Meta-analysis of scientometric research of knowledge management: discovering the identity of the discipline

Abstract

Purpose-The purpose of this study is to conduct a meta-analysis of prior scientometric research of the knowledge management (KM) field. Design/methodology/approach-A total of 108 scientometric studies of the KM discipline were subjected to meta-analysis techniques. Findings-The overall volume of scientometric KM works has been growing, reaching up to ten publications per year by 2012, but their key findings are somewhat inconsistent. Most scientometric KM research is published in non-KM-centric journals. The KM discipline has deep historical roots. It suffers from a high degree of over-differentiation and is represented by dissimilar research streams. The top six most productive countries for KM research are the USA, the UK, Canada, Germany, Australia, and Spain. KM exhibits attributes of a healthy academic domain with no apparent anomalies and is progressing towards academic maturity. Practical implications-Scientometric KM researchers should use advanced empirical methods, become aware of prior scientometric research, rely on multiple databases, develop a KM keyword classification scheme, publish their research in KM-centric outlets, focus on rigorous research of the forums for KM publications, improve their cooperation, conduct a comprehensive study of individual and institutional productivity, and investigate interdisciplinary collaboration. KM-centric journals should encourage authors to employ under-represented empirical methods and conduct meta-analysis studies and should discourage conceptual publications, especially the development of new frameworks. To improve the impact of KM research on the state of practice, knowledge dissemination channels should be developed. Originality/value-This is the first documented attempt to conduct a meta-analysis of scientometric research of the KM discipline.

The Spread of Knowledge Management in SMEs: A Scenario in Evolution

“…The trend of articles on this topic has thus seen growth over recent years. This conclusion is in line with Serenko (2013) [33], who shows how KM research has progressed through three distinct phases: Initiation (1997-2001), Early Development (2002Development ( -2006, and Rigor and Consolidation (2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012).…”

Havia um tempo em que era preciso motivar o Compartilhamento do Conhecimento, será agora tempo de proteger?

“…As raízes da Gestão do Conhecimento remetem a milênios atrás com registros de Platão em 339 AD, o qual tentou definir e conceitualizar o conhecimento (Serenko, 2013). As questões relativas à preservação, utilização e compartilhamento do conhecimento foram sendo desenvolvidas ao longo da história, porém, segundo o mesmo autor, a Gestão de Conhecimento enquanto disciplina científica é jovem, datando da década de 1990.…”

Delineating knowledge management through lexical analysis – a retrospective

“…Thirdly, if we refer to work done by Serenko (2013) in the analysis of the identity of KM as a discipline, one finds that Serenko (2013: 782 -783) (Serenko, 2013: 784). As such, it was considered important to only focus op to this point in time so as to include mainly the early and critical evolution of KM as is happened up to 2006.…”