International Journal of Information Management 30 (2010) 416–424 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect International Journal of Information Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijinfomgt Knowledge management: An information science perspective Gashaw Kebede ∗ School of Information Sciences, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia, P.O. Box 150495, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia article info Keywords: Information science Knowledge management Information management Knowledge hierarchy Scope of knowledge management abstract Knowledge management (KM) is an emerging field of specialization in a number of professions, including Information Science (IS). The different professions are contributing to and influencing the developments in KM in their own ways. However, it is argued here that IS is not contributing to the advancement of KM as much as it should for a number of apparent reasons. The main purpose of the paper is to call on the members of the IS profession to take a more proactive and visible role in advancing KM by showing that KM is a natural and long-awaited development in IS and that a number of circumstances have made KM to be an area of emphasis in IS whose time has come. The paper also aims at contributing towards achieving a consensus among IS professionals on conceptualization, goals, and scope of KM in IS. The recommendations of the paper focus on how the profession could proactively be involved in advancing KM. © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Background and problem statement Knowledge management (KM) is one of the emerging topics of academic and professional discourse in many fields of knowl- edge, including cognitive sciences, sociology, management science, information science (IS), knowledge engineering, artificial intelli- gence, and economics (Dalkir, 2005; Martin, 2008; Sinotte, 2004; Rowley, 2007; Wild & Griggs, 2008). Professional journals dedi- cated to KM, special issues on KM, regular scholarly articles on KM, reports on different aspects of KM, and national and inter- national conferences on KM have all become common beginning the early 1990s (Ajiferuke, 2003; Blair, 2002; Chua, 2009; Jakubik, 2007). Professional associations that promote the interests of KM professionals are also emerging (such as the Knowledge Manage- ment Professionals Society (KMPro) and Knowledge Management Society of Malaysia). Academic programs offering degrees of vari- ous levels and short courses are also expanding all over the world (Ajiferuke, 2003; Dalkir, 2005). As will be discussed later in this paper, the importance of managing knowledge is also getting more and more attention in all types of organizations, including busi- nesses, government bodies, research institutes, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), and international development and financial institutions (Blair, 2002; Chua, 2009). Evidently, there is a tendency by the different professions inter- ested in KM to present and interpret what constitutes KM from their own perspective as well as define the future direction of KM ∗ Tel.: +251 911406530. E-mail addresses: gashawkbd@yahoo.com, gashawk@sisa.aau.edu.et, gashawk@hotmail.com. as it fits the traditions and perspectives of their own profession (Dalkir, 2005; Ekbia & Hara, 2007; Hlupic, Pouloudi, & Rzevski, 2002; Jashapara, 2005; Liao, He, & Tang, 2004; McInerney, 2002; Sarrafzadeh, Martin, & Hazeri, 2006; Widén-Wulff et al., 2005). Consequently, developments in KM are influenced by the differ- ent professions interested in knowledge (Dalkir, 2005; Jashapara, 2005; Martin, 2008; Rowley, 2007; Sarrafzadeh et al., 2006; Sinotte, 2004). This has resulted in, among others, lack of universal consen- sus on some of the key issues of KM, including conceptualizations, processes, goals and scope of KM (Bouthillier & Shearer, 2002; Bouthillier & Shearer, 2005; Corrall, 1999; Hlupic et al., 2002; Maceviciute & Wilson, 2005; Martin, 2008; Morrow, 2001; Ponelis & Fairer-Wessels, 1998; Sinotte, 2004; Wilson, 2002; Widén-Wulff et al., 2005). While this seems to be the case with most of the other professions interested in KM, IS is not playing as much influen- tial role as it should be (Ajiferuke, 2003; Corrall, 1999; Jashapara, 2005; Martin, 2008; Orzano, McInerney, Scharf, Tallia, & Crabtree, 2008; Sarrafzadeh et al., 2006; Summers, Oppenheim, Meadows, McKnight, & Kinnell, 1999) for a number of apparent reasons, including the following: First, there is an ongoing debate among the members of the profession on whether KM is a legitimate and distinct field of spe- cialization of IS (Blair, 2002; Bouthillier & Shearer, 2002; Davenport & Cronin, 2000; Gorman, 2004; Maceviciute & Wilson, 2005; Martin, 2008; Sarrafzadeh et al., 2006; Widén-Wulff et al., 2005; Wilson, 2002). This group considers KM as another term for what they have been doing all along. Members of the profession who reject KM as a distinct field of specialization within IS obviously avoid purposeful engagement in advancing KM. Second, many members of the profession also consider KM as akin to Information Management (IM) that they are currently prac- 0268-4012/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2010.02.004