The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Objectivity and subjectivity in knowledge management: a review of 20 top articles
Abstract
In recent years knowledge management (KM) has received increased attention from academics and practitioners. There are several challenges to establishing KM as a separate discipline one of the most central being conceptual plurality. The purpose of this paper is to review and position 20 of the most frequently cited KM articles in management journals. More specifically, this paper classifies the KM publications on the subjectivity–objectivity continuum, discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the publications drawing from positivism and interpretative philosophies, and further discusses the challenges in KM, and how objectivity and subjectivity can be used to provide both product and process orientations in future research. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage
Barney, J. (1991) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920639101700108 · Cited by 48,334
Coase, R. H. (1937) · Economica · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0335.1937.tb00002.x · Cited by 23,972
A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation
Nonaka, I. (1994) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.5.1.14 · Cited by 17,809
Self-citationBourdieu, P. (1990) · doi:10.1515/9781503621749 · Cited by 17,271
Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm
Grant, R. M. (1996) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250171110 · Cited by 16,157
Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.3.3.383 · Cited by 12,939 · cited 10×
“Tacit knowledge, in particular, cannot be transferred in markets even if contractual arrangements would permit it (Kogut and Zander, 1992, 1996).”
BackgroundInfluentialSocial Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259373 · Cited by 7,111
The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge across Organization Subunits
Hansen, M. T. (1999) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2667032 · Cited by 5,809
A Resource-Based Theory of the Firm: Knowledge Versus Opportunism
Conner, K. R., & Prahalad, C. K. (1996) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.7.5.477 · Cited by 3,146 · cited 3×
“While firms are conceptualized as mechanisms for creating and utilizing knowledge (Barney, 1991; Conner and Prahalad, 1996; Grant, 1996), the RBV and knowledge-based theories, based largely on positivism, have limited potential to explain knowledge creation processes.”
BackgroundInfluentialWhat Firms Do? Coordination, Identity, and Learning
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1996) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.7.5.502 · Cited by 3,078
Metadata
- Authors
- Nonaka, I., & Peltokorpi, V.
- Venue
- Knowledge and Process Management
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-04
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 73-82
- ISSN
- 1092-4604 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1441
- OpenAlex
- W2088830365
- Cited by
- 236
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 33.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Objectivity and subjectivity in knowledge management: a review of 20 top articles. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/kpm.251
- The paper
- Nonaka, I., & Peltokorpi, V. (2006). Objectivity and subjectivity in knowledge management: a review of 20 top articles. Knowledge and Process Management. https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.251
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
