BazEkon - The Main Library of the Cracow University of Economics

BazEkon home page

Main menu

Author
Ziemiańczyk Urszula (University of Agriculture in Krakow), Krakowiak-Bal Anna (University of Agriculture in Krakow), Peszek Agnieszka (University of Agriculture in Krakow)
Title
Sharing of Knowledge as a Condition of Rural Area Development - Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis Approach
Source
Contemporary Economics, 2017, vol. 11, nr 4, s. 471-478, tab., bibliogr. 51 poz.
Keyword
Obszary wiejskie, Zarządzanie wiedzą, Dzielenie się wiedzą
Rural areas, Knowledge management, Knowledge sharing
Note
JEL Classification: A12, M50
summ., The research for this paper was funded by the National Science Center in Poland in the frame of project no. DEC-2011/01/D/HS4/05909.
Abstract
One of the common challenges exist throughout Europe is to compiling knowledge ready for practice. A key element for development and progress is distributing and sharing the knowledge. With sharing of knowledge is related a number of issues, such as trust (the not surprising conclusion that people who trust one another are more willing to share information than those who do not), risk taking, wellbeing (increasing has an incremental effect on knowledge sharing behavior). Knowledge sharing behavior is affected by the complex interplay of well-being, social capital tendency and organizational culture. Authors have been used a fsQCA (fuzzy set Qualitative Comparative Analysis) as a methodological concept to examines the impact of identified behavior on the level of knowledge application in local level organization. This type of technique is ideal for this study for two reasons: on the one hand, in order to analyze whether identified behavior in organizations enables knowledge sharing or not. The second aspect regards the size of the sample. The advantage of this method is that it allows researchers to work with medium-sized samples. This type of technique allows a detailed analysis of how causal conditions contribute to a particular result, and is based on a configurational understanding of how a combination of causes leads to the same series of results. Based on a survey and interview of local level organisations in Poland involved in rural areas development, this study has examined the relationship between the impact of identified behavior on the level of knowledge application in local level organization. The findings reveal that the presence of regular meetings and openness, low level of subjective risk of losing position in the organization, presence of platform for sharing information and the care of the young workers determines the level of application of knowledge in organizations and community. (original abstract)
Full text
Show
Bibliography
Show
  1. Abrams L.C., Cross R., Lesser E., & Levin D.Z. (2003). Nurturing interpersonal trust in knowledge-sharing networks. The Academy of Management Executive, 17(4), 64-77.
  2. Andreeva T., Kianto A. (2012). Does knowledge management really matter? Linking knowledge management practices, competitiveness and economic performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(4), 617-636.
  3. Allen D.K., & Shoard M. (2005). Spreading the load: mobile information and communications technologies and their effect on information overload. Information Research. An International Electronic Journal 10(2). Retrieved from http://InformationR.net/ir/10-2/paper227.html
  4. Appel-Meulenbroek R., de Vries B., & Weggeman M. (2016). Knowledge sharing behavior: The role of spatial design in buildings. Environment and Behavior, 49(8), 874-903.
  5. Berkowitz L. (1987). Mood, self-awareness, and willingness to help. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(4), 721-729.
  6. Boughzala I., & Briggs R.O. (2012). A value frequency model of knowledge sharing: an exploratory study on knowledge sharability in cross-organizational collaboration. Electronic Markets 22(1), 9-19.
  7. Carlson M., Charlin V., & Miller N. (1988). Positive mood and helping behavior: A test of six hypotheses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(2), 211-229.
  8. Berryman J.M. (2008). Influences on the judgement of enough information: an analysis using the information use environment as a framework. Information Research. An International Electronic Journal, 13(4). Retrieved from http://InformationR.net/ir/13-4/paper356.html
  9. Boon J.A. (1992). Information and development: some reasons for failure. Information Society, 8(3), 227-241.
  10. Burke R.J. & Ng E. (2006). The changing nature of work and organizations: implications for human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 16, 86-94.
  11. Camble E. (1994). The information environment of rural development workers in Borno State, Nigeria. African Journal of Library Archives and Information Science, 4(2), 99-106.
  12. Chumg H., Seaton J., Cooke L., & Ding W. (2016). Factors affecting employees' knowledge-sharing behaviour in the virtual organisation from the perspectives of well-being and organisational behaviour. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 432-448.
  13. Cymanow P. (2011). Ocena czynników warunkujących kształtowanie organizacji opartej na wiedzy [Assessment of factors determining the formation of a knowledge-based organization]. Folia Pomeranae Universitatis Technologiae Stetinensis. Oeconomica 291 (65), 43-50.
  14. Esquivel M.I.V., Tjernstad C.D.B., Mac Quarrie A., & Tamariz M.I. (2017). Personal Growth and Leadership: Interpersonal Communication with Mindfulness into Action. In: Encyclopedia of Strategic Leadership and Management (pp. 507-525). Hersey, PA: IGI Global.
  15. Fulton C. (2009). Quid pro quo: information sharing in leisure activities. Library Trends, 57(4), 753-768.
  16. Hall H., & Goody M. (2007). KM, culture and compromise: interventions to promote knowledge sharing supported by technology in corporate environments. Journal of Information Science, 33(2), 181-188.
  17. Hersberger J.A., Murray A.L. & Rioux K.S. (2007). Examining information exchange and virtual communities: An emergent framework. Online Information Review, 31(2), 135-147.
  18. Krakowiak-Bal A., & Ziemiańczyk U. (2016). Rozmyta jakościowa analiza porównawcza (fsQCA) w ocenie transferu wiedzy [Fuzzy set qyalitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) in the knowledge transfer assessment]. Infrastructure and Ecology of Rural Areas, III/2, 1025-1037.
  19. Krok E. (2013). Willingness to Share Knowledge Compared with Selected Social Psychology Theories. Contemporary Economics, 7(1), 101-109.
  20. Laski S.A., & Moosavi S.J. (2016). The relationship between organizational trust, OCB and performance of faculty of physical education. International Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies (IJHCS), 1, 1280-1287.
  21. Liao W., Yuan Y.C., & McComas K.A. (2016). Communal Risk Information Sharing Motivations Behind Voluntary Information Sharing for Reducing Interdependent Risks in a Community. Communication Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215626981
  22. Lloyd A. (2013, October). Building information resilient workers: the critical ground of workplace information literacy. What have we learnt? Paper presented at the European Conference on Information Literacy, Istanbul, Turkey.
  23. Mikuła B. (2012). Kreowanie systemu zarządzania wiedzą w organizacji [Creation of knowledge management system in organization]. In: A. Stabryła, & S. Wawak. (Eds.), Metody badania i modele rozwoju organizacji. (pp. 13-25). Kraków: Mfiles.pl.
  24. Mikuła B. (2016). Zarządzanie wiedzą klienta jako narzędzie poprawy konkurencyjności przedsiębiorstwa [Customer knowledge management as a tool for improving the company's competitiveness]. E-Mentor, 63, 40-48.
  25. Millen D.R., & Dray S.M. (2000). Information sharing in an online community of journalists. Aslib Proceedings, 52(5), 166-173.
  26. Oeberst A., Kimmerle J., Cress U. (2016) What Is Knowledge? Who Creates It? Who Possesses It? The Need for Novel Answers to Old Questions. In: U. Cress, J. Moskaliuk, H. Jeong (Eds.), Mass Collaboration and Education. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series (vol. 16, pp. 105-124). Cham: Springer.
  27. Pietruszka-Ortyl A. (2016). Dysfunkcje i patologie kultury organizacyjnej w perspektywie Polski [Dysfunctions and pathologies of organizational culture in the perspective of Poland]. Social inequalities and economic growth, 46, 438-448.
  28. Ragin C.C. (1987). The comparative method: moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  29. Ragin C.C. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  30. Ragin C.C., & Davey S. (2014): Fuzzy-Set/Qualitative Comparative Analysis 2.5. Irvine, CA: Department of Sociology. University of California.
  31. Ragin C.C., & Rihoux B. (2004). Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA): state of the art and prospects. Qualitative Methods, 2(2), 3-13.
  32. Ragin C.C., Shulman D., Weinberg A., & Gran B. (2003). Complexity, generality and qualitative comparative analysis. Field Methods, 15(4), 23-340.
