Research is a paradoxical process. Convergence and divergence pressures advance knowledge, yet pose conflicting methodological demands for scholars. Convergence sharpens research focus, testing and deepening knowledge around a solidifying core, while divergence encourages innovation through exploration of alternative assumptions, techniques and explanations. Paradox theory embraces such tensions, its exemplars harnessing their creative friction to foster more novel and useful, rigorous and relevant research. Leveraging this lens, we contribute a paradox approach to address methods in organization studies broadly. First, we explicate methodological tensions experienced at key decision points in organizational scholarship: research scope, construct definition, underlying assumptions, data collection, data analysis and interpretation. Second, we draw on paradox theory to identify practices for navigating the tensions, using paradox studies to illustrate practices of surfacing, diverging, converging, and aligning. In conclusion, we offer insights to advance methodological approaches for organizational researchers, reviewers, and scholarly communities broadly.
