Volume 7 - Issue 3

EJKM
Volume 7 Issue 3

Pluralism in Knowledge Management: a Review
James Sheffield
University of Auckland, New Zealand

The purpose of this article is to review the role of simultaneous application of multiple perspectives, or pluralism, in knowledge management, and to describe theoretical frameworks that support pluralism. Pluralism is defined as support for all three of the systems perspectives - hard, soft, and critical - that are implicit in the popular Davenport and Prusak (1998) definition of knowledge. These perspectives are associated with research paradigms (positivist, interpretivist, pluralist) and knowledge perspectives (application, normalization, creation). A case study of coordinating work in a hospital is reviewed to illustrate the role played by pluralistic approaches in knowledge management. A literature search is conducted to find frameworks that support pluralism.

Only three frameworks were located that support pluralism. The common elements of each are compared and contrasted with selected non-pluralistic frameworks. It is concluded that the knowledge management literature as a whole favours a single systems perspective (hard systems); a single research paradigm (positivism, focusing on objective facts); and a single knowledge management domain (knowledge application). This singular (non-pluralistic) approach produces theories about knowledge that have already emerged. Yet the Davenport and Prusak (1998) definition of knowledge and the hospital case study include two other perspectives – soft systems and critical systems – that focus on the organizational and individual aspects of emergence, respectively.

In practice, knowledge management must address the need to simultaneously solve technical problems, resolve interpersonal issues, and dissolve personal conflict. Each systems perspective constitutes a different discourse, and pluralisms are required to integrate them. Pluralisms constitute both a framework for inquiry in knowledge management and a design theory for collaborative technologies. The paper contributes to the literature that seeks to understand the complexity of knowledge management practice via ‘awareness of the potential and the implications of the different discourses in the study of knowledge and knowledge management.’

Keywords: critical systems, foundational theory, Habermasian inquiry, knowledge management, multiple perspectives, power relations, pluralism, scientific discourses, theoretical frameworks

Download FULL PAPER

Back to Contents