Bilgi Yönetimi Literatüründe Toplumsal Cinsiyetin Söylemsel İnşası: Postyapısalcı Feminist Bir Analiz

Abstract

Bilgi yönetimi, örgütlerin rekabet avantajı elde etmelerinde stratejik bir unsur olarak öne çıkmakla birlikte, genellikle toplumsal cinsiyet boyutu ihmal edilmiştir. Oysa bilgiye erişim, paylaşım ve değer atfetme süreçleri toplumsal cinsiyet ilişkilerinden bağımsız değildir. Bu çalışma, 2015–2025 yılları arasında yayımlanan ve Scopus veri tabanında taranan onbeş makaleyi inceleyerek bilgi yönetimi literatüründe toplumsal cinsiyet söylemlerinin nasıl kurulduğunu araştırmaktadır. Araştırma, postyapısalcı feminist kuramın sunduğu kuramsal çerçeve ile Norman Fairclough’un diyalektik-ilişkisel yaklaşımına dayalı Eleştirel Söylem Analizi yöntemini birleştirmektedir. Analiz sonucunda kadınların bilgi yönetiminde çoğunlukla “eksik özne”, “kurumsal fayda üreticisi” ya da “tamamlayıcı kaynak” olarak temsil edildiği görülmüştür. Söylemler, kadınların riskten kaçınan, edilgen, duygusal ve bakım odaklı aktörler olarak inşasına yoğunlaşmakta, böylelikle ataerkil iş bölümü yeniden üretilmektedir. Bazı çalışmalar kadınların etik, şeffaf ve sürdürülebilirlik odaklı yönlerini görünür kılsa da bu söylemler de kadın emeğini araçsallaştıran neoliberal mantıkla iç içe geçmektedir. Ayrıca literatürde kadın deneyimlerinin çeşitliliği (yaş, sınıf, etnisite, sektör) büyük ölçüde göz ardı edilmiştir. Bu bulgular, bilgi yönetimi literatüründe toplumsal cinsiyetin hâlâ yüzeysel ve kalıp yargılara dayalı biçimde işlendiğini göstermektedir.

Keywords

• Bilgi Yönetimi
• Toplumsal Cinsiyet
• Postyapısalcı Feminizm
• Eleştirel Söylem Analizi
• Eleştirel Yönetim Çalışmaları

The Discursive Construction of Gender in the Knowledge Management Literature: A Poststructuralist Feminist Analysis

Abstract

Knowledge management has become a strategic resource for organizations aiming for a competitive advantage; however, the gender aspect has often been overlooked. Still, the processes of accessing, sharing, and valuing knowledge are interconnected with gender relations. This study reviews fifteen articles published between 2015 and 2025 and indexed in the Scopus database to analyze how gender discourses are constructed within the knowledge management literature. It combines the theoretical framework of poststructuralist feminist theory with Norman Fairclough’s dialectical-relational approach to Critical Discourse Analysis. The analysis shows that women are mainly depicted in knowledge management as “deficient subjects,” “producers of organizational benefit,” or “complementary resources.” Discourses tend to portray women as risk-averse, passive, emotional, and care-focused, reinforcing patriarchal labor divisions. Although some studies highlight women’s ethical, transparent, and sustainability-focused qualities, these discourses also support neoliberal ideas that instrumentalize women’s labor. Additionally, the diversity of women’s experiences—such as age, class, ethnicity, and sector—has been largely ignored in the literature. These findings indicate that gender issues in knowledge management are still addressed superficially, often influenced by stereotypes and essentialist assumptions.

Keywords

• Knowledge Management
• Gender
• Poststructuralist Feminism
• Critical Discourse Analysis
• Critical Management Studies

References

1. Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society, 4(2), 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124390004002002
2. Ahl, H. (2006). Why research on women entrepreneurs needs new directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(5), 595–621. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00138.x
3. Ahmed, M. S. (2017). Evolution of knowledge management in business. Engineering Management Research, 6(2), 32-46. http://doi.org/10.5539/emr.v6n2p32
4. Akan, E. & Gürhan, N. (2020). Feminizmin “e-hali”: Dijital feminizm üzerine bir araştırma. Hafıza Dergisi, 2(2), 4-22.
5. Alan, F. (2014). Information management vs knowledge management. Retrieved June 27, 2017, from http://www.knowledge-management-tools.net/
6. Aliefendioğlu, H. & Özbilgin, M. F. (2001). Kadın, toplumsal cinsiyet ve cinsellik araştırmalarında araştırmacı ve katılımcı ilişkisi: Yeni arayışlar ve yönelimler. Kadin/Woman 2000, 2(2), 87-106. http://hdl.handle.net/11129/2588
7. Alvesson, M. & Billing, Y. D. (2009). Understanding gender and organizations (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446280133
8. Alfiero, S., Battisti, E., Nirino, N. & Papa, A. (2025). Exploring sustainability in start-ups: The impact of knowledge management on achieving sustainable goals. Journal of Knowledge Management, 29(4), 1191-1208. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-06-2024-0741

9. Andreeva, T. & Zappa, P. (2023). Whose lips are sealed? Gender differences in knowledge hiding at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 96(4), 1575–1600. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12450
10. Audretsch, D. B., & Kariv, D. (2025). Emotional resources and knowledge management: A gender perspective on human-centric innovation amidst crises. Journal of Knowledge Management, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-02-2024-0235
11. Baas, J., Schotten, M., Plume, A., Côté, G. & Karimi, R. (2020). Scopus as a curated, high-quality bibliometric data source for academic research in quantitative science studies. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 377–386. https://doi.org/10.1162/ qss_a_00019
12. Benschop, Y. & Doorewaard, H. (1998). Covered by equality: The gender subtext of organizations. Organization Studies, 19(5), 787–805. https://doi.org/10.1177/017084069801900504
13. Benschop, Y. & Verloo, M. (2011). Gender change, organizational change, and gender equality strategies. In E. L. Jeanes, D. Knights, & P. Y. Martin (Eds.), Handbook of gender, work and organization (pp. 277–290). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444320107.ch18
14. Brewis, J. (2005). Ötekileştirici örgüt teorisi: Marta Calás ve Linda Smircich', Sosyolojik İnceleme 53(1_suppl). 80–94.
15. Burnham, J. F. (2006). Scopus database: a review. Biomedical digital libraries, 3, 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-5581-3-1
16. Butler, J. (2014). Cinsiyet belası: Feminizm ve kimliğin altüst edilmesi (Z. Direk, Çev.). Metis.
17. Calás, M. B. & Smircich, L. (1996). From “the woman’s” point of view: Feminist approaches to organization studies. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 218–257). Sage.
18. Calás, M. B., Smircich, L. & Bourne, K. A. (2009). Extending the boundaries: Reframing “entrepreneurship as social change” through feminist perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 34(3), 552–569. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.40633597
19. Chakraborty, I., Nandhini, K., Ilavarasan, P.V. & Edirippulige, S. (2024). Factors of front-end innovation in fem-tech startups: An empirical study. Technology in Society, 76 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102410
20. Chovwen, C. O. & Babalola, S. S. (2016). The influence of gender and operational locality on entrepreneurial knowledge and business performance. Risk Governance and Control: Financial Markets and Institutions, 6(2), 14–20. https://doi.org/10.22495/rcgv6i2art2
21. Civi, E. (2000). Knowledge management as a competitive asset: A review. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 18(4), 166–174. https://doi.org/10.1108/02634500010333231
22. Cornwall, A. & Rivas, A.-M. (2015). From ‘gender equality and ‘women’s empowerment’ to global justice: Reclaiming a transformative agenda for gender and development. Third World Quarterly, 36(2), 396–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2015.1013341
23. Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039
24. Çelik, D. (2020). Feminist Örgüt Kuramları. Journal of Academic Value Studies, 6(3), 231-243. http://dx.doi.org/10.29228/javs.45673
25. Davenport, T. H. & Prusak, L. (2000). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Ubiquity, 1(24), 2. https://doi.org/10.1145/348772.348775 de Beauvoir, S. (2010). İkinci cinsiyet: 1. cilt – Olgular ve efsaneler (G. Acar Savran, Çev.). İstanbul: Koç Üniversitesi Yayınları.
26. Dökmen, Z. Y. (2012). Toplumsal cinsiyet: Sosyal psikolojik açıklamalar. Remzi Kitabevi.
27. Drucker, P. F. (2000). 21. yüzyıl için yönetim tartışmaları (G. Gorbon ve İ. Bahçıvangil, Çev.). Epsilon Yayıncılık.
28. Durst, S. & Wilhelm, S. (2011), Knowledge management in practice: Insights into a medium-sized enterprise’s exposure to knowledge loss, Prometheus, 29(1), 23-38. https://doi.org/10.1080/08109028.2011.565693
29. Ecevit, Y. (2011). Toplumsal cinsiyet sosyolojisine başlangıç. Y. Ecevit ve N. Karkıner (Eds.), Toplumsal cinsiyet sosyolojisi (s. 2–30). Anadolu Üniversitesi Açıköğretim Fakültesi Yayınları.
30. Ely, R. J. & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), 229-73. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667087
31. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Longman.
32. Fairclough, N. (2001). The discourse of new labour: Critical discourse analysis. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor, & S. Yates (Eds.), Discourse as data: A guide for analysis (pp. 229–266). Open University Press.
33. Fairclough, N. (2009). A dialectical-relational approach to critical discourse analysis in social research. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 162–186). Sage.
34. Filippin, A. (2022). Gender differences in risk attitudes. IZA World of Labor, (100, 2nd rev.). https://doi.org/10.15185/izawol.100.v2
35. Fairclough, N. & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction (Vol. 2, pp. 258–284). London: Sage.
36. Farooq, R. (2022). Does feedback-seeking behavior trigger knowledge sharing at work: The role of gender. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 53(1), 90–108. https://doi.org/10.1108/VJIKMS-03-2022-0079
37. Foucault, M. (1977). Language, counter-memory, practice: Selected essays and interviews (D. F. Bouchard, Ed.; D. F. Bouchard & S. Simon, Trans.). Cornell University Press.
38. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977 (C. Gordon, Ed.). Pantheon.
39. Gökhan, İ. (2010). Türkiye'deki Feminist Akımların Modernite ve Postmodernite İlişkilerine Eleştirel Bir Bakış. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
40. Grant, R. M. (2000). Shifts in the world economy: The drivers of knowledge management. In C. Despres & D. Chauvel (Eds.), Knowledge horizons: The present and the promise of knowledge management (pp. 1–14). Butterworth-Heinemann. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-7506-7247-4.50005-7
41. Halilem, N., De Silva, M., & Amara, N. (2022). Fairly assessing unfairness: An exploration of gender disparities in informal entrepreneurship amongst academics in business schools. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 174, 121295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121295
42. Harari, Y. N. (2024). Nexus: Taş Devri’nden yapay zekâya bilgi ağlarının kısa tarihi. Kolektif Kitap.
43. Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial 9perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066
44. Harvey, D. (2020). The condition of postmodernity. Steven Seidman, Jeffrey C. Alexander (Eds.), The New Social Theory Reader (pp.235-242). London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429952814
45. Hearn, J., Jyrkinen, M., Piekkari, R. & Oinonen, E. (2008). “Women home and away”: Transnational managerial work and gender relations. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(1), 41-54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9655-2
46. Heilman, M. E. (1995). Sex stereotypes and their effects in the workplace: What we know and what we don’t know. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10(6), 3–26.
47. Heilman, M. (2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 113–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2012
48. Heisig, P. & Kannan, S. (2020). Knowledge management: does gender matter? A systematic review of literature. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24(6). 1315-1342. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-08-2018-0472
49. Hendriani, S., Efni, Y. & Tiyasiningsih, E. (2019). The effect of knowledge, entrepreneurship motives and the society’s culture in increasing the women micro business performance in Riau province. International Journal of Law and Management, 61(5/6), 563-574. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLMA-12-2017-0297
50. Henry, C., Foss, L. & Ahl, H. (2015). Gender and entrepreneurship research: A review of methodological approaches. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 34(3), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242614549779
51. Karasözen, B., Gökkurt Bayram, Ö. & Umut Zan, B. (2011). WoS ve Scopus Veri Tabanlarının Karşılaştırması. Türk Kütüphaneciliği, 25(2), 238-260.
52. Kelan, E. K. (2009). Gender fatigue: The ideological dilemma of gender neutrality and discrimination in organizations. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 26(3), 197–210. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjas.106
53. Lazar, M. M. (2005). Politicizing gender in discourse: Feminist critical discourse analysis as political perspective and praxis. Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis: Gender, Power and Ideology in Discourse (pp. 1–28). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230599901_1
54. Lazar, M. M. (2014). Feminist critical discourse analysis: Relevance for current gender and language research. In C. Hart & P. Cap (Eds.), Contemporary critical discourse studies (pp. 180–200). Bloomsbury. https://doi.org//10.1002/9781118584248.ch9
55. Lazar, M. M. (2020). Feminist critical discourse analysis: Relevance for current gender and language research. Journal of Language and Politics, 19(4), 595–613. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.19046.laz
56. Lewis, S., Paliszkiewicz, J. & Roopnarine, R. (2024). Examining the interrelationships between knowledge sharing, knowledge transfer, and knowledge gaps in the water sector of Caribbean small island developing states (SIDS). Issues in Information Systems, 25(4), 46-60. https://doi.org/10.48009/4_iis_2024_104
57. Levy, M. (2011), Knowledge retention: minimizing organizational business loss, Journal of Knowledge Management, 15 (4), 582-600. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673271111151974
58. Luethge, D. J. & Byosiere, P. (2007). Japanese corporations: gender differences in re-defining tacit knowledge. Women Manag. Rev., 22 (1), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1108/09649420710726210
59. Marković, M.R., Nikitović, Z., Somborac, B., Penjišević A. & Vujičić, S. (2022). Integration of gender aspects into development of knowledge management system in the entrepreneurial organizations in Serbia. Journal Women's Entrepreneurship and Education, 2022(1-2), 154-169. https://doi.org/10.28934/jwee22.12
60. Meyerson, D. E. & Kolb, D. M. (2000). Moving out of the 'armchair': Developing a framework to bridge the gap between feminist theory and practice. Organization, 7(4), 553–571.
61. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.5.1.14
62. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
63. Paoloni, P. & Lombardi, R. (Eds.). (2018). Gender issues in business and economics. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65193-4
64. Paoloni, P., Lombardi, R. & Principale, S. (2023). The impact of gender diversity on corporate social responsibility knowledge: Empirical analysis in European context. Journal of Knowledge Management, 27(9), 2484-2498. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-07-2022-0512
65. Piperopoulos, P. (2010). Tacit knowledge and emotional intelligence: The 'intangible' values of SMEs. Strategic Change, 19(3-4), 125–139. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.863
66. PRISMA. (n.d.). Transparent reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. http://www.prisma-statement.org
67. Ramazanoglu, Caroline. 1993. Up against Foucault. Routledge
68. Rehman, R. U., Ahmad, M. I., Belas, J., Battisti, E. & Santoro, G. (2024). Green learning orientation and corporate environmental performance: The mediation role of green knowledge acquisition-management and the moderating role of CEO-gender. Journal of Knowledge Management, 28(7), 1996-2012. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-08-2023-0752
69. Rhodes, C. & Fleming, P. (2020). Organizing for dystopia: The case of corporate social responsibility under neoliberal capitalism. Organization, 27(6), 934–951. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508420928526
70. Ruiz-Jiménez, J. M. & Fuentes-Fuentes, M. del M. (2016). Management capabilities, innovation, and gender diversity in the top management team: An empirical analysis in technology firms. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 19(2), 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2015.08.003
71. Schwartz, E. B. (1976). Entrepreneurship: A new female frontier. Journal of Contemporary Business, 5(1), 47–76.
72. Scopus (2025). Scopus, https://www.scopus.com/home.uri, (Erişim Tarihi: 01.06.2025).
73. Scott, J. W. (1986). Gender: A useful category of historical analysis. The American Historical Review, 91(5), 1053–1075. https://doi.org/10.2307/1864376
74. Selçuk, F. Ü. & Tuzlukaya, Ş. E. (2013). Çalışma yaşamı ve kadın. Gültekin vd. (Ed.), Toplumsal cinsiyet ve yansımaları (s. 4–16). Atılım Üniversitesi Yayınları. Singh, R. & Tantray, Z. (2022). Measuring the relationship between knowledge management, organizational learning, and innovation: A study of Jammu & Kashmir Tourism Development Corporation, India. Enlightening Tourism: A Pathmaking Journal, 12(2), 470–494. https://doi.org/10.33776/et.v12i2.5483
75. Sumbal, M. S., Kljucnikov, A., Durst, S., Ferraris, A. & Saeed, L.(2023). Do you want to retain your relevant knowledge? The role of contextual factors in the banking sector. Journal of Knowledge Management, 27(9), 2414-2433. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-02-2022-0128
76. Tienari, J., Søderberg, A. M., Holgersson, C. & Vaara, E. (2005). Gender and national identity constructions in the cross-border merger context. Gender, Work & Organization, 12(3), 217–241. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2005.00270.x
77. Tienari, J., Vaara, E. & Merilainen, S. (2010). Becoming an international man: Top manager masculinities in the making of a multinational corporation. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 29(1), 38 52. https://doi.org/10.1108/02610151011019200
78. Topuz, İ. & Aslan, O. (2024). Nitel bir araştırma yöntemi olarak eleştirel söylem analizi. Korkut Ata Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, 17, 314–326. https://doi.org/10.51531/korkutataturkiyat.222
79. Van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 352–371). Blackwell.
80. Varela-Candamio, L., Calvo, N. & Novo-Corti, I. (2018). The role of public subsidies for efficiency and environmental adaptation of farming: A multi-layered business model based on functional foods and rural women. Journal of Cleaner Production, 183, 555–565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.109
81. Welpe, I. M., Spörrle, M., Grichnik, D., Michl, T. & Audretsch, D. B. (2012). Emotions and opportunities: The interplay of opportunity evaluation, fear, joy, and anger as antecedent of entrepreneurial exploitation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(1), 69–96.
82. West, C. & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1(2), 125–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243287001002002
83. Whitehead, A. (1981). ‘I’m hungry, mum’: The politics of domestic budgeting. In K. Young, C. Wolkowitz, & R. McCullagh (Eds.), Of marriage and the market: Women’s subordination in international perspective (pp. 93–116). London: CSE Books
84. Willmott, H. (2011). Journal list fetishism and the perversion of scholarship: Reactivity and the ABS list. Organization, 18(4), 429–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508411403532
85. Wong, K. Y. & Aspinwall, E. (2004). Characterizing knowledge management in the small business environment. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(3), 44–61. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270410541033
86. Yıldırım, S. (2019). Feminist çalışmalarda kadın deneyimlerinin önemi: Simone de Beauvoir örneği. Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7(1), 145–150. https://doi.org/10.18506/anemon.419530
87. Young, M., Dall’Amico, E. & Sorensen, O. (2020). The gender bias tug-of-war in a co-creation community: Core–periphery tension on Wikipedia. Journal of Management Information Systems, 37(4), 1035–1064. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2020.1831773
88. Zsigmond, T. & Mura, L. (2023). Emotional intelligence and knowledge sharıng as key factors ın business management – evidence from slovak smes. Economics and Sociology, 16(2), 248-264. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789X.2023/16-2/15