A Descriptive Analysis of Knowledge Management Research: Period from 1997 to 2012

  • Meliha HandzicEmail author
Part of the Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning book series (IAKM, volume 1)


This paper reports a descriptive study of KM research and researchers based on articles published in four specialised academic journals in KM. For each published article, keyword and author analysis were used to discover the main contributors and dominant themes and topics examined. The study shows that KM research is grounded in both KM and non-KM theories, split equally between theoretical and empirical approaches and dominated by the interpretivist over positivist paradigm. So far, core KM elements (enablers, processes and stocks) have been explored more than the extended KM elements (contexts, drivers and outcomes). This might change in the future in order to remain relevant to practice. Published authors are distributed all over the world and tend to be collaborative, but not very productive contributors to KM journals. These findings need to be interpreted and applied with caution due to a number of limiting factors in research design and analysis. Future research is recommended to address these limitations and extend current research to a wider range of publication outlets and issues in KM.



The author is thankful to six PhD students from International Burch University, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, namely Zeynep Kara, Nermina Durmic, Dino Arnaut, Azizah bin Ibrahim, Tarik Kraljic and Adnan Kraljic for their assistance in extracting and coding data from source journals.


  1. Baruch, L. (2000). Knowledge management: Fad or need? Research Technology Management, 43(5), 9.Google Scholar
  2. Cummings, S., Regeer, B. J., Ho, W. W. S., & Zweekhorst, M. B. M. (2013). Proposing a fifth generation of knowledge management for development: Investigating convergence between knowledge management for development and transdisciplinary research. Knowledge Management for Development Journal, 9(2), 10–36.Google Scholar
  3. Drucker, P. (1993). Post-capitalist society. New York: Harper Business.Google Scholar
  4. Durst, S., & Edvardsson, I. R. (2012). Knowledge management in SMEs: A literature review. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(6), 879–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dwivedi, Y. K., Venkitachalam, K., Sharif, A. M., Al-Karaghouli, W., & Weerakkody, V. (2011). Research trends in knowledge management: Analyzing the past and predicting the future. Information Systems Management, 28, 43–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Earl, M. (2001). Knowledge management strategies: Toward a taxonomy. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 215–233.Google Scholar
  7. Edwards, J., Handzic, M., Carlsson, S., & Nissen, M. (2003). Knowledge management research & practice: Visions and directions. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 1(1), 49–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Epler, M., & Burkhard, R. (2007). Visual representations in knowledge management: Framework and cases. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(4), 112–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gu, Y. (2004). Global knowledge management research: A bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 61(2), 171–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Handzic, M. (2012). Surveying the field of KM: Evidence from KMR&P. Presentation at the first IAKM workshop, Padua, 16 Apr 2012.Google Scholar
  11. Handzic, M., & Durmic, N. (2013). Mapping research community and interests in KM: A case of JKM. In Proceedings of the European conference on knowledge management (ECKM 2013), Kaunas, 5–6 Sept 2013.Google Scholar
  12. Handzic, M., & Hasan, H. (2003). The search for an integrated KM framework, chapter 1. In H. Hasan & M. Handzic (Eds.), Australian studies in knowledge management (pp. 3–34). Wollongong: UOW Press.Google Scholar
  13. Handzic, M., & Zhou, A. Z. (2005). Knowledge management: An integrative approach. Oxford: Chandos Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Handzic, M., Lagumdzija, A., & Celjo, A. (2008). Auditing knowledge management practices: Model and application. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 6(1), 90–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hansen, M. T., Nohria, N., & Tierney, T. (1999). What’s your strategy for managing knowledge? Harvard Business Review, 77(2), 106–116.Google Scholar
  16. Heisig, P. (2009). Harmonisation of knowledge management – Comparing 160 KM frameworks around the globe. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(4), 4–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hislop, D. (2010). Knowledge management as an ephemeral management fashion? Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(6), 779–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holsapple, C. W. (2003). Knowledge management handbook. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lee, M. R., & Chen, T. T. (2012). Revealing research themes and trends in knowledge management: From 1995 to 2010. Knowledge-Based Systems, 20, 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ma, Z., & Yu, K.-H. (2010). Research paradigms of contemporary knowledge management studies: 1998–2007. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(2), 175–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Oliver, G. (2013). A tenth anniversary assessment of Davenport and Prusak (1998/2000) working knowledge: Practitioner approaches to knowledge in organisations. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 11(1), 10–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ribiere, V., & Walter, C. (2013). 10 years of KM theory and practices. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 11(1), 4–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schwartz, D. G., & Te’eni, D. (2011). Encyclopedia of knowledge management (2nd ed.). Hershey: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  25. Serenko, A. (2013). Meta-analysis of scientometric research of knowledge management: Discovering the identity of the discipline. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(5), 773–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Serenko, A., & Bontis, N. (2004). Meta review of knowledge management and intellectual capital literature: Citation impact and research productivity rankings. Knowledge and Process Management, 11(3), 185–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Serenko, A., & Bontis, N. (2009). Global ranking of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic journals. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(1), 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Serenko, A., & Bontis, N. (2013a). The intellectual core and impact of the knowledge management academic discipline. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(1), 137–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Serenko, A., & Bontis, N. (2013b). Global ranking of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic journals: 2013 update. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(2), 307–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Serenko, A., Bontis, N., Booker, L., Sadeddi, K., & Hardie, T. (2010). A scientometric analysis of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic literature. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(1), 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Swan, J., Scarbrough, H., & Preston, J. (1999). Knowledge management: The next fad to forget people? In 7th European conference on information systems, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  32. Venters, W. (2006). Knowledge management: The fad that forgot technology. In OLKC 2006 conference, University of Warwick, Coventry, 20–22 Mar 2006.Google Scholar
  33. Von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K., & Nonaka, I. (2000). Enabling knowledge creation. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wallace, D. P. (2012). Authorship productivity in the knowledge management literature. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 49(1), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wallace, D. P., Van Fleet, C., & Downs, L. J. (2011). The research core of the knowledge management literature. International Journal of Information Management, 31, 14–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Management DepartmentInternational Burch UniversitySarajevoBosnia and Herzegovina
  2. 2.Suleyman Sah UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations