Veranstaltungsprogramm der VHB Jahrestagung

Although online hate speech is widely recognized as a major societal issue, its governance is largely left to the self-regulation of platform-providers. Without established standards of “good governance” in place, however, platform-providers commonly struggle with how they should govern online hate speech, since the “right thing to do” remains unclear vis-à-vis the paradoxical tension between freedom of speech and human dignity. Surprisingly, the paradox literature has mostly neglected normative problems to date. In addressing this gap, we make three key contributions to scholarship on paradox and normativity in organization studies, presenting a longitudinal single-case study of a Swiss media organization and a normative analysis of how its governance of online hate speech developed over time. First, we outline what constitutes good governance of paradox and why it must be based on a strong notion of normativity. Second, our findings reveal that the deliberative approach which emerged at the end of the 13-year period constitutes the best observed form of governance of paradox. We identify three mechanisms that help explain the evolution of this approach: decision-making structures, emotional attachments, and legitimacy. Third, we show good governance is key for addressing paradoxes when tackling grand societal challenges and pursuing desirable futures. (199 words)

The paper examines the theoretical underpinnings and limitations of Rogers’ concept of preventive innovation communication, using computational sentiment analysis to promote a more situational and meaning-based understanding of the concept. The literature suggests that the economic benefits of preventive innovation to organisations, for example to prevent pollution, protect human health or ensure information security, are mainly intangible, often time-delayed and adopted for incidents that may never occur.

Drawing on the discourse perspective of organisational communication and using the information security standard ISO/IEC 27001 as an example of preventive innovation, the authors extend Rogers’ view by noting that preventive innovations are not isolated, static objects or practices, but influence and are influenced by the adopting organisation. Therefore, there is not just one intended way of adopting a preventive innovation, but different approaches, namely agency, stewardship, and brokerage. Second, and also extending Rogers’ view, the findings provide evidence that organisations not only receive indirect recognition but can also gain direct economic benefits from preventive innovation. Third, the authors show that organisational communication of preventive innovations varies along the three adoption approaches and depends on whether organisations receive direct or indirect economic benefits from engaging in preventive innovation.

These findings are important not only for advancing the concept of preventive innovation. For policymakers, it allows them to understand how preventive innovation spreads into organisational practice and sustains social welfare. For adopters of preventive innovations, it is important to disseminate their efforts by creating the right communication, but also to understand that communication is important in organisational reality. In addition, adopters should be aware of the economic benefits that may be at stake. Finally, for innovators, in order to assess the success of their innovations, the findings show the variety of ways in which preventive innovations are adopted and how this shapes organisational communication.