Advertisement

The Elusive Definition of Knowledge

Chapter
Part of the Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning book series (IAKM, volume 4)

Abstract

Knowledge is an abstract concept without any reference to the tangible world. It is a very powerful concept, yet it has no clear definition so far. From the Greek philosophers up to present experts in knowledge management, people tried to define knowledge but the results are still very fuzzy. This chapter has the intention of showing the most significant aspects of the dispute over the definition of knowledge, and the main conceptual barriers in that endeavor. In the first part of the chapter we discuss about the knowledge nature and the attempts made in epistemology to define knowledge. The well-known definition that knowledge is justified true belief is shown to have the limitations given by the justification condition and the truth nature. In the second part, we consider the metaphorical approach to knowledge explanation and we present the main metaphors used for knowledge in the managerial literature: knowledge as objects, knowledge nuggets, knowledge as an iceberg, and knowledge as stocks and flows. In the last part, we introduce a new paradigm of metaphorical thinking based on the knowledge energy. This metaphor opens new opportunities for understanding knowledge as a multi-field paradigm composed of the rational, emotional, and spiritual knowledge fields.

References

  1. Andriessen, D. (2006). On the metaphorical nature of the intellectual capital: A textual analysis. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 7(1), 93–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andriessen, D., & Boom, M. (2007, May). Asian and Western intellectual capital in encounter. Paper presented at IC-Congress 2007, Inholland University of Applied Sciences, Haarlem, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  3. Ayer, A. J. (2009). The right to be true. In R. Neta & D. Pritchard (Eds.), Arguing about knowledge (pp. 11–13). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Basu, K., & Palazzo, G. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: A process model of sensemaking. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 122–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bolisani, E., & Oltramari, A. (2012). Knowledge as a measurable object in business contexts: A stock-and-flow approach. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 10(3), 275–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bolisani, E., Borgo, S., & Oltramari, A. (2012). Using knowledge as an object: Challenges and implications. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 10(3), 202–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borgo, S., & Pozza, G. (2012). Knowledge objects: A formal construct for material, information and role dependences. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 10(3), 227–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Branson, R. (2011). Screw business as usual. London: Virgin Books.Google Scholar
  9. Bratianu, C. (2011). Changing paradigm for knowledge metaphors from dynamics to thermodynamics. Systems Research and Behavioral Sciences, 28(2), 160–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bratianu, C. (2013). The triple helix of organizational knowledge. Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, 1(2), 207–220.Google Scholar
  11. Bratianu, C. (2015). Organizational knowledge dynamics: Managing knowledge creation, acquisition, sharing, and transformation. Hershey: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bratianu, C., & Andriessen, D. (2008). Knowledge as energy: A metaphorical analysis. In D. Harorimana & D. Watkins (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th European conference on knowledge management (pp. 75–82). Reading: Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2011). Open innovation diplomacy and the 21st century fractal research, education and innovation (FREIE) ecosystem: Building on the quadruple and quintuple helix innovation concepts and the “mode 3” knowledge production. Journal of Knowledge Economy, 2, 327–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (2000). Working knowledge. How organizations manage what they know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  15. Delen, D., & Al-Hawamdeh, S. (2009). A holistic framework for knowledge discovery and management. Communications of the ACM, 52(6), 141–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Descartes, R. (1997). Key philosophical writings. Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Editions.Google Scholar
  17. Dombrowski, E., Rotenberg, L., & Bick, M. (2013). Theory of knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Edvinsson, L. (2002). Corporate longitude: What you need to know to navigate the knowledge economy. London: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  19. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  20. Gardner, H. (2006). Changing minds: The art and science of changing our own and other people’s minds. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  21. Gentner, D., Bowdle, B. F., Phillip, W., & Borant, C. (2001). The analogical mind. Perspectives from cognitive science (pp. 199–254). Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Gettier, E. (2009). Is justified true belief knowledge? In R. Neta & D. Pritchard (Eds.), Arguing about knowledge (pp. 14–15). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Gladwell, M. (2005). Blink. The power of thinking without thinking. New York: Back Bay Books.Google Scholar
  24. Hill, D. (2008). Emotionomics. Leveraging emotions for business (Rev. ed.). London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  25. Janicot, C., & Mignon, S. (2012). Knowledge codification in audit and consulting firms: A conceptual and empirical approach. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 10(1), 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  27. Kaufman, S. F. (1994). The martial artist’s book of five rings. The definitive interpretation of Miyamoto Musashi’s classic book of strategy. Boston: Tuttle Publishing.Google Scholar
  28. Klein, G. (2003). The power of intuition: How to use your feelings to make better decisions at work. London: Currency/Doubleday.Google Scholar
  29. Kotter, J. P., & Cohen, D. (2002). The heart of change: Real-life stories of how people change their organizations. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  30. Lakoff, G. (1990). The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schema? Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 39–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  32. Lehrer, K. (2009). Knowledge, truth and evidence. In R. Neta & D. Pritchard (Eds.), Arguing about knowledge (pp. 16–21). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Leistner, F. (2010). Mastering organizational knowledge flow: How to make knowledge sharing work. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  34. Maxwell, N. (2007). From knowledge to wisdom: A revolution for science and humanities (2nd ed.). London: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  35. Neta, R., & Pritchard, D. (2009). Arguing about knowledge. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Nissen, M. E. (2006). Harnessing knowledge dynamics: Principled organizational knowing & learning. London: IRM Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Nonaka, I., & Von Krogh, G. (2009). Tacit knowledge and knowledge conversion: Controversy and advancement in organizational knowledge creation theory. Organization Science, 20(3), 635–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Hirata, T. (2008). Managing flow: A process theory of the knowledge-based firm. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. O’Dell, C., & Hubert, C. (2011). The new edge in knowledge: How knowledge management is changing the way we do business. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  42. Oliver, G. (2013). A tenth anniversary assessment of Davenport and Prusak (1998/2000) working knowledge: Practitioner approaches to knowledge in organizations. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 11(1), 10–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pinker, S. (2008). The stuff of thought. Language as a window into human nature. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  44. Pinto, J., Leana, C. R., & Pil, F. K. (2008). Corrupt organizations or organizations of corrupt individuals? Two type of organizational-level corruption. Academy of Management Review, 33(3), 685–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Polanyi, M. (1983). The tacit dimension. Gloucester: Peter Smith.Google Scholar
  46. Russell, B. (1972). A history of Western philosophy. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  47. Russell, B. (1992). Human knowledge: Its scope and limits. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Sullivan, P. H. (1998). Profiting from intellectual capital: Extraction value from innovation. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  49. Szulansky, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Implements to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 27–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Szulansky, G. (2000). The process of knowledge transfer: A diachronic analysis of stickiness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 9–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wang, L., Malhotra, D., & Murnigham, J. K. (2011). Economics education and greed. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(4), 643–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Williams, G. J., & Huang, Z. (1997, December). Mining the knowledge mine: The hot spot methodology for mining large real world databases. Paper presented at the 10th Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Perth, Western Australia.Google Scholar
  53. Zohar, D., & Marshall, I. (2000). SQ: Spiritual intelligence. The ultimate intelligence. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  54. Zohar, D., & Marshall, I. (2004). Spiritual capital. Wealth we can live by. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Management and EngineeringUniversity of PaduaVicenzaItaly
  2. 2.Faculty of Business AdministrationBucharest University of Economic StudiesBucharestRomania

Personalised recommendations