Considerations over Theoretical Anchors 3.0 Introduction
3.2 Stocks and Flows - Ontologies, Epistemologies, Paradigms and Mixed Methods Having mildly problematized the research question in the light of practice and theories,
questions about knowledge ontology and epistemology, paradigms, methodologies and
42
terminologies is reflected on in this section to better order the theoretical positions in the RQ and argue for mixed methods.
The general logic in disclosures from systems of control, like accounting systems, often
generates accounts visualizing and valuing plans and effects from decision making in operations in digitized data (Andon et al., 2015; Fløstrand, 2006). The thesis’ global context implicates an un-situated approach to data about knowledge, because data as qualitative facts about input and output of knowledge to inform knowledge-based decisions are to be distributed in structured as well as unstructured contexts and like financial data will have to get approximately equally understood at the distributed locations. What gets measured, gets managed (Otley, 2003, p. 319), so knowledge is to be measured. The global context is characterized by a lack of strategic
orientation and lack of shared cognitive patterns and therefore appears unstructured (Augier et al., 2001). Proximity and physical co-presence is not included in premises of the RQ. These conditions are in contrast to most literature about knowledge management (Nonaka et al., 2008), where the level of analysis is the firm and knowledge is perceived as subjective and situated (chapter2). Knowledge is predominantly defined as subjective in the KM domain and the IC research context is often firm-centered. This view is found to have a narrowing impact on the theorizing of generic HC in the IC domain, because individuals cannot be co-present and cannot learn from each other. Tacit knowledge, which is considered very important in operations (K.
Kreiner, 2002), will consequently become lost(Konno & Nonaka, 1998).
Furthermore, the objects of explorations and methods of IC measurement are mainly found to be event-driven, selective, uncomplete, complex and located in time and space (Andriessen, 2004b) which are conditions contradicting the actual managerial problem.
This relation between the ontological view of knowledge in KM and the epistemology found in IC seems theoretically strait-jacketed and seems to hamper the theorizing of the notion of global knowledge.
“Ontology logically precedes epistemology … we cannot know what we are capable of knowing (epistemology) until such time as we have settled on (a set of assumptions about) the nature of the context in which that knowledge must be acquired (ontology)”
(Hay, 2006, p. 8) (Bates & Jenkins, 2007)
However, the prevalent notion of knowledge in literature is not able to answer the research question, because this literature primary is based on co-presence, situatedness and studies within firms. A direction for this research is therefore to look for other notions of knowledge to pursue potential answers.
In the quote below, Stephen Bates discusses the relations between ontology and epistemology:
The dominant identification of knowledge in KM as being subjective seems to rest on “a foundation of indubitable beliefs from which further propositions can be inferred to produce a superstructure of known truths’ (Jones, 1995, p. 289). Inclusion of epistemological terms when defining
ontological positions can be viewed as part of a broader conflation of ontology/epistemology.. (..)
… there is the important, but unrecognized, issue of the relationship between ontology and epistemology. Marsh and Furlong argue, ‘Ontological and epistemological positions are related, but need to be separated. To put it crudely, one’s ontological position affects, but far from determines, one’s epistemological position’ (Marsh and Furlong, 2002, p. 18). (Bates & Jenkins, 2007)
43
The quote discusses the interrelatedness between a context producing truth and a context providing findings or propositions. The relation between ontology and epistemology is viewed as predetermining, where the ontology precedes epistemology. To answer the research question how qualitative data about individual knowledge becomes exchangeable and measurable at a distance, which at the same time frames “a set of assumptions about the nature of the context in which ..()” , describing the question’s epistemological context of knowledge, a notion of
knowledge, where it has been enabled to travel, is required.
Explicit, academic knowledge being globally peer reviewed (socially constructed) is considered objective knowledge contrasting the ontological situated view of knowledge in most KM literature. Academic knowledge is described as “verified true beliefs” (Christensen, 2000).
Academic knowledge describes realistic positions in verifiable set-ups and the body of knowledge is global. Potential stocks of objectified objects of explicit knowledge in an
accounting paradigm may be regarded as ostensive representations resembling the description of ostensive themes in IC concepts: “IC consists of human ( ..) capital which has functional
qualities and is thus value generating assets not visible in the firm’s balance sheet. IC has descriptive qualities and measurement is essence” (J. Mouritsen, 2006, p. 824).
As phenomenon, knowledge being immaterial, it cannot be touched or weighted, but still exists in global mental spaces between individuals (Quattrone & Hopper, 2005). Doctors and lay-men approximately know what doctors know, without knowing each other. This existence of
knowledge expressed as a discipline may be denominated as “relatively universal” (circulating reference)(B. Latour, 1999, p. 71), because it through translations in globally shared social understanding reaches temporary stability, which in ostensive stocks can be displayed as objective representations of knowledge (Popper, 1972). These objects of knowledge can under special conditions in the artefact-based view of knowledge (merged) be shared, reused and travel (realism). But this knowledge is also, and at the same time, object for deconstruction, when human competences submit the knowledge object and its hitherto accepted boundaries to use and explorations in operations. Then knowledge becomes dynamic (relational) and situated.
So the phenomenon knowledge acts in ostensive as well as performative forms. Therefore, the constructs of ostensivity/performativity (J. Mouritsen, 2006) may be relevant theorizing notions for an understanding of stock and flow when design of non-financial accounting is the focus.
Flows of knowledge in an accounting paradigm may be regarded as performative knowledge resembling the description of performative themes in IC concepts: “IC is a representation of knowledge resources whose transformative qualities emerge in application. IC has classification qualities and measurement is convention” (J. Mouritsen, 2006, p. 824). The complexity in the oscillating interrelatedness in the interfaces between ostensive and performative situations of knowledge in operations influences and forms the strategy of verification of the designed
concepts for the measurement units and the implementation of the accounting system addressing both realistic and relative contexts. To contain both properties of IC stocks and flows in the measurement unit, it tends to contain and represent an ostensive state of knowledge objects and at the same time the potential flow, which may be generated by its allocation. Mixed methods are planned to address the inherent properties in the measurement unit to verify its usability per
44
se and in a longitudinal aspect to verify if the ICA system, now customized and in some operational aspects situated, works.
The widespread situated knowledge ontology seems to influence main KM and IC technologies locking up epistemology in time and space dependent cages impeding the global level of analysis (Gourlay, 2006; Hong, 2012). The subjective knowledge view seems to hamper the design of generic stocks of knowledge, because knowledge representations as situated
knowledge in the unstructured context are unrecognizable. This understanding of knowledge is therefore rejected and the arte-factual view of knowledge applied in the thesis.
In Design Science Research, DSR, the socio/technological interface displays a parallel asking for evidence of the conceptualized proposals to work, which seems to superpose
realism/positivism to constructivism, because the designed elements to work in generic stocks has to be globally recognizable and at the same time able to be customizable into local projects.
The thesis therefore will engage in opposing ontologies and epistemologies (realism and relativism/ positivism and constructivism), because input to knowledge-based decisions in operations is attached to time and space in concrete situatedness (relativism, performative definition) and the representation of individual knowledge has to stay objective and static in its moment of registration (realism, ostensive definition) to create a credible and recognizable representation of the stock. So implications for the information about individual knowledge are that it in the context of stocks (disclosures), which have to be comparable across firm
boundaries, the theorizing happens in a positivistic paradigm, while in operations, the theorizing of flow becomes situated, relative and constructivist. This has influenced the chosen
methodologies for the empirical processes.
The thesis discusses opposing ontological positions, because the methods of translation of knowledge into data about the value of objects and the specificity of knowledge theoretically has to embrace both forms to represent stocks of knowledge (objective, static, context-free truth (realism, ostensivity)) in operations of allocation, recruitment, retention, talent management, etc.
and flows, where dynamic knowledge in operations of development, innovation, productions in concrete situations becomes subjective and situated, have multiple meanings and is conceptual.
The quantitative verification method is supposed to makes sense for the measurement unit, which is elements constructing the stocks, because the measurement unit regarded as a device - to act as global devices – may prove properties from the paradigm of realism like objectivity, comparisons, generic overviews and measurements – and if the method shows that it works, the design works and may be proposed as a finding. This result is independent of other results and only related to the measurement unit.
This finding seems not to be disqualified by qualitative methods exploring potential implementation of the ICA system applying the unit, because many other parameters are included in processes of implementation, which do not necessarily address the calculability and framing properties in data about knowledge. Failed implementations of financially founded systems do not, to my knowledge, question the authority of the financial measurement unit expressed in monetary digits.
45
Still, the qualitative method seems relevant in the longitudinal case study, where the context becomes situated and constructivist. The method studies how human (managers) and non-human actors (measurement units) act under the inductions. As the ICA system then becomes
customized, concrete and complex involving many human and non-human actors and as the exogenous business context during the 24 months develops from stable to unstable through uncontrollable market events and risks independently but impacting the context of the
longitudinal research process, it is possible to discover concrete details and describe the detailed phenomena using the qualitative method. The findings are co-created, but the measurement unit cannot be discarded in the process. The system can. The measurement unit and the system is not identical, the system is the vehicle, means to distribute and coordinate the calculating devices of knowledge.
The chapter explained by disentangling the research question that the DSR theory implicates parallel positivistic and constructivist considerations in the conceptualizing of ICA and in the construction of evidence. It argued for the use of mixed methods. The more detailed
presentation of the use of theories and methods is outlined in chapter 7 and 8.