Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 270

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 61 of the 61 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Trust as an antecedent to knowledge sharing in virtual communities of practice

Open access
Usoro, Abel, Sharratt, Mark W, Tsui, Eric, Shekhar, Sandhya·2007·Knowledge Management Research & Practice

Abstract

This study focusses on the role of trust in knowledge sharing within the context of virtual communities of practice. Trust is widely accepted as an important enabler of knowledge management (KM) processes. We conceptualise trust across three dimensions, namely: competence, integrity and benevolence; we test hypotheses as to the effect of these facets of trust on knowledge sharing by surveying an intra-organisational global virtual community of practitioners. The results indicate that all three dimensions of trust are positively related to knowledge-sharing behaviour. Trust based on the perceived integrity of the community was found to be the strongest predictor of knowledge-sharing behaviour. Our findings suggest that the dimensions of trust buttress each other; although they are theoretically distinct, they appear to be empirically inseparable. We propose that in order for knowledge sharing to be enabled, trust must concurrently exist in all three dimensions. Implication to organisations in their recruitment policy is to include competence, integrity and benevolence in their sought-for attributes of new employees. KM practitioners also have to encourage these attributes in existing employees, who are potential members of on-line communities of practice. Knowledge sharing itself was conceptualised with three components – quantity (frequency), quality (usefulness or value) and focus (the degree to which an individual feels that they engage in knowledge sharing). Of the three components, focus exhibits the most significant relationship with trust factors. This finding makes knowledge sharing less tangible than perhaps would be expected. It suggests that establishing whether knowledge has been shared is more than counting the frequency or trying to evaluate the usefulness of the shared knowledge. These aspects are important especially to management, but to the individual who shares knowledge, her feelings of having shared knowledge appear to be more important. With the current understanding that knowledge sharing is more of a human activity than technology, it is important that any information system should be assistive in boosting users’ confidence that they are indeed sharing knowledge. If the systems do not re-enforce the users’ knowledge-sharing orientation, knowledge sharing may be discouraged. Notwithstanding the point made about knowledge-sharing focus, it is necessary to take into consideration all the components of knowledge sharing to fully capture the concept. This was well indicated when the combined variable of all (rather than individual) knowledge-sharing items had the strongest correlation with trust factors.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500143

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 61 references

Cited by

See all 270

Metadata

Authors
Usoro, A., Sharratt, M. W., Tsui, E., & Shekhar, S.
Venue
Knowledge Management Research & Practice
Published
2007-08
Volume
5
Issue
3
Pages
199-212
ISSN
  • 1477-8238 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-8246
OpenAlex
W1972236200
Cited by
270
References
61
FWCI
20.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Trust as an antecedent to knowledge sharing in virtual communities of practice. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500143
The paper
Usoro, A., Sharratt, M. W., Tsui, E., & Shekhar, S. (2007). Trust as an antecedent to knowledge sharing in virtual communities of practice. Knowledge Management Research & Practice. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500143

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.