|
Article Excerpt
Abstract
Electronic networks of practice are computer-mediated discussion forums focused on problems of practice that enable individuals to exchange advice and ideas with others based on common interests. However, why individuals help strangers in these electronic networks is not well understood: there is no immediate benefit to the contributor, and free-riders are able to acquire the same knowledge as everyone else. To understand this paradox, we apply theories of collective action to examine how individual motivations and social capital influence knowledge contribution in electronic networks. This study reports on the activities of one electronic network supporting a professional legal association. Using archival, network, survey, and content analysis data, we empirically test a model of knowledge contribution. We find that people contribute their knowledge when they perceive that it enhances their professional reputations, when they have the experience to share, and when they are structurally embedded in the network. Surprisingly, contributions occur without regard to expectations of reciprocity from others or high levels of commitment to the network.
Keywords: Electronic networks of practice, knowledge management, online communities, social capital
**********
Introduction
Knowledge has long been recognized as a valuable resource for organizational growth and sustained competitive advantage, especially for organizations competing in uncertain environments (Miller and Shamsie 1996). Recently, some researchers have argued that knowledge is an organization's most valuable resource because it represents intangible assets, operational routines, and creative processes that are hard to imitate (Grant 1996; Liebeskind 1996). However, most organizations do not possess all required knowledge within their formal boundaries and must rely on linkages to outside organizations and individuals to acquire knowledge (Anand et al. 2002). In dynamic fields, organizational innovation derives from knowledge exchange and learning from network connections that cross organizational boundaries (Nooteboom 2000). Organizational members benefit from external network connections because they gain access to new information, expertise, and ideas not available locally, and can interact informally, free from the constraints of hierarchy and local rules. Even though the employing organizations may be direct competitors, informal and reciprocal knowledge exchanges between individuals are valued and sustained over time because the sharing of knowledge is an important aspect of being a member of a technological community (Bouty 2000).
One way to create linkages to external knowledge resources is through electronic communication networks. Electronic networks make it possible to share information quickly, globally, and with large numbers of individuals. Electronic networks that focus on knowledge exchange frequently emerge in fields where the pace of technological change requires access to knowledge unavailable within any single organization (Powell et al. 1996). Electronic networks have been found to support organizational knowledge flows between geographically dispersed coworkers (Constant et al. 1996) and distributed research and development efforts (Ahuja et al. 2003). These networks also assist cooperative open-source software development (Raymond 1999; von Hippel and von Krogh 2003) and open congregation on the Internet for individuals interested in a specific practice (Butler 2001; Wasko and Faraj 2000).
However, as management in many organizations has discovered, the availability of electronic communication technologies is no guarantee that knowledge sharing will actually take place (Alavi and Leidner 1999; Orlikowski 1996). One of the problems with accessing knowledge from acquaintances and unknown others is that it requires depending upon the "kindness of strangers" (Constant et al. 1996). Despite the growing interest in online cooperation and virtual organizing, there is surprisingly little empirical research into the communication and organization processes of electronic networks, and how participation in these networks relates to sharing knowledge (Lin 2001; Monge et al. 1998). The goal of our research is to better understand knowledge flows by examining why people voluntarily contribute knowledge and help others through electronic networks.
This paper is organized as follows. First, we introduce the concept of an electronic network of practice and discuss the key issues for understanding knowledge contribution in these networks. Then, we apply theories of social capital to develop a model for examining how individual motivations and social capital foster knowledge contribution. We test this model empirically through survey and objective data collected from one electronic network of practice focused on the exchange of legal advice between lawyers. Finally, we discuss how our empirical findings contribute to theory development and improve our understanding of how information technologies support cross-organization knowledge exchange.
Knowledge Contribution in Electronic Networks of Practice
Brown and Duguid (2001) suggest that knowledge flows are best understood by examining how work is actually performed and thinking about knowledge and learning as an outcome of actual engagement in practice. When individuals have a common practice, knowledge readily flows across that practice, enabling individuals to create social networks to support knowledge exchange (Brown and Duguid 2000). Brown and Duguid suggest that there are two practice-related social networks that are essential for understanding learning, work, and the movement of knowledge: communities of practice and networks of practice. These researchers conclude that the key to competitive advantage is a firm's ability to coordinate autonomous communities of practice internally and leverage the knowledge that flows into these communities from network connections (Brown and Duguid 2000, 2001).
A community of practice consists of a tightly knit group of members engaged in a shared practice who know each other and work together, typically meet face-to-face, and continually negotiate, communicate, and coordinate with each other directly. In a community of practice, joint sense-making and problem solving enhances the formation of strong interpersonal ties and creates norms of direct reciprocity within a small community (Lave 1991; Lave and Wenger 1991; Wenger 1998). In contrast, networks of practice consist of a larger, loosely knit, geographically distributed group of individuals engaged in a shared practice, but who may not know each other nor necessarily expect to meet face-to-face (Brown and Duguid 2001). Networks of practice often coordinate through third parties such as professional associations, or exchange knowledge through conferences and publications such as specialized newsletters. Although individuals connected through a network of practice may never know or meet each other face to face, they are capable of sharing a great deal of knowledge (Brown and Duguid 2000).
