Impact of Knowledge Creation and Sharing on Knowledge Use Among Librarians in Federal Universities in Nigeria

1. Introduction

Knowledge Management (KM), an integral entity, is essential based on personal abilities where individuals and associations could harness knowledge assets to transform work performance. The assets incorporate experience, abilities, capacities, schedules, and standards as innovations (Zhang, 2008). Knowledge use is the productive deployment and application of actionable information, ideas, expertise, skills, lesson learnt and insights in the production process among librarians. KM is the embodiment of overseeing knowledge and putting knowledge into actual use. The fact that knowledge is acknowledged and widely circulated among the employee of an organisation does not guarantee its daily use. Therefore, without the actual use, the likelihood that new knowledge will not be created for further application, where the framework of quality assessment is assured, and whatever venture made in obtaining such knowledge will be lost.

According to Savolainen (2009), knowledge usage is a ubiquitous phenomenon that occurs in everyday life. Hughes (2006) expands on this notion, explaining that knowledge usage encompasses the user’s behaviour, linking to the knowledge source, knowledge search, knowledge skills, knowledge needs, knowledge utilisation and learning outcomes. Knowledge usage can be understood as an intellectual activity expressed through different thoughts and actions. The ultimate goal of creating knowledge is performance improvement (Salisbury, 2003; Husain & Nazim, 2013). In other words, individuals share and transfer what they have learned to others who have a collective interest and find the knowledge beneficial. To derive value from knowledge creation, librarians must share it with colleagues, co-workers, and teammates (Omotayo, 2015) so that it can be effectively used. Therefore, librarians are expected to use their tacit and explicit knowledge to the advantage of other colleagues and the library clientele. The belief is that when librarians rightly apply knowledge, it will enhance their innovative ideas and creative prowess.

Greenhalgh et al. (2005) define knowledge use as the ability to apply one’s knowledge for personal or collective benefit. Senaphathi (2011) adds that knowledge utilisation involves the appropriate use of knowledge, regardless of its form or type. Agba, Kigingo-Bukenya, and Nyumba (2004) argue that effective knowledge use results in effective, high-quality and efficient research. The more librarians effectively use the knowledge shared among their professional colleagues, the greater the likelihood of producing better quality and more efficient research outputs.

Anna and Puspitasari (2013) maintained that knowledge sharing would be useless unless it is used by employees in the organisation. Oshri (2006) added that knowledge use is helpful in the creation of new products and knowledge, as well as knowledge reuse which can promote organisational performance. It should be noted, however, that when knowledge is not frequently utilised by the employees for work performance, service delivery, or make advancement in the library, the creation and sharing procedure of such knowledge is less effective.

Using knowledge effectively is a core value of all successful organisations, regardless of whatsoever businesses they do or the services they offer. The Nigerian government invests huge amounts of money in training and retraining its employees on skill acquisition through workshops, conferences or seminars. These efforts have a singular goal of facilitating the use of knowledge for optimal output. The inability to use the knowledge acquired through such an avenue will render all efforts and investments futile. Based on the foregoing, it is imperative to examine the success or otherwise of knowledge creation and sharing and its impact on use by librarians in Nigerian federal universities.

2. Literature Review

Knowledge use is the application of one’s knowledge to support objectives either for self or others (Greenhalgh, Robert, Bate, Macfarlane, & Kyriakidou, 2005). Therefore, librarians are expected to use their tacit and explicit knowledge to the advantage of other colleagues and the library clientele. Knowledge utilisation is the appropriate use of knowledge, regardless of its forms and types (Senaphathi, 2011). The utilisation of knowledge in Nigerian universities by librarians has been studied by Adogbeji and Toyo (2006); Okonedo and Popoola (2012). Shokeen and Kaushik (2002) observe that exceptional researchers at Harrana University in India regularly rely on periodicals, textbooks, course readings, and reference materials. Agba, Kigingo-Bukenya, and Nyumba (2004) argue that effective knowledge application enhances higher quality, efficiency, and effective research outcomes. Library administrators who leverage the knowledge shared in the communities of practice are more likely to achieve better quality and more effective research results. Kemoni (2002) conducted a study on knowledge utilisation at the University of Nairobi, Kenya, where it was reported that librarians utilise both tacit and explicit knowledge through various channels, such as conferences, workshops, and seminars. Speaking further on how librarians create and share knowledge, Jia et al. (2012) emphasised the importance of the humanistic mode among librarians. Humanistic mode refers to from one person to the other as a method of sharing and creation of knowledge. Librarians are professionals with work practice, skills and adequate knowledge. They have rich assets from some reports when working, summed up the jobs of recovery of archives and can get uncoded data. Library administrators can get a handle on the examination heading, inquire about patterns, create jobs specifically territories and provide variable references for research staff.

From the above arrays of responsibilities, librarians create and share knowledge. Islam et al. (2017) established an indirect effect of knowledge creation and knowledge sharing among librarians in a survey of 107 librarians in 39 countries. Producing knowledge requires an individual or gathering of individuals who think of explicit data, aptitudes, capacities or capabilities to get new ideas, inventive items or procedures and so on. It requires the use of tacit and explicit knowledge, which are both essential for knowledge creation. Therefore, creating new knowledge is the result of the outcome of knowledge-sharing processes. Although, arguably, understanding knowledge creation in inter-organisation is becoming critically important (Tootell, Kyriazis, Billsberry, Ambrosini, Garrett-Jones, & Wallace, 2021), the emphasis is much on knowledge sharing in organisation (Barley, Treem, & Kuhn, 2018).

Knowledge sharing is believed to be one of the essential aspects of knowledge management and is considered a crucial factor for organisations to survive. Yang and Wu (2008) posit that despite being crucial for organisational survival, it is difficult to understand owing to its complication of interface between people and organisations. Fang, Jiang, Makino, and Beamish (2010) assert that creating, transferring and sharing knowledge in organisations has become crucial to stay competitive in today’s business environment. When knowledge is created, such knowledge must be shared. Creating knowledge without sharing it with employees in organisations will impede the organisational change and its having a competitive edge over their counterparts.

Awodoyin Osisanwo, Adetoro, and Adeyemo (2016) surveyed knowledge sharing behaviour pattern analysis of academic librarians in Nigeria. The study found, among many others, that librarians shared knowledge on scholarly outcomes and value, serial usage, and preservation of digital resources with colleagues. Similarly, the extent to which the librarians shared knowledge is high. Nine out of ten knowledge sharing indicators showed a significant and high mean value of

In a knowledge-focused financial system, knowledge forms the hub of competitiveness and growth for companies and nations (Lin, 2007; Yesil & Dereli, 2013). Hu et al. (2009) stress that organisations and ventures can increase the upper hand if they can coordinate their representatives’ knowledge, ability and aptitudes and utilise the best administrative practices in their everyday tasks. This involves the sharing and utilisation of learning and the conversion into training. Wang and Noe (2010) argue that knowledge sharing is a technique whereby employees can add to knowledge, innovation and eventually, the competitive benefit of the organisation. One can rightly say that knowledge sharing is one of the most critical ways library personnel can meet their needs at the quickest possible time by using others’ knowledge and experience.

Knowledge is recognised as a strategic basis for organisational invention, especially in today’s business environment characterised by high uncertainty levels (Noor, Ismail, Ali, & Arif, 2014). The first constituent of managing knowledge is to create knowledge. It is a constant activity that groups, organisations or corporations engage in while relating with one another (Uriate, 2008). The survival of any organisation from time to time mostly depends on how it can create knowledge and use it to generate attractive products or services. If skills are managed effectively, they can be used to realise other means of doing things, quicker methods of executing tasks, and easier methods of realising predetermined outcomes. Suorsa and Huotari (2014) observed knowledge creation as integral to organisational information behaviour and practice associated with knowledge sharing and use. Davenport has explored the integration of decision support systems and analytics in knowledge- intensive processes. He has highlighted the role of data and analytics in enhancing decision-making and knowledge utilisation (Davenport, 2013) Therefore, Knowledge sharing is a link between knowledge creation and use because knowledge created and not shared will be limited, while knowledge created and shared but not used will be lost.

Islam et al. (2017) report that knowledge creation and use significantly contributed to the service innovation of librarians in academic libraries. Therefore, library workers must make reasonable efforts to apply the available knowledge for decision-making at different points of their operations. The organisation’s capability to appropriate its knowledge to vital business operations determines the business objectives of the knowledge management programme and its real benefits. Therefore, using knowledge certainly requires the active involvement of all librarians naturally organised in work environments in the library (Dul, Ceylan, & Jaspers, 2011).

3. Methodology

The study employed a descriptive survey of the correlational type as the research design. The study was conducted in the forty (40) federal universities in Nigeria. The study population comprised 654 librarians and were enumerated, with 518 copies of the questionnaire returned, giving 79.2% response rate. The instrument of data collection was a questionnaire. The reliability of the instrument was achieved when it was administered to 30 librarians in the state universities that have common characteristics with the population of the study. The result of the reliability coefficient was r = 0.88. The questionnaire was administered after permission was obtained from the appropriate quarter. Five (5) research assistants were employed and trained to assist the researchers in administering the questionnaire. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used for data analysis in the study. The independent variables in this paper are knowledge creation and knowledge sharing, while the dependent variable is knowledge use. Four-point Likert scale rating was used because it offers a straightforward and easy-to-understand format, encourages respondents to make distinct choices and express their preferences or opinion more nuancedly.

4. Results presentation and discussion

4.1 Demographic characteristics of respondents

4.1.1 Demographic profile of respondents

The demographic characteristics of the respondents were analysed using descriptive statistics (frequency counts and percentages), and the result is presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the respondents

From the demographic characteristics of the respondents, Librarian 11 dominated the status 134 (25.9%). This was followed by Librarian I Officers 111 (21.4%) and Assistant Librarians 109 (21.0%), respectively. The gender shows more males, 306 (59.1%) than females 212 (40.9%) librarians work in the federal universities in Nigeria. The marital status reveals more married 432 (83.4%) than single 81 (15.6%) librarians work in federal universities in Nigeria. Based on the highest academic qualification of the respondents, holders of Master’s degrees 325 (62.7%) are the majority. The majority of the librarians work in Cataloguing/Classification Unit 104 (20.1%) and Circulation Unit 85 (16.4%), respectively.

4.2 Research Questions

∙ Research question 1: What are the knowledge created and shared among librarians used for in federal universities in Nigeria?

Table 2 presents what the knowledge created and shared are used for by the librarians. Librarians in the Nigerians’ federal universities applied new ideas gained from the knowledge created and shared to:

Table 2.

The use of knowledge created and shared by librarians

• ⅰ. Enhance their work performance,
• ⅱ. Publish more scholarly papers,
• ⅲ. Generate new research skills,
• ⅳ. Enhancement of information searching skills
• ⅴ. Make work easier, especially in cataloguing and classification of information materials, referencing services, ICT, serial management etc.
• ⅵ. Present better seminars/workshops paper

∙ Research question 2: How does knowledge created and shared among the Librarians enhance their job performance?

Table 3 displays the combined impact of knowledge creation and sharing on the job performance of librarians in federal universities in Nigeria. The table reports a coefficient of multiple correlation (R = .624) and a multiple R2 of .389, indicating that when taken together, the two predictor variables account for 38.9% of the variance. The composite contribution’s significance was evaluated at α = 0.05. Additionally, the table presents the results of the regression analysis of variance, which yielded an F-ratio of 164.265 (significant at the 0.05 level). This suggests that the joint effect of the independent variables on the dependent variable was statistically significant and that other variables not included in this model may have contributed to the remaining variance.

Table 3.

Summary of Regression analysis showing the joint contribution of knowledge created and shared by librarians on their job performance

4.3 Testing of hypotheses

Ho1: There is no significant relationship between knowledge creation and knowledge sharing of librarians in federal universities in Nigeria

Based on the findings of Table 4, a positive and statistically significant relationship (r = .516*, N = 518, p < .05) exists between the knowledge creation and sharing practices of librarians in federal universities in Nigeria. This suggests that knowledge creation is positively linked to knowledge sharing among librarians in federal universities in Nigeria, leading to the rejection of the null hypothesis. The results support the idea that knowledge sharing among librarians is crucial for maximising the impact of knowledge creation efforts. It is after librarians share the knowledge created on the job schedule with one another and the knowledge is applied before it will help librarians improve their work performance in the universities sampled.

Table 4.

Pearson Product Moment Correlation showing the relationship between knowledge creation and knowledge sharing by librarians

Ho2: There is no significant relationship between knowledge sharing and knowledge use of librarians in federal universities in Nigeria

Table 5 showed that there was a positive significant relationship between knowledge sharing and knowledge use of librarians in federal Universities in Nigeria (r = .628*, N= 518, p <.05). Hence, knowledge use is positively associated with sharing of knowledge by librarians in Nigerians’ federal universities. The null hypothesis is therefore rejected.

Table 5.

Pearson Product Moment Correlation showing the relationship between knowledge sharing and knowledge use by librarians

The result established that when the librarians share knowledge among themselves, it will enhance its use. This will, in turn, forestall the challenges that usually arise when there is turnover intention among library personnel and further prevent gaps in knowledge among different categories of librarians in the universities. When shared knowledge is used, it will help librarians in their different contexts to improve their work performance and the sustainability of their institution, especially in the present-day knowledge economy.

Ho3: There is no significant relationship between knowledge creation and knowledge use of Librarians in federal universities in Nigeria

Table 6 established a positive significant relationship between knowledge creation and knowledge use by librarians in Nigerians’ federal universities (r = .519*, N= 518, p <.05). Hence, knowledge creation is positively associated with the knowledge use of the librarians in federal universities in Nigeria.

Table 6.

Pearson Product Moment Correlation showing the relationship between knowledge creation and knowledge use by librarians

The null hypothesis is rejected because knowledge creation positively correlates with knowledge use. The rejected hypothesis implies that librarians are encouraged to create more knowledge either as products or services. The more the librarians create knowledge, the better the work performance and sustainability of the institution in the present-day knowledge economy.

Ho4: Knowledge creation and knowledge sharing will not significantly predict the knowledge use of librarians in federal universities in Nigeria

According to Table 7, the collective impact of knowledge creation and sharing on the knowledge used by librarians in Nigerians’ federal universities was substantial. The table shows a coefficient of multiple correlation of R = .668 and a multiple R2 of .446, indicating that the predictor variables account for 44.6% of the variance when considered together. The composite contribution’s significance was assessed at <.05. Additionally, the table reports that the analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the regression produced an F-ratio of 207.174, indicating that the independent variables’ joint effect on the dependent variable was statistically significant. However, other variables not included in this model may have contributed to the remaining variance.

Table 7.

Summary of Regression Analysis showing the joint contribution of knowledge creation and knowledge sharing on knowledge use by librarians

Top of Form

The implication of these findings on librarianship as a profession is that library administrators and University Management should invest in university libraries and the librarians by setting aside funds for librarians to execute laudable projects where knowledge can be created by the librarians.

Similarly, since knowledge sharing is a predictor of knowledge use, there should be incentives for librarians who share knowledge with colleagues.

5. Conclusion

The study established that knowledge is created and shared among librarians in Nigerian federal universities. It further established that knowledge created and shared among librarians is used to enhance work performance, publish more scholarly papers, generate new research skills and make their work easier, most especially in cataloguing and classifying information materials. This should be sustained by the library administrators in Nigeria.

6. Recommendations

To sustain the result of the findings on knowledge use among librarians, workshops and seminars should be organised regularly by library Administrators and coordinating bodies of librarianship on effective use of knowledge among librarians. Considering the place of the library in the education industry, if the culture of knowledge creation and sharing is sustained, the library users, the member of the faculty and the non-academic staff will benefit immensely, thereby helping to improve societal needs where knowledge creation can be encouraged in universities. It is worthy of note that without the creation of knowledge, how would it be shared among the librarians? If knowledge is not shared, its use or application for societal development cannot be feasible. Therefore, every necessary effort to ensure that knowledge is created, shared and used must be taken by all stakeholders.

References

• Adogbeji, O., & Toyo, O. (2006). The impact of the internet on research: the experience of Delta State University Nigeria. Library Philosophy and Practice, 8, 2.
• Agba, D. M., Kigongo-Bukenya, I. M. N., & Nyumba, J. B. (2004). Use of electronic information resources by academic staff at Makerere University. University of Dar Es Salaam Library Journal, 6(1), 18-29. [https://doi.org/10.4314/udslj.v6i1.26613]
• Anna, N. O. V., & Puspitasari, D. (2013). Knowledge sharing in libraries: A case study of knowledge management strategies in Indonesian university libraries. IFLA WLIC, 2013. 11p Singapore.
• Attafar, A., Soleimani, M., Shahnazari, A., & Shahin, A. (2012). The relationship between enhancement of human resource productivity and knowledge management in Iranian libraries: A correlation analysis. African Journal of Business Management, 6(8), 3094-3099. [https://doi.org/10.5897/AJBM11.2671]
• Awodoyin, A., Osisanwo, T., Adetoro, N., & Adeyemo, I. (2016). Knowledge sharing behaviour pattern analysis of academic librarians in Nigeria. Journal of Balkan Libraries Union, 4(1), 12-19.
• Barley, W. C., Treem, J. W., & Kuhn, T. (2018). Valuing multiple trajectories of knowledge: A critical review and agenda for knowledge management research. Academy of Management Annals, 12(1), 278-317. [https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0041]
• Bbojaraju, G. (2005). Knowledge management: Why do we need it for corporates? Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science, 19(2), 37-50.
• Blau, P. (1964). Power and exchange in social life. NY: John Wiley & Sons.
• Davenport, T. H. (2013). Big Data at Work: Dispelling the Myths, Uncovering the Opportunities. Harvard Business Press.
• Dul, J., Ceylan, C., & Jaspers, F. (2011). Knowledge workers’ creativity and the role of the physical work environment. Human Resource Management, 50(6), 715-734. [https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20454]
• Fang, Y., Jiang F. Makino, S., & Beamish, P. W. (2010). Multinational firm knowledge, use of expatriates and foreign subsidiary performance. Journal of Management Studies, 46(1), 27-54. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00850.x]
• Ferguson, S., Hider, P., & Lloyd, A. (2008). Are librarians the ultimate knowledge managers? A study of knowledge skills, practice and mindset. Australian Library Journal, 57(1), 39-62. http:search.ebscohost.com/login.aspexdirect=true&db=lih&AN=31504718&lang=pt-br&site= ehost-live>Retrieved Jun. 25, 2015. [https://doi.org/10.1080/00049670.2008.10722440]
• Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Bate, P., Macfarlane, F., & Kyriakidou, O. (2005). Diffusion of innovations in health service organisations. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell publishing Ltd. [https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470987407]
• Hislop, D. (2013). Knowledge management in organisations: A critical introduction. 3rd Ed. UK: Oxford University Press.
• Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behaviours of exchange. The American Journal of Sociology, 597-606. [https://doi.org/10.1086/222355]
• Hughes, H. (2006). Responses and influences: a model of online information use for learning. Information Research, 12(1). Retrieved Jul. 23, 2015, from http://information.net/r/12-1/paper279.html
• Husain, S., & Nazim, M. (2013). Concepts of knowledge management among library and information science professionals. International Journal of Information Dissemination and Technology, 3(4), 264-269.
• Islam, M. A., Agarwal, N. K., & Ikeda, M. (2017). Effect of knowledge management on service innovation in academic libraries. International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, 43(3), 266-281 [https://doi.org/10.1177/0340035217710538]
• Jia, F., SougGen, J., & Shi, Y. (2012). The application of socialisation, externalisation combination internalisation model in library knowledge management. International conference on Mechanical Engineering and Automation (ICMEA, 2012). Advances in Biomedical Engineering, 10, 359-363.
• Kemoni, H. N. (2002). The utilisation of archival information by researchers in Kenya: A case study of the University of Nairobi. African Journal of Library, Archives and Information Science, 12(1), 69-80.
• Kulkarni, U. R., Ravindran, S., & Freeze, R. (2006). A knowledge management success model: Theoretical development and empirical validation. Journal of Management Information Systems, 23(3), 309-347. [https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222230311]
• Lin, H. F. (2007). Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capability: An empirical study. International Journal of Manpower, 28(3/4), 325-332. [https://doi.org/10.1108/01437720710755272]
