The Quality of Evidence in Knowledge Management Research: Practitioner versus Scholarly Literature

Abstract

The fragmentation of knowledge management as a field and as an area of research poses serious theoretical challenges for researchers. The viability of KM rests on how the community responds to these challenges, but it also depends on how they garner empirical support for their purported theories. One aspect of this would involve the evaluation of the evidence provided in KM research. This paper presents a comparative study of the evidence that is presented in scholarly and professional literature on KM. For this purpose, the paper introduces a typology of evidence to analyze the data obtained from the survey of the literature. The classification based on this typology reveals no systematic difference between the types of evidence put forth in the scholarly and practitioner literature. However, closer examination reveals interesting differences in terms of the questions they ask, the perspective they adopt, and the methods they follow to convince others of the validity their claims. We explain these differences in terms of the notions of “blackboxing” and “performance” borrowed from actor-network theory. Drawing upon lessons from the philosophy of science and science studies, we explicate the different degrees of blackboxing by professionals and scholars in translating data of studied cases into “evidence” that is then handed down to others who take interest in it. The implications of these differences for scholarly research on KM will be discussed.