Developing the core principles of responsible knowledge management (rKM): Section 2.8.2 – Post-normal science: ethics for complex systems
This article is Section 2.8.2 of Chapter 2 of a series featuring my Master’s thesis The Emerging Concept of Responsible Knowledge Management (rKM): Identifying and Formulating the Core Principles of rKM.
This open, dynamic view of systems gains further ethical depth when considered alongside the concept of post-normal science, originally developed by Funtowicz and Ravetz and further elaborated by Meskens. If systems flourish through disequilibrium, through interaction, unpredictability, and openness, then so too must our knowledge practices. Post-normal science challenges the conventional understanding of science as a purely technical or objective endeavour, particularly in contexts where uncertainty is high, values are contested, and decisions bear weighty, irreversible consequences. In these conditions, knowledge must be produced not only by experts but by diverse actors from transdisciplinary fields through inclusive deliberation, where the ‘truth’ is not discovered but negotiated, transparently, reflexively, and in full view of the societal stakes involved. Meskens1 argues that such deliberation must involve what Funtowicz and Ravetz call an ‘extended peer community’, recognising that credible hypotheses emerge from the confrontation and co-interpretation of multiple viewpoints, and that this “(respectfully) confrontational” dialogic process itself lends them their legitimacy.
Reflexivity2 is therefore not optional but essential: we are never mere observers of complexity but participants in its co-creation. Any attempt to address complex problems must also confront how we interpret and position ourselves in relation to them. In this expanded epistemic landscape, ‘extended facts’ include not only empirical evidence and expert opinion, but also the feelings, values, and situated experiences of those most directly affected, as well as critical reflection on the interests and assumptions that guide all participants, including scientists, policymakers, and citizens alike.
Crucially, this ethical orientation is not limited to the present. Post-normal science calls on us to deliberate not only for ourselves, but for those who cannot yet speak. Meskens frames inclusive deliberative decision making as the best means of handing over the future as a common good to future generations, a gesture of care that recognises our autonomous moral authority in shaping what comes next. When systems thinking is understood in this light, flourishing becomes inseparable from responsibility. The vitality of an open system is not just a matter of sustaining adaptive potential, but of sustaining ethical possibility: to remain open to difference, accountable for our own positioning, and mindful of the futures we co-author through the knowledge we choose to validate and act upon.
At its core, General Systems Theory offers not a formula for control but a framework for possibility, a vision of reality grounded in plurality, disequilibrium, and interaction. While often misunderstood as a neutral mapping of systems, von Bertalanffy’s work in fact gestures toward a far more vital and dynamic worldview. Systems, as he describes them, are not static structures but open, adaptive processes shaped by feedback, interdependence, and the coexistence of multiple, also conflicting, elements. This orientation makes systems thinking inherently inclusive and collaborative, not because it prescribes consensus, but because it values the generative tension of diverse perspectives. Far from seeking stability for its own sake, a living system thrives in flux; it survives by responding, evolving, and reorganising. When we shift our attention from isolated entities to the relations between them, new ethical and creative possibilities emerge. In such a view, flourishing and the common good are not abstract ideals, but potential outcomes of systems attuned to mutual responsiveness and distributed agency. This is not a logic of conformity but one of coexistence, one that resists closure, and in doing so, affirms life.
In an open systems view, knowledge cannot be bounded within the organisation but circulates across networks, ecosystems, and stakeholder communities. KM in this frame is about navigating interdependence, plurality, and responsibility; not about stabilising internal flows. This is a fundamentally different orientation from the intraorganisational model, which focuses on containing, codifying, and optimising knowledge as if it were an asset bound by organisational walls.
The preceding sections have highlighted both the achievements and the persistent tensions of KM, showing how its dominant assumptions shape what is emphasised and what remains overlooked. To sum up, this chapter has traced the development of Knowledge Management as a field shaped by managerial, technological, and economic imperatives. It has shown that while KM has offered valuable tools for organising and leveraging knowledge, it has done so within a narrow frame that prioritises efficiency, performance, and control – often at the cost of nuance, plurality, and ethical engagement.
The chapter explored key tensions in how knowledge itself is conceptualised, particularly the limitations of treating it as a stable asset or codifiable entity. It examined how KM’s fixation on metrics, rooted in economic logic and managerialism, has narrowed the field’s understanding of value, reducing knowledge to a performative proxy. It also revealed the near-absence of ethical reflection in mainstream KM, highlighting the instrumentalization of ethics in service of legitimacy rather than responsibility. Finally, through von Bertalanffy’s systems theory, it introduced a radically different worldview, one that values openness, complexity, and interdependence over reductionism and stability. These insights lay the groundwork for understanding why a more responsible approach to KM may be not just preferable, but essential.
The next chapter turns from the theoretical to the methodological. It outlines the ontological and epistemological commitments that shape this thesis, followed by a description of the research design. The chapter presents and justifies the use of an integrative literature review and grounded theory as complementary methods for examining the emerging concept of rKM, while remaining attentive to the layered histories and conceptual ambiguities traced here.
Next part: Chapter 3 – Research framework.
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 and notes:
