820926

research-article2019
LIS0010.1177/0961000618820926Journal of Librarianship and Information ScienceAkosile and Olatokun

Article

Journal of Librarianship and

Factors influencing knowledge Information Science

1­–18
© The Author(s) 2019
sharing among academics in Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions

Bowen University, Nigeria DOI: 10.1177/0961000618820926

https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000618820926
journals.sagepub.com/home/lis

Adedolapo Akosile
Africa Regional Centre for Information Science, University of Ibadan, Nigeria

Wole Olatokun
Africa Regional Centre for Information Science, University of Ibadan, Nigeria

Abstract
This study was initiated to examine the factors that influence knowledge sharing among academics in Bowen University, Nigeria.
Although previous research has identified several factors that affect knowledge sharing, further research needs to be carried out
to ascertain factors that affect knowledge sharing, in particular among higher academic institutions, especially in Nigeria. Due to a
paucity of knowledge sharing research among faculty in Nigeria higher institutions and the fact that there is no existing framework that
provides all constructs needed to interrogate knowledge sharing among academics, the study examined the influence of organisational,
individual and technological factors on knowledge sharing behaviour of academics and the influence of demographic variables on how
they share knowledge. Survey design guided the study and a questionnaire was used to collect data from 151 respondents. Data
was analysed using descriptive statistics, Chi-square analysis and Logistic regression. Findings showed that among the organisational
factors, only university policy (β= .641, p= .023) significantly influences knowledge sharing while among individual factors only trust
(β= .785, p= .05) significantly influences knowledge sharing. None of the technological factors was found to influence knowledge
sharing. Gender has a significant influence on knowledge sharing while academic cadre and faculty do not. Personal satisfaction,
personal belief, mentoring, being knowledgeable and availability of fund/sponsorships were the other factors identified to influence
knowledge sharing behaviour. The findings have extended knowledge and theory building in knowledge sharing through the conceptual
framework. The study recommended that there should be a university policy on knowledge sharing which should be accompanied by
rewards to motivate academics to share their knowledge.

Keywords
Academics, Bowen University, knowledge, knowledge sharing

Introduction The emergence of a knowledge-based economy has given

Knowledge has recently been increasingly recognised as
one of the most valuable assets of an organisation (Zahari
et al., 2014). It is identified to be a source of competitive
advantage (Ngah and Ibrahim, 2010), a core competence
and tool for superior organisational performance (Lin,
2007b), and critical for the long-term sustainability and
success of any organisation, be it government owned or
private (Elogie, 2010). Knowledge is taken to be informa-
tion that has been understood and applied which helps in
decision making and also reduces uncertainty. It is the
‘insights, understandings, and practical know-how that
people possess and a fundamental resource that allows
people to function intelligently’ (Omotayo, 2015). The
global economy is moving from physical labour to knowl-
edge based (Cheng et al., 2009; Ngah and Ibrahim, 2010).
rise to placing emphasis on knowledge management pro-
cesses such as knowledge sharing. Noor et al. (2014)
regarded knowledge sharing as a fundamental part of
knowledge management because it enables knowledge to
be accessible and usable within and between organisa-
tions. Knowledge sharing has been defined as a social
interaction culture which involves the exchange of
employee knowledge, experiences and skills through the
whole organisation (Lin, 2007b). Knowledge sharing can
occur by means of direct interaction between individuals,
Corresponding author:
Wole Olatokun, Africa Regional Centre for Information Science,
University of Ibadan, No.6 Benue Road, Ibadan, OYO +234-80976,
Nigeria.
Email: woleabbeyolatokun@yahoo.co.uk
2 Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 00(0)
communication via online means, documents, handbooks
and expert lecturing (Noor et al., 2014).
An academic institution such as a university serves as a
knowledge repository, especially if knowledge has been
curated and organised. Knowledge is one of the most
important resources in an academic environment because
all institutions are knowledge centred. Managing knowl-
edge is thus key to organization performance. Teng and
Song (2011) noted that the importance of knowledge man-
agement is no longer restricted to knowledge-intensive
firms in the high-tech industries but to all sectors of the
economy. Thus, knowledge management is beneficial to
all sectors, be it educational, banking, telecommunica-
tions, production/manufacturing, and even the public sec-
tors. In the educational sector, an efficient way of managing
the diverse types and sources of knowledge used by aca-
demics towards sustainable performance improvement is
by sharing knowledge. Academics are knowledge produc-
ers and better knowledge-sharing practices could facilitate
the development of quality education and also improve
performance in their institutions (Jolaee et al., 2014).
However, knowledge is regarded as power and having
knowledge is similar to holding the competitive power of
the new economy (Cheng et al., 2009). This makes indi-
viduals reluctant to share. Cheng et al. (2009) also stated
that once knowledge is shared, it becomes a public good.
The perceived need to retain power has produced knowl-
edge hoarding among academics. This is in spite of the fact
that sharing also implies that the sender does not hand over
ownership of the knowledge, rather, it results in joint own-
ership of the knowledge between the sender and the bene-
ficiary (Ipe, 2003).
Several studies (Al-Alawi et al., 2007; Alam et al.,
2009; Cheng et al., 2009; Lin, 2007a, 2007b; Oluwaniran,
2015; Zawawi et al., 2011) have identified the factors that
can influence the success of knowledge sharing among
different groups and professionals. Noor et al. (2014)
noted that some factors are found to be attributed to cul-
tural factors while others viewed that successful knowl-
edge sharing is influenced by top management and
personal motivation. Further, many researchers claimed
that knowledge sharing could be influenced by rewards
and incentives (Al-Alawi et al., 2007; Alam et al., 2009;
Cheng et al., 2009). Recent trend attributes the knowledge
sharing to information technology (IT) and social media
(Alam et al., 2009; Lin 2007b; Supar, 2012). Findings of
researchers vary based on the nature of the organisations
and the industry in which the knowledge is being shared.
Although previous research has identified several factors
that affect knowledge sharing, further research needs to
be carried out to ascertain factors that affect knowledge
sharing, in particular among higher academic institutions
(Supar, 2012), especially in Nigeria. Existing studies on
knowledge sharing by academics (Elogie, 2010; Jolaee
et al., 2014) focus more on behavioural factors using dif-
ferent behavioural theories with little consideration for
organisational and IT-related factors. Worthy of note is
also the fact that little attention has been given to private
institutions where the ultimate goal is profit motivated
and knowledge sharing is important to its survival. The
study seeks to begin to fill these gaps in the knowledge-
sharing literature.
Therefore, following an extensive review of literature, a
conceptual framework was developed, mapping out direc-
tion to guide the study in examining the organisational
(organisational culture, reward system, management sup-
port and university policy), individual (knowledge self-
efficacy, trust, personal interactions, personal expectations
and willingness to share) and technological (availability of
IT infrastructure and usage of social media) factors influ-
encing knowledge sharing among academics in Bowen
University, Nigeria. It is one of the pioneer private univer-
sities in the country, established on 17 July 2001 and
located in Iwo, Osun State. The following research ques-
tions guided the study:
1. (a) What organisational factors influence knowl-
edge sharing among academics in Bowen
University?
(b) What types of rewards and incentives are pro-
vided by Bowen University to promote
knowledge sharing?
2. What individual factors influence knowledge shar-
ing among academics in Bowen University?
3. What technological factors influence knowledge
sharing among academics in Bowen University?
4. Do demographic variables (gender, academic
cadre, faculty) influence knowledge sharing among
academics in Bowen university?
5. What other factors influence knowledge sharing
among academics in Bowen University and to
what extent?
6. In what ways does Bowen University promote
knowledge sharing among its academics?
This rest of this paper is structured and organised as fol-
lows: the next section presents the review of related litera-
ture and the conceptual model that guided the study leading
to the formulation of research hypotheses. The methodo-
logical procedures adopted in the execution of the study are
then presented followed by the findings and discussion.
The conclusions and recommendations complete the paper.
Literature review and theoretical
framework
Conceptualising knowledge and knowledge
sharing
Knowledge is described as the result of interpreting infor-
mation based on one’s understanding (Al-Alawi et al.,
2007). It is usually based on learning, thinking and proper
Akosile and Olatokun 3
understanding of a problem. Knowledge exists not only in
documents but also in people’s minds and is exhibited
through their actions and behaviours (Al-Alawi et al.,
2007). Knowledge is invisible and lies in the human mind;
however, it can be documented which turns it into explicit
knowledge. Literature has revealed basically two major
types of knowledge: explicit knowledge and tacit knowl-
edge. Tacit knowledge is informal knowledge that is
embedded in mental processes, is obtained through experi-
ence and work practices, and can be transferred by observ-
ing and applying it (Jain et al., 2007). It is not easily
documented and cannot be easily communicated without
the owner of the knowledge being shared. Every employee
in the organisation has knowledge embedded in their
minds as tacit knowledge which often takes a longer pro-
cess to be extracted (Ipe, 2003). Examples of tacit knowl-
edge are insights, intuitions, gut feeling, ideas and visions
(Okyere-Kwakye et al., 2010). Explicit knowledge, on the
other hand, can be easily codified, stored and transferred
across time and space independent of individuals (Ipe,
2003). It is easily communicated and disseminated.
Explicit knowledge can be found in manuals, drawings,
audios and computer programmes.
The growing use of knowledge in businesses contrib-
uted to the emergence of the topic of knowledge manage-
ment, which is now an established topic in information
technology and management literature (Al-Alawi et al.,
2007). Knowledge management has given many organisa-
tions such as Xerox, IBM, Microsoft, Schlumberger
Limited, Shell, British Telecom and Mitsubishi, a sustain-
able competitive advantage, setting them at the high ranks
in their market domains (Okyere-Kwakye et al., 2010).
While traditional knowledge management emphasis was
placed on technology or systems that efficiently process
and leverage knowledge, the new model of knowledge
management involves people and actions. It aims at creat-
ing an environment where power equals sharing knowl-
edge rather than keeping it (Al-Alawi et al., 2007).
Okyere-Kwakye et al. (2010) observed that knowledge
sharing is perhaps the most important aspect of knowledge
management.
A review of literature has shown that there is no precise
definition of the concept of knowledge sharing. Knowledge
sharing has been defined in many ways depending on the
academic field of the authors. According to Zahari et al.
(2014), scholars and academicians interpret the concept of
knowledge sharing from different perspectives such as
that of knowledge interaction, learning, knowledge mar-
ket and communication. However, it has generally meant
transfer of knowledge between and among individuals.
Knowledge sharing between individuals is the process by
which knowledge held by an individual is converted into
a form that can be understood, absorbed and used by other
individuals (Ipe, 2003) and transferred to other individ-
uals. Knowledge sharing is basically the act of making
knowledge available to others within the organisation
(Ipe, 2003).
Lin (2007a) also defined knowledge sharing as a social
interaction culture, involving the exchange of employee
knowledge, experiences and skills through the whole
department or organisation. Lin went further to give exam-
ples of knowledge sharing to include employee willing-
ness to communicate actively, donate knowledge and
actively consult with colleagues to learn from them.
Examples of knowledge sharing are also given at the indi-
vidual and organisational levels: for individual employees,
knowledge sharing is talking to colleagues to help them
get something done better, more quickly or more effi-
ciently while for an organisation, knowledge sharing is
capturing, organising, reusing and transferring experience-
based knowledge that resides within the organisation and
making that knowledge available to others in the
business.
Knowledge sharing enables managers to keep individ-
ual learning flowing throughout the company and integrate
it for practical application (Ngah and Ibrahim, 2010).
Recently, many organisations have been encouraging
knowledge-sharing behaviour among their employees in
order to meet the organisation’s objectives and goals.
Since knowledge is dispersed and embedded in individu-
als, equipment or routines, it would be difficult to manage
knowledge-related activities if knowledge cannot be thor-
oughly shared within the organisation (Zahari et al., 2014).
Once knowledge is created, there is an economy of scale
that results from its sharing because two or more individu-
als can use knowledge at the same time which thus fuels
the creation of new knowledge (Zahari et al., 2014). The
tacit nature of knowledge sharing often gives rise to the
knowledge retention problem, making it pertinent to
quickly adopt procedures for knowledge sharing (Thorpe
et al., 2005). Without effective functioning of knowledge
sharing, the knowledge embedded and instilled in individ-
uals will be less likely to be transferred within the organi-
sation (Zahari et al., 2014). In order to create a culture of
knowledge sharing, organisations need to encourage
employees to work together more effectively to pool
resources and to share organisational knowledge more pro-
ductively so they can better perform their jobs (Zahari
et al., 2014).
In order to promote and enable knowledge sharing,
managers need to understand the motivations that drive
individuals to contribute their valuable knowledge (Liang
et al., 2008). Due to this reason and to the importance of
knowledge for the development and competitiveness of
enterprises in the information age, knowledge manage-
ment theoreticians and practitioners analyse sharing this
strategic, nonmaterial commodity from numerous perspec-
tives, trying to identify both the barriers to and factors
favouring knowledge exchange (Krok, 2013). Bock et al.
(2005) argued that even though knowledge sharing among
4 Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 00(0)
individuals has been recognised as a positive force for the
survival of an organisation, the factors that promote or dis-
courage knowledge-sharing intention and success in the
organisational context are still poorly understood.
Knowledge sharing among academics
According to Cheng et al. (2009) knowledge management
initiatives were first adopted in profit-oriented organisa-
tions, and thus, studies on knowledge management and
knowledge sharing were concentrated largely in business
organisations. However, recently, knowledge management
practices have also been extended to universities and other
knowledge-based institutions, which has made knowledge
sharing in academic institutions a popular debate. In gen-
eral, the roles of academic staff are teaching, researching,
consulting and publishing (Jolaee et al., 2014). Sharing of
knowledge among academics is important to improve the
quality and quantity of knowledge possessed by individu-
als, bring about creation of more knowledge and improve
the overall performance of the institution. In an academic
environment, particularly in universities, sharing of knowl-
edge is critically important because all staff often deal with
knowledge (Trehan and Kushwaha, 2012).
Knowledge sharing is envisaged as a natural activity of
academic institutions as the number of seminars, confer-
ences and publications by academics far exceeds any other
profession, signifying the eagerness of academics to share
knowledge. However, instead of knowledge sharing,
‘knowledge hoarding’ could be more prevalent in aca-
demic institutions (Cheng et al., 2009). Although there is
no direct way to measure the outcome of knowledge shar-
ing in knowledge institutions, the impact of knowledge
sharing in such environments could be larger than those
created by business organisations (Cheng et al., 2009). Just
as is the case in its application in business organisations,
knowledge management can also create a competitive
advantage for academic institutions, if utilised appropri-
ately. This is possible since the knowledge created and
stored will serve as the repository to benefit scholars and
researchers to advance the knowledge cycle and distin-
guish the institution in the academic market place (Basu
and Sengupta, 2007).
Saad and Haron (2013) carried out a qualitative
case study to explore and describe the academicians’
knowledge-sharing motivations in a Malaysian public uni-
versity. Data were collected through semi-structured inter-
views from a total of 15 renowned academics who were
interviewed and asked why they shared their knowledge.
The content analysis method was used to extract the
knowledge-sharing motivations from the qualitative data
and the research results reveal seven important factors
which motivate academics to share their knowledge. These
motivations are: build reputation, acknowledgement
(includes gain rewards, get a promotion and recognition),
to be knowledgeable, reciprocity, vision and mission, men-
toring, personal beliefs (includes culture, sense of respon-
sibility and religion).
Utilising the theory of reasoned action (TRA), Jolaee
et al. (2014) examined the relationship between attitude,
subjective norm and trust with knowledge-sharing inten-
tion, and also the relationship between self-efficacy, social
networks and extrinsic rewards with attitude toward
knowledge-sharing intention among academic staff in uni-
versities. A total of 117 responses from questionnaires
were gathered among academic staff at three social science
faculties in one public university in Malaysia. Partial Least
Square analysis was utilised to analyse the data and find-
ings indicated that of the two components of the TRA,
only attitude was positively and significantly related to
knowledge-sharing intention. The findings also show that
social network and self-efficacy significantly affect atti-
tude and organisational support showed a strong influence
on subjective norms toward knowledge-sharing intention.
Cheng et al. (2009) examined knowledge-sharing
behaviour among academics in a private university in
Malaysia. Factors affecting the willingness to share knowl-
edge were broadly classified as organisational, individual
and technological factors. Online questionnaires were dis-
tributed to all academics in the university and the analysis
and findings were based on the sample of 60 responses.
The questionnaire contained questions to elicit academics’
behaviour as the knowledge contributor and a few ques-
tions were also included to grasp respondents’ behaviour
as knowledge receiver at the same time. The overall find-
ings revealed that incentive systems and personal expecta-
tion are the two key factors in driving academics to engage
in knowledge-sharing activity. ‘Forced’ participation is not
an effective policy in cultivating sharing behaviour among
academics. Supar (2012) conducted a study to determine
the factors that affect knowledge sharing among academic
staff in Malaysian higher academic institutions. Based on
non-random purposive sampling, 194 academic staff from
public and private institutions located in the Klang Valley
area of Malaysia were selected to be included in the study.
A questionnaire was constructed to assess dimensions on
technology, knowledge sharing and performance. Findings
indicated that the technological factors of distributed
model and presence of IT for knowledge sharing are posi-
tively related to knowledge sharing and that knowledge
sharing is positively related to performance.
Theoretical framework
As stated above, different behavioural and social theories
have been used to explain the factors that affect knowledge
sharing in different organisational contexts. Two theories
of behaviour that have been used for investigating in the
context of knowledge sharing are the theory of reasoned
action (TRA) by Fishbein and Ajzen and its expanded
Akosile and Olatokun 5
version, the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) (Jolaee
et al., 2014; Krok, 2013). The theory of reasoned action
posits that individual beliefs and attitudes explain most
human behaviours (Lin, 2007a). TRA assumes individuals
to be rational and suggests that their behaviour is being
influenced by three elements, namely attitude towards the
behaviour, subjective norms and behavioural intention
(Jolaee et al., 2014). Similarly, according to the theory of
planned behaviour, every behaviour is preceded by a delib-
erate intention to do something, which is shaped by the
individual’s attitude towards that behaviour, a subjective
norm and a perceived behavioural control (Krok, 2013).
However, both the TRA and TPB are used for anticipating
planned, deliberate human behaviour rather than spontane-
ous behaviour that occurs as a result of a sudden external
factor (Krok, 2013). Also, Bousari and Hassanzadeh
(2012) stated that the factors that affect behaviour in
knowledge sharing can be reviewed based on the theory of
planned behaviour; however, those factors are not enough
to determine the performance of active behaviour, but
there is a collection of factors and infrastructures which
should be provided in addition to elements of the theory.
Furthermore, sometimes individuals may have the inten-
tion to share knowledge but lack of facilities and proper
organisational, cultural and economic infrastructures pre-
vent them from doing so (Bousari and Hassanzadeh, 2012).
The social exchange theory (SET) by Blau (1964), is a
commonly used theoretical base for investigating an indi-
vidual’s knowledge-sharing behaviour (Liang et al., 2008).
According to the theory, our actions are motivated by the
desire to maximise profit and minimise costs, and basic
human nature is being concerned about our own interests
(Krok, 2013). That is, individuals regulate their interac-
tions with other individuals based on a self-interest analy-
sis of the costs and benefits of such an interaction. (Liang
et al., 2008). According to the theory, there is no altruism,
which is defined as acting to benefit others without consid-
ering one’s own interest. However, different studies have
provided proofs to support the postulation about the exist-
ence of true altruism in research.
These theories have helped a lot to reveal the knowledge-
sharing behaviour and intention in organisations; however,
using one of the theories to explain knowledge-sharing
success can never be sufficient. This is because the variety
of determinants of knowledge sharing make it very diffi-
cult to find one universal model that presents this problem
from various perspectives, such as psychological, busi-
ness, organisational, sociological and technological
(Krok, 2013). Despite the use of the same theory, different
studies tend to adopt different factors to fit the theory
(Liang et al., 2008). Based on the factors developed and
derived from the literature and modified to suit the study
for university academics, a conceptual model is proposed
as shown in Figure 1. Variables in the model are organi-
sational factors (organisational culture, reward system,
management support, university policy), individual factors
(self-efficacy, trust and willingness to share, personal
interactions, personal expectations), and technological
factors (availability of IT infrastructure and social media
usage).
Each of the variables in the conceptual model is
described as follows:
a.  Organisational factors
Organisational factors are those factors external to the
individual. That is, they are factors not derived from the
individual personally; they can be environmental or caused
by another individual to stimulate the knowledge sharing
attitude (Cheng et al., 2009). Organisational factors are
categorised into organisational culture, reward system,
management support and university policy on knowledge
sharing.
(i) Organisational culture – culture is one of the main
factors that significantly contribute to the success
of knowledge sharing in literature (Alam et al.,
2009; Bousari and Hassanzadeh, 2012; Cheng
et al., 2009; Noor et al., 2014). Visible culture
includes the philosophy, mission and embraced
values that guide the daily operations of an organi-
sation (Kathiravelu et al., 2014). An institution that
encourages a culture of having vision and mission
for knowledge sharing, strategically planning
knowledge sharing, encouraging mentoring,
strengthening trust and communication among
employees, openness to change and innovativeness
will likely succeed at knowledge sharing.
(ii) Reward system – apart from organisational culture,
reward system is another important factor that is
often mentioned in studies as it has the ability to
affect the willingness of employees in an organisa-
tion to share or not to share knowledge (Alam
et al., 2009; Cheng et al., 2009; Ipe, 2003; Noor
et al., 2014; Saad and Haron, 2013). This is because
individuals generally are motivated by rewards and
incentives. Reward is one of the most effective
methods of encouraging employees to share their
knowledge with others (Alam et al., 2009). Reward
can be monetary or non-monetary. It can come in
form of monetary incentives such as increased sal-
ary or bonuses, or non-monetary rewards such as
promotion, job security (Lin, 2007b): recognition,
research grant, confirmation of position, reputa-
tion, or even being invited as an external
examiner.
(iii) Management support – top management support is
an important factor that influences organisational
knowledge (Lin, 2007b). Numerous studies have
found management support essential to creating a
6 Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 00(0)
Figure 1.  Conceptual framework.
supportive climate and providing sufficient
resources (Lin, 2007b). Organisational support is a
subjective measure of the degree of encouragement
provided to and experienced by an employee in
sharing solutions for work-related problems
through the openness of communication, opportu-
nity for face-to-face and electronic meetings to
share knowledge, and so on. An organisation seek-
ing to establish a knowledge-sharing culture must
ensure that the management supports the initiatives
