Social capital and tacit knowledge sharing in organisational projects in Malaysian ICT companies

An increasing number of organisational researchers have turned to social capital theory in an attempt to better understand the impetus for knowledge sharing at the individual and organisational level. This thesis extends that research by investigating the impact of social capital on knowledge sharing at the group-level in the organisational project context. The objective of the thesis is to investigate the importance of social capital in fostering tacit knowledge sharing among the team members of a project. The analytical focus is on the Nahapiet and Ghoshal framework of social capital but also includes elements of other scholars' work. In brief, social capital is defined as an asset that is embedded in the network of relationships possessed by an individual or social unit. It is argued that the main dimensions of social capital that are of relevance to knowledge sharing are structural, cognitive, and relational because these, among other things, foster the exchange and combination of knowledge and resources among the team members. Empirically, the study is based on the grounded theory method. Data were collected from five projects in large, medium, and small ICT companies in Malaysia. Underpinned by the constant comparative method, data were derived from 55 interviews, and observations. The data were analysed using open, axial, and selective coding. The analysis also involved counting frequency occurrence from the coding generated by grounded theory to find the important items and categories under social capital dimensions and knowledge sharing, and for further explaining sub-groups within the data. The analysis shows that the most important dimension for tacit knowledge sharing is structural capital. Most importantly, the findings also suggest that structural capital is a prerequisite of cognitive capital and relational capital at the group-level in an organisational project. It also found that in a project context, relational capital is hard to realise because it requires time and frequent interactions among the team members. The findings from quantitative analysis show that frequent meetings and interactions, relationship, positions, shared visions, shared objectives, and collaboration are among the factors that foster the sharing of tacit knowledge among the team members. In conclusion, the present study adds to the existing literature on social capital in two main ways. Firstly, it distinguishes the dimensions of social capital and identifies that structural capital is the most important dimension in social capital and it is a prerequisite of cognitive and relational capital in a project context. Secondly, it identifies the causal sequence in the dimension of social capital suggesting avenues for further theoretical and empirical work in this emerging area of inquiry.

A sociolinguistic approach to applied epistemology: Examining technocratic values in global 'knowledge' policy

This special issue presents an excellent opportunity to study applied epistemology in public policy. This is an important task because the arena of public policy is the social domain in which macro conditions for ‘knowledge work’ and ‘knowledge industries’ are defined and created. We argue that knowledge-related public policy has become overly concerned with creating the politico-economic parameters for the commodification of knowledge. Our policy scope is broader than that of Fuller (1988), who emphasizes the need for a social epistemology of science policy. We extend our focus to a range of policy documents that include communications, science, education and innovation policy (collectively called knowledge-related public policy in acknowledgement of the fact that there is no defined policy silo called ‘knowledge policy’), all of which are central to policy concerned with the ‘knowledge economy’ (Rooney and Mandeville, 1998). However, what we will show here is that, as Fuller (1995) argues, ‘knowledge societies’ are not industrial societies permeated by knowledge, but that knowledge societies are permeated by industrial values. Our analysis is informed by an autopoietic perspective. Methodologically, we approach it from a sociolinguistic position that acknowledges the centrality of language to human societies (Graham, 2000). Here, what we call ‘knowledge’ is posited as a social and cognitive relationship between persons operating on and within multiple social and non-social (or, crudely, ‘physical’) environments. Moreover, knowing, we argue, is a sociolinguistically constituted process. Further, we emphasize that the evaluative dimension of language is most salient for analysing contemporary policy discourses about the commercialization of epistemology (Graham, in press). Finally, we provide a discourse analysis of a sample of exemplary texts drawn from a 1.3 million-word corpus of knowledge-related public policy documents that we compiled from local, state, national and supranational legislatures throughout the industrialized world. Our analysis exemplifies a propensity in policy for resorting to technocratic, instrumentalist and anti-intellectual views of knowledge in policy. We argue that what underpins these patterns is a commodity-based conceptualization of knowledge, which is underpinned by an axiology of narrowly economic imperatives at odds with the very nature of knowledge. The commodity view of knowledge, therefore, is flawed in its ignorance of the social systemic properties of ��knowing’.

Phenomenological turbulence and innovation in knowledge systems

Most considerations of knowledge management focus on corporations and, until recently, considered knowledge to be objective, stable, and asocial. In this paper we wish to move the focus away from corporations, and examine knowledge and national innovation systems. We argue that the knowledge systems in which innovation takes place are phenomenologically turbulent, a state not made explicit in the change, innovation and socio-economic studies of knowledge literature, and that this omission poses a serious limitation to the successful analysis of innovation and knowledge systems. To address this lack we suggest that three evolutionary processes must be considered: self-referencing, self-transformation and self-organisation. These processes, acting simultaneously, enable system cohesion, radical innovation and adaptation. More specifically, we argue that in knowledge-based economies the high levels of phenomenological turbulence drives these processes. Finally, we spell out important policy principles that derive from these processes.

The sociological perspective on the knowledge-based society: assumptions, facts and visions

The paper will present the central discourse of the knowledge-based society. Already in the 1960s the debate of the industrial society already raised the question whether there can be considered a paradigm shift towards a knowledge-based society. Some prominent authors already foreseen ‘knowledge’ as the main indicator in order to displace ‘labour’ and ‘capital’ as the main driving forces of the capitalistic development. Today on the political level and also in many scientific disciplines the assumption that we are already living in a knowledge-based society seems obvious. Although we still do not have a theory of the knowledge-based society and there still exist a methodological gap about the empirical indicators, the vision of a knowledge-based society determines at least the perception of the Western societies. In a first step the author will pinpoint the assumptions about the knowledge-based society on three levels: on the societal, on the organisational and on the individual level. These assumptions are relied on the following topics: a) The role of the information and communication technologies; b) The dynamic development of globalisation as an ‘evolutionary’ process; c) The increasing importance of knowledge management within organisations; d) The changing role of the state within the economic processes. Not only the differentiation between the levels but also the revision of the assumptions of a knowledge-based society will show that the ‘topics raised in the debates’ cannot be considered as the results of a profound societal paradigm shift. However what seems very impressive is the normative and virtual shift towards a concept of modernity, which strongly focuses on the role of technology as a driving force as well as on the global economic markets, which has to be accepted. Therefore – according to the official debate - the successful adaptation of these processes seems the only way to meet the knowledge-based society. Analysing the societal changes on the three levels, the label ‘knowledge-based society’ can be seen critically. Therefore the main question of Theodor W. Adorno during the 16th Congress of Sociology in 1968 did not loose its actuality. Facing the societal changes he asked whether we are still living in the industrial society or already in a post-industrial state. Thinking about the knowledge-based society according to these two options, this exercise would enrich the whole debate in terms of social inequality, political, economic exclusion processes and at least the power relationship between social groups.

The First WORKS Conference on Transformation of Work in a Global Knowledge Economy

The relationship between the changes of the global economy and individual working conditions formed the background of the first WORKS conference “The transformation of work in a global knowledge economy: towards a conceptual framework”, held in Chania, Greece from 21st – 22nd September, 2006 and attended by around 50 European researchers. Experts from academia and trade unions from all over the world were invited to give insights into their field of research, contributing to one of the main topics of the conference: (i) globalisation and organisational restructuring, (ii) workers’ organisation, the quality of working life and the gender dimension and (iii) global experiences and recommendations.