=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-85/paper-11
|storemode=property
|title=Knowledge management and philosophy: A position paper (extended Abstract)
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-85/probert.pdf
|volume=Vol-85
}}
==Knowledge management and philosophy: A position paper (extended Abstract)==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-85/probert.pdf
Knowledge management and philosophy: A position paper
Stephen K. Probert
Computing and Information Systems Management Group
Cranfield University
RMCS Shrivenham
Swindon
SN6 8LA
U.K.
Tel: +44 1793 785738
Fax: +44 1793 782753
Email: s.k.probert@rmcs.cranfield.ac.uk
Introduction
It certainly seems appropriate to further examine the concept of knowledge (in the context of the
current management interest in the topic of knowledge management) from a more philosophical
perspective then has hitherto been the case. Furthermore, I would suggest that the topic of knowledge
creation (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995) seems worth exploring from a philosophical perspective also.
The “knowledge economy”
To begin with, one may begin uncritically and investigate how such concepts may be of immediate
practical utility to the large corporations – an approached implied in statements such as this one by
Probst et al.:
“The long-predicted ‘information society’ and ‘knowledge economy’ are now emerging as
tangible realities. Leading management theoreticians argue that it is much more profitable for a
company to invest a given sum in its knowledge assets than to spend the same amount on material
assets.” (Probst et al., 2000, p. 3)
Here, it would seem that knowledge has an entirely a positive connotation – from (what might be
termed) an “enlightenment-prosperity” perspective. However, the postructuralist perspective might also
be considered with interest. Here it might be argued that the creation of knowledge is interconnected
with the concrete operation of power. Knowledge creation –far from being concerned with
empowerment – could be seen as just another development in managerial control philosophies.
“There is no denying the dominant existence today of techno-science, that is the massive
subordination of cognitive statements to the finality of the best possible performance, which is the
technological criterion. But the mechanical and the industrial, especially when they enter fields
traditionally reserved for artists, are carrying with them much more than power effects. The objects and
the thoughts that originate in scientific knowledge and the capitalist economy convey with them one of
the rules which supports their possibility: the rule that there is no reality unless testified by a consensus
between partners over a certain knowledge and certain commitments. This rule is of no little
consequence. It is the imprint left on the politics of the scientist and the trustee of capital by a kind of
flight of reality out of the metaphysical, religious and political certainties that the mind believed it held.
This withdrawal is absolutely necessary to the emergence of science and capitalism.” (Lyotard, 1984,
pp. 76-77).
A further contribution to this sort of debate would be to examine how knowledge creation and
management could be viewed from the perspective of critical theory. Of particular interest here might
be in its relationship with art and the culture industry. Indeed the terms ‘knowledge management’ and
‘the culture industry’ seem to have an immediate resonance. Why, and in what sense, do knowledge
and culture need some form of active management (for profit?).
Tacit knowledge
Lyotard’s suggestions (dating from 1979) concerning the interconnections between science and
economy can make an important bridge between the managerial (and technical) discourses of
knowledge creation and management (Lyotard, 1984). It may prove to be useful to exploit the well-
worked concepts of epistemology and ontology from the analytical perspective on philosophy, as (for
example) several different uses of the term knowledge can already be seen within the topic of
knowledge management. To begin with, one can discern a philosophical confusion between what
Popper (1979) characterised as World Two and World Three uses of the term. Roughly-speaking,
World Two knowledge would be subjective knowledge and World Three would be objective
knowledge. These concepts seem to map reasonably well – but not exactly - with the concepts of tacit
and explicit knowledge (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Much of Lyotard’s argument seems to relates
more-or-less entirely to explicit knowledge. To critically examine the tacit dimension other approaches
may yield important insights, one candidate approach being that of Foucault (1982).
Conclusion
No doubt, knowledge (in the form of epistemology) is one of the most researched topics in philosophy.
Indeed, Nonaka and Takeuchi include a short discussion of (Western) philosophical approaches to
epistemology in their 1995 book. However, there is very little discussion of critical philosophical
approaches in their book, or other books / journals that I have encountered in the broad topic area of
knowledge management. It may be timely to begin to correct this “oversight”.
References
Foucault, M. (1982) The subject and power pp. 208-226 In Dreyfus, H. L. & Rabinov, P. Michel
Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. (1st Ed.) Harvester. Brighton. 1982
Lyotard, J. (Tr. Bennington, G. & Massumi, B.) (1984) The Postmodern Condition. Manchester
University Press. Manchester. (original 1979)
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995) The Knowledge Creating Company. Oxford University Press. New
York.
Popper, K. R. (1979) Objective Knowledge. (2nd Ed.) Oxford University Press. Oxford.
Probst, G., Raub, S. and Romhardt, K. (2000) Managing Knowledge. Wiley, Chichester.