Genres of Paradoxical <scp>IS</scp> Theorising: Of Chaos–Puzzles and Spear–Shields

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Information Systems Journal
Published
2026-04-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.70045
Primary Topic
Information Systems Theories and Implementation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Genres of Paradoxical IS Theorising: Of Chaos–Puzzles and Spear–Shields

Raffaele Ciriello, Blair Wang, Lars Mathiassen
Information Systems Journal
Information Systems Theories and Implementation
article

Genres of Paradoxical IS Theorising: Of Chaos–Puzzles and Spear–Shields

Raffaele Ciriello, Blair Wang, Lars Mathiassen
article en

Abstract

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.

Information Systems Journal
The University of Sydney (AU), Georgia State University (US), Curtin University (AU)
Openalex Percentile: Top 13%
Information Systems Theories and Implementation
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.