Developing the core principles of responsible knowledge management (rKM): Section 4.1 – Characteristics of the sample

This article is Section 4.1 of Chapter 4 of a series featuring my Master’s thesis The Emerging Concept of Responsible Knowledge Management (rKM): Identifying and Formulating the Core Principles of rKM.

The texts in the sample comprised mainly journal articles (52%) and individual book chapters (30%), with a smaller representation of conference papers (15%) and only one full book (3%). This distribution reflected the early and somewhat scattered state of rKM discourse: it has not yet become the domain of major monographs or unified collections. The strong representation of chapters and conference proceedings suggests that rKM remains an evolving conversation, still often nested within broader KM topics or discussed in exploratory venues rather than established outlets with defined canons.

The origins of the texts, 58% from Scopus and 42% from Google Scholar, provided a balance between academically curated sources and more grey or interdisciplinary literature. This dual sourcing enabled the inclusion of both rigorously peer-reviewed material and innovative or experimental thought pieces, without skewing the sample toward either end. It reflects a deliberate effort to capture the conceptual breadth of the field.

In terms of publication years, the selected texts spanned from 2020 to 2025, with 2022 marking the most productive year (34%). This peak suggests a recent intensification of scholarly interest in themes related to rKM, likely catalysed by global crises (e.g. pandemic, climate urgency) and growing critique of traditional KM’s value frameworks. The declining number of entries in 2024 and 2025 was expected given the lag in publication cycles and the narrow timeframe of the thesis. Perhaps the recent geopolitical turbulence, ranging from wars and authoritarian turns to global economic insecurity, may have disrupted the reflective conditions typically conducive to the development of philosophical musings. In this context, scholarly energy may have been diverted toward more immediate concerns. This might explain the modest slowdown in new conceptual proposals related to rKM in the last two years of the sample.

Another plausible interpretation is that the discursive terrain has shifted. While the concerns underpinning rKM (ethics, inclusivity, sustainability) remain relevant, they may now be addressed under different banners. Terms like indigeneity, decoloniality, regenerative knowledge, or flourishing may have gained traction. It is possible that the intellectual system has not abandoned the concerns of rKM but has redistributed them into new clusters of terminology and inquiry. In this sense, rKM continues the legacy of fragmented, multidisciplinary research just like its predecessor. Still, the presence of texts from every year confirmed the timeliness and continuity of the topic.

The majority of the texts were either literature reviews (59%) or conceptual explorations (17%), while case studies (10%), qualitative analyses (7%), and quantitative studies (7%) played a smaller role. This distribution indicates that rKM is not yet being evaluated or tested as a fixed construct but is instead being defined, imagined, and reframed. It also reflects the preliminary stage of the field, where sense-making remains central, with less emphasis on standardised measurement or comparative implementation. The relative absence of empirical work further highlights the conceptual and ethical nature of the emerging discourse, while also pointing to opportunities for future studies to apply and challenge these ideas in practice.

The 41 texts (32 individual pieces and all the 9 chapters of the one entire book) were authored by a wide range of contributors, with most offering just one text. A handful of prolific authors (such as Rocha, Kerschbaum, Bratianu, Durst, Kaiser, Kragulj) emerged, suggesting the presence of dedicated voices within the rKM space but no hegemonic core.

The majority of authors were affiliated with institutions in Europe and the Global North, which reflects the persistent epistemic imbalance in academic publishing. This pattern arguably confirms the structural exclusions that continue to marginalise knowledge contributions from the Global South¹. The requirement that all sample texts be published in English further reinforces this dynamic, limiting participation and visibility for alternative knowledge traditions that may be deeply relevant to the discourse on responsibility in KM but are excluded from dominant publication circuits. That said, it is worth noting that this sample, despite its modest size, did include contributions from scholars based in Brazil, Uganda, Costa Rica, and South Africa. While not sufficient to offset broader patterns of exclusion, these voices are a welcome presence and indicate that the discourse on rKM is at least tentatively inclusive.

Despite its varied formats, sources, and methodologies, the sample was surprisingly coherent in its underlying preoccupations. All texts contributed, in some way, to the effort to rethink KM in light of sustainability, ethics, or societal value. This consistency supports the use of the sample for an integrative literature review and grounded theory analysis: it provides a broad but thematically convergent base from which the conceptual contours of rKM could be derived, while the field remains open, conceptually fluid, and not yet shaped by dominant paradigms. The fragmented state of the field may reflect its novelty but also its need for synthesis, which this thesis tries to provide.

Next part: Section 4.2 – Observations from the Scopus search.

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: