The Field and Scope of the Handbook
For reasons of space, the title of the handbook refers to organizational learning and knowledge management; but two other important topics, ‘the learning organization’ and ‘organizational knowledge’, are also covered here. At first glance they may all seem very similar; but there are a number of important distinctions which we will explain below. The distinction between the first two terms was clearly articulated by Tsang (1997) to the extent that organizational learning refers to the study of the learning processes of and within organizations, largely from an academic point of view. The aims of such studies are therefore primarily to understand and critique what is taking place. On the other hand the learning organization is seen as an entity, an ideal type of organization, which has the capacity to learn effectively and therefore to prosper. Those who write about learning organizations generally aim to understand how to create and improve this learning capacity, and therefore they have a more practical impact and a performance agenda. We have gathered together papers in Part II of this volume, which reflect different aspects of the domain covered by these two terms.
A similar distinction can be made between the terms organizational knowledge and knowledge management. Those who write about the former often adopt a philosophical slant in trying to understand and conceptualize the nature of knowledge that is contained within organizations. Hence many of the discussions relate to distinctions between individual and organizational knowledge, whether the distinction between tacit and explicit knowledge is useful, or whether knowledge is a strategic advantage or asset. Also covered is how and what knowledge is shared and how knowledge is stored. Those who write about the latter generally adopt a technical approach aimed at creating ways of measuring, disseminating, storing, and leveraging knowledge in order to enhance organizational performance. The role and design of information technology is also important to such discussions. Part III of the Handbook considers issues in the domain of organizational knowledge and knowledge management (for example, see Almeida, Hohberger, and Parada, Chapter 18; Teece, Chapter 23; Zollo and Verona, Chapter 24; and Ahuja and Novelli, Chapter 25).
Part IV recognizes the importance of organizational learning and knowledge within the expanding international context of research in this area. The chapters in this section of the Handbook address areas of intercultural exchange, international context, and learning across borders.
In Figure 1.1 we offer an initial mapping of these four terms, based on the dichotomies of theory-practice and content-process. The first of these dichotomies follows the concerns of academics against those of practitioners, as described above. Even this is not necessarily straightforward. For example, a critical study of a learning organization would fit into the organizational learning box, and a study of the way knowledge is constructed within corporate knowledge management systems would belong to the organizational knowledge box.
Figure 1.1 Mapping of Key Topics in the Handbook
The second dichotomy, the distinction between learning and knowledge, also seems fairly obvious: knowledge being the stuff (or content) that the organization possesses, and learning being the process whereby it acquires this stuff. Again, things are not quite so simple, as several of the chapters will demonstrate. For example, some chapters build on the paper by Cook and Brown (1999) which distinguishes between the epistemologies of possession and practice. In this case ‘possession’ fits well with the view of knowledge as content, but the epistemology of practice (or knowing) fits more closely with the process of learning from experience. We mention these potential limitations in passing because we still believe that it is valuable to start with some clear organizing principles, as an initial map for the reader. But we would also hope that those who get to the end of the book will become very clear about the inadequacies of such dichotomies!
There are also a number of themes and issues, which cut across the whole field, and therefore touch on all four quadrants of Figure 1.1. Some of these are fundamental issues about the nature of knowledge (Tsoukas, Chapter 21) and the processes of learning (Vera et al., Chapter 8); others relate to the role played by culture (Taylor and Osland, Chapter 26), emotion (Vince and Gabriel, Chapter 15), forgetting (de Holan and Phillips, Chapter 20), social identity (Child and Rodrigues, Chapter 14), and organizational identity (Corley et al., Chapter 16).
Many of the chapters review and update key concepts such as knowledge sharing (Salk and Simonon, Chapter 27), dominant logic (Bettis et al., Chapter 17), communities of practice (Plaskoff, Chapter 10; von Krogh, Chapter 19), teams (Roloff, Woolley, and Edmondson, Chapter 12), fluidity (Calhoun et al., Chapter 11), knowledge assets (Teece, Chapter 23), knowledge structures (Ahuja and Novelli, Chapter 25), absorptive capacity (Van Wijk, Van den Bosch, and Volberda, Chapter 13), and dynamic capabilities (Zollo and Verona, Chapter 24). Not only is it possible to locate these concepts on the general map of Figure 1.1, but it is also worth noting that they are often informed by different disciplinary and ontological assumptions (Easterby-Smith, 1997). That is why we have grouped a number of chapters into Part I, which considers the disciplinary perspectives underlying current developments in the field. We therefore hope that these chapters will enable readers to locate more clearly the different papers in subsequent parts of the book.
This brings us to the next section of the initial chapter. On the grounds that knowledge of the past is useful in making sense of the present, our aim here is to consider some of the formative influences in the field from a historical perspective. Thereby we hope to explain both similarities and differences between distinct parts of the field.