[Sigcrit-l] [Fwd: CFP on "Philosophical foundations of knowledgemanagement"]

Wed Jun 8 08:43:18 EDT 2005

Apologies to the list this was meant for Ron only.
> fyi.  Ron Day
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "omt-l" <omt-l at aom.pace.edu>
> To: <omt-l at aom.pace.edu>
> Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 4:01 PM
> Subject: omt-l V1 #883
>
>
>> omt-l                          Mon, 6 Jun 2005           Volume 1 :
>> Number
>> 883
>>
>> In this issue:
>>
>>        Fw: ORGANIZATION call for papers "The philosophical foundations
>> of
>> knowledge management: Consequences for theory and practice"
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 21:09:36 +0100
>> From: "PabloMdeH" <pmdeh at ie.edu>
>> To: <omt-l at aom.pace.edu>
>> Subject: Fw: ORGANIZATION call for papers "The philosophical foundations
>> of knowledge management: Consequences for theory and practice"
>> Message-ID: <002f01c56ad3$ae1f55a0$2201a8c0 at Ometepe>
>>
>> Call for Papers
>>
>> ORGANIZATION
>>
>> Special Issue on
>>
>> The Philosophical Foundations of Knowledge Management:
>> Consequences for Organization Theory and Practice
>>
>>
>> Guest Editors:
>> Andreas Georg Scherer
>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>>
>> J.-C. Spender
>> Leeds University and Cranfield University, UK
>>
>> Deadline: July 31, 2005
>>
>>
>> There is widespread agreement that organizations might usefully be
>> re-considered as bodies, systems, or communities of knowledge, both
>> cognised and articulated into practices, so complementing their regular
>> definition as bundles of tangible assets or systems of explicit
>> instruction and authority. Though "knowledge" has been a focus of
>> philosophical study for centuries, an entirely new and, some might
>> argue, philosophically naive literature of 'knowledge management' (KM)
>> has emerged and is already exerting considerable influence over
>> managerial and organizational practice.  Reviewing it one might be
>> excused for concluding that almost everything now counts as knowledge:
>> implicit know-how, personal experience, rule books, values, data,
>> information, insights, as well as plans, programs, maps, organizational
>> routines, narrations, practices, and social norms.  Tools and machines
>> also embody knowledge.  Clearly we risk too ill-defined a base for
>> effective new knowledge-based theories of either organization or
>> management. But we still seek a definition of 'knowledge' precise enough
>> to be useful for this.
>>
>> The philosophy of science already offers us a vast literature about
>> distinguishing between scientific knowledge and non-knowledge, between
>> true and false scientific claims.  Is this helpful?  Students of KM are
>> increasingly familiar with alternative conceptions of scientific
>> knowledge: Realism, Empiricism, Rationalism, Constructivism, and
>> Postmodernism.  Yet, even for science, there is no agreement on a single
>> epistemology or methodology of knowledge or practice.  Competing
>> paradigms have become instead the basis for divergent proposals on how
>> to develop theories of KM and organization.
>>
>>
>>
>> This Special Issue is not intended to produce yet another summary of
>> what has been said so far, there are a number of these available
>> already.  Rather the Special Issue should advance the discussion
>> aggressively beyond established positions, perhaps along lines that
>> address entirely new philosophical, theoretical, and practical
>> questions.  It may also be that the way forward lies through a better
>> understanding of the gulf between cognition and practice, between ideas
>> and their implementation, a gulf that managers must negotiate daily but
>> which academics seldom venture into.
>>
>>
>>
>> Specifically, this Special Issue seeks to strengthen our understanding
>> of knowledge as relevant and useful to organization studies, to provide
>> a framework for academic debate on the role of knowledge and its place
>> in organization theory and the theory of the firm. We invite theoretical
>> or empirical contributions that probe the philosophical foundations of
>> knowledge management, especially those that compare the different
>> philosophical conceptions' theoretical and practical implications.
>> Relevant issues to consider are:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1.      What is an appropriate philosophical foundation for knowledge
>> management?
>>
>>
>>
>> * How is organizational knowledge to be understood?  Is such
>> knowledge a single coherent entity, a complex multi-faceted structure,
>> or a complex of activities?  Is it an "it" at all?
>> * What theoretically useful and practically relevant contributions
>> can be drawn from the classical epistemologies such as realism,
>> empiricism, constructivism, postmodernism?
>> * Do managers need or use a pluralist epistemology?  If yes, how
>> can one bridge across the different knowledge types and paradigms?
>>
>>
>>
>> 2.      What are the consequences for organization theory of taking
>> knowledge seriously?
>>
>>
>>
>> * Do we need different types of organization theory to address
>> different types of knowledge?
>> * What are the appropriate knowledge-based notions of the
>> organization/the firm?  A nexus of contracts?  A bundle of idiosyncratic
>> assets/resources?  A system of routinized activities?  An intersection
>> of resources and needs?  A system of cognitions and meanings?  What role
>> might knowledge play in each of these notions?
>> * If we adopt a non-totalizing post-modern approach, can we bridge
>> across the resulting multiple notions of the organization/the firm?
>>
>>
>> 3.      What are the consequences for management theory of taking
>> knowledge seriously?
>>
>> * Can there be a division of knowledge like the division of labor,
>> or can there only be a totalizing solution of 'shared knowledge'?
>> * If we admit divergences, how can managers deal with a plurality
>> of knowledge types and achieve their integration?  Is integration a
>> useful concept?  What are the consequences for the management of meaning
>> and organizational culture?
>> * What are the relationships between a knowledge-based theory of
>> the firm and managerial practice?
>>
>>
>> Submission procedure
>>
>>
>>
>> Papers must be sent electronically and dated before August 1st, 2005
>> (submitter's local date) to organization at som.umass.edu as Word email
>> attachments, indicating Philosophical Foundations of Knowledge in the
>> subject line.  Manuscripts should be prepared according to the
>> guidelines published in every issue of ORGANIZATION, also at the
>> journal's website:
>> http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalManuscript.aspx?pid=105723&sc=1.  Papers
>> should be between 5000 and 8000 words, exceptionally 10,000, and will be
>> blind reviewed following the journal's standard process.  For further
>> information contact the guest editors: Andreas Georg Scherer
>> (andreas.scherer at iou.unizh.ch) or J.-C. Spender
>> (jcspender at earthlink.net).
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> End of omt-l V1 #883
>> ********************
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sigcrit-l mailing list
> Sigcrit-l at asis.org
> http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigcrit-l
>

Mike Chumer, Ph.D.
Information Systems Dept
NJIT
University Heights
Newark, NJ 07102
973-596-5484
chumer at scils.rutgers.edu
chumer at njit.edu