Negotiating Knowledge Gaps in Dispersed Knowledge Work

Literature Review

The Knowledge-based View of the Firm: Since the seminal article by Nonaka (1994), researchers have differed in their definition and operationalization of ‘knowledge’ as a construct. Therefore, alternative thoughts exist as to what knowledge means. A review of the literature along the epistemological dimensions permits one to discern two broad perspectives³ into which most writing can be classed (Assudani, 2005). In the first perspective, knowledge is viewed as a resource that can be possessed (knowledge ‘of’) or even created (‘knowledge from’) by actors and/or the networks in which they participate.

In the second, knowledge is viewed as a process of doing- of leveraging and mediating the relationship between the possession and the creation dimension. Integral to the process perspective is the exchange⁴ of knowledge. Knowledge exchange is defined as the perceived acquisition or perceived contribution of knowledge (Faraj & Wasko, 2005). However, more recent research has started to question these positivist processes of knowledge exchange as the sole basis for new knowledge creation (Salomon & Martin, 2008), and instead propose that engagement of diffused knowledge is crucial for knowledge creation. Engagement is defined as an act whereby the receiver (individual or a team) of embedded information actively uses the information by applying it to specific tasks leading to effective action in the situation where knowledge is relevant (Thompson et al., 2001). Engaging is a by-product of socialization – e.g. talking, listening, telling stories and narrating experiences – to make sense of the information. Forums such as joint interpretive forums allow members to challenge and question each other to make their own perspectives and also to take the perspectives of others (Boland & Tenkasi, 1995). This enhances the capability of the team members to generate useful actionable knowledge (Mohrman et al., 2001).