Management in Information Systems

Schultze & Leidner/Knowledge Management in IS Research

RESEARCH ARTICLE

STUDYING KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN
INFORMATION SYSTEMS RESEARCH:
DISCOURSES AND THEORETICAL
ASSUMPTIONS1
By: Ulrike Schultze
Cox School of Business
Southern Methodist University
P.O. Box 750333
Dallas, TX 75275-0333
U.S.A.
[e-mail]
Dorothy E. Leidner
Hankamer School of Business
Baylor University
Waco, TX 76798-8005
U.S.A.
[e-mail]

Abstract
In information systems, most research on knowledge management assumes that knowledge has positive implications for organizations. However, knowledge is a double-edged sword: while too little might result in expensive mistakes, too much

might result in unwanted accountability. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the lack of attention paid to the unintended consequences of managing organizational knowledge and thereby to broaden the scope of IS-based knowledge management research. To this end, this paper analyzes the IS literature on knowledge management. Using a framework developed by Deetz
(1996), research articles published between 1990 and 2000 in six IS journals are classified into one of four scientific discourses. These discourses are the normative, the interpretive, the critical, and the dialogic. For each of these discourses, we identify the research focus, the metaphors of knowledge, the theoretical foundations, and the implications apparent in the articles representing it. The metaphors of knowledge that emerge from this analysis are knowledge as object, asset, mind, commodity, and discipline. Furthermore, we present a paper that is exemplary of each discourse. Our objective with this analysis is to raise
IS researchers’ awareness of the potential and the implications of the different discourses in the study of knowledge and knowledge management.
Keywords: Epistemology, knowledge, knowledge management 1

Daniel Robey was the accepting senior editor for

References: Systems (6:1), 1997, pp. 25-40. Resource Allocation Decisions,” Journal of Management Information Systems (9:1), 1992, (9:1), 1992, pp. 133-163. Anand, V., Manz, C. C., and Glick, W. H. “An Organizational Memory Approach to Information Management,” Academy of Management Review (23:4), 1998, pp The Role of IT,” Journal of Strategic Information Systems (5), 1996, pp 111-127. Management and Information Technology (8), 1998, pp “MOTC: An Interactive Aid for Multidimensional Hypothesis Generation,” Journal of Management Information Systems (16:1), 1990, pp Journal of Strategic Information Systems (4:1), 1995 pp Management Information Systems (8:4), 1992, pp (5:3), 1994, pp. 456-475. England, 1977. Information Technologies (7:3), 1997, pp. 113138. Technology), MIT Press, Boston, 1999. (18:3), 1994, pp. 299-318. The Case of Xerox,” Accounting, Management and Information Technologies (8), 1998, 227236. Burrell, G., and Morgan, G. Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis, Heineman, London, 1979. Cohen, J. “A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales,” Educational and Psychological Measurement (20:1), 1960, pp About Information Sharing,” Information Systems Research (5:4), 1994, pp. 400-421.