Ulrike Schultze, Information Systems and Operations Management, Cox School of Business, Southern Methodist University, Dallas: Knowing what you don1t know? Discourses and Contradictions in Knowledge Management Research

The field of knowledge management research is vast, ambiguous and poorly defined, and its recommendations are contradictory. Two contradictions that are particularly apparent are related to knowing and managing the unknown. The first concerns tacit knowledge as a source of sustainable competitive advantage and the second concerns the value of ignorance. In order to make sense of knowledge management research and these two contradictions, we develop a framework for exploring researchers1 assumptions about the nature of knowledge and its role in organizations. This framework, which is an adaptation of Burrell and Morgan1s four paradigms of social and organizational inquiry, distinguishes between four different discourses, i.e., the neo-functionalist, the pragmatic/interpretive, the critical and the dialogic.

We use the two contradictions as analytical devices to explore the four discourses in more detail and to identify the value of this framework to knowledge management research. We highlight that not only notions of knowledge but also notions of what it means to manage it vary across the four discourses. Based on this diversity of assumptions, we conclude that all four discourses need to be appreciated, understood and represented in knowledge management research so that cross-discourse dialog that facilitates the development of this field of research can be fostered. Such a dialog demands that knowledge management researchers become aware of their own assumptions around knowledge, its role in organizations and what it means to manage it, as well as the contradictions that arise out of them.

Välkommna!
Per-Olof Ågren