Knowing, Power and Materiality: A Critical Review and Reconceptualization of Absorptive Capacity

Abstract

Most studies on absorptive capacity (AC) are based on assumptions that are characteristic of viewing knowledge from an epistemology of possession (knowledge is possessed by individuals and is transferrable). However, the literature on managing knowledge (or better knowledge work) acknowledges also an epistemology of practice (knowledge is unpredictable and dynamic and constituted in and through practice). Moreover, the literature on AC is relatively silent on the relationship between knowledge and power. In this paper, the authors argue that the AC construct should be interpreted in light of the possession and the practice perspectives of knowledge and power. The analysis includes a systematic literature review of AC that supports the authors' claims and, based on this, they suggest an interpretation of the construct that takes into account knowledge–power relationships. This review and theorizing contribute to a richer and processual view of AC.

The professional service firm (PSF) in a globalised economy: A study of the efficiency of securities firms in an emerging market

“…As elaborated upon earlier in the paper, the ISE was founded relatively recently and so the firms operating on it are relative neophytes and the industry is concentrated in nature. This is an important consideration given that the possession of knowledge, and the complementary practice of knowing, are mutually reinforcing and enhanced through repetition (Marabelli and Newell, 2014) and, evidence that PSFs' learning curves increase with experience (Boone et al, 2008).…”

Use of Social Media in Inbound Open Innovation: Building Capabilities for Absorptive Capacity

“…However, recent conceptual debates highlight several weaknesses in conceptual and empirical studies on absorptive capacity and call for a process perspective (Easterby‐Smith et al., ; Marabelli & Newell, ). First, the absorptive capacity literature may have fallen victim to a ‘linearity trap’ by conceptualizing the process as a linear ‘pipeline’ or ‘funnel’ (Lane, Koka & Pathak, ; Todorova & Durisin, ; Marabelli & Newell, ). The critics argue that, rather, the phenomenon of ‘knowing is a continuous performative accomplishment’ (Marabelli & Newell, , p. 12).…”

“…First, the absorptive capacity literature may have fallen victim to a ‘linearity trap’ by conceptualizing the process as a linear ‘pipeline’ or ‘funnel’ (Lane, Koka & Pathak, ; Todorova & Durisin, ; Marabelli & Newell, ). The critics argue that, rather, the phenomenon of ‘knowing is a continuous performative accomplishment’ (Marabelli & Newell, , p. 12). Hence, the four absorptive capacity processes that are commonly adopted in the literature (acquisition, assimilation, transformation and exploitation) interact and should not be interpreted as subsequent isolated steps such as potential and realized absorptive capacity.…”

Enhancing Absorptive Capacity for Innovation and Change: The Role of Structural Determinants

“…Furthermore, they criticized the differentiation between potential and realized absorptive capacity, arguing that it is not consistent with the understanding of absorptive capacity as a bundle of routines and processes, and that it does not generate additional insight into the knowledge absorption process. Few studies went one step further and focused on the micro-foundations -the routines and practices -of absorptive capacity (Duchek, 2013;Lewin, Massini, & Peeters, 2011;Marabelli & Newell, 2014).…”