Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Purpose This study aims to examine the evolution of knowledge management (KM) research over the past two decades, with particular attention to the growing role of digital technologies and artificial intelligence (AI) in scholarly discussions of knowledge processes. Design/methodology/approach The study adopts a data-driven approach based on a validated corpus of 4,714 journal articles published between 2000 and 2025. A topic modeling technique is used to identify the main thematic domains of the field and to trace their development over time. Findings The findings show that KM has progressively expanded beyond its traditional focus on internal organizational processes. While core themes such as knowledge sharing, organizational learning and intellectual capital remain central, the field increasingly incorporates topics related to digital technologies, sustainability and interorganizational knowledge flows. AI emerges as a growing but still evolving area, gradually connecting with established KM domains. Research limitations/implications The study analyzes published academic discourse and does not directly capture organizational practices. Future research could complement these findings with empirical studies of how AI-enabled KM is implemented in different contexts. Practical implications The results suggest that organizations should move beyond an internal view of KM and develop capabilities to coordinate knowledge across digital and organizational boundaries. Integrating AI into knowledge processes requires attention to governance, skills and accountability, alongside technological adoption. Originality/value This study provides a systematic account of the intellectual development of KM by combining computational analysis with an interpretive perspective. It contributes to the literature by showing how the field is evolving in response to technological and societal changes, while maintaining continuity with its core concepts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Magni et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: