HOORCOLLEGES KNOWLEDGE IN
ORGANISATIONS
LECTURE 1 – GENERAL INTRODUCTION
RELEVANCE
1. Automation/industrial society – Fordism
Production of industrial manufactured goods, supported by technology
2. To digitization – (Post-Fordisme)
Growing importance of (theoretical) knowledge. Service sector, offering knowledge-based goods/services.
3. To datafication/digitalization – Surveillance capitalism
Capitalization based on surplus data/Googlism. Work supported by algorithms & augmented artificial
intelligence. This is the era we’re in now. Digitalization = everything we do where we use some kind of digital
technology, so the way it is integrated in what we do. Era of surveillance capitalism.
Surveillance capitalism = how big tech organization get a lot of information; how do they turn this into
capital/profit? How is benefitted from the fact that you look for something on google -> the next time, they
know what you have clicked on.
80’s/90’s - 2000
Knowledge = competitive advantage. Capture in repositories, emphasis on explicit knowledge, digital storage.
Idea = knowledge is valuable, it’s an asset so it needs to be captured.
-> Neo-functionalist perspective (lecture 2/3)
Complexity
2000 – 2010
Knowledge = experiential, captured in doing, tacit knowledge, communities, locators of expertise, learning
before/during/after doing
-> social-constructivist perspective (lecture 4 – 7)
2010 – 2020
Knowledge = collective knowledge. Created by ICT
facilitated conversation and combining and creating based
on big data, decision-support systems
Critical perspective -> lecture 8/9
Dialogical perspective -> lecture 10
Knowledge and data ICT -> lecture 11/12
Future perspectives -> lecture 12
1
,KNOWLEDGE
3 problems with concept of knowledge
It is:
1. ontologically/epistemologically incoherent (hard to determine what is knowledge and what isn’t, it is ->
socially constructed)
a. both subjective and objective
2. vague : ‘knowledge is everything and everything is knowledge’ (it’s an understanding of something)
3. not neutral, not even always functional
What is (knowledge) management?
- It’s a bit common sense right?
- It’s about designing, coordination, controlling of work processes
- Normative control (managers that create a culture in which particular things are done and certain things
aren’t), ‘community’ (shared values/norms/ideas), protocols, manuals; access to information, data repositories
The more emphasize on management, the less it is about knowledge. The more emphasize on knowledge, the
less management matters (Alvesson & Karreman, 2001)
-> the more tacit, the more it becomes hard to manage that, people management becomes important, how to
manage?
-> when we talk about knowledge and we see it as something we can manage, we talk about data etc./things
we can store -> here knowledge management becomes more important (instead of people management)
FRAMEWORK USED IN THIS COURSE (FROM SCHULTZE & STABELL)
For this framework we use two dimensions, that both have 2 dimensions as well:
1. Epistemology dimension
How knowledge is defined is a matter of epistemology. Epistemology = philosophy addressing the nature of
knowledge. Knowledge about knowledge. How do we define what is true? What is regarded as valid knowledge
and why?
A) Duality – what is knowledge? -> objectivist
Objective, frozen-in-time (not involving over time), either/or (not bit of this, bit of that); subjective or objective;
self/other; macro-micro; binairies, mutually exclusive opposites, uni-directional, every object has a separate
identity
-> So this is very clear, MECE, categorize, either this or that
B) Duality – when is knowledge? -> practice-based
(knowledge itself is not easy to capture because it is embedded in the interaction between people)
Both/and/as well as, no clear cut distinction, one does not exist without the other, pragmatism, theories of
practice (knowledge is in the doing, associated with emergence (things change continuously, not static), cyclical
causality, object is continuously shaped by context/situated practice)
2. Social order dimension
Social order = continuum bounded by:
A) Sociology of regulation – society tends towards ideal state of integration, equilibrium and order CONSENSUS
Trust – common interest – science/knowledge is neutral -> more positive view on society (glass half full)
2
,B) Sociology of radical change – forces of coercion, conflict and change are continuously challenging the
established social order (truce is only temporary) DISSENSUS
Suspicion – conflict of interest – science/knowledge is political
Here you see the
4 discourses/
perspectives that
will be discussed
in this course
Objectivist
perspective (neo-functionalist): typologies of knowledge
Knowledge = asset, reduction of uncertainty and optimal allocation of resources
Tacit knowledge: inexpressible in a codifiable form, subjective, personal, context-specific, difficult to
share. Tacit knowledge is knowledge that is nonverbalized, or even nonverbalizable, intuitive,
unarticulated (Hedlund)
Example: how my experiences as a knowledge management consultant and manager are reflected in
this course (we don’t know we know)
Explicit knowledge: codifiable, objective, impersonal, context independent, easy to share.
