Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Knowledge ...

Abdallah Al-Shawabkeh, Alexander K<strong>of</strong>inas and Mike Sharp
dimensions; <strong>the</strong> first utilises <strong>the</strong> individual-social perspective <strong>of</strong> knowledge and <strong>the</strong> second dimension
focuses on problem solving.
Figure 2.3: Organizations and Knowledge Types
In <strong>the</strong> same article Blackler (1995)proposes an alternative <strong>the</strong>ory <strong>of</strong> knowledge whereupon knowledge
becomes “knowing” and is analyzed as an active process that is “mediated, situated, provisional,
pragmatic and contested”. His approach emphasizes <strong>the</strong> importance <strong>of</strong> investigating knowledge in
context <strong>of</strong> action. This concept <strong>of</strong> action and its importance in generating knowledge is implicit in o<strong>the</strong>r
<strong>the</strong>ories <strong>of</strong> organizational knowledge (Spender 1996; Tsoukas 1996). Blackler adopts <strong>the</strong> cultural
historical activity <strong>the</strong>ory (Kaptelinin and Nardi 1997; Engestrom 2000) as <strong>the</strong> foundation <strong>of</strong> this
alternative knowledge-as-action perspective. In activity <strong>the</strong>ory knowledge is acquired via continuous
iterations <strong>of</strong> actors with <strong>the</strong> context and <strong>the</strong> social practices <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir activity systems. It is through
activity that knowledge is created, defined, managed and distributed (Blackler, 1995, Spender, 1996).
Cultural-Historical activity <strong>the</strong>ory (CHAT) encompasses artefacts in its <strong>the</strong>ory as part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
epistemology <strong>of</strong> knowledge (Engestrom and Blackler, 2005, Miettinen and Virkkunen, 2005,
Macpherson and Jones, 2008). Meanwhile <strong>the</strong> actors/participants <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> activity are going through a
cycle <strong>of</strong> expansive learning that facilitates new knowledge creation and continuous adjustment to <strong>the</strong>
environment (Engestrom 2001). For activity <strong>the</strong>ory <strong>the</strong> locus <strong>of</strong> knowledge creation and learning occur
in a changing mosaic <strong>of</strong> interconnected activity systems which are energized by <strong>the</strong>ir inner
contradictions (Engestrom, 2001, p. 140). Although <strong>the</strong> learning process is reminiscent <strong>of</strong> Argyris’s
<strong>the</strong>ory <strong>of</strong> knowledge creation (Argyris 2004), it has an important difference; it is not interested in <strong>the</strong>
egocentric, individualistic cognitive processes that people undergo during <strong>the</strong> expansive learning
cycle. This is clarified in Engestrom’s discussion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> fourth umpire who views his experience and
learning processes as a node within a social system (Engestrom, 2000).
In contrast Tsoukas’s conception <strong>of</strong> knowledge (1996) is akin to community-based understandings <strong>of</strong>
knowledge creation (Kuhn, 1996, Gherardi, 2003, Hayes and Walsham, 2003). Tsoukas (1996) views
knowledge as indeterminate and continually emerging; <strong>the</strong> company is viewed as a distributed
knowledge system and <strong>the</strong> knowledge stock <strong>of</strong> each employee is derived from three sources: “(a)
role-related normative expectations; (b) dispositions, which have been formed in <strong>the</strong> course <strong>of</strong> past
socializations; and (c) local knowledge <strong>of</strong> particular circumstances <strong>of</strong> time and place”. There is little
emphasis here on explicit knowledge and almost no regard for artefacts encoding knowledge.
However in Blackler’s (date?) conceptualization <strong>the</strong> knowing via action (or praxis) becomes
paramount while Tsoukas (1996) seems to put much more emphasis on <strong>the</strong> context <strong>of</strong> knowledge. It
is within such community-based understanding <strong>of</strong> knowledge management that Gibbons et al (1994)
suggested <strong>the</strong>ir own typology <strong>of</strong> knowledge management. In <strong>the</strong>ir work <strong>the</strong>y argued that <strong>the</strong>re is a
new knowledge co-production mode called mode 2 that started in <strong>the</strong> mid-20 th century and is now in
full-swing. Before that starting from <strong>the</strong> 19 th century <strong>the</strong>re was mode 1 as exemplified by Kuhn (1997)
with communities <strong>of</strong> practitioners within a discipline creating knowledge but with <strong>the</strong> rise <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
knowledge economy and innovation we have <strong>the</strong> creation <strong>of</strong> interdisciplinary groups that transcend
<strong>the</strong> original disciplinary boundaries and disciplinary project groups. Mode 1 tended to focus on
problems defined within <strong>the</strong> discipline or in <strong>the</strong> boundaries <strong>of</strong> disciplines but as <strong>the</strong> society became
increasingly complex so did <strong>the</strong> issues thus leading to a Mode 2 approach that pays attention to
context (Gibbons et al., 1994). Beyond a <strong>the</strong>ory <strong>of</strong> KM <strong>the</strong> Gibbons, Limoges et al (1994)work is also
a <strong>the</strong>ory <strong>of</strong> innovation management. It is tempting however to see this mode 2 <strong>of</strong> knowledge
3