Dealing with dualities Koen Dittrich ⁎ , Ferdinand Jaspers, Wendy van der Valk, Finn Wynstra RSM Erasmus University/Erasmus Research Institute of Management, PO Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands Received 30 June 2006; accepted 3 July 2006 Available online 28 July 2006 Abstract This paper introduces the topic of dealing with dualities, which is the theme of this special issue. We first give a short review of the notion of paradox and duality in management research. After this, we discuss the relevance of dualities for the IMP approach of analyzing industrial networks. Then, we briefly introduce the papers of and their relationship with the theme of this special issue. We conclude with some suggestions for future research. © 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction This article forms the introduction to IMM's Special Issue on the 2006 Industrial Marketing and Purchasing Group Confer- ence, held in Rotterdam (Netherlands) in September 2005. The theme of the conference and hence also this special issue – “Dealing with dualities”– emphasizes the dual nature of busi- ness relationships and networks, and the paradoxes that are often present – and/or constructed by actors or researchers – in the face of relationships and networks. Perhaps one of the most salient dualities regarding business networks is their simulta- neous role as enabler and barrier; they can both facilitate and promote change, such as technological development, but on the other hand they can act as a barrier or hindrance to change. This theme of dualities is especially relevant and timely given the increasing attention of policy makers and practitioners for the “network society” (Castells, 2000). Although the con- cept of ‘dualities’, or ‘paradoxes’ as they are sometimes referred to, has been around for some time (Handy, 1994; Quinn & Cameron, 1988), it has recently gathered more interest; not only within the IMP Group (Håkansson & Ford, 2002), but perhaps even more so in the wider area of management research (e.g., Chreim, 2005; Clegg, 2002; Koot, Sabelis, & Ybema, 1996; Lewis, 2000; Möllering, 2005; Smith & Tushman, 2005; Sydow & Windeler, 1998). As a background for the introduction of the remaining articles in this special issue, we briefly review (a representative sample of ) the wider management literature on dualities and paradoxes and then discuss how research within the IMP, ‘markets as networks’ tradition has looked at these notions. After a brief introduction of the other articles in this special issue, we con- clude by offering some suggestions for future research. 2. The notion of paradox and duality in management research In general speech, ‘paradox’ is usually equated with terms such as (self-) contradiction, inconsistency and incongruity, which clearly refer to tensions or oppositional tendencies. Also, it is equivalent with more ambiguous states, such as enigma or puzzle. In relation to organizations and management, paradoxes – the coexistence of opposites – have three generic characteristics (Lewis, 2000, p. 761). First, paradoxes are often constructed and thus perceptual. We will come back to this point, however, be- cause there are researchers that take a much more positivist perspective (“paradoxes are real”). Second, they become apparent through reflection and interaction. Finally, a paradox may reside in a great variety of interrelated elements: practices, feelings, messages, etc. (Lewis, 2000). Management research has increasingly adopted a duality or paradoxical perspective in studying particular phenomena (Eisenhardt, 2000). Dualities may exist with regard to different phenomena in business networks. Some studies use paradox or duality to describe the simultaneous existence of particular (inter-) organizational activities (processes) or mechanisms. For instance, Industrial Marketing Management 35 (2006) 792 – 796 ⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 10 408 2597; fax: +31 10 408 9014. E-mail addresses: kdittrich@rsm.nl (K. Dittrich), fjaspers@rsm.nl (F. Jaspers), wvalk@rsm.nl (W. van der Valk), fwynstra@rsm.nl (F. Wynstra). 0019-8501/$ - see front matter © 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2006.07.001