Understanding the continuance intention of knowledge sharing in online communities of practice through the post‐knowledge‐sharing evaluation processes

Abstract

Web 2.0 creates a new world of collaboration. Many online communities of practice have provided a virtualInternet platform for members to create, collaborate, and contribute their expertise and knowledge. To date, we still do not fully understand how members evaluate their knowledge-sharing experiences, and how these evaluations affect their decisions to continue sharing knowledge in online communities of practice. In this study, we examined why members continue to share knowledge in online communities of practice, through theorizing and empirically validating the factors and emergent mechanisms (post-knowledge-sharing evaluation processes) that drive continuance. Specifically, we theorized that members make judgments about their knowledgesharing behaviors by comparing their normative expectations of reciprocity and capability of helping other members with their actual experiences. We empirically tested our research model using an online survey of members of an online community of practice. Our results showed that when members found that they receive the reciprocity they expected, they will feel satisfied. Likewise, when they found that they can help other members as they expected, they will feel satisfied and their knowledge self-efficacy will also be enhanced. Both satisfaction and knowledge self-efficacy further affect their intention to continue sharing knowledge in an online community of practice. We expect this study will generate interest among researchers in this important area of research, and that the model proposed in this article will serve as a starting point for furthering our limited understanding of continuance behaviors in online communities of practice.

Knowledge‐sharing intention in professional virtual communities: A comparison between posters and lurkers

“…Existing studies on the motivation behind these virtual interactions provide a rich foundation for the factors that drive knowledge sharing in virtual communities. These factors include reciprocity (Chang & Chuang, ; Chen & Hung, ; Chiu et al., ; Cho et al., ; Lai & Chen, ; Lin et al., ; Oh, ; Wasko & Faraj, ), reputation (Chang & Chuang, ; Cho et al., ; Lai & Chen, ; Oh, ; Wasko & Faraj, ), knowledge‐sharing self‐efficacy (Chen & Hung, ; Cheung, Lee, & Lee, ; Hsu et al., ; Lai & Chen, ; Lin et al., ; Tseng & Kuo, ), enjoyment in helping others (Chang & Chuang, ; Cho et al., ; Lai & Chen, ; Oh, ; Wasko & Faraj, ), trust (Chang & Chuang, ; Chen & Hung, ; Chiu et al., ; Cho et al., ; Hsu et al., ; Tseng & Kuo, ), identification (Chang & Chuang, ; Chiu et al., ; Tseng & Kuo, ), personal outcome expectations (Chiu et al., ; Hsu et al., ), community‐related outcome expectations (Chiu et al., ; Hsu et al., ), opinion leadership (Jadin, Gnambs, & Batinic, ), and use satisfaction (Chen, ; Cheung et al., ).…”

Knowledge withholding in online knowledge spaces: Social deviance behavior and secondary control perspective

“…However, current social informatics research on knowledge management has placed a great emphasis on knowledge contribution and sharing (for example, Cheung et al, 2013;Cho, Chen, & Chung, 2010;Kankanhalli, Tan, & Wei, 2005;Kowalczyk & Shankar, 2011;O'Connor, 2013;Shen, Lee, & Cheung, 2014). Although a few initial studies have attempted to investigate different counterproductive knowledge behaviors (for example, knowledge hiding or hoarding, partial knowledge sharing, and disengagement from knowledge sharing), most of these studies lie in the realm of formal organizations, provided incomplete analysis of knowledge withholding, and failed to capture the social contexts in which knowledge is withheld (Ford, Myrden, & Jones, 2015;Ford & Staples, 2010;Lin & Huang, 2009, 2010Tsay, Lin, Yoon, & Huang, 2014;Webster et al, 2008).…”

Emotional Factors Affecting Knowledge Sharing Intentions in the Context of Competitive Knowledge Network

“…Therefore, in order to establish sustainable knowledge networks, it is necessary to retain members and motivate them to use virtual networks continuously. However, there exist many unexplored research issues about the relationship between members' KS activities and their intention to continue sharing knowledge [40,41].…”