Revisión sistemática exploratoria sobre el intercambio de conocimiento en las comunidades de práctica virtuales

  1. Roberto Hernández-Soto 1
  2. Mónica Gutiérrez-Ortega 1
  3. Bartolomé Rubia-Avi 2
  1. 1 Universidad Internacional de la Rioja, España
  2. 2 Universidad de Valladolid, España
Revista:
New Trends in Qualitative Research

ISSN: 2184-7770

Ano de publicación: 2021

Título do exemplar: Qualitative Research in Social Sciences: Advances and Challenges

Volume: 9

Tipo: Artigo

DOI: 10.36367/NTQR.9.2021.239-248 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso aberto editor

Outras publicacións en: New Trends in Qualitative Research

Resumo

Las Comunidades de Práctica Virtuales (VCOP) son entornos ampliamente reconocidos como instrumentos para la gestión de conocimiento y, de manera incipiente, se están empezando a valorar sus contribuciones desde el punto de vista sociocultural. Sin embargo, las VCOP son contextos de participación complejos por su naturaleza sociotécnica y sociocultural. Los mecanismos de participación, particularmente el comportamiento de compartir conocimiento (KSB), se han abordado desde fundamentos teóricos y métodos de investigación extremadamente heterogéneos. Como resultado, se ha identificado una gran dispersión de factores y dimensiones. Objetivo: Presentar una visión general que resuma y sistematice los factores clave del KSB en las VCOP. Método: Este artículo presenta una revisión sistemática sobre el KSB en las VCOP, basada en 42 estudios recuperados de WOS, SCOPUS y Science Direct. La revisión se ha realizado utilizando el modelo PRISMA. La selección y síntesis cualitativa de los artículos se ha enriquecido utilizando Nvivo para codificar y analizar los artículos a texto completo. Resultados: Los resultados sugieren que el KSB en las VCOP tiene un carácter multidimensional y multifactorial que incluye factores personales, interpersonales, contextuales y tecnológicos. Conclusiones: La tipología de factores que se presenta podría ser utilizada en contextos académicos para desarrollar nuevas investigaciones teóricas o empíricas, o como en contextos profesionales para implementar VCOPs en instituciones de diversos sectores. Nuevos instrumentos de evaluación sobre el KSB en las VCOP podrían basarse en esta tipología.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Alali, H., & Salim, J. (2013). Virtual communities of practice success in healthcare sector. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 411, 950–953. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.411-414.950
  • Annabi, H., & McGann, S. T. (2013). Social media as the missing link: Connecting communities of practice to business strategy. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 23(1-2), 56-83. https://doi.org/10.1080/10919392.2013.748608
  • Ardichvili, A. (2008). Learning and Knowledge Sharing in Virtual Communities of Practice: Motivators, Barriers, and Enablers. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10(4), 541–554. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422308319536
  • Ardichvili, A., Maurer, M., Li, W., Wentling, T., & Stuedemann, R. (2006). Cultural influences on knowledge sharing through online communities of practice. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(1), 94–107. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270610650139
  • Barnett, S., Jones, S. C., Caton, T., Iverson, D., Bennett, S., & Robinson, L. (2014). Implementing a virtual community of practice for family physician training: A mixed-methods case study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 16(3), e83. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.3083
  • Bicchi, F. (2011). The EU as a community of practice: foreign policy communications in the COREU network. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(8), 1115-1132. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2011.615200
  • Bolisani E., & Scarso, E. (2014). The place of communities of practice in knowledge management studies: a critical review. Journal of Knowledge Management, 18(2), 366-381. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-07-2013-0277
  • Bolisani, E., & Handzic, E. (Eds) (2015). Advances in Knowledge Management: Celebrating Twenty Years of Research and Practice. Springer.
  • Bourhis, A., & Dubé, L. (2010). «Structuring spontaneity»: Investigating the impact of management practices on the success of virtual communities of practice. Journal of Information Science, 36(2), 175–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551509357861
  • Brown, J.S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities of practice: Towards a unified view of working learning and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40–57. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2634938
  • Cooke, A., Smith, D., & Booth, A. (2012). Beyond PICO: the SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qualitative health research, 22(10), 1435-1443. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732312452938
