8.1 INTRODUCTION

The critical appraisal of the knowledge management (KM) field reveals knowledge sharing (KS) to be one of the most significant organizational imperatives, frequently nominated as a key marker of success in the strategic practice of organizational KM (see Chapter 3 for discussions). There is also a notably strong theme of the “social world” in accounts of KS, which connects to the crucial importance of language accomplished in social practice in all aspects of the organization. This is a theme that is making more and more of an appearance in the “toolset” of the KM consultant, for instance. Consequently, person-to-person meetings, physical proximity, shared narratives, the idea of “Ba,” and all other conceivable mediators and facilitators of social interaction are, according to this contemporary perspective, given a central role to effective KS. Building on this theme, links can be unambiguously formed with notions of the social group, networking, and of course learning. These are fundamental organizational practices that in turn invoke the foundational nature of KS. From the behavioral perspective, there is also the claim made by psychologist Thomas Suddendorf that KS is an innate aspect of human nature and behavior.

Yet, as we discussed in Chapter 3, KS is also widely seen as problematical. According to Gee-Woo Bock and his colleagues, who study influencing factors on intentions to share knowledge, examples of extensive KS are somewhat absent. Given the weight of evidence and common sense for the importance of KS to the effective management of knowledge and to organizational success and innovation, this has inevitably prompted the question, “what's going on”?

To find some answers to this question, investigations resulted in identity, trust, risk, and context being identified as important and influencing thematic categories in KS (see Table 1, Chapter 3). While these themes are claimed to be important and influential, it is not clear how. But the implication is that a study of KS practices would show these themes as affective, bound to and influencing of those practices. On a point of conjecture, these themes are also considered to be corelational: “risk,” for instance, will likely go hand in glove with “trust.”

While these thematic categories are shown to be present in the KM literature, they are also present in those relating to discourse analysis. Developing on this, it is speculated that the analysis of everyday organizational discourse, drawing on an extended version of discursive psychology (DP; see previous chapter), will show how these categories mediate KS and with what consequences for speakers and discursive transaction. Of key interest is the potential that these categories, from the DP perspective of their constitution as psychological phenomena constructed in discursive action, can be shown to be “tacitly” accomplished in discourse. Such phenomena can and are routinely constructed explicitly in everyday discourse, but, in drawing on DP (extended), their influence on KS actions can be made the subject of research. There is one more point to make in support of the arguments made here and throughout earlier chapters, and this concerns the matter of definition.

It has been frequently shown that debates around the definition of concepts such as knowledge, even “KM,” are the source of considerable complexity and confusion. There has also been the suggestion that such issues underlie perceptions of KM's success or failure. In other words, by far, the majority of research and theory in the field of KM adheres to a common theme of the search for meaning from the perspective of the concerns of the researcher. According to Jonathan Clifton, this is to adopt an etic approach: that is, the concerns and categories of the researcher take precedence over those available and observable in the data in the form of the meaning-making of participants, speakers, and actors themselves. In contrast, Clifton's study of “doing” trust in the workplace takes an emic approach, which is concerned with how people perceive the world and its contents and how they make sense of it. As Clifton describes it, the etic approach is potentially irrelevant because it seeks an explanation that may in fact have no correspondence with that of actors in their discourse in social interaction. DP can be considered as an emic approach. This is particularly relevant: as the following discussion will emphasize, the thematic categories of identity, trust, risk, and context are not themselves immune from definitional debate by scholars.

All of this provides some firm and clear boundaries for the primary research that is reported in Part Two. Before moving on to a summary for Part One, a brief sketch of each of the four thematic categories of identity, trust, risk, and context—drawing variously on the three literatures of KM, discourse analysis, and organizational studies—serves as background.

8.2 IDENTITY

The topic of identity is particularly high on the discourse analysis agenda (see Chapter 6 for a review of discourse analysis studies). Similarly to the discussions around the nature of knowledge (Chapter 1), identity is a term that comes wrapped in a myriad of meanings leading to what sociologist James Côté evocatively describes as the Tower of Babel of the social sciences. Some scholars propose that identity is closely tied to how people make sense of their world, while for others, motivation, stability and change, loyalty and commitment, leadership, and decision-making are approached as central to its concept.

Earlier, it was noted how the social constructionist movement marked a change toward a view of the self as discursively constructed (Chapter 5) in contrast to the traditional view of identity as a static and monolithic entity, the “self-as-entity.” The thrust of the interest in identity from the discourse analysis perspective tends to concentrate on how people go about the business of managing their identities in the context of what social actions are being accomplished, with what linguistic resources, and what effect: Susan Condor's study of identity management in terms of “nationalism,” for instance, and Jackie Abell and her coworker's study of culturally situated identities located in the conversational context are good examples. Few if any are drawn into the to-and-fro of the debate over what constitutes identity: from the DP perspective in particular, “identity” is precisely that which speakers make live as matters of self and others in their talk and text.

For the purpose here, a useful understanding of the concept can be drawn from Bronwyn Davies and Rom Harré’s notion of “positioning,” according to which theory people routinely “position” themselves through discursive practices. That is, people implicitly or explicitly cast themselves in a role in discourse and that such moves accomplish actions with consequences. This is synonymous to Derek Edwards and his colleague's “role discourse” and “category entitlements.” Positioning in organizational discourse is particularly meaningful in its connections to power, influence, and persuasion, for instance. As one scholar notes, power is an important consideration in the construction of workplace identity. Margaret Wetherell, in her account of the construction of identity based on an analysis of Princess Diana's famous Panorama television interview, sums it up: “(T)to speak at all is to speak from a position” (2001 : 23).

Drawing connections to KS, an intriguing conversation analysis study of KS between doctors and patients (noted in Chapter 6) reveals identity to be interactionally emergent—that is, relational and evolving—and bound to context. That being the case, it follows that KS is work accomplished from a subject position in a given context and that such positions are inference rich, which combination undoubtedly influences the directions and outcomes of this sharing. Another study shows how displays of status-based knowledge not only connect to the discursively enacted identities of speakers, but are also shown to “talk the hierarchy of an organization into being.” It is further proposed that all of the other thematic categories considered to be influential in KS can be related to identity in the sense of identity as inevitably, often unconsciously, socially constructed in talk in interaction.

8.3 TRUST

Organizational theorist Chris Argyris reasons that an absence of trust within an organization will likely lead to a lack of communication. However, the concept of trust is a problematic one, as noted earlier in reference to Clifton's study of trust in the workplace. Professor of management at Purdue University F. David Schoorman and colleagues, for instance, highlight a schism between the conventional conceptualization of trust as dispositional and “trait-like” (an example is a study of coworker trust by Australian researchers Natalie Ferres and her colleagues) and a more ecological approach such as their own that locates trust in relationships. In their multidimensional and relational model, trust is defined as the measure of willingness to be vulnerable to another. Accordingly, dimensions of trustworthiness—presumably the focus of the measure of willingness—are the individual's perceptions of another's ability, integrity, and benevolence: “(A)as the perception of each of these factors increases, we would expect an increase in willingness to take a risk in a relationship” (2007 : 346), and vice versa. Thus, in this model, trust is very clearly aligned with risk and, by extension, with identity work and context, which can all be seen as phenomena accessed and mediated by perception.

Recall the debates in the KM field around KS and trust discussed in Chapter 3. Here, it is argued that what is missing from these accounts is an explanation of how trust mediates KS (other than as a help or hindrance).

In the discourse analysis literature, reputation is considered to be an important identity factor in online communities’ sense of trust, while trustworthiness is shown to be enhanced when contributors to online forums demonstrate a concern with saying no more than they can be sure of. Sociologist Ian Hutchby of London's Brunel University studies callers to radio talk shows with an interest in how they construct themselves as “authentic firsthand witnesses” to the events they describe. In scripting themselves as being in possession of firsthand knowledge of a particular event, Hutchby claims that speakers invoke rights to authenticity of experience, emotion, and legitimacy as a narrator. Firsthand accounts are also a way of constructing what Jonathan Clifton terms “epistemic primacy”—superior knowledge, which he links to category bound rights to knowledge.

