Knowledge resources in the university context: an overview of the literature
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-01-2020-0010 |
| Published date | 08 July 2020 |
| Date | 08 July 2020 |
| Pages | 703-724 |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Knowledge management,HR & organizational behaviour,Organizational structure/dynamics,Accounting & Finance,Accounting/accountancy,Behavioural accounting |
| Author | Paola Paoloni,Giuseppe Modaffari,Giorgia Mattei |
Knowledge resources in the
university context: an overview of
the literature
Paola Paoloni
Department of Law and Economics of Production Activities, La Sapienza University,
Rome, Italy
Giuseppe Modaffari
Unisu Department, Niccol
o Cusano University, Rome, Italy, and
Giorgia Mattei
Department of Business Studies, Roma Tre University, Rome, Italy
Abstract
Purpose –The aim of this work isto identify and analyze the main areas on which researchers have focused in
relation to intellectual capital (IC) and its management in the university context. This review will also analyze
how these researchers carried out their work to understand future research directions.
Design/methodology/approach–The analysis was conducted through a structured literature review (SLR)
of 866 research contributions (articles, book chapters and books). An analysis of the content was performed to
identify the main topics discussed and to ascertain how these studies were carried out.
Findings –This paper highlights how the management of knowledge resources (as IC) has been discussed in
the literature, focusing specifically on how universities report the information, which is fundamental for
allowing stakeholders to understand the value created by these kinds of organizations.
Research limitations/implications –The manual analysis of the results of the SLR can be considered a
limitation of this work. Another limitation of the work is represented by the use of only one database.
Originality/value –This SLR makes several useful contributions for both practitioners and scholars. First, it
suggests strengthening the relationship with the external stakeholders to assure the survival of universities.
Second, it enables others to replicate scientific research, thanks to its clear and transparent process. It also
allows scholars to identify which issues their work should address, as well as suggesting possible future
research areas.
Keywords Universities, Intellectual capital, Knowledge management, Structured literature review,
Entrepreneurial universities
Paper type Literature review
1. Introduction
Intellectual capital(IC) representsa relevantissue for firms,for which it can becomethe engineof
valuecreation (Lev, 2001), as well as forgovernments and regulators (S
anchez and Elena, 2006).
IC research is maturing and the majority of attention is focused on knowledge management
(KM) and its development (Lerro et al., 2014;Mariano and Walter, 2015;Wiig, 1997).
Initially, most IC research and KM analyses have referred to private and for-profit firms
(Giampaoli et al., 2017;Darroch, 2005;Del Giudice and Della Perruta, 2016;Santoro et al., 2017;
Wu and Chen, 2014). However, such studies have increasingly encompassed public and
non-profit companies (Mouritsen et al., 2004;Ram
ırez C
orcoles, 2010;Sangiorgi and Siboni,
2017), which have allowed them to simplify and reduce their efforts in terms of organizational
processes (Spender, 2006) because knowledge capital is considered a dominant production
factor and a source of competitive advantage and sustainable development (Guerrero et al.,
2015;Audretsch and Phillips, 2007;Dezi et al., 2018).
In the universitycontext, a significant transformation has occurredin IC research, in recent
decades, from a closed and self-referential organizational context (Etzkowitz et al., 2000;
Knowledge
resources in the
university
context
703
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1469-1930.htm
Received 19 January 2020
Revised 1 April 2020
13 May 2020
Accepted 17 June 2020
Journal of Intellectual Capital
Vol. 22 No. 4, 2021
pp. 703-724
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1469-1930
DOI 10.1108/JIC-01-2020-0010
Shekarchizadeh et al., 2011) to IC being a principal actor both in the diffusion of knowledge
resources and in developing strategies aiming to achieve innovation and sustainable growth
(Alonso-Gonzalez et al., 2018;ManesRossi et al.,2018;Del Giudiceet al., 2014;Carrayanniset al.,
2017). This role of the universities has also recognized by the European Commission (2003),
which established them as key entities, not only due to twofold traditional vocation (research
and teaching) but also due to their importancein the process of innovation.
Universities are considered as open organizations that interact with a plethora of
stakeholders (Gibbons, 1998;Mowery and Sampat, 2004;Ferraris et al., 2018) because
different mechanisms are required to transfer and share knowledge, contributing to local
dynamism (Ahrweiler et al., 2011;Bramwell and Wolfe, 2008;Guzman and Wilson, 2005).
Another university pillar concerns the development of the system (Furman and
MacGarvie, 2009;Secundo et al., 2017;Seethmaraju, 2012) through the so-called “third
mission”(Laredo, 2007), by which it is possible to create a relationship between external
stakeholders based on collaborative research (Bjerregaard, 2010;Carayannis et al., 2000,2014;
Liyanage et al., 1999;Nicotra et al., 2018). Therefore, universities are considered places where
knowledge is produced, endorsed and disseminated; all these characteristics show that
universities play a significant role in the economic and social context (Sanchez and Elena,
2006;Markman et al., 2005;Ahmad et al., 2018).
Moreover, given that obtaining competitive advantage is extremely important, based on
properly managing and including knowledge resources (also labeled IC) in strategic
decision-making; the role of the KM has increased its importance (Ricceri, 2008;
Gaviria-Marin et al., 2018) in the dynamic system, particularly in relation to obtaining
sustainable competitive advantage (Marr et al., 2003). To achieve this, the three traditional IC
variables must be analyzed more in detail. This refers to the necessity to decompose human
capital into 1) management and 2) human resources capabilities (HRC); structural capital into
1) innovation and 2) internal process capabilities (IPC) and relational capital into
1) networking capabilities and 2) customer loyalty (Molodchik et al., 2014). Here, KM is the
protagonist of this analytical analysis of IC, which allows the implementation of HRC and IPC
variables (Papa et al., 2018).
However, according to Bolisani (2019) and Sangiorgi and Siboni (2017), there is little
research in the educational field that highlights how to better introduce concepts, archetypes
and practices related to the management of the knowledge resources (also labeled IC) in terms
of KM. This gap pushed the authors to analyze whether and how previous research has
followed this social evolution, focusing on the field of IC and how it is managed in universities,
with the aim of understanding whether universities’rethinking of processes has stimulated
scholars to simultaneously discuss strategic resources (IC) and their management (KM).
To achieve the goal, this paper aims to study how the literature has evolved in recent
decades, which research areas have already been investigated, which are the main topics
analyzed by previous publications and the main gaps that need to be filled.
Adopting a structured literature review (SLR) methodology (Dumay, 2014;Guthrie et al.,
2012;Guthrie and Murthy, 2009;Massaro et al., 2016;Paoloni and Demartini, 2016), and
following the suggestions defined in the protocol, this paper attempts to answer the following
research questions:
RQ1. How is research in the literature developing the topic of IC and KM in universities?
RQ2. What are the main foci of analysis in the extant literature?
RQ3. What are the possible future research areas?
In answering these questions, this paper focuses on the university context, contributing to
increasing attention on the lack of debate regarding IC and the ability to well manage this
complex resource (in terms of KM).
JIC
22,4
704
To continue reading
Request your trial