A Descriptive Analysis of Knowledge Management Research: Period from 1997 to 2012
This paper reports a descriptive study of KM research and researchers based on articles published in four specialised academic journals in KM. For each published article, keyword and author analysis were used to discover the main contributors and dominant themes and topics examined. The study shows that KM research is grounded in both KM and non-KM theories, split equally between theoretical and empirical approaches and dominated by the interpretivist over positivist paradigm. So far, core KM elements (enablers, processes and stocks) have been explored more than the extended KM elements (contexts, drivers and outcomes). This might change in the future in order to remain relevant to practice. Published authors are distributed all over the world and tend to be collaborative, but not very productive contributors to KM journals. These findings need to be interpreted and applied with caution due to a number of limiting factors in research design and analysis. Future research is recommended to address these limitations and extend current research to a wider range of publication outlets and issues in KM.
The author is thankful to six PhD students from International Burch University, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, namely Zeynep Kara, Nermina Durmic, Dino Arnaut, Azizah bin Ibrahim, Tarik Kraljic and Adnan Kraljic for their assistance in extracting and coding data from source journals.
- Baruch, L. (2000). Knowledge management: Fad or need? Research Technology Management, 43(5), 9.Google Scholar
- Cummings, S., Regeer, B. J., Ho, W. W. S., & Zweekhorst, M. B. M. (2013). Proposing a fifth generation of knowledge management for development: Investigating convergence between knowledge management for development and transdisciplinary research. Knowledge Management for Development Journal, 9(2), 10–36.Google Scholar
- Drucker, P. (1993). Post-capitalist society. New York: Harper Business.Google Scholar
- Earl, M. (2001). Knowledge management strategies: Toward a taxonomy. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 215–233.Google Scholar
- Handzic, M. (2012). Surveying the field of KM: Evidence from KMR&P. Presentation at the first IAKM workshop, Padua, 16 Apr 2012.Google Scholar
- Handzic, M., & Durmic, N. (2013). Mapping research community and interests in KM: A case of JKM. In Proceedings of the European conference on knowledge management (ECKM 2013), Kaunas, 5–6 Sept 2013.Google Scholar
- Handzic, M., & Hasan, H. (2003). The search for an integrated KM framework, chapter 1. In H. Hasan & M. Handzic (Eds.), Australian studies in knowledge management (pp. 3–34). Wollongong: UOW Press.Google Scholar
- Hansen, M. T., Nohria, N., & Tierney, T. (1999). What’s your strategy for managing knowledge? Harvard Business Review, 77(2), 106–116.Google Scholar
- Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Schwartz, D. G., & Te’eni, D. (2011). Encyclopedia of knowledge management (2nd ed.). Hershey: IGI Global.Google Scholar
- Swan, J., Scarbrough, H., & Preston, J. (1999). Knowledge management: The next fad to forget people? In 7th European conference on information systems, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
- Venters, W. (2006). Knowledge management: The fad that forgot technology. In OLKC 2006 conference, University of Warwick, Coventry, 20–22 Mar 2006.Google Scholar