Knowledge has been considered since the middle of the eighties as one of “the” topics Management sciences should focus on (Drucker, 1998). Since then knowledge has become one of the more dominating topics within Strategic Management. In its most advanced variation, some authors consider it as an asset. This asset character is seemingly not granted to traditional knowledge (TK).
Therefore, an epistemological examination on the character of f knowledge seems to be due. This assumption rests on the understanding that knowledge cannot be right or wrong pending on the point of view taken. Consequently, I perceive that all expressions that claim to be true can be subsumed to one theory of knowledge.
To explain the phenomenon that knowledge was granted the status of an asset it has to be understood where this thought takes it root, and then characteristics of TK have to be described. In due course of the examination, it will be shown that “western-rationalistic” knowledge is in a strict sense much less “scientific” then it is claimed to be. This line of argumentation is resting on an epistemological reading of Kuhn, and his description on the process of “science making”. These aspects structure the paper.
First, the underlying understanding that gave rise to the idea that knowledge is an asset will be presented. In a consecutive step an epistemological view of “objective knowledge”, which is equalled to “western-rationalistic” knowledge for the purpose of his paper, and traditional knowledge is presented. Given that knowledge is dependent on its spread to acquire a status of legitimacy, it is examined to which extend the mode of communication in a given society has an impact on legitimacy. In a last step a method is described that might allow to bridge the perceived differences of traditional and western-rationalistic knowledge.