Explicit knowledge is easy to replicate and transfer (Grant)
Example: the course description on BS which contains all information you need to have when
participating in this course
Constructivist (practice-based) perspective
Knowledge = mind meaning it is socially constructed. It is determined by how/while we interact. Idea is that
different people in the organisation have different parts of knowledge, and only by bringing this together this
can be used to create something new/brought up.
Practice refers to purposeful human activity. It assumes that activity includes both physical and cognitive
elements, and that these elements are inseparable. Knowledge use and development is therefore regarded as a
fundamental aspect of activity.
-> example is soccer – kicking around a ball is not necessarily soccer, also rules, when is something a goal etc.
however, this is a fuzzy line, it’s not black and white, its vague, no clear cut values
3
, Critical discourse on knowledge in organisations
- Knowledge = power (You have it or you don’t). Has a bit of a Marxist/labour theory point of view. Idea is that
the workers might have the knowledge on producing etc. and the management wants to get this knowledge. It
is the repressed workers (factory workers) which we still see (Amazon warehouses) but also saw in the past.
- Dualism: there is a good and a bad, the powerful group that is evil versus the powerless groups that are pure,
innocent and helpless
- Knowledge is an object to be owned, bought, sold
- Connects political issue (labour processes)
- Role of knowledge is to raise awareness of the prevailing social injustices
- Management of (tacit) knowledge is exploitation of managers (those owning capital) to own all knowledge
relevant to obtain more power and resources (e.g. money)
- Critical discourse is anti-management and aligns itself with interests of workers
Dialogical discourse on KIO
Knowledge = discipline. Deconstruction of totalizing knowledge claims, creation of multiple knowledges, never-
ending process of knowing and correcting (the self)
- Power is hidden when it is not questioned
- Interested in the role of knowledge in the exercise of power and control, yet lacks the political agenda and
moral stance (does not pick sides, hence duality)
- Ongoing struggle, dynamically shifting positions (no right or wrong)
- Knowledge is discipline – the disciplinary practices that shape and are shaped by knowledge
- Power/knowledge: before something can be controlled/managed, it must first be known
- Focus on practices such as performance appraisals, mentoring and practices of the self, with emphasis on the
normalizing thought and actions
- Aim of this discourse is to deconstruct self-evident concepts and power relations; prevention of normalization
and totalization (enough room for the marginalized)
4
ORGANISATIONS
LECTURE 1 – GENERAL INTRODUCTION
RELEVANCE
1. Automation/industrial society – Fordism
Production of industrial manufactured goods, supported by technology
2. To digitization – (Post-Fordisme)
Growing importance of (theoretical) knowledge. Service sector, offering knowledge-based goods/services.
3. To datafication/digitalization – Surveillance capitalism
Capitalization based on surplus data/Googlism. Work supported by algorithms & augmented artificial
intelligence. This is the era we’re in now. Digitalization = everything we do where we use some kind of digital
technology, so the way it is integrated in what we do. Era of surveillance capitalism.
Surveillance capitalism = how big tech organization get a lot of information; how do they turn this into
capital/profit? How is benefitted from the fact that you look for something on google -> the next time, they
know what you have clicked on.
80’s/90’s - 2000
Knowledge = competitive advantage. Capture in repositories, emphasis on explicit knowledge, digital storage.
Idea = knowledge is valuable, it’s an asset so it needs to be captured.
-> Neo-functionalist perspective (lecture 2/3)
Complexity
2000 – 2010
Knowledge = experiential, captured in doing, tacit knowledge, communities, locators of expertise, learning
before/during/after doing
-> social-constructivist perspective (lecture 4 – 7)
2010 – 2020
Knowledge = collective knowledge. Created by ICT
facilitated conversation and combining and creating based
on big data, decision-support systems
Critical perspective -> lecture 8/9
Dialogical perspective -> lecture 10
Knowledge and data ICT -> lecture 11/12
Future perspectives -> lecture 12
1
,KNOWLEDGE
3 problems with concept of knowledge
It is:
1. ontologically/epistemologically incoherent (hard to determine what is knowledge and what isn’t, it is ->
socially constructed)
a. both subjective and objective
2. vague : ‘knowledge is everything and everything is knowledge’ (it’s an understanding of something)
3. not neutral, not even always functional
What is (knowledge) management?
- It’s a bit common sense right?
- It’s about designing, coordination, controlling of work processes
- Normative control (managers that create a culture in which particular things are done and certain things
aren’t), ‘community’ (shared values/norms/ideas), protocols, manuals; access to information, data repositories
The more emphasize on management, the less it is about knowledge. The more emphasize on knowledge, the
less management matters (Alvesson & Karreman, 2001)
-> the more tacit, the more it becomes hard to manage that, people management becomes important, how to
manage?
