International academic knowledge creation

and ba. A case study from Finland

Johanna Hautala
University of Oulu, Finland
Correspondence: Johanna Hautala,
Department of Geography PO Box 3000,
90014 University of Oulu, Finland.
Tel: ( 358-8)-5531709;
Fax: ( 358-8)-5531693;
E-mail: johanna.hautala@oulu.fi
Received: 23 October 2008
Revised: 10 August 2010
Accepted: 16 August 2010
Abstract
Knowledge is created through discourse in ba that is the physical, mental
and/or virtual arena of knowledge creation. This article studies ba in
international humanist (H-group), technical (T-group) and scientific (S-group)
research groups. These international groups consist of members originating
from many countries. The empirical evidence is derived from interviews and
discourse analysis of three research groups from the University of Oulu which,
by staff, is the most international large university in Finland. The article
advances understanding of ba by considering the theory of ba in relation to the
discourse and exploratory case study. In the case groups, ba is formed in
relation to the knowledge type created, suitable characteristics of a group
member and structural factors related to administrative responsibilities.
Humanist knowledge, with abstract concepts and philosophical discussions,
is created with deeper attention to language and social bonds inside the
H-group than the more accurate scientific and technical knowledge in the
S- and T-groups.
Knowledge Management Research & Practice (2011) 9, 416.
doi:10.1057/kmrp.2010.23
Keywords: ba; knowledge creation; international; group discourse; university; Finland
Introduction
Academic knowledge creation takes place physically, mentally and/or
virtually in interaction, in ba. Ba is an expression in Japanese meaning in
English approximately place (Nonaka & Konno, 1998, p. 40). This place is
also an arena of discourse, a way of talking and writing about research
(Watson, 2003, p. 113). Discourse varies situationally and is interpreted
individually (see Creplet, 2000; Augier et al., 2001, p. 129). The article
focuses on studying ba in the context of international academic knowledge
creation. In this study, ba means the context and arena of discourse where
knowledge is created.
The motivation for this study is to deepen the understanding of the
context of discursive knowledge creation (ba) in internationalising
universities. This is important for two reasons. First, in internationalising
universities, research groups increasingly consist of persons originating
from many countries. This poses various challenges for knowledge
creation. Not all members of research groups communicate in their
mother tongue, which may affect the content and interpretation of
knowledge-creating discourse. On the other hand, research groups may
become more innovative than internally homogeneous groups if they
are diverse and exist long enough to create common understanding
(Watson et al., 1993; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Elron, 1997). Different
group members have different views about the same research problem. For
Knowledge Management Research & Practice (2011) 9, 416
& 2011 Operational Research Society. All rights reserved 14778238/11
www.palgrave-journals.com/kmrp/
example, cultural backgrounds affect thinking and
behaviour and generational diversity in a group enables
researchers with more experience in work and life to
share their experiences with younger researchers (e.g.
Hofstede & Hofstede, 2004). Both the opportunities
and challenges of knowledge creation in diverse groups
come together in the ba, where common interest,
commitment and language must find their places (e.g.
Csikszentmihalyi & Sawyer, 1995; Barron, 2003).
Second, according to several researchers, ba needs to
be conceptualised more deeply than scholars have done
so far (Creplet, 2000; Augier et al., 2001; Ray & Little,
2001; Fayard, 2003; Nakamori 2006). Clarification
requires understanding of the processes inside ba. In this
article, ba is considered in association with discourse,
which reveals new aspects from ba (see Barron, 2003,
p. 309). To explore ba in practice, three different
academic research groups highlighting three realms of
knowledge creation at universities were selected. In
general and in these case research groups, humanists
create subjective knowledge about the social world that
speaks, whereas engineers use available resources to
create technology for people and scientists seek to
understand nature objectively often through numerical
data (Habermas, 1972; Eto, 2008). However, knowledge
created in many academic projects combines these
knowledge types and subjective and objective approaches
to knowledge. In addition, researchers view the research
problem individually. For example, a scientist might
concentrate on the perspectives that are applicable to
technological devices and combine objective data with
subjective views on users needs. Even though the
categories of humanists, engineers and scientists are
simplifications of the academic realm, they are useful
since academia is organised around them.
This study includes a case research group from each
realm: a humanistic (the H-group), technical (the
T-group) and scientific (the S-group) group from the
University of Oulu in Finland, the countrys most
international large university with over 16,000 students
and 3000 staff (University of Oulu, 2008). The H-group
is applying a certain key concept to completely new
contexts and by doing this also refining humanistic
(hermeneutic) knowledge. The T-group is involved in
computer science and promoting technical knowledge.
The S-group studies plants with scientific knowledge. The
groups are international; they include 520 researchers
from both Finland and abroad, publish articles in
international journals, frequently attend international
conferences and communicate mostly in non-native
language.
The more detailed research questions are:
In what kind of ba (here as a virtual, physical and
mental context) do the research groups create
knowledge?
What does ba (here as an arena of discourse) consist of
in the research groups?
The main findings suggest that different types of
knowledge are created in different kinds of bas and
discourses. The humanist knowledge of the H-group with
abstract concepts and philosophical discussions is created
through social and conceptual closeness, whereas such
attention to language and social bonds is not needed in
the T- and S-groups that create more specific knowledge.
Technical knowledge in the T-group is created in a project
organised like clockwork where employees trust one
another, while the S-groups autonomous researchers
create scientific knowledge as parts of the global scientific
community. They are autonomous since each researcher
works on their own study while a few senior researchers
guide them and the programme as a whole. The three
case research groups bas are blends of the type of
knowledge created, suitable characteristics of a group-
member and structural factors related to administrative
responsibilities.
The article is organised as follows. Internationalising
universities in Finland and the University of Oulu is
presented first in the context of knowledge creation and
ba in academia. The concepts of ba and discourse as
elements of knowledge creation are reviewed in the
second section. The aim is to illustrate their relation
through theory. The third section introduces the meth-
odology, materials and methods used in this study. In
the fourth section, the case research groups are presented
in more detail, as are the results of this study. This section
answers what the bas of the groups consist of, and
how these bas are related to their knowledge-creating
discourses.
Internationalising universities: the case of Finland
Universities are cradles of knowledge creation (Jaffe,
1989; Gibbons et al., 1994). Researchers compete inter-
nationally for space in best journals, patents to the best
companies and research funding. Although the competi-
tion is global, the practices of knowledge creation are
formed locally by peoples actions in organisations.
Knowledge creation is no longer aimed at generating
knowledge, as such but, for enhancing countries eco-
nomic and social performance by combining universities,
businesses and public policies in the internationalising
context (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000). From this
perspective, Finland is an interesting case. Despite its
small population and language spoken in the world by
less than 6 million people, Finland has been able to
capitalise knowledge in various knowledge fields from
arts to science and technology. Examples of this include
the mobile technology solutions by Nokia, discoveries
of Finnish scientists in the genetics of heritable diseases,
and various globally recognised composers and music
directors originating from Finland, as well as the
Nobel Peace Prize laureate graduated from the University
of Oulu. In addition, according to the Programme
for International Student Assessment (PISA), Finnish
15-year-old pupils are the best in sciences among 57
countries (PISA Finland, 2006).
International academic knowledge creation and ba Johanna Hautala 5
Knowledge Management Research & Practice
A high international level of research and teaching in
universities is regarded essential in national innovation
and regional development policies (Jauhiainen, 2008).
Universities play a significant role in Finland, whose
economy leans on knowledge and expertise. However,
universities around the globe increasingly compete for
the best researchers in the academic world. Finnish
universities also are seeking for their share of experts.
The current national education policy focuses on inter-
nationalisation of universities in Finland and, in
addition, it includes tighter co-operation between uni-
versities. This process culminates in the establishment of
the new innovation-oriented university in the capital
region, fusing together three currently separate institu-
tions of higher education (Karjalainen, 2008).
Among the 10 Finnish multi-disciplinary universities,
the University of Oulu has the most international
ambitions, such as attracting foreign employees. Accord-
ing to the general, internationalisation and human
resources strategies of all 10 universities, the internatio-
nalisation policy of the University of Oulu is strongly
channelled towards foreign employees with a volume
and accuracy not attained in the other nine universities.
The word international with its amounts and themes
as well as comments on foreign employees are frequently
mentioned in the strategies of the University of Oulu
(University of Oulu International Strategy and Action
Plan 20052010, 2005). Furthermore, when comparing
both the absolute and the relative number of foreign
employees in 20022006, the University of Oulu is
notable compared to the other universities. The amount
of foreign employees at the University of Oulu was 56%
(165185 persons) of all staff. At the twice-as-large
University of Helsinki, there were more foreign employ-
ees than in Oulu; however, their share of all staff was
substantially lower. Only in A

bo Akademi, a small
university where Swedish is the only official language,
is the relative amount of foreign staff higher than in Oulu
(Statistics of Finland, 2008).
Established in 1958, the University of Oulus four focus
areas are (1) sciences and health, (2) information
technology, (3) cultural identity and interaction, and
(4) environment, natural resources and materials. The
university is divided into six faculties: technology,
science, humanities, medicine, education, and econom-
ics and business administration. In addition there are
several interdisciplinary research institutes. The faculties
of technology, science and humanities have the most
employees with foreign backgrounds. About 40% of the
760 employees in the faculty of technology have a
foreign background, whereas 30% of the faculty of
sciences 560 employees and 6% of humanities 150
employees have roots abroad (Human resources, 2006).
The first research assessment exercise was carried out in
the University of Oulus departments in 2007. The panel
members were international experts in each departments
discipline. On a scale of 17 (1lowest, 7highest), the
average quality of research in the faculty of technology is
four, and in other faculties it is five. Seven departments
out of 57 received the number six, this being the highest
number of the assessment in the university (Jaako, 2008).
Therefore, improving the international quality of
research is essential for the University of Oulu. The keys
to achieving this include international co-operation,
publications and mobility of researchers, as well as
organising researchers to work in groups and enhance
the dedicated long-term work of the groups (Kinnunen,
2009, p. 31). Indeed, teamwork results more often in
innovative knowledge creation than does work executed
by solitary researchers (Ford, 1996; Lechler, 2001).
Innovative knowledge creation leads to inventions or
insights that are very useful to knowledge-creating groups
and organisations. The number of foreign employees at
the University of Oulu is aimed to be doubled in the near
future (University of Oulu International Strategy and
Action Plan 20052010, 2005), which is reflected in
research groups increasingly consisting of employees from
many countries and cultures. This is also the case in the
three research groups portrayed in this article.
Ba of academic knowledge creation
Academic knowledge consists of tacit (Polanyi, 1966) and
explicit elements and is further justified in the global
academic environment (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).
Knowledge is socially constructed, since its justification
is done within the academic community. Although
individuals express their knowledge, the basic unit of
knowledge creation is a group that shares goals, passions
and routines (Amin & Cohendent, 2004, p. 74).
Three types of academic knowledge fall within the
scope of this study: scientific, technical and humanistic
(hermeneutic). Such categories are a simplification of
the academic realm but useful, as the academy is
organised around them. Empirical-analytic knowledge,
in which scientific and technical knowledge are included,
is possible predictive knowledge (Habermas, 1972,
p. 308). It relates to the technical interest of research
and control over natural phenomena (Habermas, 1972,
p. 309, see also Foucault, 1994). Both physical and
technical opportunities and restrictions have to be
acknowledged when designing technical products. On
the basis of this, the pure sciences (physics, mathematics,
chemistry and biology) can be distinguished from
applied sciences (technology, medicine, agriculture and
statistics) (Eto, 2008; see also Laestadius, 2000).
There are, nevertheless, similarities between science
and technology. They are hard sciences concentrating
on mathematical and statistical expressions in opposition
to soft sciences humanities (Wierzbicki & Nakamori,
2005). Technology and science seek to explain a cosmos
that has nothing to say (Luckmann, 2008, p. 280),
whereas the social world speaks. The interest of sub-
jective, hermeneutic knowledge is to understand and
to interpret and mediate traditions (Habermas, 1972,
pp. 309310). Researchers material is consisted of human
experience in the written and spoken form (Denzin &
International academic knowledge creation and ba Johanna Hautala 6
Knowledge Management Research & Practice
Lincoln, 2003, p. 56). The interpretation is done to, and
through, already interpreted material.
Knowledge is created through interaction in ba
(Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Lundvall & Borras, 1999;
Nonaka & von Krogh, 2009). Interaction is bound by
time, space, participants, their different contexts and
their trust for each other (von Krogh et al., 2000, p. 49).
Nakamoris (2006, p. 12) definition of ba includes similar
pieces: ba is a system of elements (e.g. infrastructure,
actors), characteristics (e.g. hierarchy, communication)
and relationships. Participants context is an individual
interpretation of a situation (Augier et al., 2001,
p. 129). It is based on each individuals values, culture
and experiences (see Gertler, 2003, p. 78). Therefore
the context is limited. These limitations can be widened
through combining participants contexts, through
creating ba (Nonaka & Toyama, 2003, pp. 67; Nonaka
et al., 2008, pp. 118119).
Ba enables creating and sharing knowledge and its
interpretations (Nonaka & Konno, 1998; Nonaka &
Toyama, 2003). According to Nonaka & Konno (1998,
pp. 4041) ba is physical (e.g. cafe), mental (e.g. sharing
personal experiences and ideas) and sometimes virtual
(e.g. e-mail) (Konagaya, 2005; Senoo et al., 2007;
Kivijarvi, 2008; Rafaeli et al., 2009). Ba exists in
individual, group and organisational levels, which can
convergence and form a basho; the ba of an individual
is team and ba of teams is organisation (Nonaka &
Konno, 1998, p. 41; Watanuki & Kojima, 2007; Nonaka
et al., 2008, p. 134; Travaille & Hendriks, 2010). Similarly,
Creplet (2000, p. 373) discusses generic and specific ba,
the former describing general arenas of interaction in
an organisation and the latter existing in context with a
common goal, such as a project.
According to Nonaka & Konno (1998, p. 4547),
different types of bas enable interaction characteristics
for different phases of knowledge creation. In originating
ba, tacit knowledge can be shared face-to-face through
socialisation. Some parts of tacit knowledge can be
externalised in interacting or dialoguing ba. Sharing
and combining existing knowledge can result in new
knowledge in virtual cyber ba. In exercising ba members
of the group internalise knowledge whereupon it
becomes part of their tacit knowledge pool. This SECI
process (socialisation, externalisation, combination
and internalisation of knowledge) leads to continuous
learning and the subsequent iterations of knowledge
creation in a group (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).
Ba has found its way especially into the field of
knowledge management. It has also been an issue in
innovation studies and, for instance, in geography
(Kostiainen, 2002). Although companies are the most
common cases in these studies, some applications to
the academic world can be pointed out (e.g. Brannback,
2003; Hansson, 2007; Tian et al., 2009; Travaille &
Hendriks, 2010). An interesting research study focused
on the possibility to design a scientific knowledge
management environment (Oliveira et al., 2006), which
allows the promotion of knowledge as well (Alvarenga
Neto, 2007). According to Nomura (2002), ba can be
designed when both the knowledge strategy and indivi-
dual working styles of an organisation are taken into
consideration. The restriction of designing ba points
to its very core: social interaction. We can plan offices
and software, but we cannot plan communication.
For example, even though an organisation has an
inviting coffee room, it is impossible to control who
comes for a coffee and who does not, what is the topic of
discussion there, and how employees interpret such talks
and the related atmosphere. In the end, the under-
standing of ba comes down to interaction and discourse
(see also Nonaka & Konno, 1998; Nonaka & Toyama,
2005, p. 249).
Discourse, language and ba
Language, discourse and knowledge are related. Several
studies show that a high level of interaction in a group
positively influences innovative knowledge creation
(Lechler, 2001; Barron, 2003). Language itself is a social
construction and convention within a group of people.
It is the vehicle of knowing [y] and carries meaning
which we ascribe to words (Renzl, 2007, p. 46). To arrive
at knowledge means to travel in a discursive space (Xu,
2000, p. 428). In other words, knowledge is created
through discourse, which (re)forms through interaction
in ba: a space of knowledge creation (Figure 1). Although
most studies have not focused on bas relation to
discourse, Nonaka et al. (2008) have considered ba as
a narrative.
Approaches and definitions on discourse are wide
(Grant et al., 1998; Hardy et al., 2000, p. 1231). Discourse
can be found in written texts and verbal interaction
D
i
s
c
o
u
r
s
e
Knowledge
Ba
Figure 1 The relation of ba, discourse and knowledge.
International academic knowledge creation and ba Johanna Hautala 7
Knowledge Management Research & Practice
(Mulkay, 1974; Potter & Wetherell, 1987, p. 7). It reveals
itself as the way to speak about the world in context; it
is language in its concrete living totality (Bakhtin, 1984,
p. 181). Discourse is local and situational construction
and inseparable from cognition and culture (Grant et al.,
1998, p. 12; Alvesson & Karreman, 2000). Discourses
influence our behaviour (Potter & Wetherell, 1987, p. 6;
Watson, 2003, p. 113). In this line of research, discourse
analysis can reveal aspects behind discourse (see also van
Dijk, 1997), in other words, it can unveil ba as an arena
of discourse.
Adopted from Watson (2003, p. 113), discourse here
means a connected set of statements, concepts, terms
and expressions which constitute a way of talking
or writing about research, for example, how certain
research groups justify and produce knowledge. In the
article, this is empirically discussed with the case groups
from the University of Oulu. The expression way of
talking or writing about refers to two issues. First, it refers
to the presumption made through the theory of ba and
discourse that individuals have a common context of
knowledge creation (ba), within which they as a group
communicate through discourse. For example, a research
group shares the same research interest. Certain concepts
become essential; some are adopted from researchers
own experience and some from other scholars. These
concepts are repeated in their discourse. Second, it refers
to discourses affect on employees actions as researchers
(Watson, 2003, p. 113). For instance, when scholars
find a new, interesting way to study a phenomenon,
it becomes a part of their speech. Other researchers
may find the idea interesting and start a new research
project on it.
Knowledge is both an input and output of discourse
(Weinberger et al., 2007): employees use knowledge to
influence others (Xu, 2000, p. 447). Discourses occur
in episteme, which is a tacit system framing knowledge in
historical time (Foucault, 1994, pp. 344348). Each bas
arenas mental, physical and/or virtual shed their
frame to discourse and emerge within the episteme of our
time (Table 1). The relation is reciprocal: discourse also
changes ba. Emotions, values and ideas are shared and
processed through language. This creates a discourse that
an individual interprets and in which s/he participates.
The interaction takes place physically. When the partici-
pants interact face-to-face, they also communicate with
many signals other than only language, for example,
facial expressions, gestures and positions (Kayes et al.,
2005, p. 584). Physical settings include socio-cultural
expectations, also in different informal knowledge-
creation contexts, such as how to speak and act in a fine
restaurant or on a casual camping trip. Sometimes
knowledge is created virtually, which might include a
risk of misunderstandings, especially when communicat-
ing through a second language.
The glocal (Robertson, 1992, pp. 173174) discourse in
a research group consists of academic terms related to
the global level of academic discourse shared by several
scholars and a local, organisational language that is
saturated by the organisations employees, goals, strate-
gies and practices. The discourse becomes reformed in
every situation and interpretation (Nunan, 1993, p. 8).
Researchers are a part of the academic world (basho) in
which academic (global) discourse is intertwined with the
practical, organisational (local) discourse.
Methodology, materials and methods
Case study is a suitable research strategy when it is
necessary to study the phenomenon empirically in its
context. The advantage of the case study method
increases when the theoretical refinement of a concept,
such as ba, is still in its process (Yin, 1994). This study
includes three case research groups. The number of
the groups is small, but in the context of exploratory
research it is enough to illustrate the relation between
group discourse and ba, and clarify the uniqueness of
ba in relation to the knowledge-type created.
The case research groups for this research were selected
from three faculties at the University of Oulu: those of
technology, science and humanities. The T-group was
selected from the Faculty of Technology because the
groups research field belongs to one of the focus areas of
the University of Oulu. The H- and the S-groups are more
oriented towards basic research whereas the T-group
co-operates with companies and its research is focused
on developing a technological product with also com-
mercial value. In addition, the groups differ in the time
in which they have conducted their research, their size
and their collaboration practices. Despite this, all the
groups contribute to their international academic fields
and create knowledge constantly.
Further criteria for the selection of the research groups
were, first, some members are Finns and others foreign-
ers; second, the groups have produced several inter-
national publications and attended international
conferences; third, the groups had been working together
for several months at the time of the interviews that were
conducted in 20062007. Face-to-face interviews were
Table 1 Bas mental, physical and virtual aspects and their effect on discourse
Ba Discourse
Mental For example, emotion, value, idea Interpreting and participating through thinking and communicating
Physical For example, meeting room, corridor, cafe Socio-cultural expectations, role of language in face-to-face settings
Virtual For example, forum, chat, database, e-mail Virtual identity, possible misunderstandings
International academic knowledge creation and ba Johanna Hautala 8
Knowledge Management Research & Practice
conducted one-on-one. Altogether 12 interviews were
conducted: three from the H-group, three from the
S-group and six from the T-group. A single interview
took about 3060min. The duration in minutes of the
interviews are as follows: T-group 23, 26, 34, 37, 37 and
38, S-group 44, 47 and 55, and H-group 58, 62 and 74.
The experience of the interviewees differs. The research
group leaders were among the interviewees as well as the
more experienced researchers together with the research-
ers in the early stage of their careers. The main themes of
the interviews were the social working environment and
processes of academic knowledge creation. From all these
groups, the work of the T-group reminds most of the
conditions in which the SECI-model and ba were created
(Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). For example, they develop
commercial products. Accordingly, the interviewees of
the T-group found the questions considering the process
of knowledge creation through socialisation, externalisa-
tion, combination and internalisation to be very realistic
and the need to ask further questions was minimal.
Therefore, the interviews remained shorter and more
members were selected as the interviewees. Another basis
for selecting more interviewees from the T-group is their
task-based project. Employees work with certain tasks and
cooperation has formed around these task-groups.
Interviewees have been selected from different tasks to
get the overall picture of their knowledge creation.
Words, expressing concepts that form the foundation
of thinking, appear as patterns in text. These patterns are
the focus of discourse analysis (Tsoukas, 2005; see also
van Dijk, 1997, p. 5) that analyses language in social
contexts (Potter & Wetherell, 1987). Discourse analysis
was applied to the interviews conducted for this research.
The interviews were first transcribed word-for-word into
text. Breaks, inhalations, exhalations, volume (quiet/
loud), laughs, gestures and shifts of position were also
documented. The outcome was a text corpus of 125 A4
pages. The text was then analysed part-by-part, each part
consisting of one topic of talk. From these parts, the main
words and all metaphors (e.g. research work reminds
digging) were identified. They were coded with the QSR
Nvivo8 software, extending the coding throughout the
text. On the basis of empirical material, 8119 coded
words were organised into 30 categories. Essential words
and all analogies were selected from the material through
the first data reduction detailed by relevant theories.
Words and analogies were then analysed in more detail
by posing questions to find discourse and answering
these questions through careful reading of the whole
text. Through the second data reduction, descriptive
examples of speech were identified. From this, a 76-paged
booklet was gathered as the basis for constructing the
final discourses. An example of the quotations and
conclusions is in Appendix.
Group discourses and the practices of knowledge
creation
The humanists H-group consists of five researchers: one
professor, one senior researcher and three Ph.D. students
(Table 2). The researchers with a foreign background are
European. In addition to conducting research, all of them
also teach. Their research idea evolved from the profes-
sors previous project and observations they made about
society. These observations led to acknowledging the
importance of cultural understanding in international
co-operation. The researchers started to discuss and
develop the idea that a certain central concept of the
discipline could be applied from conventional use to a
wider context, to different societal phenomena. Their
research includes the concepts usage as both a descrip-
tive concept and a method to study phenomena. The
most important recent event in the H-group was an
international conference that they arranged in 2008. The
theme of the conference dealt with the idea of applying
the central concept of their field in new contexts and the
conference attracted a lot of researchers. Presently the
group is finishing an article and one of the researchers
her Ph.D.
The technologists T-groups personnel include a pro-
fessor and a senior researcher, who both are responsible
directors. The two research assistants with a foreign
background are European and the responsible director
Table 2 The case research groups
Faculty Group Research Staff Interviewees
Humanities H Started in 2006 5 Project manager 1*
Text linguistic concepts are applied into new contexts (2*) Ph.D. researchers 1+1*
Technology T Started in 2004, ended in 2007 8 Responsible directors 1+1*
Computer science (3*) Project manager 1
Collaboration with firms Research assistants 1+2*
Internationally known results resulted in new co-operation projects
Science S Started in the 1980s 20 Project manager 1
Plants (1*) Senior researcher 1
Post-doctoral researcher 1*
*foreign employees
International academic knowledge creation and ba Johanna Hautala 9
Knowledge Management Research & Practice
is Asian. Together with the steering group they lead and
plan the research work in general. The project manager
is in charge of more practical organisation of the work.
The rest of the group consists of research assistants.
They are developing a particular application for mobile
phones. The T-groups project has created three new
projects, and three of the research assistants have started
to do their Ph.D.s. During the project, nine international
articles have been published.
The research programme built by the leader of the
scientist S-group dealt with plants. The composition of
the group is dynamic because of research exchanges
and students, who contribute the group with short-term
projects. Most group members are Ph.D. students and
the rest include graduate students, technicians, and
post-doctoral or senior researchers. The post-doc with
a foreign background is European. The S-group has
published altogether 17 articles in international journals
during 20072009. In addition, they have received
significant funding through an EU-project and the
Finnish Academy. Two new foreign employees are joining
the group in the near future.
From each of these three groups, one discourse can be
identified even though it is interpreted and altered
individually. In the core of all discourses are the terms
research, knowledge, idea, we and communicating.
The group discourses differ in their research-specific
terminology and according to how the group under-
stands and practices teamwork.
H-group: social and conceptual closeness
We here are almost like a family [y] I know uh what things
they are interested in at this stage, I know whether its
appropriate to talk about this particular thing at this
moment or if they have a sick child at home. (Researcher,
the H-group)
Theres very much sort of discussion and exchanging just
very basic, maybe philosophical ideas or to make sure that
everyone has the same perception of reality and some very
fundamental things and a, and trying understand each
others research [y] it evolves very much around coffee
tables. (Researcher, the H-group)
The H-groups social practices of knowledge creation are
based on informal face-to-face interaction and dynamic
mutual understanding. Their common discourse of
maintaining social closeness is coherent in all intervie-
wees speech, for example, through the words thinking,
understanding and we. The group uses the word we
the most; it exists in their speech 0.8 times in a minute
(155 times), whereas 0.6 times in a minute in the speech
of the T-group (117 times) and 76 times in the S-groups
interviews (0.5 times in a minute). We for the H-group
are the research group and the rest of the department.
Their social closeness is partly a result of the initial stage
in their research project in which forming mutual
understanding of the research problem and terms is
important.
T-group: human trust and technical clockwork
Everybody is a component. You need to interface to connect
with others. Like we set some deadline and we need to make
every component together to make the whole system work.
If you dont trust it, the rest of the system, it will be a big
problem. You cannot take care of everything there. [y] My
feeling is that you have to try your best to make your
component perfect. And you have to trust the others who
are working together with you, who are interfacing with
you, are working as good as you. (Researcher, the T-group)
Technology that the T-group is creating in co-operation
with firms is unique and new to the world. The team is a
forerunner, which can be heard in their speech. Especially
the young researchers are proud of themselves and their
work. The core of their discourse is a blend of human
and technical matters. The researchers trust each others
know-how, which is why tasks are clearly divided in a
group. The research project resembles a clockwork
mechanism: it is divided into tasks conducted by pairs
or groups of researchers that have one responsible person.
Similarly, a technical device is concrete and can be
divided into pieces. Technical research can be con-
structed the same way as long as there is a common goal
is in engineers minds. The T-group meets each other
regularly. More formal meetings are held with companies
to demonstrate the groups achievements.
S-group: autonomous researchers part of global
scientific community
In the end there is a lot of such knowledge in operating
within the academic community that is sort of like
connected to, you know, social practices and to like
operating within a community, and there are like no rules
anywhere how to do it, [y] lets say that an article was sent
forward and it was returned with editing suggestions, well,
theres no manual that would prescribe how this editor
should be replied to. (Researcher, the S-group)
The S-group is formed of quite autonomous researchers
who share a common interest. They are gathered around
a certain research programme on plants. Each researcher
works on their own study while a few senior researchers
guide them and the programme as a whole. The leader is
the practical core of the programme. This programme
provides research topics for many interested interna-
tional visiting researchers who come to Oulu for a short
period. As a result, the research programme develops with
an inflow of new ideas and personalities. To keep the
researchers as a group, they have a weekly meeting that
everyone must attend. Internationally relevant knowl-
edge is created also in more informal personal meetings.
The speech of these researchers shows that they are
strongly bound to the global scientific community.
Scientific knowledge is accurate, and professionals
understand and interpret it quite similarly without
clarification of philosophical backgrounds. Despite this,
it is important to notice that field and laboratory work
includes a lot of tacit knowledge. It requires great
International academic knowledge creation and ba Johanna Hautala 10
Knowledge Management Research & Practice
exactitude to form good data. That is one reason why it is
important to work as a group.
Ba and the case research groups
The case research groups all have different physical,
virtual and/or mental bas. Their main characters are
shown in Table 3. The group discourses are formed and
reflected in these common contexts.
Although face-to-face communication is essential in all
knowledge creation in the case groups, the role of
physical ba is different in the case research groups. The
H-groups social closeness is reflected in their physical
environment. Researchers visit each others offices con-
stantly. Their offices are located side by side and their
doors are always open. Those T-groups research assistants
who work in the same task share the office. Therefore
they communicate frequently and share tacit knowledge.
For example, they explain their ideas to each other
by showing technical language on the computer screen.
The laboratory and meeting room are the key places for
the S-groups interactive knowledge creation.
The discourses of the case research groups have grown
under three main factors as explained below: knowledge
type, individual characteristics and structural factors
(Figure 2). The same factors frame the creation of ba.
Knowledge type
The first element of ba and discourse is the knowledge
type. The hermeneutic, technical and scientific knowl-
edge the research groups create, are different philosophi-
cally, epistemologically and empirically. The social
practices linked to the ways to create these types of
knowledge are different in each group. In other words,
the specific ba of knowledge creation, as well as the level
and ways of interaction, vary. The H-groups hermeneutic
knowledge is created with social and conceptual close-
ness. Technical knowledge is built up with a blend of
human trust, and clockwork in the T-group. Scientific
knowledge is created by the more autonomous research-
ers of the S-group, who are part of the global research
community.
Table 3 The main characters of the case research groups bas
Group Physical ba Virtual ba Mental ba
H-group Individual offices Wiki Throwing ideas into air
Located along the same corridor E-mail Common understanding of concepts and cultural values behind language
Doors always open Web-pages Emotional and subjective engagement to research and knowledge
T-group Individual and shared offices Docushare Ideating in meetings and through learning by doing
Located in different corridors E-mail Trust and team spirit as core values
Web-pages
S-group Individual offices E-mail Own ideas are processed in a group
Laboratory Web-pages Being part of international research community
Located along the same corridor Cherishing values embedded into international research community
3
Structure
Social and
open-minded
2
Individual
1
Knowledge
-type
S-group T-group H-group
Research area
allows many
viewpoints and
studies
Collaboration with
firms, long
experience of
project work
Pressures
from the
University
Varying viewpoints
and nationalities
Hard-working,
genuinely interested
Scientific, accurate
knowledge
Technical,
commercial
knowledge,
dividable into tasks
Hermeneutic
knowledge,
understanding
Knowledge
D
i
s
c
o
u
r
s
e
1
2
3
Specific ba
Generic ba
Figure 2 The main factors of ba in the three research groups.
International academic knowledge creation and ba Johanna Hautala 11
Knowledge Management Research & Practice
The groups have developed practical modes of organis-
ing themselves that support their knowledge creation.
These modes include the level of social bond, the role of
second language, and the relationship of researchers
to knowledge and research subjects. The level of social
bond varies between groups. The H-groups researchers
talk more about we than the other groups do. They are
socially close to each other, which promotes their
mutual understanding and the creation of hermeneutic
knowledge seeking to understand the phenomena under
research. The T-groups work-oriented team spirit built
on trust is the core of the groups well-defined project.
The S-groups researchers are the most autonomous, but
their spirit relies on knowledge sharing and ample
viewpoints enabled by the amount and exchanges of
researchers.
Academic second language is used as a medium of
communication in different ways. Mutual understanding
of the abstract concepts, whose application is central
in the H-groups research, is essential. The researchers
do not consider language plainly as a way of commu-
nicating it is important to know the cultural tacit
knowledge behind words. The researchers in the H-group
communicate and publish articles in a common, Central
European language, but also in Finnish, and cultivate
analogies in their language. Their ability to use two
languages and the wide use of analogies enable an
in-depth language that is suitable for sharing abstract
ideas.
The T- and S-groups language is more straightforward.
Scientific and technical terms used in the groups are
accurate as is the role of language. English is the language
of technical terms and the T-group uses the work-related
language fluently. The terms remain in English even
when the language used otherwise is Finnish. However,
to speak in English about topics other than work in
English is difficult for some members. In addition, trust is
related mostly to their professional know-how, not to the
members personal relationships. The T-group has few
analogies that relate to the practices of knowledge
creation: they are components who need to co-operate
to form a system; a functional group.
Scientific language is based on well-defined terms that
researchers of the S-group understand similarly. The
language in weekly meetings often revolves around
numeric data. In fact, data can be seen as an extension
of language that is quite straightforward: mostly we are
just discussing the [y] problem, so metaphors maybe
not, we are more straightforward (Researcher, the
S-group). In other words, English is a practical working
language.
The role of the researcher in relation to knowledge
and the object of the research vary in the groups as well.
The H-groups members acknowledge their subjectivity as
researchers. They do not believe that it is possible to
produce objective knowledge about their research area.
Due to this, they need to understand each other to
understand the knowledge they are creating. The
researchers of the H-group believe that their research
subject becomes an inseparable part of their lives: once
you think of (a certain concept) in a very broad sense,
then you also have to practise that (Researcher, the
H-group). In contrast, in the S-group, scientific knowl-
edge is thought to be objective. They stress the scientific
and societal relevance of their research subject. Technical
knowledge of the T-group is commercial and quite
objective in terms of including scientific knowledge
such as mathematics. Societal and commercial aspects
are within the scope of the T-groups research since
they need to be aware of the market demand and to
consider what kind of technology users want.
Individual characteristics
The second element of ba is related to the individual
characteristics of the ideal member for the S-, H- and
T-groups. Although every researcher has their own
interpretation of the discourse and ba (Augier et al.,
2001), still a broad picture of the ideal member can be
identified. If new members are employed on the basis
of these ideal characteristics, the discourses are encour-
aged to continue.
The most important characteristic of the H-groups
researcher is his/her social skills. This is in line with the
creation of hermeneutic knowledge as a socially close
group. The T-group values hard-working, innovative and
genuinely interested researchers. The S-group appreciates
researchers that have different backgrounds of career
or culture, since it enables more viewpoints on same
research area and therefore stimulates knowledge crea-
tion. New members participate in discourse in new ways
that change it.
Structural factors
Structural factors of ba are related to administrative
responsibilities. The university as an organisation,
research funding and collaboration frame the research
work. The discourse of the H-group develops within the
context of a university that pressurises the department to
write a growing number of international peer-reviewed
articles and arrange teaching with fewer teachers. The
H-group is a sport team that is playing against transfer
to a lower division (Researcher, the H-group). The idea
of struggling together may result in a more cohesive
group.
The T-groups collaboration with companies constrains
the group to achieve concrete results within tight
schedules. Several departments at the Faculty of Technol-
ogy of the University of Oulu have long experience
of projects and co-operation with companies. Certain
practices to manage projects and co-operation have
proven workable. The discourse of the S-group is formed
through internationalisation and funding of their re-
search, as well as having visiting researchers. The research
area enables many viewpoints and studies.
International academic knowledge creation and ba Johanna Hautala 12
Knowledge Management Research & Practice
Conclusions
The objective in this article was to study the ba of
international academic knowledge creation. The concept
of discourse is considered along with ba since it is bas
context and arena. The motivation for this study is two-
fold. First, in internationalising universities, research
groups increasingly consist of persons originating from
many countries. This creates challenges for knowledge
creation, for example, their working language is not
often the mother tongue of all group members. Second,
according to several researchers, the concept of ba has
not been clarified enough (e.g. Creplet, 2000; Augier
et al., 2001). As a result of this study, a deeper definition
of ba is suggested. Ba is a physical, mental and/or virtual
context of interactive knowledge creation that exists
situationally in relation to the knowledge type created,
individual characteristics of the participants and struc-
tural factors of an organisation. Ba is not only an
individuals interpretation (see Augier et al., 2001) but a
groups interpretation as well.
An exploratory dimension is added to the study
through three case research groups that create humanis-
tic (hermeneutic) (the H-group), technical (the T-group)
and scientific (the S-group) knowledge. The research
groups were selected from the University of Oulu, the
most international large university in Finland by staff.
An exploratory case study obviously has its limitation
when considering the results in wider contexts. There are
only three groups studied, one from each academic realm
(humanist, scientific and technical), which restricts the
conclusions drawn. In addition, not all group members
were interviewed, which means that the results do not
represent the views of the entire groups.
In the three case groups, ba is formed in relation to
the type of knowledge created, suitable characteristics of
a group member and structural factors. The discourses of
knowledge creation in the three groups are related to the
type of knowledge being created. The H-group empha-
sises social and conceptual closeness, the T-group human
trust and technical clockwork, and the S-group autono-
mous researchers part in the global scientific commu-
nity. There are also differences in the role of second
language according to different types of knowledge.
When knowledge created includes abstract concepts
and philosophical discussions, deeper language skills
are needed. Deeper skills enable understanding of the
cultural values behind language and its analogous use.
This was found out in the H-group. The second element is
individual characteristics that affect the interpretation
and continuity of discourse. The third element is formed
of structural factors, such as administration, funding and
collaboration.
From this study, one can also consider the applied
side of ba. Although it is not possible to plan discourse
and interaction, certain aspects of ba can be planned.
This requires acknowledging what kind of knowledge is
created in the group. The group should be aware of which
practical modes of organising the group work support
the creation of knowledge and which modes should
be developed. Identifying the work-related discourse
will help the group to focus communication according
to their knowledge type. When the knowledge a group
creates is shared easily with exact scientific terms and
numerical data, virtual applications can be widely used
together with meeting face-to-face. Although in-depth
relations between personnel may improve atmosphere
and affect knowledge creation indirectly, it might not be
essential. Knowing and trusting each others know-how
may be enough and personal trust or friendships are
not necessary. As a result, research periods by different
researchers can be shorter and the flow of employees
higher. This enables fresh ideas, boosts the groups
international image and enhances its position in the
global academic community.
Furthermore, when knowledge includes abstract
concepts and philosophical thinking, the emphasis
should be on physical and structural applications that
increase face-to-face contacts, informal discussions and
activity outside working hours. In-depth language skills
can be encouraged by research exchange, although
visiting researchers coming to the group should stay
long enough to learn to know members beyond their
work identity. This quite slow flow of employees should
not mean stability. New researchers are needed to
guarantee the flow of ideas and insights.
In the future more case studies on the context of
knowledge creation in international groups are needed.
In general, ba is one key to understanding the knowl-
edge-creation process and it should be considered,
especially in international knowledge creation, both in
and outside academia.
Acknowledgements
This article has been partly funded by the Tauno Tonning
foundation. I appreciate the referees constructive comments.
References
ALVARENGA NETO R (2007) Knowledge management in the Brazilian
organizational context: a shift towards the concept of Ba. The
Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management 5(2), 143152.
ALVESSON M and KARREMAN D (2000) Varieties of discourse: on the study
of organizations through discourse analysis. Human Relations 53(9),
11251149.
AMIN A and COHENDENT P (2004) Architectures of Knowledge:
Firms, Capabilities, and Communities. Oxford University Press,
New York.
AUGIER M, SHARIQ S and VENDEL M (2001) Understanding context: its
emergence, transformation and role in tacit knowledge sharing.
Journal of Knowledge Management 5(2), 125136.
International academic knowledge creation and ba Johanna Hautala 13
Knowledge Management Research & Practice
BAKHTIN M (1984) Problems of Dostoevskys Poetics. University of
Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
BARRON B (2003) When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning
Sciences 12(3), 307359.
BRA

NNBACK M (2003) R&D collaboration: role of ba in knowledge creating

networks. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 1(1), 2838.
CREPLET F (2000) The concept of ba: a new path in the study of
knowledge in firms. European Journal of Economic and Social Systems
14(4), 365379.
CSIKSZENTMIHALYI M and SAWYER R (1995) Creative insight: the social
dimension of a solitary moment. In The Nature of Insight (STERNBERG R
and DAVIDSON J, Eds), pp 329363, MIT Press, Cambridge.
DENZIN N and LINCOLN Y (2003) Methods of collecting and analysing
empirical materials. In Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative
Materials (DENZIN N and LINCOLN Y, Eds), pp 4760, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
ELRON E (1997) Top management teams within multinational corporations:
effects on cultural heterogeneity. Leadership Quarterly 8(4), 393412.
ETO H (2008) Scientometric definition of science: in what respect is the
humanities more scientific than mathematical and social sciences?
Scientometrics 76(1), 2342.
ETZKOWITZ H and LEYDESDORFF L (2000) The dynamics of innovation: from
national systems and mode 2 to triple helix of university-industry-
government relations. Research Policy 29(2), 109123.
FAYARD P-M (2003) Strategic communities for knowledge creation: a
Western proposal for the concept of ba. Journal of Knowledge
Management 7(5), 2531.
FORD C (1996) A theory of individual creative action in multiple social
domains. Academy of Management Review 21(4), 11121142.
FOUCAULT M (1994) The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human
Sciences. Vintage Books Edition, New York.
GERTLER M (2003) Tacit knowledge and the economic geography of the
context, or the undefinable tacitness of being there. Journal of
Economic Geography 3(4), 7599.
GIBBONS M, LIMOGES C, NOWOTNY H, SCHWARTZMAN S, SCOTT P and TROW
M (1994) The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science
and Research in Contemporary Societies. Sage Publications, London.
GRANT D, KEENOY T and OSWICK C (1998) Introduction: organizational
discourse: of diversity, dichotomy and multi-disciplinarity. In Discourse
and Organization (GRANT D, KEENOY T and OSWICK C, Eds), pp 114,
Sage Publications, London.
HABERMAS J (1972) Knowledge and Human Interests, 2nd edn, Heinemann,
London.
HANSSON F (2007) Science parks as knowledge organizations the ba in
action? European Journal of Innovation Management 10(3), 348366.
HARDY C, PALMER I and PHILLIPS N (2000) Discourse as a strategic resource.
Human Relations 53(9), 12271248.
HOFSTEDE G and HOFSTEDE G-J (2004) Cultures and Organizations: Software
of the Mind. McGraw-Hill, New York.
HUMAN RESOURCES (2006) The Amount of Foreign Personnel in the Faculties
of the University of Oulu in 2005. University of Oulu, Oulu.
JAAKO J (2008) Research Assessment Exercise 2007. Oulun yliopistopaino,
Oulu.
JAFFE A (1989) Real effects of academic research. The American Economic
Review 79(5), 957970.
JAUHIAINEN J (2008) Regional and innovation policies in Finland towards
convergence and/or mismatch? Regional Studies 42(7), 10311046.
KARJALAINEN S (2008) Tiede ja yliopistouudistus. [Science and university
reform, in Finnish] Tieteessa tapahtuu 5/2008, 2628.
KAYES C, KAYES A and YAMAZAKI Y (2005) Essential competencies for cross-
cultural knowledge absorption. Journal of Managerial Psychology 20(7),
578589.
KINNUNEN T (2009) Tutkimuksen kehittamistoiminta Oulun yliopistossa.
University of Oulu, Oulu.
KIVIJA

RVI H (2008) Aligning knowledge and business strategies within an

artificial ba context. In Knowledge Management and Business Strategies:
Theoretical Frameworks and Empirical Research (ABOU-ZEID E, Ed),
pp 229252, Information Science Reference, Hershey.
KONAGAYA A (2005) The grid as a ba for biomedical knowledge creation.
Proceedings of the 2nd International Life Science Grid Workshop (WEE TT,
ARZBERGER P and KONAGAYA A, Eds), pp 110. World Scientific
Publishing, Singapore.
KOSTIAINEN J (2002) Learning and the Ba in the development
network of an urban region. European Planning Studies 10(5),
613631.
LAESTADIUS S (2000) Biotechnology and the potential for a radical shift of
technology in forest industry. Technology Analysis & Strategic Manage-
ment 12(2), 192212.
LECHLER T (2001) Social interaction: a determinant of entrepreneurial
team venture success. Small Business Economics 16(4), 263278.
LUCKMANN T (2008) On social interaction and the communicative
construction of personal identity, knowledge and reality. Organization
Studies 29(2), 277290.
LUNDVALL B and BORRA

S S (1999) The Globalising Learning Economy:

Implications for Innovation Policy DG XII. The European Commission,
Brussels.
MULKAY M (1974) Methodology in the sociology of science: some
reflections on the study of radio astronomy. Social Science Information
13(2), 107119.
NAKAMORI Y (2006) Designing, utilizing and evaluating technology
creating ba in a Japanese scientific research institution. Systems
Research and Behavioral Science 23(3), 319.
NOMURA T (2002) Design of Ba for successful knowledge management
how enterprises should design the places of interaction to gain
competitive advantage. Journal of Network and Computer Applications
25(4), 263278.
NONAKA I and KONNO N (1998) The concept of Ba: building a
foundation for knowledge creation. California Management Review
40(3), 4054.
NONAKA I and TAKEUCHI H (1995) The Knowledge Creating Company.
Oxford University Press, New York.
NONAKA I and TOYAMA R (2003) The knowledge-creating theory revisited:
knowledge creation as a synthesizing process. Knowledge Management
Research & Practice 1(1), 210.
NONAKA I and TOYAMA R (2005) The theory of the knowledge-creating
firm: subjectivity, objectivity and synthesis. Industrial and Corporate
Change 14(3), 419436.
NONAKA I, TOYAMA R and HIRATA T (2008) Managing Flow: A Process Theory
of the Knowledge-based Firm. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
NONAKA I and VON KROGH G (2009) Tacit knowledge and knowledge
conversion: controversy and advancement in organizational knowl-
edge creation theory. Organization Science 20(3), 635652.
NUNAN D (1993) Introducing Discourse Analysis. Penguin group, London.
OLIVEIRA J, DE SOUZA J, MIRANDA R, RODRIGUES S, KAWAMURA V, MARTINO R,
MELLO C, KREJCI D, BARBOSA C and MAIA L (2006) GCC: a knowledge
management environment for research centers and universities.
Frontiers of WWW Research and Development, APWeb 2006. 8th
Asia-Pacific Web Conference, Harbin, China, January 1618, 2006.
Proceedings Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3841, 652667.
PISA FINLAND (2006) The Finnish PISA 2006 Pages. [WWW document]
http://www.pisa2006.helsinki.fi/index.htm (accessed 18 September
2008).
POLANYI M (1966) The Tacit Dimension. Doubleday, New York.
POTTER J and WETHERELL M (1987) Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond
Attitudes and Behaviour. Sage Publications, London.
RAFAELI S, HAYAT T and ARIEL Y (2009) Knowledge building and
motivations in Wikipedia: Participation as ba. In Cyberculture and
New Media (RICARDO F, Ed), pp 5168, Rodopi, Amsterdam.
RAY T and LITTLE S (2001) Communication and context: collective tacit
knowledge and practice in Japans workplace ba. Creativity and
Innovation Management 10(3), 154164.
RENZL B (2007) Language as a vehicle of knowing: the role of language
and meaning in constructing knowledge. Knowledge Management
Research & Practice 5(1), 4453.
ROBERTSON R (1992) Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture. Sage
Publications, London.
SENOO D, MAGNIER-WATANABE R and SALMADOR M (2007) Workplace
reformation, active ba and knowledge creation. European Journal of
Innovation Management 10(3), 296315.
STATISTICS FINLAND (2008) The Amount of Foreign Employees in
Finnish Multidisciplinary Universities in 20022006. Statistics Finland,
Helsinki.
TIAN J, NAKAMORI Y and WIERZBICKI A (2009) Knowledge management and
knowledge creation in academia: a study based on surveys in a
International academic knowledge creation and ba Johanna Hautala 14
Knowledge Management Research & Practice
Japanese research university. Journal of Knowledge Management 13(2),
7692.
TRAVAILLE M and HENDRIKS P (2010) What keeps science spiralling?
Unravelling the critical success factors of knowledge creation in
university research. Higher Education 59(4), 423439.
TSOUKAS H (2005) Afterword: why language matters in the analysis of
organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management
18(1), 96104.
UNIVERSITY OF OULU (2008) Introduction of the university. [WWW
document] http://www.oulu.fi/ladattavat/Oulun_yliopiston_esittely/
Oulun_yliopiston_esittely_englanti.ppt (accessed 5 October 2010).
UNIVERSITY OF OULU INTERNATIONAL STRATEGY AND ACTION PLAN 20052010
(2005) University of Oulu, Oulu. [WWW document] http://www
.hallinto.oulu.fi/suunnit/raportit/international_strategy_version-2007-02
.pdf (accessed 5 October 2010).
VAN DIJK T (1997) The study of discourse. In Discourse as Structure and
Process. Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction Volume 1
(VAN DIJK T, Ed), pp 134, Sage Publications, London.
VON KROGH G, ICHIJO K and NONAKA I (2000) Enabling Knowledge Creation:
How to Unlock the Mystery of Tacit Knowledge and Release the Power of
Innovation. Oxford University Press, New York.
WATSON T (2003) In Search of Management. Culture, Chaos and Control in
Managerial Work, 6th edn, Thomson Learning, London.
WATSON W, KUMAR K and MICHAELSEN L (1993) Cultural diversitys
impact on interaction process and performance: comparing homo-
geneous and diverse task groups. Academy of Management Journal
36(3), 590602.
WATANUKI K and KOJIMA K (2007) Knowledge acquisition and job training
for advanced technical skills using immersive virtual environment.
Journal of Advanced Medical Design, Systems and Manufacturing 1(1),
4857.
WEINBERGER A, STEGMANN K and FISCHER F (2007) Knowledge convergence
in collaborative learning: concepts and assessment. Learning and
Instruction 17(4), 416426.
WIERZBICKI A and NAKAMORI Y (2005) Knowledge creation and integration:
creative space and creative environments. Proceedings of the Thirty-
eighth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (CD-ROM),
Track 3, pp 91a, Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA.
XU Q (2000) On the way to knowledge: making a discourse at quality.
Organization 7(3), 427453.
YIN R (1994) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd edn, Sage
Publications, London.
Appendix
See Table A1.
Table A1 An example of discourse analysis applied in this study. The conclusions are further refined to discourse
Category / word(s) Quotations (from different interviewees) Conclusions
Individual and group/we H
We here are almost like a family
I see our small size as an advantage insofar as it, as we
dont have to operate in like very bureaucratic way and
I think its part of the reason why everything is so informal
T
We have like a sort of a quite compact project team
We need to make every component together to make the
whole system (project) work
S
We are like independent researchers so people are
focusing on their own research
We have a sort of a meeting, where the whole group
meets every week and where people, someone always
talks about their results
H
Social closeness and friendship
T
Compact, component and system relate to
vocabulary of computer science. Team
co-operation
S
Autonomous researchers that form a research
group
Communication/talk, say,
communicate, discuss,
face-to-face
H
We are able to communicate informally very easily
If I have like an idea or some thoughts then, then Im
happy to go and discuss them with people
T
Trust is important, the fact that you can trust what the
other one is saying and promising
Face-to-face you can at the same time show how that is
there and how it affects this here
S
Research subjects and some ideas like arise from, you
know like, from snippets of conversation in some contexts
In the end, doing science here, however, occurs in that
group awfully lot through discussion
H
Easy, frequent face-to-face communication
T
Trust, face-to-face communication
S
Discussion as a part of doing science and being
scientist
International academic knowledge creation and ba Johanna Hautala 15
Knowledge Management Research & Practice
About the Author
Johanna Hautala is a Ph.D. student in the Department of
Geography in the University of Oulu. Her dissertation
project addresses knowledge creation in international
research groups.
Table A1 (continued )
Category / word(s) Quotations (from different interviewees) Conclusions
Knowledge/knowledge,
idea
H
The door is always open, like if I have an idea, I like go and
say it out loud in practice without any like criticism, I like
throw ideas in the air
Theres very much sort of discussion and exchanging just
very basic, maybe philosophical ideas
T
Ideas come from the smallest things and even that idea
could have been left unsaid if I hadnt been in that
meeting and if, and if the other guy hadnt said the other,
slightly different thing
We sit together to exchange our ideas starting by
discussing the previous project plan
S
You have to like search for new knowledge and at first you
have to have those intuitions and like a feel what it is, what
is like the thing you want to study and what could be
interesting, and then this will develop further [y] you
have to discuss with other people and then it will be
refined
In the end there is a lot of such knowledge in operating
within the academic community that is sort of like
connected to, you know, social practices
H
Social and conceptual closeness, creating
knowledge through communication
T
Communication and meetings foster ideas.
Experience of projects in the department
S
Communication fosters knowledge creation.
Knowledge is related to international scientific
community
International academic knowledge creation and ba Johanna Hautala 16
Knowledge Management Research & Practice