Marginalized Knowledge: An Agenda for Indigenous Knowledge Development and Integration with Other Forms of Knowledge

1. Introduction

Throughout human history, people have used the past to predict what would happen in the future. However, opinion is divided on the best way to determine the future. This has given way to various ideas and practices. For instance, according to Vanston (2003), extrapolators (extrapolation) believe that the future is a logical representation or extension of the past, while pattern analysts (using pattern analysis) believe that the future is a reflection or replication of past events. In goal analysis, there is the belief that the future is determined by the beliefs of a collection of individuals, organizations and institutions, while in counter-punching; it is believed that the future is the result of a series of events and actions that are essentially unpredictable, and to a large extent, random. Finally, Vanston (2003) notes that in intuition, the future is shaped by a complex mixture of inexorable driving forces, random events, and the actions of key individuals and institutions. Each of these methods consist of a number of techniques (e.g. trend extrapolation; analog analysis; content analysis; impact analysis; scanning, monitoring and tracking, etc).

The analysis of published literature using informetric approaches in order to tell the future status of a new concept, discipline, subject domain or an activity (e.g. collaboration), is not new either. For instance, in his book entitled “Little Science, Big Science … and Beyond”, Price observed that “the proportion of multi-authored papers has accelerated steadily and powerfully, and it is now so large that if it continues at the present rate, by 1980 the single-author paper will be extinct” (as cited in Gordon, 1980).
Although single-authored papers have not entirely disappeared, Price’s argument concerning the preference of multi-authored over single-authored papers by authors is shared by various scholars. Research has shown that single-authored articles are on the decline, while multi-authored articles are increasing (Ravi, 2001:582; Hartinah, et al., 2001:227). Cunningham (2001) also found that out of 234 papers, there were only 38 (approximately 16%) single-authored papers. Garg concurs with both Ravi and Cunningham, in that modern research and development is a “collective activity and generally conducted by a group rather than a single individual” (Garg, 2001:173).
Published literature is commonly used to measure or evaluate the growth of literature over time, perhaps because this is assumed to mean the growth of knowledge (Tague, Beheshti & Rees-Potter, 1981). Crane in Jacobs (2004:211) argues that literature undergoes four stages of growth, namely:

1. 
   An initial formation stage, in which the absolute number of publications is small and the growth rate shows signs of increasing
   
2. 
   The emergence of a growth period, during which the absolute number of publications grows exponentially (i.e. doubling the number of publications at regular intervals) and the growth rate is constant and large
   
3. 
   A subsequent stage, whereby the annual growth of publications returns to being incremental and the growth rate shows signs of decline
   
4. 
   At this stage, the growth rate and absolute number of publications decrease to zero
   

In their explanation of these stages, Gupta & Karisiddappa (2000:325) observe that “in Stage 1, when the paradigm appears, there is no developed social organization. In Stage 2, when normal science flourishes, invisible colleges appear. In Stage 3, with the solving of major problems and turning of anomalies, social spitting appears. In Stage 4, with the exhaustion of paradigm, the number of participants decreases”.
It has been observed that KM, as a concept that is quickly gaining recognition as a discipline in its own right, is relatively new and therefore may be at its initial stages of development. In one of relatively few informetric studies on KM, Jacobs (2004:212) notes thus:

“The survival of any emerging discipline depends on its special need and strength during the particular period in which it has emerged. Knowledge management is one such discipline, which seems to remain strong”.

Jacobs’ (2004) study sought to describe knowledge management literature by analyzing 491 records published between 1993 and 2003. The study investigated data retrieved from SCI and SSCI, and identified the most productive countries, the trend of growth, most published authors, etc. Chaudhry & Higgins (2001) investigated the state of KM education in five countries (i.e. Australia, Canada, Singapore, the UK and the USA), and found that Information systems/studies offered the most courses in KM (i.e. 40% of a total of 30 KM courses offered at the Masters level). Business administration (35%) came second, while computer science (14%) was ranked third. The authors noted that KM courses have various titles, e.g. knowledge management, knowledge management and decision systems, intelligence systems and knowledge management, etc.