applying a knowledge management taxonomy to secondary schools
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [Umeå University Library]On: 29 September 2013, At: 01:37Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
School Leadership & Management:Formerly School OrganisationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cslm20
Applying a knowledge managementtaxonomy to secondary schoolsMelinda Thambi a & Paddy O'Toole ba Department of Education, Flinders University, Adelaide,Australiab Department of Education, Monash University, Melbourne,AustraliaPublished online: 02 Feb 2012.
To cite this article: Melinda Thambi & Paddy O'Toole (2012) Applying a knowledge managementtaxonomy to secondary schools, School Leadership & Management: Formerly School Organisation,32:1, 91-102, DOI: 10.1080/13632434.2011.642350
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2011.642350
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Applying a knowledge management taxonomy to secondary schools
Melinda Thambia* and Paddy O’Tooleb
aDepartment of Education, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia; bDepartment of Education,Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
The purpose of this article is to examine the relevance of a corporate-basedtaxonomy of knowledge management to secondary schooling. Do the principlesof knowledge management from the corporate world translate to the world ofeducation; specifically, secondary schooling? This article examines categories ofknowledge management articulated in Michael Earl’s corporate-based taxonomyof knowledge management and seeks to determine their degree of applicability toknowledge management in secondary schooling. It is found that, on the whole,many of the categories not only have relevance to secondary schooling, but arealready in use in secondary schools. This article will enable principals to examinetheir own knowledge practices within their schools, with a view to optimising suchstrategies to improve school performance through practical actions.
Keywords: knowledge management; secondary schools; leadership; management;governance
Introduction
Knowledge management is a relatively young but increasingly popular field of
organisational study (Sallis and Jones 2002, 2). ‘Knowledge management’ refers to
the purposeful manipulation of knowledge that occurs within (or beyond) an
organisation upon its recognition as a valuable entity. Knowledge management is
defined by Rosenberg as the: ‘creation, archiving and sharing of valued information,
expertise and insight within and across communities of people and organizations
with similar interests and needs’ (2001, cited in Santo 2005, 66). Debowski’s
definition is similar: ‘. . .the process of identifying, capturing, organizing and
disseminating the intellectual assets that are critical to the organisation’s long-term
performance’ (2005, 16). Interestingly, these definitions give an organisation the
latitude to allow for both a technology-centred and a relational approach in the
development of its knowledge management strategy. This distinction is supported by
Lavergne and Earl (2006), who separate ‘tangible’ aspects of knowledge manage-
ment, such as IT, from the intangible aspect of ‘organizational learning’ that
incorporates behaviour and tacit knowledge. Becerra-Fernandez and Stevenson
(2001, 508) add an economic focus: ‘Knowledge management is a new organizational
strategy for leveraging intellectual capital and management innovation’. For schools,
knowledge management has the potential to encourage sharing of innovative
practice, avoid duplication and discourage the loss of valuable knowledge.
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
School Leadership & Management
Vol. 32, No. 1, February 2012, 91�102
ISSN 1363-2434 print/ISSN 1364-2626 online
# 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2011.642350
http://www.tandfonline.com
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Um
eå U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
01:
37 2
9 Se
ptem
ber
2013
The purpose of this article is to explore the extent to which insights about
knowledge management based on corporate research have relevance to knowledge
management within secondary schools. It seeks to give principals a guide to
designing and implementing a knowledge management strategy within their schools
by focusing on different applications of knowledge management based around
Michael Earl’s taxonomy. An agenda for future research is also discussed.
Locating knowledge management in schools
Knowledge management is a relatively new field for many secondary school
principals. Sallis and Jones (2002, 63) claim that many corporate institutions do
not have a specific strategy for knowledge management, and ‘. . .of the few that do
have such a strategy, almost none are in the education sector’. This is supported by a
recent survey carried out by the authors, where databases and search engines showed
a dearth of articles on knowledge management in secondary schools: less than 13 in
Proquest and Scopus and less than 4 in Informaworld, SAGE, OVID, ISI Web of
Knowledge and CSA Illumina. There remains much to be researched in this area.
If strategic knowledge management is going to become a competitive force for
schools of the future, it seems necessary to apply any lessons learned from corporate
knowledge management to the field of education. Based on his research in the
corporate sector, Michael Earl (2001) has proposed a taxonomy of knowledge
management, where knowledge is divided into seven categories (he refers to them as
‘schools’, but they will be referred to as ‘categories’ during this article, to avoid
confusion with ‘secondary schools’). The purpose of this article is to examine Earl’s
corporate-based taxonomy of knowledge management and see if the same principles
can apply to knowledge management in secondary schools. If this is so, a principal
can then more fully optimise the potential of knowledge in his/her school by learning
to leverage knowledge more strategically and effectively.
Earl’s seven categories
Earl’s taxonomy was created to provide a ‘framework’ for discussion of knowledge
management: in particular, to aid executives’ understanding of corporate knowledge
management. This framework recognises both technical and social elements of
knowledge management, whilst making distinctions between them. Earl divides
knowledge management into three approaches: technocratic, behavioural and
economic. These three approaches are then divided into seven categories. Under
the technocratic approach are the ‘systems’, ‘cartographic’ and ‘engineering’
categories. Under the behavioural approach are the ‘organisational’, ‘spatial’ and
Table 1. Earl’s schools of knowledge management.
School Technocratic Behavioural Economic
Attribute Systems; cartographic;
engineering
Organisational; spatial;
strategic
Commercial
Adapted from Earl (2001, 217).
92 M. Thambi and P. O’Toole
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Um
eå U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
01:
37 2
9 Se
ptem
ber
2013
‘strategic’ categories. The economic approach has only one category, the ‘commer-
cial’ category (see Table 1).
Davenport and Prusak (1998) claim that most knowledge management under-
takings focus on the technocratic or economic aspects of knowledge management,
leaving a gap in the behavioural elements. Earl’s taxonomy, with its inclusion of
technocratic, economic and behavioural approaches, provides some balance with its
acknowledgement of all of these areas. As Dash (1998, 65) puts it, ‘successful KM
requires a skilful blend of people, business processes and IT’. The remainder of the
article will further articulate these approaches and expand on their relevance to
secondary schooling.
Earl’s technocratic categories and their relevance to secondary schooling
Earl’s technocratic categories refer to knowledge management approaches that, ‘are
based on information or management technologies, which largely support . . .employees in their everyday tasks’ (Earl 2001, 218). The focus for technocratic
categories is the enhancement of knowledge management through the use of
technology � usually IT.
Systems
The first of Earl’s technocratic categories is the ‘systems’ category. The systems
category focuses on the ‘capture’ of knowledge � either specialist, individual or
group knowledge � which is subsequently placed on a database for the benefit of
others. Earl (2001, 218) uses the example of the ‘web-based maintenance knowledge
base’: an electronic repository of ‘best practice’ solutions developed at Xerox for
those repairing Xerox photocopiers.
Earl’s systems category is highly relevant to knowledge management in secondary
schools. As electronic resources become more readily available, teaching staff can
share best practice solutions, such as worksheets, notes and assessment tasks,
through a staff intranet. Online educational communities fulfil a similar role of
sharing expertise, albeit on a broader scale. At a management level, databases
containing information on student numbers, enrolment details and assessment scores
are also useful to administrators making planning decisions. Nevertheless, there are
some issues to consider when weighing the value of the systems approach in a
secondary school setting. One issue is the abundance of problems in a secondary
school that require tacit, not explicit, knowledge to solve. They are often unique and
personal, and require high levels of people skills and emotional intelligence, rather
than an electronically codified solution. The other challenge to the systems approach
is the amount of time required to establish a useful, comprehensive database.
Teachers who are time-poor are unlikely to have the requisite resources to develop
such a database, particularly in a short timeframe. Another factor to consider is
the establishment of a ‘monitoring’ role to ensure the high quality of the
database contributions. Although the systems category, then, is applicable in a
secondary schooling context, there are also challenges to overcome to ensure its most
effective use.
School Leadership & Management 93
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Um
eå U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
01:
37 2
9 Se
ptem
ber
2013
Cartographic
Earl’s second technocratic category is the ‘cartographic’ category. The focus of the
cartographic approach is to create a map, or ‘knowledge directory’ (Earl 2001, 220),
of the organisation, so that staff members in search of expert knowledge can be easily
linked with experts within the organisation. This system lends itself to tacit
knowledge transfer more than the systems approach as it encourages face-to-face
contact as an end result, although the directory itself is an example of ‘explicit’
knowledge.
The cartographic category, like the systems category, has both strengths and
weaknesses when applied to secondary schooling. A knowledge map can obviously
be of benefit to a secondary school, as it can to any organisation. When discussing
school principals, Hayes et al. (2004, 523) say: ‘productive leadership involves
mapping and tapping the capacity of school communities’. Tippins (2003, 340) gives
guidelines for a school knowledge audit, suggesting the grouping of staff expertise
into ‘master knowledge areas’ after a process of interviewing and CV evaluation.
This knowledge can then, according to the cartographic approach, be formed into a
directory. There are, however, some challenges to the application of the cartographic
approach in secondary schools. Its value may be more evident in larger schools,
where staff may not know each other well and may even be physically distanced from
each other, as in the case of a multi-campus school. Alternatively, staff in a smaller
school may already know each other better due to heightened levels of interaction
and may therefore have a better idea of each other’s areas of expertise, negating the
need for a formal knowledge directory. Another challenge to the application of Earl’s
cartographic approach in a secondary school is the question of its relevance to all
staff. Decisions based on expertise (for example, allocating an individual to a
specialist position) are usually made by the principal or a management team. On a
day-to-day basis, the constraints and lack of flexibility in a typical teacher’s timetable
(such as in the author’s school, where a full-time teaching load is 34 lessons out of
40 per week) allow little need or opportunity to pursue information not directly
related to their teaching roles. In other words, whilst knowledge directories in
secondary schools may exist, they are rarely used and they rarely need to be used by
teaching staff. In summary, Earl’s cartographic approach would best suit a larger
school and management-level staff.
Process
Earl’s final technocratic category, the ‘process’ category, deals with making an
increased flow of relevant knowledge available to a worker. In addition, it categorises
‘management processes’ as ‘inherently more knowledge-intensive than business
processes’ (Earl 2001, 221). Both of these principles are relevant to secondary
schooling. Clearly, teaching staff, like any other workers, may benefit from access to
relevant knowledge, such as subject knowledge and administrative knowledge.
Subject knowledge can be disseminated through a well-maintained intranet, making
it relatively straightforward for teacher access. This is currently the practice in many
schools, where curriculum materials are available on school or government intranets,
such as the South Australian DECS Moodle site (2010). Administrative knowledge,
however, can be more difficult for a secondary teacher to access, as it can be
94 M. Thambi and P. O’Toole
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Um
eå U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
01:
37 2
9 Se
ptem
ber
2013
controlled by office assistants and administrators. Increasing teacher access to
appropriate content, such as student timetable information, is a way that Earl’s
process category could be applied to secondary school knowledge management. It is
fair to add that as technology improves within a school, so can teacher access to thistype of information, with programmes such as FirstClass (Human Edge 2011).
Projected classes for future years and significant strategic directions of schools are
other examples of knowledge that can be administrative. The principle of manage-
ment processes being more knowledge-intensive than business processes also holds
true in a school context, with some exceptions. Management tasks require significant
amounts of information to execute effectively, for example, staffing or long-term
strategic planning. Although Earl refers to a more instantaneous form of data
collection in his discussion of the corporate world (for example, sales figures reachingan individual as products are sold), data-gathering in a secondary school often takes
place over longer periods: for example, terms, semesters or years. In addition to
explicit knowledge, such as data-gathering, managers in a school also need to exhibit
tacit knowledge and use emotional intelligence in dealing with people and situations.
It should be noted that these skills are also required, to a degree, by teaching,
administrative and support staff in a school, perhaps calling into question
Earl’s distinction between ‘management’ and ‘business’ processes, at least when
applied to a school context! In summary, Earl’s process category is already inevidence in secondary schools, but there are areas that would benefit from further
application.
Summary of Earl’s technocratic approach
Earl’s technocratic approach, therefore, has great applicability to secondary schools.
Examples of the systems, cartographic and process categories can already be found in
many secondary schools, while there is room for all three categories to be developed
further in any school whose governance board would wish to adopt one of these
approaches as a focus for its knowledge management strategy. However, Earl’s
technocratic categories are predominantly focused on explicit forms of knowledge
transfer. To use the distinction of Mentzas et al. (2001), they focus on knowledge as‘product’ rather than ‘process’. The focus on explicit knowledge at the expense of
tacit knowledge can present a danger when examining the world of a secondary
school. Secondary schools are highly ‘people-centric’ and socially-based organisa-
tions. Many forms of knowledge required in a secondary school situation are tacit by
nature and therefore unsuited to dissemination only through documentation. The
idea that ‘all’ information relevant to a functioning secondary school can be broken
down to explicit data is questionable, to say the least. There is therefore a need for a
broader approach to knowledge management in a secondary school that embracesknowledge as both tacit and explicit, and knowledge transfer as both a technical and
a relational activity. This brings us, in turn, to Earl’s behavioural approach.
Earl’s behavioural and economic categories and their relationship to secondary
schooling
If Earl’s technocratic categories aim mostly to organise and classify explicit knowl-
edge, his behavioural categories focus on how the interactions between people convert
School Leadership & Management 95
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Um
eå U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
01:
37 2
9 Se
ptem
ber
2013
tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge, or how tacit knowledge is shared. For this to
happen, interaction amongst staff is crucial. As Waller (1932 as cited in Letman 2005,
13) says: ‘for let no one be deceived, the important things that happen in schools result
from the interaction of personalities’. This interaction can be facilitated by face-to-face communication (discussions, meeting or chance encounters), or with the aid of
technology (online communities or remote conferencing). Earl divides the behaviour-
al approach into three categories: organisational, spatial and strategic.
Organisational
The organisational category focuses on ‘knowledge communities’ (Earl 2001, 223)
and the communication that exists within them. Relationships are integral for
network formation and knowledge transfer. Knowledge communities are similar to
communities of practice described elsewhere (Debowski 2005; Schlager and Fusco
2003), but they have a broad range of functions. For example, Earl describes the
multinational company, Shell, which has knowledge communities for differentpurposes, e.g. ‘best practice’ forums, ‘task’ forums and ‘discussion’ forums. Never-
theless, Earl (2001, 225) points out that a pre-existing culture of interaction and
relationships, as well as a ‘moderator’, are both necessary for the successful
functioning of the organisational category.
The organisational category is obviously highly applicable to secondary schooling.
One need only observe the group interactions evident in staff meetings, faculty
meetings or specific communities of practice to see the exchange of both tacit and
explicit knowledge. Sackney and Walker (2006, 352�3) state, ‘Teachers’ knowledgebase is expanded through discourse and reflection. . .’ and ‘Leadership for knowledge
management is about . . . constructing meaning and knowledge collectively and
collaboratively’. Knowledge generation and transfer are also enhanced by teacher
participation in communities of practice across faculty or even school boundaries: ‘A
PA [professional association] is an obvious arena for dominant professional norms
and ideas about best practice to be developed and communicated’ (Swan, Newell, and
Robertson 1999, 908). Two challenges to the application of Earl’s organisational
category to secondary schooling are resource allocation and the creation of a cultureof trust. Teachers need to be allocated time for knowledge exchange. Time for
discussion must be carefully engineered into meetings so they do not become simply
task forums. Secondly, a culture of trust must be evident. Some staff may be reluctant
to engage in knowledge-sharing because they feel vulnerable, personally threatened or
simply isolated. Roberts (2000, 434) states that, ‘Both trust and mutual under-
standing, developed in their social and cultural contexts, are prerequisites for the
successful transfer of tacit knowledge’. Unfortunately, isolation can hamper knowl-
edge transfer. As Norris et al. (2003 as cited in Santo 2005, 7), observe: ‘in mostacademic settings, knowledge resides in archipelagos of individual knowledge
clusters, unavailable for systemic sharing’. For the organisational category’s potential
to be fully realised, then, the issues of time and culture must be addressed.
Spatial
Earl’s spatial category highlights the use of buildings and spaces to enhance
knowledge exchange. Using this approach, buildings and work spaces are designed to
96 M. Thambi and P. O’Toole
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Um
eå U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
01:
37 2
9 Se
ptem
ber
2013
maximise opportunities for workers to meet and interact. Earl (2001, 226�7) uses the
examples of the British Airways building, designed to ‘maximise the number of times
you ‘‘bump into people’’’ with its open office plan and medieval cobbled street, and
Skandia’s ‘future centre’ eating area, which is organised in a way that encourages
staff to ‘mingle’. These approaches underline the importance of face-to-face
communication in a world where communication is increasingly electronic or virtual.
He quotes some executives as saying: ‘Can we arrest the tyranny of email and start
meeting and talking again?’ (227) and claims that most people prefer ‘conversations’
over ‘documents or IT’ (226).
Earl’s spatial category is already in evidence in many secondary schools,
particularly where building has occurred in recent years. Seaford 6�12 School in
South Australia is one example. Winner of an Impact Award in the 2009 National
Australia Bank ‘Schools First’ Initiative (Seaford 6�12 School 2010), Seaford reflects
a utilisation of Earl’s spatial category in its construction. Teachers within a
‘community’ area have their preparation area together and teach a similar range
of students in rooms close by. This is likely to enhance knowledge exchange amongst
staff. In other schools, a similar effect could be achieved by placing staff members of
the same faculty in the same office space, so non-contact periods can be times of
interaction and learning. Work spaces can be opened up by designs that include
open-plan learning areas and glass-walled offices, such as in the Australian
Mathematics and Science School in South Australia, with the expectation that
greater access and visibility will increase learning. As their website proclaims:
The design of the school’s learning and physical environments is based on pivotal beliefsabout student-focused teaching and learning . . . the interconnectedness of knowledge,and the importance of human communication in all its forms. (Australian Science andMathematics School 2010)
The size of a school may also affect the knowledge exchange that can occur.
Ironically, a smaller school with less space can sometimes reap greater rewards in this
area than a larger school, due to the close proximity of staff. Fisher (2002, 1) states
that ‘Space has an impact on the performance of students and teachers’. A major
challenge to the implementation of Earl’s spatial category, however, is the cost of
purpose-built structures and the infrequency with which many secondary schools can
afford to embark on major building development programmes.
Earl’s spatial category, therefore, is highly applicable to secondary schooling and
already in use. It will no doubt be emphasised even more in the future of secondary
schooling.
Strategic
The final category in Earl’s behavioural approach is the strategic category. This is
about focusing an organisation into the stocktaking and development of its own
knowledge assets. In this approach, knowledge itself is manipulated as a strategic
entity, not merely as a means to an end to help other processes function more
efficiently. Earl uses Skandia as an example, where ‘intellectual capital’ is considered
to be an asset, in the same way that finances or buildings are.
School Leadership & Management 97
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Um
eå U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
01:
37 2
9 Se
ptem
ber
2013
Whilst secondary schools are in the business of knowledge, they can face a
challenge in developing a truly ‘strategic’ approach. Often there is little focus on the
creation of knowledge from within. Instead, the focus in a secondary school is
usually the creation of knowledge at a classroom level rather than at an
organisational level. The strategic approach may be more evident at a management
level but is not necessarily given the same importance at the classroom interface. One
only has to observe the fraction of time allocated to classroom teachers to build
knowledge repositories (little) compared to time spent teaching (a great deal), and it
is clear that the potential of the strategic category has not been fully realised in many
secondary schools. This situation, however, is changing. Kruse (2003, 332) claims
that:
An important trend has developed in the literature: the development of knowledge as astrategic capacity of school organizations to manage and enhance student learning . . . Awide range of initiatives, including the identification and sharing of ‘‘best practices’’,development of data-driven decision methodologies, fostering of communities ofpractice, and installation of collaborative technologies have all sought to create aknowledge industry to underlie school improvement efforts.
A strategic approach to knowledge management in secondary schools should
continue to increase. Knowledge management will need to take greater priority in
a school’s strategic vision and permeate its culture. Staff with key roles in knowledge
management and resource development may even be employed largely for those
purposes. Whilst currently in its infancy, Earl’s strategic category nevertheless has the
potential to make a significant impact in secondary schools.
Earl’s commercial category and its relationship to secondary schooling
The final category of Earl’s taxonomy of knowledge management is the ‘commercial’
category. He describes it as one that is ‘concerned with protecting and exploiting a
firm’s knowledge or intellectual assets to produce revenue streams’. The purpose of
knowledge management in the commercial category is to generate finance for the
organisation by exploitation of its knowledge. In corporate terms this may refer to
‘patents, trademarks, copyrights and know-how’ (Earl 2001, 222). It is harder to
define this in an educational setting, but two ideas are suggested here: the
development and sale of teaching resources and how a school uses knowledge to
market itself.
Teaching resources
It can be argued that few practising teachers demonstrate involvement in activities
that could be categorised as commercial, i.e. the creation, publication and sales of
educational material to generate profit for their institution. It is generally accepted
that the role of a teacher in a school is to teach. This is not to say that teachers are
not involved in continual knowledge creation for use within their own context, the
products of which, in some cases, automatically become the intellectual property of
the school. Many teachers freely share their resources pro bono, particularly among
professional associates, as is evidenced by the websites of free teaching resources
98 M. Thambi and P. O’Toole
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Um
eå U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
01:
37 2
9 Se
ptem
ber
2013
available on the Internet, such as the ‘Free Educational Resources of Adrian Bruce’
(2011). Some choose not to disperse their resources, viewing their knowledge as a
source of future power or influence. Some publish and sell their own materials, but
this group would be in the minority. Generally, it would be true to say that mostteachers do not publish materials and gain profit for their school from their work. In
this respect, Earl’s commercial category has little application to current secondary
schooling.
Using knowledge as a marketing tool
Earl’s commercial category, however, has greater potential to be applied to secondary
schools in the area of marketing. Secondary schools that highlight the expertise
(knowledge) of their staff as a key selling point for the school could be said to be
utilising Earl’s commercial category. In the USA, many principals have a Masters or
Doctorate level postgraduate degree, often in educational administration (Educa-
tion-Portal.com 2010). In a private school in India known to the author, however, noteacher was employed without a Masters degree. This could be construed as an
attempt by the school to exploit the high level of academic knowledge of the staff to
create the impression of an academically credible institution � which families were
then prepared to pay significant amounts of money to utilise.
A brief search of some websites of private schools in South Australia told a
different story. It seemed that most lacked any reference to teacher expertise on their
websites, particularly academic expertise. A somewhat ‘throwaway’ comment on
generic levels of professional development was found: ‘. . .teachers continue to learnin order to teach’ (Scotch College 2008). This suggests that private schools in South
Australia focus more on the overall ‘product’ � consisting of educational approaches,
a nurturing environment, grounds and resources � for marketing, rather than
specifically on the knowledge of the staff. If schools were to focus more on staff
knowledge, they could be said to be maximising the potential of Earl’s commercial
category more fully.
Another interesting aspect of Earl’s commercial category in a school’s knowledge
management strategy is the exploitation of non-teaching knowledge. This may beevident in schools that, under skilful business managers, may create profit by
manipulation of non-teaching resources. An example of this might be the rental of
school facilities to outside groups. The author has observed a situation in the
USA where a church organisation utilised a school’s facilities for its Sunday
programme. If this were profit-making, it could be construed as a school exploiting
their business acumen (knowledge) to generate revenue, fulfilling Earl’s commercial
category.
Implications for principals
Earl’s seven categories of knowledge management highlight different areas of focus
for knowledge management in an organisation. A principal seeking to do aknowledge management audit in his/her own school can use Earl’s categories both
to identify strengths and to target areas for future improvement. He/she may focus
on one particular category as a ‘goal’ for the knowledge direction of the school.
Alternatively, a school may seek to improve its application of all of the categories.
School Leadership & Management 99
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Um
eå U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
01:
37 2
9 Se
ptem
ber
2013
There may even be times when one of the categories becomes a temporary focus: for
example, the beginning of a building programme would be an excellent time to
consider Earl’s spatial category. Earl’s taxonomy, then, enables principals to see
knowledge management from a variety of perspectives, to select the perspectives that
will best suit their school at a given time. Table 2 can be used as a guide for this.
Table 2. A guide for principals: applying Earl’s taxonomy to a secondary school.
Type of school Descriptors
A systems school will. . . � Invest heavily in Information and Communication
Technology (ICT) resources and training� Build up a repository of ‘best practice’ scenarios in a
database that is available to staff� Focus on ICT as a means of transferring knowledge� Provide incentives for staff to contribute to the building up
of the database� Ensure database contributions are monitored to ensure
high quality� Provide resources (e.g. time) for staff to access and
contribute to database
A cartographic school
will. . .
� Create a ‘knowledge map’ of the school which identifies
the specialist knowledge or expertise of individuals in the
organisation� Direct, using the map, individuals to ‘link up’ with the
‘expert’ who possesses the knowledge they seek. For
example, a staff member seeking resources for a ‘gifted’
student could use the knowledge directory to locate an
expert within the school� Allow for the transmission of tacit (as opposed to explicit)
knowledge
A process school will. . . � Collect data and channel it through the school to those
who need it, e.g. enrolment details made accessible to
those making timetabling decisions; absentee information
accessible to home room teachers
A commercial school
will. . .
� Sell the school’s ‘knowledge resources’ for profit, e.g.
educational resources created on campus� Recognise staff qualifications (i.e. knowledge) as part of
the school’s marketing strategy
An organisational
school will. . .
� Encourage networking between people� Emphasise the formation and continuation of ‘knowledge
communities’ (face-to-face or virtual) to solve problems
and build understanding� Already have a culture of strong relationships, interaction
and communication
A spatial school will. . . � Focus on the role of physical space (or other types of
space) in maximising knowledge exchange� Examine how buildings, classrooms, lounges, traffic areas
and offices can be designed for optimal communication
A strategic school will. . . � Manipulate knowledge as a strategic entity in the overall
vision, direction and planning of a school� Value the organisation’s knowledge as an asset in the same
way that property and capital are valued as assets
100 M. Thambi and P. O’Toole
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Um
eå U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
01:
37 2
9 Se
ptem
ber
2013
Conclusion
Tippins (2003, 345) states: ‘While the concept of KM has been examined extensively
within the business context, very little is known about how the KM process may
benefit educational institutions’. While purposeful and directed knowledge manage-
ment may still be in its infancy in schools, there is evidence that some aspects of
knowledge management are already in place in an incidental way, and that there is the
potential for further growth. It seems that the seven-fold approach of Earl’s taxonomy
is valuable to describe the range of areas encompassed by secondary schooling. Both
the technocratic and behavioural approaches have their strengths, and both are
needed to gain a balanced perspective on knowledge management. Ultimately, all of
Earl’s categories are manifest to some extent in secondary schooling and can be
applied to varying degrees, notwithstanding the fact that some are more relevant than
others. One may question the overall extent to which a corporate framework can
apply in an educational context. This is a question which is perhaps worthy of another
article; however, it is clear from the prior discussion that whilst the corporate insights
certainly inform the educational experience it would be foolish to assume that they
encompass the totality of the educational experience. The unique philosophies, goals
and relationships within secondary schools call for a knowledge management strategy
sensitive to these, which, nevertheless, utilises relevant insights from the corporate
culture. Future research in the area of knowledge management in secondary schools
may focus on just this aspect: what distinguishes educational knowledge management
from corporate knowledge management? More rigorous empirical research may even
give rise to a uniquely school-focussed typology in the future, including greater
specificity about the relational aspects of knowledge management in secondary
schools. In addition, the creation and maintenance of a knowledge management
culture in a secondary school is an area worthy of future investigation. Whilst all of
these are important issues for future research, what seems to be clear now is that
knowledge management is a critical field for administrative attention and Earl’s
taxonomy is valuable to this end.
Notes on contributors
Melinda Thambi is the head of the History faculty at Temple Christian College in Adelaide,South Australia, where she has taught History and English for 13 years. She has completed aMasters in Education (Leadership and Management) at Flinders University in SouthAustralia.
Paddy O’Toole is currently a senior lecturer at Monash University in Victoria, Australia. Shehas previously held the positions of Associate Dean (Community and InternationalEngagement), Program Coordinator and Lecturer in Educational Leadership and Manage-ment at the School of Education, Flinders University, South Australia. Dr O’Toole came toacademia from the corporate sector where she held various training and knowledgemanagement positions at the state and national levels.
References
Australian Science and Mathematics School. 2010. Facilities information. http://www.asms.sa.edu.au/schoolinfo/Pages/Facilities.aspx (accessed December 30, 2011).
Becerra-Fernandez, I., and J. Stevenson. 2001. Knowledge management systems and solutionsfor the school principal as chief learning officer. Education 121, no. 3: 508�18.
School Leadership & Management 101
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Um
eå U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
01:
37 2
9 Se
ptem
ber
2013
Dash, J. 1998. Turning technology into TechKnowledgey. Software Magazine 18, no. 3: 65.Davenport, T., and L. Prusak. 1998. Working knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.Debowski, S. 2006. Knowledge management. Milton, QLD: John Wiley & Sons.DECS Curriculum Services Moodle. 2010. Curriculum services DECS: Login to the site.
http://dlb.sa.edu.au/csmoodle/login/index.php (accessed December 30, 2011).Earl, M. 2001. Knowledge management strategies: Towards a taxonomy. Journal of Manage-
ment Information Systems 18, no. 1: 215�33.Education-Portal.com. 2010. School principal: Educational requirements to become a
principal. http://education-portal.com/articles/School_Principal_Educational_Requirements_to_Become_a_Principal.html (accessed December 30, 2011).
Fisher, K. 2002. Re-voicing the classroom: A critical psychosocial spatiality of learning. http://www.rubida.net/Rubida_Research/html/rr_index.htm (accessed January 8, 2009).
Free Educational Resources of Adrian Bruce. 2011. Adrian Bruce’s educational teachingresources-reading games-math games-educational software-motivational posters-line sym-metry-readers theater-art lessons-science lessons. http://www.adrianbruce.com/ (accessedDecember 30, 2011).
Hayes, D., P. Christie, M. Mills, and B. Lingard. 2004. Productive leaders and productiveleadership: Schools as learning organizations. Journal of Educational Administration 42,nos. 4/5: 520�38.
Human Edge. 2011. Human Edge Software � first class features. http://www.humanedge.biz/firstclass/detailedinfo.htm (accessed December 30, 2011).
Kruse, S. 2003. Remembering as organizational memory. Journal of EducationalAdministration 41, nos. 4/5: 332�48.
Lavergne, R., and R. Earl. 2006. Knowledge management: A value creation perspective.Journal of Organizational Culture, Communication and Conflict 10, no. 2: 43�60.
Letman, S. 2005. Engaging with each other: How interactions between teachers informprofessional practice. Teaching History 118: 13�7.
Mentzas, G., D. Apostolou, R. Young, and A. Abecker. 2001. Knowledge networking: Aholistic solution for leveraging corporate knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management 5,no. 1: 94�107.
Norris, D., J. Mason, R. Robson, P. Lefrere, and G. Collier. 2003. A revolution in knowledgesharing. Educause Review 38, no. 5: 14�20, 22�6.
Roberts, J. 2000. From know-how to show-how? Questioning the role of information andcommunication technologies in knowledge transfer. Technology Analysis & StrategicManagement 12, no. 4: 429�43.
Rosenberg, M. 2001. E-learning: Strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital age.New York: McGraw Hill.
Sackney, L., and K. Walker. 2006. Canadian perspectives on beginning principals: Their rolein building capacity for learning communities. Journal of Educational Administration 44,no. 4: 341�58.
Sallis, E., and G. Jones. 2002. Knowledge management in education. London: Kogan Page.Santo, S. 2005. Knowledge management: An imperative for schools of education. TechTrends
49, no. 6: 42�50.Schlager, M., and J. Fusco. 2003. Teacher professional development, technology, and
communities of practice: Are we putting the cart before the horse? The InformationSociety 19, no. 3: 203�20.
Scotch College. 2008. Scotch College: Our staff � Scotch College Adelaide. http://www.scotch.sa.edu.au/go/about-scotch/our-staff (accessed December 30, 2011).
Seaford 6�12 School. 2010. Celebrating success. http://seafordhs.sa.edu.au/page5/page9/page9.html (accessed December 30, 2011).
Swan, J., S. Newell, and M. Robertson. 1999. Central agencies in the diffusion and design oftechnology: A comparison of the UK and Sweden. Organization Studies 20, no. 6: 905�31.
Tippins, M. 2003. Implementing knowledge management in academia: Teaching the teachers.The International Journal of Educational Management 17, nos. 6/7: 339�46.
Waller, W. 1932. The sociology of teaching. New York: Wiley.
102 M. Thambi and P. O’Toole
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Um
eå U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
01:
37 2
9 Se
ptem
ber
2013