It is increasingly common for firms to engage in both external and internal search practices to access diverse inputs for innovation. An example is represented by the implementation of both external and internal crowdsourcing (CS) within the same organization to access ideas and solutions coming from the external crowd of customers and internal employees. Arguably, these platforms can be seen as forms of open and closed innovation search, where external CS is directed at performing distant search beyond the organizational boundaries, while internal CS is used to conduct local search within the firm to build upon existing knowledge bases. Nevertheless, limited attention has been placed on investigating which tensions emerge when firms combine these conflicting innovation search strategies and related management approaches to address them. We build on the paradox theory to shed more light on this important question. By drawing on a qualitative, inductive case study of a large organization headquartered in France, our study identifies and discusses three key paradoxes emerging from pursuing both innovation forms: (1) paradox of identity, due to conflicting innovation values and multiple roles R&D employees have to adhere to; (2) paradox of organizing the innovation process, emerging from conflicting design requirements; and (3) paradox of boundary management, emerging from employees having to value both internal and external knowledge. Moreover, we discuss the use of different management approaches (integration, differentiation and acceptance) implemented by managers in the attempt to address the identified paradoxes. Implications for innovation management research and practice are discussed.