and pays efforts and attentions to the practices of
knowledge sharing. That is, management must
support and enforce the positive behaviour of
knowledge sharing (Kathiravelu et al., 2014; Lin,
2007b).
(iv) University policy – very little research can be
found on the effect of a policy on knowledge shar-
ing (Grünfelder and Hartner, 2013). However,
establishing a knowledge-sharing policy is essen-
tial for a company to succeed because knowledge-
sharing policies are crucial to ensure a satisfying
performance for the company (Lodhi and Ahmad,
2010). A knowledge-sharing policy should support
the employee to share his/her knowledge on the
one hand and provide a guideline to keep a certain
standard on how to externalise knowledge from
tacit to explicit on the other hand (Grünfelder and
Hartner, 2013). Furthermore, Lohdi and Ahmad
(2010) explained that policies are real advantage
for management to create a culture of knowledge
sharing within a company. They stated that since
policies are in line with the management values,
they are the tools to generate the corporate culture
and thus, be the starting point for promotion and
development of knowledge-sharing activities.
Similarly, universities have policies on knowledge
sharing. For instance, academic titles and appoint-
ments may be based on such criteria as academic
responsibilities and professional achievement in
areas of teaching, research, public lectures, publi-
cations, contributing to institutional repository,
mentoring, and so on. Grünfelder and Hartner,
(2013) posited that having an associated promotion
plan with the knowledge-sharing policy would
ensure that the employees would recognize the
necessity to share their knowledge
b.  Individual factors
Individual factors are on the other hand intrinsic and more
personal. They are factors derived from individually-
driven considerations. That means it comes from the per-
son’s internal being (Cheng et al., 2009). Individual factors
are categorised into knowledge self-efficacy, trust, per-
sonal interactions, personal expectations and willingness
to share.
Akosile and Olatokun 7
(i) Knowledge self-efficacy – knowledge self-efficacy
has to do with people’s judgments of their capabili-
ties to share knowledge, that is, how they perceive
the extent to which they can disseminate informa-
tion. When people think that their expertise and
know-how can improve work efficiency and
increase productivity, their attitude will change
(Bock et al., 2005). Therefore, employees who
believe that they can contribute to organisational
performance by sharing knowledge, will develop
greater positive willingness to contribute and to
receive knowledge (Lin, 2007b).
(ii) Trust – trust is a factor that has been frequently
found to affect knowledge sharing (Alam et al.,
2009; Bousari and Hassanzadeh, 2012; Cheng
et al., 2009; Jolaee et al., 2014; Okyere-Kwakye
et al., 2010). The common definition of trust that
most researchers agree on is ‘a psychological state
of willingness to be vulnerable based on the posi-
tive expectations of the intentions or behaviour of
another’ (Abdullah et al., 2011). Trust is the most
effective and at the same time least costly means
that can motivate people to share their individual
knowledge. Trust creates and maintains exchange
relationships, which in turn may lead to the sharing
of good quality knowledge (Liang et al., 2008).
Individuals will be willing to share their knowl-
edge with others if they feel that the person can be
trusted. Higher trust will make people not think
about any future negative occurrence on the
knowledge-sharing activity and to share their
knowledge more freely (Lin, 2007a).
(iii) Personal interactions – knowledge sharing actually
occurs without our realisation. Knowledge transfer
can happen while communicating or talking with
people (Alam et al., 2009). Employees should
interact more in order to gain knowledge. When
both employees and employers communicate, it
indirectly reduces the status differentials among
them which may increase the knowledge sharing
(Connelly and Kelloway, 2003, as cited in Alam
et al., 2009). This also suggests that when senior
academics and junior academics interact more, it
reduces status differentials, thereby, increasing
knowledge sharing.
(iv) Personal expectations – in order to contribute
knowledge, individuals must think that their con-
tribution to others will be worth the effort and that
some new value will be created, with the expecta-
tions of receiving some of that value for themselves
(Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998, as cited in Wasko
and Faraj, 2005). Expectations such as being rec-
ognised as the expert in the area, as a contributor to
improve the knowledge repository in an institution
and as connector to link other researchers working
on same research area (Cheng et al., 2009), build a
good reputation and improve their status within
their social group (Liang et al., 2008), approval,
respect and so on.
(v) Willingness to share – willingness to share knowl-
edge with other people is a very important consid-
eration in knowledge sharing. It refers to a person’s
readiness to share valuable and useful knowledge
with others, that is, how disposed a person is
towards the practice of sharing knowledge.
Willingness to share is critical and should be stud-
ied as a factor. This is because even when the other
factors are present, an individual may still choose
to hoard knowledge. However, elements such as
altruism, self-satisfaction, enjoyment in helping
others, willingness of mentee, empathy, attitude,
desire to build reputation, personal relationship can
enhance a person’s willingness to share.
c.  Technological factors
Technological factors are important in sharing knowledge
in this information age because knowledge has to be shared
through means and channels. Technological factors are
categorised into availability of IT infrastructure and usage
of social media.
(i) Availability of IT infrastructure – IT has the poten-
tial of acquisition, storage, processing, retrieving
and transferring the knowledge and enables indi-
viduals, geographically close or far from each
other, to share their knowledge simultaneously or
separately (Bousari and Hassanzadeh, 2012). Zack
(1999, as cited in Lin, 2007b) also believes that
ICT plays the following three different roles in
knowledge management activities: (a) obtaining
knowledge (b) defining, storing, categorising,
indexing and linking knowledge-related digital
items (c) seeking and identifying related content.
Top (2012), found empirically that the highest risk
in in-house knowledge sharing, is the lack of tech-
nical infrastructure and information system.
Availability of IT infrastructure not only allows
employees to share their knowledge internally but
also across a wide geographical separation. Thus,
technical infrastructure and IT provide employees
with the ability to share, obtain feedback and create
ideas.
(ii) Usage of social media – traditional means of shar-
ing knowledge among academics includes face-to-
face, training, seminar and workshop, reading of
manual and instructions and so on. However, due
to the advancement in technology many means
have developed, one of the most important of
which is the social media (Noor et al., 2014). Social
8 Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 00(0)
media is no longer an insignificant phenomenon;
tools like Facebook, LinkedIn or YouTube have
become very popular in the world of today. Social
media has modified personal relationships, allowed
individuals to contribute to a number of issues and
generate new possibilities and challenges to facili-
tate collaboration (Gaal et al., 2015). As a result,
organisations are increasingly finding ways of inte-
grating social media into their business processes.
Social media also helps individuals who are shy or
very busy to share their knowledge because it
reduces physical contact.
Methodology
The study utilised a survey design approach (quantitative)
covering academics in various faculties in Bowen
University. Due to the relatively small size of the popula-
tion, a total enumeration of the population was carried out.
The study focused on academics at different cadres and
from the six faculties present on the university campus.
The population of the study comprised Professors, Readers,
Senior Lecturers, Lecturer I, Lecturer II and Assistant
Lecturers in the university which came to a total of 250
academics. Data were collected using a validated question-
naire, the questions in which were structured in sections
based on the variables the study intended to measure. The
questionnaire was divided into two parts. Part A captured
demographic information from the respondents. Part B
was divided into four sections and most items were adopted
from previous studies and modified to fit in the context of
this study, while others were developed by the researchers.
The content of Part B is detailed as follows:
Section 1: Organisational factors – measures organisa-
tional culture (Jain et al., 2007), reward system
(Kathiravelu, 2013, cited in Oluwaniran, 2015), man-
agement support (Jain et al., 2007), and university
policy.
Section 2: Individual factors – measures knowledge
self-efficacy (Jain et al., 2007; Wangpipatwong, 2009),
trust (Kathiravelu, 2013), personal interactions, per-
sonal expectations and willingness to share
(Wangpipatwong, 2009).
Section 3: Technological factors – measures availabil-
ity of IT infrastructure (Jain et al., 2007; Kathiravelu,
2013) and usage of social media
Section 4: Knowledge-sharing behaviour (Elogie, 2010;
Jain et al., 2007; Mustapha and Abubakar, 2008)
The questionnaire had a five-point Likert scale closed-
ended questions from 1 – Strongly agree to 5 – Strongly
disagree. The last section provided open-ended questions
to gather information on the types of rewards and incen-
tives provided by Bowen University to encourage knowl-
edge sharing, ways in which it promotes knowledge
sharing among its academics and other factors that may
influence knowledge sharing among them. Copies of the
questionnaire were self-administered with the assistance
of secretaries from the various departments. Electronic
copies of the questionnaire were later administered in
order to facilitate and speed up the process of data collec-
tion. Out of 250 copies of the questionnaire administered,
only 133 were filled and returned and only 18 responses
were received from the electronic form sent out, making a
total of 151 responses which was 60.4% return rate.
Data collected from the questionnaire were coded and
analysed using the statistical package for the social sci-
ences (SPSS) version 20. Descriptive statistics was used to
describe the socio-demographic characteristics of the
respondents and other variables in the study. Chi-square
analysis was used to determine if there were significant
associations between gender, academic cadre and faculty
and knowledge sharing among academics. Logistic regres-
sion analysis was carried out to determine if one or more
independent variable had influence on the dependent vari-
able and the extent of influence. The dependent variable
was measured as a dummy variable with codes of 0 and 1.
Zero implies that respondents will not share knowledge
while one implies that respondents will share knowledge
with other colleagues in the institution.
Results
In this section the results from the study were presented
starting with the socio-demographic characteristics of the
respondents as presented in Table 1.
The demographic characteristics of the respondents
presented in Table 1 revealed that the male respondents
accounted for a majority of the respondents with 73%
while about 27% are female. The largest proportion of the
respondents was within the age group of 50 years and
above (32%) while young men and women below 30
years are least represented (6.0%). This implies that for
this survey, the majority of the respondents are mature
adults. As expected in academia, most (51%) of the
respondents have PhDs, approximately 7% have MPhils
while 40% have Master’s/PGD. A majority (29%) of the
respondents have below five years’ working experience in
the academic institution, followed by those who have 10–
14years of work experience (20%): while those who have
worked between 20 and 24 years are the least represented
(3%). A large proportion (76%) of the respondents are
either Lecturer I or II or Assistant Lecturer, about 17% are
Senior Lecturers, while only 8% belong to the Professorial
cadre. Most of the respondents (29%) are from the Faculty
of Science and Science Education while the Faculty of
Social and Management Science comes next at 28%, and
Akosile and Olatokun 9

Table 1.  Distribution of socio-demographic data of the Table 2.  Logistic regression showing the factors influencing
respondents. knowledge sharing among academics.

Variable Frequency Percentage Independent variables B SE Sig. Exp. (B)

Gender Organisational factors
Male 110 72.8
Female 41 27.2 Organisational culture .320 .253 .206 1.377
Age Reward system −.286 .287 .319 .751
Below 30 9 6.0 Management support −.109 .270 .687 .897
30–34 21 13.9 University policy .641 .282 .023 1.899
35–39 18 11.9 Individual factors  
40–44 29 19.2 Knowledge self-efficacy .273 .341 .423 1.314
45–49 25 16.6 Trust .785 .277 .005 2.192
50 and above 48 31.8 Personal interactions −.010 .276 .972 .990
Highest level of education Personal expectations −.002 .266 .994 .998
Master’s/PGD 61 40.4 Willingness to share .437 .335 .192 1.549
MPhil. 11 7.3 Technological  
factors
PhD 77 51.0
Availability of IT −.107 .294 .715 .898
No response 2 1.3
infrastructure
Level of experience
Social media usage .098 .233 .675 1.103
Below 5 years 43 28.5
Constant −5.639 2.237 .012 .004
5–9years 33 21.9
10–14years 31 20.5 Dependent variable: knowledge-sharing behaviour.
15–19years 16 10.6
20–24years 4 2.6
25–29years 6 4.0 The results pertaining to research question 1(a), 2 and 3
30 years and above 17 11.3 are presented as follows.
Academic cadre
Lecturer 114 75.5
Senior Lecturer 25 16.6
Research question 1(a): What organisational
Professorial 12 7.9 factors influence knowledge sharing among
Faculty academics in Bowen University?
Agriculture 21 13.9
Table 2 revealed that organisational culture has a positive
Basic Medical Sciences 13 8.6
and weak correlation with knowledge-sharing behaviour
Humanities 20 13.2
Law 11 7.3
(KSB) (β= .320) with no significant influence. In addition,
Science and Science Education 44 29.1 the reward system and management support both have a
Social and Management Science 42 27.8 negative and weak correlation with no significant influ-
ence. However, university policy has a positive and strong
significant influence on knowledge sharing behaviour
the least represented is 7% from the Faculty of Law, while (β= .641).
Accounting is ranked highest at the departmental level.
Research question 2: What individual factors
Evaluation of research questions influence knowledge sharing among academics
In order to answer research questions 1(a), 2 and 3, binary
in Bowen University?
logistic regression was used to ascertain the extent at Table 2 revealed that knowledge self-efficacy of the
which certain variables could increase or decrease the like- respondents has a positive and weak correlation with
lihood that respondents will share knowledge. In the result knowledge-sharing behaviour (β= .273); however, there is
presented in Table 2, the regression coefficient estimates no significant influence (p= .423 > 0.05). There is also a
the change in the odds ratio of the knowledge-sharing positive and strong relationship between trust and
behaviour of the respondents which is presented as Exp. knowledge-sharing behaviour (β= .785). It also indicates a
(B) in the results on the table. If the value exceeds 1 then it significant slope (p=0.05). In addition, personal interac-
predicts that there is an increasing likelihood that the tion has a negative and weak influence on knowledge-
respondents will share knowledge while less than 1 implies sharing behaviour (β= -.010) and has no significant slope
that the likelihood that the respondents will share knowl- (p= .972 > 0.05). The result also showed that personal
edge drops based on the independent variable factors. expectations of the respondents does not significantly
10 Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 00(0)

influence knowledge-sharing behaviour because p-value is Table 3.  Percentage distribution of types of rewards and
greater than 0.05 level of significance (p= .994). The will- incentives offered for knowledge sharing.
ingness to share knowledge also does not significantly Reward and incentives Frequency Percentage
influence knowledge-sharing behaviour (p= .192 > 0.05). provided for knowledge
sharing
Research question 3: What technological Awards/Recognition/ 52 52.5
factors influence knowledge sharing among Appreciation
Salary/Bonus 7 7.1
academics in Bowen University?
Promotion 5 5.1
As shown in Table 2, there is no significant relationship Funding 7 7.1
between availability of IT infrastructure in the institution None 28 28.3
and knowledge-sharing behaviour (β= -.107, p= .715 >
0.05). Also, social media usage has a positive and weak
correlation but no significant influence on knowledge Table 4.  Chi-square analysis showing the socio-demographic
sharing (β= .098, p= .675>0.05). factors influencing knowledge sharing among academics.
Furthermore, the findings indicate that the presence of Variables Response (%)
organisational culture that promotes and supports knowl-
edge sharing increases the likelihood that respondents will   Do not share Share
share their knowledge – Exp. (B)= 1.377. Also, the exist- Gender  
ence of university policies on knowledge sharing increases Male 2.8 97.2
the likelihood that respondents will share their knowledge – Female 26.8 73.2
Exp. (B)= 1.899. In connection to this, knowledge self- Χ2= 20.410, df= 1, p= .000
efficacy of the respondents increases the likelihood that Academic cadre  
they will share their knowledge – Exp. (B)= 1.314. Also, Lecturer 10.6 89.4
respondents that have high level of trust are more likely to Senior Lecturer 0.0 100.0
share knowledge – Exp. (B)= 2.192. Willingness of Professorial 16.7 83.3
respondents to share also increases the likelihood that they Χ2= 3.557, df= 2, p= .169
will share their knowledge – Exp. (B)= 1.549. Finally, Faculty  
usage of social media among respondents for knowledge Agriculture 15.0 85.0
sharing increases the likelihood that they will share their Basic Medical Sciences 7.7 92.3
knowledge – Exp. (B)= 1.103. Humanities 10.0 90.0
Law 0.0 100.0
Science and Science 9.1 90.9
Research question 1(b): What types of Education
rewards and incentives are provided by Bowen Social and Management 9.5 90.5
Science
University to promote knowledge sharing? Χ2= 1.948, df= 5, p= .856
In order to answer research question 1(b), an open-ended
question was structured at the end of the questionnaire to
know what types of rewards and incentives are provided Research question 4: Do demographic variables
by Bowen University to promote knowledge sharing. The (gender, academic cadre, faculty) influence
answers that emerged were awards, recognition, salary, knowledge sharing among academics in Bowen
academic promotions, letter of appreciation, bonus, spon-
sorships for conferences and seminar as presented in
University?
Table 3. In order to answer research question 4, cross tabulations
Results in Table 3 showed that more than half of the and Chi-square analysis were carried out to determine
respondents (53%) identified that awards/recognition/ which of the groups of each of the demographic variables
appreciation are offered for knowledge sharing in the insti- share knowledge the most and to check if there is a signifi-
tution. About 7% each identified salary/bonus and funding cant association between socio-demographic variables:
rewards and incentives offered for knowledge sharing, 5% gender, academic cadre and faculty and knowledge shar-
cited promotion, while 28% affirmed that there are no ing. The result is presented in Table 4.
rewards and incentives offered for knowledge sharing in Table 4 reveals that among the gender groups, 97.2% of
the institution. Judging from this, one can surmise that males share their knowledge while 2.8% do not and 73.2%
when rewards and incentives are offered for knowledge of females share knowledge while 26.8% do not. Subjects’
sharing in the institution, they are mainly in the form of self-reported perception suggests that male academics
awards/recognition/appreciation. in Bowen University share their knowledge more than
Akosile and Olatokun 11
females. Also, within the academic cadres, 89.4% of aca-
demics in the Lecturer cadre share their knowledge while
10.6% do not, 100% of academics in the Senior Lecturer
cadre share their knowledge, and 83.3% of academics in
the Professorial cadre share their knowledge while 16.7%
do not. This implies that academics who are Senior
Lecturers are involved in knowledge sharing more than
academics in the Lecturer and Professorial cadre. Lastly,
results presented in Table 4 shows within the faculty
groups, 85% of academics in Agriculture share their
knowledge, 92.3% of academics in Basic Medical Sciences
share their knowledge, 90% of academics in Humanities
share their knowledge, 100% of academics in Law share
their knowledge, 90.9% of academics in Science and
Science Education share knowledge and 90.5% of aca-
demics in Social and Management Science share their
knowledge. This therefore suggests that academics in the
Faculty of Law actively engage in knowledge sharing the
most while those from the Faculty of Agriculture engage in
knowledge sharing the least.
Furthermore, results from the Chi-square analysis as pre-
sented in Table 4 reveal that gender significantly influenced
knowledge sharing among academics in Bowen University
(Χ2= 20.410, df= 1, p= .000). Academic cadre did not influ-
ence knowledge sharing (Χ2= 3.557, df= 2, p= .169). So
also, the faculty where academics come from did not influ-
ence knowledge sharing (Χ2= 1.948, df= 5, p= .856).
Research question 5: What other factors
influence knowledge sharing among academics
in Bowen University and to what extent?
In order to answer research question 5, an open-ended
question was structured at the end of the questionnaire
which encouraged respondents to state their views on other
factors that influence their knowledge sharing by asking
‘Please state any other factor not covered in the question-
naire that motivates you as an academic to share your
knowledge’. Some factors were personal/intrinsic, some
religious, some as a matter of responsibility while others
were simply due to benefits that accrue to the practice of
knowledge sharing. Regardless of the reasons behind their
knowledge sharing, there is generally a good disposition
towards knowledge sharing among academics. These other
factors are as presented in Table 5.
Results presented in Table 5 revealed that about 14% of
the respondents cited personal satisfaction as a motivating
factor to share knowledge. A respondent asserted that
‘sharing knowledge with colleagues and the wider com-
munity brings deep sense of satisfaction’. Another 23%
state their motivating factor to be personal belief, either
religious, cultural, or as a sense of responsibility. An aca-
demic stated that ‘acknowledging God as source of wis-
dom and knowledge which shouldn’t be hoarded’ is a
factor that motivates him to share knowledge. About 6%
Table 5.  Frequency and percentage distribution of other
factors influencing knowledge sharing.
Other factors motivating Frequency Percentage
academics to share knowledge
Personal satisfaction 7 13.5
Personal belief (religion, 12 23.1
culture, sense of responsibility)
Mentoring 3 5.8
To be knowledgeable 10 19.2
Rewards/Incentives 2 3.8
Availability of fund/ 6 11.5
sponsorships
Others 12 23.1
state their motivating factor to be mentoring as reflected in
the response of an academic who said: ‘I am a retired pro-
fessor on contract appointment. My main function is to
train, encourage and motivate younger lecturers to develop
themselves. I am a mentor!’. Also, 19% share their knowl-
edge because of the value of knowledge – they believe
sharing knowledge makes them knowledgeable. A
respondent answered that ‘Knowledge sharing enhances
retention and also makes room for gaining brighter ideas’
while another confirmed that ‘sharing my knowledge bet-
ter shapes my ideas, conceptions’. Furthermore, about 4%
of the respondents are motivated to share knowledge
through rewards and incentives. A respondent simply gave
his response to be ‘annual increment and regular promo-
tion’. About 12% are motivated through availability of
funds/sponsorships while about 23% identified other
diverse motivating factor as the basis for sharing knowl-
edge. Other factors such as ‘passion’, ‘the encouragement
from the performance of end-users e.g. students and col-
leagues’, a bid to move the society forward at large’, ‘writ-
ing books together with other colleagues’, and so on.
Research question 6: In what ways does Bowen
University promote knowledge sharing among
its staff?
In order to answer research question 6, an open-ended
question was structured at the end of the questionnaire to
know in what ways Bowen University promotes knowl-
edge sharing among its staff. Workshops, conferences,
seminars, retreats, forum, staff development funds to carry
out research, publish research findings, training, colloqui-
ums, sponsorships, periodic IT workshops were the
answers given as presented in Table 6.
Table 6 presents the percentage distribution of ways
knowledge sharing is promoted among staff in the institu-
tion. About 48% of the respondents specified that knowl-
edge sharing is mostly promoted through organized
workshops, 16% indicated that it was through seminars
while about 11% specified that it was mainly through
12 Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 00(0)
Table 6.  Percentage distribution of ways of promoting
knowledge sharing.
Ways of promoting Frequency Percentage
knowledge sharing among staff
Workshops 87 47.5
Seminars 30 16.4
Forum 21 11.5
Research 20 10.9
Others 25 13.7
research. The other various ways cited included confer-
ences, training, retreats, sponsorship, lectures, colloqui-
ums, repositories and meetings.
Discussion of findings
The results indicate that on the average, a majority of the
respondents in the university study are male, in the age
group of 50 years and above, have a PhD degree, have
below five years of experience and are in the academic
cadre of Lecturers (Lecturer I/Lecturer II/Assistant
Lecturer) in the university. Also, there is a growing aware-
ness of the importance of knowledge sharing in the univer-
sity and the general disposition of academics towards
knowledge sharing is highly positive. Results also indicate
that gender has a significant relationship with knowledge
sharing but academic cadre and faculty on the other hand
had no significant influence. Findings also revealed that
male academics share knowledge more than female aca-
demics. This may be accounted for by the fact that the
majority of the academics are male. Also, knowledge shar-
ing varies across academic cadre and faculties. Academics
in the Senior Lecturer cadre share their knowledge more
than academics in Lecturer and Professorial cadres and
knowledge sharing occurs the most among academics in
the Faculty of Law.
Also, organisational culture did not influence knowl-
edge sharing in Bowen University. This finding is strength-
ened by that from the study of Cheng et al. (2009) on
knowledge sharing in academic institutions using
Multimedia University Malaysia as a case study, which did
not find any influence of culture on knowledge sharing.
This may be explained by the fact that both studies were
carried out among academics in private universities. Also,
Rad et al. (2011) conducted a study on the factors influenc-
ing knowledge sharing among personnel of an agricultural
extension and educational organisation in Iran and found
that organisational culture did not exert any influence. This
finding deviates from research findings and theoretical dis-
cussion within the existing knowledge-sharing behaviour
literature (such as Alam et al., 2009; Oluwaniran, 2015)
where organisational factor is often identified as an
important determinant of knowledge-sharing behaviour
among employees. The relationship between organisational
culture and knowledge sharing in this study was positive
but too negligible to be significant. Although no signifi-
cance was found for organisational culture, it cannot be
concluded that organisational culture does not have any
effect on knowledge-sharing behaviour in the context of
academics. Its impact requires further examination.
Findings on a reward system revealed that it does not
influence knowledge sharing among academics in Bowen
University. This is inconsistent with the findings of some
previous studies (Al-Alawi et al., 2007; Alam et al., 2009;
Cheng et al., 2009) where rewards and incentives were
found to significantly influence knowledge sharing.
However, it supports findings from other studies such as
Jolaee et al.’s (2014) study on factors affecting knowledge-
sharing intention among academic staff. The study indi-
cated that extrinsic reward has no positive effect on the
attitude toward knowledge sharing. They explained that, in
the academic context and for academic staff, monetary and
tangible rewards may not significantly contribute to for-
mation of attitude to share their knowledge. Moreover, the
study was conducted in a public university in Malaysia,
where the respondents were predominantly Muslims and
they argued that taking into account Islamic beliefs, knowl-
edge sharing is encouraged by religion. Hence, the
respondents may think about sharing their knowledge
without looking for monetary rewards. Similarly, this
study was conducted in a private university owned by a
religious body and where the respondents were predomi-
nantly Christians. Therefore, this explanation may also be
extended to the study which is revealed also from the anal-
ysis of the open-ended questions where some respondents
asserted that they share their knowledge for religious rea-
sons. Hence, respondents may think about sharing their
knowledge without looking to monetary rewards. The
finding of this study also support those from other works
(Bock et al., 2005; Lin, 2007a, 2007b; Oluwaniran, 2015)
where rewards did not influence knowledge sharing.
Finally, top management support did not influence
knowledge sharing while university policy did. Interestingly,
the finding on management support is inconsistent with
some literature. According to the study of Top (2012) on
assessment of knowledge sharing in terms of risk-level
in-house service sector, the biggest influencer on knowl-
edge-sharing effectiveness is the role of top manage-
ment’s attitude and their facilitator role according to
perceptions of participants. Also, in the study of Lin
(2007b) on knowledge sharing and firm innovation, top
management support was effective for employee willing-
ness to both donate and collect knowledge with col-
leagues. However, the findings of this study are supported
by findings from the study of Liang et al. (2008) where it
was found that the correlation between management sup-
port and individuals’ knowledge-sharing behaviour is not
as significant as many would believe. They explained
Akosile and Olatokun 13
further that one possible explanation is that the effect may
be diluted by the heterogeneity of different organisational
support including formal support (e.g. training) and infor-
mal sanction and help from top management, supervisors
and co-workers, and that while some types of organisa-
tional support may have an effect on knowledge-sharing
behaviour, others may not. On the other hand, studies on
knowledge sharing among academics have not investi-
gated, while only few other studies have investigated, the
impact of policy on knowledge sharing. Since university
policy influences knowledge sharing, a knowledge-sharing
policy that would support the employee to share his/her
knowledge on one hand and provide a guideline to keep a
certain standard on how to externalize knowledge from
tacit to explicit on the other hand, is important in a univer-
sity as posited by Grünfelder and Hartner (2013).
Furthermore, Lohdi and Ahmad (2010) explained that since
policies are in line with the management values, they are
the tools to generate the corporate culture and thus be the
starting point for promotion and development of knowl-
edge-sharing activities.
Although findings showed that the level of self-efficacy
of academics in Bowen University is high as expected, it
did not significantly influence knowledge sharing. This
means that how academics perceive their ability to provide
knowledge does not necessarily translate into knowledge
sharing. This may be explained by the concept of knowl-
edge hoarding among academics. They would rather keep
the knowledge they think can benefit others to themselves
even though they have the ability to give out such knowl-
edge. This is however in contrast with findings from many
studies (Bock et al., 2005; Elogie, 2010; Jolaee et al., 2014;
Lin, 2007a, 2007b; Oluwaniran 2015; Omojowolo, 2014)
which showed that self-efficacy significantly influenced
knowledge sharing. In more detail, although self-efficacy
is proven to be an important factor in previous knowledge-
sharing studies, it might not be among the important fac-
tors of knowledge sharing among academic staff in Bowen
University. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that self-
efficacy does not have any effect on knowledge-sharing
behaviour in the context of academics. Its impact requires
further examination.
Trust was also found to significantly influence knowl-
edge sharing among academics in Bowen University. Not
only was it significant, it had a strong and positive influ-
ence, suggesting that the higher the trust among academ-
ics, the more they engage in knowledge sharing. According
to the study of Van Acker et al. (2014), benevolence-based
trust is important when teachers consider sharing with
their colleagues interpersonally. The expectation that one
teacher would act in their best interest and would provide
help when needed is more important than competence-
based trust for school-based sharing. The result of this
study also bolstered the work of Alam et al. (2009) on
knowledge-sharing behaviour among employees in SMEs
where they tried to assess the factors that influence knowl-
edge sharing among them. Trust was found to have a sig-
nificant influence. The finding from the study of Al-Alawi
et al. (2007) carried out on critical success factor of knowl-
edge sharing also supported this finding that trust is an
influencer of knowledge sharing. Based on their findings,
the authors asserted that generally, when an average per-
son trusts his/her colleagues and feels free to express feel-
ings and perceptions, this person is also likely to express
information relating to his/her life outside work. On the
other hand, a finding from the study of Jolaee et al. (2014)
among academics rejected the hypothesis that trust has a
positive effect on the intention to share knowledge.
Personal expectation and personal interactions were
found not to influence knowledge sharing. The finding on
personal interactions is in support of that from the study
of Alam et al. (2009) among employees in SMEs where
the results showed that the association between social
interaction and knowledge-sharing behaviour is not sig-
nificant. As regards personal expectation, Cheng et al.
(2009) in their study revealed that personal expectations
among academics in Multimedia University, Malaysia
provides the strong inspiration for academics to share
their valuable knowledge. Also, academics will be encour-
aged to contribute knowledge if they can expect to receive
useful knowledge in return. This is in contrast to the find-
ings of the present study. This may be explained by the
presence of other factors not present in this study. Despite
the findings of this study, further investigations need to be
made especially in the context of a private university to
assert the influence of personal interactions and personal
expectations on knowledge sharing. Willingness to share
was also not found to significantly influence knowledge
sharing among the academics. This is consistent with
findings from the study of Wangpipatyong (2009) which
was conducted to examine the factors influencing knowl-
edge sharing among university students and willingness
to share was not found to be a significant influence. On
the contrary, in the studies of Oluwaniran (2015) among
researchers in Agricultural institutes and Omojowolo
(2014) among students of the University of Ibadan, will-
ingness to share was found to influence knowledge shar-
ing. Findings of this present study may suggest that the
willingness of an individual to share knowledge is not
necessarily enough to share knowledge, there has to be
presence of other factors such as trust towards the recipi-
ent of the knowledge or a policy that effects knowledge
sharing among employees.
Both availability of IT infrastructure and usage of
social media did not influence knowledge sharing. Rad
et al. (2011) revealed in their study that ICT did not exert
influence on knowledge sharing. Cheng et al. (2009) also
in their findings did not find ICT to influence knowledge
sharing. They posited that ICT functions as a platform
for knowledge sharing and is by itself insufficient to
14 Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 00(0)
encourage it. The findings suggested that to promote
knowledge-sharing activity in knowledge-based institu-
tions, it is essential to create an environment which is
people-oriented, rather than technology-oriented because
while technology plays a crucial role in minimising the
barriers and increases the propensity to share knowledge,
knowledge sharing is still a people-practice. Lin (2007b)
in her study on organisational and individual factors that
influence knowledge found a positive significant relation-
ship between ICT use and knowledge collecting, but no
significant relationship with knowledge donating. It was
explained further that this finding might also be caused by
the fact that investing in ICT alone is not enough to facili-
tate knowledge donating, because ICT can provide access
to knowledge, but access is not the same as using or
applying knowledge. That is, knowledge sharing involves
social and human interaction, not simply ICT usage.
Knowledge thus cannot be distributed simply via online
database or intranet. Nevertheless, we do not deny the
need for further investigation regarding the role of avail-
ability of IT and social media usage in knowledge sharing
among academic staff.
Findings also identified other reasons other than organi-
sational, individual and technological factors that predis-
pose the academics to sharing knowledge. Results showed
that academics share their knowledge also for religious
reasons, sense of responsibility, to be knowledgeable,
mentorship, personal satisfaction. These other factors were
also identified in a study conducted by Saad et al. (2013)
on a case study of knowledge sharing motivations of aca-
demics in public institutions in Malaysia. Rewards was
another factor identified in this present study but to a low
degree which supports the findings from this study that a
reward system does not significantly influence knowledge
sharing.
Conclusions, recommendations and
future studies
The study provided an empirical data on the knowledge-
sharing behaviour of academics in Bowen University. This
study has shown that there is low level of use of reward in
the university to promote knowledge sharing. Academics
in the university share their knowledge even though the
reward system is not encouraging. Also, trust that exists
among them and the existing university policy affect them
in sharing their knowledge. They also have good personal
interactions and they have personal expectations but they
do not contribute to the reasons they share their knowl-
edge. Furthermore, technological factors are important in
sharing knowledge but they can only serve as platforms.
As suggested by Cheng et al. (2009): for knowledge-
sharing activity in knowledge-based institutions, it is
essential to create an environment which is people-ori-
ented, rather than technology-oriented because while
technology plays a crucial role in minimising the barriers
and increases the tendency to share knowledge, knowledge
sharing is still a people-process. It is also concluded that
majority of academics share their knowledge to gain a
sense of satisfaction and self-worth, to build others,
because of their personal beliefs and for other personal
reasons that are not organisational or technological.
In view of these conclusions, the following recommen-
dations emerge:
1. Knowledge-sharing practices should be further
encouraged as a culture in Bowen University and
made known to all members of faculty in the insti-
tution. Management should create an environment
that encourages knowledge sharing so that it can
become a way of life for academics and knowledge
can flow easily within the institution. This could be
by adding knowledge sharing to faculty’s key per-
formance indicators and used as basis of their
annual evaluation.
2. There should be a sensitisation of academics on the
university’s policy on knowledge sharing to serve
as a wakeup call for them to share knowledge. The
university can achieve this by reiterating the impor-
tance of knowledge sharing during the school’s
various staff/faculty meetings and induction pro-
grammes for newly employed faculty.
3. More knowledge-sharing activities such as work-
shops, seminars, training, etc. should be organised
in order to boost the confidence of academics to
share knowledge. When academics have the right
perception about the value of their knowledge, it
will motivate them to share more.
4. In addition to promotion, awards, recognition and
appreciation which are the most common forms
of reward, management can improve on the use of
other types of rewards and incentives to encour-
age knowledge sharing. The presence of tangible
monetary rewards and incentives may trigger
effective knowledge-sharing behaviour among
the academics.
This study, which is limited to Bowen University, is not
without some limitations. Therefore, the following recom-
mendations are made for future studies. Future studies
could be carried out among academics of other private uni-
versities for the findings to be generalizable. A compara-
tive study between private and public universities could
also be undertaken to determine how knowledge-sharing
behaviour of academics in both types of institutions dif-
fers. In addition, the study examined organisational, indi-
vidual and technological factors. Future studies can
examine the influence of other factors such as cultural and
religious factors on academics’ knowledge-sharing
behaviour. Methodologically, the study made use of only
Akosile and Olatokun 15
questionnaire for data collection. Future studies can
employ mixed methods to interrogate the issues surround-
ing knowledge sharing among academics better.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Wole Olatokun https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2780-2161
References
Abdullah NL, Hamzah N, Arshad R, et al. (2011) Psychological
contract and knowledge sharing among academicians:
Mediating role of relational social capital. International
Business Research 4(4): 231.
Al-Alawi AI, Al-Marzooqi NY and Mohammed YF (2007)
Organisational culture and knowledge sharing: Critical
success factors. Journal of Knowledge Management 11(2):
22–42.
Alam S, Abdullah Z, Ishak N, et al. (2009) Assessing knowledge
sharing behaviour among employees in SMEs: An empirical
study. International Business Research 2(2): 115–122.
Basu B and Sengupta K (2007) Assessing success factors of
knowledge management initiatives of academic institutions:
A case of an Indian Business School. Electronic Journal of
Knowledge Management 5(3): 273–282.
Bock GW, Zmud RW, Kim YL, et al. (2005) Behavioural inten-
tion formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles
of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and
organisational climate. Management Information Systems
Quarterly 29(1): 87–111.
Bousari RG and Hassanzadeh M (2012) Factors that affect sci-
entists’ behaviour to share scientific knowledge. Collnet
Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management
6(2): 215–227.
Cheng MY, Ho JSY and Lau PM (2009) Knowledge sharing in
academic institutions: A study of multimedia university,
Malaysia. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management
7(3): 313–324.
Elogie AA (2010) Knowledge sharing behaviour of academics
in the University of Ibadan, Nigeria. Unpublished Master’s
Project, University of Ibadan, Nigeria.
Gaal Z, Szabo L, Obermayer-Kovacs N, et al. (2015) Exploring
the role of social media in knowledge sharing. Electronic
Journal of Knowledge Management 13(3): 185–197.
Grünfelder M and Hartner A (2013) What influences knowledge
sharing? The case of Alstom France. Master’s Thesis, Umeå
School of Business and Economics, Sweden. Available
at: http://www.diva-portal.se/smash/get/diva2.632377
/FULLTEXT01.pdf 9 (accessed 7 June 2017).
Ipe M (2003) Knowledge sharing in organisations: A conceptual
framework. Human Development Review 2(4): 337–359.
Jain KK, Sandhu MS and Sidhu GK (2007) Knowledge sharing
among academic staff: A case study of business schools in
Klang Valley, Malaysia. Unpublished PhD Dissertation,
University College Sedaya International, Malaysia. Available
at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255600953
_Knowledge_Sharing_Among_Academic_Staff_A_Case
_Study_of_Business_Schools_in_Klang_Valley_Malaysia
(accessed 29 March 2017).
Jolaee A, MdNor K, Khani N, et al. (2014) Factors affecting knowl-
edge sharing intention among academic staff. International
Journal of Educational Management 28(4): 413–431.
Kathiravelu SR, Mansor NNA, Ramayah T, et al. (2014) Why
organisational culture drives knowledge sharing? Procedia-
Social and Behavioural Sciences 129: 119–126.
Krok E (2013) Willingness to share knowledge compared
with selected social psychology theories. Contemporary
Economics 7(1): 101–109.
Liang TP, Liu CC and Wu CH (2008) Can social exchange
theory explain individual knowledge-sharing behaviour?
A meta-analysis. International Conference on Information
Systems Proceedings, ICIS 2008, 171. Available at: http://
aisel.aisnet.org/icis2008/171 (accessed 21 April 2017).
Lin HF (2007a) Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation
on employee knowledge sharing intentions. Journal of
Information Science 33(2): 135–149.
Lin HF (2007b) Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capabil-
ity: An empirical study. International Journal of Manpower
28(3/4): 315–332.
Lodhi SA and Ahmad M (2010) Dynamics of voluntary
knowledge sharing in organisations. Pakistan Journal of
Commerce and Social Sciences 4(2): 120–131.
Mustapha E and Abubakar NN (2009) The impact of learning
culture and information technology use on knowledge shar-
ing of Saudi students. Knowledge Management Research
and Practice Journal 9(1): 4–16.
Ngah R and Ibrahim AR (2010) The effect of knowledge shar-
ing on organisational performance in small and medium
enterprises. In: Proceedings of Knowledge management 5th
international conference. Knowledge management: Theory,
research and practice, Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia, 25–27
May 2010, pp. 467–472. Available at: http://www.kmice.
cms.net.my/ProcKMICe/KMICe2010/TOC.html (accessed
2 January 2017).
Noor AD, Hashim HS and Ali N (2014) Factors influencing
knowledge sharing in organisations: A literature review.
International Journal of Science and Research 3(9):
1314–1319.
Okyere-Kwakye E, MdNor K, Ziaei S, et al. (2010) Effect of
individual factors on knowledge sharing. In: Proceedings
of Knowledge management 5th international conference.
Knowledge management: Theory, research and prac-
tice, Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia, 25–27 May 2010, pp.
453–460. Available at: http://www.kmice.cms.net.my
/ProcKMICe/KMICe2010/TOC.html (accessed 22 August
2017).
Oluwaniran OO (2015) Organisational and individual factors
influencing knowledge sharing behaviour of researchers
in agricultural research institutes in Ibadan Metropolis.
Unpublished Master’s Project, University of Ibadan,
Nigeria.
16 Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 00(0)

