9.1 KNOWLEDGE AND DISCOURSE MATTERS: SUMMARIZING THE CASE

The preceding chapters have engaged with the immense, complex but absorbing topics of knowledge management (KM), discourse analysis, and, to a lesser extent, that of implicit learning. All three, in their own ways, make claims for the delivery of considerable benefits in the pursuit of knowledge.

The field of KM is something of a curious paradox. From one perspective, proponents claim that KM can deliver what are described as considerable organizational benefits through the pursuit and management of knowledge within the organization. From a commonsense position, this is hardly something to disagree with. Moreover, there is probably sufficient evidence, mostly in the form of case studies and anecdotes, to be able to mount a reasonable case in favor of these claims. However, the other side of the paradox is strewn with the substantial issues and debates concerning the definition of knowledge, shown to underlie questions over the constitution of KM itself, and the business of creating and sharing knowledge, for instance. The central issue, then, concerns the “how” (how do we manage our knowledge) and the “what” (what should our actions be focused on) rather than the “why” (why should we manage knowledge). The “how” and “what” are precisely the types of questions that discursive psychology (DP) is concerned with.

The organizational practice of knowledge sharing has been variously described as the source of innovation and the key to improving organizational performance among many other attributes. The detailed analysis of the critical factors (barriers and enablers) associated with knowledge sharing maps these to four thematic categories—identity, trust, risk, and context (see Table 1, Chapter 3, and 8 for a discussion over what is meant by “context”). It is emphasized that the source of these critical factors is the KM literature with the concession that the thematic mapping is the outcome of the interpretation and analysis made here. An additional point of emphasis is that while scholars in the KM literature implicate these critical factors as consequential to knowledge sharing actions, there is little explanation of how.

The review and analysis of KM theory find a confusing landscape of competing paradigms as one would expect in a field characterized by so many issues and debates. Against a background of one dominant theory (e.g., The knowledge-Creating Company, Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995), the categorization of KM theory into a taxonomy (see Section 4.3) of personal versus organizational knowledge and knowledge as social action versus knowledge as object reveals a persistent theme of knowledge work located in social interaction, with some scholars explicitly implicating language. This theme precedes the earliest publication of aforementioned theory with Peter Drucker writing in the late 1980s (original version of his 1998a article), and persists through to the present. However, this review shows a near absence of locating research, theoretical, or management interest directly in organizational discourse—talk and text—and a similar near absence of a theory of language.

A further key finding of the KM theoretical review claims that those theories located on the knowledge as social action taxonomy axis can be interpreted as implicating the themes (critical factors) of knowledge sharing referred to earlier. Those on the opposite end of the axis are interpreted as being more ambivalent in this respect.

These two findings—the lack of attention to organizational discourse allied to a near absence of a theory of language combined with the identification of the themes of knowledge sharing—are interpreted as suggesting both a clear location and a purpose for research. According to this, research should focus on organizational discourse as the site of “knowing” action, with the objective of investigating how these themes impact and influence knowledge sharing actions. But a location and purpose for research are of little use without a relevant and appropriate research methodology.

Discourse analysis, it has been argued, represents the solution (see Chapters 5 and 6) making the case for approaching the study of organizational discourse within the paradigm of DP. This draws on a constructionist theory of language, with its methodology based on discourse analysis. DP frames discourse as a topic of study in its own right, with language seen as action oriented and locally situated. It is particularly concerned with knowledge—how events are explained and described and accounts constructed as factual. Any reasonable analysis might well have parked the matter there. However, the “so what?” or US$64,000 raised an issue over DP’s relevance for KM practitioners and the KM field in general, and the risk of DP being seen as an academic’s tool, and no more.

Chapter 7 tackles these questions head on with speculations that DP’s methodology can connect directly with “tacit knowing.” This, in turn, prompts an investigation of implicit learning, a branch of cognitive psychology, and its focus on the “tacit” phenomenon. Attention is drawn to what turns out to be a substantial field of theory, research, and evidence focused on the idea of tacit knowledge as the product of the mental abstraction of information from the environment.

The mental process of acquiring this type of knowledge is both automatic and unconscious but nonetheless guides action—the notion of “mental butlers.” The neurological systems associated with implicit learning are also claimed to be ancient and evolved, more robust than their conscious counterparts, and less susceptible to damage. This latter point raises a question over the idea that all knowledge comprises both tacit and explicit components, as many KM scholars have argued. Does it, in fact, add support to those who follow the tacit–explicit dualist conceptualization? There are two points to draw to diffuse this particular line of reasoning: First, implicit learning’s theoretician Arthur Reber himself describes this “evolutionary” approach as no more than speculation. Second, as we saw in Chapter 7, the field of the human mind, consciousness and unconsciousness, is subject to competing theory and interpretation (much like KM), and so concrete attestations of this or that case are far from likely.

The comparison between the account of tacit knowledge from the implicit learning field and KM’s “implicit formulation” displays surprisingly high levels of consistency between perspectives. So, although the KM field has largely bypassed theory and findings in the former, it is argued that research in the implicit learning field is of considerable relevance to KM.

This does, however, raise the issue of incommensurability in attempting to draw on DP to research KM themes and issues in the light of implicit learning’s theory and evidence. While the incommensurability issue is perhaps not fully resolved here, the proposed solution discussed toward the end of Chapter 7 suggests an extension to DP. This extension allows for a conceptualization of tacit knowing drawn from implicit learning theory, which in turn leads to two significant points of departure:

• First, the rationale now stands as follows: the “knowing how–knowing that” formulation in KM is seen as the most important theory in KM among those classified as approaching knowledge as or embedded in social action; this formulation explains knowledge as consisting of (and always consisting of) two principal fragments—the tacit and the explicit—with the former described as the unspecifiable “substrate” (to use Paul Duguid’s term), which makes knowing that actionable, with the implication of the influencing qualities of knowing how; implicit learning theory, while acknowledging the criticism leveled in its direction, describes the “input” and “output” process relevant to tacit knowing; thus, the research proposed here has its focus on knowing how or the tacit fragment as displayed by speakers in their discourse (“the output”).
• Second, it is made explicit that in applying this methodology to organizational knowledge discourse, one is directly studying tacit knowing in action. There is, it is argued, no need to speculate about the contents of inner minds.

In summarizing the case, this chapter considers two further questions in the light of the preceding discussions. The first of these tackles the question of whether the adoption of a discursive approach to organizational knowledge work leads to a fundamental change of direction for KM. The second, already touched in the previous chapters, asks what and how will such an approach contribute to KM. The chapter concludes with the only reasonable outcome to this and the previous investigations and discussions: that research in the context of organizational knowledge work drawing on the (extended) paradigm of DP is warranted.

9.2 CHANGES IN DIRECTION?

At first glance, the application of the DP paradigm extended or otherwise to the study and practice of KM conjures the prospects of a significant change in direction. From a practical perspective, the majority of studies in the KM field involve conventional research methods—quantitative surveys, qualitative surveys, semistructured interviews, and case studies, for instance. As noted earlier, little evidence has been found of any discursive approaches to KM studies although elsewhere in the wider organization studies field they are very much in evidence (see Chapter 6 for examples). Consequently, the application of an analytic methodology focused on discourse potentially constitutes a radical departure: a shift in focus onto action and accomplishment in discourse. But new methodologies seldom lead to paradigmatic shifts in thinking: they are more likely to lead to polarized sides of debate, as has been seen time and again in all of the disciplines covered here.

In contrast, on a theoretical level, many KM theorists, academics, and practitioners consider knowledge and knowledge work to be constituted in social interaction—in conversation, informal and formal meetings, mentoring practices and other learning events, and so forth—suggesting the primacy of talk and text (see Chapter 4). But there the rhetoric tends to get parked with few stepping further into engaging with discourse itself from an analytical perspective. Moreover, it has also been shown how many KM theorists are within a sheet of paper of advocating an “implicit learning” theory of tacit knowledge. This, as mentioned earlier, opens up the opportunity of drawing on the work of Arthur Reber and many others in the field of cognitive psychology for both ideas and empirical research. Thus, in reality, the thesis made here is extending existing and current directions rather than radically changing them. One of these directions concerns theory of language, which is shown to be all but absent from the KM field. Why is this so important?

