The role of motivators in improving knowledge sharing…

The role of motivators in improving knowledge-sharing among academics :

« Introduction. This research addresses a primary issue that involves motivating academics to share knowledge. Adapting the theory of reasoned action, this study examines the role of motivation that consists of intrinsic motivators (commitment; enjoyment in helping others) and extrinsic motivators (reputation; organizational rewards) to determine and explain the behaviour of Malaysian academics in sharing knowledge.

Method. A self-administered questionnaire was distributed using a non-probability sampling technique. A total of 373 completed responses were collected with a total response rate of 38.2%.

Analysis. The partial least squares analysis was used to analyse the data.

Results. The results indicated that all five of the hypotheses were supported. Analysis of data from the five higher learning institutions in Malaysia found that commitment and enjoyment in helping others (i.e., intrinsic motivators) and reputation and organizational rewards (i.e., extrinsic motivators) have a positive and significant relationship with attitude towards knowledge-sharing. In addition, the findings revealed that intrinsic motivators are more influential than extrinsic motivators. This suggests that academics are influenced more by intrinsic motivators than by extrinsic motivators.

Conclusions. The findings provided an indication of the determinants in enhancing knowledge-sharing intention among academics in higher education institutions through extrinsic and intrinsic motivators. »


Opening Science : The Evolving Guide on How the Internet is Changing Research, Collaboration and Scholarly Publishing

« Modern information and communication technologies, together with a cultural upheaval within the research community, have profoundly changed research in nearly every aspect. Ranging from sharing and discussing ideas in social networks for scientists to new collaborative environments and novel publication formats, knowledge creation and dissemination as we know it is experiencing a vigorous shift towards increased transparency, collaboration and accessibility. Many assume that research workflows will change more in the next 20 years than they have in the last 200. This book provides researchers, decision makers, and other scientific stakeholders with a snapshot of the basics, the tools, and the underlying visions that drive the current scientific (r)evolution, often called ‘Open Science.’ »


Related URL :

A practice theoretical exploration of information sharing and trust in a dispersed community of design scholars


This paper presents an exploration of information sharing and trust in a geographically dispersed network of design scholars.


The study used a practice theory approach to identify aspects of trust in relation to information sharing. The empirical material consists of 15 in-depth interviews with design scholars from four Nordic countries and field notes from workplace visits.


The interview transcripts and field notes were categorised in accordance with three themes derived in synergy from practice theory and the empirical material.


A number of strategies for assessing and creating trust in relation to information sharing were identified. Depending on the dimension of practice in analytical focus, different aspects of trust emerge.


Trust issues connected to information sharing appear in relation to the information to be shared, the people involved, the tools used for sharing, and the place where information sharing occurs.

The practice-theoretical perspective has proven effective in order to identify and capture the elusive phenomenon of trust in connection to information sharing.


Knowledge sharing behaviour influences : A study of Information Science and Library Management faculties in Bangladesh

The prime focus of this study is to measure knowledge sharing behaviour of Information Science and Library Management (ISLM) faculties in Bangladesh. Determining factors that may influence knowledge sharing behaviour constitutes an important area of research.

A survey questionnaire was developed and used to collect data on faculties’ demographic and academic information, perception, attitude, intention and intrinsic motivation to share knowledge. In order to analyze the influence of faculties’ demographic and individual characteristics on their attitude, intention and intrinsic motivation, Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests were carried out.

Results showed that no significant difference was found between knowledge sharing behaviour of LIS educators with different Major Research Questions (MRQs). The researchers found a significant relationship 0.000 (p-value<0.05) between attitude of educators toward knowledge sharing and their intention to share knowledge.

It is believed that the findings will assist knowledge managers charged with the design of flexible knowledge sharing system.

This is the first time an effort has been made to assess faculties’ perception, attitude, intention and intrinsic motivation to share knowledge of ISLM faculties in Bangladesh.

The authors feel that this study may encourage more such research on knowledge sharing behaviour in Bangladesh and further. »


What should be the data sharing policy of cognitive science?

There is a growing chorus of voices in the scientific community calling for greater openness in the sharing of raw data that leads to a publication. In this commentary, we discuss the merits of sharing, common concerns that are raised, and practical issues that arise in developing a sharing policy. We suggest that the cognitive science community discuss the topic and establish a data sharing policy.


Science 3.0: Corrections to the « Science 2.0 » paradigm

The concept of « Science 2.0 » was introduced almost a decade ago to describe the new generation of online-based tools for researchers allowing easier data sharing, collaboration and publishing.

Although technically sound, the concept still does not work as expected. Here we provide a systematic line of arguments to modify the concept of Science 2.0, making it more consistent with the spirit and traditions of science and Internet.

Our first correction to the Science 2.0 paradigm concerns the open-access publication models charging fees to the authors. As discussed elsewhere, we reiterate that the monopoly of such publishing models increases biases and inequalities in the representation of scientific ideas based on the author’s income.

Our second correction concerns post-publication comments online, which are all essentially non-anonymous in the current Science 2.0 paradigm.

We conclude that scientific post-publication discussions require special anonymization systems.

We further analyze the reasons of the failure of the current post-publication peer-review models and suggest what needs to be changed in « Science 3.0 » to convert Internet into a large « journal club ». »