Metaphors in knowledge management

SystemsResearch andBehavioral ScienceSyst. Res.28, 133 1̂37 (2011)Published online inWiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com)DOI:10.1002/sres.1077
& GuestEditorial

Metaphors in Knowledge Management

Daniel Andriessen*

Inholland University of Applied Sciences, Haarlem, The Netherlands

This special issue of Systems Research and analyse the titles of all publications in Systems
Behavioural Science is about the systematic useof metaphor and its implications for behaviour,especially in the field of knowledgemanagement.Since Berger and Luckmann’s (1966) treatise onthe social construction of reality organizationscholars have begun to view organizations aslinguistically created worlds (Tatchenkery, 2001).The language we use in organizations plays acrucial role in the way organizations function.Language structures what we see in organiz-ations and howwe act in them.With the attentionfor language came the debate about the role ofmetaphor in organizations and in organizationaltheory (Morgan, 1986; Oswick and Grant, 1996;Cornelissen, 2005).
More recently the interest into the role ofmetaphor in organizational theorizing hasreached the knowledge management (KM)community. Hey (2004) was one of the first inthe KM field to do a metaphor analysis of thethree key concepts in KM theory: data, infor-mation and knowledge. He concluded thatknowledge is metaphorically conceptualized aseither a solid or a fluid. In a systematic metaphoranalysis of three seminal KM texts Andriessen(2006) identified not two but 22 differentmetaphors that are used in relation to knowl-edge. It seems that metaphors are importantmeaning making devices in the KM domain.

To give an idea of some of the metaphors thatare used when we reason about knowledge we

*Correspondence to: Prof. Daniel Andriessen, Inholland University ofApplied Sciences Bijdorplaan 15 PO Box 558 2003 RN Haarlem, TheNetherlands.E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Research and Behavioural Science availablethrough the Wiley website. Forty-four titlescontain the word ‘knowledge’. To identifymetaphorical use of words in these titles weapply the Metaphor Identification Proceduredeveloped at the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam(MIPVU, see Steen et al., 2010) to all lexical unitsdirectly preceding or following the word ‘knowl-edge’ in the title. Most of the time this is a verb ora noun. According to MIPVU a word is usedmetaphorically when the contextual meaning ofthe word in the title is sufficiently distinct fromthe basic meaning of the word.

In 13 cases the word ‘knowledge’ is precededor followed by a lexical unit that is usedmetaphorically. In six cases this was a verb (2�to create, 2� to construct, 1� to acquire and 1� totransfer). The basic meaning of these verbs refersto building things (‘Construction of knowledge inthe mass media’ and ‘A theory of knowledgeconstruction systems’), to creating something(New knowledge creation through leader-shipbased strategic communities), to the process ofbuying something (knowledge acquisition) or tomoving something (knowledge transfer). In thecontextual meaning of these verbs no longer aconcrete thing is manipulated but the abstractnotion of knowledge. In six cases the word‘knowledge’ is followed by a noun. The basicmeanings of these nouns relate to buildings(knowledge warehouse), areas (knowledge map),things such as coal, trees and oil that exist innature (knowledge resources) or a particularquality or feature that is typical of someoneor something (knowledge characteristics). Again,

GUESTEDITORIAL Syst. Res.

in their contextual meaning these nouns nolonger refer to a concrete thing but to somethingabstract. The thirteenth case contains the phrase‘knowledge-based development’. The word ‘-based’ is used ‘with some names to make adjec-tives describing the main substance in a product’(MacMillan, 2010). In the context of the paper titleit does not refer to a product but to knowledge.

We can see that in all 13 cases metaphorsmakes us see knowledge as a thing that can bemanipulated (constructed, created, bought,moved, stored, shown on a map, or used). Thisprocess of thingification (Gustavsson, 2001) orreification (Petrovic, 1983) is not uncommon inmanagement thinking. Gustavsson (2001) showsthat terms like ‘organization’, ‘globalization’ and‘technology’ are also examples of phenomenathat are thingified. Thingification makes itpossible to treat a phenomenon as somethingobjective outside of human beings and tomanipulate and control it.

In this special issue we see metaphors asthinking devices that determine how we thinkand talk about the concept of knowledge. As wehave seen above we often think and talk aboutknowledge as a thing. This is important becausemetaphors determine what characteristics ofknowledge we highlight and what characteristicswe hide. To illustrate this, take the example of themetaphor KNOWLEDGE AS A RESOURCE(Andriessen, 2008). In the metaphorical use ofthe term ‘resource’ in KM literature manyattributes of resources are used to reason aboutknowledge. For example, knowledge is used inproduction, it is adding to the production process,it can be stored and shared and we even can talkabout an amount of knowledge. The metaphor ofa resource allows knowledge to be placed in aview of organizations as input/output (logistical)systems. However, in the English language, somecharacteristics of resources are not used, like thesize or weight of knowledge. Some characteristicsof knowledge are not covered by the metaphorand remain hidden, like the non-rivalry and non-additiveness of knowledge (Lev, 2001) and thetacitness of knowledge. To highlight thesecharacteristics we need to use other metaphors.

This special issue aims to highlight the use ofmetaphor in KM theory and practice and is a

Copyright � 2011JohnWiley & Sons,Ltd.

134

small step in a growing field of research. Alreadyin 1980 Lakoff and Johnson (1980) identifiedseveral conceptual metaphors that are widelyused in relation to knowledge. For example:THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS (Is that the founda-tion of your theory? The theory needs some moresupport. The argument is shaky); IDEAS AREPRODUCTS (We have generated a lot of ideas thisweek. He produces new ideas at an astoundingrate. His intellectual productivity has decreased inrecent year); and IDEAS ARE COMMODITIES (Itis important that you package your idea. That ideajust would not sell. There is always a market forgood ideas).

Reddy (1993) showed that much of thelanguage that we use to talk about language isbased on the CONDUIT metaphor. We concep-tualize ideas, concepts, thoughts, meaning, feel-ings and sense as objects; words and sentences ascontainers; and communication as an act ofsending and receiving these containers through aconduit (Try to get your thoughts across better.You still have not given me any idea of what youmean). Related to this is the MIND AS CON-TAINER metaphor (It is at the back of my mind.You have a mind like a sieve) and UNDER-STANDING IS GRASPING (I get what youmean.That went over my head) (Lakoff and Johnson,1999). Bereiter (2002) has shown that these conduitmetaphors have a strong impact on howwe reasonabout education, and not always for the good.

In research onmetaphor use in KM two strandsof research are developing. Hey (2004) andAndriessen (2006) are examples of researchwithin the KM field that is aimed at findingmetaphors in existing KM texts. This field ofempirical research studies the impact of meta-phors on theorizing and practice. This includesresearch into the various metaphors that are usedto conceptualize knowledge in scientific KMpublications, in KM practice and in KM edu-cation. This research highlights the benefits,limitations and consequences of the use ofparticular metaphors for KM theory and practice.The aim is to discover how our thinking aboutKM is limited by metaphors and to reveal theirhidden ideology (Goatly, 2007).

More recently a second strand of metaphorresearch has developed in this field. It tries to find

Syst. Res.28, 133 1̂37 (2011)DOI:10.1002/sres

Daniel Andriessen

Syst. Res. GUESTEDITORIAL

alternative, novel metaphors for KM theorizing(Andriessen and Van den Boom, 2007; Bratianuand Andriessen, 2008). This research is based onthe idea that all metaphors highlight certaincharacteristics of the topic and hide others. Thesuggestion is that we need new metaphors tohighlight previously ignored characteristics ofthe complex notion of knowledge. This field ofcreative research aims to come up with novelmetaphors that might expand our thinking aboutKM. The challenge is to come up with newmetaphors that stick. Goatly (2007) warns us thatthis is a difficult task:

Original metaphors perhaps have the merit ofundoing ready-made linguistic and culturalcategories and the ontologies and ideologieswhich they manifest (. . .). However, becausethey are original, they are, by definition, one-off attempts to do this. Conventional meta-phors, on the other hand, do not unsettle ourmodes of perception or action at all, since theyhave achieved currency as an acceptable wayof constructing, conceptualising and interact-ing with reality. (. . .) there is an ideological orhegemonic struggle to get one’s metaphorsaccepted as the conventional ones (pp. 28–29).

This special issue includes papers from bothstrands of research. The first paper by McKenzieand Van Winkelen analyses metaphors in KMeducation and uses the data from 30 visualpresentations to analyse knowledge relatedmetaphors in visuals made by students as partof a KM course assessment. The aim was toexplore how visual metaphors can convey thesocial (communication), symbolic (comprehen-sion) and psychological (reconceptualization)dimensions of reality with respect to knowledge.The analysis suggests that the enactment of thestudents’ understanding of KM falls into sixcategories: natural objects in ecologies, processesdesigned to synthesize, metaphors associatedwith friction and power, connecting web meta-phors, gaming metaphors and journey meta-phors. Each of these is a radial metaphor: ametaphor that extends beyond the simplecomparison between two domains. With radialmetaphors we move incompatible attributeswhich grab our attention into the comparison


Metaphors in KnowledgeManagement

and create associations that did not exist whenthe two domains were separate. We also add ameasure of background knowledge to fill thegaps and complete the patterns. It turns out thatvisual radialmetaphors are a useful way to assessstudent comprehension of a paradoxical systemlike KM in a concise way.

The second paper by Basten analyses domi-nant metaphors that guide everyday practice in aknowledge intensive organization; an academicbusiness school. The academics in this institutionare all experts in the theory of knowledgeintensive organizations. Yet, the collective nar-rative of the organization about itself that Bastenconstructs has little correspondence with therecommendations the academics write for others.The academic papers of the academics are polite,academic, rational, and focused on co-operation,sharing knowledge, and teamwork. The dis-course of the narrative is cynic, rude, focused onpigeon holing and sabotage. To explain whythese academics do not walk their talk Bastenanalyses the dominant metaphors in the narra-tive. It turns out a battlefield metaphor isdominant in the way the members of the institutemake sense of what happened since the start ofthe organization. This battlefield metaphor helpsexplain the events in the Institute and the waythey are interpreted and reproduced by itsmembers. It summarizes the habitus in theInstitute and makes the story of the organization,even though it seems illogic, logic in its own right.

The third paper by Bratianu is an example ofresearch into novel metaphors for KM. Andries-sen (2008) indicates that the metaphors we use inrelation to knowledge strongly influence whatwe identify as knowledge problems and KMsolutions in organizations. If we conceptualizeknowledge as ‘stuff’ by using metaphors thathave their basic meaning in the physical domain,we tend to identify only those problems that haveto do with accessibility of knowledge. We thenoften start looking for solutions that help to storeand distribute knowledge. When we use meta-phors that have their basic meaning in the non-physical domain, like KNOWLEDGE AS LOVE(Andriessen, 2008) we are steered towardslooking for knowledge problems that have todo with the preconditions for knowledge work

Syst. Res.28, 133 1̂37 (2011)DOI:10.1002/sres

135

GUESTEDITORIAL Syst. Res.

and the well being of the knowledge workers inthe organization. Associated solutions have to dowith reinstalling trust in the organization, improv-ing the quality of the collaboration, and enhancingthe working conditions of the knowledge worker.

Bratianu takes up the challenge of findingnovel metaphors for KM. He starts of byanalysing dominant metaphors in KM thinking.He does so by analysing the well-known SECImodel by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) and someother knowledge flow models. The conclusion isthat these models are based on metaphors thathave their source domain inNewtonian dynamics.Bratianu continues by showing the limitations ofthese Newtonian metaphors. For example, inNewtonian dynamics the total energy of thesystem remains constant. However, knowledgecan be created or it can be destroyed or forgottenso at this point the Newtonian metaphors breakdown. Then he introduces thermodynamicknowledge metaphors as an alternative. Thebenefit is that thesemetaphorsmake it possible todistinguish between cognitive knowledge andemotional knowledge. This enriches the conceptof knowledge that now can be considered as afield of meanings and feelings in continuousdynamics. The latest insights in cognitive scienceresearch show the importance of emotions andfeelings for the development of ourmentalmodels.The suggested metaphors based on thermodyn-amics can incorporate these new insights and canhelp create new ways to implement KM thatintegrate the cognitive and the emotional.

The contribution by Falconer illustrates howexperimenting with novel metaphors can enrichthe debate about KM tools. Focal point of hisargument is the idea of best practice, a verycommon tool in KM for codifying and sharingknowledge. Falconer surgically tears apart theidea of best practice as a tool to improve decision-making in organizations. In a polemic style heargues that best practice descriptions seem todefy progressive, or even rational managementthinking. As such this is already highly relevantfor a journal like SRBS interested in KM. Therelevance for this special issue on metaphorcomes with Facloner’s search for a novelmetaphor that can encapsulate and enrich hiscritique on best practice reasoning. He suggests


136

the KNOWLEDGE AS CHEATING metaphor.This metaphor highlights the opportunism andlaziness that comes with using best practiceexamples and hides the need for strategicthinking and serendipitous discovery amongother things. It therefore fits Falconers critiqueon best practice very well and has as additionalbenefit that it is a compelling communicationdevice. To address the issues that remain hiddenby the KNOWLEDGE AS CHEATING metaphorhe offers as an alternative the KNOWLEDGE ASEXPLORATION metaphor that can help high-light the need for innovation in organizations.

These four papers illustrate that metaphorshave a wide range of possible applications in KMresearch. Metaphors can be studied in KM textsand visuals, they can be used to analyse thestories in knowledge intensive organizations,they can be used to develop new conceptualiz-ations of knowledge that may lead to new waysto manage knowledge, and they can be powerfulrhetoric devises in KM debates.

KM is a multidisciplinary field of study andbringing metaphors in adds the discipline ofcognitive linguistics to this multidisciplinarity.The final paper in this issue comes from the fieldof cognitive linguistics and provides a word ofcaution to those interested in doing metaphoranalysis in KM. Steen is professor of LanguageUse and Cognition, a field that has extensiveexperience in analysing metaphors in texts,visuals and gestures. He addresses two majorproblems in metaphor identification in KM. (1)What counts as a metaphor in language, includ-ing language about knowledge? (2) What countsas a metaphor in thought, including thoughtabout knowledge? Using quotations containingthe word knowledge from various pages of thePhilips company website Steen illustrates someof the difficulties of metaphor analysis. Heprovides general explanations and motivationsof why these difficulties are important to anyoneanalysing metaphor in natural language data,including researchers of KM. His paper is aimedat readers who are not experts on linguisticanalysis, yet wish to enrich their KM researchwith metaphor analysis. He concludes that we donot yet know much about the genuine effect ofmetaphor in KM and encourages KM researchers

Syst. Res.28, 133 1̂37 (2011)DOI:10.1002/sres

Daniel Andriessen

Syst. Res. GUESTEDITORIAL

to team upwithmetaphor researchers to produceuseful new insights aboutwhenmetaphor is usedin which ways to think about knowledge and itsmanagement.

