The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Knowledge sharing amongst academics in UK universities
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the limited previous research on knowledge sharing in universities, by profiling the attitudes of and intentions towards knowledge sharing of UK academics, and by profiling their views of some of the factors that might be expected to impact on knowledge sharing activities. Design/methodology/approach: A questionnaire‐based survey was used to gather a profile of UK academics' attitudes and intentions towards knowledge sharing and related factors, including expected rewards and associations, expected contribution, normative beliefs on knowledge sharing, leadership, structure, autonomy, affiliation to institution, affiliation to discipline, and technology platform. Responses were received from 230 academics in 11 universities. Findings: Respondents had positive attitudes towards knowledge sharing and their intentions in this area were also good. This may be related to their belief that knowledge sharing will improve and extend their relationships with colleagues, and offer opportunities for internal promotion and external appointments. Respondents are relatively neutral regarding the way in which they are led, and the role of organisational structure and information technology in knowledge sharing. They have a relatively low level of affiliation to their university, perceptions of a high level of autonomy, coupled with a high level of affiliation to their discipline. Originality/value: This study demonstrates that universities do have an embedded knowledge culture, but that culture is individualistic in nature and to some extent self‐serving and instrumental. This poses interesting challenges for knowledge management in universities.
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
(1975) · PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) · Cited by 36,737
The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195092691.001.0001 · Cited by 18,010
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
Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy
Reid, L. A., & Polanyi, M. (1959) · British Journal of Educational Studies · doi:10.2307/3119338 · Cited by 7,538
Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities perspective
Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. H. (2001) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.2001.11045669 · Cited by 6,233
Bock, G.-W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y.-G., & Lee, J.-N. (2005) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148669 · Cited by 4,333
Communities of Practice: The Organizational Frontier
Wenger, E. C., & Snyder, W. M. (2006) · Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning · doi:10.1093/oso/9780199291793.003.0017 · Cited by 3,320
Knowing in Practice: Enacting a Collective Capability in Distributed Organizing
Orlikowski, W. J. (2002) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.13.3.249.2776 · Cited by 3,021
Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research
Wang, S., & Noe, R. A. (2010) · Human Resource Management Review · doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.10.001 · Cited by 2,953
The firm as a distributed knowledge system: A constructionist approach
Tsoukas, H. (1996) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250171104 · Cited by 2,007
Cited by
A systematic review of knowledge management and knowledge sharing: Trends, issues, and challenges
Asrar-ul-Haq, M., & Anwar, S. (2016) · Cogent Business & Management · doi:10.1080/23311975.2015.1127744 · Cited by 361
Evasive knowledge hiding in academia: when competitive individuals are asked to collaborate
Hernaus, T., Cerne, M., Connelly, C., Poloski Vokic, N., & Škerlavaj, M. (2019) · Journal of Knowledge Management · doi:10.1108/jkm-11-2017-0531 · Cited by 325
Al-Husseini, S., El Beltagi, I., & Moizer, J. (2021) · International Journal of Leadership in Education · doi:10.1080/13603124.2019.1588381 · Cited by 296
The role of organisational climate in managing knowledge sharing among academics in higher education
Al-Kurdi, O. F., El-Haddadeh, R., & Eldabi, T. (2020) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.05.018 · Cited by 283
Knowledge management in higher education: A literature review and further research avenues
Quarchioni, S., Paternostro, S., & Trovarelli, F. (2022) · Knowledge Management Research & Practice · doi:10.1080/14778238.2020.1730717 · Cited by 131
Metadata
- Authors
- Fullwood, R., Rowley, J., & Delbridge, R.
- Venue
- Journal of Knowledge Management
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2013-02-15
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 123-136
- ISSN
- 1367-3270 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2135308790
- Cited by
- 406
- References
- 28
- FWCI
- 70.59
- 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: Knowledge sharing amongst academics in UK universities. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/13673271311300831
- The paper
- Fullwood, R., Rowley, J., & Delbridge, R. (2013). Knowledge sharing amongst academics in UK universities. Journal of Knowledge Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271311300831
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.