Methods of Paradox
Constantine Andriopoulos,Manto Gotsi
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198754428.013.26
2017-09-06
Abstract:Despite growing scholarly interest in paradoxes, there is still a lack of literature expressly engaging with the methodological mechanics of “doing” paradox research. First, there are no clearly established guidelines around what should count as paradox in research endeavours. Second, there is uncertainty around who sees/thinks/experiences the paradox and what is relevant when it comes to the emergence, choice, interpretation, and appropriation of paradoxes in empirical settings. Third, there is still confusion around where one can find evidence of paradoxes. This chapter aims to shed some light on these methodological shortcomings. It suggests that paradox researchers can deal with these methodological challenges by: 1) showing evidence of contradictory, interrelated, simultaneous, and persistent paradoxical tensions in the empirical setting, 2) developing reliable and flexible protocols for paradox identification, 3) pushing for multilevel paradox studies, 4) practicing reflexivity, 5) staying close to the context, and 6) leveraging multi-modality.