A comparative study of knowledge management research studies: making research more relevant and creative

ABSTRACT To address current knowledge management (KM) research critically and constructively, this paper analyses the research papers in an essential, recurrent KM forum, IFKAD (International Forum on Knowledge Asset Dynamics). Our approach compared all research papers (N = 491) from three annual KM conferences providing complementary insights to past journal-based reviews. We offer a new combination of philosophy-of-science frameworks, which allowed us to categorise the findings into four representations of knowledge, two typologies of concepts, and four paradigmatic classifications. All the papers heavily emphasised the existing knowledge and accepted methodology. Their state of the art revealed that less than ten percent of the papers represented new scientific contributions at all. Less than three percent contributed to a better understanding of the essential sustainability areas or the climate crisis. Our novel cross-paradigmatic framing supports our concluding pluralistic framework, emphasising practice-near, curiosity, and problem-driven studies for improving future KM research. A relevant and engaged research.