To Share or Not to Share Knowledge: An Ethical
Dilemma for UK
Mannisha Patel, Gillian Ragsdell,
ABSTRACT:
Effective knowledge sharing is at the heart of organisational life; for universities it is the core of their existence. Knowledge is shared not only with students and society, but it is also shared between Faculty staff and in collaborative arrangements with external enterprises. The need to disseminate knowledge so widely has drawn attention to related ethical considerations – this is the focus herein. This paper explores the ethical concerns raised about the sharing of knowledge by academics in two Faculties at a British university, and the influence of those concerns on the willingness of academics to share their knowledge. In doing so, the paper shares the findings of a pilot study and intends to prompt further debate about, and research into the relationship between ethics and knowledge sharing.
Keywords: Knowledge
sharing, Ethical concerns, Academics, Universities
1. Introduction
In the contemporary environment, knowledge is increasingly viewed as the
primary determinant of organisations, including universities,
to renew and innovate. Historically universities served as
reservoirs of knowledge (Basu
& Sengupta 2007, p.274) but are no longer providing knowledge
only to students or society; they are managing and sharing available knowledge
amongst Faculty members (Daud & Sohail 2009, p.126) and with private enterprise. Thus the effective sharing of knowledge is an
integral element of universities. It is
also one of the ethical challenges to universities,
particularly at a time when their role is being reframed by external
pressures. In view of this, the purpose
of this modest study is to trigger further and more in depth study of the
relationship between ethics and knowledge sharing, and, in particular, in the
Higher Education sector.
The paper begins by providing background
information on knowledge sharing within universities and explaining relevant
concepts. The following section briefly
describes the methodology employed to conduct the empirical research. Results of a survey and interviews are then presented,
followed by a discussion of the findings.
The paper concludes with a summary and reflections on the limitations of
the study.
2. Background
Universities are increasingly leveraging their
intellectual assets to drive
operational performance, create sources of commercial innovation, accelerate learning outcomes (Riege 2005) and derive revenue. The trend in knowledge sharing should increase as public funding for
education continues to shrink (Buchbinder
1993, p.332) and pressures to produce quality graduates to meet the
needs of industry show no signs of abatement (Confederation of British Industry
2009, p.5). At the same time demands for
value for money outcomes in higher education are growing, as are government
beliefs that knowledge activities will contribute to economic development
(William-Jones 2005, p.249).
3. Knowledge
Sharing
Various studies have empirically identified organisational,
technological and individual factors as impeders to knowledge sharing (for
example, Riege 2005; Husted & Michailova
2002). Yet empirical work to research the effects of
ethics upon knowledge sharing is rather limited. In fact, much
of the literature on knowledge sharing routinely associates knowledge with
positive connotations (Alter 2006; Hosein
2005; Amjad at al 2007). The genial view of work presented by Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995) where people care and trust
each other and readily share knowledge, has been
followed by more recent authors. These
assumptions belie the complexities and ethical difficulties stemming from
knowledge sharing. In reality, life is
rarely convivially ambivalent; it is characterised by
co-operation and collaboration on the one hand and by control and coercion on
the other hand (Kling 1991). The
omission, suppression, distortion and manipulation of knowledge are also
important factors (Amjad et al 2006, p.2). Although documented
instances of ethical concerns impeding knowledge sharing are few in the
literature, issues have emanated from the discourse. This found support in empirical work
conducted by Wang (2004), which suggested individual ethical concerns can
reduce intention to share knowledge.
3.1. Philosophical
Aspects Of Knowledge Sharing
The following question highlights the ethical
quagmire that is knowledge sharing – Is it natural to share? According to Wang (2004, p.371) knowledge
sharing is assumed to be the norm and inherently ethical. Styhre (2002,
pp.232-233) observes the knowledge economy is based upon the principles of
sharing, rather than restrictions on the utilisation
of finite resources. In fact, Da Costa et al (2008) and Britz at al (2006), believe employees are morally obligated
to share knowledge that benefits their organisation.
In contrast, Davenport & Prusak
(1998), assert that acquiring, much less sharing, knowledge is an unnatural act
and the normal reaction of individuals is to hoard knowledge. If knowledge is so valuable, why would anyone
give it away? With the mindset that
knowledge is power, individuals are reluctant to share knowledge (Britz et al 2006); Disterer 2001,
p.2). Abu Hasan
et al (2009) take a more philosophical stance and believe knowledge is
personal, the sharing of which breaches personal boundaries.
3.2. Value Of
Knowledge
The tacit knowledge academics possess constitutes the bulk of a university’s intellectual capital (Jain et al 2007, p.25). For such knowledge to have any real utility and constitute a source of value creation, it must be continually shared. Knowledge sharing is “making available what is not known” according to Awad & Ghaziri (2004, p.249), or the mutual exchange of experience, events, or understanding on anything between at least two parties (Daud & Sohail 2009, p.129). The personal knowledge of an individual is a source of wealth, stature and respect, usually the product of, practice, education or learning, exacted over time. This is particularly true of academics. The individual may not be adequately remunerated for sharing knowledge or may be diminished (Baskerville & Dulipovici 2006, p.5) or devalued by sharing their knowledge. The fear of “free-riding” may also deter knowledge sharing; self–interested individuals may exhibit Machiavellian behaviour and be tempted to benefit from the shared knowledge of others, without contributing to its provision (Cabrera & Cabrera 2002, pp.692-3) by hoarding their own knowledge.
3.3. Ownership
Of Knowledge
The possibility of losing control of knowledge may
deter academics from sharing it, which raises vexed ethical issues of ownership. (Fernie et
al 2003, p.179) Should such knowledge be
the currency of society? Alternatively,
are universities the rightful owners of the personal knowledge of their
employees, or is knowledge the attribute of the autonomous academic who
generated it (Baskerville & Dulipovici 2006,
p.2)? McKinlay
(2000, p.119) and Constant et al (1994, p.404) concur with the view of tacit
knowledge “as the currency of the informal economy of the
workplace”. Gorman (2004) argues
knowledge created in the course of employment is the intellectual capital of the
individual, and organisations should refrain from
asserting Orwellian type control over it.
Viewing knowledge sharing from a human rights perspective, Baskerville
& Dulipovici (2006, p.2) contend such personal
knowledge is the private attribute of individuals and its forcible sharing
could violate individual privacy rights.
Murphy (2008, p.162) takes a pragmatic approach in this long running
debate over ownership by individuals to knowledge as against the rights of others to share it. He argues that knowledge “is an
evolutionary process not a point in history.” He questions how individuals can lay claim to
knowledge seeking to protect it under intellectual property rights, when its
acquisition was made possible by the body of knowledge accumulated by others
hitherto.
3.4. Misuse Of
Knowledge
As in other organisations, the possibility of the misuse of one’s
shared knowledge may discourage academics from sharing. Trust is a presupposition to many knowledge
intensive activities, including knowledge sharing practices. Academics are unlikely to share, take risks
or collaborate in an environment of mistrust (Miles 2007, p.195). They may be reluctant to share knowledge
fearing someone else may receive unfair recognition and accreditation for their
work (Riege 2005, p.23); they will be insufficiently
rewarded (Britz et al 2006) or be dismissed. Bryant (2006) supports this fear of dismissal
arguing knowledge activities are simply a euphemism for reducing the
workforce. Intertwined with trust is the
notion of privacy. Individuals may also be adverse to sharing knowledge if they
have concerns regarding the accessibility and disclosure of their knowledge (Britz et al 2006) to unauthorised
parties. Another concern is the
omission, suppression, exaggeration or misuse of shared knowledge (Alter 2006)
exemplified by the Enron Scandal (Wilson 2002).
3.5. Commercialisation Of Knowledge
The linkage between universities and industry with
a view to share and produce commercial knowledge raises new ethical concerns for
academics. According to William-Jones
(2005, p.249) it may pose a threat to the availability of knowledge. He argues that free access to knowledge as a
shared resource will be diminished, when it is “enclosed” and
“owned” by corporations. The
sharing of knowledge amongst the academic community may be reduced when
research is patented by private companies, as exemplified by the patenting of
20% of the human genome in
Private finance for university research often
stipulates conditions that scientists sign non-disclosure agreements, or delay
publication pending the outcome of patent applications which can lead to the
gagging of researchers (William-Jones 2005, p.249) or suppression or misrepresentation
of research (Kohler 2004, p.482). “Access to organisations
and acceptance of research” may depend on the support of university
management which could compromise the views of academics and lead to a bias in behaviours
such as sharing any knowledge produced (Amjad et al
2007). Buchbinder
(1993, p339) goes as far as to say, “responsibility
to one’s peers ... is abandoned for responsibility to the organisation/corporation funding the project”.
3.6. Requirements
For An Ethical Framework
As the demands of academia grow and the sharing of
knowledge takes a central role, the traditional apparatus for identifying and
resolving issues may prove inadequate
(Fisher 2003, p.171) and in need of an overhaul or modernisation,
so as to provide guidance for contemporary ethical dilemmas. Like most professions, academics are already
governed by their university’s code of ethics or similar
instruments. However, such ethics are
general to the organisation, and not necessarily
specific to knowledge sharing.
A partial solution would be the enactment of a
proper ethical framework- a professional code of ethics defining a core set of
values and behaviours specifically relating to
knowledge sharing as implemented by Buckman
Industries (Talisayon 2007, pp.24-25).
With this in mind, the empirical data collection
was designed so as to explore the relationship between ethical concerns and the
intentions and knowledge sharing practices of academics, contributing to a
rather limited area of research.
An online survey was employed to gather data from academic staff in 2
faculties at a
Influenced by Daud & Sohail (2009), the survey was based on ethical variables identified from extant literature. These are knowledge ownership, value of knowledge, misuse of knowledge, commercialisation of knowledge and the philosophical aspects of sharing knowledge. The survey was divided into two sections. The first gathered demographic data. The second section comprised statements to measure the ethical variables listed above. A 4 point Likert scale from one (strongly disagree) to four (strongly agree) was employed with an additional response to each statement of “I have no view”.
5. Analysis
Of Results
This
section will review the findings of the survey and interviews, following a
brief overview of respondent demographics.
5.1. Profile
Of Respondents
The demographic profile of respondents categorised in age, gender, years of work experience and current position is provided in Table 1. Respondents are grouped into Faculties A and B for comparison.
Table 1: Demographics Of Respondents
|
Profile |
Classification |
Faculty of A (No. of respondents) |
Faculty B (No.
of respondents) |
|
Age (Years) |
21-30 |
4 |
0 |
|
31-40 |
3 |
0 |
|
|
41-50 |
1 |
2 |
|
|
51-60 |
0 |
7 |
|
|
60> |
0 |
3 |
|
|
Gender |
Male |
6 |
5 |
|
Female |
1 |
7 |
|
|
Not Specified |
1 |
0 |
|
|
Working Exp. |
<10 |
6 |
2 |
|
(Years) |
11-20 |
2 |
4 |
|
|
21-30 |
0 |
2 |
|
|
31-40 |
0 |
3 |
|
|
40> |
0 |
1 |
|
Current Position |
Lecturer |
1 |
2 |
|
|
Senior Lecturer |
0 |
6 |
|
|
Reader/Professor |
1 |
1 |
|
|
Research Ass./Researcher |
6 |
0 |
|
|
Other |
0 |
2 |
Ages of respondents in Faculty B ranged from 41-60 years, with 51-60 being
the dominant age group, while the majority of respondents in Faculty A were
aged 21-30, indicating a younger workforce.
Notwithstanding the greater number of responses from Faculty B,
respondents in Faculty B had substantially more working experience and occupied
more senior academic positions than respondents in Faculty A. With respect to gender, respondents from
Faculty A comprise of 6 males and 1 female.
In Faculty B, 7 respondents were female and 5 male, representing a more
even division.
5. 2. Survey And Interview Findings
The survey
comprised 19 statements (S1-19) to gauge the influence of the ethical variables
mentioned earlier. Each statement is taken in turn and responses considered.
5.2.1. Philosophical
Aspects Of Knowledge Sharing
The introductory section featured four statements to gauge opinion on knowledge sharing practices in the workplace.
S1. The sharing of
knowledge with colleagues is fundamental to workplace ethics.
Figure 1: The
Importance Of
Knowledge To Workplace Ethics
Of the 20
respondents in both Faculties, apart from 1 who refrained from answering, all
agreed or strongly agreed that knowledge sharing was fundamental to the
workplace. This view was held regardless
of age, gender, academic role or working experience. Several explanations
emerged from the interviews as to why sharing knowledge is so fundamental in
the workplace. The advancement of
research, the respect of colleagues and the empowerment and increase in value
of the sharer were cited as reasons for sharing.
S2. Knowledge is a
source of power.
In this instance, Faculty results mirrored
each other. Of the 12 respondents in
Faculty B, 10 agreed or strongly agreed with the adage “knowledge is
power”, 1 disagreed and 1 had no view.
These responses mirrored the findings of Faculty A, where 6 of the 8
respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, 1 disagreed and 1
refrained from answering.
Figure 2: Views On
Adage “Knowledge Is Power."
S3. Refusal to share
knowledge with colleagues is ethical behaviour.
Though the vast majority of respondents in both faculties viewed knowledge as a source of power, they largely believed that refusal to share that knowledge was not ethical. As illustrated by Figure 3, only 2 of 8 respondents in Faculty A agreed refusal to share knowledge was ethical; the rest disagreed or strongly disagreed. 7 of the 12 respondents in Faculty B were of the same opinion and 5 had no view on the subject.
Figure
3: The Ethics Of Refusal To Share Knowledge
S4. The hoarding of
knowledge is an unacceptable practice.
Figure
4: Ethics Of
Knowledge Hoarding Practices
When asked whether the hoarding of knowledge
was unacceptable, 4 of the 8 respondents in Faculty A agreed while In Faculty
B, 9 of the 12 respondents, strongly agreed or agreed with the statement. In
both Faculties, 2 respondents disagreed.
5.2.2 Value Of Knowledge
The section comprised of three statements sought to elicit views on the
value attached to knowledge.
S5. I am adequately
remunerated for sharing knowledge with others.
Figure 5: The Value Attached To Knowledge
The
contentious issue of remuneration for sharing knowledge yielded surprisingly
mixed results. Of 8 respondents in
Faculty A, 4 agreed they were adequately remunerated, while the other 4
disagreed. In Faculty B, of the 12
respondents 4 agreed, 3 disagreed and unusually 4 held no view. 1 did not answer the question. While there is discontent, there is not an
overwhelming level of feeling amongst respondents they were not adequately
compensated for sharing knowledge.
S6. It is acceptable to
benefit from the shared knowledge of others without contributing anything to
it.
The views
expressed on this issue were somewhat mixed as illustrated by Figure 6. Of the 8 respondents in Faculty A, 2 agreed
that it was acceptable to “free ride” on the back of other
people’s knowledge, 3 disagreed, 1 had no view and 2 did not answer. In Faculty B, there were similar results; of
12 respondents, 5 agreed with the statement, 6 disagreed and 1 had no
view. A significant minority, rightly or
wrongly believe it is acceptable to benefit from the shared knowledge of
others, without contributing to its provision.
Figure 6: Responses To "Free-Riding “Off Other
People’s Knowledge
S7. I will be diminished
or devalued by sharing my working knowledge with others.
The overwhelming majority of respondents, as
shown in Figure 7, from Faculty A felt that they would not be diminished or
indeed devalued by sharing and respondents from Faculty B held similar
views. Contrary to the academic
discourse, the majority of respondents in this survey do not consider their
value to be correlated to the knowledge they possess. In the follow-up interviews, both academics stated they were respected
more by their colleagues for sharing and the academic from Faculty B, felt her value was actually enhanced by sharing
knowledge. She said “Sharing
knowledge is power, because if you share knowledge people know what you know,
people know you share and people therefore come to you wanting to interact with
you.”
Figure 7: Effects Of
Knowledge Sharing On Personal Value
5.2.3. Ownership Of
Knowledge
The purpose
of this section, comprising of two statements was to ascertain the views of
respondents as to the ownership of knowledge created in employment.
S8. Any knowledge
created in the course of employment should belong to the individual.
Figure 8: Response To Ownership Of Intellectual Property
Created At Work
Of the 12 respondents in Faculty B, 1 agreed with the statement, but the
remainder disagreed or strongly disagreed.
In Faculty A, the results were more mixed. Of the 8 respondents, 3
agreed with the statement whereas 3 disagreed or strongly disagreed that
individuals should own knowledge created at work and 2 had no view. These results reflect academic opinion which
is also divided on ownership of intellectual property in the workplace.
It is interesting to note that 11 respondents in Faculty B who disagreed that knowledge created at work belongs to the individual were over 40, whereas respondents in Faculty A who thought otherwise were under 40. This indicates that the younger academics in this sample are more inclined to claim knowledge created at work.
S9.The possibility of
losing ownership of knowledge to others deters me from sharing it.
Figure
9: The Response To The
Effects Of Losing Ownership Of Knowledge
Opinion on
this issue was somewhat divided. Of the
8 respondents in Faculty A, 5 agreed with the statement and the remaining 3
disagreed or held no view on the matter.
In Faculty B, of the 12 respondents, 6 agreed or strongly agreed with
the statement, 5 disagreed and 1 refrained from answering.
5.2.4. Misuse
Of Knowledge
This section
consisted of three statements, sought to gauge the effects of the potential
misuse of knowledge upon the respondents’ intentions to share
knowledge.
S10. The realisation that my knowledge may be misused reduces my
preparedness to share it.
The misuse
of knowledge would not diminish the willingness of most respondents in Faculty
A to share knowledge, in contrast with their more experienced and mature
colleagues in the Faculty B. Of 8
respondents in Faculty A, 3 agreed or strongly agreed they would be deterred
from sharing whereas 5 disagreed or held no view. However, of
the 12 respondents in Faculty B, 8 agreed or strongly agreed misuse of
knowledge would reduce their preparedness to share, 2 held no view and 2
withheld their response.
These
findings tend to suggest older and experienced academics are more likely to be
wary of others misusing their knowledge than younger colleagues.
Figure
10: Responses On The Misuse Of Knowledge
S11. I am less likely to
share knowledge with people I do not trust.
The findings of this statement confirmed that trust plays an integral part in the knowledge sharing process within organisations. All of the respondents in Faculty A agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that they were less likely to share knowledge with people they did not trust. The respondents in Faculty B unanimously agreed or strongly agreed with their counterparts in Faculty A.
Figure 11: The Importance Of Trust
In Knowledge Sharing
S12.The possibility that
someone else may receive unfair recognition or accreditation for my knowledge
acts as a deterrent to knowledge sharing.
Figure
12: Effects Of
Unfair Recognition Or Accreditation For Knowledge Sharing.
Interestingly,
the prospect that someone else may receive unfair recognition or accreditation
for the knowledge of another impedes knowledge sharing even more than the
potential misuse or loss of ownership of knowledge. Of the 8 respondents in Faculty A, 7 agreed
or strongly agreed and 1 refrained from answering, whereas of 12 respondents in
Faculty B, 11 strongly agreed or agreed with the statement and 1 disagreed.
The interviews managed to shed light on why recognition and accreditation
are so important to academics. The
effort and hard work academics invest in research and innovation was cited as
one reason. Another was the fact that
job prospects and research funding were linked to publications, for which
academics must be given credit. “Publish or perish” was how one
academic described the situation. This
is perhaps
reflective of the fact that the stature, reputation and job prospects of
academics are inextricably correlated to their knowledge.
5.2.5. Commercialisation Of Knowledge
This section
comprised six statements and sought to gauge opinions on the increased sharing
of knowledge by universities with private organisations.
S13. Universities have
gone too far towards the production and sharing of knowledge for commercial
purposes.
Only 3 of the 12 respondents in Faculty B thought that universities had moved too far towards the sharing of knowledge for commercial gains, 5 disagreed and 4 expressed no view. This is curious given the prominence of the third stream in academic institutions today. In Faculty A, opinion was more evenly divided as 4 of the 8 respondents strongly agreed or agreed with the view and the other 4 disagreed.
Figure 13: Views On The Increasing Commercialisation
Of Knowledge
In summarising the attitude of fellow academics, the academic from Faculty B said: “I am not in agreement or disagreement. It just happens. It is the situation as it is today, because everyone including academics need money”, while the academic from Faculty A supported this view and said “All universities are doing that to stay in the market.”
S14. I am deterred from
sharing knowledge when it is for commercial purposes.
The results
of statement 13 revealed that only a minority of academics in Faculty B thought
universities had moved too far towards the production of commercial knowledge;
however the findings of this statement suggest they would be deterred from
sharing knowledge if universities moved further down that road. Of 12
respondents from Faculty B, 7 agreed or strongly agreed they were deterred from
sharing knowledge for commercial purposes whereas 3 disagreed, 1 had no view
and 1 refrained from answering. In
contrast,
of 8 respondents in Faculty A, only 3 agreed or strongly agreed with the
statement while 5 disagreed, strongly disagreed or held no view.
Figure
14: Effects Of Commercialisation Of Knowledge
Of 12
respondents from Faculty B, 7 agreed or strongly agreed they were deterred from
sharing knowledge for commercial purposes whereas 3 disagreed, 1 had no view
and 1 refrained from answering. In
contrast,
of 8 respondents in Faculty A, only 3 agreed or strongly agreed with the
statement while 5 disagreed, strongly disagreed or held no view.
S15. I am more inclined
to share knowledge when it would help advance the knowledge of the community as
a whole than for commercial purposes.
In both Faculties, the majority of respondents were more inclined to share knowledge for community purposes than for enterprise. Of 8 respondents in Faculty A, 5 strongly agreed or agreed with the statement, whereas 1 disagreed, 1 held no view and 1 did not answer the question. Of 12 respondents in Faculty B, 9 strongly agreed or agreed, while 2 held no view and 1 refrained from answering.
Figure 15: Opinions As
To The Social Value Of Knowledge
In the follow-up interviews the academic from Faculty B said she did not have a preference and would share for commercial and social reasons but the academic from Faculty A said he was more likely to share knowledge that benefitted society. He said, “We are all driven by money but I would not sell my knowledge for some cheap money.”
S16. Claims of ownership
to knowledge by commercial organisations reduce the
sharing of knowledge amongst the academic community.
Figure
16: The Reduction Of
Knowledge Within Academia
In keeping with the academic discourse, a majority
of respondents in both faculties concurred with the statement. 7 of 8 respondents from Faculty A agreed or
strongly agreed with the statement, while 1 disagreed. Meanwhile, in Faculty B, of 12 respondents 8
also agreed with this view, 1 disagreed, 2 had no view and 1 refrained from
answering.
5.2.6. Ethical
Framework
The final statement was designed to elicit the opinion of respondents on the possibility of enacting a code of ethics or providing guidance to specifically regulate knowledge sharing practices.
S18. The
University should provide guidance or enact an ethical framework specifically
for knowledge sharing practices.
The majority of the respondents in both faculties agreed that
the University should adopt guidelines or implement an ethical framework
regulating knowledge sharing practices.
Of the 8 respondents in Faculty A, 6 agreed with such measures, 1
strongly disagreed and 1 refrained from answering. In Faculty B, 7 of the 12 respondents agreed
or strongly agreed, 2 disagreed or strongly disagreed, 2 had no view and 1
refrained from answering. This may
indicate that the current codes of ethics adopted by Universities are
insufficient or do not adequately cover knowledge sharing practices, if at all.
Figure 17: Views On Implementation Of An Ethical Framework
Perhaps echoing the sentiments of the minority, both of the academics interviewed opposed a code of ethics and viewed self-regulation as a more effective means of governance. The academic from Faculty A commented “I don’t think any regulations or code at the university can bring about any necessary change that could affect the process”. The academic from Faculty B added “I think that I am mature and ethical enough to judge for myself without the imposition of any sort of extra regulation.”
6. Discussion And Implications
Technological, organisational and human factors have been empirically found to influence knowledge sharing negatively or otherwise. The findings of this study show there is a relationship between ethical concerns and the intention to share knowledge and that ethical concerns can reduce the intention and practice of sharing knowledge. This study supports the work of Wang (2004) who found that ethical concerns of individuals reduced the intention to share knowledge.
Overall, there was no significant difference in opinion of academics from Faculties A and B respectively, suggesting staff across departments share similar concerns. However, opinion was divided on the contentious issues of sharing of knowledge for enterprise and ownership of knowledge, reflecting the findings of academic literature.
More
specific findings are now related as each section of the questionnaire is now
revisited.
6.2.1. Philosophical
Aspects Of Knowledge Sharing
Many institutions are faced with the challenge of changing the prevalent attitude of employees from that of “knowledge is power” towards the notion that “sharing knowledge is power.” That was not the situation here; the research showed that all academics thought knowledge sharing was fundamental to the workplace. The advancement of knowledge, increased respect of colleagues, the interests of the department and self-empowerment were reasons cited for this view.
6.2.2. Value Of Knowledge
It is widely acknowledged that knowledge has value
but rewarding and placing a monetary value on that knowledge is
controversial. The findings revealed
there was discontent amongst academics regarding remuneration levels which
deterred a few academics from sharing knowledge. This suggested that personal income levels
were not a significant predictor to effective knowledge sharing, at least not
amongst the academics in this study.
Even less influential for academics in this
study was the perceived diminishment or devaluation of an individual by sharing
knowledge with others. This is curious
given that the value of a person is correlated to what they know and how much
they know. This is perhaps even truer of
knowledge workers such as academics, whose primary source of value is related
to their tacit knowledge.
6.2.3. Ownership Of Knowledge
Some academics may be deterred from knowledge
sharing by the possibility of losing ownership of one’s knowledge to
someone else. Opinion was divided on the
issue of ownership of intellectual property created at work, reflecting the
wider tension between knowledge as a public benefit and a private good. It will
be interesting to see whether academics continue to lay claim to knowledge in
the era of the open source movement where others are freely sharing knowledge.
6.2.4. Misuse Of Knowledge
The possibility that shared knowledge may be misused reduces the preparedness of some academics to share knowledge. While the findings suggested the misuse of knowledge is an impediment, it was not as influential a factor as anticipated. Interestingly, the data revealed the more experienced academics were, the more they were deterred from sharing their knowledge for fear of its misuse.
One of the more revealing outcomes of the research was that academics view the prospect of someone else receiving recognition or accreditation for their knowledge as one of the biggest barriers to knowledge sharing. These findings support Riege (2005, p.23) who suggested the ultimate driver of knowledge sharing for most companies is the prospect of increasing profitability, whereas employees are motivated by the prospect of receiving just recognition for work, incentives and remuneration.
In
line with previous studies (Riege
2005; Lin 2007) trust was an integral part of the knowledge sharing process
as evidenced by academics unanimous agreement that
they were less likely to share knowledge with people they did not trust.
6.2.5. Commercialisation Of Knowledge
In contrast to the academic literature which presented a picture of escalating commercialisation of knowledge within universities, the majority of academics in this study did not believe that universities had moved too far towards the sharing of knowledge for commercial innovation. However some academics may be deterred from sharing knowledge when it is commercially driven. The implication is that universities may not be able to generate as much revenue from their knowledge assets, as they would have liked.
Despite the increased linkage between universities and industry, the majority of academics who responded still placed greater emphasis on knowledge sharing for societal benefits than commercial reasons. This indicates that academics still have high regard for the role universities have traditionally played in society. In addition, academics agreed that one of the negative outcomes of the commercialisation of knowledge was the reduction in the sharing of available knowledge within academia as suggested by William-Jones (2005, p.249).
6.2.6. Ethical Framework
Most of the respondents welcomed an ethical framework or guidance, to nurture and promote the highest standards of intellectual honesty and integrity in knowledge sharing practices within academia. Those opposed to the idea cited the abundance of regulations already in existence and means of circumventing such rules, suggesting self-regulation as an alternative.
7. Conclusions
From the results of this study it can be seen that ethical factors such as lack of trust, the potential misuse of knowledge, the possibility of losing ownership of knowledge, the sharing of knowledge for commercial enterprise, the prospect of someone else receiving recognition or accreditation for the knowledge of another and inadequate remuneration for sharing knowledge may impede knowledge sharing. The extent to which ethical concerns influence knowledge sharing is determined by the nature of the ethical variable.
While
this study makes a contribution to this under researched area, limitations are recognised. The
exploratory nature of the study, the limited size of the sample and the
inclusion of members from two faculties from one
8. References
Abu Hassan, L.S., Al Faori, S., Alhammad, F. (2009),Knowledge Sharing in Jordanian Universities, Journal of Knowledge Management Practice [online], 10(3) September; Accessed June 2010: http://www.tlainc.com/articl199.htm.
Alter, S. (2006), Goals and Tactics on the Dark Side of Knowledge Management, Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Kauai, Hawaii, January 04-January 2007; Accessed January 2010: http://www.computer.org/plugins/dl/pdf/proceedings/hicss/2006/2507/07/250770144a.pdf?template=1&loginState=1&userData=anonymous-IP%253A%253A82.5.46.12.
Amjad, U., Land, F., Nolas, S. (2006), The Ethics of Knowledge Management, International Journal of Knowledge Management, 3(1), 1-9.
Amjad, U., Land, F., Nolas, S. (2007), Knowledge Management: The Darker Side of KM, Ethicomp journal, 3 (1); Accessed January 2010: http://www.ccsr.cse.dmu.ac.uk/journal/articles/vol3iss1_4.html.
Awad, E. M., Ghaziri, H. M. (2004), Knowledge Management, Pearson Educational International, London, UK, 1 st Edn.
Baskerville, R., Dulipovici, A. (2006), The Ethics of Knowledge Transfers and Conversions: Property or Private Rights, System Sciences, HICSS Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference, Hawaii, 04-07 Jan. 2006.
Basu, B., Sengupta, K. (2007), Assessing Success Factors of Knowledge Management Initiatives of Academic Institutions-a Case of an Indian Business School, Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management [online], 5(3) 273-283; Accessed June 2010: http://www.ejkm.com/volume-5/v5-i3/v5-i3-art3.htm.
Britz, J. J., Davel, R., Du Plessis, J.C. (2006), Slave or sibling: a Moral Reframing the Corporate Knowledge Sharing Community South African Journal of Information Management [online], 8(2); Accessed July 2010: http://www.sajim.co.za/.
Bryant, A. (2006), Knowledge Management –the Ethics of the Agora or the Mechanisms of the Market? System Sciences, HICSS Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference, Hawaii, 04-07 January 2006; Accessed January 2010: http://www.computer.org/plugins/dl/pdf/proceedings/hicss/2006/2507/07/250770144c.pdf?template=1&loginState=1&userData=anonymous-IP%253A%253A158.125.80.136.
Buchbinder, H. (1993), The Market Orientated University and the Changing Role of Knowledge, Higher Education, 26 (3), 331-347.
Cabrera, A., Cabrera E. (2002), Knowledge-Sharing Dilemmas, Organization Studies, 23 (5), 687-710.
Confederation of British Industry. (2009)Stronger together Businesses and Universities in Turbulent Times- A report from the CBI Higher Education Task Force.
Constant, D., Kiesler, S., Sproull. L. (1994), What’s Mine is ours, or is it? A study of attitudes about information sharing, Information Systems Research, 5(4) 400-421.
Da Costa, G.J., Prior, M., Rogerson S. (2008,ndividual Ethics and Knowledge Management: Arising Conflicts, The Tenth Ethicomp International Conference on the Social and Ethical Impacts of Information and Communication Technology, University of Pavia, Italy, 24th-26thSeptember 2008; Accessed June 2010:
http://www.goncalocosta.com/index/images/archives/Papers/ethicomp_2008_5.pdf.
Daud, S., Sohail, M.S. (2009), Knowledge Sharing in Higher Education Institutions, VINE: The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 39(2), 125-142.
Disterer. G. ( 2001), Individual and Social Barriers to Knowledge Transfer, System Sciences, HICSS Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference, Hawaii, 04-07 Jan 2001; Accessed January 2010: http://www.computer.org/plugins/dl/pdf/proceedings/hicss/2001/0981/08/09818025.pdf?template=1&loginState=1&userData=anonymousIP%253A%253A158.125.80.136.
Fernie, S., Green, S.D., Newcombe, R., Weller, S.J. (2003), Knowledge Sharing: Context, Confusion and Controversy, International Journal of Project Management, 21 (3), 177-187.
Fisher, C.B. (2003), Developing a Code of Ethics for Academics, Science and Engineering Ethics, 9(2), 171-179.
Gorman, G.E. (2004, The Uniqueness of Knowledge Management – or the Emperor's New Clothes? Library Management and Information Services, 19(1) pp17-32; Accessed August 2010:http://info.emeraldinsight.com/librarians/info/viewpoints/unique.htm?PHPSESSID=ehmr5hiif1alv3dm3rnp72h2v4&.
Hosein, I. (2005), Researching
the Ethics of Knowledge Management: The Case of Data-mining, Working Paper Series 135,
Husted. K. & Michailova, S. (2002), Diagnosing and Fighting Knowledge Sharing Hostility. Organizational Dynamics, 31 (1), 60-73.
Jain, K.K., Sandhu, M.S & Sidhu, G.K. (2007), Knowledge Sharing Among Academic Staff: A Case Study of Business Schools in Klang Valley, Malaysia, Journal for the Advancement of Science & Arts, 2, 23-29.
Kling, R. (1991), Cooperation, Coordination and Control in Computer Supported Work’, Communications of the ACM, 34 (12)83-88.
Kohler, J. (2004), Prevention, Management and Moderation: Ethical Frameworks
of Governance, Higher Education in
Lin, C. (2007), To Share or Not to Share: Modeling Tacit Knowledge Sharing, its Mediators and Antecedents, Journal of Business Ethics, 70, 411-428.
McKinlay, A.(2000),The Bearable Lightness of Control: Organisational Reflexivity and the Politics of Knowledge Management, In: C. Pritchard, R. Hull, M. Chumer & H. Willmott, Editors, Managing Knowledge: Critical Investigations of Work and Learning, Palgrave MacMillan Press, London, UK, 1 st Edn, pp. 107-122.
Miles, R.E.A. (2007), Innovation and Leadership Values,
Murphy, G. J., (2008), Who Owns Knowledge? The Journal of Craniomandibular Practice, 26 (3), 162-3.
Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H. ( 1995), The Knowledge Creating Company, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 1 st Edn.
Ravilious, K. (2005), Private Companies Own Human Gene Patents, The Guardian; Accessed July 2010: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/oct/14/genetics.research.
Riege, A. (2005), Three-Dozen Knowledge-sharing Barriers Managers Must Consider, Journal of Knowledge Management, 9 (3), 18-35.
Styhre, A. (2002), The Knowledge-intensive Company and the Economy of Sharing: Rethinking Utility and Knowledge Management. Knowledge and Process Management, 9(4). 228–236.
Wang, C. (2004), Influence of Ethical and Self-Interest Concerns on Knowledge Sharing Intentions among Managers: An Empirical Study, The International Journal of Management, 21(3)370-382.
William-Jones, B. (2005),
Wilson, T.D. (2002), The Nonsense of Knowledge Management, Information Research [online], 8, 1; Accessed June 2010: http://informationr.net/ir/8-1/paper144.html.
About the Authors:
Mannisha Patel has a LLB Honours
Degree in Law and recently graduated with an MSc in
Information and Knowledge Management from the Department of Information Science
at
Gillian Ragsdell is a Senior Lecturer in the
Department of Information Science at