · Policy Sciences · doi:10.1007/bf01405730 · Cited by 16,338 · cited 2×
“…of our current paper, we believe the idea of grand challenges bears a family resemblance to concepts such as large-scale design problems (Simon, 1996), wicked problems (Rittel & Webber, 1973), messes (Ackoff, 1981), and commons problems (Dietz, Ostrom, & Stern, 2003; Hardin, 1968; Ostrom, 1990).”
Burt, R. S. (1992) · doi:10.4159/9780674029095 · Cited by 9,093
Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences
Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/6352.001.0001 · Cited by 6,188
The Struggle to Govern the Commons
Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., & Stern, P. C. (2003) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1091015 · Cited by 4,209
10 Sociomateriality: Challenging the Separation of Technology, Work and Organization
Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520802211644 · Cited by 2,571
Fligstein, N., & McAdam, D. (2012) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199859948.001.0001 · Cited by 1,857
Managing the Rivalry of Competing Institutional Logics
Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. (2009) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/0170840609104803 · Cited by 1,821
Recent developments in modeling preferences: Uncertainty and ambiguity
Camerer, C., & Weber, M. (1992) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1007/bf00122575 · Cited by 1,795
Multiple Institutional Logics in Organizations: Explaining Their Varied Nature and Implications
Besharov, M. L., & Smith, W. K. (2014) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2011.0431 · Cited by 1,571 · cited 1×
“Whereas this literature tends to see plurality and complexity as problematic (Besharov & Smith, 2014), our account suggests that in tackling grand challenges multiple logics are likely to be beneficial and generative.”
Toward a Comparative Sociology of Valuation and Evaluation
Lamont, M. (2012) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-120022 · Cited by 1,492
Cited by
Understanding and Tackling Societal Grand Challenges through Management Research
George, G., Howard-Grenville, J., Joshi, A., & Tihanyi, L. (2016) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2016.4007 · Cited by 2,021
George, G., Merrill, R. K., & Schillebeeckx, S. J. D. (2021) · Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice · doi:10.1177/1042258719899425 · Cited by 1,066
Capturing causal complexity: Heuristics for configurational theorizing
Furnari, S., Crilly, D., Misangyi, V. F., Greckhamer, T., Fiss, P. C., & Aguilera, R. V. (2021) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2019.0298 · Cited by 861
Social Innovation: Integrating Micro, Meso, and Macro Level Insights From Institutional Theory
van Wijk, J., Zietsma, C., Dorado, S., de Bakker, F. G. A., & Martí, I. (2019) · Business & Society · doi:10.1177/0007650318789104 · Cited by 348
Seeing the Forest and the Trees: How a Systems Perspective Informs Paradox Research
Schad, J., & Bansal, P. (2018) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/joms.12398 · Cited by 266
Metadata
- Authors
- Ferraro, F., Etzion, D., & Gehman, J.
- Venue
- Organization Studies
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2015-02-24
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 363-390
- ISSN
- 0170-8406 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-3044
- OpenAlex
- W1969456993
- Cited by
- 1,337
- References
- 13
- FWCI
- 82.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Tackling Grand Challenges Pragmatically: Robust Action Revisited. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0170840614563742
- The paper
- Ferraro, F., Etzion, D., & Gehman, J. (2015). Tackling Grand Challenges Pragmatically: Robust Action Revisited. Organization Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840614563742
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
