Conclusion

The aim of this chapter was to review how knowledge management literature addresses our first research question: Which approaches in knowledge management theory are available to explain the role of knowledge claim evaluation in innovation? We identified three approaches of knowledge claim evaluation: the Managerial approach, the Open approach and the Entrepreneurial approach. Each approach prescribes how an innovating organization should evaluate knowledge claims. Table 2.1 provides an overview of the similarities and differences between the three approaches, considering seven properties.

Table 2.1. Overview of the three KCE approaches

Theory of truth Coherence Pragmatic Correspondence

Theory of evaluation Not defined Foundationalist Criticialist Primary evidence

Not defined Not defined Continuity

Commensurability

Not defined Not defined All decisions should be

documented; this includes the rationale, scores on criteria, etc.

The Open and Managerial approaches have in common that knowledge claims should be evaluated with objective verifiable evidence to guarantee the quality of knowledge in order to innovate successfully. The Open approach, however, does not allow the evaluation of knowledge claims in which subjective sources of knowledge, such as the knowledge claims of management or entrepreneurs are used. The Entrepreneurial and Managerial approaches are based on the notion that in order to innovate successfully an organization should rely on the innovative hunches of

Chapter 2 – Knowledge claim evaluation approaches

40

entrepreneurs (i.e., subjective true beliefs). According to the Managerial approach, organizations should rely on the entrepreneurial hunches of managers. However, according to the Entrepreneurial approach, anyone in the firm with an entrepreneurial hunches or an “entrepreneurial mindset” can formulate a valid knowledge claim. More importantly, the use of objective verifiable evidence under conditions of novelty and uncertainty is rejected in the Entrepreneurial approach.

However, to what extent does knowledge management theory explain how knowledge claims are evaluated in innovations? (i.e., sub-RQ 1c, see Chapter 1). One the one hand, the three approaches include aspects of knowledge claim evaluation to be considered in relation to innovations: the role of objective verifiable evidence, the role of authorities (e.g., managers, entrepreneurs) and the role of subjective evidence.

Obviously, the three approaches need to be further elaborated and substantiated by critical examinations in empirical settings. On the other hand, the approaches are three highly abstract and empirically unexplored theories of knowledge claim evaluation. Moreover, we believe knowledge claim evaluation is much more detailed and multifaceted in real-life innovative settings than the three approaches describe, explain and prescribe.

The way existing knowledge management theories explain knowledge claim evaluation can be characterized as a “black box”. This black box has as inputs knowledge claims, evidence of a certain type, and evaluation criteria of a certain type, and as output evaluated knowledge claims, e.g., justified, falsified, or believed as true knowledge claims. It is unclear exactly how evidence, criteria, knowledge claims – the internal workings of the black box – interact in an innovative setting and whether there are any other objects, factors or variables should be taken into account. We believe that this understanding is essential in order to substantiate the explanations of knowledge claim evaluation found in the three existing approaches. In addition, the limitations of the three approaches are not only of a theoretical nature. From a practical point of view, the approaches offer little understanding for practitioners, managers and others who are interested in improving knowledge claim evaluation in their organizations. How can they apply the various prescriptions of the three approaches?

We pursue the aim of opening the black box of knowledge claim evaluation both theoretically as well as empirically. Empirically, Chapters 5, 6 and 7 explore knowledge claim evaluation in three different practical contexts. Theoretically, the

next chapter introduces informal argumentation theory. Informal argumentation theory is a practically oriented approach for analyzing argumentative discussions (Toulmin, 1958; Walton, 2009). From a practical point of view, informal argumentation theory explains how an argument works and how it can be examined.

In addition, informal argumentation theory regards issues of validity as field-dependent. By adopting informal argumentation theory, we regard knowledge claim evaluation in innovation as an argumentative discussion (Schreyögg and Geiger, 2007). For the Open, Managerial and Entrepreneurial approaches, we will propose argumentation structures (consisting out of knowledge claim, data and warrant components) in which the main ingredients of the existing theory, i.e., types of evidence and types of evaluation criteria, are wrapped. Moreover, based on informal argumentation theory we take into account implicit elements of argumentative discussions, various ways of challenging knowledge claims, and a typology of knowledge claims to evaluate the appropriateness of the arguments used in innovations.

Chapter 3

Informal argumentation theory

This chapter is an edited and extended version of a journal article published in Management Learning (Peters et al., 2011).

