Antwoorden
Knowledge management assignments 1, 2 and 3
- Instelling
- Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen (RU)
Knowledge management assignments 1, 2 and 3. Radboud University 2017/2018.
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 4 van de 34 pagina's
Voorbeeld 4 van de 34 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Gekoppeld boek
Titel boek:
Auteur(s):
- Uitgave:
- ISBN:
- Druk:
5 beoordelingen
Door: francescomaregrande • 5 jaar geleden
Door: tommeut • 5 jaar geleden
Door: delon13 • 5 jaar geleden
Door: luukvanloon7 • 6 jaar geleden
Door: dagmarstoll • 6 jaar geleden
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
Assignment 1: Discourses on Knowledge Management1.1a Please explain, in your own words, what the 'social order' dimension that underlies
Schultze and Stabell's four ‘discourses on knowledge management’ refers to. For each
discourse, explain how ‘social order’ is dealt with and/or taken into account.
Social order can be divided in dissensus, which means that the social relations are
characterised by conflicts, power differences and different interests. The other side of the
social order dimension is consensus, which is characterised by mutual interests, trust and
unproblematic relationships.
The two discourses which are characterised by dissensus, are: the dialogical and critical
discourse. In the first one, knowledge is a discipline. The creation of knowledge and the
management of it is not towards some kind of goal, but a never-ending cycle of self-
knowledge and self-discipline. So, before one can control or manage something or someone,
it must first be known. Consequently, this discourse looks at the processes by which people or
things become known, in order to control and/or manage them.
If one looks at the critical discourse, knowledge is seen as something to control people and
which brings power to control another group that does not possess such knowledge. For
example, the workers versus the management. According to the dialogical view, knowledge
creates power differences.
The two discourses which are characterised by consensus are: the neo-functionalist and
constructivist discourse.
The first one sees knowledge as something that creates enlightenment. Knowledge can be
used to accomplish goals and an optimal allocation of resources, which will improve an
organisation or person.
The constructivist discourse, states that technological and social aspects (all organizational
phenomena) are intertwined and construct each other. The challenge of the discourse is to use
knowledge in such a way that it coordinates actions among multiple and conflicting views. In
this last point, one can see very clearly the consensus by which this discourse is characterised.
1.1b Please explain, in your own words, what the ‘epistemology' dimension that underlies
Schultze and Stabell's four ‘discourses on knowledge management’ refers to. For each
discourse, explain how ‘epistemology’ is dealt with and/or taken into account.
The other dimension is epistemology, which can by divided in dualism and duality.
,The first one makes a clear distinction between things. It is either that or that, right or wrong,
good or bad. Duality does not makes these distinctions. It is both, and, as well.
The two dualism discourses are: the neo-functionalist and the critical discourse.
In the neo-functionalist discourse is a clear distinction between tacit and explicit knowledge.
Knowledge is explicit OR tacit. In the critical discourse knowledge can be bought, sold and
owned, which means that somebody has knowledge or he/she does not have knowledge.
The other two discourses, dialogical and constructivist discourse, are duality.
The dialogical discourses states that everything is intertwined which each other, for example,
knowledge and power are two things one cannot see separate.
The constructivist discourse also states that all organizational phenomena construct each other
and that knowledge and action cannot be separated.
1.1c How, according to each discourse, would knowledge be managed (or studied) according
to each discourse? Please explain it for each discourse and provide an example of what the
main issue with managing knowledge from that perspective/discourse would be.
Dialogical discourse: knowledge is a discipline. The creation of knowledge and the
management of it is a never-ending cycle of self-discipline and self-knowledge. This
discourse states that knowledge and power are intertwined and that, before one can manage or
rule something, that thing must first be known. Consequently, this discourse pays attention to
the processes by which people or things become known and how people, things and/are
processes can be made visible and measurable, in order to manage and control them.
Constructivist discourse: according to this state, all organization phenomena are intertwined
and construct each other. The challenge in this discourse is to coordinate actions in such a way
it solves conflicts between individuals. This discourse also states that knowledge cannot be
managed as just an object separate from the human mind or human actions. In other words,
knowledge and action(s) are one. So, knowledge is not in one’s mind, but in its actions and
practices, with the consequences that knowledge is mostly tacit.
