Research proposal v2

| Research Questions | Methodology |

Background

Knowledge has become the main source of economic growth in developed economies. This has been well documented in the literature; authors have described the fundamental role of innovation (Schumpeter, 1934), the emergence of a knowledge sector in the economy (Machlup, 1962), the critical importance of scientific knowledge (Bell, 1973), the evolution of knowledge-intensive industries (Stehr, 1994), and the growth of knowledge workers (Drucker, 1969), among other developments.

The central role of knowledge in the economy gave birth to the knowledge management (KM) discipline, a converging point of research in many fields, from economics and sociology, to strategic management and organization science, to information and computer science. KM research topics include a knowledge-based theory of the firm (Kogut and Zander, 1992), innovation and knowledge creation (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995), organizational learning (Brown and Duguid, 1991), information management (Rowley and Farrow, 2000), and knowledge-based systems (DeSouza, 2002).

Along with the many streams of research in KM, there is an emerging debate on who the workers involved are and what they are supposed to do (McInerney and LeFevre, 2000). Also, there is a growing concern over how professional education and training can adequately prepare them for the role (Ruth et al., 2003). Among the difficulties to develop formal KM education are the diversity of KM roles and functions and the lack of consensus on what topics belong to a KM curriculum (Srikantaiah, 2004). This is the focus of this study.

Objectives

We aim to identify, describe and analyze existing graduate KM programs worldwide. Our hypothesis is that divergent perspectives on KM adopted in those programs have led to different ways to organize content and activities, resulting in distinct profiles of graduating students. The following research questions will guide our study:

Major research question:

• How has graduate KM education been practiced and why?

Subsidiary research questions:

• What content is taught and how is it organized?
• How were existing programs developed and how have they evolved over time?
• What are the assumptions and intentions behind existing designs?
• How do graduating students fit different KM roles?

Methodology

We will adopt a qualitative approach based on an explanatory multi-case study, comparing selected programs and offering institutions as a way to explain similarities and differences among existing approaches to graduate KM education. The study will be divided in two steps:

• Qualitative content analysis of program descriptions and courses’ contents
• E-mail survey of program coordinators to identify intended audience and objectives

• Unstructured interviews of program coordinators
• Semi-structured interviews of selected instructors 
• E-mail survey of graduating students

Schedule

Dissertation		2005
Manuscript		Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
	Literature review	X	X
	Survey of KM programs		X
	Case studies			X
	Conclusions				X
Research		2005
Survey of existing KM programs		Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
	Collection of data	X
	Analysis of findings	X
Case studies of relevant programs		Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
	Collection of preliminary information		X
	Interviews and questionnaire			X
	Analysis of findings				X

Expected outcomes

We expect the following results as the outcome of this study:

• An actor-factor model of the development of graduate KM programs, explaining how design choices in graduate KM education are made.
• An educational model of KM, relating different categories of public and objectives with different combinations of content and activities.

Distinctiveness and originality

Knowledge management is a recent phenomenon, and academic consensus around established concepts, models and theories is still being build. KM education is even newer, and research on the topic is sporadic and scarce, still presenting an exploratory nature. This is, to the best of our knowledge, the first in-depth study of existing graduate KM programs.

Our approach also presents some distinguishing features. The concept of KM roles, although presented and discussed in the literature, has not yet been explicitly associated to KM education. We will detail the concept of typical KM roles, arguing that each requires a different set of knowledge and skills, and therefore a specific type of education.

Another innovative feature in our approach is the concept of KM literacy. We will explore and develop this concept, arguing that there is a common set of basic knowledge and skills on KM that are required of all those participating in knowledge-intensive firms and industries, and that can be provided in general higher education.

And finally, we will conduct the case studies completely over electronic means. The collection of data on existing programs, the semi-structured interviews with instructors and program coordinators, and the survey of graduating students will all be conducted online, with the use of varied communication means.

References

Bell, D. (1973). The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting. New York: Basic Books.

Brown, J. S., Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational Learning and Communities of Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40-57.

Desouza, K. C. (2002). Managing Knowledge with Artificial Intelligence. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Drucker, P. F. (1969). The Age of Discontinuity. London: Heinemann.

Kogut, B., Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology. Organization Science, 3 (3), 383-397.

Machlup, F. (1962). The Production and Distribution of Knowledge in the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

McInerney, C., LeFevre, D. (2000). Knowledge managers: History and challenges. In C. Prichard, R. Hull, M. Churner and H. Willmott (eds.), Managing knowledge: Critical Investigations of Work and Learning, pp. 1-19, London: Macmillan Business.

Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rowley, J., Farrow, J. (2000). Organizing Knowledge: An Introduction to Managing Access to Information. 3^rd. ed. (1^st ed. 1987). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Ruth, S., Frizzell, V. and Shaw, N. (2003). “Knowledge Management Education: An Overview of Programs of Instruction”. In C. W. Holsapple (ed.), Handbook on Knowledge Management, Vol. 2, Chap. 60, pp. 581-603, New York: Springer-Verlag.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle . Translated by Redvers Opie. Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press. Second Printing 1936; third printing 1949.

Srikantaiah, T. K. (2004). “Training and Education in Knowledge Management”. In M. E. D. Koenig and T. K. Srikantaiah (Eds.), Knowledge Management Lessons Learned: What Works and What Doesn’t, Chap. 30, pp. 497-510, Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Stehr, N. (1994). Knowledge Societies. London: Sage.