PHILOSOPHY AND KNOWLEDGE: Discussions on literature

Michael FASCIA

Abstract


It is important to understand the significance of experiential reasoning behind
this interpretive position of knowledge before it is transferred. Important because,
the adaptation by the knowledge transfer practitioners involved purport to a
position of justification in the transfer schema. Alvesson and Karreman (2001)
advise that in addition to no agreed upon definition of knowledge within
management literature, no structured underpinning commonality can be offered
regarding the status of consequent knowledge transfer theoretical positioning.
Continuing on this theme, Alvesson and Karreman (2001) assert that problems
associated with knowledge transfer are indeed prevalent , as knowledge is
difficult to define and manage as it can be ambiguous, unspecific and a dynamic
phenomenon. Foss (1999) explains that a coherent and generally accepted
working definition of knowledge for the organisational environment has yet to be
established. Thompson and Walsham (2004) further stress that because
knowledge is a subjective perspective of an individual’s experience, associated
problems are inextricably related to the context of the knowledge itself. Von
Krogh et al. (2000) retorts that personal resources also contribute. As such, many
key authors focus on ways to understand and ultimately enhance this knowledge
understanding, and in doing so, explore various propositions, using occidental
foci, derived from historical secular concepts of: positivism (Gates 2001),
empiricism (Gupta 2006) and rationalism (Katz 2000).

Full Text:

PDF

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2018 Michael FASCIA

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.