Knowledge Management: Towards A Civilizational and Cultural Perspective

 

Anticipative and Philosophical Approach

 

Dr. Abdullah Al-Beraidi

Associate Professor of Management and Organizational Behaviour

Business Department, College of Economics and Business, Qassim University

  

Abstract:

Research problem stems from the fact that managerial thought focuses on a partial perspective of knowledge management (KM), i.e. at the organizational level, which ignores the crucial questions in the context of knowledge and its future, making this thought then away from the deep reflection and good prediction of opportunities, challenges and possible impacts on economics and development. The main purpose of the study is to analyze and diagnose the problem of the partial perspective, clarify its implications, and propose an alternative perspective which is called "the civilizational cultural perspective". Moreover, the study aims at predicting the future of knowledge to enable management thought to explore and analyze its indicators and tracks, by which the capabilities and readiness of the organizations and states are developed in order to exploit potential opportunities in the era of knowledge-based economy and to avoid possible threats as much as possible.

To achieve its objectives, the study relied on the analytical critical method and inductive-deductive approach, taking into account economic, cultural, social, and political contexts. The study showed how to adopt "the civilizational cultural perspective" by management thought. More importantly, it concluded that the knowledge passed and will go through six overlapping phases (waves): (1) no Knowledge or primitive Knowledge, (2) limited knowledge, (3) expanded knowledge, (4) commodifable knowledge, (5) chaotic knowledge, and (6) erodable knowledge. The study demonstrated the main characteristics of each phase with some administrative, economic, cultural and social implications.الاستماع

قراءة صوتية للكلمات

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Saudi Arabia,  The Institute of Public Administration: Public Administration Journal, vol. 52 (no. 1), p. 481-513.


Comments (1)

Disclaimer: The comments in this site only represent the view of it's writer and do not reflect any opinions of the site and the site hold no responsibility for the content of the comments

By Lenelyn:

I think you have to read the above post together with the other post I have on the sujbect. Compulsory religious studies in my Catholic School years was only given as an example of brainwashing school curriculum. There are other examples of compulsory study materials given in the other posts. Let me post all of them here:Excuse me for writing in English. The Chinese software in my computer is not working properly. I also apologize for not noticing the difference between 伊利沙伯中學國民教育舊生關注組 and伊中舊生會.The purpose of my message is not to judge the value of 國民教育, and even less do I dare to suggest our beloved school to accept or reject the program. The purpose of my message is to make the point that: “With so many voices opposing the National Education program, do we really realize that we have already received a large number of indoctrinations during our school years? If we do, why do we single out our objection on the National Education program and passively accept others?”The answer has been partly provided by the very eloquent message of Mr Well Lee: “It is not the indoctrination process in education to which one objects; rather it is the content of the doctrine which decides one’s choice.” This, however, immediately leads to the next question: “Who is best to be the judge of the content of the education material?” In my view, hopefully, we have a sensible Education Department which may make the “unbiased” decision by following the national and international history as well as development trends. A fair and unbiased decision may still not be possible since “fairness” and “biasness” are relative terms. Then, is following the majority always right? Not necessarily! (Not long ago, some schools in southern USA chose to abandon the teaching of Darwin’s Evolution due to pressure from the majority of the parents and the outcries of extreme religious groups.)In describing the National Education program, it was mentioned 內容偏頗﹐反倫理﹐是非顛倒”, and the term “荼毒” was also used. I have not studied the program content, therefore, I cannot pronounce, in my own opinion, on the suitability of the National Education program in school education. However, I remember through my personal experience of the primary and secondary schools in Hong Kong, there were quite a few occasions in which official text-books (as well as teachers) showed complexion which suits those words of description. The religious classes I had (mentioned in my last message) could be cited as examples; the massacres of hundreds of thousands of Muslims, Jews and Eastern Christians in Jerusalem in 1099 was (and probably still is) described in history books as “holy” and we were supposed to worship such “wars”; the infamous Opium War caused by drug smuggling and drug pushing by the East India Co. was taught to us as “the Chinese needing British goods”; the rule of the great British Empire was always glorified while the atrocities committed by her troops to the natives in Africa, Australia, N. America and the Middle East were dismissed as “disciplining the savage”. The above are just a few examples in a multitude. However, I must admit that, in many of the “civilized” countries I visited, such education materials of glorifying one country’s past while downplaying (or even omitting) its atrocities can be commonly found in schools – Japan, USA, UK, Israel, France, (and even Canada!), etc. Due to the stand of the colonial Hong Kong Government in the past, such biased materials were approved for education and have infiltrated our text-books and schools. Somehow, we accepted them – no protest!In the eve of sending out a petition, I like to ask ourselves to sit back and consider this analytically, “Is the content of the National Education program that much worse than the materials I have cited? If so, please go ahead and protest! If not, singling out the National Education program as a target of protest will be infringing on ‘double-standard’”.Yours truly,Max Wong


Write New Comment

Name*:
Email*:
For administrative use only, will not be disclosed
Comment*: