Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Demographic differences in using knowledge creation tools among faculty members

Demographic differences in using knowledge creation tools among faculty members <jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Purpose</jats:title> <jats:p>The purpose of this study is to investigate and analyze demographic differences in using knowledge creation tools among faculty members. It also attempts to identify the most knowledge creation tool used by the participants. The tools comprised of 13 items including data mining, metadata, classifications, expert profiling, Mashup and blogs.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Design/methodology/approach</jats:title> <jats:p>Data were collected through an online survey questionnaire. A total of 300 faculty members from 26 universities and colleges accredited by the UAE Ministry of High Education participated in the study. The <jats:italic>t</jats:italic>-test and analysis of variance (ANOVA) test are used to validate the stated hypotheses.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Findings</jats:title> <jats:p>The study found personal knowledge management to be the most used knowledge creation tool among the faculty members, followed by authoring tools and templates. Findings of the study indicate statistically no significant difference in using knowledge creation tools with respect to gender, qualification, academic rank, teaching experience and institutional affiliation. These findings support the stated null hypotheses (<jats:italic>H1</jats:italic>, <jats:italic>H3</jats:italic>, <jats:italic>H4</jats:italic>, <jats:italic>H6</jats:italic> and <jats:italic>H8</jats:italic>) and suggest that the use of knowledge creation tools is independent from these variables. However, the results showed statistically a significant age group difference, academic specialization and research experience in using knowledge creation tools. The findings reject the assumed hypotheses (<jats:italic>H2</jats:italic>, <jats:italic>H5</jats:italic> and <jats:italic>H7</jats:italic>) and suggest the impact of these variables on the use of knowledge creation tools.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Research limitations/implications</jats:title> <jats:p>The paper is based on the data collected through a survey questionnaire. Future studies may combine quantitative and qualitative data collection methods for the purpose of comparison and in-depth analysis.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Practical implications</jats:title> <jats:p>Findings could be an important reference for knowledge management officers and knowledge intensive organizations and institutions to develop knowledge creation tools and promote usage among knowledge workers.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Originality/value</jats:title> <jats:p>The paper represents one of the very few empirical studies conducted on the use of knowledge creation tools. Findings of the study may contribute to the process of knowledge creation among faculty members and also to the improvement of knowledge management in the academic environment and other knowledge organizations.</jats:p> </jats:sec> http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Knowledge Management CrossRef

Demographic differences in using knowledge creation tools among faculty members

Journal of Knowledge Management , Volume 21 (4): 857-871 – Jul 10, 2017

Demographic differences in using knowledge creation tools among faculty members


Abstract

<jats:sec>
<jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Purpose</jats:title>
<jats:p>The purpose of this study is to investigate and analyze demographic differences in using knowledge creation tools among faculty members. It also attempts to identify the most knowledge creation tool used by the participants. The tools comprised of 13 items including data mining, metadata, classifications, expert profiling, Mashup and blogs.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Design/methodology/approach</jats:title>
<jats:p>Data were collected through an online survey questionnaire. A total of 300 faculty members from 26 universities and colleges accredited by the UAE Ministry of High Education participated in the study. The <jats:italic>t</jats:italic>-test and analysis of variance (ANOVA) test are used to validate the stated hypotheses.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Findings</jats:title>
<jats:p>The study found personal knowledge management to be the most used knowledge creation tool among the faculty members, followed by authoring tools and templates. Findings of the study indicate statistically no significant difference in using knowledge creation tools with respect to gender, qualification, academic rank, teaching experience and institutional affiliation. These findings support the stated null hypotheses (<jats:italic>H1</jats:italic>, <jats:italic>H3</jats:italic>, <jats:italic>H4</jats:italic>, <jats:italic>H6</jats:italic> and <jats:italic>H8</jats:italic>) and suggest that the use of knowledge creation tools is independent from these variables. However, the results showed statistically a significant age group difference, academic specialization and research experience in using knowledge creation tools. The findings reject the assumed hypotheses (<jats:italic>H2</jats:italic>, <jats:italic>H5</jats:italic> and <jats:italic>H7</jats:italic>) and suggest the impact of these variables on the use of knowledge creation tools.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Research limitations/implications</jats:title>
<jats:p>The paper is based on the data collected through a survey questionnaire. Future studies may combine quantitative and qualitative data collection methods for the purpose of comparison and in-depth analysis.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Practical implications</jats:title>
<jats:p>Findings could be an important reference for knowledge management officers and knowledge intensive organizations and institutions to develop knowledge creation tools and promote usage among knowledge workers.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Originality/value</jats:title>
<jats:p>The paper represents one of the very few empirical studies conducted on the use of knowledge creation tools. Findings of the study may contribute to the process of knowledge creation among faculty members and also to the improvement of knowledge management in the academic environment and other knowledge organizations.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>

Loading next page...
 
/lp/crossref/demographic-differences-in-using-knowledge-creation-tools-among-02EtI0XAx7
Publisher
CrossRef
ISSN
1367-3270
DOI
10.1108/jkm-09-2016-0379
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

<jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Purpose</jats:title> <jats:p>The purpose of this study is to investigate and analyze demographic differences in using knowledge creation tools among faculty members. It also attempts to identify the most knowledge creation tool used by the participants. The tools comprised of 13 items including data mining, metadata, classifications, expert profiling, Mashup and blogs.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Design/methodology/approach</jats:title> <jats:p>Data were collected through an online survey questionnaire. A total of 300 faculty members from 26 universities and colleges accredited by the UAE Ministry of High Education participated in the study. The <jats:italic>t</jats:italic>-test and analysis of variance (ANOVA) test are used to validate the stated hypotheses.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Findings</jats:title> <jats:p>The study found personal knowledge management to be the most used knowledge creation tool among the faculty members, followed by authoring tools and templates. Findings of the study indicate statistically no significant difference in using knowledge creation tools with respect to gender, qualification, academic rank, teaching experience and institutional affiliation. These findings support the stated null hypotheses (<jats:italic>H1</jats:italic>, <jats:italic>H3</jats:italic>, <jats:italic>H4</jats:italic>, <jats:italic>H6</jats:italic> and <jats:italic>H8</jats:italic>) and suggest that the use of knowledge creation tools is independent from these variables. However, the results showed statistically a significant age group difference, academic specialization and research experience in using knowledge creation tools. The findings reject the assumed hypotheses (<jats:italic>H2</jats:italic>, <jats:italic>H5</jats:italic> and <jats:italic>H7</jats:italic>) and suggest the impact of these variables on the use of knowledge creation tools.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Research limitations/implications</jats:title> <jats:p>The paper is based on the data collected through a survey questionnaire. Future studies may combine quantitative and qualitative data collection methods for the purpose of comparison and in-depth analysis.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Practical implications</jats:title> <jats:p>Findings could be an important reference for knowledge management officers and knowledge intensive organizations and institutions to develop knowledge creation tools and promote usage among knowledge workers.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Originality/value</jats:title> <jats:p>The paper represents one of the very few empirical studies conducted on the use of knowledge creation tools. Findings of the study may contribute to the process of knowledge creation among faculty members and also to the improvement of knowledge management in the academic environment and other knowledge organizations.</jats:p> </jats:sec>

Journal

Journal of Knowledge ManagementCrossRef

Published: Jul 10, 2017

There are no references for this article.