This chapter concentrates on the workings of argumentative discussions. In argumentative discussions, arguments are used as a means to support or criticize claims in order to achieve a resolution of difference (Van Eemeren et al., 2002). The relation between argumentation and knowledge claim evaluation is described by Habermas (1984):

“arguments are the means by which intersubjective recognition of a proponent’s hypothetically raised validity claim can be brought about and opinion thereby transformed into knowledge” (p. 25).

The argumentative discussion is the object of analysis in informal argumentation theory or Informal Logic (Toulmin, 1958; Van Eemeren et al., 2002; Walton, 2009). Toulmin (1958) pioneered a path annex to the standard Logical treatment of argumentation (e.g., Barth and Krabbe, 1982; Wiche, 1993). An important difference between the standard Logical treatment of argumentation and informal argumentation is that the latter is field dependent (and even organizational-specific), as Toulmin (1958) argues:

“What has to be recognized first is that validity is an intra-field, not an inter-field notion. Arguments within any field can be judged by standards appropriate within that field, and some will fall short; but it must be expected that the standards will be field-dependent, and that the merits to be demanded of an argument in one field will be found to be absent from entirely meritorious arguments in another”

(p. 255).

Chapter 3 – Informal argumentation theory

44

After Toulmin (1958), we can find two major streams in Argumentation, the one continuing to elaborate his approach (Kock, 2006; Kock, 2007; Naess, 1966; Van Eemeren et al., 2002; Van Eemeren and Houtlosser, 2003; Walton, 2006; Walton et al., 2008; Walton, 2008), the other trying to combine informal argumentation theory within the Logical tradition (e.g., Barth and Krabbe, 1982; Wiche, 1993). We adopt Toulmin’s (1958) stream, plus the related (contemporary) theories, because we believe that this stream has more to offer in the uncertain and novel circumstances that come with innovation than the Logical tradition. We therefore examine and explain knowledge claim evaluation in innovating organizations by using the concepts and structures based on Toulmin’s (1958) theory. Earlier applications of argumentative examination based on Toulmin (1958) in a (Knowledge) Management context can be found in Fletcher and Huff (1990a; 1990b), and Von Krogh and Roos (1995). As far as we know, this chapter discusses the first application of informal argumentation in the context of innovation.

The second research question of this thesis, as stated in Chapter 1, is: what is the role of informal argumentation theory in describing knowledge claim evaluation in innovation? We decomposed this research question into two sub questions:

Sub-RQ 2a: What is informal argumentation and what are its characteristics?

Sub-RQ 2b: What aspects of informal argumentation theory can be used in describing knowledge claim evaluation in innovation, and how?

We provide answers to these two questions in the upcoming sections. In relation to the second research question, we summarize the answer by providing the most essential insights for describing knowledge claim evaluation in innovations below.

• The main ingredients of knowledge claim evaluation, i.e., knowledge claims, types of evidence and types of evaluation criteria are wrapped up in argumentation structures. The Open, Managerial and Entrepreneurial approaches each follow a specific argumentation structure;

• Especially the Open and Managerial approach emphasize the role of explicit and objective evidence in knowledge claim evaluation. informal argumentation theory acknowledges that knowledge claims can be accepted or rejected without an explicit reference to evidence and evaluation criteria;

• Knowledge claims can be challenged in several ways. The existing theory does not include this understanding. In addition, the outcome of knowledge claim evaluation is not necessarily a knowledge claim that is either true or false, yet a knowledge claim of which parts are true and other parts false;

• Informal argumentation theory recognizes six types of knowledge claims:

designative, explanatory, definitive, evaluative, predictive and advocative.

Each type of knowledge claim may follow different argumentation rules upon evaluation. The three approaches of knowledge claim evaluation, however, do not distinguish between the six types of knowledge claims in innovation. Consequently, they do not distinguish different argumentation rules for different knowledge claims. We will discuss the implications of this refinement.

The structure of this chapter is as follows. Section 3.1 introduces the basic aspects of informal argumentation theory: the Toulmin argumentation structure, the three methods of challenging an argument, and the four basic argumentation structures.

Section 3.2 views Information Argumentation theory in the light of the existing theory of knowledge claim evaluation and innovation. We first connect the informal argumentation theory to the three approaches of knowledge claim evaluation, as discussed in Chapter 2. Subsequently, we address the implications for the theory of knowledge claim evaluation by acknowledging various types of knowledge claims in innovation. Section 3.3 ends the chapter with the conclusion.