Managing Knowledge Management: Managing the Manifold of Epistemic Objectives in Professional Health Care Organizations

  • Christian T. Lystbaek
Part of the Technology, Work and Globalization book series (TWG)


This chapter explores how health care professionals engage in multiple knowledge management practices with diverse epistemic objectives that are mediated through diverse objects. The chapter identifies a huge repertoire of knowledge management activities that can be grouped into four sets of knowledge management practices, which are directed at distinct epistemic objectives and mediated by distinct epistemic objects: normative knowledge management, formative knowledge management, reflexive knowledge management and emotive knowledge management. The types of knowledge management practices stipulated in the typology are ‘ideal types’ and should be understood as over-determinate and overlapping. Knowledge management activities, then, are not fixed or given practices, but are, rather, constituted in the ongoing and situated practices of the participants.


Knowledge management Typology Power Technology Best practice Evidence-based practice Health care organizations Mediating objects Professional practice Sensitizing devices 


  1. Akhavan, P., Ebrahim, N. A., Fetrati, M. A., & Pezeshkan, A. (2016). Major trends in knowledge management research: A bibliometric study. Scientometrics, 107(3), 1249–1264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvesson, M. (2004). Knowledge work and knowledge-intensive firms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. (2001). Odd couple: Making sense of the curious concept of knowledge management. Journal of Management Studies, 38(7), 995–1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blackler, F. (1995). Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations. An overview and interpretations. Organization Studies, 16(6), 1021–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bose, R. (2003). Knowledge management-enabled health care management systems: Capabilities, infrastructure, and decision-support. Expert Systems, 24(1), 59–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cases, M., Furlong, L. I., Albanell, J., Altman, R. B., Bellazzi, R., Boyer, S., et al. (2013). Improving data and knowledge management to better integrate health care and research. Journal of Internal Medicine, 274(4), 321–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cooren, F., Fairhurst, G. T., & Huët, R. (2012). Why matter always matter in (organizational) communication. In P. M. Leonardi, B. A. Nardi, & J. Kallinikos (Eds.), Materiality and organizing: Social interaction in a technological world (pp. 296–314). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DACEHTA. (2011). Braininjury rehabilitationA health technology assessment. Copenhagen: National Board of Health, Danish Centre of Health Technology Assessment, 23p.Google Scholar
  9. Gabbay, J., & le May, A. (2011). Practice-based evidence for healthcare. Clinical mindlines. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Garvey, B., Stokes, P., & Megginson, D. (2014). Coaching and mentoring. Theory and practice. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Gherardi, S. (2012). How to conduct a practice-based study. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gherardi, S. (2014). Professional knowing-in-practice. Rethinking materiality and border resources in telemedicine. In T. Fenwick & M. Nerland (Eds.), Reconceptualising professional learning (pp. 11–23). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Hansen, M. T., Nohria, N., & Tierney, T. (1999). What’s your strategy for managing knowledge? The Knowledge Management Yearbook 2000–2001, 1–10.Google Scholar
  14. Higgs, J., & Andresen, L. (2001). The knower, the knowing and the known. Threads in the woven tapestry of knowledge. In J. Higgs & A. Titchen (Eds.), Practice knowledge & expertise in the health professions (pp. 10–21). Oxford: Reed Educational and Professional Publishing.Google Scholar
  15. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1997). Sociality with objects. Social relations in post-social knowledge societies. Theory, Culture, Society, 14(1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures. How sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Knorr-Cetina, K. (2001). Objectual practice. In T. Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina, & E. Von Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 175–188). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Knorr-Cetina, K. (2007). Culture in global knowledge societies. Knowledge cultures and epistemic cultures. Interdisciplinary Science Review, 324, 361–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Marcos, J., & Denyer, D. (2012). Crossing the sea from they to we? The unfolding of knowing and practicing in collaborative research. Management Learning, 43(4), 443–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Moreira, T. (2005). Diversity in clinical guidelines. The role of repertoires of evaluation. Social Science and Medicine, 60, 1975–1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mørk, B. E., Aanestad, M., Hanseth, O., & Grisot, M. (2008). Conflicting epistemic cultures and obstacles for learning across communities of practice. Knowledge and Process Management, 15(1), 12–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nerland, M., & Jensen, K. (2014). Learning through epistemic practices in professional work. Examples from nursing and engineering. In T. Fenwick & M. Nerland (Eds.), Reconceptualising professional learning (pp. 25–37). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Nes, S., & Moen, A. (2010). Constructing standards. A study of nurses negotiating with multiple modes of knowledge. Journal of Workplace Learning, 22(6), 376–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Neufeldt, S. A., Karno, M. P., & Nelson, M. L. (1996). A qualitative study of experts’ conceptualization of supervisee reflectivity. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 43(1), 3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nicolini, D. (2011). Practice as the site of knowing. Insights from the field of telemedicine. Organization Science, 22(3), 602–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nicolini, D. (2012). Practice theory, work & organization. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Nicolini, D., & Roe, B. (2014). Surfacing the multiple. Diffractive methods for rethinking professional practice and knowledge. In T. Fenwick & M. Nerland (Eds.), Reconceptualising professional learning (pp. 67–81). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Nilsen, P., Nordström, G., & Ellström, P. E. (2011). Integrating research-based and practice-based knowledge through workplace reflection. Journal of Workplace Learning, 24(6), 403–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creation company. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Orlikowski, W. (2002a). Knowing in practice. Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing. Organization Studies, 13(3), 249–274.Google Scholar
  31. Orlikowski, W. (2002b). Material knowing. The scaffolding of human knowledgeability. European Journal of information Systems, 15, 460–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Orlikowski, W. (2007). Sociomaterial practices. Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28(9), 1435–1448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Patriotta, G. (2009). Organizational knowledge in the making. How firms create, use and institutionalize knowledge. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Powell, T. H., & Ambrosini, V. (2012). A pluralistic approach to knowledge management practices. Evidence from consultancy companies. Longe Range Planning, 45, 209–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schatzki, T. (2001). Practice mind-ed orders. In T. Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina, & E. Von Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 50–63). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  38. Schultze, U., & Stabell, C. (2004). Knowing what you don’t know? Discourses and contradictions in knowledge management research. Journal of Management Studies, 41(4), 549–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Star, S., & Griesemeyer, J. (1989). Institutional ecology. Translations and boundary object. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stevenson, J. (2008). Concepts of workplace knowledge. In P. Murphy & R. McCormick (Eds.), Knowledge and practice: Representations and identities (pp. 46–58). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. Storey, J., & Barnett, E. (2000). Knowledge management initiatives. Learning from failure. Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(2), 145–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tanenbaum, S. J. (2009). Comparative effectiveness research: Evidence-based medicine meets health care reform. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 15(6), 976–984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Timmerman, S., & Berg, M. (2003). The gold standard. The challenge of evidence-based medicine and standardization in health care. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Tsoukas, H. (1996). The firm as a distributed knowledge system. A constructionist approach. Strategic Management, 17, 11–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian T. Lystbaek
    • 1
  1. 1.Aarhus UniversityHerningDenmark

Personalised recommendations