Knowledge

In the knowledge economy, knowledge has become the key economic resource which has assigned the traditional factors of production, labour and capital to ‘second place’ and has become the overriding source of competitive advantage (Smedlund, 2008; Drucker, 1995). Knowledge is of particular importance to those organisations that are dependent on their workforces’ knowledge such as

management consultancies (Alvesson, 2004). It is no longer sufficient for

organisations to apply and disseminate knowledge efficiently in order to compete successfully in their markets but also indispensable to constantly create new knowledge (Nonaka, 1994; Garvey and Williamson, 2002).

Most research refers to Polanyi (1962) and his understanding of knowledge which is based on Plato’s work of the classical Greek period (Robertson, 1999). In his work Polanyi (1962, p.4) describes knowledge as “justified true belief”. This individual, cognitive understanding is based on a realist ontology (Miller, 2008). Nonaka (1994) criticises Polanyi’s (1962) understanding by stating that the truthfulness of

knowledge, if at all, should on the individual level be judged in relation to individual belief. However, Nonaka (1994) suggests that the justification of knowledge should not take place on the individual level but instead within an organisational context. By emphasising the organisational context in connection to the justification of

knowledge, focus is placed on the highly contextual and situated nature of knowledge (Robertson, 1999).

Researchers such as Cook and Brown (1999) and Gherardi and Nicolini (2000) replace the notion of knowledge being objective and static with an understanding of knowledge as being dynamic, understanding it as a practice of knowing. Tsoukas and Mylonopoulos (2004) add that the constructed nature of any form of knowledge is dependent on social practices and the context in which it has been established. Hence, knowledge cannot be neutral or unbiased or separated from the values of the individuals creating it (Hislop, 2009). This social-constructionist perspective on knowledge and learning taken in this research which acknowledges that knowledge is subjective and socially constructed also implies that what constitutes knowledge is open to debate and therefore challenges the cognitive-possession perspective that knowledge can be truly objective (Hislop, 2009). Competing understandings of what represents ‘legitimate’ knowledge can occur when conflicting understandings of the same events are constructed by different groups of individuals. As a consequence,

power and politics become more important with regard to which knowledge becomes legitimate (Storey and Barnett, 2000; Foucault, 1980).

Researchers such as Polanyi (1966), Blackler (1995) and Nonaka (2004) distinguish knowledge into tacit and explicit knowledge depending on how accessible it is. Tacit knowledge is regarded as residing within a single person or a group of people, the ‘knowers’ and as difficult to articulate adequately. Tacit knowledge is often referred to as ‘know-how’ (Polanyi, 1962) and related to skills. Knowledge is regarded as explicit when it can be stored in inanimate containers such as databases and

manuals and therefore easy to share and theoretically accessible to a wider circle of persons (O’Dell and Grayson, 1998). It is therefore often described as ‘know what’ (Polanyi, 1962). Inherent to this classification of knowledge is the understanding that knowledge is an objective and discrete entity, a ‘thing’ (Gourlay, 2004) an individual can possess (Cook and Brown, 1999) which is in line with the cognitive-possession perspective on knowledge and learning. Authors such as Tsoukas (1996), Werr and Stjernberg (2003) argue that the tacit and the explicit dimensions do not represent two separate types of knowledge but describe different aspects of knowledge which cannot be separated. Hence, all knowledge has both explicit and tacit facets. The understanding of knowledge as something people do (Blackler, 1995) supports this view by eliminating the distinction between the body and the mind and emphasising rather that knowing and doing are undividable which implies that ‘know-how’ (tacit knowledge), and ‘know what’ (explicit knowledge) are interlinked. In line with this perspective this thesis does not distinguish between an explicit and tacit dimension of knowledge.

Yanow (2004) further classifies knowledge into local and expert knowledge in organisations. According to Yanow (2004) local knowledge is created and developed in context through interaction among people sharing the same work practice, whereas expert knowledge is usually derived from formal or academic training which is scientifically constructed. This kind of knowledge is described as general and abstract whereas local knowledge is understood as being developed through practical reasoning about events taking place in a specific context. Often individuals hold both types of knowledge depending on their formal education and practical experiences. However, often expert knowledge is paid more attention to since it is in the hand of managers which also hold the power to decide which knowledge is accepted in the organisation whereas local knowledge is often created and developed at organisational peripheries such as clients’ sites which are kept from the organisation’s centre where politics and decisions are made. Consequently,

local knowledge is often not only neglected and not viewed as expert knowledge but also not taken into account in the overall learning processes of the organisation (Yanow, 2004). These two dimensions are more in line with the cognitive-

possession perspective on knowledge and learning. Nevertheless, they proofed to be of importance in the consultants’ accounts introduced in Chapter Five in relation to the acceptance of the experiences and skills consultants gained on client projects and the acceptance of this knowledge by management.

Knowledge sharing from a social-constructionist perspective is not understood as simple exchange of objective knowledge between individuals but as a process of social construction of knowledge by individuals to which these individuals contribute their prior experiences and skills (Hislop, 2009). Hence, in this research knowledge sharing is regarded as inherent in the process of knowledge creation and is

therefore not dealt with separately.