Prestige as an indicator of knowledge exchange in the community of school technology coordinators

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to investigate the sets of relationships, both physical and virtual, on which school technology coordinators (STCs) rely in exchanging problem‐solving knowledge. Using prestige as an indicator of knowledge exchange across school boundaries, a model of relational variables was constructed from social networks to explain the characteristics of personal knowledge exchange in STC communities.Design/methodology/approachThe analytical model designed for this research was based on social network theory. Egocentric interviews were conducted to collect relational data on knowledge exchange among STCs. Path analysis was applied to examine associations among relational variables.FindingsPrestigious STCs engage more in contributing knowledge to online communities of related competency than to STCs at other schools. They do not expend as much effort helping other STCs and only reciprocate within a smaller group from whom they have received advice. Online knowledge contributions have mediation effects for STCs with limited personal networks in becoming prestigious.Originality/valueFew studies have evaluated the sets of relationships on which teachers rely, to solve problems, and few empirical studies have focused on the features of personal knowledge exchange in a loosely coupled community of practice. This study uses prestige rather than job evaluations as an indicator for knowledge‐intensive workers to examine the knowledge‐exchange characteristics and demonstrate applicability to studies of communities of practice. The results also reveal deficiencies of knowledge dissemination in STC communities. These findings are relevant for studies of the information and communication technology practices of other professionals.

Social media: A contextual framework to guide research and practice.

“…Further, research suggests that members of discussion boards tend to break off into smaller groups. These smaller groups are more likely to share their knowledge with each other than with the larger discussion group (Lin & Chiou, 2010). This can stifle knowledge sharing at the detriment of those not in the "in" group.…”

“…With respect to personal characteristics, preliminary research suggests that employee attitudes toward social media technology may relate to the extent to which employees engage in social media for knowledge sharing (Kankanhalli et al, 2005;Pelling & White, 2009). Individuals are more likely to contribute knowledge to social media sites when they feel their input is being recognized or used by others (Greenhow, 2010;Liang, Ho, Li, & Turban, 2011;Lin & Chiou, 2010). Further, individuals who feel supported by other users are more likely to contribute to online discussions (Liang et al, 2011).…”

Knowledge sharing in wiki communities: an empirical study

“…This study followed the call of a number of academics (e.g. Lee et al, 2003;Lin and Chiou, 2010) for research into how the use of novel technologies can facilitate relationship building, interaction and knowledge sharing in virtual communities and in turn support their development. To achieve this research aim this study examined the critical concepts of knowledge sharing, virtual community, and wiki as a novel technology for facilitating knowledge accumulation and sharing.…”

“…For example Weick (1993) and Weick and Roberts (1993) argue that organisations can achieve rational and collective understanding of their social contexts through social processes and interpersonal interactions for sharing and reconciling people's perceptions/knowledge. Additionally, from a knowledge flow perspective, prior studies have noted the importance of optimally structuring and facilitating the movement of knowledge flows between knowledge owners and knowledge seekers to maximise the benefits of knowledge via effective social interactions (Goh et al, 2008;He and Wei, 2009;Lin and Chiou, 2010).…”

Effective Relations in an Open Community of Practice

“…Lai and Wong [15] argue that central people are found to be active and efficient in transmitting information within the group. Central people (or prestigious people) epitomize the network advantage of knowledge sharing [13,18].…”