The purpose of this paper is to analyse all the papers in the proceedings of the IFKAD 11 in 2016 and classifying them according to methodology, analysis, discussion and conclusion regarding their contribution placing this into the four representations of knowledge, two typologies of concepts, four paradigmatic classifications and in the concluding framework for knowledge management research. The approach is to use a philosophy of science framework and compare this to content of the research papers. The approach gives an indication of the direction of the research. This approach indicate a heavy emphasis upon knowledge-itis and instrumental-itis and a much less emphasis upon problem-itis. The papers are mostly centred around existing knowledge and accepted methodology and less related to new problems. The results indicate a conference based upon as-is knowledge and less upon new and often unsolvable problems. We have distinguished between the representation of what we know, what we don´t know that we know, what we don´t know that we know and what we don´t know that we don´t know. We have concluded that IFKAD 11 concentrate mainly upon what we know and to a lesser degree upon what we don´t know and to an even lesser degree upon what we don´t know that we know. What we know defines what we don´t know and little search, discussions and speculations are left to the unknown and tacit knowledge. The approach further indicate that 70% of the papers are related to definitive concepts and 30% to sensitizing concepts of research. Sensitizing concepts are inductive concepts while definitive concepts are deductive concepts representing a different research mode. We analysed the research in four paradigms: The empirical, materialistic, subjective and action paradigm. A great majority of the papers belonged to the empirical and materialistic paradigm. The empirical and materialistic paradigm dominate with at least 70% of the papers. This leave less than 30% to more subjective (25%) and action (5%) oriented paradigms. The practical implication is to get a more engaged research. To move ahead for better quality in the research it is necessary to break free from the empirical paradigm and the materialistic paradigm and move into the clarified subjectivity and action paradigm. Paradigmatic ecumenism will tend to a fiercer, but nevertheless an idea generating debate. This pluralistic approach will give more engaged practical research representing more sustainable societies and businesses.