Keywords

1 Introduction

Tornebohm (1983) conceives social science as a sequence of partly cumulative and partly non-cumulative transformations of knowledge (K), problems (P), and instruments (I). This science philosopher argued that if the sciences and social sciences are going to progress, there has to be a balance between K, P, and I. An overemphasis on any of them will hinder a free scientific discourse and, by that, the development of any scientific field.

For instance, a central notion from the compound (K1, P1, I 1) to (K2, P1, I2) occurs when the problems P1 are solved to increase the stock of knowledge from K1 to K2. In the problem-solving process, new instruments may be developed or borrowed from other disciplines , at this moment changing I1 to I2. If one of the three aspects is allowed to dominate the other two, the discipline becomes less relevant.

Overemphasis on knowledge (called “knowledge-itis”) may result in empirically empty structures irrelevant to the problems. Empty content structures are the case discussed for business school research in general (Van de Ven , 2007; Olaisen & Revang, 2017), if researchers are producing more and “better” research than ever, but the practical business world finds the study results less relevant than ever. Preoccupation with problems (“problem-itis”) may mean shallow pragmatism and conceptual malnutrition.

Finally, too much attention to instruments (“instrument-itis”) may erode the substantive core. Where much of the focus of the studies is how to practice the research methodology in itself, the researchers end up testing themselves if they can master the instruments and not the theories. Tornebohm (1983) identifies these imbalances in the researcher's orientation as lacking commonly agreed-upon perspectives and something less than social science and something more than fiction. Kuhn identifies it as a pre-scientific situation where any discipline might remain until the discipline dies or advances a new paradigm . The initial KPI maps the aspect of interest (in this case, feature of knowledge structures or processes ). The KPI compound in this process filters through what is called the ’researchers’ orientation and worldview” or perspectives in Tornebohm's words (1983) or paradigms in Kuhn's words (1970) or research domains in Olaisen's words (1985).

These authors are all referring to the fact that there are alternative ways of approaching the social sciences and, by that also knowledge management research. The aspects studied are not given once and for all. New knowledge can widen the boundaries (Jevnaker, 2003), as might happen after the broadening of the knowledge management research . Tornebohm's idea is that pluralism is needed in any discipline to get an accumulation of knowledge, and if this pluralism is lacking over time, any discipline will erode and be a form of mechanistic puzzle-solving of more and more irrelevant problems. Kuhn (1970) defined this as normal science activities where the scientists agree upon good science reproducing noticeable results in quasi-scientific ways to gain respect within a smaller and smaller circle. The relevance may then be found in other disciplines replacing a discipline over time.

Coming from a broad background (educated as a mathematician and sociologist, working as a social scientist and international peace researcher), Johan Galtung’s (1972) idea was to identify four ways of approaching the social sciences in a triangle of theory, data, and values:

  1. (1)

    Empiricism—is what we are presenting true or false (if true consonance if false dissonance)

  2. (2)

    Criticism—is what we are presenting acceptable or not acceptable (if acceptable consonance if not acceptable dissonance )

  3. (3)

    Constructivism—is what we are presenting adequate or inadequate (if adequate consonance if not adequate dissonance)

  4. (4)

    Pluralism —a triangulation of empiricism, criticism, and constructivism (if congruence consonance if not congruence dissonance).

According to Galtung (1972), data sentences explain the empirical world by including what they observe and eliminate what they do not see or imagine . Theory-sentences (hypotheses or propositions ), on the other hand, define the foreseen world, including aspects that are predicted by the underlying theory. Finally, value sentences refer to the preferred world, including what is accepted and excluding what is rejected. Galtung's idea was that all the social sciences could be analysed according to this framework.

The sociologist Herbert Blumer (1969) argued that research concepts in any social sciences might be divided into definitive concepts and sensitizing concepts . The concepts have an essential role in any scientific inquiry. They are usually the anchor point in the interpretation of findings .

The purpose of the definitive concept is to:

Describe-Explain-Predict and Control and Rule (A definitive and objective process). Bunge (1967) named this process “the process of all serious systematic research”.

