The epistemology of knowledge and the knowledge process cycle: beyond the “objectivist” vs “interpretivist”

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to critique current epistemologies of knowledge and intellectual capital, and provide a way forward within an integrated framework.Design/methodology/approachThe principles of linguistic philosophy and semiotics provide the basis for a rigorous analysis of the production of signs and of knowledge. The Knowledge Process Cycle is used to explore this further, to analyse how different types of communities produce a range of different kinds of information and knowledge, and to formulate a more coherent, theoretically rigorous epistemology.FindingsThe current epistemological confusions can be resolved, by taking into account the arbitrary and conventional nature of signs, and the different epistemological requirements of the different phases of the Knowledge Cycle.Research limitations/implicationsThis research focuses on the confusions around “objectivist” and “interpretivist” epistemologies, and on how an analysis of the articulations of the various phases of the knowledge process cycle can resolve these confusions. A more detailed analysis of strategic knowledge and communities of practice will be explored in further research.Practical implicationsBoth knowledge management (KM) and intellectual capital (IC) will benefit from a resolution of the confusions surrounding the roles of “objectivist” and “interpretivist” epistemologies, and from a more nuanced understanding of the production of knowledge. Reporting on IC would benefit from finer distinctions, and from a more rigorous epistemology.Originality/valueThe paper brings together concepts and analytical tools from different disciplines (KM, IC, applied linguistics, linguistic philosophy, and semiotics) to develop a new approach to the epistemology of knowledge and intellectual capital.

Packaging and unpackaging knowledge in mass higher education—a knowledge management perspective

“…That is, some course may have higher degree of explicitness than tacitness, and vice versa (Donald 1986;Palmer and Marra 2004;Williams 2008).…”

“…Williams 2008). The extent to which MHEIs apply market-oriented strategies and whether their resources are tied to government funding is also important.…”

Innovation Centric Knowledge Commons—A Systematic Literature Review and Conceptual Model

“…The concern is regarding over-protecting the Intellectual Property through copyrights and patents thereby restricting the knowledge to developing countries and development organizations. The alternate approach to anti-commons is creative commons protocols and open-source movement that intend to shift the emphasis back onto collective knowledge creation and sharing [53][54][55][56]. Creative Commons redefines IPR by offering copyright that can be shared within a community by acknowledging what aspects of the knowledge can be shared [56].…”

“…The alternate approach to anti-commons is creative commons protocols and open-source movement that intend to shift the emphasis back onto collective knowledge creation and sharing [53][54][55][56]. Creative Commons redefines IPR by offering copyright that can be shared within a community by acknowledging what aspects of the knowledge can be shared [56].…”

Implementing knowledge life cycle in the body of project life cycle by using knowledge management system (KLC in PLC)

“…Knowledge management refers to identifying and leveraging the collective knowledge in an organization to help the organization compete [4]. There have been several KM life cycle models that illustrate the key aspects of KM, ranging from Davenport and Prusak's [5] [13], Edwards [14], Qureshi et al [15], Chang Lee et al [16] and Williams [17]. More recently, King et al [18] proposed 8-stage model-Creation, Acquisition, Refinement, storage, Transfer, sharing, Utilization, organization performance-which covers all aspects of knowledge management .Due to the thoroughness and relevance of this framework, we use it as the basis of this study.…”