MITS 5505 Victorian Institute of Technology Knowledge Management Paper & Presentation http://www.aserenko.com/papers/Serenko_Bontis_2013…These instructio

MITS 5505 Victorian Institute of Technology Knowledge Management Paper & Presentation http://www.aserenko.com/papers/Serenko_Bontis_2013…These instructions apply to both the Presentation and Research Report assessments only. The
paper you select must be directly relevant to Knowledge Management, Knowledge Transfer,
Knowledge Modelling or Knowledge Engineering topics. The paper can be from any academic
conference or other relevant Journal or online sources such as Google Scholar, Academic
department repositories etc. All students must select a different paper, thus the paper must be
approved by your lecturer or tutor before proceeding. In case two students are wanting to
present on the same paper, the first who emails the lecturer or tutor with their choice will be
allocated that paper.
Presentation and Participation – 5% (weeks 9-12)
For this component you will be required to do a 5-10 minutes presentation on an academic paper
based on Knowledge Management, Knowledge Transfer, Knowledge Modelling or Knowledge
Engineering MITS5505
Knowledge Management
Research Report and Presentation
Weightage: 20%
Due date: 31st May 2020
Late penalty applies on late submission, 10% per day would be deducted
0 mark for LATE Submission more than one week
0 mark for DUPLICATED Submission or Shared Work
MITS5505 Research Report and Presentation
Objective(s)
This assessment item relates to the unit learning outcomes as in the unit descriptor. This
assessment is designed to improve student presentation skills and to give students experience in
researching a topic and writing a report relevant to the Unit of Study subject matter.
This assessment covers the following LOs.
LO3: Conduct research on emerging tools and techniques for the stages of knowledge creation,
acquisition, transfer and management of knowledge and recommend the most appropriate choice
based on expert judgement on the practical needs.
LO4: Apply and integrate appropriate KM components to develop effective knowledge management
solutions
INSTRUCTIONS
These instructions apply to both the Presentation and Research Report assessments only. The
paper you select must be directly relevant to Knowledge Management, Knowledge Transfer,
Knowledge Modelling or Knowledge Engineering topics. The paper can be from any academic
conference or other relevant Journal or online sources such as Google Scholar, Academic
department repositories etc. All students must select a different paper, thus the paper must be
approved by your lecturer or tutor before proceeding. In case two students are wanting to
present on the same paper, the first who emails the lecturer or tutor with their choice will be
allocated that paper.
Presentation and Participation – 5% (weeks 9-12)
For this component you will be required to do a 5-10 minutes presentation on an academic paper
based on Knowledge Management, Knowledge Transfer, Knowledge Modelling or Knowledge
Engineering.
A grade of 5% of the Units mark will be awarded for your presentation and your participation in
other student presentations. Prepare a PowerPoint slide presentation for your presentation.
Note: if class numbers are large the presentation may be organized into groups.
The presentations will occur in sessions 9-12 on the academic calendar and the order of
presentations will be by arrangement, but these will be evenly spread over those sessions.
Copyright © 2020 VIT, All Rights Reserved.
2
MITS5505 Research Report and Presentation
Research Report – 15% (Due week 13)
For this component you will prepare a report or critique on the paper you chose from the
Presentation and Participation component above.
Your report should be limited to approx. 1500 words (not including references). Use 1.5 spacing
with a 12-point Times New Roman font. Though your paper will largely be based on the chosen
article, you can use other sources to support your discussion. Citation of sources is mandatory
and must be in the Harvard style.
Your report or critique must include:
Title Page: The title of the assessment, the name of the paper you are reviewing and its authors,
and your name and student ID.
Introduction: A statement of the purpose for your report and a brief outline of how you will
discuss the selected article (one or two paragraphs). Make sure to identify the article being
reviewed.
Body of Report: Describe the intention and content of the article. If it is a research report, discuss
the research method (survey, case study, observation, experiment, or other method) and
findings. Comment on problems or issues highlighted by the authors. Discuss the conclusions of
the article and how they are relevant to what you are studying this semester.
Conclusion: A summary of the points you have made in the body of the paper. The conclusion
should not introduce any ‘new’ material that was not discussed in the body of the paper. (One or
two paragraphs)
References: A list of sources used in your text. They should be listed alphabetically by (first)
author’s family name. Follow the Harvard style.
The footer must include your name, student ID, and page number.
Submission guidelines.
