Developing the core principles of responsible knowledge management (rKM): Section 4.5 – Findings of the integrative literature review

This article is Section 4.5 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 academic literature reviewed for this integrative literature review demonstrates a growing, though diverse, effort to articulate what responsibility in knowledge management might entail. Despite the conceptual novelty and varying disciplinary lenses, several recurring principles and associated practices emerged across the sampled texts.

The first prominent theme discovered is the positioning of practical wisdom (phronesis) as an orienting principle for rKM. Practical wisdom is “generally understood as the ability to determine and undertake the best action in a specific situation to serve the common good” (S28 Peschl, Kaiser and Fordinal¹, p. 5; referring to Nonaka and Toyama). Several authors proposed phronesis as a moral scaffolding that guides action, combining ethical reflection with context-sensitive judgement. Practical wisdom was variously presented as a personal virtue, an organisational capacity, or a heuristic for decision-making that resists rigid, instrumental rationality. Phronesis “provides a robust and future-oriented heuristic that enables us to weigh alternatives and make decisions for the common good. Phronesis is closely linked to the ability to actively shape the business environment and pursue a desirable future” (S02 Rocha, Kragulj and Pinheiro², p. 436). This theme further extended into discussions of organisational phronesis, which blends learning, ethics, leadership, and spirituality into a holistic capacity to act responsibly in uncertain and complex contexts. “Hence, phronesis is always directed toward living both in harmony with society and the environment as well as with oneself” (S28 Peschl, Kaiser and Fordinal³, p. 11).

Closely related was the emphasis on spirituality and non-rational knowledge, elements historically marginalised in mainstream KM. Many texts introduced spirituality not in the religious sense, but as a value-laden orientation towards wholeness, purpose, and the interconnection of life. “[S]pirituality is the ongoing transformation of a human being in an engaged and responsible relationship with oneself, the other, [and] the world” (S32 Long⁴, p. 836; citing Dienberg and Warode, 815). These discussions foregrounded the self and organisation as entities unfolding toward a higher end, with knowledge processes framed not only as rational undertakings but also as reflective, ethical, and aspirational practices. “[T]hese transformations are purposefully initiated, aiming for profound, substantial, and meaningful change that is intentionally triggered” (S28 Peschl, Kaiser and Fordinal⁵, p. 2). The emergence of Spiritual Knowledge Management (SpKM) manifested as an attempt to reconnect the epistemological with the ontological, aligning what is known with what is lived and strived for. “The vision of an organisation will reflect the vision of its employees if and only if the individual visions are taken into account for the vision formation process of an organisation” (G03 Kaiser and Martinez⁶, p. 123; in The Future of Knowledge Management: Reflections from the 10th Anniversary of the International Association of Knowledge Management).

A third major area of emphasis turned out to be inclusivity and epistemic pluralism. Several studies challenged the dominant frameworks of KM that privilege managerial, codified, or scientific knowledge. Instead, they advocated the inclusion of alternative knowledges, local, instinctual, experiential, communal, indigenous, or practitioner-based, as essential to responsible knowledge work. “[K]knowledge inclusion becomes key for democratising the governance of science, technology and innovation trajectories” (S05 Psarikidou⁷, p. 4). RKM was increasingly described as participatory and reflexive, requiring researchers and practitioners alike to confront their own assumptions and biases. “Reflexivity is … important as a principle that raises awareness of the limits of knowledge and of particular framings that may not be universally held” (S05 Psarikidou⁸, p. 4; referring to Stilgoe, Ower, and Macnaghten). Importantly, inclusion was not only about representational fairness but also about epistemic justice: which knowledges count, and for which ends. Inclusiveness was seen to address “historical and systemic inequalities; prioritise the needs and perspectives of marginalised communities; promote equitable access to resources, opportunities, and decision-making processes; support mutual and reciprocal learning, active engagement, and respect for alternative ways of knowing and doing” (S10 Cornelius-Hernandez and Clarke⁹, p. 9; referring to Armitage, de Loë and Plummer; Canfield, Menezes, Matsuda, Moore, A., Mosley, Dewsbury, Feliú-Mójer, McDuffie, Moore, K., Reich, Smith and Taylor; Polk and Diver).

