Confianza e intercambio de conocimiento en una comunidad de práctica transdisciplinarun caso de estudio convergente paralelo

  1. Hernández-Soto, Roberto 1
  2. Rodríguez-Medina, Jairo 1
  3. Gutiérrez-Ortega, Mónica 1
  1. 1 Universidad Internacional de la Rioja (España)
Revista:
RELATEC: Revista Latinoamericana de Tecnología Educativa

ISSN: 1695-288X

Año de publicación: 2020

Volumen: 19

Número: 2

Páginas: 47-63

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.17398/1695-288X.19.2.47 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR

Otras publicaciones en: RELATEC: Revista Latinoamericana de Tecnología Educativa

Resumen

Las Comunidades de Práctica (COPs) transdisciplinares reúnen a miembros con diferente cosmovisión y repertorio teórico. Son contextos con un gran potencial para creación de conocimiento a partir de la colaboración entre personas con distintas perspectivas de la realidad. Sin embargo, la transdiciplinariedad supone un reto en el desarrollo de la comunidad y en los mecanismos de participación y colaboración. Por ello, el estudio de los factores que intervienen en estos procesos es especialmente relevante en este tipo de comunidades. Esta investigación se centra en la influencia de la confianza en el intercambio de conocimiento en una COP tecnológico-educativa surgida en el seno de un grupo de investigación de una universidad española. En el estudio se ha utilizado un modelo mixto materializado en un diseño convergente paralelo. Los resultados avalan que la confianza basada en la benevolencia, integridad y competencia de los miembros de la COP influyen positivamente en el intercambio de conocimiento en una COP transdisciplinar. Además, los hallazgos revelan la importancia de la relación personal y de la satisfacción con los intercambios pasados para sustentar la confianza en los miembros de cara al intercambio de conocimiento en el futuro. La convergencia de datos cualitativos y cuantitativos se ha revelado como una aproximación adecuada para mejorar la comprensión de fenómenos y contextos complejos y multidisciplinares.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Abdullah, N. L., Hamzah, N., Arshad, R., Isa, R. M., y Ghani, R. A. (2011). Psychological contract and knowledge sharing among academicians: Mediating role of relational social capital. International Business Research, 4(4): 231. https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v4n4p231
  • Antonacci, G., Fronzetti Colladon, A., Stefanini, A., y Gloor, P. (2017). It is rotating leaders who build the swarm: Social network determinants of growth for healthcare virtual communities of practice. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(5), 1218–1239, https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-11-2016-0504
  • Asgari, A., Silong, A.D., Ahmad, A. y Samah, B.A. (2008), The relationship between transformational leadership behaviors, organizational justice, leader-member exchange, perceived organizational support, trust in management and organizational citizenship behaviors. European Journal of Scientific Research, 23(2), 227-242. http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/7735
  • Asrar-ul-Haq, M., y Anwar, S. (2016). A systematic review of knowledge management and knowledge sharing: Trends, issues, and challenges Cogent Business y Management, 3(1), 1127744. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2015.1127744
  • Assegaff, S., Kurniabudi, K. y Fernando, E. (2016). Impact of Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation Element to People Knowledge Sharing Behavior at Virtual Communities of Practices in Indonesia. Indonesian Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, 1(3), 619-626. http://doi.org/10.11591/ijeecs.v1.i3.pp619-626
  • Bangdiwala, S. (1987). Using SAS software graphical procedures for the observer agreement chart. Proceedings of the SAS Users Group International Conference, 12, 1083-1088.
  • Bolisani E. y Scarso, E. (2014). The place of communities of practice in knowledge management studies: a critical review. Journal of Knowledge Management, 18(2), 366-381, https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-07-2013-0277
  • Bock, G. W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y. G., y Lee, J. N. (2005). Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 87–111. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25148669
  • Borzillo, S., Aznar, S., y Schmitt, A. (2011). A journey through communities of practice: How and why members move from the periphery to the core. European Management Journal, 29(1), 25-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2010.08.004
  • Boyle, R., y Bonacich, P. (1970). The development of trust and mistrust in mixed-motive games. Sociometry, 33(2)123-139. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786324
  • Chiu, C.-M., Hsu, M.-H., y Wang, E. T. G. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decision Support Systems, 42(3), 1872–1888. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2006.04.00
  • Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  • Cummings, J. N. (2004). Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global organization. Management science, 50(3), 352-364. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1030.0134
  • Davenport, T. H. y Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
  • Donate, M. J., y Guadamillas, F. (2015). An empirical study on the relationships between knowledge management, knowledge-oriented human resource practices and innovation. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 13(2), 134-148. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp
  • Ensign, P., y Hebert, L. (2010). How reputation affects knowledge sharing among colleagues. MIT Sloan Management Review, 51(2), 79.
  • Fang, Y. H., y Chiu, C. M. (2010). In justice we trust: Exploring knowledge-sharing continuance intentions in virtual communities of practice. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), 235–246, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.09.005
  • Fauzi, M.A., Nya-Ling, C.T., Thursamy, R., y Ojo, A.O. (2019). Knowledge sharing: Role of academics towards research productivity in higher learning institution. VINE. Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 49(1), 136-159. https://doi.org/10.1108/VJIKMS-09-2018-0074
  • Gammelgaard, J. (2010). Knowledge retrieval through virtual communities of practice. Behaviour and Information Technology, 29(4), 349–362, https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290903548406
  • Gottschalk, P. (2008) Knowledge Management. En M. E. Jennex, (Ed.) Knowledge Management: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications. London: IGI GLOBAL.
  • Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109–122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250171110
  • Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., y Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational evaluation and policy analysis,11(3), 255-274. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737011003255
  • Iaquinto, B., Ison, R., y Faggian, R. (2011). Creating communities of practice: scoping purposeful design. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(1), 4-21. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271111108666
  • Hau, Y. S., Kim, B., Lee, H., y Kim, Y. G. (2013). The effects of individual motivations and social capital on employees’ tacit and explicit knowledge sharing intentions. International Journal of Information Management, 33(2), 356–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2012.10.009
  • Hernández-Soto, R., Gutiérrez-Ortega, M., & Rubia-Avi, B. (2021). Key factors in knowledge sharing behavior in virtual communities of practice: a systematic review. Education in the Knowledge Society, 22, https://doi.org/10.14201/eks.22715
  • Hislop, D., Bosua, R., y Helms, R. (2018). Knowledge management in organizations: A critical introduction. New York: Oxford university press.
  • Hou, H. (2015). What makes an online community of practice work? A situated study of Chinese student teachers’ perceptions of online professional learning.Teaching and Teacher Education, 46, 6-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.10.005
  • Hsu, M.-H., Ju, T. L., Yen, C.-H., y Chang, C.-M. (2007). Knowledge sharing behavior in online communities: The relationship between trust, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65(2), 153–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.09.003
  • Iqbal, M. J., Rasli, A., Heng, L. H., Ali, M. B. B., Hassan, I., y Jolaee, A. (2011). Academic staff knowledge sharing intentions and university innovation capability. African Journal of Business Management, 5(27), 11051-11059. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJBM11.576
  • Jeon, S.H, Kim, Y.G., y Koh, J. (2011b). An integrative model for knowledge sharing in communities-of-practice. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(2), 251–269, https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271111119682
  • Jeon, S.H., Kim, Y.G., y Koh, J. (2011a). Individual, social, and organizational contexts for active knowledge sharing in communities of practice. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(10), 12423–12431, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.023
  • Kramer, R., y Tyler, T. (1996). Trust in organisations: Frontiers of theory and research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  • Kukko, M. (2013). Knowledge sharing barriers in organic growth: A case study from a software company. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 24(1), 18–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hitech.2013.02.006.
  • Lave, J., y Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Lee, Y. J., y Greene, J. (2007). The predictive validity of an ESL placement test: A mixed methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(4), 366-389. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689807306148
  • Lee-Kelley, L., y Turner, N. (2017). PMO managers' self-determined participation in a purposeful virtual community-of-practice. International Journal of Project Management, 35(1), 64-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.09.014
  • Liedtka, J. (1999) Linking competitive advantage with communities of practice, Journal of Management Inquiry, 8(1), 5-16. https://doi.org/10.1177/105649269981002
  • Lin, H.F. (2007a). Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capability: An empirical study. International Journal of Manpower, 28(3–4), 315–332. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437720710755272
  • Lin, H. F. (2007b). Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employee knowledge sharing intentions. Journal of information science, 33(2), 135-149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551506068174
  • Mason, C., Castleman, T., y Parker, C. M. (2008). Socio-technical factors influencing channel use for knowledge-sharing in regional SME networks. International Journal of Knowledge Management Studies, 2(3),303–319, https://doi.org/10.1504/IJKMS.2008.018794
  • Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H. y Schoorman, F. D. (2006). An integrative model of organizational trust. En R. M. Kramer (Ed.), Organizational trust: A reader (pp. 82-108). New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Muñoz, S. R., y Bangdiwala, S. (1997). Interpretation of kappa and B statistics measures of agreement. Journal of Applied Statistics, 24(1), 105-112. https://doi.org/10.1080/02664769723918
  • Nahapiet, J. y Ghoshal, S. (2002). Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organisational Advantage. En C. W. Choo y N. Bontis (Eds.), The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organisational Knowledge (pp. 673-693). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Nistor, N., Baltes, B., Dascălu, M., Mihăilă, D., Smeaton, G., y Trăuşan-Matu, Ş. (2014). Participation in virtual academic communities of practice under the influence of technology acceptance and community factors. A learning analytics application. Computers in Human Behavior,34, 339–344, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.051
  • Nonaka, I (1994). A dynamic theory of organisational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5, 14–37. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.5.1.14
  • Nonaka, I. y Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge Creating Company. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Pan, Y., Xu, Y. C., Wang, X., Zhang, C., Ling, H., y Lin, J. (2015). Integrating social networking support for dyadic knowledge exchange: a study in a virtual community of practice. Information y Management, 52(1), 61-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.10.001
  • Paxton, P. (2002). Social capital and democracy: An interdependent relationship. American sociological review, 254-277. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3088895
  • Polanyi, M. (2009). The tacit dimension. Chicago: University of Chicago press
  • Ramayah, T., Yeap, J. A., y Ignatius, J. (2014). Assessing knowledge sharing among academics: A validation of the knowledge sharing behavior scale (KSS). Evaluation review, 38(2), 160-187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X14539685
  • Retna, K. S., y Tee, P. N. (2011). Communities of practice: Dynamics and success factors. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 32(1), 41–59, https://doi.org/10.1108/01437731111099274
  • Seba, I., Rowley, J., y Lambert, S. (2012). Factors affecting attitudes and intentions towards knowledge sharing in the Dubai Police Force. International Journal of Information Management,32(4), 372–380, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2011.12.003
  • Simons, T. (2002). Behavioral integrity: The perceived alignment between managers' words and deeds as a research focus. Organization Science, 13(1), 18-35. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.1.18.543
  • Spender, J. C., y Grant, R. M. (1996). Knowledge and the firm: Overview. Strategic management journal, 17(S2), 5-9. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250171103
  • Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative Case Studies. En N. K. Denzin y Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),The Sage handbook of qualitative research (p. 443–466). London: Sage Publications Ltd.
  • Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic management journal, 17(S2), 27-43. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250171105
  • Tseng, F.C., y Kuo, F.Y. (2014). A study of social participation and knowledge sharing in the teachers’ online professional community of practice. Computers and Education, 72, 37–47, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.005
  • Usoro, A., y Majewski, G. (2011). Intensive knowledge sharing: Finnish Laurea lab case study. VINE, 41(1), 7–25, https://doi.org/10.1108/03055721111115520
  • Usoro, A., Sharratt, M. W., Tsui, E., y Shekhar, S. (2007). Trust as an antecedent to knowledge sharing in virtual communities of practice. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 5 (3), 199–212, https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500143
  • Van Rijnsoever, F. J., y Hessels, L. K. (2011). Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration. Research policy, 40(3), 463-472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.11.001
  • Von Krogh, G., Nonaka, I., y Rechsteiner, L. (2012). Leadership in organizational knowledge creation: A review and framework. Journal of Management Studies, 49(1), 240-277. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00978.x
  • Wang, H. K., Yen, Y. F., y Tseng, J. F. (2015). Knowledge sharing in knowledge workers: The roles of social exchange theory and the theory of planned behavior. Innovation, 17(4), 450-465. https://doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2015.1129283
  • Wang, S. y Noe, R. A. (2010). Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research. Human Resource Management Review, 20(2), 115–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.10.001
  • Wei, W., Wang, J., Chen, X., Yang, J., y Min, X. (2018). Psychological contract model for knowledge collaboration in virtual community of practice: An analysis based on the game theory. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 329, 175-187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2018.01.053
  • Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Wenger, E. (2010). Communities of practice and social learning systems: The career of a concept. En C. Blackmore, (Ed.), Social Learning Systems and Communities of Practice (pp. 179-198) London: Springer.
  • Wenger, E., McDermott, R. y Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  • Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.