Becoming to know. Shifting the knowledge creation paradigm

Abstract

Purpose -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.Design/methodology/approach -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.Findings -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.Research implications -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.Originality/value -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.

Knowledge and Discourse Matters

“…The theories which follow the notion of knowledge as social action and which take a joint focus on both personal and organizational knowledge include Spender (1996), Tsoukas and Vladimirou (2001), Boisot (2002), Snowden (2002) and Jakubik (2011). Duguid's (2005 formulation of knowing how-knowing that is included in these discussions because, whilst not categorised here as a theory, it has particular resonance for Discourse and Knowledge…”

“…In recent years there has been a notable move towards a more social approach to KM with a more people-centric perspective (e.g., Tsoukas, 2011;Jakubik, 2011 …”

“…In her transformative teleology framework, in which teleology relates to a phenomenon's end or purpose, Jakubik (2011) views the individual and social as not separate and different levels of organizational life. Rather knowledge is seen as embedded in human action, interactions and situated practice, which has some resonance with others (e.g., Guzman, 2009).…”

“…Blackler's (1993) Knowledge and the theory of organizations is based on a modified version of activity theory and, like Wenger (2000), Boisot (2002) and Jakubik (2011), he emphasises the central role of social learning. Activity theory was originally proposed by the Psychologist L.S.…”

Human resource development programs for knowledge transfer and creation: the case of the Toyota Technical Development Corporation

“…Similarly, Maurer et al (2011) reported that the transfer of knowledge resources mediates between organization members' intraorganizational social capital, organizational performance outcomes of growth and innovation performance. Knowledge management literature suggests the need for a better understanding of the emerging community view of knowledge, where knowledge is embedded in human actions and interactions (Jakubik, 2011). Communities of practice are considered an adequate place for transferring knowledge from experts to less competent individuals (Guechtouli et al, 2012).…”