-> when we talk about knowledge and we see it as something we can manage, we talk about data etc./things
we can store -> here knowledge management becomes more important (instead of people management)
FRAMEWORK USED IN THIS COURSE (FROM SCHULTZE & STABELL)
For this framework we use two dimensions, that both have 2 dimensions as well:
1. Epistemology dimension
How knowledge is defined is a matter of epistemology. Epistemology = philosophy addressing the nature of
knowledge. Knowledge about knowledge. How do we define what is true? What is regarded as valid knowledge
and why?
A) Duality – what is knowledge? -> objectivist
Objective, frozen-in-time (not involving over time), either/or (not bit of this, bit of that); subjective or objective;
self/other; macro-micro; binairies, mutually exclusive opposites, uni-directional, every object has a separate
identity
-> So this is very clear, MECE, categorize, either this or that
B) Duality – when is knowledge? -> practice-based
(knowledge itself is not easy to capture because it is embedded in the interaction between people)
Both/and/as well as, no clear cut distinction, one does not exist without the other, pragmatism, theories of
practice (knowledge is in the doing, associated with emergence (things change continuously, not static), cyclical
causality, object is continuously shaped by context/situated practice)
2. Social order dimension
Social order = continuum bounded by:
A) Sociology of regulation – society tends towards ideal state of integration, equilibrium and order CONSENSUS
Trust – common interest – science/knowledge is neutral -> more positive view on society (glass half full)
2
,B) Sociology of radical change – forces of coercion, conflict and change are continuously challenging the
established social order (truce is only temporary) DISSENSUS
Suspicion – conflict of interest – science/knowledge is political
Here you see the
4 discourses/
perspectives that
will be discussed
in this course
Objectivist
perspective (neo-functionalist): typologies of knowledge
Knowledge = asset, reduction of uncertainty and optimal allocation of resources
Tacit knowledge: inexpressible in a codifiable form, subjective, personal, context-specific, difficult to
share. Tacit knowledge is knowledge that is nonverbalized, or even nonverbalizable, intuitive,
unarticulated (Hedlund)
Example: how my experiences as a knowledge management consultant and manager are reflected in
this course (we don’t know we know)
Explicit knowledge: codifiable, objective, impersonal, context independent, easy to share.
Explicit knowledge is easy to replicate and transfer (Grant)
Example: the course description on BS which contains all information you need to have when
participating in this course
Constructivist (practice-based) perspective
Knowledge = mind meaning it is socially constructed. It is determined by how/while we interact. Idea is that
different people in the organisation have different parts of knowledge, and only by bringing this together this
can be used to create something new/brought up.
Practice refers to purposeful human activity. It assumes that activity includes both physical and cognitive
elements, and that these elements are inseparable. Knowledge use and development is therefore regarded as a
fundamental aspect of activity.
-> example is soccer – kicking around a ball is not necessarily soccer, also rules, when is something a goal etc.
however, this is a fuzzy line, it’s not black and white, its vague, no clear cut values
3
, Critical discourse on knowledge in organisations
- Knowledge = power (You have it or you don’t). Has a bit of a Marxist/labour theory point of view. Idea is that
the workers might have the knowledge on producing etc. and the management wants to get this knowledge. It
is the repressed workers (factory workers) which we still see (Amazon warehouses) but also saw in the past.
- Dualism: there is a good and a bad, the powerful group that is evil versus the powerless groups that are pure,
innocent and helpless
- Knowledge is an object to be owned, bought, sold
- Connects political issue (labour processes)
- Role of knowledge is to raise awareness of the prevailing social injustices
- Management of (tacit) knowledge is exploitation of managers (those owning capital) to own all knowledge
relevant to obtain more power and resources (e.g. money)
- Critical discourse is anti-management and aligns itself with interests of workers
Dialogical discourse on KIO
Knowledge = discipline. Deconstruction of totalizing knowledge claims, creation of multiple knowledges, never-
ending process of knowing and correcting (the self)
- Power is hidden when it is not questioned
- Interested in the role of knowledge in the exercise of power and control, yet lacks the political agenda and
moral stance (does not pick sides, hence duality)
- Ongoing struggle, dynamically shifting positions (no right or wrong)
- Knowledge is discipline – the disciplinary practices that shape and are shaped by knowledge
- Power/knowledge: before something can be controlled/managed, it must first be known
- Focus on practices such as performance appraisals, mentoring and practices of the self, with emphasis on the
normalizing thought and actions
- Aim of this discourse is to deconstruct self-evident concepts and power relations; prevention of normalization
and totalization (enough room for the marginalized)
4