A fourth thread running through the literature was a turn toward systems thinking and the knowledge ecosystem view. Rather than treating organisations as bounded units with internal knowledge processes central in the competition against others, rKM is increasingly seen as an interorganisational, even societal, practice embedded in complex adaptive systems. “[W]e need to reconceptualise KM as a technology for improving society” (G11 Dumay¹⁰, p. 767). This view placed emphasis on collaboration, interdependence, and the recognition of wicked problems that cannot be solved through isolated efforts. Terms such as ‘knowledge commons’, ‘regenerative systems’, and ‘metaorganisational responsibility’ pointed to a broader horizon for KM, where knowledge is stewarded for collective benefit across time and space. “[A]daptive learning needs to consider not only feedbacks from the markets, … but also from the value chain, local communities, governmental bodies, communities of practice, social movements, and particularly from all those actors that may represent next generations’ needs and rights” (G16 Ricciardi, Cantini and Rossignoli¹¹, p. 281).

The literature also identified a strong connection between rKM and purpose-driven strategy. Several texts argued that an organisation’s legitimacy and ethical standing can be judged by its ability to articulate and realise a meaningful purpose, one that aligns with stakeholder expectations and broader societal or ecological well-being. Here, responsibility was not merely compliance but aspiration: an organisation’s orientation toward long-term, valuegenerating futures. “[F]ocusing on morally important needs enables organisations to implement need-based strategies that are most likely to lead to sustainable and responsible outcomes” (G21 Kragulj¹², p. 288; referring to Garvare and Johansson). Relatedly, aesthetic knowledge, defined as the sensibility to intuit and enact desired futures, emerged as a dimension of KM often overlooked but increasingly vital in situations where rational analysis is insufficient. “[A]esthetics can also be seen as a precursor to knowledge because we first experience the world, and are hence subject to aesthetic perceptions, before we can engage in intellectual and conceptual thought about the world” (S31 Kerschbaum¹³, p. 629).

Another recurring finding revealed that rKM closely associated itself with sustainability as a strategic imperative. Beyond environmental sustainability, this included the sustainability of knowledge ecosystems, social systems, and the ability of organisations to thrive without eroding the capacities of others. Thus, rKM was not only a managerial tool but also a normative orientation toward systems-level regeneration, future-readiness, and mutual flourishing. The inclusion of sustainability often converged with other dimensions, especially systems thinking and ethical purpose. A “truly sustainable business shifts its perspective from seeking to minimise its negative impacts to understanding how it can create a significant positive impact in critical and relevant areas for society and the planet” (S03 Durst¹⁴, p. 216; citing Dyllick and Muff, p. 166).

Also, a dimension present in the literature was the pedagogical role of academia in shaping future knowledge practitioners. “Business schools ought to recognise that business leaders possess the power to shape and guide their organisations and society” (S23 Rocha and Pinheiro¹⁵, p. 12; referring to Hoffman; and Roos). Several contributions highlighted the importance of education in sensitising students and researchers to the value of ethical, inclusive, and pluralistic approaches to knowledge. Rather than treating knowledge as neutral and technical, these texts called for a reorientation of curricula toward embracing non-rational ways of knowing, practical wisdom, and the ethical consequences of knowledge use. “[R]ational-analytic problem-solving methods face challenges when applied to ambiguous or ill-defined problems” (G02 Kaiser, Kerschbaum, Kragulj, Peschl and Zivkovic¹⁶, p. 333). RKM, in this light, was not only a matter of organisational or societal choice but also a matter of educational responsibility. Academia was increasingly tasked with identifying and redressing the missing ethics in managerial education, and with preparing students to navigate knowledge landscapes marked by complexity, difference, and uncertainty. The cultivation of critical awareness, reflexivity, and value-consciousness was positioned as a necessary precondition for responsible knowledge practices to take root in future contexts.

Finally, the literature suggested that technological change, especially AI, presents both a challenge and a frontier for rKM. Some authors advocated for responsible AI (RAI) practices as part of the broader rKM agenda, highlighting the importance of transparency, accountability, and alignment with human and societal values. This added a further dimension to the ecosystemic view of KM, where responsibility would be shared across human and non-human agents and shaped through governance across the full lifecycle of knowledge production and use. “[T]he benefits of AI should not be limited to select few but should extend inclusively to diverse communities and individuals” (S33 Lin and Dalkir¹⁷, p. 149).

Taken together, these themes pointed to an evolving, multi-dimensional understanding of rKM. While none of the sampled texts offered a holistic definition of the concepts, they seemed to coalesce around a nexus of principles such as phronesis, inclusivity, systems awareness, ethical purpose, sustainability, and educational responsibility. Even though the texts included in this integrative review reflect a variety of theoretical and practical entry points into rKM, together they portray a shared desire to reimagine knowledge work as something more ethically grounded, socially engaged, and future-oriented than traditional KM has allowed.

Next part: Section 4.6 – Conceptual constraints and neoliberal residues.

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: