ВЕСТНИК ПЕРМСКОГО УНИВЕРСИТЕТА. ФИЛОСОФИЯ. ПСИХОЛОГИЯ. СОЦИОЛОГИЯ

VESTNIK PERMSKOGO UNIVERSITETA. SERIYA FILOSOFIA PSIKHOLOGIYA SOTSIOLOGIYA

Russian version of the article

Issue 1 (25) 2016

DOI: 10.17072/2078-7898/2016-1-52-56

Knowledge Transfer in Management:
the Problem Statement

Sobolev Nikolay Andreevich
PhD student of School of Philosophy

National Research University «Higher School
of Economics»,
21/4, Staraya Basmannaya str., Moscow,105066, Russia;
e-mail: sobolevna@gmail.com

An approach  to knowledge transfer has dramatically transformed through the 20th century. While it was initially commonly regarded that knowledge transfers only between individuals, in 1960s the focus moved on how this process goes between organizations as well as individuals. In 1990s knowledge transfer became a managerial process. As for now, researchers face new question: what is knowledge which transfer is to be managed and what properties does it have? Knowledge management investigators adopted several answers to such a question, but, unfortunately, did not sufficiently grounded their choices. This paper argues that to solve such a question means to find out what definition of knowledge is implicitly used in knowledge management theory and practice. To do so, it should be clarified how the theory in which knowledge management originated defines knowledge and its properties. This paper shows that knowledge management has arisen from social constructionism. That means that the former applies to knowledge as being organizational, embodied, pragmatic and constructive. Thus, an approach to knowledge transfer implicitly used in knowledge management theory and practice can be described as «embodied knowledge approach». According to it, knowledge always exists in activity of a person or an organization so that to have knowledge successfully transferred means to reconstruct the context of activities in which the knowledge was initially embodied. The results of this paper would be important for both epistemology and knowledge management because they provide a linkage between both subject fields.

Key words: knowledge; knowledge management; knowledge transfer; epistemology; social constructionism.

References

  1. Backer T.E. Knowledge utilization. The third wave. Science Communication. 1991. Vol. 12, no 3. P. 225–240. (In English).
  2. Berger P.L., Luckmann T. The social construction of reality: a treatise in the sociology of knowledge. N.Y.: Anchor Books, 1967. 219 p. (In English).
  3. Demarest M. Understanding knowledge management. Long Range Planning. 1997. Vol. 30, no 3. P. 374–384. URL: http://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(97)90250-8 (accessed 12.01.2016). (In English).
  4. Easterby-Smith M., Crossan M., Nicolini D. Organizational Learning: Debates Past, Present And Future. Journal of Management Studies. 2000. Vol. 37, no 6. P. 783–796. URL: http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00203 (accessed 12.01.2016). (In English).
  5. Jacobson N. Social Epistemology Theory for the “Fourth Wave” of Knowledge Transfer and Exchange Research. Science Communication. 2007. Vol. 29, no 1. P. 116–127. URL: http://doi.org/10.1177/1075547007305166 (accessed 12.01.2016). (In English).
  6. Kull M.D. Stories of knowledge management: Exploring coherence in a community of practice. George Washington University. 2002. URL: http://amplifi.com/KMcourse/StoryofKM.pdf (accessed 12.01.2016). (In English).
  7. Lambe P. The unacknowledged parentage of knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management. 2011. Vol. 15, no 2. P. 175–197. URL: http://doi.org/10.1108/13673271111119646 (accessed 12.01.2016). (In English).
  8. Limone A., Bastias L.E. Autopoiesis and knowledge in the organization: Conceptual foundation for authentic Knowledge Management. Systems Research and Behavioral Science. 2006. Vol. 23, no 1. P. 39–49. URL: http://doi.org/10.1002/sres.745 (accessed 12.01.2016). (In English).
  9. McAdam R., McCreedy S. (). A critique of knowledge management: using a social constructionist model. New Technology, Work and Employment. 2000. Vol. 15, no 2. P. 155–168. URL: http://doi.org/10.1111/1468-005X.00071 (accessed 12.01.2016). (In English).
  10. Nonaka I., Takeuchi H. The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Boston: Oxford university press. 1995. URL: http://www.google.com/books?hl=ru&lr=&id=tmziBwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA3&dq=knowledge+creating+company&ots=pR6jJTXEyx&sig=
    A7vcPVSXBZf8eq25jzwGyVwG2K4 (accessed 12.01.2016). (In English).
  11. Schultze U., Stabell C. Knowing what you don’t know? Discourses and contradictions in knowledge management research. Journal of Management Studies. 2004. Vol. 41, no 4. P. 549–573. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00444.x (accessed 12.01.2016). (In English).
  12. Serenko A., Bontis N. The intellectual core and impact of the knowledge management academic discipline. Journal of Knowledge Management. 2013. Vol. 17, no 1. P. 137–155. URL: http://doi.org/10.1108/13673271311300840 (accessed 12.01.2016). (In English).
  13. Tsoukas H. The firm as a distributed knowledge system: a constructionist approach. Strategic Management Journal. 1996. Vol. 17(S2). P. 11–25. (In English).
  14. Venters W. Knowledge management technology-in-practice: a social constructionist analysis of the introduction and use of knowledge management systems. Knowledge Management Research & Practice. 2010. Vol. 8, no 2. P. 161–172. URL: http://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2010.8 (accessed 12.01.2016). (In English).
  15. Wyssusek B., Schwartz M., Kremberg B. (). Knowledge management–a sociopragmatic approach. Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Knowledge Management, Slovene. Seatle: Citeseer, 2001. P. 767–776. URL: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.20.5850&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed 12.01.2016). (In English).
  16. Wyssusek B., Schwartz M., Kremberg B. Targeting the social: a sociopragmatic approach towards design and use of information systems. (Issues and trends of information technology management in contemporary organizations). Seatle: Citeseer, 2002. P. 832–835. URL: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.14.9523&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed 12.01.2016). (In English).

The date of the manuscript receipt 25.01.2016

Please cite this article in English as:

Sobolev N.A. Knowledge transfer in management: the problem statement // Perm University Herald. Series «Philosophy. Psychology. Sociology». 2016. Iss. 1(25). P. 52–56.

Категория: Phylosophy. Просмотров: 9606