The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual knowledge‐sharing communities of practice
Abstract
This paper reports the results of a qualitative study of motivation and barriers to employee participation in virtual knowledge‐sharing communities of practice at Caterpillar Inc., a Fortune 100, multinational corporation. The study indicates that, when employees view knowledge as a public good belonging to the whole organization, knowledge flows easily. However, even when individuals give the highest priority to the interests of the organization and of their community, they tend to shy away from contributing knowledge for a variety of reasons. Specifically, employees hesitate to contribute out of fear of criticism, or of misleading the community members (not being sure that their contributions are important, or completely accurate, or relevant to a specific discussion). To remove the identified barriers, there is a need for developing various types of trust, ranging from the knowledge‐based to the institution‐based trust. Future research directions and implications for KM practitioners are formulated.
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
Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511815355 · Cited by 35,324
Burt, R. S. (1992) · doi:10.4159/9780674029095 · Cited by 9,093
Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm
Szulanski, G. (1996) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250171105 · Cited by 7,839
Market, Hierarchy, and Trust: The Knowledge Economy and the Future of Capitalism
Adler, P. S. (2001) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.12.2.215.10117 · Cited by 1,512
A Multidisciplinary Analysis of the Nature, Meaning, and Measurement of Trust
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2000) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543070004547 · Cited by 995
Beyond Answers: Dimensions of the Advice Network
Cross, R., Borgatti, S. P., & Parker, A. (2001) · Social Networks · doi:10.1016/s0378-8733(01)00041-7 · Cited by 409
Cited by
Zhang, Y., Fang, Y., Wei, K.-K., & Chen, H. (2010) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2010.02.003 · Cited by 306
Al-Husseini, S., El Beltagi, I., & Moizer, J. (2021) · International Journal of Leadership in Education · doi:10.1080/13603124.2019.1588381 · Cited by 296
Approaches for Organizational Learning: A Literature Review
Basten, D., & Haamann, T. (2018) · Sage Open · doi:10.1177/2158244018794224 · Cited by 282
Information Sharing in Supply Chain Management
Lotfi, Z., Mukhtar, M., Sahran, S., & Zadeh, A. T. (2013) · Procedia Technology · doi:10.1016/j.protcy.2013.12.194 · Cited by 275
Antecedents of an experienced sense of virtual community
Tonteri, L., Kosonen, M., Ellonen, H.-K., & Tarkiainen, A. (2011) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.06.018 · Cited by 154
Metadata
- Authors
- Ardichvili, A., Page, V., & Wentling, T.
- Venue
- Journal of Knowledge Management
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2003-03-01
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 64-77
- ISSN
- 1367-3270 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2147643079
- Cited by
- 1,549
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 144.20
- 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: Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual knowledge‐sharing communities of practice. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/13673270310463626
- The paper
- Ardichvili, A., Page, V., & Wentling, T. (2003). Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual knowledge‐sharing communities of practice. Journal of Knowledge Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270310463626
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.
