The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Determinants of knowledge sharing using Web 2.0 technologies
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to investigate the key determinants of knowledge sharing and collaboration using Web 2.0 technologies by exploring the reasons for and barriers to employees' active participation in its various platforms within a large multinational firm. Design/methodology/approach: This study is based on a case study design. In total, 11 in‐depth interviews were conducted. In addition, secondary data was collected. The data was analysed using a grounded approach. Findings: The authors reveal four key determinants of knowledge sharing using Web 2.0 technologies: history, outcome expectations, perceived organizational or management support and trust. Research limitations/implications: The limitations are related to the small sample size and the assumptions on which the study was based. First, Web 2.0 technologies were perceived as a single set of technologies whose adoption and use is determined by the same range of factors. Secondly, the study assumes that knowledge sharing using Web 2.0 is an effective means to collaborate. Practical implications: Managerial recommendations derived from this study include: playing an active role in supporting Web 2.0 technologies as a strategic knowledge management initiative, clearly communicating its benefits, providing the necessary training and finally, rewarding participation. Originality/value: Online collaboration tools have become the knowledge management tool of choice for an increasing number of organisations. However, very little is known about factors leading to their success or failure. This study narrows this gap by offering unique empirical evidence from TechCo (pseudonym), one of the largest companies deploying such technologies.
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
Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques.
Ellis, C., Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1992) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2074814 · Cited by 29,249
Basics of Qualitative Research
Ozanne, J. L., Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1992) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3172751 · Cited by 17,850
Exchange and Power in Social Life
Blau, P. M. (2017) · doi:10.4324/9780203792643 · Cited by 15,923
Working knowledge: how organizations manage what they know
(1998) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.35-5167 · Cited by 10,802
4 What Is Web 2.0? Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software
O’Reilly, T. (2012) · The Social Media Reader · doi:10.18574/nyu/9780814764077.003.0008 · Cited by 5,601
Toward a positive theory of consumer choice
Thaler, R. (1980) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/0167-2681(80)90051-7 · Cited by 5,505
Bock, G.-W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y.-G., & Lee, J.-N. (2005) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148669 · Cited by 4,333
Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148667 · Cited by 3,904
Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. A. (2005) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.5555/2017245.2017249 · Cited by 3,530
“It is what one does”: why people participate and help others in electronic communities of practice
McLure Wasko, M., & Faraj, S. (2000) · The Journal of Strategic Information Systems · doi:10.1016/s0963-8687(00)00045-7 · Cited by 2,024
Cited by
How does social software change knowledge management? Toward a strategic research agenda
von Krogh, G. (2012) · The Journal of Strategic Information Systems · doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2012.04.003 · Cited by 414
Razmerita, L., Kirchner, K., & Nielsen, P. (2016) · Journal of Knowledge Management · doi:10.1108/jkm-03-2016-0112 · Cited by 396
Knowledge management and measurement: a critical review
A.F. Ragab, M., & Arisha, A. (2013) · Journal of Knowledge Management · doi:10.1108/jkm-12-2012-0381 · Cited by 323
Customer knowledge management via social media: the case of Starbucks
Chua, A. Y. K., & Banerjee, S. (2013) · Journal of Knowledge Management · doi:10.1108/13673271311315196 · Cited by 316
Trust, knowledge sharing, and innovative work behavior: empirical evidence from Poland
Kmieciak, R. (2021) · European Journal of Innovation Management · doi:10.1108/ejim-04-2020-0134 · Cited by 267
Metadata
- Authors
- Paroutis, S., & Al Saleh, A.
- Venue
- Journal of Knowledge Management
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2009-07-17
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 52-63
- ISSN
- 1367-3270 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2164336992
- Cited by
- 395
- References
- 36
- FWCI
- 54.78
- 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: Determinants of knowledge sharing using Web 2.0 technologies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/13673270910971824
- The paper
- Paroutis, S., & Al Saleh, A. (2009). Determinants of knowledge sharing using Web 2.0 technologies. Journal of Knowledge Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270910971824
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.