The sensitizing concepts have another purpose:

Describe-Explore-Reflect-Participate and Change (A subjective and relative process). Glaser and Strauss (1967) named this process “Grounded-theory-research”.

Olaisen (1985) divided any kind of knowledge into four types of knowledge:

  1. (1)

    What we know defining

  2. (2)

    What we do not know implying

  3. (3)

    What we do not know that we know as a part of

  4. (4)

    What we do not know that we do not know.

According to Olaisen’s framing, to get a scientific, intuitive, and creative movement between these four types of knowledge represents the essence of representable and non-representable knowing modes in any science and social science. Acknowledging interwoven implicit or tacit knowing in all complex knowledge work , Jevnaker (1993, 2014) points to aspects rather than “types” of knowledge (see Chapter 8).

Olaisen (1985) divided the social sciences into four paradigms in a quadrate of harmony versus conflict and objectivity versus subjectivity :

  1. (1)

    The empirical objective-oriented, or better, empirical variance paradigm (e.g. cause-and-effect research)

  2. (2)

    The materialistic political paradigm (e.g. parts of history research )

  3. (3)

    The clarified subjective paradigm (e.g. experience -based qualitative research )

  4. (4)

    The action paradigm (varieties of action-oriented research ).

According to Olaisen, any social science paper could be placed within these four paradigms.

2 Methodology

This chapter aims to analyse and compare all the papers in the proceedings of European Conference on knowledge management (ECKM) in 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020. A total of 430 double-blind reviewed academic papers within a framework of 5000 words for each paper. The approach uses a philosophy of science framework and compares this to the content of the research papers.

We have used five philosophy of science frameworks to analyse all the papers:

  1. (1)

    Tornebohm's knowledge, problem, and instrument description (1983)

  2. (2)

    Galtung's scientific perspective triangle (1972)

  3. (3)

    Olaisen's four kinds of knowledge identification (1985)

  4. (4)

    Blumer's two kinds of scientific concepts (1969)

  5. (5)

    Olaisen's four kinds of paradigms identification (1985).

This chapter has combined frameworks (4) and (5) into a pluralistic proposal for future progress for knowledge management research. To our knowledge, the present study is the first time Galtung's and Tornebohm's approaches are used analysing international conference papers from a research discipline.

Each paper has been classified according to:

  1. (1)

    Problem

  2. (2)

    Methodology

  3. (3)

    Theoretical foundation

  4. (4)

    Propositions or hypotheses

  5. (5)

    Analyse

  6. (6)

    Discussion of results

  7. (7)

    Conclusions

  8. (8)

    Theoretical and practical implications.

The aim was a critical-constructive exploration , thus being broadly and deeply familiar with the ECKM conferences was essential. Both authors participated in at least three of the recent annual conferences and one of us had long experience with the ECKM research papers. For each academic paper, a decision has been made for each of the five frameworks according to which format the paper fits within. The decision is based upon the reading of the paper (conducted by one of the authors, who participated in ECKM over this period). For two-thirds of the papers, the decision of placing them into a category was clear. For one-third of the papers, the experienced researcher had to make a subjective decision for which category to place them within. The decision is based upon our study notes from each paper, and if in doubt, rereading of the paper. Our analytical writing from preliminary identified aspects of this study was also presented and debated at the ECKM conferences (Olaisen & Jevnaker, 2020, 2021).

3 Findings on Knowledge-itis, Instrument-itis, and Problem-itis

The papers are suffering from “instrument-itis” and to some extent from “knowledge-it is”, but they are indeed not suffering from “problem-it is”. Problem -oriented research is demanding and requires systematic and logical argumentation (Lawrence, 1992). Problem-orientated research might be a weakness for knowledge management researchers. The researchers do the statistical tests well, and the researchers present the data in “nice” total packages as a form of scholarly truth. However, very few results conflict with existing results or anything. 2 of 3 hypotheses are found to be correct, and 1 of 3 hypotheses is incorrect.

