Juggling ambiguity in sustained ignoring work: The persistent dismissal of warnings at a university hospital

Anna Lundmark Essen & Mats Alvesson

Organization Studies2026https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406261432805article
FT50AJG 4ABDC A*
Weight
0.50

Abstract

How do actors overlook uncomfortable information? We add to the understanding of how potential problems can be ignored over long periods, in spite of recurrent warnings. Ignoring then becomes a dynamic process of responding to evolving ignoring ‘threats’ or triggers by combining knowledge-seeking and knowledge avoidance in ways that must be continuously legitimated, both in one’s own eyes and in those of relevant parts of the environment. Drawing on a longitudinal case study, we find that ambiguity-juggling – mutually supporting acts foregrounding and backgrounding ambiguity – constitute a key element of such ignoring work. Our study adds to the literatures on strategic or wilful ignorance and ambiguity management by providing a novel explanation for how actors dynamically mobilize motives for ignoring and thereby navigate uncomfortable information that evolves over time. As we show, sustained forms of ignoring involves interactions between shifting ignoring triggers, adaptive ignoring work, and evolving states of organized ignorance. This conceptualization contributes to the ignoring literature by extending current accounts of the ‘why’, ‘how’, ‘how much’, and ‘who’ of ignoring, as well as its outcomes.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406261432805

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{anna2026,
  title        = {{Juggling ambiguity in sustained ignoring work: The persistent dismissal of warnings at a university hospital}},
  author       = {Anna Lundmark Essen & Mats Alvesson},
  journal      = {Organization Studies},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406261432805},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Juggling ambiguity in sustained ignoring work: The persistent dismissal of warnings at a university hospital

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 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.