To unpack and add conviction to this line of reasoning, consider how the work of scientist and philosopher Michael Polanyi, writing in the 1950s and 1960s, has such a wide constituency in the KM field as an underpinning theory of knowledge. While his ideas focus on personal knowledge in the context of scientific discovery, those same ideas arguably transformed the KM landscape although, as has been shown, not always in directions consistent with the original. Similarly, linguist and philosopher Noam Chomsky, together with language philosophers John L. Austin and John R. Searle, writing in the same time period, produced work and ideas that revolutionized the way that we think about language and laid the foundations for the development of a discursive analytical view of language. Austin is credited with creating the simple but pivotal notion that speech is not a passive medium but rather is active, constructive, and consequential. In his theory of “speech acts,” John R. Searle develops this work with his hypothesis of language as a rule-governed form of behavior. Also working in the 1960s, the sociologist Harvey Sacks and his colleagues developed what would become one of the most widely used discourse analytical methods—conversation analysis. (By curious coincidence, the 1950s and 1960s also witnessed the “birth” of cognitive psychology and cognitive science. It was working within this discipline that Reber and colleagues, starting in the mid-1960s, developed their ideas for implicit learning and tacit knowledge.)

The point is that if one wants to draw upon a theory of knowledge as located in social interaction, is it not essential to draw upon a theory of language? It can also be argued that all KM theories, not just those that cite knowledge in social action, emphasize and underscore—overtly or otherwise—the importance of communication in the accomplishment of knowledge work. Consequently, approaching the study of knowledge work drawing on the paradigm of DP, and its theory of discourse, will allow a more complete picture to be contemplated. This leads into question of how this approach might contribute to KM.

9.3 MAKING IT WORK: IMPLICATIONS AND CONTRIBUTIONS

To begin with, a reminder of the core questions that KM asks: how, and in what circumstances, can new knowledge be created, innovation inspired, and knowledge shared between people? According to most workers in the KM field, a reliable and realizable answer to these questions will lead to sustainable organizational success, innovation, competitive edge, and organizational wealth. However, to date, successful outcomes from KM initiatives seem thin on the ground (see Chapters 2 and 3). It is true that this apparent lack of universal and predictable success can be questioned from the perspective of a limited arsenal of valid methods and tools of measurement, an exception being those proposed by Pieris Chourides and his colleagues at the University of Derby and researchers Mohamed Ragab and his coworker (see Section 3.4). There is also the matter of debate over the definition of knowledge: how can a phenomenon be measured if its object is not well defined? Added to this is the matter of defining what is meant by success. Or failure for that matter.

In DP terms, measurements of success are invalid. They are not the issue because the objective of discourse analysis is not to evaluate content and outcomes but rather to uncover accomplishments and their effects for speakers. With respect to the issue of measuring KM activities, linked to success or failure, the present study’s contribution is not to determine probabilities and so forth, but rather to represent a different way of understanding these issues.

Briefly referring to some of the main issues in KM discussed in the first three chapters, it is suggested that the directions proposed here add a further explanatory dimension to the debate over what KM is and what it should be concerned with. In contributing to the KM debate over the nature of knowledge, the approach advocated here brings an explicit constructionist conceptualization of knowledge and a methodology for its study. In this project, we are able to “sidestep” the commodification–reification of knowledge issue, for instance, as being irrelevant. Considering the questions over ethics and culture, the proposed approach, again, offers an alternative understanding to the types of questions that could be asked. For instance, instead of asking, will “one approach transfer across different cultures, be they national, organizational, or operating at the group level” (referring to a KM theory or strategic approach), from the DP perspective, one might ask, “what shared understandings are evident and how can they be built on?”

Borrowing from Etienne Wenger, organizations can be considered as Communities of Practice whose members represent individually held unique stocks of competence and experience—their personal “art of knowing” or, in our terms, tacit knowing. It is this that mediates learning and teaching, which is the active catalyst in a community’s meaning of existence and terms of boundary. It is highly unlikely that conventional methods could measure that. It is also hard to see how such entities can be wrapped in rule and procedure without risking the essence of the asset (tacit knowing). But what such a perspective does do is bring discourse in social interaction to the forefront as the primary location for study if what one seeks to see is tacit knowing in action.

A primary argument made by workers in the discourse analysis field is that their methodologies can reveal phenomena that other more conventional and traditional research methods would leave obscured and untouched. A good example is Hariett Marshall’s study of the discourse of health workers, in which her analysis reveals how they construct their work and relationships with others as opposed to self-reports about what they do (in an ideal world). A problem is revealed, which Marshall claims could not have been made visible to conventional methods of research, meaning that actions can be taken to address it. Other examples include a conversation analysis study by researchers Mary Horton-Salway and her coworkers, which finds that telephone tutorial conferences are shown to be functionally comparable with tutorials (in higher education) in which students and tutors are physically present. The finding has some resonance for organizational settings and organizational learning and could aid in improving training and learning strategies and practice. Note also Jonathan Clifton’s work in organizational trust and leadership, both revealed as the discursive accomplishments of speakers working interactionally. There are many such examples of social phenomena being uncovered through the application of discourse analysis that conventional methods would simply not have exorcised.

With particular reference to organizational knowledge sharing, the main contribution to KM is the explication of how such actions are accomplished and with what influencing factors and consequences. It is speculated that if the influencing and impacting circumstances can be identified through the analysis of organizational discourse drawing on DP, then this opens the potential for a different conceptualization of knowledge sharing as an interactional accomplishment. In the simplest sense, the present study contributes to KM by providing support to those who promote the importance of language in knowledge work and the notion of knowledge accomplished in social interaction. By the same token, it also supports those who are critical of the adherence to and emphasis on the use of technologies as the bedrock “silver bullet” strategic solution to delivering KM success.

9.4 CONCLUSIONS

A number of conclusions can be drawn. First, we can conclude that the domain of KM has a significant difficulty over the nature and definition of knowledge and that this difficulty arguably underscores the myriad other issues identified, including the commodification and reification of knowledge, the muddy water around success and failure, and strategies for its measurement. Clearly, the way that knowledge is defined and understood has a significant implication for how KM is theorized, researched, and practiced. While we have identified some common denominators running through the various debates—for instance, a preference for the tacit–explicit duality of knowledge—there are differences of interpretation over what these are and how they can be managed.

A second conclusion to be drawn is that while there is a demonstrable trend toward theory that approaches knowledge as social action or as accomplished in social action, conventional approaches continue to dominate the field despite a persistent number of critical voices. What is not in dispute is the legacy that scholars including Ikujiro Nonaka and his colleagues give to the KM field in drawing attention to and highlighting the importance of knowledge and tacit knowledge in particular. Notwithstanding this state of affairs, most KM theories can be criticized from one direction or another—and largely have been. What they mostly have in common is a commitment to communication as the most critical ingredient in the pursuit of knowledge, yet a theory of language—of discourse—is nearly absent from the literature. This common ground is interpreted and concluded as a clear approbation for a theoretical and research approach, which positions discourse as the topic of study.

Developing this, one of KM’s debates holds particular interest for the present study: the formulation of tacit knowledge, or “tacit knowing” as some have preferred to call it. Specifically, it is concluded that a study of organizational discourse drawing on DP will reveal tacit knowing as an action accomplishment of discourse, which is distinct from what Derek Edwards and his colleague, writing in 2005, refer to as the mistaken idea of “minds” revealed or expressed in what people say.

Fourth, it is concluded that whereas the KM literature indicates various factors as having influence on knowledge sharing, a study drawing on DP has the aim of investigating how these factors (themes), approached as corelational in discourse, influence and with what effect.

Indicative research questions, then, are concerned with the themes of identity, trust, risk, and context, implicated as consequential to knowledge sharing activities. Can they be shown to be corelational, how do they influence knowledge sharing, and with what effect? In particular, can these phenomena be shown to be suggestive or indicative of tacit knowing?

This concludes Part One. Part Two begins by addressing the issues around epistemology, ontology, and methodology as the foundations for reporting the findings and analysis of organizational discourse.