Genres of Paradoxical <scp>IS</scp> Theorising: Of Chaos–Puzzles and Spear–Shields
Blair Wang et al.
What the paper says
ABSTRACT Paradox is a powerful lens for theorising information systems (IS) phenomena. However, as scholars apply the term to fundamentally different phenomena, ‘paradox’ risks dilution. Much confusion stems from conflating two concepts under the same English label ‘paradox’: chaos–puzzles (seemingly impossible ideas, aligned with the Chinese term ‘bei lun’); and spear–shields (contradictory pathways of action, aligned with the Chinese ‘mao dun’). Through a hermeneutic analysis of 142 IS papers, we advance a framework of eight genres defined by variations in paradox grounding (chaos–puzzle vs. spear–shield) and paradox articulation (sociocentric vs. technocentric; sensing vs. responding). The framework offers an account of paradoxical IS theorising that is pluralistic by clarifying multiple meanings of paradox; directive by guiding authors, editors, reviewers and readers in articulating and evaluating genre‐sensitive contributions; and generative in identifying new avenues for paradoxical IS theorising. By mapping out different ways in which IS scholars can engage with chaos–puzzles and spear–shields, we bring analytical clarity to paradoxical IS theorising and offer a foundation for its further development.
Evidence weight
Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40
| F · citation impact | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
| M · momentum | 0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07 |
| V · venue signal | 0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03 |
| R · text relevance † | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.