CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,498Innovation and Knowledge ManagementManagement and Organizational StudiesKnowledge Management and Sharing

Knowledge, Knowledge Work and Organizations: An Overview and Interpretation

Blackler, Frank·1995·Organization Studies
DOI 10.1177/017084069501600605
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

There is current interest in the competitive advantage that knowledge may provide for organizations and in the significance of knowledge workers, organ izational competencies and knowledge-intensive firms. Yet the concept of knowledge is complex and its relevance to organization theory has been insuf ficiently developed. The paper offers a review and critique of current approaches, and outlines an alternative. First, common images of knowledge in the organizational literature as embodied, embedded, embrained, encultured and encoded are identified and, to summarize popular writings on knowledge work, a typology of organizations and knowledge types is constructed. How ever, traditional assumptions about knowledge, upon which most current speculation about organizational knowledge is based, offer a compartmental ized and static approach to the subject. Drawing from recent studies of the impact of new technologies and from debates in philosophy, linguistics, social theory and cognitive science, the second part of the paper introduces an altern ative. Knowledge (or, more appropriately, knowing) is analyzed as an active process that is mediated, situated, provisional, pragmatic and contested. Rather than documenting the types of knowledge that capitalism currently demands the approach suggests that attention should be focused on the (culturally located) systems through which people achieve their knowing, on the changes that are occurring within such systems, and on the processes through which new knowledge may be generated.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/017084069501600605

Cites

75 of 75 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Blackler, F.
Affiliations
Lancaster University (GB)
Corresponding author
Blackler, Frank
Venue
Organization Studies
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
1995-11
Volume
16
Issue
6
Pages
1021-1046
ISSN
  • 0170-8406 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-3044
DOI
10.1177/017084069501600605
OpenAlex
W2132790752
Cited by
2,498
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 61 · 2022: 43 · 2021: 55 · 2020: 68 · 2019: 78 · 2018: 92 · 2017: 81 · 2016: 81 · 2015: 90 · 2014: 102 · 2013: 139 · 2012: 128
FWCI
51.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Organization Studies (publishedVersion)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Innovation and Knowledge Management
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Knowledge Management and Sharing
Keywords
organizational knowledge, knowledge work, knowledge workers, knowledge-intensive firms, organizational competencies, competitive advantage, knowledge as process, knowledge types, new technologies, knowledge production, epistemology, cognitive science

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