KNOWLEDGE ADOPTION IN ONLINE COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE 1

In this study, we investigate how members of text-based, asynchronous online communities of practice (COPs) adopt knowledge contributed by other COP members. Previous studies of knowledge adoption in computermediated settings have drawn on dual-process theories of information processing to understand the role of heuristic cues and elaboration likelihood in this process. We extend this research stream, exploring two potential new heuristic cues: genre conformity and information consistency. In addition, we examine the factors focused search and disconfirming information to understand how they may induce non-heuristic cognitive processes. Survey data were collected from an online COP and findings support the hypotheses generated from our research model. This study advances our understanding of knowledge sharing in online COPs. Findings suggest that the context of an online COP can play a dynamic role in how members process the content component of that COP. Focusing on the pull technology of online COPs, it offers another theoretical link between computer-mediated communications and knowledge management. Practically, it also provides us with insights into online COPs as a potential means for improving organizational knowledge management.

[1]  M. Traugott,et al.  Web survey design and administration. , 2001, Public opinion quarterly.

[2]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  User participation in knowledge update of expert systems , 1997, Inf. Manag..

[3]  John Seely Brown,et al.  Internet technology in support of the concept of “communities-of-practice”: the case of Xerox , 1998 .

[4]  Edith de Leeuw,et al.  Technological Innovations in Data Collection: Acceptance, Data Quality and Costs , 1996 .

[5]  Ramkrishnan V. Tenkasi,et al.  P ERSPECTIVE M AKING AND P ERSPECTIVE T AKING IN C OMMUNITIES OF K NOWING , 2000 .

[6]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation , 1991 .

[7]  Wei Zhang,et al.  DONKEYS TRAVEL THE WORLD: KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN ONLINE COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE 1 , 2002 .

[8]  E. Wenger,et al.  Communities of Practice: The Organizational Frontier , 2000 .

[9]  M. McLure Wasko,et al.  "It is what one does": why people participate and help others in electronic communities of practice , 2000, J. Strateg. Inf. Syst..

[10]  Stephanie Watts,et al.  Informational Influence in Organizations: An Integrated Approach to Knowledge Adoption , 2003, Inf. Syst. Res..

[11]  R. Bagozzi,et al.  Representing and testing organizational theories: A holistic construal. , 1982 .

[12]  H. Rachlin.  Behavior and learning , 1976 .

[13]  J. Brown,et al.  Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing , 1999 .

[14]  W. Orlikowski,et al.  Explicit and Implicit Structuring of Genres in Electronic Communication: Reinforcement and Change of Social Interaction , 1999 .

[15]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement , 1983 .

[16]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity , 1998 .

[17]  Shelly Chaiken,et al.  The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. , 1999 .

[18]  Michael J. Muller,et al.  Understanding the benefit and costs of communities of practice , 2002, CACM.

[19]  Gary Marchionini,et al.  Information Seeking in Electronic Environments , 1995 .

[20]  P. Briggs,et al.  Trust in Online Advice , 2002 .

[21]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Promoting systematic processing in low-motivation settings: effect of incongruent information on processing and judgment. , 1991, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[22]  Alice H. Eagly,et al.  Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. , 1989 .

[23]  D. Maheswaran,et al.  Motivated Reasoning: A Depth-of-Processing Perspective , 2000 .

[24]  S. Kiesler,et al.  SELF-SELECTED AND RANDOMLY SELECTED RESPONDENTS IN A COMPUTER NETWORK SURVEY , 1992 .

[25]  M. Sherif,et al.  The psychology of attitudes. , 1946, Psychological review.

[26]  S. Chaiken.  Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. , 1980 .

[27]  Morten T. Hansen,et al.  What's your strategy for managing knowledge? , 1999, Harvard business review.

[28]  Hüseyin Tanriverdi,et al.  Performance effects of corporate diversification : roles of knowledge resources, knowledge management capability and informatin technology , 2001 .

[29]  Curtis P. Haugtvedt,et al.  Advertising Repetition and Variation Strategies: Implications for Understanding Attitude Strength , 1994 .

[30]  T. Davenport,et al.  Improving Knowledge Work Processes , 1996 .

[31]  R. LaRose,et al.  Electronic Bulletin Boards and “Public Goods” Explanations of Collaborative Mass Media , 1993 .

[32]  Wei Zhang,et al.  PERIPHERAL MEMBERS IN ONLINE COMMUNITIES , 2001 .

[33]  Jaap J. Dijkstra,et al.  User agreement with incorrect expert system advice , 1999, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[34]  K. Stamm,et al.  The Relationship of Attitudinal Components to Trust in Media , 1994 .

[35]  W. Orlikowski,et al.  Genre Repertoire: The Structuring of Communicative Practices in Organizations , 1994 .

[36]  I. Nonaka.  A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation , 1994 .

[37]  Richard L. Daft,et al.  Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design , 1986 .

[38]  J OrlikowskiWanda,et al.  Explicit and Implicit Structuring of Genres in Electronic Communication , 1999 .

[39]  Gary Marchionini,et al.  Finding facts vs. browsing knowledge in hypertext systems , 1988, Computer.

[40]  Kenneth K. Boyer,et al.  Print versus electronic surveys: A comparison of two data collection methodologies , 2002 .

[41]  R. Bagozzi.  A Prospectus for Theory Construction in Marketing , 1984 .

[42]  Duane T. Wegener,et al.  The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. , 1999 .

[43]  Jaideep Sengupta,et al.  Effects of Inconsistent Attribute Information on the Predictive Value of Product Attitudes: Toward a Resolution of Opposing Perspectives , 2002 .

[44]  Charlotte H. Mason,et al.  Responses to Information Incongruency in Advertising: The Role of Expectancy, Relevancy, and Humor , 1999 .

[45]  J. Brown,et al.  Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation , 1991 .

[46]  Lee Sproull,et al.  Reducing social context cues: electronic mail in organizational communication , 1986 .

[47]  Carlos Ferran-Urdaneta,et al.  The effects of videoconferencing on persuasion , 2000 .

[48]  Karrie Karahalios,et al.  Visualizing Conversation , 1999, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[49]  Jo Lorentzen,et al.  Learning and Innovation , 2009 .

[50]  Stephanie Watts,et al.  Adoption of mediated knowledge in organizations : source credibility and information usefulness , 1998 .

[51]  Sammy W. Pearson,et al.  Development of a Tool for Measuring and Analyzing Computer User Satisfaction , 1983 .

[52]  A. A. Lumsdaine.  Communication and persuasion , 1954 .