Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 563

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cultural influences on knowledge sharing through online communities of practice

Ardichvili, Alexandre, Maurer, Martin, Li, Wei, Wentling, Tim, Stuedemann, Reed·2006·Journal of Knowledge Management

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to explore cultural factors influencing knowledge sharing strategies in virtual communities of practice. Design/methodology/approach: A qualitative research design was employed. Data collection was based on in‐depth interviews. The authors assumed that such factors as degree of collectivism, competitiveness, the importance of saving face, in‐group orientation, attention paid to power and hierarchy, and culture‐specific preferences for communication modes, would explain differences in knowledge seeking and sharing patterns. Findings: The results showed that these factors had different levels of importance among employees in the three participating countries. The issue of saving face was less important than expected in China. Modesty requirements as well as a high degree of competitiveness among employees were found to be serious barriers to information sharing in China, but not in Russia and Brazil. Perceived differences in power and hierarchy seemed to be less critical in all three countries than initially assumed. Research limitations/implications: Since this study was conducted among the online community members of Caterpillar Inc., the results could be affected by factors unique to this specific case. Thus, future research should investigate the influence of other factors such as the organizational culture, or occupational groups on knowledge sharing strategies. Practical implications: Before any introduction of country‐specific knowledge sharing systems, a cultural needs assessment should be conducted. Originality/value: The impact of national culture factors on knowledge sharing has been largely neglected in the literature, and the findings will assist knowledge managers charged with the design of flexible knowledge management systems.

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 · 10.1108/13673270610650139

Cites

5 of 5 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

Cited by

See all 563

Metadata

Authors
Ardichvili, A., Maurer, M., Li, W., Wentling, T., & Stuedemann, R.
Venue
Journal of Knowledge Management
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2006-01-01
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
94-107
ISSN
1367-3270 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2130330803
Cited by
563
References
5
FWCI
66.70
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

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.