Search results

The purpose of this brief introductory editorial is to introduce the background and rationale to the special issue, “Intellectual capital: becoming critical”. This is based on a selection of papers presented at the 1st Intellectual Capital (IC) Stream at the 4th International Critical Management Studies Conference at Cambridge University, UK, in July 2005.

Critical management studies (CMS) is not just about theory but demands action; its purpose is to make a difference for the better. Following an introduction to the idea of what “critical management studies” (CMS) entails the main ideas of the seven papers selected are then presented. Each paper is accompanied by a commentary from leading authors in the IC and knowledge management (KM) fields.

Key themes emergent in this “critical” issue include a decisive turn to language, uncertainty and risk, not‐knowing, ambiguity and complexity, scepticism towards simplistic mechanistic models, ownership rights, and the dynamics of situated IC practice. The conclusion reached is that there is much that further work from a CMS perspective can contribute to the IC field.

This special issue is one of the first applications of critical management thinking to the intellectual capital field.

Following Marx and Engels' identification of the “essential condition of capital”, the purpose of this paper is to begin an initial critical exploration of the essential condition of intellectual capital, particularly the ownership rights of labour.

Adopting a critically modernist stance on unitarist HR and OB discourse, and contextualised within a background on the stock option phenomenon and recent accounting regulation, the paper argues that the fundamental nature of the capital‐labour relation continues resiliently into the IC labour (intellectual capital‐labour) relation.

There is strong evidence that broad‐based employee stock options (ESOPs) have become institutionalised in certain firms and sectors – but the future of such schemes is very uncertain (post 2005 accounting regulation). Overly unitarist HR/OB arguments are challenged here with empirical evidence on capital's more latently strategic purposes such as conserving cash, reducing reported accounting expense in order to boost reported earnings, deferring taxes, and attracting, retaining and exploiting key elements of labour.

Research supports the positive benefits of broad‐based employee stock ownership schemes. Further research on the benefits of such schemes and the reasons why they are or are not implemented is now required.

From the perspective of labour, nothing appears to have really changed (yet) in terms of the essential condition of intellectual capital.

This paper explicitly raises the issue of the ownership rights of labour to intellectual capital.

The purpose of this paper, drawing mainly on insights from Foucault and Wittgenstein, is to conceptualise intellectual capital (IC) in very generalist terms as both language game and power in order to initiate a critical understanding of IC.

IC is viewed as knowledge about knowledge, knowledge creation and how such processes might be leveraged into value. It is argued that a critical understanding of IC requires a historical, contextual and linguistic understanding of how IC has emerged and how IC is used. Perceiving IC as language game and power is one way of initiating such critical understanding.

IC is perceived as a social construction and the genealogical focus is on how actors, positions and interests influence this process of social construction.

The paper offers concepts and methods that facilitate historical and contextual research on how IC emerges and how IC is used. Further historical studies are necessary in order to reflect upon and improve extant IC concepts and methods

The paper offers a critical understanding of IC by introducing concepts from the organisational discourse literature. Further it offers practical methodological guidelines for conducting critical genealogical research.

How does one speak of knowledge as an asset when it is non‐rivalrous and ephemeral? The purpose of this paper is to frame “knowledge management” (KM) as significantly more than asset management; instead of binding it to rational decision making, it is grounded in managers' creative responses to the typical deficiencies in their knowledge and to uncertainty.

Drawing on the method of distinctions a knowledge and intellectual capital (IC) management discourse is constructed that relates, first, to data, meaning, and practice, and second, to knowledge assets and knowledge absences.

The rationalist treatment of knowledge assets relates data and meaning to purposive practice. Under conditions of uncertainty this is balanced here with a radical constructivist approach that sees meaning as arising from managerial creativity and exploratory organizational practice.

The practical or managerial implications of this theorizing are legion. The main point is not a theory that supplants managerial creativity; on the contrary, creativity drives both our theory and the organizations that managers manage.

Managing uncertainty forces practice and experience into the foreground. KM and ICM must cover situations in which analysis fails when knowledge is absent just as it covers the management of knowledge assets when they are present.

KM (or ICM) is reframed as an empirically grounded critical theory, a direct critique of rational decision‐making and, by implication, of mainstream managerial theorizing.

The purpose of this paper is to examine a number of key issues relating to intellectual capital disclosure by addressing some of the strengths, weaknesses and gaps of the extant research.

The paper begins by examining the definitions of intellectual capital and intellectual capital disclosure (ICD) currently in use. Methodological issues are examined in relation to the use of source documents, coding frameworks, and research methods. Both positivist and critical theoretical perspectives used to provide the theoretical underpinning of ICD analysis are reviewed.

The paper concludes by arguing for the importance of addressing these issues in order to improve the credibility of ICD, and offers suggestions for doing so.

Numerous suggestions are provided for improving the credibility of future work on IC disclosure

This paper critically examines issues related to improving the credibility of ICD in future research.

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.

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.

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”.

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.

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.

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.

Purpose – To trace the rationale, features, development and application of the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) over the past ten years, to provide a critical review of its key problematic effects, and to suggest a future direction. Design/methodology/approach – The shift from the industrial to the innovation economy provides a background to identifying five major problem areas of the BSC which are then discussed with reference to selected case examples. An alternative systemic scorecard is then proposed. Findings – The tyranny of the BSC as a measurement “straightjacket” is beginning to jeopardize the survival of firms, hinders much‐needed business ecosystem innovation, thereby negatively affecting customer value rejuvenation, shareholders' benefits, other stakeholders as well as societal benefits in general. A more systemic alternative is proposed. Research limitations/implications – Future research might focus on further development of the systemic scorecard in different industries and organisational settings with detailed systemic measurement techniques. Practical implications – Rather than relying on the static BSC, it would be more effective to adopt a systemic perspective in measuring/managing intangible assets. Originality/value – An alternative to the BSC is proposed that involves radical change in its underlying assumptions by moving to a more systemic, dynamic framework – a systemic management system, including a systemic scorecard.

Purpose – To question the coupling of “intellectual” with “capital” and the assumption that such a coupling legitimises measurement. Design/methodology/approach – The contestability and multiple meanings of intellectual capital are revealed using rational and non‐rational management perspectives as examples. A process is presented through a metalectic framework that exposes a variety of attitudes of mind so that the integration of rational and non‐rational management perspectives becomes a possibility. Findings – Intellectual capital cannot be reduced to a calculable number that establishes whether an organisation's intellectual capital has increased or diminished. Intellectual capital can only indicate a direction when imagination, creativity and learning are at work. Research limitations/implications – Without a critical approach that provides an insight into the way different perspectives are promoted and what their promoters gain from their use it is not possible to make sense of intellectual capital. Practical implications – The realisation of the potential of intellectual capital requires a fundamental change in the assumptions of what management is about and that forcing the thinking about intellectual capital into existing working frameworks will not bring about a change in the attitude of mind of managers or workers. Originality/value – This paper offers an alternative thinking that provides a richer and broader meaning for intellectual capital by locating different perspectives on their strengths and by giving equal importance to them whilst endlessly remaining critical of them. This way of thinking is more appropriate than what is currently on offer if intellectual capital is to become more meaningful.

The purpose of this study is to depict the value added by digital transformation to intellectual capital (IC) by virtue of the studies reached by the literature review on different databases are examined.

Journal of Intellectual Capital, which has the highest number of records from the resources included in the “Web of Science” content and covering the title of “intellectual capital” has been selected in this study. Research using bibliometric analysis has been conducted and it has been determined that the terms “digital transformation” and “intellectual capital” should be searched for simultaneously in each and every article published in the journal between the years 1975 and 2022.

A bibliometric analysis and citation mapping process are carried out considering all dimensions to reach the results and interpretation of findings. VOSviewer is used to visualize the bibliometric networks of results and findings in the form of scientific mapping, as well as to visualize the co-authorship analysis of keywords, co-authorship analysis and citation networks.

Bibliometric analysis is a method that can be used to evaluate the performance of a single journal. However, it is important to note that bibliometric analysis has some limitations when it comes to assessing the validity of a single journal. This circumstance is elaborately described as a limitation of this study. Bibliometric analysis is a method that can be used to evaluate the performance of a single journal. However, it is important to note that bibliometric analysis has some limitations when it comes to assessing the validity of a single journal. One limitation is that bibliometric analysis is based on quantitative metrics, such as citation counts, which do not take into account the quality of the research. Therefore, bibliometric analysis alone may not provide a complete picture of the validity of a single journal. In addition, bibliometric analysis is based on the number of times a paper is cited, which can be influenced by factors such as the prestige of the journal, the field of research and the time since the publication. In conclusion, bibliometric analysis can be used to evaluate the performance of a single journal, but it is important to consider its limitations.

This study identified contributions, gaps and limits based on the results of a bibliometric analysis. Italy is the most influential country and the issue is structured around four clusters: IC; digital transformation; human capital; and knowledge management. As previously unexplored issues are addressed in an innovative manner, it is acceptable to underline the paper’s originality.

Intellectual capital is a diverse and multidisciplinary field where there is much scope for interdisciplinary research. Such interdisciplinarity demands that we first transcend boundaries between IC researchers and disciplines and then transcend any subsequently perceived ontological and/or methodological barriers. Moving from the particular to the general, this paper draws on the contours of the Habermasian communicative relation to present some theoretical insights on how intellectual capital is created linguistically in social space. The ontological and methodological implications of this particular approach to research lead to the general argument for adopting a “relative view” on both ontology and methodology in order to craft navigational routes into interdisciplinary social space in the IC field. Such an approach allows IC researchers to draw on extant, and seemingly incommensurable, methodologies and techniques from analytical positivism, systems theory and the hermeneutic tradition in a scientifically justifiable post‐foundationalist manner.