Search results

This paper proposes to rethink the concepts of relevance and usefulness and their relation to the theory–practice gap in management research.

On the basis of the cognitive-linguistic relevance theory or inferential pragmatics, supplemented by insights from information science, we define relevance as a general conceptual category, while reserving usefulness for the instrumental application in a particular case.

There is no reason to hold onto the difference between theoretical and practical relevance, nor to distinguish between instrumental and conceptual relevance.

This novel approach will help to clarify the confusion in the field and contribute to a better understanding of the added value of management research.

Purpose – To show that Hayek's cognitive theory sheds light on Hayek's institutional theory.

Methodology/Approach – Although F. A. Hayek contributed richly to many fields of economics – from capital theory to monetary theory, and from institutions to spontaneous order – one theme is omnipresent in his work: the knowledge problem. This paper examines Hayek's work in psychology, The Sensory Order, and argues that there exist strong parallels between Hayek's cognitive and institutional theories.

Findings – Hayek's institutional (or social) theory makes a lot more sense when understood as a necessary consequence of his cognitive theory. Furthermore, Hayek's cognitive theory allows for rational individuals making choices that are socially embedded.

Research limitations/implications – Three Hayekian themes are explored: (1) institutional implications of limited knowledge; (2) learning and knowledge generation; and (3) mental models. The paper then uses a challenge within Hayek – the tension between microlevel methodological individualism and macrolevel institutional evolution – as a starting point toward resolving the lingering individual-culture methodological puzzle in contemporary economics. These are mere starting points for further research.

Originality/value of paper – Horwitz (2000) writes that “Hayek's thought will have come to fruition when the social sciences abandon rationalist and constructivist explanations of social phenomena in favor of ones that recognize the roles of tacit and contextual knowledge, institutional evolution, and spontaneous order. Such an approach would dramatically improve our understanding of the human mind.” This paper offers a step in that direction.

Purpose – First, to look closely and critically at Hayek's treatment of science in The Sensory Order. This provides hints as to the difficulties in maintaining a theory of scientific knowledge as a selective sum of the identifiable contributions of individual scientists. Second, to generalize from Hayek's theory of how the brain generates an individual's knowledge to a theory of how science generates scientific knowledge, knowledge that is not a simple sum of individual contributions. Third, to apply this picture of science to understanding developments in postpositivist philosophy and post-Mertonian sociology of science.

Approach – We provide a short survey of the conventional understanding of science and scientific knowledge, including that of Hayek in The Sensory Order. We examine in more depth the ways in which developments in postpositivist philosophy and sociology have transformed our understanding of science. We describe how, by analogy with Hayek's theory of the brain, science can be seen as an adaptive system that adjusts to its environment by classifying the phenomena in that environment to which it is sensitive, and we apply this systemic picture of science with a view to integrating much of the more moderate content of recent philosophy and sociology of science.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the basics of semiotic analysis and concept theory that represent two dominant approaches to knowledge representation, and explore how these approaches are fruitful for knowledge organization.

In particular the semiotic theory formulated by the American philosopher C.S. Peirce and the concept theory formulated by Ingetraut Dahlberg are investigated. The paper compares the differences and similarities between these two theories of knowledge representation.

The semiotic model is a general and unrestricted model of signs and Dahlberg's model is thought from the perspective and demand of better knowledge organization system (KOS) development. It is found that Dahlberg's concept model provides a detailed method for analyzing and representing concepts in a KOS, where semiotics provides the philosophical context for representation.

This paper is the first to combine theories of knowledge representation, semiotic and concept theory, within the context of knowledge organization.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the epistemological origin of Shewhart's and Deming's ideas in their development of a theory of quality.

The approach takes the form of a literature review.

Walter. A. Shewhart's and W. Edwards Deming's ideas concerning a theory of quality originated not solely from insights about variation within statistics but also from the field of philosophy, particularly epistemology. Shewhart and Deming, both seen as quality pioneers, were strongly influenced by the conceptualistic pragmatist Clarence Irving Lewis and his theory of knowledge. This is, and has often been, a neglected connection; however, in today's competitive business environment knowledge and competence have become crucial success factors. Thus, the epistemology‐related origin of their theory of quality has become increasingly interesting and important to explore. First, a summary version of Clarence Irving Lewis' theory of knowledge will be presented here as expressed in his work Mind and the World Order: Outline of a Theory of Knowledge (1929). Second, examples of some important connections between Lewis, and chosen parts of Shewhart's and Deming's theory of quality will be given, for example the plan‐do‐study‐act cycle, operational definitions and profound knowledge. It will also be indicated how the social element in knowledge is emphasised in the works of Lewis, Deming, and Shewhart.

By exploring the epistemological background of Deming's and Shewhart's ideas of a theory of quality, it might be able to better comprehend the profound ideas they left behind and improve the understanding and use of their theory of quality today.

The purpose of this study is to identify and explain the role of motivation in facilitating knowledge sharing (KS). This study explains the connection between “motivation” and “knowledge sharing” or KS. Research finding offers significant theoretical and practical suggestions. Theoretically, the study provides clarity on various motivation theories and important constructs in KS.

This research reviews the literature on knowledge management in detail along with other published works. A search was conducted using online databases on the Web of Science (WoS) and Google Scholar. An analysis was done with the help of qualitative software NVivo 12 to critically analyze literature.

