The purpose this paper is analyzing and comparing all the papers in the proceedings of International forum on knowledge asset dynamics (IFKAD) 11 (Dresden) and 12 (St. Petersburg). The study is classifying them according to methodology, analysis, discussion and conclusion regarding their contribution placing them into the four paradigmatic boxes. The papers presented in Dresden is compared to the papers presented in St. Petersburg. A total of 156 papers in Dresden and 164 papers in St. Petersburg. The approach is to use a philosophy of science framework and compare this to the content of the research papers. We will use the findings in four representations of knowledge, two typologies of concepts, four paradigmatic classifications and in the concluding framework for knowledge management research. Both conferences a heavy emphasis upon knowledge-itis and instrumental-itis and much less emphasis upon problem-itis. The papers are mostly centered 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. The IFKAD studies both in 2016 and 2017 have rather low complexity presented in an empirical and materialistic paradigmatic framework through definitive concepts representing a form of atomistic research. What would IFKAD have been with a higher degree of complexity in action and subjective paradigmatic framework through sensitizing concepts representing a form of holistic research? Probably a more creative, engaged and relevant conference. Probable also a more scientific conference since advances in knowledge demand not living up to the conference expectations data cannot meet. Data do not prove anything in themselves. It is only the logic argumentation and speculations of the researchers that can prove anything at all. Objectivity is in demand, but subjectivity is needed. 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 an idea-generating debate. This pluralistic approach will give more engaged practical research representing more sustainable societies and businesses.