SRBS is an international journal in the field ofsystems science, including KM research. Wehope that this special issue will help our SRBSreaders to become aware of the dominantmetaphors in KM research and their impact onKM theorizing. Metaphors are not just a matter oflanguage, they are instruments for thought. Assuch they have impact on everything we study,including knowledge in organizations. We hopethe issue will help KM practitioners worldwideto gain a new perspective on KM and toexperiment with novel metaphors to implementand enhance KM policies and approaches.

We would specially like to thank book reviewsand news editor Zhichang Zhu from TheBusiness School of the University of Hull forproviding us with the opportunity to publish ourcollection of papers in this special issue. We arealso grateful to the many individual reviewerswho all provided the authors with detailedcomments and suggestions for improvement.Without their time and efforts, this issue wouldnever have come to be.

REFERENCES

Andriessen DG. 2006. On the metaphorical nature ofintellectual capital: a textual analysis. Journal of Intel-lectual Capital 7(1): 93–110.

Andriessen DG. 2008. Stuff or love; how metaphorsdirect our efforts to manage knowledge in organis-ations. Knowledge Management Research and Practice6(1): 5–12.

Andriessen DG, Van den Boom M. 2007. East is East,and West is West, and (n)ever its intellectual capitalshall meet. Journal of Intellectual Capital 8(4): 641–652.

Bereiter C. 2002. Education and Mind in the KnowledgeAge. Lawrence Erlbaum: London.

Berger PL, Luckmann T. 1966. The Social Construction ofReality. Doubleday: Garden City.


Metaphors in KnowledgeManagement

Bratianu C, Andriessen DG. 2008. Knowledge asenergy: a metaphorical analysis. European Conferenceon Knowledge Management.

Cornelissen JP. 2005. Beyond compare: metaphor inorganization theory. Academy of Management Review30(4): 751–764.

Goatly A. 2007. Washing the Brain; Metaphor and HiddenIdeology. John Benjamins: Amsterdam.

Gustavsson B. 2001. Power over meaning; unlearningand human values. In Management of Power – Ethicaland Values Aspects, Chakraborty SK (ed.). OxfordUniversity Press: Delhi; 339–358.

Hey J. 2004. The data, information, knowledge,wisdom chain: The metaphorical link. http://best.berkeley.edu/�jhey03/files/reports/IS290_Final-paper_ HEY.pdf [3 October 2010].

Lakoff G, Johnson M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. TheUniversity of Chicago Press: Chicago.

Lakoff G, JohnsonM. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh. BasicBooks: New York.

Lev B. 2001. Intangibles: Management, Measurement andReporting. The Brookings Institution: Washington,DC.

MacMillan. 2010. MacMillan Dictionary. http://www.macmillandictionary.com/ [21December 2010].

Morgan G. 1986. Images of Organization. Sage: BeverlyHills, CA.

Nonaka I, Takeuchi H. 1995. The Knowledge CreatingCompany: How Japanese Companies Create theDynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press:Oxford.

Oswick C, Grant D. 1996. The organization of meta-phors and the metaphors of organization: where arewe and where do we go from here? In Metaphor andOrganizations, Grant D, Oswick C (eds.). Sage:London.

Petrovic G. 1983. Reification. In A Dictionary of MarxistThought, Bottomore T, Harris L, Kiernan VG, Milib R(eds.). Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA;411–413.

ReddyMJ. 1993. The conduit metaphor: a case of frameconflict in our language about language. In Metaphorand Thought, Ortony A (ed.). Cambridge UniversityPress: Cambridge; 164–201.

Steen GJ, Dorst LAG, Herrmann BJB, Kaal AA, Krenn-mayr T, Pasma T. 2010. A Method for LinguisticMetaphor Identification: From MIP to MIPVU. JohnBenjamins: Amsterdam.

Tatchenkery TJ. 2001. Mining for meaning; readingorganizations using hermeneutic philosophy. InThe Language of Organization, Westwood RI, LinsteadSh (eds.). Sage: London.

Syst. Res.28, 133 1̂37 (2011)DOI:10.1002/sres

137

Documents

Metaphors in knowledge management