This theoretical review offers a retrospective view of theories, context, methods, antecedents or enablers to understand the motivation theories used in knowledge sharing research and provides a guideline for upcoming researches to contemplate and examine numerous motivation theories and also choose the most significant motivation theory and their construct in the researches on KS.

This theoretical review contributes toward knowledge sharing and motivation literature. There are no reviews on knowledge sharing relating to contemporary motivational theories to the best of our knowledge.

The paper seeks to provide a theoretical contribution to the current phase of the knowledge creation theory of knowledge management (KM) by addressing the need for a paradigm shift and having more ontological and epistemological discussions.

The proposed “becoming to know” framework builds on the KM literature review and on the study of learning, knowing and becoming concepts from several perspectives. Both conceptual and empirical research papers contribute to the framework.

The paper presents the challenges of KM; it identifies five phases of the knowledge creation theory development through 1995‐2008; it summarizes the main criticism against the theory; and it proposes the “becoming epistemology” concept and the “becoming to know” framework. The main elements of this framework are: engaging, exploring, experiencing, emerging, enabling and evolving.

Study of the KM literature reveals several other challenges that are not addressed here and could provide opportunities for researchers. The paper calls for more discussions regarding the paradigm shift and for more attention to the participative research paradigm, as well as action and case study research in KM.

Drawing on the participative paradigm, epistemology of practice, extended epistemology, transformative teleology, becoming ontology and on concepts of learning, knowing, and becoming, the proposed framework illustrates the dynamic, iterative, interactive interplay and evolution of ontological and epistemological knowledge creation spirals that is the essence of the knowledge creation theory.

Leadership theory and research has not addressed the role of leaders in knowledge management, despite its importance to organizations. Consequently, information and knowledge management as key leader functions have not been explored. This study is an attempt to generate a preliminary theory of the role of leaders in knowledge management through a grounded theory approach.

This study builds a grounded theory of the role of leadership in knowledge management by comparatively analyzing 37 in‐depth interviews of CEOs. Combining deductive and inductive methods, this study establishes the key role of top executive leaders of organizations in knowledge management.

The data from the interviews suggest that leaders are acutely aware of the role of information and knowledge sharing and design knowledge networks that serve to maximize organizational effectiveness. Moreover, leaders use information technology and knowledge management to better focus on key internal and external customers. Thus, this grounded theory emphasizes both the leader behavior dimensions of information and knowledge sharing. More importantly, this study links the processes of knowledge management and customer‐focused knowledge management to leader and organizational effectiveness. Additionally, there seems to be evidence that such knowledge management activities implemented by leaders can positively impact organizational performance.

This grounded theory study has identified relationships/ processes of leadership that are inherently longitudinal. A key limitation, however, is that the end result is theory, which needs to be tested and refined through other conventional mechanisms.

This study makes significant contributions to both the leadership and knowledge management literatures.

This paper engaged in theory-building from social movement and knowledge management (KM) theories and applied the case study method to explore the role of knowledge complexity in administration–society collaborations on knowledge. Complex knowledge is a kind of knowledge that consists of many interdependent elements, some of which are tacit. Complex knowledge creates challenges when external social groups attempt to transfer their knowledge to public organizations. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the following question: how do social groups acting as knowledge agents transfer their knowledge if it is complex?

A single-case study methodology informs the theory-building in this paper. The paper examined a case of collaboration between the natural childbirthing social movement and state maternity hospitals in Russia and Ukraine. The case was constructed from interviews, primary sources and secondary sources.

Social movement and KM theories were used in a case analysis to formulate theoretical propositions about the complexity of social movement knowledge, why and how movements transfer their knowledge through collaborations with the state, and how administrators assess movement knowledge and its transfer. The case suggests that administrators’ lack of capacity to recognize and deal with complex knowledge results in the underutilization of social groups’ knowledge. In particular, administrators treat complex knowledge as simple, and they misunderstand and underestimate its effects on collaboration.

To the best of this author’s knowledge, this paper is the first attempt in public administration to engage in theory-building from social movement and KM theories.

The critical dimension and the one that can unify knowledge through systemic interrelationships, is unification of the purely a priori with the purely a posteriori parts of total reality into a congruous whole. This is a circular cause and effect interrelationship between premises. The emerging kind of world view may also be substantively called the epistemic‐ontic circular causation and continuity model of unified reality. The essence of this order is to ground philosophy of science in both the natural and social sciences, in a perpetually interactive and integrative mould of deriving, evolving and enhancing or revising change. Knowledge is then defined as the output of every such interaction. Interaction arises first from purely epistemological roots to form ontological reality. This is the passage from the a priori to the a posteriori realms in the traditions of Kant and Heidegger. Conversely, the passage from the a posteriori to a priori reality is the approach to knowledge in the natural sciences proferred by Cartesian meditations, David Hume, A.N. Whitehead and Bertrand Russell, as examples. Yet the continuity and renewal of knowledge by interaction and integration of these two premises are not rooted in the philosophy of western science. Husserl tried for it through his critique of western civilization and philosophical methods in the Crisis of Western Civilization. The unified field theory of Relativity‐Quantum physics is being tried for. A theory of everything has been imagined. Yet after all is done, scientific research program remains in a limbo. Unification of knowledge appears to be methodologically impossible in occidental philosophy of science.