CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 26Management and Organizational StudiesBusiness Strategies and Management ResearchData Visualization and Analytics

A Figure is Worth a Thousand Words: The role of visualization in paradox theorizing

Open access
Pradies, Camille, Berti, Marco, Pina e Cunha, Miguel, Rego, Arménio, Tunarosa, Andrea, Clegg, Stewart·2023·Organization Studies
DOI 10.1177/01708406231161998
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Visualization (i.e., the use of figures and images to represent findings and conceptual models) is central to theorizing. Yet, by focusing solely on the textual content of papers, analysis has inadvertently marginalized the graphic representations of key ideas. We review the paradox literature not just in terms of what authors have written but also how they have visualized models concisely. An analysis of figures in paradox articles captures the essential role that visuals play in our understanding of competing tensions, leveraging the power of imagery. We explore paradox visually, searching for the figurative materialization of paradox; more particularly, we seek visual signs that render abstract ideas more saliently and concretely. We contribute to paradox theory in three ways. First, we show how visuals constitute the lynchpin between convergent and divergent forces, allowing scholars to simultaneously reinforce and challenge current understanding. Second, we offer a tool for scholars to theorize competing demands based on three key antinomies, or dualities, that define the terrain of research in our field. Third, we reveal the performative effect of figures by identifying the ongoing dominance of certain classes of paradox visuals, which allows us to point to uncharted territories for paradox research.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/01708406231161998

Cites

111 of 111 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Much is known about existing paradoxes but not about their origin and inception.

    “Much is known about existing paradoxes but not about their origin and inception; hence, we ask: how do entrepreneurial paradoxes emerge -in this case from the combination of work and play - and how are they navigated over time?”

    From From a Hobby to a Business: Drifting through Paradox While the Business Accelerates (2024) · cites this paper as Pradies et al., 2023

    The section “Paradox theory: rich in reflexivity, yet blind to the use of visuals” (p. 6 onward) describes extensive research on paradox definitions, dynamics, and responses. But neither that section nor the Discussion passages located in our copy say that little is known about the origin or inception of paradoxes; the paper identifies gaps concerning how paradoxes are visualized instead. (LLM, conf=0.80)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 112 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. [6]6. Austin, John L. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  2. [11]11. Berger, John (1972) Ways of seeing. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
  3. [30]30. DeLuca, Kevin M. (1999). Image Politics. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
  4. [55]55. Johnson, Barry (1992). Polarity management: Identifying and managing unsolvable problems. Amherst, MA: HRD Press.
  5. [58]58. Kegan, Robert (1982). The evolving self. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  6. [60]60. Keller, Josh, & Chen, Erica (2017). A road map of the paradoxical mind. In Wendy K. Smith, Marianne W. Lewis, Paula Jarzabkowski, & Ann Langley (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Paradox (pp. 66-86). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  7. [78]78. Luhmann, Niklas (1995). Social Systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  8. [81]81. Messaris, Paul, & Abraham, Linus (2001). The role of images in framing news stories. In Stephen D. Reese & August Grant (Eds.), Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world (pp. 215-226). New York, NY: Routledge.
  9. [86]86. Pamphile, Vontrese D. (2022). Paradox peers: A relational approach to navigating paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 65, 1274-1302.
  10. [93]93. Pradies, Camille, Delanghe, Marieke, & Lewis, Marianne W. (2020). Paradox, leadership and the connecting leader. In Zahira Jaser (Ed.), The Connecting Leader: Serving Concurrently as a Leader and a Follower (pp. 99-129). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
  11. [117]117. Tsoukas, Haridimos, & Cunha, Miguel P. (2017). On organizational circularity: Vicious and virtuous circles in organizing. In Wendy K. Smith, Marianne W. Lewis, Paula Jarzabkowski, & Ann Langley (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational paradox (pp. 393-412). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  12. [119]119. Van Bommel, Koen, & Spicer, André (2017). Critical management studies and paradox. In Wendy K. Smith, Marianne W. Lewis, Paula Jarzabkowski, & Ann Langley (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Paradox (pp. 143-166). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  13. [120]120. Vince, Russ (2021). Reflections on the role of bemusement in institutional disruption. Journal of Management Inquiry, 30, 273-284.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Pradies, C., Berti, M., Pina e Cunha, M., Rego, A., Tunarosa, A., & Clegg, S.
Affiliations
  • Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales du Nord (FR)
  • University of Technology Sydney (AU)
  • Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal
  • Iscte – Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (PT)
  • University of Tampa (US)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Pradies, Camille
ORCID
Venue
Organization Studies
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2023-05-02
Volume
44
Issue
8
Pages
1231-1257
ISSN
  • 0170-8406 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-3044
DOI
10.1177/01708406231161998
OpenAlex
W4324085830
Cited by
26
References
112
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1
FWCI
7.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Organization Studies (publishedVersion)
  • Repositório do ISCTE-IUL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
National Funds through FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (National Funds through FCT – Fundação para a C)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Business Strategies and Management Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Data Visualization and Analytics
Keywords
paradox theory, visualization, conceptual model, antinomies, duality

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