Neo-functionalist discourse: In this discourse, knowledge is supposed to bring
enlightenment, rationalization and control. This eventually will lead to an optimal allocation
of resources in an organization. According to this discourse there is a place of perfection,
which should be the goal. This means that there is a finite stock of knowledge that can be
discovered and/or used. To use this, knowledge has to be made explicit, instead of tacit.
,Critical discourse: Knowledge can be owned, sold and bought. This discourse does not only
focus on organizations, it also addresses the political dimension of knowledge, which is:
knowledge is power and can be used to control people. The one with knowledge can control
the group that does not possess this knowledge. Consequently, knowledge is seen as some
kind of object separate from people or actions. Knowledge is transferable from one group to
another. In short, knowledge is a powerful tool, which can be used to oppress certain people
or groups, but in the right hand, it can be used as a tool for emancipation and liberation. This
means that we need to make sure knowledge is in the hands of the right people.
1.1d What is the discourse you related to most – which discourse resonates the most with
your world views and insights in management and organizations, and why?
At first, all discourses have some advantages or ‘’good’’ things, but these are accompanied by
some disadvantages or ‘’bad’’ things.
However, the discourse that resonates most with our point of view is the dialogical discourse,
because knowledge does not have to be something one can use to reach some kind of goal.
People sometimes have the desire to know more, and with that obtain more some kind of
power (critical discourse). The dialogical discourse also states power and knowledge are
intertwined and that, before someone can control or manage someone or somebody, he/she
has to possess knowledge about the thing he/she wants to control and the way it is
controllable. We think there is some kind of truth in this.
1.2a What are the characteristics of knowledge from an objectivist or neofunctionalist
epistemology?
In the neo-functionalist discourse knowledge is either tacit or explicit. To use knowledge
properly and to communicate it to other people, tacit knowledge first has to be made explicit.
This means that knowledge, which people think is obvious or naturally, must be shared and
communicated.
Knowledge is also neutral, which means it is not related to power or power differences. It
contributes to an optimal allocation of resources in the organisation. So, knowledge can be
used to achieve competitive advantage. But before this can be done, knowledge needs to be
managed. And this means, knowledge has to be codified, from tacit to explicit. If knowledge
is explicit it can be shared and everyone can use it in their advantage, for example, to better
the organisation and/or the allocation of resources.
, 1.2b In Chapter 2 of Hislop, the three different types of collective knowledge from Hecker are
shortly discussed. Explain each type of collective knowledge, where it is located and how it
relates to individual knowledge.
There are three types of collective knowledge: shared, complementary, and artefact-embedded
knowledge.
Shared knowledge is knowledge held by individuals, so the locus of this knowledge is the
individual. The relationship to individual knowledge is the fact that this shared knowledge
overlaps common knowledge. At last, this shared knowledge is created by shared experiences.
Second, complementary knowledge. This is knowledge regarding the division within groups,
based on expertise. The locus of this is interdependencies between individual knowledge. But
this kind of knowledge does not have a really clear relationship with individual knowledge. Its
origin is from specialisation and division of labour within groups.
At last, artefact-embedded knowledge. This is knowledge embedded in the group or
organisation artefacts. So, the locus of this is the artefact. The relationship with individual
knowledge is that this artefact-embedded knowledge is actually individual knowledge, but
articulated. Consequently, its origin is from the codification of individual knowledge.
1.2c Why would you conclude that Hecker’s types of collective knowledge is still a typical
‘objectivist/neofunctionalist’ perspective on knowledge (management)?
Hecker made a distinction between three types of collective knowledge (shared,
complementary and embedded). This shows that, according to Hecker, that collective
knowledge is either shared, or complementary, or embedded. This really is an assumption of
the neofunctionalist discourse. This discourse is characterized by dualism. Consequently, it
makes a clear distinction between things. For example, knowledge is tacit OR explicit,
something is good OR bad. This way of thinking in distinction is something Hecker also uses
with collective knowledge. He literally makes a distinction between three types of collective
knowledge and uses a definition to describe them. According to him, and the neofunctionalist
discourse, you can see knowledge as an objective entity that is just there.
So, one can definitely state Hecker’s types of collective knowledge matches perfectly with the
neofunctionalist discourse.
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper thomas_zz. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €3,99. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 67474 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen