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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
(1994) · Journal of the American Dietetic Association · doi:10.1016/0002-8223(94)92216-0 · Cited by 45,910
Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
Bloch, M., Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1994) · Man · doi:10.2307/2804509 · Cited by 39,454
Herne, H., Cooley, W. W., & Lohnes, P. R. (1973) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General) · doi:10.2307/2344428 · Cited by 35,697
Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511815355 · Cited by 35,324
(1999) · Cited by 28,356
Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity
Wenger, E. (1998) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511803932 · Cited by 23,500
Research Methods for Business Students
Saunders, M. N. K., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. R. (2003) · Cited by 17,205
Review of Psychometric theory (2nd ed.).
SITGREAVES, R. (1979) · Contemporary Psychology: A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.1037/018882 · Cited by 11,425
Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1997) · Reis · doi:10.2307/40183951 · Cited by 11,113 · cited 1×
“Knowledge is acquired through a process of action and reflection (Argyris and Schon 1978).”
BackgroundAn integrative model of organizational trust
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258792 · Cited by 10,736
Cited by
Twelve tips for implementing a community of practice for faculty development
de Carvalho-Filho, M. A., Tio, R. A., & Steinert, Y. (2020) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/0142159x.2018.1552782 · Cited by 216
Buvik, M. P., & Tvedt, S. D. (2017) · Project Management Journal · doi:10.1177/875697281704800202 · Cited by 99
McNair, L. D., & Paretti, M. C. (2010) · Journal of Business and Technical Communication · doi:10.1177/1050651910363275 · Cited by 44
Building intra-organisational trust with managerial communications
Seppänen, R., Kosonen, M., Vanhala, M., & Ellonen, H. K. (2014) · International Journal of Management Practice · doi:10.1504/ijmp.2014.061473 · Cited by 4
Metadata
- Authors
- Usoro, A., Sharratt, M. W., Tsui, E., & Shekhar, S.
- Venue
- Knowledge Management Research & Practice
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- 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.