  33. Ragin C.C. (2000). Fuzzy set social science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  34. Ragin C.C. (2006). Set relations in social research: Evaluating their consistency and courage. Political Analysis, 14(3), 291-310.
  35. Ritala P., Olander H., Michailova S., & Husted K. (2015). Knowledge sharing, knowledge leaking and relative innovation performance: An empirical study. Technovation, 35, 22-31.
  36. Sankowska A., & Paliszkiewicz J. (2016). Dimensions Of Institutionalized Organizational Trust And Firm's Innovativeness. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 56(2), 168-174.
  37. Shao Z., Feng Y., & Wang T. (2016). Charismatic leadership and tacit knowledge sharing in the context of enterprise systems learning: The mediating effect of psychological safety climate and intrinsic motivation. Behaviour & Information Technology, 36(2), 1-15.
  38. Sonnenwald D.H., Söderholm H.M., Manning J.E., Cairns B., Welch G. & Fuchs H. (2008). Exploring the potential of video technologies for collaboration in emergency medical care: Part I. information sharing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(14), 2320-2334.
  39. Steinmo M., & Rasmussen E. (2016). How firms collaborate with public research organizations: The evolution of proximity dimensions in successful innovation projects. Journal of Business Research, 69(3), 1250-1259.
  40. Stenius M., Haukkala A., Hankonen N., & Ravaja N. (2016), What Motivates Experts to Share? A Prospective Test of the Model of Knowledge-Sharing Motivation. Human Resource Management, 56, 871-885.
  41. van Kerkhoff L., & Szlezak N.A. (2016). The role of innovative global institutions in linking knowledge and action. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(17), 4603-4608.
  42. Virta M. & Widén G. (2011). Sharing what you know, building expertise: information sharing between generations in a business organization. In: J. Filipe, & K. Liu (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing (pp. 129-135). Paris: KMIS.
  43. Vong S., Zo H., & Ciganek A.P. (2016). Knowledge sharing in the public sector: Empirical evidence from cambodia. Information Development, 32(3), 409-423.
  44. Widén G., Steinerová J. & Voisey P. (2014). Conceptual modelling of workplace information practices: A literature review. Information Research. An International Electronic Journal, 19(4), Retrieved from http://InformationR.net/ir/19-4/isic/isic08.html
  45. Widén-Wulff G. & Davenport E. (2007). Activity systems, information sharing and the development of organizational knowledge in two Finnish firms: an exploratory study using activity theory. Information Research. An International Electronic Journal 12(3). Retrieved from http://informationr.net/ir/12-3/paper310.html
  46. Widén-Wulff G. & Ginman M. (2004). Explaining knowledge sharing in organizations through the dimensions of social capital. Journal of Information Science, 30(5), 448-458.
  47. Wilson T.D. (2010). Information sharing: an exploration of the literature and some propositions. Information Research. An International Electronic Journal, 15(4). Retrieved from http://InformationR.net/ir/15-4/paper440.html
  48. Woodside A.G. (2010). Case study research: Theory, methods and practice. Bingley, UK: Emerald.
  49. Ziemiańczyk U. (2010). Ocena poziomu rozwoju społeczno-gospodarczego gmin wiejskich i miejsko-wiejskich w województwie małopolskim [Assessment of the level of socio-economic development of rural and urban-rural communities in the Małopolskie Voivodship]. Infrastructure and ecology of rural areas, 14, 31-40.
  50. Ziemiańczyk U., & Krakowiak-Bal A. (2017). Learning organizations as a part of the process of building the competitiveness and innovativeness in rural areas. International Journal of Business and Emerging Markets, 9(1), 19-32.
  51. Ziemiańczyk U., Krakowiak-Bal A. and Mikuła B. (2014). Knowledge management in the process of building competitiveness and innovativeness of rural areas. Online Journal of Applied Knowledge Management, 2(2), 43-56.
Cited by
Show
ISSN
2084-0845
Language
eng
URI / DOI
http://dx.doi.org/10.5709/ce.1897-9254.257
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on Pinterest Share on LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu