Cited by 150Management and Organizational StudiesInterdisciplinary Research and CollaborationChaos, Complexity, and Education

Exploring inter-organizational paradoxes: Methodological lessons from a study of a grand challenge

Open access
Jarzabkowski, Paula, Bednarek, Rebecca, Chalkias, Konstantinos, Cacciatori, Eugenia·2019·Strategic Organization

Abstract

In this article, we outline a methodological framework for studying the inter-organizational aspects of paradoxes and specify this in relation to grand challenges. Grand challenges are large-scale, complex, enduring problems that affect large populations, have a strong social component and appear intractable. Our methodological insights draw from our study of the insurance protection gap, a grand challenge that arises when economic losses from large-scale disaster significantly exceed the insured loss, leading to economic and social hardship for the affected communities. We provide insights into collecting data to uncover the paradoxical elements inherent in grand challenges and then propose three analytical techniques for studying inter-organizational paradoxes: zooming in and out, tracking problematization and tracking boundaries and boundary organizations. These techniques can be used to identify and follow how contradictions and interdependences emerge and dynamically persist within inter-organizational interactions and how these shape and are shaped by the unfolding dynamics of the grand challenge. Our techniques and associated research design help advance paradox theorizing by moving it to the inter-organizational and systemic level. This article also illustrates paradox as a powerful lens through which to further our understanding of grand challenges.

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 · 10.1177/1476127018805345

Cites

49 of 49 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?

  • Tensions' systemic nature is a central tenet of paradox theorizing.

    “Tensions' systemic nature is a central tenet of paradox theorizing (Jarzabkowski, Bednarek, Chalkias, & Cacciatori, 2019;Smith & Lewis, 2011).”

    From Artificial Intelligence and Management: The Automation–Augmentation Paradox (2021) · cites this paper as Jarzabkowski, Bednarek, Chalkias, & Cacciatori, 2019

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Nicolini D (2013) Practice Theory, Work and Organization. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jarzabkowski, P., Bednarek, R., Chalkias, K., & Cacciatori, E.
Affiliations
City, University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Jarzabkowski, Paula
Venue
Strategic Organization
Published
2018-10-16
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
120-132
ISSN
  • 1476-1270 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-315X
OpenAlex
W2896442049
Cited by
150
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4 · 2013: 1
FWCI
11.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Strategic Organization (publishedVersion)
  • BIROn (Birkbeck, University of London) (acceptedVersion)
  • City Research Online (City University London) (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Interdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Chaos, Complexity, and Education
Keywords
societal challenges, paradox theory, disaster insurance, boundary organizations, problematization, inter-organizational interaction, research design

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