The Origins and Outcomes of Paradoxical Tensions: The Political Construction of ISO 26000
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study's purpose is to build theory on the antecedents and outcomes to paradoxes within organizational environments. To do so we have conducted a qualitative analysis of texts and participant interviews documenting how numerous paradoxical issues arose during the five-year development of ISO 26000: Guidance on Social Responsibility and how these issues influenced the environment. Our analysis revealed that the paradoxical issues experienced by participants in the standard’s development emerged from three sets of opposing yet interrelated motivations prevalent across organizational actors: pragmatism and idealism, conformity and independence, and fairness and advantage. Furthermore we found that the outcomes of paradoxical issues for the standard development environment could be classified into three categories: settlement, polarization, and exit. These findings suggest that the origins, and organizational actor’s experience, of paradoxical issues are within the motivations of organizational actors and that rather than leading to consensus among organizations, at the environmental level paradox can lead to dynamic and frequently political action among organizational actors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".