Would You Share?  Examining How Knowledge Type and Communication Channel Influence Knowledge Sharing Paul M. Di Gangi Depa...
Agenda <ul><li>Motivation of study </li></ul><ul><li>Theoretical lens & research question </li></ul><ul><li>Research frame...
Motivation of Study <ul><li>CMCs enable knowledge sharing </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Regardless of location  (Constant et al., ...
Research Question <ul><li>Simultaneous examination of multiple sharing environments is needed </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Differ...
Social Exchange Theory <ul><li>Knowledge exchange as social exchange </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Norms of reciprocity  (Blau, 19...
Research Framework <ul><li>Knowledge type </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Explicit versus tacit  (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Polanyi, ...
Expertise Sharing <ul><li>Expertise as tacit knowledge </li></ul><ul><ul><li>High costs of codification </li></ul></ul><ul...
Computer Program Sharing <ul><li>Computer program as explicit knowledge </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Low costs of codification </...
Reciprocity-based Sharing <ul><li>Degree of reciprocity </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Interpersonal, generalized, & no reciprocity...
Benefits-based Sharing in CMC <ul><li>CMC environments and scope of audience </li></ul><ul><li>Reputation benefits as moti...
Research Methodology <ul><li>Case-based vignettes  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Prior empirical research  (Constant et al, 1994) ...
Research Methodology <ul><li>61 MBA students </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Business professionals  (Kruglanski, 1975) </li></ul></...
Research Findings <ul><li>Hypothesis   2 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>EKR more likely than F2F, e-mail, and EC </li></ul></ul><ul...
Research Findings <ul><li>Hypothesis 4 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>EKR more likely than e-mail & EC </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>N...
Contributions & Limitations <ul><li>Contributions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Examines likelihood of sharing within different sh...
Future Directions of Research <ul><li>Assess perceptions of costs and benefits for exchanging different knowledge types in...
 
Descriptive Statistics Variable N Mean Std. Dev. Variance Info Share EKR 60  5.467  1.282  1.643  Info Share F2F 60  4.050...
Bivariate Correlations Mean Std. Dev. Age Work P2S1 P2S2 P2S3 Info Share F2F Info Share E-mail Info Share EC Info Share EK...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Would You Share - Knowledge Exchange

682

Published on

Di Gangi, P. M. and Wasko, M. (2008) Would you share? Examining how knowledge type and communication channel influence knowledge sharing. Proceedings of the 14th Americas Conference on Information Systems.

Published in: Education, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
682
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Would You Share - Knowledge Exchange

