In today’s hyper-digitalized world, organizations increasingly face persistent and interdependent tensions in their information systems engineering (ISE) practices. These tensions—often referred to as paradoxes—stem from the need to simultaneously pursue conflicting goals such as innovation and stability, automation and human judgment, or centralization and autonomy.

Paradoxes are not mere dilemmas to be resolved, but fundamental and enduring features of complex socio-technical systems (Wang et al. 2026). They emerge in all areas of ISE: in development practices, in digital transformation initiatives, in governance and architecture, and in how individuals engage with digital technologies. Navigating these paradoxes requires organizations, teams, and individuals to embrace a paradoxical mindset and to develop new capabilities to balance contradictory but interrelated demands (Halton & Wiewiora 2025; Miron-Spektor et al. 2018).

While paradox theory has gained significant attention in organizational studies (Lewis 2000; Smith & Lewis 2011; Schad et al. 2016), it is only recently that IS scholars have begun to examine how such tensions play out in the design, implementation, and use of information systems (Gregory et al. 2015; Mazmanian et al. 2013; Soh et al. 2023; Wimelius et al. 2021). A growing stream of this work has shown how organizations manage the contradictory demands of exploration and exploitation as digital infrastructures and transformation programs evolve over time (Gregory et al. 2015; Montealegre et al. 2019). This special issue seeks to advance the understanding of paradoxes in information systems engineering, with the goal of developing richer theoretical, empirical, and design-based insights into how paradoxes emerge, how they are managed, and how they shape the future of IS practice and scholarship.

We invite submissions on topics including, but not limited to:

1. Socio-Technical Design and Development Paradoxes

At the level of system design and development, engineers and designers must continually reconcile demands that pull in opposite directions. Efforts to grant users greater autonomy over how they configure and appropriate a system sit in tension with the need to retain system control for the sake of reliability, compliance, and coherence. Similarly, the drive to make systems more secure frequently works against the goal of keeping them usable, as protective mechanisms add friction that users may resist or circumvent. In platform ecosystems, providers must balance the flexibility that allows third parties to extend and differentiate their offerings against the standardization required to keep the platform interoperable and governable. And across digital services more broadly, the promise of personalization, tailoring experiences to individual users, depends on the very data collection that threatens privacy. Contributions in this area might examine how these competing imperatives are negotiated in design choices, and how socio-technical systems can hold both poles in productive balance rather than collapsing one into the other.

2. Organizational and Governance Paradoxes

Paradoxes also surface in the organizational structures and governance arrangements through which information systems are managed. Large organizations must integrate agile ways of working with entrenched legacy systems, reconciling the speed and adaptability of the former with the stability and constraints of the latter. Decisions about IT governance involve an enduring tension between centralized control, which offers consistency and economies of scale, and decentralized autonomy, which affords responsiveness and local ownership. In enterprise architecture, the pursuit of standardization to reduce complexity and cost can suppress the very innovation that keeps the organization competitive. And in DevOps and continuous delivery pipelines, the pressure to ship quickly is perpetually in tension with the need to preserve quality and dependability. We welcome work that explores how organizations structure their governance, architecture, and delivery practices to navigate these tensions, and what capabilities allow them to sustain both agility and control.

3. Paradoxes in Human-AI and Digital Work Settings

At the same time, intelligent systems show the potential to augment decision-making processes (Jussupow, 2021). Many environments require complex decision-making in which human-AI collaboration perform better than AI or humans alone (Fügner et al., 2026). Previous decision-making related to organizational paradoxes relied upon managers‘ capacities to navigate them (e.g., Smith and Tushman, 2005; Smith, 2014). Hence, it remains to investigate how intelligent systems augment and support decision-making when dealing with paradoxes. Furthermore, submissions might investigate how intelligent systems need to be designed to make or support humans to make paradoxical decisions.

4. Innovation and Transformation Paradoxes

Digital innovation and transformation initiatives are shaped by tensions between the new and the established. Organizations must balance exploration, the pursuit of novel technologies, markets, and capabilities, against exploitation of the systems and competencies they already possess, without allowing either to crowd out the other. Renewal efforts likewise require reconciling change with continuity, introducing new digital systems while maintaining the stability of ongoing operations. And in large-scale digital transformation, the value of local experimentation, where units adapt and innovate in response to their own contexts, must be weighed against the need for global integration and coherence across the enterprise. Contributions in this theme might examine how organizations orchestrate these competing demands over time, and how paradoxical tensions between change and stability, or between local and global logics, shape the trajectory and outcomes of transformation.

5. Theoretical and Methodological Contributions

Beyond studies of specific tensions, this special issue seeks contributions that advance how paradoxes in information systems are conceptualized and studied. We welcome typologies that map and differentiate the paradoxes arising across information systems engineering, offering a clearer vocabulary for the field. We are equally interested in conceptual and design science approaches that develop principles, artifacts, or frameworks for managing paradoxes rather than merely describing them. Methodological contributions are especially valued, including frameworks and research designs for empirically capturing paradoxes and the tensions they entail, which are notoriously difficult to observe and measure. Finally, we invite work that examines the behavioral and cognitive foundations of paradox navigation, how individuals perceive, make sense of, and act upon contradictory demands, thereby grounding paradox theory in the micro-level processes through which tensions are actually experienced and managed.

6. Interconnected Paradoxes and “Knots” of Tensions

Another promising direction is to move beyond examining single paradoxical tensions in isolation and investigate how multiple paradoxes become interconnected. Across the different themes outlined above, organizations may simultaneously experience tensions around innovation and stability, autonomy and control, standardization and flexibility, or human and technological agency. Rather than operating independently, these tensions may reinforce, constrain, or reshape one another, forming what prior research has described as “knots” of paradoxical tensions. Studying how such knots emerge, evolve, and are temporarily untangled or reconfigured could provide a richer understanding of the dynamics of paradox in information systems engineering and complement the special issue’s interest in processes and dynamics of paradox navigation. Contributions might examine, for example, how addressing one paradox makes another more salient, how responses to one tension influence the management of others, or how configurations of interconnected tensions change over time. Such work could also explore whether particular technologies, governance arrangements, or organizational practices contribute to the knotting and reknotting of paradoxes across levels of analysis.

Types of Submissions

We welcome rigorous and original contributions of all types, including:

• Empirical studies (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-method)
• Conceptual or theoretical papers grounded in paradox theory
• Design science research with a clear empirical foundation

Submitted manuscripts must have a strong empirical or design-based component and explicitly engage with the paradoxical nature of ISE challenges.

Submission Guidelines

Please submit papers by 15 March 2027  via the journal’s online submission system: http://www.editorialmanager.com/buis/. All manuscripts must follow the submission guidelines of Business & Information Systems Engineering (BISE): https://www.bise-journal.com/?page_id=18.

Submissions will undergo a double-blind review process, involving at least two reviewers. In addition to the open call, authors of relevant conference papers are encouraged to submit substantially revised and extended versions that include additional empirical validation, theoretical elaboration, or design contributions.

Tentative Timeline

• Submission Deadline: 15 March 2027
• First Round Reviews:  15 June 2027
• Revision 1 Due: 15 September 2027
• Second Round Reviews: 31 October 2027
• Revision 2 Due: 30 November 2027
• Final Decisions: 15 December 2027

Guest Editors

Edona Elshan, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Bart van den Hooff, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Matthias Werner, University of Lüneburg

Foundational Theoretical Works on Paradox

• 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. – This seminal paper argues that instead of avoiding contradictory perspectives, theorists can leverage them. It outlines four strategies for dealing with paradox in organizational theory: accepting the contradiction, separating or clarifying levels of analysis, temporal separation(handling opposing forces at different times), and synthesizing by introducing new terms or frameworks. This work laid the groundwork for viewing tensions (e.g. stability vs. change) as productive paradoxes in theory building.
• Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760–776. – A comprehensive review that defines organizational paradoxes as “conflicting yet interwoven opposites” and provides a typology of common paradoxes in organizations. Lewis identifies four broad categories of paradoxical tensions – learning, organizing, belonging, and performing – which represent core activities and concerns in organizations. This guide emphasizes embracing paradox as a lens for understanding organizational complexities, and it suggests strategies (like cognitive reframing) to cope with tensions rather than resolving them outright.
• 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. – offers a wide-ranging integrative review of how organizational scholars have theorized contradiction, dialectics, and paradox, and it proposes a new way of understanding these phenomena grounded in communication theory. The paper organizes many of the responses to organizational contradiction and paradox around three underlying logics, which the paradox literature often labels either/or, both/and, and more/than. These labels describe fundamentally different orientations toward the relationship between the two poles of a tension, and the authors use them to show how varied responses to paradox actually are, ranging from avoidance to full transcendence of the opposition.
• Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403. – A highly cited article that synthesizes prior paradox research and proposes a dynamic equilibrium model for managing organizational tensions. Smith and Lewis argue that competing demands (such as flexibility vs. efficiency) can be managed through continuous cycles of acceptanceand resolution, enabling long-term success. Their model illustrates a virtuous cycle in which awareness of tensions sparks responses that keep both poles of a paradox in play. This work provides a theoretical foundation for why “both/and” approaches (embracing both sides of a paradox) are beneficial for organizations.
• 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. – This literature review covers 25 years of research on organizational paradoxes. Using a content analysis of prior studies, the authors identify six major themes of paradox research (e.g. learning–organizing tensions, belonging–performing tensions) with varying levels of scholarly attention. They highlight how paradox theory has evolved and call for future research on the processes, dynamics, and management of multiple concurrent tensions. This source is valuable for understanding the state-of-the-art in paradox theory and for citing the breadth of paradox applications in management studies.

Paradoxes in Information Systems Research

• Brynjolfsson, E. (1993). The productivity paradox of information technology. Communications of the ACM, 36(12), 66–77. – Brynjolfsson’s article discusses the so-called “productivity paradox” of IT: despite rapid advances in computing and increased IT spending in the 1970s–1980s, productivity statistics showed little improvement.This paradox spurred debates on the value of IT in organizations, highlighting tensions between investment in technology and tangible returns. It is a foundational IS paradox phenomenon that set the stage for later research into how and when IT contributes to performance.
• Awad, N. F., & Krishnan, M. S. (2006). The personalization privacy paradox: An empirical evaluation of information transparency and the willingness to be profiled online for personalization. MIS Quarterly, 30(1), 13–28. – This empirical study in MISQ examines the personalization–privacy paradox in e-commerce. The paradox is that consumers value personalized services (which require collecting personal data) yet also desire privacy and control over their information. Awad and Krishnan find that transparency about data use can partially resolve this tension. This paper is relevant for IS because it illustrates a common digital-era paradox: businesses seek to leverage user data for customization, but must balance it with users’ privacy concerns.
• Mazmanian, M., Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (2013). The autonomy paradox: The implications of mobile email devices for knowledge professionals. Organization Science, 24(5), 1337–1357. – An influential field study that introduces the autonomy paradox in the context of mobile IT. Knowledge workers adopted smartphones and email devices hoping for more flexibility and autonomy in managing work, but paradoxically ended up feeling moretethered and obliged to respond at all hours. This organizational study (by IS scholars in an org journal) highlights the tension between connectivity and autonomy: technology that enables remote work freedom also creates pressure to be constantly available. It’s a key example of paradox in digital transformation of work practices.
• Konsynski, B., & Tiwana, A. (2004). The improvisation-efficiency paradox in inter-firm electronic networks: Governance and architecture considerations. Journal of Information Technology, 19(4), 234–243. – Konsynski and Tiwana identify an “improvisation–efficiency paradox” when companies build inter-firm IT networks. On one hand, firms need improvisation and agility to respond to changing conditions (particularly in networked or agile development environments); on the other hand, they require efficiency and standardization for the network to function smoothly. This study discusses how governance and IT architecture can be designed to accommodate flexibility without undermining efficiency.It exemplifies the agile vs. legacy system tension in IS: new agile approaches must coexist with stable legacy structures.
• Baillette, P., Barlette, Y., & Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, A. (2018). Bring Your Own Device in organizations: Extending the reversed IT adoption logic to security paradoxes for CEOs and end users. International Journal of Information Management, 43, 76–84. – This paper explores security paradoxes in the “Bring Your Own Device” (BYOD) trend. BYOD can improve productivity and employee satisfaction (by allowing use of personal devices at work) but also introduces greater security risks and control issues. The authors describe a twofold paradox faced by top managers (like CEOs/CIOs) and end users: the freedom and innovation enabled by BYOD versus the security and control it undermines. This source is relevant as an IS case study of how organizations navigate the dual imperatives of innovation (user-driven IT) and security governance.
• Toutaoui, J., Benlian, A., & Hess, T. (2022). Managing paradoxes in bi‐modal information technology functions: A multi‐case study. Information Systems Journal, 32(6), 1177-1202.
• Wang, B., Ciriello, R. F., & Mathiassen, L. (2026). Genres of Paradoxical IS Theorising: Of Chaos–Puzzles and Spear–Shields. Information Systems Journal.
• Wimelius, H., Mathiassen, L., Holmström, J., & Keil, M. (2021). A paradoxical perspective on technology renewal in digital transformation. Information Systems Journal, 31(1), 198–225. – A recent IS study that explicitly applies paradox theory to digital transformation efforts. The authors investigate how organizations manage the tension between the need to renew or innovate IT (adopting new digital systems) and the need to maintain stability in ongoing operations. By viewing digital transformation through a paradox lens, the paper illustrates strategies organizations use to cope with conflicting demands of change vs. continuity. This source supports the idea that digital transformation initiatives inherently involve paradoxical tensions (exploration of new technologies while exploiting existing capabilities).