• Mavodza, J., & Ngulube, P. (2011). Exploring the use of knowledge management practices in an academic library in a changing information environment. Library and Information Association of South Africa, 77(1), 15-25. Retrieved from: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lih&AN=65123316&lang=pt-br&site =ehost-live. on Aug. 8, 2015. [https://doi.org/10.7553/77-1-63]
• Nonaka I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation, Oxford University Press: NY. [https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195092691.001.0001]
• Noor, S., Ismail, K., Ali, S., & Arif, A. (2014). Knowledge creating capabilities and entrepreneurship. World Applied Sciences Journal, 32(7), 1192-1203.
• Okonedo, S., & Popoola, S. O. (2012). Effect of self-concept, knowledge sharing and utilization on research productivity among librarians in public universities in South-west Nigeria. Library Philosophy and Practice e-journal, 1-9 Received on 27/4/2014 from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/322
• Omotayo, F. O. (2015). Knowledge management as an important tool in organisational management: A review of literature. Library Philosophy and Practice e-journal. Retrieved from: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1238 on Aug. 8, 2016
• Oshri, I. (2006). Knowledge reuse. Encyclopedia of knowledge management. Idea Group. [https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59140-573-3.ch063]
• Pooncothai, R. (2016). Knowledge management as an important tool in library management. International Journal of Information Technology and Library Science, 5(1), 9-14.
• Ralph, L., & Tijerino, C. (2013). Knowledge management and library culture. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 16(4), 329-327. Retrieved from: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lih&AN=65123316&lang=pt-br&site =ehost-live.Retrieved: on Jun. 15, 2015. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10691310903355960]
• Rane, V. (2002). Knowledge management: Initiatives at NMIMS. Paper presented at the MANLIBNET 4th Annual National Convention April, 3-5, 2002, at the National institute of financiRavindranal management, Faridabad.
• Salisbury, M. W. (2003). Putting theory to practice to build knowledge management systems. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(2), 128-141. [https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270310477333]
• Sánchez, J. H., Sánchez, Y. H., Collado-Ruiz, D., & Cebrián-Tarrasón, D. (2013). Knowledge creating and sharing corporate culture framework. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 74, 388-397. Retrieved from:www.sciencedirect.comon Jun. 15, 2015 [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.03.029]
• Savolainen, R. (2009). Epistemic work and knowing in practice as conceptualisations of information use. Information Research, 14(1), 392. Retrieved Aug. 22, 2014, from http://information.net/ir/14-1/paper392.html
• Senapathi, R. (2011). Dissemination and utilisation knowledge. SCMS Journal of Indian Management, 85-105.
• Shokeen, A., & Kaushik, S. K. (2002). Information seeking behaviour of social scientists of Hanyana universities. Library Herald, 4(1), 28-35.
• Suorsa, A., & Huotari, M. (2014). Knowledge creation in interactive events: A pilot study in the joy of reading programme. Information Research, 19(4), 1-11.
• Tootell, A., Kyriazis, E., Billsberry, J., Ambrosini, V., Garrett-Jones, S., & Wallace, G. (2021). Knowledge creation in complex inter-organizational arrangements: understanding the barriers and enablers of university-industry knowledge creation in science-based cooperation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 25(4), 743-769. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-06-2020-0461 [https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-06-2020-0461]
• Uriarte, F. (2008). Introduction to knowledge management: A brief introduction to the basic elements of knowledge management for non-practitioners interested in understanding the subject: Indonesia, ASEAN Foundation.
• Wang, S., & Noe, R. A. (2010). Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research. Human Resources Management, 20, 115-131. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.10.001]
• Yang, H. L., & Wu, T. C. (2008). Knowledge sharing in organisation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75(8), 1128-1156. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2007.11.008]
• Yesil, S., & Dereli, S. F. (2013). An empirical investigation of the organisational justice, knowledge sharing and innovation capability. Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences, 75, 199-208. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.04.023]
• Zhang, H. (2008). Research on knowledge sharing mechanism based on Web 2.0. International seminar on Future Technology and Management Engineering, IEEE Proceedings, Computer Society. [https://doi.org/10.1109/FITME.2008.14]