Multi-level complexity in the management
of knowledge networks
Lisa Beesley
Lisa Beesley is a Researcher,
School of Marketing and
Management, Gold Coast
Campus, Grif®th University,
Queensland, Australia
(l.beesley@grif®th.edu.au).
DOI 10.1108/13673270410541051
Abstract While it is widely acknowledged that economic growth is now dependent on the
realization of a knowledge based economy, there remains much confusion as to how this is
actualized. Effective management of knowledge is endorsed as an essential element for
organizational survival and competitive advantage, yet again, the ways in which knowledge
moves through knowledge networks remains poorly understood. This paper is the result of a
three-year qualitative investigation of the dynamic relationships among knowledge creation,
diffusion, and utilization occurring in situ in a collaborative knowledge network. In an attempt to
better understand how knowledge unfolds in such a system, this paper explores emergent
patterns, not only within individual, group, organizational and inter-organizational levels of
learning, but also among them. Two theoretical models acknowledging the multi-level
complexity of knowledge management in organizations while simultaneously identifying the
common in¯uences among them, are presented. In combination, it is then possible develop a
theoretical framework through which to better understand the relationships among knowledge
creation, diffusion, and utilization in collaborative knowledge networks, and thereby, optimize
the utility of knowledge designed for organizational application.
Keywords Learning organizations, Knowledge management, Information networks
I
t is widely recognized that the competitive edge for industry now comes through knowledge
and the ability of the organization to learn. In order to drive economic growth, recent
government policy in both developed and developing nations, demands greater interaction
among industry, government, and institutions of science in the production of knowledge. In
spite of broad acknowledgement of the complex dynamics found within these knowledge
networks, there remains the expectation that research will produce knowledge that is of
immediate use to industry, which in turn will promote economies. The underlying assumption is
that research generated in this sequential order will have direct and immediate applicability
and will be used for problem solving (DIST, 1995; Slatyer, 1990, 1993; Stocker, 1997) yet,
knowledge is not typically drawn upon in a direct and supportive manner in organizational
decision making (Weiss, 1995, 1980). Of further interest is that although little is known about the
ways that the dynamics inherent in knowledge networks in¯uence the eventual production of
knowledge, the perception that collaborative research emerging through knowledge networks
will make important contributions to a knowledge-based economy continues to gain
momentum (Etzkowitz et al., 1998).
If knowledge is to drive innovation and economic growth optimally, it is important not just to
develop an understanding of the processes underlying the creation, diffusion, and utilization of
VOL. 8 NO. 3 2004, pp. 71-88, ã Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270
| JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
| PAGE 71
 `` Fundamental to knowledge networks is the concept of
organizational learning.
''
knowledge produced for organizational application, but also the relationships among them.
Therefore, it is important to ask which factors more or less in¯uence the degree to which
knowledge designed for organizational application is utilised? The purpose of this paper is to
present a multi-level analysis of knowledge management ± one that encompasses individual,
group, organizational, and inter-organizational learning. This is with a view to identifying
common elements or some emergent order that would enhance or impede the effective
creation, dissemination, and utilization of knowledge ± not only within each level of learning, but
also among them. In so doing, it is possible to develop a theoretical framework through which to
extend current understanding of the way in which knowledge moves through collaborative
networks.

Knowledge moves to center stage

Why knowledge is not used systematically to inform decision-making and policy formulation has
been the focus of much enquiry. Social scientists have sought to describe and explain the use
of knowledge and, in so doing, have generated a substantial body of research investigating the
in¯uence of social factors on the acquisition, dissemination and utilization of knowledge
(Paisley, 1993). Simultaneously, cognitive psychologists have produced several theories
attempting to explain the structure and mechanisms of the cognitive processes underlying the
acquisition, creation and use of knowledge (see Eysenck and Keane [2000] for a review). Social
cognitive theorists strive to integrate social and psychological processes in order to map the
cognitive processes that underlie social interaction, and the emotional responses that are
associated with cognitive activity, while sociologists have investigated the role of politics and the
degree to which knowledge is drawn upon to inform decision-making.
Recent contributions to the study of knowledge management have moved away from a focus
on information indexing and retrieval systems, to effective knowledge management through
human resource practices (Soliman and Spooner, 2000; Bhatt, 2001; Myers, 1996). These
theories acknowledge the complex interplay of social factors, communication systems, and
organizational structure, and the relationships between them (Augier et al., 2001; Lincoln, 1982;
Leydesdorff, 2000; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka and Konno, 1998; Nonaka et al.,
2000). However, no comprehensive theoretical model has been published that describes
the ways in which knowledge moves across individual, group, organizational and inter-
organizational levels, while simultaneously identifying the common elements within each level.
This paper is the result of a three-year research project that aimed to develop an understanding
of how these elements operate within and among each level of learning.

Organizational and inter-organizational learning

Fundamental to knowledge networks is the concept of organizational learning. Theories of
organizations, as knowledge-creating entities have focused on how complex, unstructured
problems are solved, and context and contextualization are considered central elements in the
task (Knorr-Cetina, 1981; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka et al., 2000; Nonaka, 1999).
Putting knowledge in context is important because knowledge-creating processes are
essentially context-speci®c in terms of who participates and how they participate in the
process. The context here does not mean a static set of surrounding conditions, but rather a
dynamic process of which individual cognition is only a part.
The concept of knowledge networks is based on a theoretical perspective whereby networks
are de®ned as a social relationship among actors (Lincoln, 1982; Mitchell, 1969; Seufert et al.,
1999). Actors in a social network can be individuals or groups, but also collectives of
organizations, communities, or even societies (Seufert et al., 1999). The relationships evolving
among actors can be categorized according to content, form and intensity. Content refers to
products or services, information or emotions, form concerns the duration and closeness of the

PAGE 72
| JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
| VOL. 8 NO. 3 2004
relationship and intensity considers the frequency of communication. Typically, the relationships
among actors are of diverse forms, which may consist of various contents to be exchanged.
The form and the intensity of the relationship occasion the network structure (Seufert et al.,
1999). Further, the relationships between network members can be understood as deriving
from their autonomy and interdependence, the coexistence of cooperation and competition as
well as reciprocity and stability. Boundaries of networks are dif®cult to determine since they are
constructed socially by the network members. Accordingly, they are referred to as blurred
boundaries. From this perspective, the focus moves from the consideration and protection
of the boundaries of an organization to the management of and care for relationships.
Consequently, the knowledge assets of an organization lie in the pattern of relationships
between its members and are destroyed when those relational patterns are destroyed (Stacey,
2001).
Research shows that the degree to which knowledge is acquired and utilized in organizations
results from the interdependent in¯uences of organizational processes (Fulop et al., 1999;
March, 1988b, 1999; Pfeffer, 1981; Schaef and Fassel, 1988; Shapira, 1997; Turner, 2001),
individual limitations (Roch et al., 2000; Pruitt and Carnevale, 1993; Paulus and Huei, 2000;
Nonaka, 1991; Mohammed and Ringseis, 2001; Kleket et al., 2001; Kolb, 1984; Calvin, 1997;
Baum and Ingram, 1998) and the control opportunities and control problems that arise through
organizational structure (Allison, 1971; Frohock, 1979; Kattenburg, 1980; Weissinger-Baylon,
1988; Hayes, 1992; Lindblom, 1959, 1979; March 1988a,b; Simon, 1957; Fulop et al., 1999).
Therefore, organizations contain static (rules, norms and procedures) and dynamic (social
relationships) elements that mutually in¯uence the degree to which knowledge is acquired and
utilized in organizational settings ± the degree to which organizations learn.
The literature has shown that establishing functional networks means developing a common
language, a set of working assumptions, and trust among dissimilar people (Argote, 1999;
Argote and Ingram, 2000; Senge, 1990; Senge et al., 1994; McElroy, 2000). It is suggested this
is achieved through demonstrations of patience (Senge, 1990; Senge et al., 1994), tolerance
(Gavin, 2002) and compromise (Rietan, 1998). However, compromise can limit the capacity for
creativity and diversity resulting in safe, ``incremental'', middle-of-the-road solutions that
participants might not fully support (Rietan, 1998). Additionally, it is the balance between
creativity, and rules and procedures designed to ``buffer'' uncertainties that in¯uence the extent
to which organizations may learn (Delahaye, 2001, p. 534). Organizations themselves do not
learn per se, but rather, learning occurs within those who constitute their membership.
Accordingly, while network theories recognize organizational structure, social relationships, and
information and communication tools, they fail to identify adequately the ways in which
individuals and groups might negotiate their way through these networks in order to harness
and utilize knowledge optimally.

Group learning
While network theories acknowledge the complexities in which knowledge is managed, the
ways in which knowledge is utilized within individuals and groups is largely understood through
models that presuppose rational and linear processes as knowledge is drawn on to inform
decision-making and planning tasks. However, as many members of organizations have
discovered from their own experience, real decision processes in organizations infrequently ®t
this depiction.
Decisions made in knowledge networks are rarely made by individuals acting alone. Rather,
decisions result through groups of individuals coming together, pursuant to a common goal.
Yet, research has shown that the degree to which groups acquire knowledge in order to inform
decision making, that is, the degree to which groups learn, is also subject to several in¯uences.
Recent contributions to this ®eld (Thompson et al., 1999a; Thagard et al., in press; Rowley,
2000; McElroy, 2000; Harinck et al., 2000; Argote et al., 2001; Argote, 1999) have looked to
group composition, group size, and familiarity among group members, communication
processes, and more recently, the role of emotion, in an attempt to solve this quandary. To
further develop an understanding of the ways in which groups learn, it is important to

VOL. 8 NO. 3 2004

| JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
| PAGE 73
 understand the ways in which individuals acquire knowledge, since group learning can not
occur if the individuals that give it form have not engaged in learning processes.

Individual learning
While there are varying de®nitions of knowledge, and what constitutes knowledge, for the
purpose of this investigation, knowledge is described as information that is imbued with
personal relevance or meaning. Knowledge acquisition has also been described in terms of
different skills that are required in order to effectively draw in new information and attribute it
with meaning (Sveiby, 1997; Savage, 1996; Lundvall and Johnson, 1994). From this per-
spective, the acquisition of knowledge involves procedural and contextual knowledge skills.
Procedural knowledge involves knowing how to take data, turn it into information and
incorporate that into existing networks so as to expand one's knowledge base. On the other
hand, contextual knowledge involves an acute awareness of one's environment, the issues
arising from it, and how that individual is embedded within it. If research ®ndings arising through
knowledge networks are to be utilized in problem solving or decision making tasks, it must ®rst
be integrated into an individual's knowledge structure ± procedural knowledge presupposes
that an individual has been able to identify where that new information ®ts within existing
knowledge structures. This means that individuals must know where knowledge ®ts within
existing knowledge structures before they are able to identify how that new knowledge might
change the ways in which they currently think about something. Therefore, knowledge
acquisition and utilization requires both contextual and procedural knowledge.
While there have been several theories to represent the structure of knowledge within an
individual, more recent connectionist or cognitive network theories, provide a useful platform
from which to understand individual knowledge acquisition (Rumelhart, 1980; Rumelhart et al.,
1986a; Rumelhart 1989). Knowledge can be represented as a collection of networks consisting
of elementary or neuron-like units or nodes containing information (see Figure 1).
These are connected together so that a single node has many links to other nodes. Each of
these other nodes can transmit an excitatory or inhibitory signal to the ®rst node. This node
generally takes a weighted sum of all these inputs. If this sum exceeds some threshold, it
produces an output that may then feed into another node, which does the same. Individual
learning occurs by associating various inputs with certain outputs, and then by storing patterns
of activation, or associations within the cognitive network. The establishment of theses patterns
of activation or associations in the network is how information is instilled with meaning.
Knowledge acquisition is a process in which networks are continuously reconstructed from an
existing network, while their similarity to or divergence from these preceding networks is at the
same time negotiated.
There are also functionally different collectives of cognitive networks, such as those that
encompass action (Pascual-Leone, 1997), logical and conceptual tasks (Pascual-Leone, 1984;
Wilkes, 1997), emotions (Forgas and George, in press; Forgas, 1999, 2000; Bower, 1981), and
social functions (Bar-Tal and Kruglanski, 1988; Fiske and Taylor, 1991; Gruenfeld and
Hollingshead, 1993). These collectives of networks are all capable of dynamically interacting
with each other (Pascual-Leone, 1997) while simultaneously operating in conjunction with
personal experience, cognitive ability and the willingness, or lack thereof, to engage in more
demanding cognitive processes that are sometimes required to acquire new knowledge
(Cropley, 1997; Eysenck, 1997; McClelland, 1963; Sternberg, 1988).
One important relationship to acknowledge is that between cognition and emotion. There has
been much debate over whether emotion requires cognition, or whether emotion can occur

`` Actors in a social network can be individuals or groups,

but also collectives of organizations, communities or
even societies.
''

PAGE 74
| JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
| VOL. 8 NO. 3 2004
 Figure 1 A multi-layered connectionist network showing (a) an input layer, (b)
internal representation layer, and (c) an output layer (adapted from
Rumelhart et al., 1986)

(c)

Output Layer

(b)

Internal
Representation
Layer

(a)

