4.7 Article

Factors that affect scientists' knowledge sharing behavior in health and life sciences research communities: Differences between explicit and implicit knowledge

期刊

COMPUTERS IN HUMAN BEHAVIOR
卷 78, 期 -, 页码 326-335

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.09.017

关键词

Knowledge networking; Health and life sciences; Bioinformatics; User centered design

资金

  1. federal funds from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services [HHSN272200900040C]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the past decade, the number of knowledge networking platforms has been rapidly increasing, in part to support data intensive and cross-disciplinary research in growing fields such as health and life sciences. To promote knowledge sharing, it is important to understand why scientists want to or hesitate to share knowledge with other research communities. We examined five determining factors (reciprocal benefit, anticipated relationship, reputation, altruism and fear of being scooped) that impact scientists' intention to share explicit and implicit knowledge and built a predictive research model. The proposed model was then evaluated using partial least squares (PLSs) method against 141 valid survey responses. The results suggested that reciprocal benefit and fear of being scooped were significant in affecting implicit and explicit knowledge sharing behavior in health and life sciences research communities. Reputation had a main effect on scientists' intention to share explicit knowledge and anticipated relationship had an effect on scientists' intention to share implicit knowledge. However, altruism showed no main effects on knowledge sharing. We concluded by discussing strategies, derived from analyzing our survey data, to assist user experience practitioners in designing and promoting knowledge networking support in complex scientific domains. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据