Developing the core principles of responsible knowledge management (rKM): Chapter 1 – Introduction
This article begins Chapter 1 of a series featuring my Master’s thesis The Emerging Concept of Responsible Knowledge Management (rKM): Identifying and Formulating the Core Principles of rKM.
Knowledge management (KM) research has long been accused of lacking criticality (Dumay1, Heisig2). The field is either ahistorical or amnesic (Wallace3, Lambe4), haphazardly reinventing itself with gusto (Koenig & Neveroski5) yet persistently circling the same epistemic drain of oblivion (Davenport6, O’Leary7, Dumay8, Dalkir9). KM has paid dearly for its submission to “the logic of performance, aimed at maximising the overall efficiency of the system” (Peters10, paraphrasing the ideas of Lyotard11).
The resulting “commodity fetish” has effectively reduced knowledge “to encoded messages with exchange value – information that can be stored, retrieved, packaged, calculated, and transmitted” (Peters12, paraphrasing the ideas of Lyotard13). Similarly, individuals, once valued as contributors of human capital, have been reduced to what Deleuze termed “dividuals”, mere data points and statistics in a databank (Peters14).
Trapped in cycles of instrumentalism and the promise of ever greater efficiency, KM struggles to articulate why knowledge should be managed beyond the logic of performance. “The notion of performance and its criterion of efficiency are technological and cannot provide us with a rule for judging what is true or just or beautiful” (Peters15).
Thankfully, rather than succumbing to oblivion, a reorientation is beginning to emerge. Responsible knowledge management (rKM) presents itself as a critical and timely subject of inquiry. As the limits of prevailing paradigms for growth and maximum performance become obvious, humanity is given the opportunity to appreciate the restorative aspects of knowledge work that may offer remedies for the so-called wicked problems (Rittel & Webber16) that defy the linear, straightforward solutions and demand collaborative, systemic approaches extending beyond narrow economic priorities and siloed thinking.
Next part: Section 1.1 – It is not the VUCA world anymore.
Article source: Koskinen, H. M. (2025). The Emerging Concept of Responsible Knowledge Management (rKM): Identifying and Formulating the Core Principles of rKM. (Master’s Thesis, LUT University).
Header image source: Created by Hanna M. Koskinen using ChatGPT.
References:
- Dumay, J. (2022). Using critical KM to address wicked problems. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 20(5), 767-775. ↩
- Heisig, P. (2023). Knowledge Management Essentials: Reflections on the Core of the Discipline and Future Outlook. In The Future of Knowledge Management: Reflections from the 10th Anniversary of the International Association of Knowledge Management (IAKM) (pp. 91-109). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. ↩
- Wallace, D. P. (2007). Knowledge Management: Historical and Cross-Disciplinary Themes. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. ↩
- Lambe, P. (2011). The unacknowledged parentage of knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Nanagement, 15(2), 175-197. ↩
- Koenig, M., & Neveroski, K. (2008). The Origins and Development of Knowledge Management. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management, 7(04), 243-254. ↩
- Davenport, T. H. (2015). Whatever Happened to Knowledge Management? The Wall Street Journal. ↩
- O’Leary, D. E. (2016). Is knowledge management dead (or dying)? Journal of Decision Systems, 25(sup1), 512-526. ↩
- Dumay, J. (2022). Using critical KM to address wicked problems. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 20(5), 767-775. ↩
- Dalkir, K. (2023). Knowledge Management in Theory and Practice. Routledge. ↩
- Peters, M. A. (2001). Poststructuralism, Marxism, and Neoliberalism: Between Theory and Politics. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Lanham. ↩
- Lyotard, J. F. (1984). The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (Vol. 10). U of Minnesota Press. ↩
- Peters, M. A. (2001). Poststructuralism, Marxism, and Neoliberalism: Between Theory and Politics. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Lanham. ↩
- Lyotard, J. F. (1984). The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (Vol. 10). U of Minnesota Press. ↩
- Peters, M. A. (2001). Poststructuralism, Marxism, and Neoliberalism: Between Theory and Politics. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Lanham. ↩
- Peters, M. A. (2001). Poststructuralism, Marxism, and Neoliberalism: Between Theory and Politics. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Lanham. ↩
- Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155-169. ↩
