The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The influence of knowledge sharing on innovation
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to explore the effects of knowledge sharing on innovation. Two forms of knowledge sharing are examined, knowledge donating and knowledge collecting. In particular, the effects of knowledge donating and collecting on ambidexterity in organizations are also studied, with ambidexterity defined as the simultaneous achievement of exploratory and exploitative innovation. Design/methodology/approach: Primary data are collected via a questionnaire designed to measure the relationship between knowledge sharing and innovation. Data which were collected from 246 middle and top‐level managers in Turkey was explored by multiple regression analysis. Findings: The results showed that knowledge collecting had a significant effect on all types of innovation and ambidexterity, whereas knowledge donating, involving donating inside and outside the group, did not have any effect on exploratory innovation. It was also observed that in‐group knowledge donating affected both exploitative innovation and ambidexterity. Research limitations/implications: This paper is limited to Turkish managers. Hence, impact of culture should be considered in future studies. It is advised that future research should be designed for different countries in order to conduct a comparative study. Practical implications: These results provide some information that is useful to decision makers and managers who are in charge of directing innovation strategies in organizations. The study also emphasizes the importance of effective knowledge management that can improve innovativeness in the organizations. Originality/value: Studies comprising the relationship between knowledge sharing and innovation types are not abundant in the academic literature. So, the paper provides practical information to a relatively unexplored area.
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
Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393553 · Cited by 35,728
Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning
March, J. G. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.71 · Cited by 21,942
Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm
Grant, R. M. (1996) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250171110 · Cited by 16,157
The Knowledge-Creating Company
Nonaka, I. (1998) · The Economic Impact of Knowledge · doi:10.1016/b978-0-7506-7009-8.50016-1 · Cited by 14,619
Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259373 · Cited by 7,111
The Capabilities of Market-Driven Organizations
Day, G. S. (1994) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/002224299405800404 · Cited by 6,510
ASSESSING THE WORK ENVIRONMENT FOR CREATIVITY.
AMABILE, T. M., CONTI, R., COON, H., LAZENBY, J., & HERRON, M. (1996) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256995 · Cited by 6,029
Ambidextrous Organizations: Managing Evolutionary and Revolutionary Change
Tushman, M. L., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1996) · California Management Review · doi:10.2307/41165852 · Cited by 4,950
Exploitation, Exploration, and Process Management: The Productivity Dilemma Revisited
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/30040711 · Cited by 4,371
Tsai, W. (2001) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/3069443 · Cited by 4,257
Cited by
Akram, T., Lei, S., Haider, M. J., & Hussain, S. T. (2020) · Journal of Innovation & Knowledge · doi:10.1016/j.jik.2019.10.001 · Cited by 406
Knowledge sharing and innovation: A systematic review
Castaneda, D. I., & Cuellar, S. (2020) · Knowledge and Process Management · doi:10.1002/kpm.1637 · Cited by 312
(2024) · Journal of Chinese Human Resources Management · doi:10.47297/wspchrmwsp2040-800501.20241503 · Cited by 16
Metadata
- Authors
- Kamaşak, R., & Bulutlar, F.
- Venue
- European Business Review
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2010-05-18
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 306-317
- ISSN
- 0955-534X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2020008303
- Cited by
- 273
- References
- 51
- FWCI
- 22.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: The influence of knowledge sharing on innovation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/09555341011040994
- The paper
- Kamaşak, R., & Bulutlar, F. (2010). The influence of knowledge sharing on innovation. European Business Review. https://doi.org/10.1108/09555341011040994
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.