With recent advances in computer mediated communications, networks of practice are able to extend their reach using technologies such as websites, electronic bulletin boards, and e-mail listservs. Building upon Brown and Duguid's (2000) general description of networks of practice, we define an electronic network of practice as a special case of the broader concept of networks of practice where the sharing of practice-related knowledge occurs primarily through computer-based communication technologies. While many networks of practice are increasingly using electronic communication to supplement their traditional activities, electronic networks of practice differ from networks of practice due to the impact of technology on communications, which may result in different dynamics (DeSanctis and Monge 1999). More formally, we define an electronic network of practice as a self-organizing, open activity system focused on a shared practice that exists primarily through computer-mediated communication.
This definition highlights some key aspects of an electronic network of practice. First, the network is generally self-organizing in that it is made up of individuals who voluntarily choose to participate. Second, the term open activity denotes that participation is open to individuals interested in the shared practice, and who are willing to mutually engage with others to help solve problems common to the practice. While many electronic networks of practice reside outside organizations (e.g., on the Usenet or the Web), our definition includes networks that are sponsored by a specific organization or professional association as long as they exist primarily through computer-mediated communication.
However, because participation is open and voluntary, participants are typically strangers. Knowledge seekers have no control over who responds to their questions or the quality of the responses. Knowledge contributors have no assurances that those they are helping will ever return the favor, and lurkers may draw upon the knowledge of others without contributing anything in return. This sharply contrasts with traditional communities of practice and face-to-face knowledge exchanges where people typically know one another and interact over time, creating expectations of obligation and reciprocity that are enforceable through social sanctions. Prior studies consistently find that knowledge sharing is positively related to factors such as strong ties (Wellman and Wortley 1990), co-location (Allen 1977; Kraut et al. 1990), demographic similarity (Pelled 1996), status similarity (Cohen and Zhou 1991), and a history of prior relationship (Krackhardt 1992), all factors that are not readily apparent in electronic networks of practice. This begs the question: Why do people spend their valuable time and effort contributing knowledge and helping strangers in electronic networks of practice? In order to investigate this question, we turn to theories of collective action and social capital.
Collective Action, Social Capital, and Knowledge Contribution
Contributions of knowledge to electronic networks of practice seem paradoxical. Previous research argues that giving away knowledge eventually causes the possessor to lose his or her unique value relative to what others know (Thibaut and Kelley 1959), and benefits all others except the contributor (Thorn and Connolly 1987). Therefore, in the context of an electronic network of practice, it seems irrational that individuals voluntarily contribute their time, effort, and knowledge toward the collective benefit, when they can easily free-ride on the efforts of others. However, if everyone chose to free-ride, the electronic network of practice would cease to exist. Theories of collective action help explain why individuals in a collective choose not to free-ride, and suggest that individuals forego the tendency to free-ride due to the influence of social capital (Coleman 1990; Putnam 1993, 1995a). Social capital is typically defined as "resources embedded in a social structure that are accessed and/or mobilized in purposive action" (Lin 2001, p. 29). In recent years, social capital concepts have been offered as explanations for a variety of pro-social behaviors, including collective action, community involvement, and differential social achievements that the concept of individual-based capital (such as human or financial capital) is unable to explain (Coleman 1990). The key difference between social capital and other forms of capital is that social capital is embedded in the social realm. While other forms of capital are based on assets or individuals, social capital resides in the fabric of relationships between individuals and in individuals' connections with their communities (Putnam 1995b).
Some researchers have suggested that social capital will have difficulty developing in or transferring to electronic networks of practice because social capital is more likely to develop in collectives characterized by a shared history, high interdependence, frequent interaction, and closed structures (Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998; Nohria and Eccles 1992). It has also been argued that electronic networks cannot support significant knowledge outcomes because knowledge is often tacit and highly embedded, requiring high-band-width communication that is difficult to sustain through technology (Brown and Duguid 2000; Nonaka 1994). Thus, current theory and research seems to suggest that significant levels of social capital and knowledge exchange will not develop in electronic networks of practice. This study attempts to address the question of why people nevertheless contribute knowledge to others in electronic networks of practice. Based on the theoretical model proposed by Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998), we develop a series of hypotheses to examine how individual motivations and three forms of social capital (cognitive, structural, and relational) relate to knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice.
Hypotheses
Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) presented social capital as an integrative framework for understanding the creation and sharing...
|
