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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 49 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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
DOI 10.1177/1476127018805345
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

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.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1476127018805345

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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?

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

Show all 49 references

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Comeau-Vallée M, 2017, The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Paradox, 197
  2. 10.1177/014920630002600105 · DOI
  3. Lê J, 2017, The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Paradox, 490
  4. Nicolini D, 2013, Practice Theory, Work and Organization
  5. Tracey P, 2017, The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Paradox, 490

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–149 of 149

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Jarzabkowski, P., Bednarek, R., Chalkias, K., & Cacciatori, E.
Affiliations
City, University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Jarzabkowski, Paula
ORCID
Venue
Strategic Organization
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2018-10-16
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
120-132
ISSN
  • 1476-1270 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-315X
DOI
10.1177/1476127018805345
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
FWCI
11.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
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 › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Interdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
  • Social Sciences › Education › 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