Thinking with Paradox

  • Chris Dolan
Part of the Educational Leadership Theory book series (ELT)


In this chapter, I argue that the theoretical and conceptual possibilities for paradox in studies of school leadership have, so far, largely gone unrealised. I describe its deployment in this book as a conceptual frame for understanding the way principals and their work are currently constituted. The use of ‘conceptual frame’ is to capture the way paradox is broadly influential in the book’s design, reaching into ‘the system of concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs and theories’ (Maxwell, 2013, p. 39) that it proposes and expounds.


  1. Ackrill, J. L. (1988). A new Aristotle reader. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2011). Generating research questions through problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 247–271.Google Scholar
  3. Bakhtin, M. (1934/2004). Discourse in the novel. In J. Rivkin & M. Ryan (Eds.), Literary theory: An anthology (2nd ed., pp. 674–685). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  4. Ball, S. J. (1997). Good school/bad school: Paradox and fabrication. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 18(3), 317–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bansel, P. (2015). The subject of policy. Critical Studies in Education, 56(1), 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barker, B. (2007). The leadership paradox: Can school leaders transform student outcomes? School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 18(1), 21–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barthes, R. (1972). Mythologies (A. Lavers, Trans.). New York: Hill and Wang.Google Scholar
  8. Barthes, R. (1975). The pleasure of the text (R. Miller, Trans.). New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  9. Barthes, R. (1977). Roland Barthes (1st ed.). New York: Hill and Wang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Berkhout, S. (2007). Leadership in education transformation as reshaping the organisational discourse. South African Journal of Education, 27(3), 407–419.Google Scholar
  11. Berlak, A., & Berlak, H. (1981). Dilemmas of schooling: Teaching and social change. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  12. Bleiker, R. (2003). Discourse and human agency. Contemporary Political Theory, 2(1), 25–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clarke, J., Bainton, D., Lendvai, N., & Stubbs, P. (2015). Making policy move: Towards a politics of translation and assemblage. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Colie, R. L. (1966). Paradoxia Epidemica: The renaissance tradition of paradox. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Collinson, D. (2014). Dichotomies, dialectics and dilemmas: New directions for critical leadership studies? Leadership, 10(1), 36–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Connolly, W. E. (2002). Identity, difference: Democratic negotiations of political paradox. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Pressa.Google Scholar
  17. Derrida, J. (1993). Aporias: Dying – Awaiting (one another at) the ‘limits of truth’. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Droogers, A. (2002). Methodological ludism: Beyond religionsim and reductionism. In A. van Harskamp (Ed.), Conflicts in social science (pp. 44–67). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Eden, D. (1998). The paradox of school leadership. Journal of Educational Administration, 36(3), 249–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2011). Discursive manifestations of contradictions in organizational change efforts: A methodological framework. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(3), 368–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fiumara, G. C. (2013). The other side of language: A philosophy of listening. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  23. Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality. Volume 1, an introduction (R. Hurley, Trans.). New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  24. Foucault, M. (1980). Two lectures. In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977 (pp. 78–108). New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  25. Foucault, M. (2003). Society must be defended. New York: Picador.Google Scholar
  26. Gillies, D. (2013). Educational leadership and Michel Foucault. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Grant, J. (2010). Foucault and the logic of dialectics. Contemporary Political Theory, 9(2), 220–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Howarth, D. (2013). Poststructuralism and after: Structure, subjectivity and power. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  29. Jung, C. G. (1966). The practice of psychotherapy (G. Adler & R. Hull Eds. 2nd ed. Vol. 16). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Jung, C. G. (1968). Psychology and alchemy. Collected works of C. G. Jung (Vol. 12). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Kierkegaard, S. (1985). The absolute paradox: A metaphysical crotchet (H. V. Hong & E. H. Hong, Trans.). In H. V. Hong & E. H. Hong (Eds.), Philosophical fragments (pp. 37–48). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Lather, P. (2006). Paradigm proliferation as a good thing to think with: Teaching research in education as a wild profusion. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(1), 35–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Lazzarato, M. (2009). Neoliberalism in action inequality, insecurity and the reconstitution of the social. Theory, Culture & Society, 26(6), 109–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, A. (2013). Contradiction as a medium and outcome of organizational change: A Foucauldian reading. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 26(3), 556–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lewis, M. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lewis, M. W., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Paradox as a metatheoretical perspective: Sharpening the focus and widening the scope. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50(2), 127–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lucas, J. (2006). Broaden the vision and narrow the focus: Managing in a world of paradox. Wesport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  39. Luhmann, N. (1995). The two sociologies and the theory of society. Thesis Eleven, 43(1), 28–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lüscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 221–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  42. Maybee, J. E. (2016). Hegel’s dialectics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2016 ed.). Retrieved from
  43. Medina, J. (2011). Toward a Foucaultian epistemology of resistance: Counter-memory, epistemic friction, and guerrilla pluralism. Foucault Studies, (12), 9–35.Google Scholar
  44. Niesche, R., & Gowlett, C. (2015). Advocating a post-structuralist politics for educational leadership. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 47(4), 372–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nørreklit, L., Nørreklit, H., & Israelsen, P. (2006). The validity of management control topoi: Towards constructivist pragmatism. Management Accounting Research, 17(1), 42–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. O’Connor, K. (2003). Dialetic. In Theories of Media. Retrieved from
  47. Orgel, S. (1991). The poetics of incomprehensibility. Shakespeare Quarterly, 42(4), 431–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Orwell, G. (1949). Nineteen eighty-four. New York: Harcourt.Google Scholar
  49. Peirce, C. S. (1998). The essential Peirce: Selected philosophical writings (Vol. 2). Bloomington, IA: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Peters, J., & Le Cornu, R. (2004). Leaders in transition: Living with paradoxes. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference 2004, Manchester, UK.Google Scholar
  51. Pierrot, A. H. (2002). Barthes and doxa. Poetics Today, 23(3), 427–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Platt, P. G. (2016). Shakespeare and the culture of paradox. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 562–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Putnam, L. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Banghart, S. (2016). Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 65–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Puttenham, G. (1589/2012). The arte of English poesie. Hamburg, Germany: Tredition Classics.Google Scholar
  56. Quine, W. V. (1976). The ways of paradox and other essays. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Rappaport, J. (2002). In praise of paradox: A social policy of empowerment over prevention. In T. A. Revenson, A. R. D’Augelli, S. E. French, D. Hughes, D. E. Livert, E. Seidman, M. Shinn, & H. Yoshikawa (Eds.), A quarter century of community psychology (pp. 121–145). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rescher, N. (2001). Paradoxes: Their roots, range, and resolution. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
  59. Scarpetta, G., Houdebine, J. L., & Derrida, J. (1972). Interview: Jacques Derrida. Diacritics, 2(4), 35–43. Retrieved from CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schad, J. (2017). Ad fontes: Philosophical foundations of paradox research. The Oxford handbook of organizational paradox (pp. 27–47). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., & Smith, W. K. (2016). Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 5–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Smith, W., & Lewis, M. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403.Google Scholar
  63. Smith, W. K., Lewis, M. W., Jarzabkowski, P., & Langley, A. (2017). Foreword: Paradox in organizational theory. In W. K. Smith, M. W. Lewis, P. Jarzabkowski, & A. Langley (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational paradox (pp. v–viii). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Smith, W. K., Lewis, M. W., & Tushman, M. L. (2016). ‘Both/and’ leadership. Harvard Business Review, 94(5), 62–70.Google Scholar
  65. Starr, K. E. (2014). Interrogating conceptions of leadership: School principals, policy and paradox. School Leadership & Management, 34(3), 224–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Stoltzfus, K., Stohl, C., & Seibold, D. R. (2011). Managing organizational change: Paradoxical problems, solutions, and consequences. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(3), 349–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Storey, J., & Salaman, G. (2010). Managerial dilemmas: Exploiting paradox for strategic leadership. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  68. Sundaramurthy, C., & Lewis, M. (2003). Control and collaboration: Paradoxes of governance. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 397–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Walkerdine, V., & Bansel, P. (2010). Neoliberalism, work and subjectivity: Towards a more complex account. In M. Wetherell & C. T. Mohanty (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of identities (pp. 492–508). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Watson, C. (2013). How (and why) to avoid making rational decisions: Embracing paradox in school leadership. School Leadership & Management, 33(3), 256–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Webb, P. T., Gulson, K., & Pitton, V. (2014). The neo-liberal education policies of epimeleia heautou: Caring for the self in school markets. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 35(1), 31–44.Google Scholar
  72. Westenholz, A. (1999). From a logic perspective to a paradox perspective in the analysis of an employee-owned company. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 20(4), 503–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Woermann, M. (2016). Bridging complexity and post-structuralism. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Ybema, S. (1996). A duck-billed platypus in the theory and analysis of organizations: Combinations of consensus and dissensus. In W. Koot, I. Sabelis, & S. Ybema (Eds.), Contradictions in context. Puzzling over paradoxes in contemporary organizations (pp. 39–62). Amsterdam: VU University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chris Dolan
    • 1
  1. 1.University of South AustraliaAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations