Conceptualizing ethical knowledge and knowledge transfer in public relations

Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 96–98

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Public Relations Review

Short communication

Conceptualizing ethical knowledge and knowledge transfer

in public relations

Seow Ting Lee∗

Communications & New Media, Faculty of Arts & Social Sciences, National University of Singapore, AS6, Level 3,

11 Computing Drive, Singapore 117416, Singapore

article info

Article history:

Received 22 March 2010

Received in revised form 28 October 2010

Accepted 1 November 2010

Keywords:

Ethics

Survey

PRSA

Knowledge management

Tacit knowledge

Explicit knowledge

abstract

In a survey with 350 public relation practitioners, this study examined practitioners’

conceptualizations of ethical knowledge and ethical training through a knowledge man￾agement framework. The findings show that practitioners characterized ethical knowledge

as a form of tacit knowledge that is personal in nature. However, ethical knowledge in pub￾lic relations is tacit only to the extent that it is a personal body of knowledge grounded in

individual actions and experiences. As a professional construct, ethical knowledge in public

relations is explicit in that it is a tangible form of knowledge that could be communicated

and shared in the workplace.

© 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Most studies in public relation ethics (e.g., Bowen, 2006; Coleman and Wilkins, 2009; Lieber, 2005) focused on examining

the state of ethics in public relations without understanding the nature of ethical knowledge or addressing how ethical

knowledge is shared or transmitted. This study investigates ethical knowledge in public relations to identify and explicate the

characteristics of this body of knowledge, and the implications for knowledge transfer of ethics in public relations. Knowledge

management offers a multi-disciplinary theoretical approach to achieve organizational objectives by managing knowledge

through identifying, capturing, retrieving and sharing of documents, policies as well as the tacit know-how and experiences

found within individuals (e.g., Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Polanyi, 1966; Sullivan, 1998). From a knowledge management

perspective, ethical values and moral reasoning are mostly tacit (McPhail, 2008). An important conceptualization of tacit

vs. explicit knowledge is dependent on the ease of codification and transfer (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Polanyi, 1966). In

contrast to explicit knowledge that is easily codified and takes the form of tangible intellectual assets (manuals, handbooks,

patents, codes of ethics, etc.), tacit knowledge is intangible, not easily visible and expressible, and thus more difficult to

codify or formalize. As such, tacit knowledge is difficult to communicate and share with others. Despite its intangible

characteristics, implicit knowledge remains an invaluable resource. As the core source of knowledge creation and innovation

in organizations, the transfer of tacit knowledge can facilitate or trigger momentous organizational changes (Toeffler, 1990).

The other conceptualization of tacit vs. explicit knowledge focuses on the individual (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Polanyi,

1966; Sullivan, 1998). Tacit knowledge is highly personal and contextual. Polanyi (1966) employed the aphorism, “We know

more than we can tell” (p. 2) to explain how tacit knowledge takes the forms of subjective insights and intuitions deeply

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +65 6516 1432.

E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected]

0363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.11.003