Contextual constraints and the relevance discovery process: challenges facing knowledge gatekeepers in emerging economies

Abstract

This paper explores conceptually the process of relevance discovery prompted by a major alteration in the institutional settings that has caused a radical change in the existing management knowledge paradigm, as new, mostly “imported”, knowledge replaces the “old” knowledge base. This situation puts significant pressure on a particular group of experts designated in the literature as “knowledge gatekeepers”. Their role is particularly important when external information requires contextual interpretation in order to be considered useful by other members of the social group. The paper focuses on recontextualisation as a critical element of relevance discovery and the transformation of “imported” knowledge from irrelevant to relevant and analyses the factors that influence the ability of knowledge gatekeepers to cope with the task of contextualisation. An account of two field studies of post‐communist marketisation is used to illustrate the challenges of contextualisation.

The Impact of Japanese Labels on the Perceived Relevance of Lean Production Practices in a Russian Bank

“…Small differences at the outset might have large consequences later: The initial slightly lower perceived relevance of a practice due to its Japanese label could create a vicious cycle if it undermines the implementation process and yields an ineffective practice. Indeed, Kuznetsov and Kuznetsova (2016: 79) warn that initial glitches in the transfer of foreign knowledge can be highly consequential as ‘a cause of severe and enduring problems with the adoption and absorption of new knowledge’, while Brannen (2004: 603) gives multiple examples where poor initial semantic fit induces negative effects on various innovative production methods including continuous improvement ( kaizen ). In our empirical case, one can imagine employees inventing counter-cultural artifacts – anecdotes, jokes, etc.…”

“…The same incoherent approach to translation has been observed in Belarus (where the organization that we investigate in this study has a subsidiary). In contrast with the US, where academics at business schools played a role in the translation ecosystem by contextualizing LPS practices and explaining their relevance, academics in Russia and Belarus remained skeptical about the relevance of foreign management practices (Kuznetsov & Kuznetsova, 2016; Kuznetsov & Yakavenka, 2005).…”

“…Yet, even when a local definition emerges, it remains unclear whether the name of a practice – what in this study we call the label, under which the redefined practice becomes known locally – is important for the reception of the practice by the local audience, especially by the employees who are called to use it. Studies have been done that describe translations of foreign practices and make references to various elements of a practice being named either with a foreign label, that is, the original name of the practice transliterated in the local script, or with a new, translated label, and some of these studies have elaborated on the pros and cons of such decisions (de Souza & Pidd, 2011; Kuznetsov & Kuznetsova, 2014, 2016; Tietze et al, 2017; Westney & Piekkari, 2019). Some attention in this area has been given to a specific category of knowledge users, academics, noting their dissatisfaction with the quality of the transliterated (Holden, Kuznetsov, & Whitelock, 2008) as well as translated (Kuznetsov & Yakavenka, 2005) managerial and business terms.…”

“…In this article we turn the above assumption into a research question and ask whether the perceived relevance of a foreign practice by employees also depends on whether the practice is labeled with the original foreign word or a local word; and, if that is the case, what mechanisms might explain this effect. In addressing this question, we follow recent calls to transcend disciplinary boundaries and to integrate insights from connected disciplines in order to shed light on new areas of language and translation in transnational settings (Brannen et al, 2014; Tenzer et al, 2017), including the less researched area of practice relevance (Kuznetsov & Kuznetsova, 2016).…”

Workforce globalisation, language and discourse

“…The literature, though, highlights one significant weakness of a generic test: it breaks the link between language and its context (Davies, 2001;Kuznetsov & Kuznetsova, 2016), which is a substantial limitation considering that 'language is not only content; it is also context and a way to recontextualise content' (Boje et al, 2004:571). Because it seeks to be neutral towards any specific form of professional activity, a generic test (e.g., the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) ends up examining grammatical accuracy and competence in a decontextualised and, therefore, essentially sterile 'dictionary' language not grounded in a realistic communicative setting (Spolsky, 1985).…”