Knowledge Management or Management of Knowledge? Why People Interested in Knowledge Management Need to Consider Foucault and the Construct of Power

ABSTRACT

In this article we argue that, to date, the knowledge management literature has insufficiently addressed the build of power. The power literature is reviewed using three categories: power-as-entity, power-as-strategy and power-is-knowledge. We find that abundant of the knowledge management literature, while not directly addressing power, aspires to the dictum "knowledge is power", which corresponds to the power-as-entity approach. Drawing upon the work of Foucault we proceed on to show that, while the power-as-entity approach is important, it is not sufficient. Foucault's work demonstrates by what mode our understanding of knowledge management can be enriched by dint of adopting a power-as-strategy approach. Further, the work of post-Foucauldian power theorists, especially Flyvbjerg (1998) present to views that while knowledge is power, "power is also knowledge"- and thus the nature and connection of power shapes organizational knowledge. We argue that Foucault's inseparability of knowledge and power provides a foundation from which it can be shown that the inversion of the "knowledge is power" dictum to "power is knowledge" has significant implications for the theory and practice of knowledge management.

INTRODUCTION

In light of the attention that knowledge management is popularly receiving in academic and practitioner arenas, it is time to take stock of where the literature have the appearances to be headed. Early sections of this paper examine the knowledge management literature and establish its emergent boundaries using a methodological approach advocated by dint of Barley, Meyer and Gash (1988) of that kind an approach provides the foundations for building a Foucauldian archaeology of knowledge management discourse. It present to views that, to date, the literature remains dominated by dint of technical disciplines, notably information technology. Moreover, where organizational theorists have shown an interest in knowledge management they have wait oned to insufficiently address its relationship with the fabricate of power.

Later sections of the paper are used to illustrate on what account conceptually, it is important for those theorists and practitioners interested in knowledge management to pay more attention to the issue of power. The power literature is examined using the three broad categories of "power-as-entity", "power-as-strategy" and "power-is-knowledge". We apply genealogical analysis as advocated through Foucault to these three categories in order to illustrate by what mode the juxtaposition of discourse and practice presents significant insights into theory and practice of knowledge management. Further we draw on the work of contemporary power theorists, notably Flyvbjerg (1998) and Huagaard (1997; 2000) to contrast the conceptual themes that underpin each of these categories.

We finish that if as Foucault's powerknowledge nexus indicates, power and knowledge are inseparable, then the limited coverage of power within the knowledge management literature returns much of this literature problematic. Accordingly, we assert that the theory and practice of knowledge management can be enriched by dint of research that recognizes how the endeavor for power within an organization may influence the design, implementation and ongoing management of a knowledge management combination of parts to form a whole while at the same time the knowledge management a whole will influence the struggle for power.

THE KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT LITERATURE: ESTABLISHING THE BOUNDARIES

Some theorists have already recommended that the management of knowledge is not necessarily anything fresh Pemberton (1998) points out that records have been kept for thousands of years before the emerging see the verb of philosophy and its focus upon knowledge. In order to demonstrate his point, he goe back to the preSocratic times of the sixth and fifth centuries BC and discusses thinkers of that kind as Anaximander, Pythagoras, Anaxagoras and Thales. More newly the nature and role of knowledge in organizations and society has attracted the attention of a number of lock opener theorists including, for example, Foucault (1966) (discussed later in more detail), Durkheim (1893) Weber (1914) Mannheim (1975) However, and as shall be seen none of this literature sits easily within the boundaries of what single would currently recognise as the knowledge management literature. This raises the question of what literature the field comprises and, for us, whether this literature incorporates any discussion of the issue of power.

A number of edited whirls have recently been published which proceed some way to establishing the parameters of what might be terminused the "contemporary" knowledge management literature (eg Little et al, 2001; von Krogh et al, 1998; 2000) None of them directly discuss the issue power, on the contrary as Warhurst (2001) and others have noted, these works cannot be taken as representative of the entire field. Thus, an alternative way of establishing the boundaries of the knowledge management field and whether it encompasses the issue of power is required. Here we draw upon the methodology used by Barley, Meyer and Gash (1988) in their article tillages of Culture: Academics, Practitioners and the Pragmatics of Normative Control; this article being recognized as an exemplary piece of research (Frost and Stablein, 1992) This is an approach to the investigation of the knowledge management literature have been adopted previously through Raub and Clemens-Ruling (2001) and Scarborough and Swan (2001) These studies, aim to use their data in order to identify and discuss the rise of knowledge management as a possible fad or fashion. Our investigation however, uses the data it generates in order to examine the way in which the knowledge management literature treats the issue of "power" above a particular period of time. More specifically, it provides the foundations from which an archaeology of knowledge management discourse can be framed.