The purpose of this paper is to perform a metaphorical analysis of knowledge as energy. This paper is based on a theoretical research concerning the nature, perception, basic laws and challenges brought up by these fundamental concepts of knowledge and energy. The metaphorical analysis of knowledge and intellectual capital has been initiated by Daniel Andriessen and his findings have been presented in several seminal works (Andriessen, 2006; 2008; Andriessen and Boom, 2007). In his work, Andriessen concluded we need to find new metaphors for knowledge. In our theoretical research we shall consider the knowledge as energy metaphor, with energy as the source domain, and knowledge as the target domain, and we are interested in identifying the metaphorical semantic kernel and the limitations of this analysis. The semantic kernel contains: (1) the concept of field as a nonuniform and nonlinear distribution of knowledge; (2) dynamics of potential and kinetic forms of manifestations; (3) dynamics of work and heat, and (4) entropy and syntropy process characteristics. Limitations of this analysis come from the conservation laws of energy transformation which cannot be applied to the knowledge domain.
DOCUMENT
Metaphors are at the basis of our understanding of reality. Using the theory of metaphor developed by Lakoff and Johnson (1980, 1999) this paper analyses common metaphors used in the intellectual capital and knowledge management literatures. An analysis of key works by Davenport & Prusak (2000), Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995), and Stewart (1991) suggests that at least 95 percent of all statements about either knowledge or intellectual capital are based on metaphors. The paper analyses the two metaphors that form the basis for the concept of intellectual capital: ‘Knowledge as a Resource’ and ‘Knowledge as Capital’, both of which derive their foundations from the industrial age. The paper goes into some of the implications of these findings for the theory and practice of intellectual capital. Common metaphors used in conceptualising abstract phenomena in traditional management practices unconsciously reinforce the established social order. The paper concludes by asking whether we need new metaphors to better understand the mechanisms of the knowledge economy, hence allowing us to potentially change some of the more negative structural features of contemporary society.
DOCUMENT
Purpose – To analyse common metaphors used in the intellectual capital (IC) and knowledge management literatures to conceptualise knowledge, in order to study the nature of the intellectual capital concept. Design/methodology/approach – A textual analysis methodology is used to analyse texts from The Knowledge-Creating Company by Nonaka and Takeuchi, Working Knowledge by Davenport and Prusak and “Brainpower” by Stewart, in order to identify underlying metaphors. Findings – Over 95 per cent of the statements about knowledge identified are based on some kind of metaphor. The two dominant metaphors that form the basis for the concept of intellectual capital are “knowledge as a resource” and “knowledge as capital”. Research limitations/implications – Metaphors highlight certain characteristics and ignore others, so the IC community should ask itself what characteristics of knowledge the “knowledge as a resource” and “knowledge as capital” metaphors ignore. Practical implications – Knowledge has no referent in the real world and requires metaphor to be defined, conceptualised, and acted upon. When using such metaphors we should become aware of their limitations as they steer us in certain directions and this may happen unconsciously. The paper concludes by asking whether we need new metaphors to better understand the mechanisms of the knowledge economy, hence allowing us to potentially change some of the more negative structural features of contemporary society. Originality/value – This paper is the first to highlight that intellectual capital is a metaphor and that the metaphorical nature of the concept has far reaching consequences.
DOCUMENT
