Making Knowledge Management Research more Scientific, Relevant, and Engaged: A Comparative Study of Academic ECKM Papers

Q3 Business, Management and Accounting
B. Jevnaker, J. Olaisen
{"title":"Making Knowledge Management Research more Scientific, Relevant, and Engaged: A Comparative Study of Academic ECKM Papers","authors":"B. Jevnaker, J. Olaisen","doi":"10.34190/ejkm.19.2.2536","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose is to analyse and compare all the academic papers in the proceedings of the European Conference on Knowledge Management (ECKM) in 2017 (Barcelona), 2018 (Padua), 2019 (Lisbon), and the digital conference in 2020 (Coventry). The methodology is to code and classify 440 papers and use five contemporary science frameworks to describe and analyse the papers. The theoretical implication of contemporary KM is a research field without common paradigms, domains, and perspectives without accumulating knowledge. The KM researchers do not understand the nature of knowledge management as a field where the research cannot be replicated, synthesized, or theorized. Knowledge management needs to move along from the empirical research paradigm to a clarified subjectivity and action-basedresearch. The criticism implying acceptable/unacceptable solutions and constructed adequate/inadequate solutions for corporations and societies have strengthened their place, offering new paradigms and perspectives. The way to do this is to let in controversial, greener, and sustainable studies, whatever objectivity or subjectivity the studies have. We need more actual problem focused and less knowledge and instrument focused studies. KM will have a higher responsibility for sustainability and greener corporations and the possibility of accumulating knowledge into replication and synthesizing for general knowledge. The rate of tested and replicated studies is for the four conferences zero. The tested part, but not replicated, is 80%. The rate of untheorized untheorizable concepts is zero, the rate of theorized but not synthesized studies is zero, while the number of synthesized, theorized, and conceptual studies is around 20%. To become a discipline or research domain KM needs to replicate both empirical and conceptual studies. The only way to accumulate knowledge is through replication giving paradigms for verification and falsification. To move ahead for better quality in the research, we must break free from the empirical and materialistic paradigms and move into the clarified subjectivity and action paradigm.  Paradigmatic ecumenism will tend to a fiercer but idea-generating debate. This pluralistic approach will give more engaged practical research representing more sustainable societies and businesses. ECKM is on the road to include more pluralistic perspectives upon sustainability, value creation, gender issues, and the design of future knowledge work. There is a critical openness toward these issues making ECKM 2020 a more relevant conference than the ECKM conferences in 2017, 2018, and 2019. The 2020 conference more open up for reflections, dialogues, and criticism upon existing problems and knowledge asking about what is the adequate actual KM solutions.","PeriodicalId":37211,"journal":{"name":"Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34190/ejkm.19.2.2536","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Business, Management and Accounting","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The purpose is to analyse and compare all the academic papers in the proceedings of the European Conference on Knowledge Management (ECKM) in 2017 (Barcelona), 2018 (Padua), 2019 (Lisbon), and the digital conference in 2020 (Coventry). The methodology is to code and classify 440 papers and use five contemporary science frameworks to describe and analyse the papers. The theoretical implication of contemporary KM is a research field without common paradigms, domains, and perspectives without accumulating knowledge. The KM researchers do not understand the nature of knowledge management as a field where the research cannot be replicated, synthesized, or theorized. Knowledge management needs to move along from the empirical research paradigm to a clarified subjectivity and action-basedresearch. The criticism implying acceptable/unacceptable solutions and constructed adequate/inadequate solutions for corporations and societies have strengthened their place, offering new paradigms and perspectives. The way to do this is to let in controversial, greener, and sustainable studies, whatever objectivity or subjectivity the studies have. We need more actual problem focused and less knowledge and instrument focused studies. KM will have a higher responsibility for sustainability and greener corporations and the possibility of accumulating knowledge into replication and synthesizing for general knowledge. The rate of tested and replicated studies is for the four conferences zero. The tested part, but not replicated, is 80%. The rate of untheorized untheorizable concepts is zero, the rate of theorized but not synthesized studies is zero, while the number of synthesized, theorized, and conceptual studies is around 20%. To become a discipline or research domain KM needs to replicate both empirical and conceptual studies. The only way to accumulate knowledge is through replication giving paradigms for verification and falsification. To move ahead for better quality in the research, we must break free from the empirical and materialistic paradigms and move into the clarified subjectivity and action paradigm.  Paradigmatic ecumenism will tend to a fiercer but idea-generating debate. This pluralistic approach will give more engaged practical research representing more sustainable societies and businesses. ECKM is on the road to include more pluralistic perspectives upon sustainability, value creation, gender issues, and the design of future knowledge work. There is a critical openness toward these issues making ECKM 2020 a more relevant conference than the ECKM conferences in 2017, 2018, and 2019. The 2020 conference more open up for reflections, dialogues, and criticism upon existing problems and knowledge asking about what is the adequate actual KM solutions.
让知识管理研究更科学、更相关、更投入:学术ECKM论文的比较研究
目的是分析和比较2017年(巴塞罗那)、2018年(帕多瓦)、2019年(里斯本)和2020年(考文垂)的欧洲知识管理会议(ECKM)论文集中的所有学术论文。方法是对440篇论文进行编码和分类,并使用五种当代科学框架来描述和分析这些论文。当代知识管理的理论内涵是一个没有共同的范式、领域和视角的研究领域,缺乏知识的积累。知识管理研究者不理解知识管理作为一个研究不能被复制、合成或理论化的领域的本质。知识管理需要从实证研究范式转向明确的主体性和基于行动的研究。这些批评暗示了可接受/不可接受的解决方案,并为企业和社会构建了适当/不适当的解决方案,加强了它们的地位,提供了新的范例和观点。做到这一点的方法是让有争议的、更环保的和可持续的研究进入,无论这些研究是客观的还是主观的。我们需要更多以实际问题为重点的研究,而不是以知识和工具为重点的研究。知识管理将对可持续发展和绿色企业承担更高的责任,并有可能将知识积累为一般知识的复制和综合。四次会议的试验和重复研究率为零。测试的部分,但没有复制,是80%。非理论化的、不可理论化的概念的比率为零,理论化但不综合的研究的比率为零,而综合、理论化和概念性研究的数量约为20%。要成为一门学科或研究领域,知识管理需要复制实证研究和概念研究。积累知识的唯一途径是通过复制,为验证和证伪提供范例。为了提高研究的质量,我们必须摆脱经验主义和唯物主义的范式,进入明确的主体性和行动范式。典型的普世主义倾向于一场更激烈但能产生思想的辩论。这种多元化的方法将带来更多的实际研究,代表更可持续的社会和企业。ECKM正在努力在可持续性、价值创造、性别问题和未来知识工作的设计方面纳入更多元化的观点。对这些问题的关键开放使得ECKM 2020比2017年、2018年和2019年的ECKM会议更具相关性。2020年的会议将更加开放,对现有问题和知识进行反思、对话和批评,并询问什么是适当的实际KM解决方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management
Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management Business, Management and Accounting-Management of Technology and Innovation
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信