2. Background literature
attitude (Bock & Kim, 2002; Ryu, Hee Ho,
& Han, 2003), and Foss and Pedersen’s
Knowledge sharing can be defined as the
(2002) study of the source’s innate ability
process of capturing knowledge, or
to share. Although a number of studies
moving knowledge from a source unit to a
have concentrated on exploring factors
recipient unit. Knowledge transfer is
that may influence the recipients of the
regard as more than this, as it also
shared knowledge (Simonin, 1999;
involves knowledge re-use, or the actual
Szulanski, 1996), some still consider that
use of the shared knowledge by the
ISSN 1479-4411 1 ©Academic Conferences Ltd
Reference this paper as:
recipient (Alvai & Leidner, 2001).
attitude is how effectively the knowledge
has been articulated by the source
Successful knowledge transfer implicitly
(Cummings & Teng, 2003). Bircham
requires successful knowledge sharing, as
“without sharing, it is almost impossible for
(2003) suggests that the structure of the
questions asked of source individuals and
knowledge to be transferred to other
person(s)” (Syed-Ikhasa & Rowland, 2004,
therefore the corresponding response
structure may affect knowledge
p.96). This could imply that there is a
articulation.
requirement to first understand the factors
that influence successful sharing before
Research into the effect of question
probing into knowledge transfer. However,
wording generally resides in the polling
much of the empirical research undertaken
and survey research field, however many
to date relates to knowledge transfer,
of the findings are applicable to knowledge
which possibly is a result of organisations
and researchers placing greater
sharing. For instance, when a person is
asked to share their knowledge will an
significance on the actual use of
open-ended question produce more depth
knowledge, such as new innovation, best
of knowledge than a closed question?
practice etc., rather than how knowledge is
shared.
According to findings by Dohrenwend
(1965) no, open-ended questions do not
produce more depth in response. This
Notwithstanding this, empirical research
may not seem rationale to many; surely
into knowledge sharing has been
undertaken from a number of perspectives
their can be more depth provided in a
response if the respondent is not
including organisations sharing knowledge
constrained to categories and rather given
with each other (Hansen, 2002; Lane &
the ability to respond in an open manner?
Lubatkin, 1998) and inter-business unit
sharing (Tsai, 2002). In addition, factors
However, the objective of the questions,
for example are they part of a survey,
that may influence the source individual to
share their knowledge have also been
together with the type of responses sought
after by the individual asking may
studied (see Bock & Kim, 2002; Ryu et al.,
influence what structure of question
2003; Szulanski, 1996). Some consider
produces more depth. According to
however, that the recipient and factors that
Sudman and Bradburn (1982), the way a
may impact on them have been, for the
question is asked does influence the
most part neglected (Dixon, 2002). This is
response. In addition, the tone of a
an interesting point, since one of the
consequences of sharing knowledge is the
question - whether it is worded in a
new insight and generation of knowledge
negative, positive or neutral manner - has
also been found to influence response
gained by the recipient. Further, if a
depth and the generation of ideas
recipient senses value in the shared
knowledge (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000),
(Brennan, 1997). Brennan (1996) also
or relevance of the knowledge to their
found that a greater number of ideas were
shared by participants when more space
decision-making requirements (Schulz,
Bạn đang xem 2. - AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF THE IMPACT OF QUESTION STRUCTURE ON RECIPIENT ATTITUDE DURING KNOWLEDGE SHARING