There are many similar hypotheses/propositions (54%) in papers dealing with knowledge sharing and knowledge management , while 61% reach the same result and 39% reach a different result for similar propositions and hypotheses. The Popperian falsification process (1973) is used for both explicit and tacit knowledge -based processes even if 82% in 2017, 84% in 2018, 83% in 2019, and 68% of the papers in 2020 do not make any such distinctions. Two-thirds of the papers lack a definition of knowledge, information, management , leadership, or the situations these concepts are used within.

The lack of definitions presents a kind of storytelling where a story exemplified with statistics is told. This resonates with what Kuhn (1970) defined as a pre-scientific situation where anything might be equal in importance or what Popper (1968) described as the situation for psychology as a field. Kuhn (1970) called this “something less than research”. The lack of deeper attention to problem -itis makes it challenging to make progress and accumulate knowledge (see e.g., Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).

More than 60% of the papers write about the need for new ways of knowledge leadership, knowledge management , and knowledge organizing. The papers, however, are centred around traditional leadership, management, and organization issues. The papers’ label and marketing are proposing new ways of leadership, management, and organizing, but they do neither define the situation today than the situation tomorrow, nor how we will take us for tomorrow. The papers' problems are centred around solvable matters and very seldom if anytime, related to unsolvable problems. We define such “instrument-itis” and “knowledge-itis” in knowledge management research as a misdirecting striving for respectability. Forty of 430 papers (9.3%) discuss our ecological systems' problems and what we need to do to solve the climate crisis through sustainable businesses. These green ecological papers ask several questions they cannot answer and are all conceptual papers without any empirical basis. The 2020 conference doubled the number of such papers and increased the conference's relevance for our actual and future business situation.

4 The Aspects of the World Studied

We are making a distinction between four areas of knowledge in management research: “What we know” (1), “What we know that we don't know” (2) and “What we don't know that we know (3) and What we don't know that we don't know” (4). Area (1) will define the area (2), while there will be a misinterpretation and bias towards the area (3) and area (4) (see Fig. 3.1).

Fig. 3.1
A chart with 2 columns. The left column is divided into three rows. The following is written in the rows. What we know, what we do not know, and what we do not know that we know. The following is written in the other column,. What we do not know that we do not know.

Knowledge representations (Olaisen, 1985)

Full size image

Will imagination and intuition be necessary for the creativity needed to make a scientific movement in knowledge management in zone 3 and 4? If we expand only into area two, it will be somewhat limited knowledge research emphasizing instruments and knowledge while the problems will be defined by what we know .

If we want to move between area one and two, the logical, empirical studies (“secure and clean studies”) will be ideal, but the source of bias and misinterpretations start as soon as we move into what we do not know anything experienced. We will here begin to involve imagination and intuition . Experience-based intuition is the start point of any essential research effort, while the movement from area one to area two is only instrumental puzzle-solving, most often without any knowledge accumulation (Mintzberg, 1979 ; Morgan , 1980). The way to improve our technique is not to attempt to analyse things into their elements, reduce them to measure and determine functional relations, and educate and train our intuitive powers (Knight , 1936). If our role is only to produce some publishable or travelable research, then we are reduced to mechanic puzzle-solving, demonstrating that we can master the techniques we were learning in our Ph.Ds. Between 80 and 90% of the research papers represent this kind of mechanic puzzle solving (Morgan , 1980). We are sending out a questionnaire to a large sample getting a response rate of 5–20% applying statistics and getting a classification of research results in nice tables, diagrams, and figures, getting more of the same trivial already known knowledge. The 2020 papers are slightly more based upon qualitative in-depth interviews , constructed datasets from several studies, and theoretical foundation s.

5 Scientific Orientations

Recall that according to Galtung (1972), data sentences explain the empirical world by including what is observed and excluding what is non-observed. Theory-sentences (hypotheses or propositions ), on the other hand, define the foreseen world, including aspects that are predicted by the underlying theory. Finally, value sentences refer to the preferred world, including what is accepted and excluding what is rejected. Most of the papers (65%) in 2017, 63% in 2018, 61% in 2019, and 52% in 2020 do not develop hypotheses but only describe the theory's findings without concluding them into hypotheses for testing (Bunge , 1967). We have synthetized Galtung’s social science thinking in Fig. 3.2.

Fig. 3.2
A triangle with its vertices labeled Data, Values, and Theory has its sides labeled Empiricism, Criticism, and Constructivism. The base is denoted as Pluralism. Each side has Consonance and Dissonance. For Empiricism, it is True and False. For Criticism, it is Acceptable and Not Acceptable. For Constructivism, it is Adequate and Inadequate.

Empiricism, criticism, and constructivism

Full size image

However, the research studied tends to compare data sentences with theory sentences without using Popper's falsification principle (Popper , 1968 ). Dissonance does not produce new theory sentences, while a consonance occurs in noting that the research results are in line with mainstream knowledge management research. Criticism is the type of scientific activity where data sentences are confronted with value sentences. By the tenets of this orientation , consonance is created by producing new data sentences by changing reality into an acceptable condition. Criticism is not a large part of the ECKM 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 papers (15% versus 16% versus 18% versus 23%). The trend is towards more criticism-based papers. Criticism is needed through values, speculations, and ad hoc methods to advance a field even if the validity and reliability are low.

Constructivism implies comparing theory sentences with value sentences to see to what extent the foreseen world is also the preferred world. Consonance refers to what is adequate and dissonance to what is inadequate. In dissonance , theory and value sentences are about equal in priority, and both might be changed in knowledge management research. Constructivism represents 20% of the papers, increasing from 15% in 2017 to 25% in 2020. The business reality is today complex and global. A combination of the understanding of both holisms and atomisms is needed in a good research strategy (Mintzberg, 1979) and actionable puzzle solving (Morgan , 1980 ). Imagination and intuition are required for this process (Bunge , 1967; Alvesson & Skolberg, 2009), but the intuitive powers seem to be less trained among the ECKM researchers.

Intuition , imagination , and creativity are needed to handle a high degree of complexity like scenarios for the business future or the green environmental future. Such complex scenarios are only handled in 31 of the papers (7%), where both criticism and constructivism are handled simultaneously to develop what is acceptable and not acceptable for the society going on with what is further adequate and inadequate for the businesses.

The distinction between what is acceptable and what is adequate might, as a result, give us a greener, more innovative, and safer world where businesses and societies cooperate. The paradigmatic perspective change results in more subjective and actionable research for a better future, missed in the ECKM 2017, 2018, and 2019 papers while increasing in the 2020 papers. Also missed is what kind of leadership will take us into a more responsible , sustainable world. The knowledge management papers tend to represent the status quo. We have to ask the question of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. We have to construct our data for this purpose since data in itself does not prove anything. It is our argumentation that can help prove something. We need constructivism, where we ask what is adequate and what is inadequate for a sustainable future.

6 The Dynamics of Paradigms

The essence of Kuhn's position (1970) is that paradigms serve a normative and conserving function. When a standard prevails in a discipline, “normal” science practice evolves as the puzzle-solving activity. During normal science, the scientific community works under the assumption that “it knows what the world is like» and is prepared to defend this assumption “at any cost”. (Kuhn, 1970, p. 5). Very often, normal science suppresses “major novelties, conceptual or phenomenal” (Kuhn , 1970, p. 36). Thus, scientists are only preoccupied with solving problems/puzzles according to accepted specific rules according to the traditional viewpoint or preconception. With such anomalies built up and scientists losing faith, the field enters the crisis stage.

Kuhn writes that “there can be a sort of scientific research without paradigms , schools, perspectives”… (1970, p. 11), in such research “… though the field's practitioners were scientists, the new findings of their activity were something less than science or social science” (1970, p. 13). He further notes that “… every individual researcher starts over again from the beginning” (1970, p. 13), that some competing schools are directing their publications where they may be published, and a continued discussion over the same fundamentals and no scientific progress is made at all” (1970, p. 159).

