The development of knowledge management (KM) in theory and praxis continues to involve a wide range of disciplines and contributors, each bringing their respective experiences, beliefs, and practices. Two of the main disciplines that contribute to the KM discourse are information systems and management. However, this study of KM has revealed an apparent dichotomy between those researchers from an information systems background and those from a management background. Approaches and models based on each perspective have emerged, but there is little evidence of synergy and convergence. This article shows that attempts to develop an optimal KM methodology are misplaced unless the underlying assumptions and paradigms are identified and understood. Furthermore, it is proposed that KM is currently in a state of “pre-science,” wherein proponents of different paradigms have their own beliefs and values and often disagree with others about fundamentals within the field.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hazlett et al. (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: