Inquiry in health knowledge management

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to reduce ambiguity in diverse approaches to health knowledge management by surfacing key issues, perspectives and philosophical assumptions. Design/methodology/approach Knowledge management research in health is critically reviewed. Issues are grouped into research domains, and examined in the light of associated knowledge management perspectives, and philosophical assumptions. Findings Systemic complexity in health knowledge management derives from tensions within and between issues in three domains: specific value‐laden aspects of clinic practice (knowledge creation); integration of workplace practice into generic process flows (knowledge normalization); and the technical integration of disparate information systems (knowledge application). These concepts are related to three knowledge management perspectives, viz., personal values, social norms and objective facts, respectively. Both domains and perspectives are anchored in philosophical assumptions about the interests served by knowledge (viz., emancipatory, practical, and technical), and in approaches to inquiry (critical pluralist, interpretivist, and positivist). Research limitations/implications The findings are based on selected literature about Western health care practices Practical implications The framework assists understanding of the practical reasoning that motivates the use of technology in health knowledge management. The conceptual linkages that are developed are of value to practitioners and researchers sensitive to the intertwining of facts, norms and values. Originality/value In total, the concepts and relations developed in this paper constitute both a framework for inquiry in health knowledge management, and a normative theory for a critique of patient care. Recognising, and articulating, the relative importance one ascribes to facts, norms, and values is crucial in tackling the hard problems in health knowledge management.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 37 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.