We may sum up Kuhn (1970) in this way:

  1. 1.

    Only readily available facts are collected.

  2. 2.

    At this stage, all facts seem equally relevant.

  3. 3.

    The instruments are overemphasized and often presented in “quasi-fanciful” ways to get “false” respect.

If we look at knowledge management research at ECKM, we conclude that this is the situation for more than 80% of the papers. The 2020 papers were more scientific than 2017, 2018, and 2019 papers—71% versus 83%. There is in 2020 progress in making knowledge management more scientific and robust. We found that Kuhn's description fit the situation in knowledge management research well. It looks like every researcher starts over again from the beginning with easily collected survey, and case data are assembled and presented in fancy scientific ways. The papers in 2020 (21%) on sustainable businesses, greener businesses/societies, and the future of knowledge work represent a positive change.

There is a potential Matthew effect (Merton , 1968) in young scholars’ work —those who do it the most accepted way shall get more, and those who do not do it the accepted way shall not be published or getting tenure. Most researchers in knowledge research are trained in Ph.D. programmes with an emphasis on empirical studies. They know that to get papers accepted, they must follow the “correct” researchers, have a representative sample, and use a proper statistical package to prove their results and end up with decent results or a proposal for another knowledge framework. The papers in 2020 on sustainability, gender equality, and new professional working opened perhaps for a new generation of critical business and societal researchers at ECKM.

7 Alternative Concepts

The concepts have an essential role in any scientific inquiry. They are usually the anchor point in the interpretation of findings (Blumer , 1969; Baugh, 1990). The concepts are the glasses we have used since we got our Ph.Ds. We discuss two different worlds of ideas. The definitive concept is based on empirical data or “evidence” and often searches for causal relationships.

The more definitive concepts are linked to “what we know” and “what we know that we do not know”, while the more sensitizing concepts will be related to “what do not know that we know” and “what we do not know that we do not know”. Sensitizing concepts will advise where to look and will set up and compare alternative views. They will indicate more relationships, and they will be dependent on inductive research methods and precise descriptions. Definitive concepts represent deductive quantitative research methods. For induction , the sample of 0 (imagined sample) or one might be good enough, while deduction requires large samples. Induction is closeness, while deduction is distance. Induction is participation and involvement, while we do not interfere at any price. Induction might be exploring, and actionable while deduction might be explaining without action.

In knowledge management studies , the definitive concepts are taking over the ground of the sensitizing concepts . Taking all the papers and dividing them into one of these ideas , around 65% of the studies rely on definitive deductive theories while 35% rely on inductive sensitizing concepts. In the ECKM 2020, about 55% rely upon definitive concepts while 45% rely upon inductive sensitizing concepts . The induction process is described as “directions along which to look and use intuition and curiosity” instead of facts or data is less used. Intellectual curiosity might be the path to choose for creative scholars. The papers are becoming more inductive and sensitizing in the 2020 conference than the 2017, 2018, and 2019 conferences.

8 Alternative Research Paradigms

It is here proposed to analyse knowledge management research to become more conscious of multiple perspectives, for example, according to the four main groups of perspectives in Fig. 3.3.

Fig. 3.3
A rectangle is divided into four smaller rectangles. The following is written in each: The Empirical Variance Paradigm, The Clarified Subjectivity Paradigm, The Materialistic Political Paradigm, and The Action Driven Paradigm. The four sides of the rectangle are denoted as Harmony, Objectivity, Conflict, and Subjectivity.

Research paradigms

Full size image

These alternative realities are different meta-theoretical assumptions about the nature of social science. The “empirical variance” paradigm is based on fixed entities with varying attributes. Its explanatory power consists of establishing causal relations between variables (see Van de Ven , 2007). The knowledge systems and the knowledge technology relations have a concrete, actual existence and systematic character producing quantitative and qualitative findings according to the need for the societies and businesses. The business world is considered primarily conflict-free and harmonious at a higher level of aggregation. 50% of the studies in 2018 versus 45% of the 2019 papers belong here compared to 38% in 2020. However, note that objectivity does not exist any longer in the past, “neutral” sense. Observations in all research are affected by pre-suppositions, which can be mistaken. The trend in the papers analysed is towards fewer empirical variance papers.

The “materialistic political” paradigm where physical events and behaviour are the surface manifestations of underlying mechanisms. The materialistic paradigm relies on the assumption of predictable uniformities in the knowledge systems. The world of knowledge systems exchanges is defined by concrete, measurable, ontologically fundamental structures, and the interdependencies in knowledge systems. 20% of the studies in 2018 are here versus 21% in the 2019 conference and 16% in 2020.

The “clarified subjectivity ” paradigm (see Chapter 8) holds social reality is interpreted through the individuals and organizations' subjective and inter-subjective experiences (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). According to this paradigm, knowledge behaviour must be understood from the employees’ experiences and organization's viewpoints and practices. We can only get such understanding by direct, give-and-take interaction with the employees and managers, as well as observing activities in organizations. We can, of course, get in surveys as questionnaires, but then we are defining the questions and the business situation. 25% of the studies in 2018 are here versus 27% of the 2019 studies and 32% of the 2020 studies. The “action-driven” paradigm (5% of the studies in 2018 and 7% of the studies in 2019 compared to 14% in the 2020 studies) also assumes that what passes for reality is socially determined. The move towards experience-based clarified subjective paradigms and action-based paradigms in 2020 is significant.

The role of knowledge research is to identify the stakeholders in the systems, their goals, interests, and power bases to describe the conflicts and contradictions of the knowledge systems and also show how to move towards responsible emancipation including, for instance, working distributed, smarter or greener. A more sensitizing complex knowledge concept along subjectively and intersubjectivity chosen directions demands another kind of research paradigm (see Fig. 3.3). Knowledge management researchers inspired by the action paradigm are concerned with discovering how individuals can link thought and action as a means of transcending their alienation. The papers often analyse the situation where the author is a consultant, owner, or employee. The relationship to the investigated firm is close, so self-reflection is essential. The results are own experiences, knowledge, and attitudes from the actual situation resulting in practical and theoretical recommendations.

9 Conclusive Remarks

There are some methodology movements towards phenomenon research in leadership and organization studies, taking research out of the iron jacket into a flexible and soft jacket opening for alternative realities (Doh, 2015; Schwartz & Stensaker , 2014 ; von Krogh et al., 2012). The movements are towards action-based and experience-based orientations (which include process-, and practice-based views) to grasp sustainability, gender equality, and new professional working forms.

The action-driven and the experience-based research orientations represent a different degree of complexity and subjectivity . They represent both harmony and conflict. Various levels of complexity require different research approaches ; pluralism is demanded to catch different aspects of reality. Subjectivism is necessary to capture complexity, but it can still be systematic and logically rigid (Olaisen & Jevnaker, 2021).

Consequently, we need to cooperate with businesses and society to gain deeper insights into the ways sustainable societies and businesses are supporting or hindering greener, more thoughtful, and safer solutions. A more open-ended and engaged knowledge management research field is called for to understand the potentially sustainable businesses replacing traditional businesses (Jevnaker & Olaisen, 2021, 2022). We also need to continue debating the unobserved as well as competing theorizing orientations .

Pluralistic orientations can be rewarding but demanding. The definitive concepts represent a small degree of subjectivity (i.e., the high degree of objectivity, if possible), while the sensitizing concepts express a high degree of subjectivity as well as intersubjectivity (e.g. Husserl, 1973 [1939]; Berger & Luckmann, 1966). Future researchers thus need to learn to use sensitizing concepts coupled with actionable definitive ideas.

In the knowledge research reality both sustainability and climate conflicts entail local and global complexities with many known and unknown knows. In conclusion, to understand more of reimagination and green sustainability thinking in this emergent context, we have to critically explore and reflect upon our investigations for theory building (Eisenhardt & Grabner, 2007).