How can tacit knowledge be shared more in organizations? A multidimensional approach to the role of social capital and locus of control

Social capital, knowledge quality, knowledge sharing, and innovation capability: An empirical study of the Indian pharmaceutical sector

“…The third dimension of social capital, the cognitive dimension, can be stated as the resources that provide shared representations among parties-like shared codes or paradigm-which facilitates a common understanding of collective goals (Akhavan & Hosseini, 2016;Cicourel, 1973;Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). Inkpen and Tsang (2005) identified shared goals and shared cultures as two of the most impor- the skills to bring together various pieces of knowledge (Göksel & Aydıntan, 2017;Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Cognitive social capital also makes the interaction among the social actors easier, and in the context of an organization, the shared representations and interpretations should ideally form a strategic alignment throughout the organization, enabling the members to direct their efforts towards collective goals (Kianto & Waajakoski, 2010), and an improved relevance and the quality of shared knowledge can aid in achieving this.…”

“…In additional to these, there have been multiple studies underlining the importance of social capital in nurturing knowledge sharing and innovation (Akhavan & Hosseini, 2016;Chiu, Hsu, & Wang, 2006;Göksel & Aydıntan, 2017;Inkpen & Tsang, 2005;Sechi, Borri, Lucia, & Celmins, 2011;Yen, Tseng, & Wang, 2015). Hence, social capital plays a vital role in knowledge sharing behaviors and can most definitely contribute to the innovation capabilities of an organization.…”

Explicit and tacit knowledge conversion effects, in software engineering undergraduate students

“…Undergraduate students' education in SE, as well as other professions, is not only based on theory but also on practical insight into real environments learning mainly from the tacit knowledge of experts area (Göksel and Aydıntan 2016) environments similar as in the context of school companies (Smilor et al 1990). The findings of this study in a school company context have shown that the conversion of tacit knowledge to explicit (H1), explicit knowledge to new explicit knowledge (H2), explicit knowledge to tacit (H3), and tacit knowledge to new tacit knowledge (H4) has a positive effect on each of the conversions of knowledge in students.…”

Sustainability of University Technology Transfer: Mediating Effect of Inventor’s Technology Service

“…The technology market trading environment mainly includes market transaction information, transaction convenience, transaction procedure complexity, and so on [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42]. First, the transfer incentive of university inventors is relatively insufficient; the inventor has acquired a sense of achievement and academic status in the field of scientific research after the achievement of his technological achievements, and there is often a lack of incentives to further deepen the transformation of achievements and engage in technical application [43].…”

“…Tacit knowledge transfer and sharing mechanism is established with the intentions of enhancing the knowledge output capability of the university, thinking highly of the role of enterprise cooperation during the knowledge sharing of the industry, and maintaining the interaction between the enterprise and the university [23]. Enterprises, universities, or research institutes choose knowledge partners that are determined by factors such as common values, the external environment, a collaborative theme, knowledge gaps, and demand [24]. The technology acceptance model (TAM) is often used to explain and predict consumers' acceptance of information technology (IT) products, and analyze the behavioral propensity, applied attitude, practical behavior, technical usefulness, and usability judgment of technology adoption [25,26].…”