  1. 1. Would You Share? Examining How Knowledge Type and Communication Channel Influence Knowledge Sharing Paul M. Di Gangi Department of Management Information Systems Florida State University Molly M. Wasko Department of Management Information Systems Florida State University
  2. 2. Agenda <ul><li>Motivation of study </li></ul><ul><li>Theoretical lens & research question </li></ul><ul><li>Research framework & hypotheses </li></ul><ul><li>Methodology </li></ul><ul><li>Research findings </li></ul><ul><li>Contributions, limitations, & future directions </li></ul>
  3. 3. Motivation of Study <ul><li>CMCs enable knowledge sharing </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Regardless of location (Constant et al., 1994) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Personal familiarity (Constant et al, 1996; Rice et al., 2000) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Research on knowledge sharing centers around two factors </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Knowledge type (Constant et al., 1994; Jarvenpaa & Staples, 2001) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sharing environment (Constant et al., 1996; Kankanhalli et al, 2005; Wasko & Faraj, 2005) </li></ul></ul>
  4. 4. Research Question <ul><li>Simultaneous examination of multiple sharing environments is needed </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Differences in CMC environments </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Risks versus rewards evaluation for different knowledge types </li></ul></ul>Do individuals share differently based on the combination of sharing environment and knowledge type?
  5. 5. Social Exchange Theory <ul><li>Knowledge exchange as social exchange </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Norms of reciprocity (Blau, 1964; Kankanhalli et al, 2005; Wasko & Faraj, 2000) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Sharing environments </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Face-to-face (Individual-Interpersonal) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>E-mail (Individual-Interpersonal) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Electronic Community (Community-Generalized) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Knowledge Repository (No reciprocity) </li></ul></ul>
  6. 6. Research Framework <ul><li>Knowledge type </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Explicit versus tacit (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Polanyi, 1966) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Perceptions of risk and rewards </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Scope of audience (Thorn & Connolly, 1987; Zand, 1972) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reputation (Wasko & Faraj, 2005) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Costs to codify knowledge </li></ul></ul>
  7. 7. Expertise Sharing <ul><li>Expertise as tacit knowledge </li></ul><ul><ul><li>High costs of codification </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Scope of audience for perceived benefits (Thorn & Connolly, 1987; Zand, 1972) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Hypothesis One </li></ul><ul><li>An individual is more likely to share expertise via face-to-face. </li></ul>
  8. 8. Computer Program Sharing <ul><li>Computer program as explicit knowledge </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Low costs of codification </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ease of transfer in “lean” media (Daft & Lengel, 1987) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Hypothesis Two </li></ul><ul><li>An individual is more likely to share a computer program in a CMC environment. </li></ul>
  9. 9. Reciprocity-based Sharing <ul><li>Degree of reciprocity </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Interpersonal, generalized, & no reciprocity (Blau, 1967; Kankanhalli et al., 2005; Wasko & Faraj, 2000) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Greater reciprocity increases the likelihood of sharing (Chiu et al., 2006) </li></ul><ul><li>Hypothesis Three </li></ul><ul><li>An individual is more likely to share both types of knowledge when there is a greater likelihood of direct reciprocity. </li></ul>
  10. 10. Benefits-based Sharing in CMC <ul><li>CMC environments and scope of audience </li></ul><ul><li>Reputation benefits as motivation of knowledge sharing (Mauss, 1950; Raymond, 1999) </li></ul><ul><li>Hypothesis Four </li></ul><ul><li>When communicating electronically, an individual is more likely to contribute both types of knowledge through electronic channels that offer the greatest benefits to reputation. </li></ul>
  11. 11. Research Methodology <ul><li>Case-based vignettes </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Prior empirical research (Constant et al, 1994) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Direct manipulation of contextual variables (Knowledge type and communication channel) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Controls for external influence </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Control variables </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Age, work experience, ownership, perceived extent to support, and propensity to share (Adapted from Jarvenpaa et al., 1998) </li></ul></ul>
  12. 12. Research Methodology <ul><li>61 MBA students </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Business professionals (Kruglanski, 1975) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Prior empirical research (Constant et al., 1994) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Age (24.78 years); Work experience (3.8 years) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Repeated measures ANOVA </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Individual unit of analysis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Pairwise comparisons </li></ul></ul>
  13. 13. Research Findings <ul><li>Hypothesis 2 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>EKR more likely than F2F, e-mail, and EC </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>F2F more likely than EC </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Hypothesis 1 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>F2F more likely than e-mail & EC </li></ul></ul>Partial Support for H1 & H2
  14. 14. Research Findings <ul><li>Hypothesis 4 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>EKR more likely than e-mail & EC </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No difference between EKR & e-mail (Expertise) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No difference between e-mail & EC (Computer Program) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Hypothesis 3 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>F2F & EKR more likely than e-mail & EC (Computer Program) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>E-mail more likely than EC </li></ul></ul>Partial Support for H3 & H4
  15. 15. Contributions & Limitations <ul><li>Contributions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Examines likelihood of sharing within different sharing environments simultaneously </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Extends literature on knowledge sharing </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Limitations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Hypothetical situations (Constant et al., 1994) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Subject role as computer programmer (Constant et al., 1994) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Knowledge type (Polanyi, 1966) </li></ul></ul>
  16. 16. Future Directions of Research <ul><li>Assess perceptions of costs and benefits for exchanging different knowledge types in different environments in real-world setting </li></ul><ul><li>Examine alternative knowledge types and exchange environments (e.g., Wikis) </li></ul><ul><li>Increase number of subject roles beyond computer programmer </li></ul>
  17. 18. Descriptive Statistics Variable N Mean Std. Dev. Variance Info Share EKR 60 5.467 1.282 1.643 Info Share F2F 60 4.050 1.751 3.065 Info Share Email 60 3.767 1.789 3.199 Info Share EC 60 3.433 1.817 3.301 Exp Share EKR 58 5.017 1.584 2.508 Exp Share F2F 60 5.250 1.694 2.869 Exp Share Email 60 4.800 1.675 2.807 Exp Share EC 60 4.200 1.725 2.976
  18. 19. Bivariate Correlations Mean Std. Dev. Age Work P2S1 P2S2 P2S3 Info Share F2F Info Share E-mail Info Share EC Info Share EKR Info Share Extent Support Exp Share F2F Exp Share E-mail Exp Share EC Exp Share EKR Age 24.787 4.499                             Work 3.817 4.256 0.798***                           P2S1 4.733 1.483 -0.028 -0.160                         P2S2 4.267 1.483 -0.105 -0.024 0.280*                       P2S3 5.400 1.182 -0.111 -0.139 0.333** 0.180                     Info Share F2F 4.050 1.751 0.053 0.063 0.025 0.230 0.056                   Info Share E-mail 3.767 1.789 0.197 0.229 0.078 -0.123 -0.027 0.448***                 Info Share EC 3.433 1.817 0.280* 0.088 0.207 -0.062 0.107 0.281* 0.564***               Info Share EKR 5.467 1.282 0.238 0.160 0.076 0.014 -0.069 0.095 0.167 0.363**             Info Share Extent Support 2.733 1.793 0.187 0.221 0.005 -0.005 -0.045 -0.055 0.123 0.161 -0.129           Exp Share F2F 5.250 1.694 0.073 0.043 -0.169 0.088 -0.169 0.219 0.154 0.157 0.148 -0.061         Exp Share E-mail 4.800 1.675 0.075 0.070 -0.233 -0.026 -0.216 0.136 0.312* 0.207 0.076 0.146 0.723***       Exp Share EC 4.200 1.725 0.127 0.066 -0.118 0.052 0.002 0.350** 0.400** 0.368** 0.133 0.083 0.528*** 0.618***     Exp Share EKR 5.017 1.584 0.205 0.134 0.070 -0.002 -0.050 0.164 0.376** 0.381** 0.592*** -0.047 0.330* 0.435*** 0.397**   Exp Share Extent Support 3.103 1.917 0.068 0.133 0.065 0.034 0.181 -0.086 0.149 0.051 0.037 0.592*** -0.107 0.027 0.007 -0.066 * - p < 0.05 ** - p < 0.01 *** - p < 0.001

×