Input Layer

independently of cognitive activity (Lazarus, 1982; Zajonc, 1980, 1984, 2000). Since these
theories have been based on experimental research ®ndings, others have argued that the
debate is meaningless since the arti®cial nature of the experimental settings fails to replicate
ordinary affective states and the social context in which emotion is normally experienced is de-
emphasized (Steptoe and Vogele, 1986; Power and Dalgleish, 1997; Parkinson and Manstead,
1992). While it is heuristically useful to use different names for different aspects of the origins of
affect, the parts are inseparable (Power and Dalgleish, 1997) ± cognition and emotion are
inextricably linked (Eysenck and Keane, 2000).
This brief overview of the literature demonstrates the high level of interest and enquiry into the
ways in which individuals, groups and organizations learn. In spite of this, and the fact that the
terms ``group learning'', ``organizational learning'', and ``knowledge management'' have come
into widespread usage among managers and scholars alike (Skyrme, 1999), popularity in
promoting learning systems contradicts the fact that the process by which knowledge is
created, diffused and utilized in knowledge networks remain poorly understood (Brief and
Walsh, 1999). One reason for this is that many models of learning have arisen through research
conducted in experimental settings that fail to take into account the dynamics occurring in situ
(Argote et al., 2001). Therefore, the question is, what common elements exist among the four
level of learning in knowledge networks in real life settings, and in what ways do these elements
facilitate or impede the creation, dissemination, and eventual utilization of knowledge designed
for organizational application?
Any explanation of the ways in which knowledge is acquired and utilized in knowledge networks
must consider the process of knowledge acquisition and utilization at not only across the four

VOL. 8 NO. 3 2004

| JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
| PAGE 75
 levels of learning, but such an explanation must also acknowledge the cognitive (Anderson,
1996, 1988; Eysenck and Keane, 2000; Rumelhart, 1989; Rumelhart et al., 1986b), social
(Baggozzi et al., 1998; Bar-Tal and Kruglanski, 1988; Bendelow and Williams, 1998; Fiske
and Taylor, 1991; Forgas and George, in press), and communication factors (Lang®eld-Smith,
1992; Larson et al., 1994, 1996; Schwarz, 1994; Stacey, 2001) that are known to in¯uence
knowledge creation and utilization across all levels of learning. Through this approach, while
drawing on existing theories from the ®elds of sociology, and cognitive, social and organizational
psychology, this investigation aimed to examine the relationships among knowledge creation,
diffusion and utilization in a collaborative knowledge network, with a view to identifying the most
ef®cient means for formulating and disseminating research designed for organizational
application.

Method
This paper is based on the ®ndings of a three-year qualitative study of the relationships among
knowledge creation, diffusion, and utilization in a collaborative research undertaking involving
industry, local and State government stakeholders, and academic researchers, brought
together by a facilitating agency[1]. The ®ndings of the collaborative research project under
investigation were intended to inform the strategic management and future planning and of a
tourist destination. Such collaborative undertakings are frequently referred to as ``visioning''
projects. The project involved 22 separate research projects encompassing marketing and
positioning studies relative to domestic and international markets, market trends analyses,
environmental and social impact studies, and facilities and infrastructure audits. Accordingly,
this visioning project provided the ideal forum in which to investigate the conceptualization
and utilization of knowledge designed for organizational application. Further, it allowed the
investigation of organizational learning where disparate participants coalesce and, in turn,
create an organization within its own right. Since these individuals represent and belong to other
organizations, there is simultaneously an opportunity for inter-organizational learning to take
place through the networks that are established.
Throughout this longitudinal study, data were collected through stakeholder interviews, various
documents, and participant observation of stakeholder meetings and workshops. Data were
analyzed using a grounded theory approach (Strauss and Corbin, 1990, 1994; Glasser and
Strauss, 1967), which involved an iterative process of continual sampling and analysis in which
existing literature served, not only to inform, but be informed by the analysis. In the absence of
any strong prior theory, this analytical task involved the sorting and extraction of meaning from
data that was most frequently unstructured. This systematic approach facilitated the generation
of codes to represent low-level concepts and more abstract categories or themes.
It should be noted that the analytical approach taken in this study should not be identi®ed
merely by way of coding. To view the analysis as simply a form of coding is to view it as a form of
content analysis (Strauss and Corbin, 1994) and serves to dilute the importance of the research
®ndings. Rather the analysis in this study incorporated methods of theoretical sampling
and constant comparison ± methods that clearly differentiate grounded theory from traditional
content analysis. Accordingly, throughout the duration of the project the analysis involved the
active sampling of new cases (being driven by theory with new cases being selected for their
potential to generate new theory or deepen the researcher's emergent understanding) and the
continual process of sifting and comparing basic data instances, emergent categories and
theoretical propositions. Therefore, as researcher I was sensitized to similarities and discrep-
ancies in the data and these served to promote conceptual and theoretical development.

Results
The results of this study clearly showed that while collaborative knowledge generation implies
a mechanism for joint decision-making, it need not follow that such mechanisms evolve. This
was evident in that, although the facilitating agency stated that the collaborative process itself
would provide a means of managing the tension between cooperation and the autonomy
organizations require in competitive environments to the extent that, by de®nition, collaboration
implies a mechanism for joint decision making among autonomous and key stakeholders of an

PAGE 76
| JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
| VOL. 8 NO. 3 2004
inter-organizational domain, full stakeholder engagement was never achieved. There were
several factors that contributed to this outcome.
The management of the project was fundamentally ¯awed in its assumption that the collabor-
ative process itself provides a means of managing tension. In fact, the approach the facilitating
agency took could be described as confrontational, since it was designed to ``challenge
mindsets and take people out of their comfort zones''. The result was that stakeholders
experienced negative affective states as personal values and belief systems that individuals
either previously held in esteem or were institutionally dependant on were brought into question.
Stakeholders responded negatively and used their organizational positions to engage in political
activities designed to discredit the project, thereby satisfying self-interests. The facilitating
agency responded as if they were in crisis control mode; they began to behave as if they were in
a state of political panic. Their reaction was to narrow stakeholder focus to those they saw as
being able to bring about change. The high level of engagement with policymakers (to the
neglect of many industry stakeholders) meant that the facilitating agency gained greater
ownership and control of the project.
As the facilitating agency negotiated their way through the political mine®eld that developed,
they realized the danger, and increasing likelihood that the visioning project could collapse
under its own political weight if not carefully managed. Accordingly, the ownership and control
the facilitating agency took over the project, while less than optimal, was perhaps a prudent
(and practical) response, if the project was to survive and realize the objectives that
underpinned its existence. Project management believed there was a need for the visioning
project's strategic research program, and that research ®ndings arising through the program
would serve to bene®t the destination's tourism industry and the region. As many industry
stakeholders did not share this belief, the facilitating agency directed their efforts of engagement
and dissemination of research ®ndings at a policymaking level. While the processes the
facilitating agency engaged in departed from those required of a learning organization, they did
not prevent learning from occurring.

The paradigm shift that occurred in local government in terms of how they viewed the role of
tourism in the local economy re¯ected organizational learning to some degree. Due to the high
level of engagement of the local government, and the intensity of interaction between local
government and the facilitating agency, information was continually being fed to them, and
although the information was not always received willingly, over time elements of the ®ndings
had crept into decision making and policy formulation. What is of interest is that this knowledge
``creep'' occurred without decision makers realizing that the source of their information was the
visioning project.

When individuals were presented with information that was contrary to their existing beliefs or
values, acceptance of that new information frequently became problematic as they tried to
determine where that information might ®t within existing knowledge structures. If the new
information is to be accepted, then some elements within existing knowledge structures must
change in some way. In determining what knowledge structures must alter in order to integrate
new information, recipients experienced the negative affect that may be associated with
cognitive change, but were not always cognizant of why they were experiencing it. This being
so, individuals experienced a state best described as ``cognitive disequilibrium'', which is often
dif®cult to resolve. To resolve this unbalanced state of cognition, recipients often chose to reject
the information and in so doing, diminished the negative affective states experienced when new
information con¯icts with existing cognitive structures.
Incoming information that does not easily assimilate into existing knowledge structures may
result in an affective response so strong, that new information cannot be acquired at that point
in time. That is, individuals may reject information before they engage in the cognitive tasks
underpinning the re¯ective processes required to determine how or where that information
might ®t within existing knowledge structures. However, the results showed that over time, as
individuals re¯ect on the information, it is gradually assimilated into their knowledge structures,

VOL. 8 NO. 3 2004

| JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
| PAGE 77
 `` Members within a knowledge network bring to the
network different frames of reference, different
expectations and different knowledge bases.
''
even though they may no longer be conscious of where that information originated. This
suggests that the incremental acquisition of knowledge is less challenging to an individual's
existing values and belief system than radical restructuring of knowledge networks; the affective
response associated with change is diminished and new knowledge is able to creep into
existing knowledge structures.
Members within a knowledge network bring to the network different frames of reference,
different expectations, and different knowledge bases. As a result, communication was
frequently inhibited, and while overt behavior of network members gave the appearance of
dissension, in fact, what was being sought was a common frame for understanding and
communication. Additionally, the gap between members' worldviews generated the sense that
some members were resisting or failing to understand what the network was seeking to
achieve. Consequently, in order to manage the relationship, research plans and ®ndings were
communicated to members in a teacher-to-student fashion, which fostered single-loop
learning, and reduced industry stakeholders' sense of ownership in the process and ®ndings.
During the project, industry stakeholders frequently sought to have research come pre-
packaged with ``meaning'', but the producers of that knowledge lacked the degree of
contextual knowledge necessary to specify the relevance of their information to would be users
of that information. Producers of knowledge must develop an understanding of the context in
which that knowledge applies. Accordingly, new knowledge needs to be integrated and
diffused to network members over time, and speci®c applications need to be formulated (and
reformulated) in response to particular and changing needs of the network.
The results of this study clearly showed that there are common factors operating within and
among the various levels of learning in a collaborative knowledge network. In identifying these, it
is then possible develop a theoretical framework through which to better understand the
relationships among knowledge creation, diffusion, and utilization in collaborative knowledge
networks, and thereby, optimize the utility of knowledge designed for organizational application.

Theoretical implications
As a result of this investigation, a theoretical framework has been developed that identi®es ®ve
common factors operating within and among the four levels of learning identi®ed earlier. In order
to identify these factors, and the ways in which these factors in¯uence the ways in which
knowledge is managed, it is important to recognize the interdependence among the four levels
of learning. Figure 2 acknowledges not only the interrelatedness, but also interdependency
among these levels of learning.
The order in which the concentric circles are embedded within each other is not to accord more
importance to any one level over another, but is intended to demonstrate the interdependent
and symbiotic nature of knowledge acquisition. The results of this study show that learning at
one level cannot take place until it has occurred at the previous level; nor it is possible to
understand the process of learning at one level until understanding of the process at a previous
level has been attained. However, given the dynamics that occur in knowledge acquisition
across all levels, the relationship among these levels is not seen as linear, but rather with each
level being nested within another. This depiction of learning levels provides the foundation on
which to offer a theoretical explanation of the relationships among the creation, diffusion and
utilization of knowledge intended for organizational application. The factors identi®ed in this
study can be classi®ed as belonging to one of ®ve variables that would in¯uence this process:
social contingencies, communication processes, cognitive processes, affect and values. The
manner in which these ®ve factors relate is displayed in Figure 3. As the ®gure shows,

PAGE 78
| JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
| VOL. 8 NO. 3 2004
 Figure 2 The interrelated levels of learning

In ter-o rg anisation al
L earn in g

O rg anisatio n al
L earn in g

G ro up
L earn in g

Ind ivid u al
L earn in g

knowledge acquisition and subsequent utilization nests within the simultaneous in¯uences of
cognitive, communication and social conditions.
In this instance, cognition would encompass all the functionally different collectives of
associative networks, as they operate in conjunction with personal experience and cognitive
ability. Social contingencies encompass concerns such as group think (Janis, 1982), group
polarization (Lamm, 1988; Lamm and Myers, 1978), relationship building (Seufert et al., 1999),
trust (Cvetkovich and LoÈfstedt, 1999; Fulop, 2002), social validation (Hinsz, 1990; Stasser,
1999), social structures (Nonaka et al., 2000; Nooteboom, 1999; von Krogh et al., 2000; Seufert
et al., 1999), status (Cialdini and Trost, 1998), leadership (Barling et al., 2000; Chrislip and
Larson, 1994; Sogunro, 1998), power (Bendor et al., 2001; Fulop et al., 1999), and of course,
politics (Cohen and Olsen, 1975, 1976; Cohen et al., 1972; Lindblom, 1959, 1979; Simon,
1957). The third helix displayed in the model represents communication issues. This includes
not only dissemination efforts (Backer, 1993; Caws, 1998; Goldberg, 1997; Knott and
Wildavsky, 1980; Stocking, 1998), in whatever form that might take (Argyris and SchoÈn, 1974,
1996; Halme, 2001; Michael, 1973), but also communication of affective states (Barsade, 2001;
Barsade et al., 2000; Thompson et al., 1999a,b) and the establishing of a common frame of
reference, or attainment of mutual understanding (Augier et al., 2001; Schuetz 1962, 1964,
1967).
It is only when the in¯uence of these three factors is acknowledged and managed effectively,
depending on the situation and speci®c needs accordant to it, that there exists the potential for
maximum knowledge gains. However, the degree to which knowledge is acquired is not only
dependent upon these three factors. Figure 3 shows these three factors as being embedded
within affect. The role of affect cannot be separated out from the analysis of human behavior
since it underpins our very existence (Barsade et al., 2000; Barsade, 2001; Eysenck and Keane,

VOL. 8 NO. 3 2004

| JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
| PAGE 79
 Figure 3 Model of factors in¯uencing the acquisition, dissemination and utilization
of knowledge

2000; Forgas, 2000; Lazarus, 1982; Power and Dalgleish, 1997; Zajonc, 1980, 2000).
Consequently, affect is recognized as a factor that permeates all others.
Finally, as affect is said to be an expression of underlying belief systems (Forgas and George, in
press), which are, in turn expressions of a set of values (McKnight and Sutton, 1994), values are
shown to underpin the entire process. Relationship building and trust, essential elements in an
effective knowledge network, results from individuals gradually exposing more of their values
and beliefs through words and actions that are shared over time (Maturana, 1980; Schuetz,
1962, 1964, 1967). It is only through the development of interpersonal relationships that
individuals are able to approximate the mutual understanding that is necessary to acquire,
disseminate, or create new knowledge with integrity. This demonstrates the importance of the
management of, and care for relationships in the effective management of knowledge networks
(Seufert et al., 1999).
In combination, these two models acknowledge the multi-level complexity of knowledge
management in organizations while simultaneously, identifying the common in¯uences among
them. Throughout this investigation these factors have been considered across four levels of
learning. The ways in which these factors interact with the levels of learning are portrayed in
Figure 4. In this instance, social contingencies, communication, and cognitive elements are
seen as permeating all levels of learning. However, again, these elements are underpinned by
affect, which is an expression of values or belief systems.

PAGE 80
| JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
| VOL. 8 NO. 3 2004
 Figure 4 Factors in¯uencing the acquisition and utilization of knowledge across
levels of learning

Levels of Learning
Inter-organisational
Organisational
Group
Individual

Social Contingencies

Communication

Cognition
Affect

Values

Factors of Influence

Accordingly, these models provide a framework through which the emergent patterns within the
complexities of a knowledge network might be recognized and harnessed. The dynamic
tensions inherent in the complexities of a knowledge network give rise to uncertainty, since
order within the system is emergent rather than predictable ± the system's future is
unpredictable. It is the subjective state of uncertainty that gives rise to the affective states of
distrust, suspicion, threat and fear (Kramer, 1999). This emphasizes the role of affect in
knowledge networks and challenges the ways that current theories account for the acquisition
and utilization of knowledge, since this research has shown that knowledge is constructed both
socially and emotionally. This being the case, this ®nding has important implications for the
management of projects where disparate parties come together pursuant to a common goal.

Practical implications
To state that affect shapes the way in which individuals construct their world is in some ways a
bold step, since there is little in the literature that acknowledges the role of affect in human
reasoning. Since the days of the Stoics, affect has often been detached from deliberations
surrounding reasoning and human thought. If, as shown in this study, emotions are
underpinned by values and belief systems, then emotions are responses to the subjective
perception of value ± emotions become value statements. If values underpin reasoning, then
any attempt to understand the reasoning that occurs as individuals acquire knowledge must
therefore consider affect, since emotions are inextricably intertwined with reasoning.

VOL. 8 NO. 3 2004

| JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
| PAGE 81
 If emotions are elemental components of cognitive functioning, rather than adjunctive events,
there is strong justi®cation to employ processes that promote emotional health or well-being in
settings such as collaborative arrangements of knowledge production. This ®nding has
signi®cant implications for the way in which control problems and politics, inherent in
organizational life, are interpreted. The political activities and control problems often observed in
policymaking or decision-making may not be signs of resistance. Rather, they may actually be
expressions of the cognitive, emotional and social dif®culties an individual experiences as they
attempt to come to terms with information that does not easily ®t with existing knowledge
structures. The results of this study show that uncertainty will arise not just as individuals
attempt to acquire information that does not assimilate easily into existing knowledge structures
± it will also arise in stakeholders where they are unsure of the objectives and agendas of those
participating in collaborative ventures. Given that the dynamic tension inherent in tri-lateral
arrangements of knowledge production will give rise to uncertainty, this has signi®cant practical
implications for the management of cooperative research projects. Rather than seeing lack of
stakeholder engagement or commitment to a project as resistance, perhaps it is signaling the
dif®culties experienced as they attempt to alter existing knowledge structures. Apparent
``resistance'' may be an indication that different communication methods are required ± a need
for the open and honest dialogue that characterizes a learning organization.
Based on the ®ndings of this study, initial stakeholder engagement in collaborative research
undertakings would be best achieved through promoting the bene®ts of involvement. Rather
than emphasize change (which brings rise to negative affective as mentioned), greater
emphasis should be placed on the value-added outcomes that the knowledge network might
produce. Fundamental to the success of a collaborative research project is that all participants
develop an understanding of the values and principles that would enhance the knowledge
assets of an organization. It is dif®cult to adopt a learning organization approach when group
members are not aware of the principles and values underlying it. Accordingly, this should be
the starting point of the collaborative research process. This suggestion however, involves more
than intellectual acceptance of the underlying values and principles that underpin a learning
organization ± it even extends past relationship building and the time that must be invested to
achieve this. Participants must also develop an understanding of how they and other members
of the group negotiate their way through these values and principles and the impact this has on
relationship building ± they must come to understand how and why their roles might differ from
those within their originating organization. In other words, those participating in collaborative
knowledge networks would need to develop an understanding of the ways in which individuals
socially and emotionally construct and interpret their worlds. This requires an appreciation of
how emotions re¯ect individual values and belief systems. In developing a greater awareness of
their emotional states, participants in such settings would be better equipped to identify the
values underlying their thoughts (Schwarz, 1994). This would lead to deeper processing of
information which would in turn enhance the opportunity for knowledge to be acquired.
As a result of this current study a model of ``best practice'' has been developed and is currently
being tested. It is anticipated that the ®ndings of this investigation will be made available in the
near future. What is apparent now is that to ignore the role of emotion and values in the process
of knowledge acquisition is to ignore a key component of an individual's reasoning capacity.
Consequently, it is the skilful management of these affective states that has a profound effect on
the overall outcome and effectiveness of a knowledge network.

Conclusions
The ®ndings of this study contribute to the understanding of this emerging form of scienti®c
knowledge through collaboration by demonstrating the interrelatedness of cognitive, social,
affective and communication in¯uences inherent, not only in the process of knowledge
production, but also in the eventual utility of research output.
In a world where science policies are dictating greater collaboration between science, industry
and government, the ®ndings of this research have direct and immediate application to any
collaborative project embracing the tenets of a knowledge-based economy. The increased
understanding of the processes underlying a collaborative knowledge network that have

PAGE 82
| JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
| VOL. 8 NO. 3 2004
eventuated through this research, give both hope and direction to a process that is applauded
and encouraged, yet greatly misunderstood (Beesley, 2003) and, it is suggested, the bene®ts of
which have not yet even begun to be fully realized.

Note
1. The project under investigation in this study provided a unique opportunity to investigate the relationships
among knowledge creation, diffusion and utilization in a cooperative research setting. Consent to attend
all meetings relating to the project was awarded to the author with the proviso that those responsible for
comments made at meetings would not be identi®ed, nor would organizations involved in the project be
identi®ed if links could be made back to individuals. This con®dentiality agreement was minuted at each
meeting. Accordingly, no explicit reference is made to the city, organizations, or individuals involved in
the project in this paper.

References
Allison, G. (1971), Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, Little Brown, Boston, MA.
Anderson, J. R. (1988), ``Acquisition of cognitive skills'', Psychological Review, Vol. 85, pp. 249-77.
Anderson, J.R. (1996), The Architecture of Cognition, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Argote, L. (1999), Organizational learning: Creating, Retaining and Transferring Knowledge, Kluwer
Academic, Norwell, MA.
Argote, L., Gruenfeld, D. and Naquin, C. (2001), ``Group learning in organizations'', in Turner, M. (Ed.),
Groups at Work: Advances in Theory and Research, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 369-411.
Argote, L. and Ingram, P. (2000), ``Knowledge transfer: a basis for competitive advantage in ®rms'',
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 82 No. 1, pp. 150-69.
Argyris, C. and SchoÈn, D. (1974), Organizational Learning, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Argyris, C. and SchoÈn, D. (1996), Organizational Learning II, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Augier, M., Sharig, S.Z. and Vendele, M.T. (2001), ``Understanding context: its emergence, transformation
and role in tacit knowledge sharing'', Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 125-36.
Backer, T.E. (1993), ``Information alchemy: transforming information through knowledge utilization'', Journal
of the American Society for Information Science, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 217-21.
Baggozzi, R.P., Baumgartner, H. and Pieters, R. (1998), ``Goal-directed emotions'', Cognition and Emotion,
Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-26.
Barling, J., Slater, F. and Kelloway, E. (2000), ``Transformational leadership and emotional intelligence: an
exploratory study'', Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 157-61.
Barsade, S.G. (2001), ``The ripple effect: emotional contagion in groups'', Yale School of Management,
New Haven, CT, available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=250894
Barsade, S.G., Ward, A.J., Turner, J.D.F. and Sonnenfeld, J.A. (2000), ``To your heart's content: the
in¯uence of affective diversity in top management teams'', Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 45,
pp. 802-36.
Bar-Tal, D. and Kruglanski, A.W. (Eds) (1988), ``The social psychology of knowledge: its scope and
meaning'', in The Social Psychology of Knowledge, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, pp. 1-14.
Baum, J. and Ingram, P. (1998), ``Survival-enhancing learning in the Manhatten hotel industry, 1898-1980'',
Management Science, Vol. 44, pp. 996-1016.
Beesley, L. G. (2003), ``Science policy in changing times: are governments poised to take advantage of an
institution in transition?'', Research Policy, Vol. 32 No. 8, pp. 1519-31.
Bendelow, G. and Williams, S.J. (1998), Emotions in Social Life, Routledge, London.
Bendor, J., Moe, T.M. and Shotts, K.W. (2001), ``Recycling the garbage can: an assessment of the research
program (theory of organizational choice)'', American Political Science Review, Vol. 95 No. 1, pp. 169-93.
Bhatt, G.D. (2001), ``Knowledge management in organizations: examining the interaction between
technologies, techniques and people'', Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 68-75.
Bower, G.H. (1981), ``Mood and memory'', American Psychologist, Vol. 36, pp. 129-48.
Brief, A.P. and Walsh, J.P. (1999), ``Series editors' forward'', in Thompson, L.L., Levine, J.M. and Messick,
D.M. (Eds), Shared Cognitions in Organizations: The Management of Knowledge, Lawrence Erlbaum,
Mahwah, NJ, p. xi.

VOL. 8 NO. 3 2004

| JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
| PAGE 83
 Calvin, G. (1997), ``The most valuable quality in a manager'', Fortune, 29 December, pp. 279-80.
Caws, P. (1998), ``Communication lag'', Science Communication, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 14-21.
Chrislip, D.D. and Larson, C.E. (1994), Collaborative Leadership: How Citizens and Civic Leaders Can Make
a Difference, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Cialdini, R. and Trost, M. (1998), ``Social in¯uence: social norms, conformity and compliance'', in Gilbert, D.,
Fiske, S. and Lindzey, G. (Eds), Handbook of Social Psychology, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, pp. 152-92.
Cohen, J. and Olsen, J. (1975), ``The uncertainty of the past: organizational learning under uncertainty'',
European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 3, June, pp. 147-71.
Cohen, J. and Olsen, J. (1976), ``Organizational choice under ambiguity'', in Cohen, J. and Olsen, J. (Eds),
Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations, Universitetsforlaget, Bergen, Norway, pp. 10-23.
Cohen, M.D., March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. (1972), ``A garbage can model of organizational choice'',
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 17, pp. 1-25.
Cropley, A.J. (1997), ``Fostering creativity in the classroom: general principles'', in Runco, M.A. (Eds), The
Creativity Research Handbook, Hampton Press, Cresskill, NJ, pp. 83-114.
Cvetkovich, G. and LoÈfstedt, R. (Eds) (1999), Social Trust and the Management of Trust, Earthscan,
London.
Delahaye, B. (2001), ``The management of knowledge: a systems approach'', paper presented at School of
Applied Psychology, Grif®th University, Gold Coast Campus.
DIST (1995), ``Changing research culture'', CRC Program Evaluation Steering Committee, AGPS,
Canberra.
Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A. and Healey, P. (Eds) (1998), Capitalizing Knowledge: New Intersections of
Insustry and Academia, State University of New York Press, New York, NY.
Eysenck, H.J. (1997), ``Creativity and personality'', in Runco, M. (Ed.), The Creativity Research Handbook,
Hampton Press, Cresskill, NJ, pp. 41-66.
Eysenck, M.W. and Keane, M.T. (2000), Cognitive Psychology: A Student's Handbook, Lawrence Erlbaum,
London.
Fiske, S.T. and Taylor, S.E. (1991), Social Cognition, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Forgas, J. (2000), ``Feeling and thinking: summary and integration'', in Forgas, J. (Ed.), Feeling and
Thinking: The Role of Affect in Social Cognition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 387-406.
Forgas, J.P. (1999), ``Network theories and beyond'', in Dalgleish, T. and Power, M. (Eds), Handbook of
Cognition and Emotion, John Wiley, Chichester, pp. 591-611.
Forgas, J.P. and George, J.M. (in press), ``Affective in¯uences on judgments, decision making and behavior
in organizations: an information processing perspective'', Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes.
Frohock, F. (1979), Public Policy, Scope and Logic, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Fulop, L. (2002), ``The devil is in the detail: making sense of risk and trust in university-industry
partnerships'', paper presented at Professorial Lecture Series, Grif®th University, Gold Coast Campus.
Fulop, L., Linstead, S. and Frith, F. (1999), ``Power and politics in organisations'', in Fulop, L. and
Linstead, S. (Eds), Management: A Critical Text, Macmillan Education, Melbourne, pp. 122-58.
Gavin, D. (2002), ``A review of the ®fth discipline'', available at: www.rtis.com/nat/user/jfullerton/review/
learning.htm#®fthdiscipline
Glasser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Aualitative
Research, Aldine, Chicago, IL.
Goldberg, A. (1997), ``Vulnerability and disclosure in science'', Science Communication, Vol. 19 No. 2,
pp. 99-123.
Gruenfeld, D.H. and Hollingshead, A.B. (1993), ``Sociocognition in work groups: the evolution of integrative
complexity and its relation to task performance'', Small Group Research, Vol. 24, pp. 383-405.
Halme, M. (2001), ``Learning for sustainable development in tourism networks'', Business Strategy and the
Environment, Vol. 10, pp. 110-14.
Harinck, F., De Dreu, C.K.W. and Van Vianen, A.E.M. (2000), ``The impact of con¯ict issues on ®xed-pie
perceptions, problem solving, and integrative outcomes in negotiation'', Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, Vol. 82 No. 2, pp. 329-58.

PAGE 84
| JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
| VOL. 8 NO. 3 2004
Hayes, M. (1992), Incrementalism and Public Policy, Longman, New York, NY.
Hinsz, V.B. (1990), ``Cognitive and consensus processes in group recognition memory performance'',
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 59, pp. 705-18.
Janis, I.L. (1982), Groupthink, Houghton Mif¯in, Boston, MA.
Kattenburg, P. (1980), The Vietnam Trauma in American Foreign Policy, Transaction Books, New
Brunswick, NJ.
Kleket, M.G., Mackay, J.M., Barr, S.H. and Jones, B. (2001), ``Creativity in the organisation: the role of
individual creative problem solving and computer support'', International Journal of Human-Computer
Studies, Vol. 55, pp. 217-37.
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1981), ``Time and context in practical action: underdetermination and knowledge use'',
Knowledge Creation, Diffusion and Utilization, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 143-66.
Knott, J. and Wildavsky, A. (1980), ``If dissemination is the solution, what is the problem?'', Knowledge
Creation, Diffusion and Utilization, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 537-78.
Kolb, D.A. (1984), Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning, Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Kramer, R.M. (1999), ``Social uncertainty and collective paranoia in knowledge communities: thinking and
acting in the shadow of doubt'', in Thompson, L.L., Levine, J.M. and Messick, D.M. (Eds), Shared
Cognitions in Organizations: The Management of Knowledge, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 163-94.
Lamm, H. (1988), ``A review of our research on group polarization: eleven experiments on the effects of
group discussion on risk acceptance, probability estimation and negotiation positions'', Psychological
Reports, Vol. 62, pp. 807-913.
Lamm, H. and Myers, D.G. (1978), ``Group-induced polarization of attitudes and behavior'', in Berkowitz, L.
(Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 145-95.
Lang®eld-Smith, K. (1992), ``Exploring the need for a shared cognitive map'', Journal of Management
Studies, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 266-85.
Larson, J.R., Foster-Fisherman, P.G. and Keys, C.B. (1994), ``The discussion of shared and unshared
information in decision making groups'', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 67, pp. 446-61.
Larson, J.R. Jr, Christensen, C., Abbott, A.S. and Franz, T.M. (1996), ``Diagnosing groups: charting the ¯ow
of information in medical decision making'', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 71,
pp. 315-30.
Lazarus, R. (1982), ``Thoughts on the relations between emotion and cognition'', American Psychologist,
Vol. 37, pp. 1019-24.
Leydesdorff, L. (2000), ``The triple helix: an evolutionary model of innovations'', Research Policy, Vol. 29,
pp. 243-55.
Lincoln, J. (1982), ``Intra- (and inter-) organizational networks'', in Bacharach, S. (Ed.), Research in the
Sociology of Organizations, JAI, Greenwich, CT, pp. 255-94.
Lindblom, C.E. (1959), ``The science of `muddling through' '', Public Administration Review, Vol. 19, Spring,
pp. 79-88.
Lindblom, C.E. (1979), ``Still muddling, not yet through'', Public Administration Review, Vol. 39 No. 6,
pp. 517-26.
Lundvall, B.A. and Johnson, B. (1994), ``The learning economy'', Journal of Industry Studies, Vol. 1 No. 2,
p. 25.
Lyotard, J. (1984), The Postmodern condition: A Report on Knowledge, Bennington, G. and Massumi, B.
(trans), Manchester University Press, Manchester.
March, J.C. (Ed.) (1999), The Pursuit of Organizational Intelligence, Blackwell, MA.
March, J.G. (1988a), ``Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice'', in Bell, D., Raiffa, H.
and Tversky, A. (Eds), Decision Making: Descriptive, Normative, and Prescriptive Interactions, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
March, J.G. (1988b), Decisions and Organizations, Blackwell, Oxford.
Maturana, H. (1980), ``Biology of cognition'', in Maturana, H. and Varela, F. (Eds), Autopoiesis and
Cognition: The Realization of the Living, D. Reidel Publishing, Dordrecht, pp. 2-57.

VOL. 8 NO. 3 2004

| JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
| PAGE 85
 McClelland, D.C. (1963), ``The calculated risk: an aspect of scienti®c performance'', in Taylor, C.W. and
Barron, F. (Eds), Scienti®c Creativity, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 184-92.
McElroy, M.W. (2000), ``Integrating complexity theory, knowledge management and organizational
learning'', Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 195-203.
McKnight, J. and Sutton, J. (1994), Social Psychology, Prentice Hall, Sydney.
Michael, D. (1973), On Learning to Plan and Planning to Learn, Jossey Bass, San Fransisco, CA.
Mitchell, J. (1969), ``The concept and use of social networks'', in Mitchell, J. (Ed.), Social Networks in Urban
Situations, Manchester University Press, Manchester, pp. 1-12.
Mohammed, S. and Ringseis, E. (2001), ``Cognitive diversity and consensus in group decision making: the
role of inputs, processes and outcomes'', Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 85
No. 2, pp. 310-33.
Myers, P. (Ed.) (1996), Knowledge Management and Organisational Design, Butterworth-Heinemann,
Boston, MA.
Nietzsche, F. (1968), The Will to Power, Kaufmann, W. and Hollingdale, R. (trans), Vintage Books, New
York, NY.
Nonaka, I. (1991), ``The knowledge-creating company'', Harvard Business Review, Vol. 69 No. 6,
pp. 96-104.
Nonaka, I. (1999), ``Leading knowledge creation'', paper presented at 32nd International Conference on
System Sciences, Maui, HI.
Nonaka, I. and Konno, N. (1998), ``The concept of `Ba': building foundation for knowledge creation'',
California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 40-54.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, I. (1995), The Knowledge Creating Company, Oxford University Press, New York,
NY.
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R. and Nagata, A. (2000), ``A ®rm as a knowledge creating entity: a new perspective on
the theory of the ®rm'', Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1-20.
Nooteboom, B. (1999), ``Innovation and inter-®rm linkages: new implications for policy'', Research Policy,
Vol. 28, pp. 793-805.
Paisley, W. (1993, ``Knowledge utilization: the role of new communication technologies'', Journal of the
American Society for Information Science, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 222-34.
Parkinson, B. and Manstead, A. (1992), ``Appraisal as a cause of emotion'', in Clark, M. (Ed.), Review of
Personality and Social Psychology, Sage, New York, NY.
Pascual-Leone, J. (1984), ``Attentional, dialectic and mental effort: towards an organismic theory of life
stages'', in Commons, M., Richards, F. and Armon, G. (Eds), Beyond Formal Operations: Late Adolescent
and Adult Cognitive Development, Praeger, New York, NY, pp. 182-215.
Pascual-Leone, J. (1997), ``Metasubjective processes: the missing Lingua Franca of cognitive science'', in
Johnson, D. and Erneling, C. (Eds), The Future of the Cognitive Revolution, Oxford University Press, New
York, pp. 75-101.
Paulus, P.B. and Huei, Y. (2000), ``Idea generation in groups: a basis for creativity in organisations'',
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 82 No. 1, pp. 76-87.
Pfeffer, J. (1981), Power in Organizations, Pitman, Marsh®eld, MA.
Power, M. and Dalgleish, T. (1997), Cognition and Emotion: From Order to Disorder, Psychology Press,
Hove.
Pruitt, D.G. and Carnevale, P.J. (1993), Negotiation in Social Con¯ict, Open University Press, Buckingham.
Rietan, T. (1998), ``Theories of interorganizational relations in the human services'', Social Science Review,
Vol. 72 No. 3, pp. 285-304.
Roch, S.G., Lane, J.A.S., Samuelson, C.D., Allison, S.T. and Dent, J.L. (2000), ``Cognitive load and the
equality heuristic: a two-stage model of resource overconsumption in small groups'', Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 185-212.
Rowley, J. (2000), ``Knowledge organisation for a new millenium: principles and processes'', Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 217-23.
Rumelhart, D.E. (1980), ``Schemata: the building blocks of cognition'', in Spiro, R., Bruce, B. and Brewer,
W. (Eds), Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension, Laurence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 33-57.

PAGE 86
| JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
| VOL. 8 NO. 3 2004
Rumelhart, D.E. (1989), ``The architecture of mind: a connectionist approach'', in Posner, M.I. (Ed.),
Foundations of Cognitive Science, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 133-60.
Rumelhart, D.E., Hinton, G.E. and McClelland, J.L. (1986a), ``A general framework for parallel distributed
processing'', in Rummelhart, D., McClelland, J. and Group, T.P.R. (Eds), Foundations, M.I.T. Press,
Cambridge, MA, pp. 45-76.
Rumelhart, D.E., Smolensky, P., McClelland, J.L. and Hinton, G.E. (1986b), ``Schemata and sequential
thought in PDP models'', in McClelland, J., Rummelhart, D. and Group, T.P.R. (Eds), Physiological and
Biological Models, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 7-57.
Savage, C. (1996), 5th Generation Management: Cocreating Through Virtual Enterprising, Dynamic
Teaming, and Knowledge Networking, Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, MA.
Schaef, A.W. and Fassel, D. (1988), The Addictive Organization, Harper and Row, San Francisco, CA.
Schuetz, A. (1962), ``Common sense and scienti®c interpretation of human action'', in Natanson, M. (Ed.),
Collected Papers I ± The Problem of Social Reality, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 3-47.
Schuetz, A. (1964), ``The dimensions of the social world'', in Broderson, A. (Ed.), Collected Papers II ±
Studies in Social Theory, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, pp. 20-63.
Schuetz, A. (1967), The Phenomenology of the Social World, Northwestern University Press, Evanston, IL.
Schwarz, R. (1994), The Skilled Facilitator: Practical Wisdom for Developing Effective Groups, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, CA.
Senge, P. (1990), The Fifth Discipline, Doubleday, New York, NY.
Senge, P.M., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R.B. and Smith, B.J. (1994), The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook:
Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization, Nicholas Brealey, London.
Seufert, A., von Krogh, G. and Bach, A. (1999), ``Towards knowledge networking'', Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 180-90.
Shapira, Z. (Ed.) (1997), Organizational Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
Simon, H. (1957), Models of Man: Social and Rational, Wiley, New York, NY.
Skyrme, D. (1999), Knowledge Networking: Creating the Collaborative Enterprise, Butterworth-Heinemann,
Oxford.
Slatyer, R.O. (1990), ``Major new program for cooperative research centres'', Search, Vol. 21 No. 5,
pp. 162-64.
Slatyer, R.O. (1993), ``Cooperative research centres: the concept and its implementation'', paper presented
at Research Grants: Management and Funding, Canberra.
Sogunro, O.A. (1998), ``Leadership effectiveness and personality characteristics of group members'',
Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 26-32.
Soliman, F. and Spooner, K. (2000), ``Strategies for implementing knowledge management: role of human
resources management'', Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 337-45.
Stacey, R. (2001), Complex Responsive Processes in Organizations: Learning and Knowledge Creation,
Routledge, London.
Stasser, G. (1999), ``The uncertain role of unshared information in collective choice'', in Thompson, L.,
Levine, J. and Messick, D. (Eds), Shared Cognitions in Organizations: The Management of Knowledge,
Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 49-70.
Steptoe, A. and Vogele, C. (1986), ``Are stress responses in¯uenced by cognitive appraisal?'', British
Journal of Psychology, Vol. 77, pp. 243-55.
Sternberg, R.J. (1988), ``A three-facet model of creativity'', in Sternberg, R.J. (Ed.), The Nature of Creativity,
Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, pp. 125-47.
Stocker, J. (1997), Priority Matters: A Review of Science and Technology Arrangements, AGPS, Canberra.
Stocking, S.H. (1998), ``On drawing attention to ignorance'', Science Communication, Vol. 20 No. 1,
pp. 165-78.
Strauss, A.L. and Corbin, J. (1990), Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and
Techniques, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Strauss, A.L. and Corbin, J. (1994), ``Grounded theory methodology: an overview'', in Denzin, N.K. and
Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 273-85.

VOL. 8 NO. 3 2004

| JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
| PAGE 87
 Sveiby, K. (1997), The New Organizational Wealth: Managing and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets,
Berrett-Koehler.
Thagard, P., Eliasmith, C., Rusnock, P. and Shelley, C.P. (in press), ``Knowledge and coherence'', in Elio, R.
(Ed.), Common Sense, Reasoning and Rationality, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Thompson, L., Levine, J. and Messick, D. (Eds) (1999a), Shared Cognitions in Organizations: The
Management of Knowledge, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Thompson, L., Nadler, J. and Kim, P.J. (1999b), ``Some like it hot: the case for the emotional negotiator'', in
Thompson, L.L., Levine, J.M. and Messick, D.M. (Eds), Shared Cognitions in Organizations: The
Management of Knowledge, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 139-62.
Turner, M.E. (Ed.) (2001), Groups at Work: Theory and Research, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K. and Nonaka, I. (2000), Enabling Knowledge Creation, Oxford University Press, New
York, NY.
Weiss, C. (1980), ``Knowledge creep and decision accretion'', Knowledge Creation, Diffusion and
Utilization, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 381-404.
Weiss, C.H. (1995), ``The haphazard connection: social science and public policy'', International Journal of
Educational Research, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 137-50.
Weissinger-Baylon, R. (1988), ``Garbage can decision processes in naval warfare'', in March, J. and
Weissinger-Baylon, R. (Eds), Ambiguity and Command, Pitman, Marsh®eld, MA, pp. 36-52.
Weiten, W. (1992), Psychology: Themes and Variations, Wadsworth, Paci®c Grove, CA.
Wilkes, A.L. (1997), Knowledge in Minds: Individual and Collective Processes in Cognition, Psychology
Press, East Sussex.
Zajonc, R. (1980), ``Feeling and thinking: preferences need no inferences'', American Psychologist, Vol. 35,
pp. 151-75.
Zajonc, R. (1984), ``On the primacy of affect'', American Psychologist, Vol. 39, pp. 117-23.
Zajonc, R. (2000), ``Feeling and thinking: closing the debate over the independence of affect'', in Forgas, J.
(Ed.), Feeling and Thinking: The Role of Affect in Social Cognition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
pp. 31-58.

PAGE 88
| JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
| VOL. 8 NO. 3 2004