 Presentation and Participation: There is no submission for this component, you are
allocated marks based on your presentation and participation
 Research Report: Submit your report in a file named ResearchReport-xxxxxxx.doc (where
xxxxxxx is your student ID) by the due date and time.
 Submissions made after the due date and time will be penalized at the rate of 10% per
day (including weekend days).
Note: Incidents of plagiarism will be penalized. If your similarity score is high you can resubmit
your report two times, but re-submissions are only allowed up to the due date. If you submit
your assignment after the due date and time, then re-submissions will not be allowed.
Copyright © 2020 VIT, All Rights Reserved.
3
MITS5505 Research Report and Presentation
Marking Guide:
Marking Guide:
CATEGORY
Introduction
Focus & Sequencing
Support
Conclusion
Grammar &
Mechanics
APA Style &
Communication
Citations &
References
Unacceptable
Acceptable
Good
Excellent
Does not adequately
convey topic. Does
not describe
subtopics to be
reviewed. Lacks
adequate research
statement.
Little evidence
material is logically
organized
into topic, subtopics
or related to topic.
Many transitions are
unclear or nonexistent.
Conveys topic, but
not key question(s).
Describes subtopics
to be reviewed.
General research
statement.
Conveys topic and
key question(s).
Clearly delineates
subtopics to be
reviewed. General
research statement.
Most material clearly
related to subtopic,
main topic. Material
may not be organized
within subtopics.
Attempts to provide
variety of
transitions
All material clearly
related to subtopic,
main topic and
logically organized
within subtopics.
Clear, varied
transitions linking
subtopics, and main
topic.
Few sources
supporting research
topic. Sources
insignificant or
unsubstantiated.
Does not summarize
evidence with respect
to research topic.
Does not discuss the
impact of researched
material on topic.
Sources generally
acceptable but not
peer-reviewed
research
(evidence) based.
Review of key
conclusions. Some
integration with
research topic.
Discusses impact of
researched material
on topic.
Sources well selected
to support report
topic with some
minor issues.
Strong introduction
of topic’s key
question(s), terms.
Clearly delineates
subtopics to be
reviewed. Specific
research statement.
All material clearly
related to subtopic,
main topic. Strong
organization and
integration of
material within
subtopics. Strong
transitions linking
subtopics, and main
topic.
Strong peer reviewed
based papers to
support research
topic.
Grammatical
errors or spelling &
punctuation
substantially detract
from the report.
Errors in APA style
detracts substantially
from the paper. Word
choice is informal in
tone. Writing is
choppy, with many
awkward or unclear
passages.
Reference and
citation errors detract
significantly from
report.
Very few
grammatical, spelling
or punctuation errors
interfere with reading
the report.
Errors in APA style is
noticeable. Word
choice occasionally
informal in tone.
Writing has a few
awkward or unclear
passages.
Grammatical errors
or spelling &
punctuation are rare
and do not detract
from the report.
Rare errors in APA
style that do not
detract from the
report. Scholarly
style. Writing has
minimal awkward of
unclear passages.
Two references or
citations missing or
incorrectly written.
One reference or
citations missing or
incorrectly written.
Copyright © 2020 VIT, All Rights Reserved.
Strong review of key
conclusions. Strong
integration with
research topic.
Discusses impact of
researched material
on topic.
Strong review of key
conclusions. Strong
integration with
research topic.
Insightful discussion
of impact of the
researched material
on topic.
The paper is free of
grammatical errors
and spelling &
punctuation.
No errors in APA
style. Scholarly style.
Writing is flowing and
easy to follow.
All references and
citations are correctly
written and present.
4
The intellectual core and impact of the
knowledge management academic
discipline
Alexander Serenko and Nick Bontis
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is two-fold: to explore the intellectual core of the knowledge
management (KM) academic discipline in order to test whether it exhibits signs of a reference discipline;
and to analyze the theoretical and practical impact of the discipline.
Design/methodology/approach – The most influential articles published in the Journal of Knowledge
Management were selected and their cited and citing works were scientometrically analysed.
Alexander Serenko is
based at the Faculty of
Business Administration,
Lakehead University,
Thunder Bay, Canada.
Nick Bontis is based at the
DeGroote School of
Business, McMaster
University, Hamilton,
Canada.
Findings – The KM discipline: builds its knowledge primarily upon research reports published in the
English language; successfully disseminates its knowledge in both English and non-English
publications; does not exhibit a problematic self-citation behavior; uses books and practitioner
journals in the development of KM theory; converts experiential knowledge into academic knowledge; is
not yet a reference discipline, but is progressing well towards becoming one; exerts a somewhat limited
direct impact on practice; and is not a scientific fad.
Practical implications – KM researchers need to become aware of and use knowledge published in
non-English outlets. Given the status of KM as an applied discipline, it is critical that researchers
continue utilizing non-peer reviewed sources in their scholarly work. KM researchers should promote the
dissemination of KM knowledge beyond the disciplinary boundaries. The issue whether KM should
strive towards becoming a reference discipline should be debated further.
Originality/value – This study analyzes the KM field from the reference discipline perspective.
Keywords Knowledge management, Research work, Languages, Books, Journals,
Academic research, Citation analysis, Reference discipline, Relevance, Scientometrics
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Received 14 March 2012
Revised 14 September 2012
20 September 2012
24 September 2012
Accepted 26 September 2012
Science is a systematic study of the natural world. It encompasses methods for knowledge
creation, the body of knowledge accumulated from applying these methods, and the cultural
values and norms that guide scientific inquiries. Scientific studies generate and present
knowledge in the form of testable or falsifiable theories, hypotheses and predictions about
the phenomenon of interest (Merton, 1982; Merton and Sztompka, 1996). The key motivation
of researchers is the pursuit of true knowledge for the sake of knowledge (Mohr, 1977) and
the engagement in science for the sake of science (Fuller, 1997). The development of
modern science dates back to Ancient Greece, Rome, Byzantium, Renaissance, and the
Industrial Revolution during the seventeenth century. Several isolated civilizations also
followed a scientific path. Examples include the development of science in China,
Babylonian mathematics and Egyptian astronomy (Price, 1961).
This study is kindly supported
by the research grant
864-07-0181 from the Social
Sciences and Humanities
Research Council of Canada
(SSHRC). Sincere thanks go to
Madora Moshonsky for her
assistance with data analysis.
As modern science advanced, different branches of science appeared, also referred to as
fields, disciplines or domains. Each scholarly discipline has two objectives. The first is to
advance our understanding of the phenomena, accumulate the body of knowledge, and
document it in the form of scientific publications in peer-reviewed journals, conference
proceedings, books, etc. The ultimate goal of most scholarly fields is to become a reference
discipline, which provides a theoretical, conceptual and methodological foundation for other
DOI 10.1108/13673271311300840
VOL. 17 NO. 1 2013, pp. 137-155, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270
j
JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
j
PAGE 137
scientific disciplines. The second purpose is to improve the state of practice, ensure
practical application of academic findings, and increase quality of life.
Knowledge management (KM) is a young discipline, having emerged less than two decades
ago. KM is multi-disciplinary in nature. It builds its theoretical core on knowledge from
various fields, including information technology, organizational science, and cognitive
science (Dalkir, 2005). On the one hand, it already has its own peer-reviewed journals (Bontis
and Serenko, 2009), leading scholars (Gu, 2004; Serenko and Bontis, 2004), research
cooperation networks (Dattero, 2006; Ma and Yu, 2010), academic courses (Ruth et al.,
1999, 2003; Al-Hawamdeh, 2005; Bontis et al., 2006), conferences (Serenko et al., 2009),
and theories (Grant, 2002). These characteristics are considered the necessary attributes of
an academic field. On the other hand, the trajectory of the KM field is not fully understood
(Sagsan, 2009). Is it progressing towards becoming a reference discipline providing a
theoretical, conceptual and methodological foundation for other scientific disciplines? Does
it exhibit signs of academic maturity? What is its intellectual core? Is it a scientific fad? There
have been calls to answer these critical questions (Grant, 2011; Lambe, 2011), but more
research is needed.
The KM field grew from the work of business practitioners who developed and applied the
first KM concepts in organizational settings. However, it is possible that academic KM
research has not met the expectations of industry professionals, and the entire domain has
shifted its focus from solving practical problems to pure theory with limited applications
(Booker et al., 2008).
The purpose of the present study is two-fold. The first is to investigate the intellectual core of
the KM discipline in order to understand whether it has become (or is moving towards
becoming) a reference discipline. The second goal is to examine the practical impact of KM
research. To answer these critical questions, a scientometric analysis of the most influential
articles published in the top KM journal, the Journal of Knowledge Management, was done.
2. Literature review
The purpose of this section is to examine the evolution of scientific disciplines, define a
reference discipline, explore the historical trajectory of the KM field, and describe this
study’s objective.
2.1 What is a scientific discipline?
While humans have produced and preserved knowledge for thousands of years, formal
scientific disciplines appeared only two centuries ago. Scientific disciplines serve as a
primary unit of the differentiation of science for the purpose of knowledge creation and
dissemination. They allow classifying scholarly units in relation to one another, and, if
necessary, disqualifying and invalidating them (Foucault, 1977). Scientific disciplines may
be differentiated based on the 5W questions (Szostak, 2004): who (i.e. who do scientists
study?); what (i.e. what phenomena do they investigate?); where (i.e. where do scientists
conduct their investigation?); when (i.e. when do scientists conduct their investigation?); and
why (i.e. why do scientists conduct their investigation?) Disciplines may be classified into
four general domains: hard-pure (i.e. pure sciences such as biology); soft-pure
(i.e. humanities such as history, and pure social sciences such as anthropology);
hard-applied (i.e. technologies such as mechanical engineering); and soft-applied
(i.e. applied social and administrative sciences, such as education and management)
(Becher, 1994). This classification is reflected in and strengthened by the departmental
structure of educational and research institutions (Abbott, 2001).
Scientific disciplines serve several critical functions (Messer-Davidow et al., 1993). First,
disciplines allow scholars to define the objects, artifacts, and phenomena to be studied and
to establish the scientific approaches, methods, and techniques. Second, disciplines
produce dedicated academic and practitioner experts in narrow domains of science.
Academics are scholars who are committed to advancing the field through theory
j
j
PAGE 138 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 17 NO. 1 2013
development (Jenkins, 1996; Becher and Trowler, 2001), whereas practitioners are experts
who apply scientific knowledge in practical settings.
Third, disciplines generate knowledge which is primarily organized, exercised and
preserved in written form (Hoskin, 1992). Fourth, they invent new economic worlds. For
example, they create markets for books, encyclopedias, articles and proceedings, develop
need for scholarly events, such as conferences, symposia and workshops, secure funding
for research and graduate student support, and provide jobs for faculty and staff.
Disciplines develop and regulate markets between producers and consumers of
knowledge. The world of academia is often referred to as a prestige economy because
scholars are rarely motivated by extrinsic rewards. Instead, they are looking for recognition
of their scientific merit within their own domain of expertise (Blackmore and Kandiko, 2011).
Each discipline develops and enforces its own classification of a research amateur, expert or
star. Fifth, disciplines define the infrastructure required for their existence, such as material
resources, facilities, and administrative support (Fuller, 1993). Sixth, disciplines impact the
national and global economic well-being. Empirical evidence suggests that the overall
research output (e.g. number of articles published) and research impact (e.g. citation count)
positively correlate with the economic wealth of a nation (Rousseau and Rousseau, 1998;
King, 2004). As such, ‘‘rich countries are richer in knowledge and manage it more efficiently
than poor countries’’ (Ruiz et al., 2011, p. 260).
There are two opposing views regarding how scientific disciplines are formed. Internalist
accounts argue that disciplines are not purposely created, but that they form naturally from
certain types of research activities due to the theory-dominated view of science, discovery
and truth. In contrast, the externalist perspective posits that disciplinary dynamics are
political, and individuals, organizations or public bodies who provide financial resources
establish, control and direct scientific fields (Lenoir, 1993).
Disciplines are subject to change (Klein, 1993; Abbott, 2001). First, they transform internally
when new schools of thought or methods appear (Kuhn, 1962). For instance, up to 80
percent of all conclusions published in the medical field are later refuted in subsequent
investigations (Ioannidis, 2005). Second, disciplines shift and change their boundaries when
knowledge from one discipline overlaps with another discipline (Turner, 1990).
When a new discipline is in the process of initial formation, it is usually composed of experts
from a variety of well-recognized disciplines. For example, when biochemistry was being
established as a distinct field of science about one hundred years ago, it attracted
specialists from pharmacology, physiological, organic and pathological chemistry,
experimental zoology, immunology, and hygiene who focused their attention on a theory
of enzyme (Kohler, 1982). The core of a discipline is not a commitment to a rigid theoretical
perspective or research agenda; instead, the discipline represents a cluster of
inter-connected propositions, methods and solutions that take their roots in different
contexts and which were cultivated earlier.
The desire to understand the development of science dates back for over 2,000 years
starting with the early Greeks. The interest in science classification strengthened during the
nineteenth century and is well-documented in the works o…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment