From measuring to learning? – Probing the evolutionary path of IC research and practice
| Date | 11 January 2013 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/14691931311289002 |
| Pages | 26-47 |
| Published date | 11 January 2013 |
| Author | Ai Yu,Patrick Humphreys |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & finance,HR & organizational behaviour,Information & knowledge management |
From measuring to learning? –
Probing the evolutionary path of
IC research and practice
Ai Yu
Department of Strategy and Human Resource Management,
University of Bedfordshire, Luton, UK, and
Patrick Humphreys
Institute of Social Psychology, The London School of Economics, London, UK
Abstract
Purpose – In line with an emerging critical trend in the field of intellectual capital (IC), the aim of this
paper is to probe the evolutionary path of IC research and practices. The paper aims to argue that IC
research and practices need to shift from the measuring paradigm to a learning paradigm.
Design/methodology/approach – A total of 15 interviews with experienced IC consultants were
conducted while they were all working on a European Commission funded IC project across five
European countries from 2005 to 2008. Altogether their voices constitute a critical line of thought.
Findings – The findings showed that a learning paradigm does not take a stand against the
measuring paradigm, however it does transform the measuring paradigm, as it takes it to a new level
of understanding by engaging a firm’s attention to the socio-psychological mechanism that generates
and sustains IC flows. IC flows entail new knowledge flows, practice flows, and affect flows that elicit
organizational change and innovation.
Practical implications – The paper discusses two implications of this research. First, effective IC
flow management may strengthen a firm’s future earning potential by allowing for value-added
activities and by nurturing a strong learning motive. Second, three criteria for IC information
disclosure are proposed to work around the issue of management control and/or public relations
manipulation. The paper suggests that the design and implementation of IC models within a reporting
framework should aim to make the concept of IC more accessible, actionable, and effective.
Originality/value – This paper offers a novel conceptual framework and an operational context
which explore the possible ways of advancing IC research and practices.
Keywords A learning paradigm, IC flow management, Organizational change and innovation,
Intellectual capital, Innovation, Organizational change
Paper type Research paper
So entrenched are the traditional measuring paradigms that executives and researchers have
not even started to explore the most interesting reason for measuring intangibles: the
learning motive (Sveiby, 2010).
1. Introduction
Stemming from a wide range of methodological and practical needs and various
degrees of understanding, intellectual capital (IC) research and practices vary from
country to country, and from case to case. Yet a vast majority of models or frameworks
(Choo and Bontis, 2002; Sveiby and Armstrong, 2004; RICA RDIS: European
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1469-1930.htm
Journal of Intellectual Capital
Vol. 14 No. 1, 2013
pp. 26-47
rEmeraldGroup Publishing Limited
1469-1930
DOI 10.1108/14691931311289002
The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution and involvement of every participant of
the IC project under study. The constructive comments made by two anonymous reviewers are
very helpful. The authors owe special thanks to Dr Dumay for his kind reminder and
clarifications before the submission of this paper.
26
JIC
14,1
Commission, 2006) seem to prioritise one aspect of the IC construct, namely the
uncritical measurement of IC and its sub-categories (human capital, structu ral capital,
and relational capital). In the present paper, the measuring paradigm refers to the
theoretical and practical attempt that posits IC under parsimonious relations through
assessing and reporting individual IC elements (Liu and Wang, 2008).
The measuring paradigm holds a strong position in the mainstream accounting
and managerial literature (Cuganesan and Dumay, 2009). Nonetheless, a number of
critical scholars in the field of IC have become aware of the severe limitations
associated with this paradigm (Dumay, 2009; Mouritsen, 2006, 2009; O’Donnell et al.,
2006; Chaharbaghi and Cripps, 2006; Marr et al., 2004). They all came to notice that the
measuring paradigm might reinforce management command and control or serve as a
tool for manipulating public relations (PR thereafter). This paper shares this critical
concern and questions the doctrine of “what gets measured gets managed” that
underpins the measuring paradigm (Catasu
´set al., 2007).
From 2005 to 2008, the authors of this paper joined a research-and-practice
combined IC project within the European Union’s Sixth Framework Programme (FP6).
The project was aimed at strengthening the competitive advantages of European
enterprises by means of recognizing and utilizing their intangible resources. Over
a time span of 30 months, a team of experienced IC consultants was employed to
introduce an IC framework (see Appendix 1) systematically to 25 pilot companies
across five European countries. Their extensive experience of implementing this
IC framework with business organizations constituted a unique line of thought:
IC research-in-practice. This line of thought addressed questions beyond the scope of
the measuring paradigm. In order to distinguish it from the uncritical measurement
of IC, we named it “a learning paradigm” and decided to t heorize this line of thought by
examining the operational context from which it emerged.
Fundamentally, a learning paradigm is constructed for the purpose of
strengthening a firm’s future learning potential. This goal can be achieved through
enabling IC flows, a state of being that rekindles the connections between actors,
activities, knowledge, and experiences within IC research and practices
(Csikszentmihalyi, 2003; Nonaka et al., 2008; Yu, 2011). At the heart of IC flows,
an array of learning activities and a strong learning motive hold all the elements
together (O’Donnell, 1999; Sveiby, 2010). However, constructing a learning paradigm
is an ambitious endeavour, since none of the mainstream IC models or frameworks
has ever attended to this focus previously. Drawing on the philosophical works
of Habermas, Vygotsky, and Deleuze, we explore the socio-psychological mechanism
that generates and sustains IC flow in terms of new knowledge flows, new practice
flows, and new affect flows.
This paper is structured in the following manner. First, Section 2 briefly touches
on the limitations of the measuring paradigm and introduces the theoretical
framework of a learning paradigm. Then Section 3 deals with the methods of
mapping out a learning paradigm through individual discou rses of experienced
IC consultants. Following that Section 4 presents the key findings from a critical
lens before Section 5 concludes the paper with a discussion of the main implications
of this research.
2. Towards a learning paradigm
Sveiby (2010) identifies over 30 models or frameworks that cover both the financial and
non-financial measures of IC. It is true that these measu res may be justified for a
27
From measuring
to learning?
To continue reading
Request your trial