Knowledge Appropriation and Identity: Toward a Multi-Discourse Analysis

Abstract

Knowledge appropriation has been underpinned by an assumption of the organization's 'entitlement' to appropriate knowledge and the outcomes of its utilization. Given the complexity of knowledge and the potentially conflicting views held about it, this assumption is revealed to be theoretically imprecise in the way it marginalizes alternative voices through the pursuit of competitive advantage and 'value capture'. We attribute this approach to the functionalist analytical lens which sees knowledge as an asset appropriable almost exclusively by the organization in the form of financial/economic 'rents'. In order to advance understanding of the multi-faceted nature of the organization-individual appropriation regime, we make the case for an expansion of the discursive space for talking about the phenomenon, and posit the concept of 'property in knowledge' which we tie to the way individuals construct their identities.

Identities in Organization Studies

“…Another line of inquiry focuses on the role of identities in professional and more broadly managerial conduct at work (Alvesson, 1994; Brocklehurst, 2001; Currie et al, 2010; Kamoche, Beise-Zee, & Mamman, 2014; Kuhn, 2006; Weaver, 2006). One finding is that there is a notable tendency for individuals in organizations to constitute their selves as epic heroes in which they self-define as moral agents battling against adversity for a noble cause (Gabriel, 2000; McAdams, 1993; Watson, 2009; Wright et al, 2012).…”

“…Weaver's (2006) sophisticated theorizing provides tremendous insight on how organizations may initiate virtuous circles of virtue creation or vicious circles leading to moral muteness, perhaps even 'the demoralization of the self' (p. 351). Other theorists have focused on knowledge sharing and how the way 'individuals construct their identity has important implications for the creation, utilization and appropriation of knowledge' in organizational contexts (Kamoche et al, 2014(Kamoche et al, , p. 1374. This explains, for example, why 'Exhortations to share knowledge often falter' (p. 1384), i.e.…”

“…In the main, however, analyses which suggest that people are relatively unfettered, and able to construct identities more-or-less of their choosing, are offered in papers which do not engage directly with issues of power and control. For example, Kamoche et al (2014Kamoche et al ( , p. 1375 imply that there are few restraints on how organizational actors 'define themselves through the knowledge they create'. Similarly, Giorgi and Palmisano (2017) seem to suggest that the members of the religious communities they researched were largely unproblematically able to broker tensions between conflicting institutional logics, and that generally 'individuals can exercise flexibility in their everyday use of logics to achieve their goals' (p. 814).…”

The Organizational Trap-Gap Framework: A conceptual view of library dysfunction

“…At what point does requiring employees to contribute their learning and knowledge for a library’s long-term institutional gain become exploitative? Kamoche et al (2014: 1374) suggest that employees and organizations are in a constant battle over knowledge as a resource, calling this endless contest a “knowledge-appropriation regime.” On this point, and regarding tacit knowledge, Dalkir (2017: 392) offers a proposal: perhaps knowledge—whatever it is—belongs to employees as individuals and is leased by organizations who employ them. In any case, the debate is far from settled.…”

Shedding light on the darker side of language

“…A dialogical vision is useful for research on cross-cultural management as it rejects monoglossic communication practices which impose a standard way of speaking on members of a company or team. However, although this theory has been applied to many aspects of management and organizational life such as “dialogic identity work” (Beech, 2008) and, more recently, dialogical knowledge transfer (Kamoche et al, 2014), it has attracted relatively little attention in research on cross-cultural management. Our article is an attempt then to fill this gap by showing how dialogism offers an alternative to practices which stifle collaboration between speakers of diverse origins.…”