Knowledge Transfer as Translation: Review and Elements of an Instrumental Theory

• Date: 01 July 2016
• Author: Kjell Arne Røvik
• Published date: 01 July 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12097

International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 18, 290–310 (2016)

DOI: 10.1111/ijmr.12097

Knowledge Transfer as Translation:

Review and Elements of an Instrumental

Theory

Kjell Arne Røvik

Department of Sociology, PoliticalScience, and Community Planning, The University of Tromsø,

9037 Breivika, Norway

Corresponding author email: kjellar@sv.uit.no

Based on a literature review, this paper investigates the potential of translation theory

to energize the study of knowledge transfer between source and recipient organiza-

tional units. The central assumption is that translation theory is not only useful for

analyzing knowledge-transfer processes, but also has the potential to guide deliberate

interventions in such processes.Based on this premise, and drawing on insights from the

neighboring academic discipline of translation studies, the author outlines the elements

of an instrumental translation theory, with the aim of developing knowledge about how

to conduct translations of practices and ideas to achieve various organizational ends

in knowledge transfers. The instrumental theory is founded on two main arguments.

The first is that knowledge transfers between organizations are rule-based translation

processes. The second is that the way in whichtranslators use various translation rules

and perform translations maybe decisive for outcomes of knowledge-transferprocesses.

This study develops a typology of three translation modes (the reproducing, the modi-

fying and the radical mode) and four appurtenant translation rules (copying, addition,

omission and alteration), and discusses which translation rules fit whichconditions. The

author identifies three critical conditional variables in knowledge transfers – the trans-

latability of the source practice, the transformability of the transferredknowledge, and

the similarity between source and recipient units – and discusses the appropriateness

of each translation rule in relation to these variables.

Introduction

The theory of organizational translation of practices

and ideas represents a promising advance in orga-

nization research (Czarniawska and Joerges 1996;

Czarniawska and Sev´

on 1996; Greenwood et al.

2008), particularly for understanding the circulation

and transformation of management ideas (Greenwood

et al. 2008). However, the potential of this theory has

not been fully realized. Inspired by insights from the

neighboring but almost never cross-referenced aca-

The author is grateful to Barbara Czarniawska, Ingmar

Bj˜

orkman, Gunnar Gjelstrup, Petter Holm and David Strang

for insightful comments on earlier versions, and to James

Morrison for excellent editing service.

demic discipline of translation studies (Bassnett and

Lefevere 1998; Holmes 1972; Snell-Hornby 2006),

this study investigates the potential of translation the-

ory to analyze knowledge-transfer processes between

source and recipient organizational units, as well as

its potential to guide deliberate interventions in such

processes. This research ambition requires efforts

to develop the theory in two connected directions.

First, the aim of analyzing entire knowledge-transfer

processes implies that translation theory must be

expanded from its relatively exclusive focus on trans-

lation of general ideas into recipient units to also in-

clude translations from source units. ‘Source’ denotes

an organization performing a practice and possessing

knowledge about it that someone attempts to trans-

fer to another organization (recipient unit). Second,

C2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Publishedby John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington

Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

Knowledge Transfer as Translation 291

a central assumption underlying this paper is that

translation theory has the potential to guide delib-

erate interventions in knowledge-transfer processes.

However, revealing this potential requires that trans-

lation theory be developed beyond descriptive usage

toward an instrumental translation theory, i.e. a the-

ory of how translations can be performed to achieve

desired ends in knowledge transfers. This aim con-

nects to the intensifying debate regarding how and to

what extent organization theory can be relevant for

organizational practitioners and practices (Bartunek

and Rynes 2010; Kieser et al. 2015; Sandberg and

Tsoukas 2011).

The instrumental theory of translation developed

here is founded on two main arguments; First, the

outcomes of knowledge-transfer processes depend

on ‘translation performances’, i.e. on how actors ap-

ply various translation rules when de-contextualizing

practices in source units and contextualizing repre-

sentations of practices in recipient units. Secondly, it

is then possible to theorize and empirically identify

appropriate and less appropriate translations, as well

as skilled and less skilled translators in knowledge

transfers. The aim is to shed light on howsuch insights

can be refined and used in knowledge transfers. Ac-

cordingly, a central theoretical construct elaborated

in this paper is actors’ ‘translation competence’, i.e.

knowledge about how to translate practices and ideas

between organizational contexts to achieve desired

ends.

The paper starts with a brief review of the trans-

lation approach in organization theory, followed by

an introduction to the neighboring discipline of trans-

lation studies. Building on insights from this disci-

pline, a discussion then follows on how outcomes of

knowledge-transfer processes may stem from vari-

ations in how actors perform translations. The pa-

per ends by outlining and discussing the concept of

translation competence.

The translation approach in

organization theory

A European-flavored theory

Inspired by the works of Callon (1986), Latour

(1986, 1987) and Serres (1982) in the field of Actor–

Network Theory, Czarniawska and colleagues intro-

duced the ‘sociology of translation’ to organization

theory, focusing on the circulation, or ‘travel’,of var-

ious organizational ideas between actors and places

(Czarniawska 2005; Czarniawska and Joerges 1996;

Czarniawska and Sev´

on 1996, 2005; Sev´

on 1996).

The translation approach to this phenomenon con-

trasts with the diffusion model, which, it is claimed,

builds on images of physical laws and which per-

meates the social sciences in general (Latour 1986,

1988). Translation approach advocates offer alter-

native answers about the transferred practices and

ideas and the forces behind such processes. They

conceive of ideas as immaterial accounts that are

transformed while being transferred. Ideas move as

‘quasi objects’, such as in labels, speech and manuals

(Czarniawska and Joerges 1996). There is also crit-

icism of the diffusion-inspired images of passive

receivers and of a central broadcasting point that pro-

vides all energy to the dissemination process (Powell

et al. 2005; Sev´

on 1996). Thus, the power behind the

‘travel’ of ideas stems not from one powerful central

agent, but from the richness of interpretations that the

idea triggers in each actor within a network (Brown

2002; Latour 1987). This is why actors are active

translators, not passive receivers. Bluntly, the power

is the result, not the cause, of the dissemination.

Translation theorists have challenged established

positions and arguments in organization theory, par-

ticularly twointer related arguments outlined in works

from the early phase of neo-institutionalism. The first

concerns the physical images in neo-institutional dif-

fusion studies from the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Diffusing ideas – such as occupational licensing

(Zhou 1993), the multidivisional form (Fligstein

1985), municipal civil service reform (Tolbert and

Zucker 1983) and financial reporting systems (Mezias

1990) – resemble fixed-form objects. This predomi-

nantly reflects the research methods applied in such

works, which are ex post studies within large popu-

lations of organizations, and with modest access to

process data indicating what happens to the diffusing

ideas after their formal adoption. Here, the transla-

tion camp has advanced understanding, partly by the-

orizing the disseminated constructs as ideas that are

continually shaped and reshaped, and partly through

longitudinal studies of adoption and translation pro-

cesses from inside various fields (Frenkel 2005b;

¨

Ozen and Berkman 2007; Zilber 2006) and individ-

ual organizations (Dooreward and Van Bijsterveld

2001; Mennicken 2008; Scheuer 2010; Tomson2008;

Whittle et al. 2010). Translation theorists also chal-

lenge the neo-institutional homogenization scenario

originally outlined by DiMaggio and Powell (1983),

which predicted that adopting almost identical norma-

tively sanctioned ideas increases homogenization of

strategies, forms and practices among organizations.

C2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.