In one of the very few discursive studies of trust per se, Clifton offers a fascinating and revealing investigation of displays of epistemic primacy, showing how speakers orient to these as displays of trustworthiness in an organizational setting. The analysis makes explicit how epistemic primacy is accomplished in discursive action using a variety of rhetorical devices such as displays of firsthand knowledge (like Hutchby's radio callers), objective and unmitigated statements, and declarative statements worked up in juxtaposition to previous utterances marked by “hedging.” In the context of discursive studies, “hedging” means exactly what it suggests—hedging bets: that is, people very commonly frame their statements, claims, and descriptions in terms that would afford a means of face-saving in the event that they are contradicted.

Central to DP is, in Derek Edwards and Jonathan Potter's words, the everyday “…dilemma of presenting factual reports while being treated as having a stake in some specific version of events or some practical outcome” (1992: 3). That is, when people report factual accounts, they routinely work to mitigate against being seen to have a vested interest in the contents of those accounts and may even invoke “instructions” as to how accounts should be understood by cospeakers. This suggests that trust is not accomplished in isolation but rather in relation to other psychological phenomena and actions.

8.4 RISK

There are good arguments for KS to be understood as instinctive and innate behavior in humans, yet the evidence in the KM literature suggests that there are significant barriers and inhibitors to this practice (see Chapter 3 for a detailed discussion). Among these, KS is particularly associated with the threat of reputational damage, low values assigned to mentoring and sharing, cost, and the threat of industrial espionage. Arguably, all of these factors index to risk, that is, risk as a phenomenon constructed by social actors consequent to their personal knowledge and understanding of situated context.

As we saw earlier, F. David Schoorman and colleagues’ multidimensional model of trust makes a clear contingency connecting trust and risk, with risk as a measure of one's perception of others’ ability, integrity, and benevolence. This, in turn, invokes the categories of identity and context, which are connected directly to matters of stake, interest, and accountability.

As we saw earlier, discourse studies show that speakers routinely orient to stake and interest in everyday conversation. This is a frequently visited topic of investigation in the discourse literature. Speakers are shown to work to protect their accountability against potential criticism and accusation of bias: note that the term “inoculate” is frequently used instead of “protect” in the discourse analytic context, although it is a mystery why analysts should appropriate a medical term linked to disease to describe the action of discursively mitigating against criticism! The way in which people deal with accountability is one of the most basic and pervasive forms of discursive action and very much concerned with risk—risk to self and to others.

8.5 CONTEXT

From the discussions around the nature of knowledge, recall Varun Grover and his colleague's emphasis on the importance of context to the values of knowledge. Elsewhere, context's importance lies in the argument that knowledge is meaningless without it. Charles Despres and his coworker argue along similar lines, insisting that the meaning of knowledge—and by inference, its value—is not contained in the knowledge itself but rather knowledge in some context. Accordingly, context is not only inseparable from knowledge, but it creates and defines it, and hence knowledge is always knowledge in some context in much the same way that to speak is to speak from a position.

There have been several KM studies of the effects of culture (viz., context) on knowledge-related activities. Jin Tong of the UK's Cranfield University and her colleague, for instance, argue that if “…the tools and processes designed to manage the knowledge and facilitate the sharing do not take into account the differing national cultures represented by the different parts of the organization, there will be severe impediments preventing the vital circulation of the modern enterprise's life's blood—knowledge” (2009 : 421). Their detailed case study explores KM practices in Chinese manufacturing firms, finding that factors specific to Chinese culture such as fear of losing face and a sense of modesty can represent barriers to KS. This has some synergies with Despres and his coworker's conclusion that organizations vary so considerably in structure, scope, culture, and so forth that a “one-size-fits-all” approach to KM will never work. It is clear that within the KM literature, the notion of context comes with all the obfuscation of a foggy day! What KM scholars do not do is approach language—discourse—as the site of context.

From the DP perspective, context according to Derek Edwards and his coworker is approached as a phenomenon made live by speakers in discourse. Analysis is then concerned not with the analyst's own sense of context but with what speakers themselves orient to as context in the interactional procedures of discourse. This is the topic of some debate in the wider discourse analysis field. Professor of sociology Emanuel Schegloff, for example, warns that the analysis of discourse is frequently at risk of being driven by the analyst's sense of context rather than that constructed by speakers. For instance, in response to arguments made for the use of “talk-extrinsic data” in conversation analysis-based research, Charles Antaki reasons that “…conversation analysts are happy to use the word ‘context’ in the sense of things visible to the analyst or made live by the people in the scene themselves. Otherwise, not” (2012: 493). To contrast with this stance, Hutchby makes an interesting point in his (membership categorization analysis) study of radio talk show callers. One caller raises the subject of dog mess in the streets, mentioning that she is the mother of young children. Hutchby notes that around the time of the radio show, there was a news story about the risks of disease from dog mess. He argues that knowledge of this story and its “importing” into the analysis result in an important context for the caller's account, which would otherwise be missing from the analysis.

An account of context given toward the end of Chapter 7 summarizes the approach taken here. In describing the “trigger” for TK action, it is concluded that this is context driven, pure, and simple—with context understood as the actor's interpretation and understanding of their environment and its contents.

8.6 A FINAL PROBLEM TO RESOLVE

The discussion around context raises a very particular and important point that comes with a problem. If it is acknowledged that, for the most part, research in KM—including that noted earlier—takes an etic approach, then this would suggest that the thematic categories associated with KS are in fact a researcher's fabrication rather than an understanding displayed by any research participants. The reason that this problem comes to the fore now is because of the singularly broad and even nebulous meaning of “context”. The problem becomes even more clear when looked at from the DP perspective and its emic approach to research: from this standpoint, trust, risk, and identity can be understood as “contexts” that speakers construct as live concerns in their discourse in social interaction. So, when context is mentioned from a discursive viewpoint, what is meant is the context that the speaker invokes in his or her utterances—and that context could be anything from a context of gender tension to one of leadership, for instance. Consequently, to state that risk, trust, identity, and context are themes consequential to KS is to state, from a discursive perspective, that context, context, context, and any other context you care to mention are consequential to KS. How can this be resolved?

Fortunately, this problem can be squared relatively easily without making any major changes in direction. Trust, risk, and identity are contexts that speakers invoke in their talk, which are recognized as such from a discursive research perspective: consequently, they can be considered to be valid topics for research as consequential to KS actions, as indicated in KM research and theories. Context is the generic category label used to describe phenomena that speakers invoke and construct in their talk and text. In other words, context can be seen as a “corroborating” thematic category: if it is the case that the analysis of organizational discourse in KS activities finds the contexts of trust, risk, and identity, then it logically follows that a focus on what contexts in general speakers conjure as live concerns in KS actions will locate the same phenomena. So, we have a focus for research and a means of, potentially at least, corroborating the findings.

Thus, from this point forward, the thematic category of “context” should be understood to represent “context in general,” which comes with the potential to add a measure of confirmation to the present research and its findings.

8.7 SUMMARY

In summary, these four thematic categories represent relevant themes for the analysis of organizational discourse, where the primary goal is to explain how these phenomena affect the practice of KS. The speculation that an emic approach to the study of organizational discourse drawing on DP (extended) could display tacit knowing in action is arguably a valid one, which comes with the potential to realize findings of interest and value to the KM field. A further point to draw is this: if a DP approach can show how these thematic categories are invoked and made relevant by speakers in their discourse, then it could be conjectured that these themes will have an equal influence on organizational knowledge creating and innovation, both of which are connected to KS.

FURTHER READING

1. Clifton, J. (2012). ‘Doing’ trust in workplace interaction. In Mada, S. and Saftoiu, R. (Eds). Professional Communications across Languages and Cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
2. Davies, B. and Harre, R. (1990). Positioning: the discursive production of selves. Journal for the theory of social behaviour, 20, (1): 43–63.
3. Grover, V. and Davenport, T. (2001). General perspectives on knowledge management: fostering a research agenda. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18, (1): 5–21.
4. Gulich, E. (2003). Conversational techniques in transferring knowledge between medical experts and non-experts. Discourse Studies, 5, (2): 235–263.
5. Hutchby, I. (2001). ‘Witnessing’: the use of first-hand knowledge in legitimating lay opinions on talk radio. Discourse Studies, 3, (4): 481–497.
6. Schoorman, F., Mayer, R., and Davis, J. (2007). An integrative model of organizational trust: past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review, 32, (20): 344–354.
7. Tong, J. and Mitra, A. (2009). Chinese cultural influences on knowledge management practice. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13, (2): 49–62.