Managing and Navigating Paradoxes in Organizations

• Lüscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 221–240. – A qualitative action research study at LEGO that examines how managers confronted with paradoxical tensions can work through them. During a restructuring, LEGO’s middle managers faced conflicting directives (such as cut costs and innovate). Lüscher and Lewis show how, through iterative conversations and sensemaking interventions, managers reframed these tensions into more manageable challenges. The study demonstrates a practical approach to navigating paradox: acknowledging the conflict, then collectively finding new ways to understand it (a process of cognitive and organizational reframing). This paper is often cited as evidence that engaging with paradox (rather than denying it) helps organizations adapt to complex change.
• Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation–exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696–717. – This research investigates how companies balance exploitation (efficiency, refinement of existing products) and exploration (risk-taking, innovation of new products) – a classic paradox in innovation management. Studying creative design firms, Andriopoulos and Lewis identify specific managerial practices that enable “ambidexterity,” effectively embracing both innovation and control. They highlight practices like separate project structures and paradoxical mindsets that allow organizations to pursue creative experimentation while also leveraging existing expertise. This source is relevant as it directly addresses the innovation vs. efficiency (or control) tension and shows how firms can manage paradox to achieve both goals.
• Papachroni, A., & Heracleous, L. (2020). Ambidexterity as practice: Individual ambidexterity through paradoxical practices. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 56(2), 143–165. – Papachroni and Heracleous zoom in on the micro-level of paradox management, examining how individuals (such as middle managers) can personally juggle competing demands. They introduce the idea of paradoxical practices – behaviors that consciously confront and transcend the boundaries between exploration and exploitation activities. Their findings suggest that individuals can achieve ambidexterity (doing both exploratory and exploitative work) by renegotiating boundaries and embracing contradictions in their daily routines. This paper’s relevance lies in showing how paradox management is not just an organizational structure issue but also a matter of individual action and mindset, which is crucial for navigating tensions in any IS or organizational change context.