  • Fang, Y. H., & Chiu, C. M. (2010). In justice we trust: Exploring knowledge-sharing continuance intentions in virtual communities of practice. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), 235–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.09.005
  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Routledge.
  • Hernández-Soto, R., Rodríguez-Medina, J. & Gutiérrez-Ortega, M. (2020). Trust and knowledge sharing in a transdisciplinary community of practice: a convergent parallel case study. Revista Latinoamericana de Tecnología Educativa, 19(2), 47-63. https://doi.org/10.17398/1695-288X.19.2.47
  • Hildreth, P., Kimble, C., & Wright, P. (2000). Communities of practice in the distributed international environment. Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(1), 27-38, https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270010315920
  • Hou, H. (2015). What makes an online community of practice work? A situated study of Chinese student teachers’ perceptions of online professional learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 46, 6–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.10.005
  • Jeon, S.-H., Kim, Y.-G., & Koh, J. (2011a). Individual, social, and organizational contexts for active knowledge sharing in communities of practice. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(10), 12423–12431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.023
  • Jeon, S., Kim, Y. G., & Koh, J. (2011b). An integrative model for knowledge sharing in communities-of-practice. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(2), 251–269. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271111119682
  • Kirkman, B. L., Mathieu, J. E., Cordery, J. L., Rosen, B., & Kukenberger, M. (2011). Managing a New Collaborative Entity in Business Organizations: Understanding Organizational Communities of Practice Effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1234–1245. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024198
  • Lampel, J., & Bhalla, A. (2007). Let’s get natural: The discourse of community and the problem of transferring practices in knowledge management. Management Decision, 45(7), 1069–1082. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740710773916
  • Lee-Kelley, L., & Turner, N. (2017). PMO managers’ self-determined participation in a purposeful virtual community-of-practice. International Journal of Project Management, 35(1), 64–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.09.014
  • McDermott, R., & Archibald, D. (2010). Harnessing your staff’s informal networks. Harvard Business Review, 88(3), 82–89.
  • Methley, A. M., Campbell, S., Chew-Graham, C., McNally, R., & Cheraghi-Sohi, S. (2014). PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: a comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews. BMC health services research, 14(1), 1-10. 10.1186/s12913-014-0579-0
  • Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
  • Nistor, N., & Fischer, F. (2012). Communities of practice in academia: Testing a quantitative model. Learning Culture and Social Interaction, 1(2), 114–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.05.005
  • Nistor, N., Baltes, B., Dasc?lu, M., Mih?il?, D., Smeaton, G., & Tr?u?an-Matu, ?. (2014). Participation in virtual academic communities of practice under the influence of technology acceptance and community factors. A learning analytics application. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 339–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.051
  • Retna, K. S., & Tee, P. N. (2011). Communities of practice: Dynamics and success factors. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 32(1), 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437731111099274
  • Sandelowski, M., & Barroso, J. (2002). Finding the findings in qualitative studies. Journal of nursing scholarship, 34(3), 213-219.
  • Soilemezi, D., & Linceviciute, S. (2018). Synthesizing qualitative research: reflections and lessons learnt by two new reviewers. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1), https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918768014
  • Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC medical research methodology, 8(1), 1-10. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-8-45
  • Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, Oliver S., & Craig J. (2012). Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol,12(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-181
  • Tseng, F.-C., & Kuo, F.Y. (2014). A study of social participation and knowledge sharing in the teachers’ online professional community of practice. Computers & Education, 72, 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.005
  • Usoro, A., & Majewski, G. (2011). Intensive knowledge sharing: Finnish Laurea lab case study. VINE, 41(1), 7–25. https://doi.org/10.1108/03055721111115520
  • Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice. Learning, meaning, and identity. University Press.
  • Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Harvard University Press.
Fonte de datos: Dialnet