Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 237

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Valuing Multiple Trajectories of Knowledge: A Critical Review and Agenda for Knowledge Management Research

Barley, William C., Treem, Jeffrey W., Kuhn, Timothy·2018·Academy of Management Annals
DOI 10.5465/annals.2016.0041
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Over the past three decades, scholars have increasingly come to view knowledge as one of the most important resources necessary for successful organization in the contemporary socioeconomic landscape. In our vigor to understand how organizations may harness the diverse knowledge available to them, however, we have produced a disparity in our theories of knowledge management (KM) processes. By reviewing 20 years of influential KM literature, we uncover a bias toward explaining knowledge integration over research exploring processes of knowledge differentiation. Through our review, we explain why such a pattern has emerged and build an argument for why understanding differentiation is an increasingly important charge for management and organizational scholars. We then advance three strategic directions for future KM scholarship, based on the notion that recognizing multiple knowledge trajectories can aid in addressing several significant lines of theorizing in management and organization studies.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5465/annals.2016.0041

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 37 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Barley, W. C., Treem, J. W., & Kuhn, T.
Venue
Academy of Management Annals
Publisher
Academy of Management
Published
2018-01
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
278-317
ISSN
  • 1941-6067 (ISSN-L)
  • 1941-6520
DOI
10.5465/annals.2016.0041
OpenAlex
W2780810807
Cited by
237
References
37
FWCI
40.64
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

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.