Omojowolo OO (2014) Factors influencing knowledge sharing
behaviour of University of Ibadan students. Unpublished
Master’s Project, University of Ibadan, Nigeria.
Omotayo FO (2015) Knowledge management as an important
tool in organisational management: A review of literature.
Library Philosophy and Practice 1238. Available at: http://
digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1238 (accessed 12
December 2018).
Rad GH, Alizadeh N, Miandashti NZ, et al. (2011) Factors influ-
encing knowledge sharing among personnel of agricultural
extension and education organization in Iranian Ministry
of Jihad-e agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Science and
Technology 13: 491–501.
Saad A and Haron H (2013) A case study of academics’ knowl-
edge sharing motivations at Malaysian public academic
institutions. Journal of Education and Vocational Research
4(9): 265–274.
Supar N (2012) Technological factors affecting knowledge shar-
ing among academic staff in selected Malaysian higher edu-
cational institutions and the effect on performance. Journal
of Education and Vocational Research 3(7): 234–241.
Teng JTC and Song S (2011) An exploratory examination of
knowledge-sharing behaviours: Solicited and voluntary.
Journal of Knowledge Management 15(1): 104–117.
Thorpe R, Holt R, Macpherson A, et al. (2005) Using knowledge
within small and medium-sized firms: A systematic review
of the evidence. International Journal of Management
Review 7(4): 257–281.
Top S (2012) Assessing the knowledge sharing in terms of risk
level in-house service sector assisted with logistic regres-
sion model. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences 58:
802–811.
Trehan A and Kushwaha P (2012) The implementation of
Knowledge Management System in B-Schools. International
Journal of Multidisciplinary Management Studies 2(2):
252–260.
Van Acker F, Vermeulen M, Kreijns K, et al. (2014) The role of
knowledge sharing self-efficacy in sharing Open Educational
Resources. Computers in Human Behaviour 39: 136–144.
Wangpipatyong S (2009) Factors influencing knowledge sharing
among university student. In: 17th international conference on
computers in education, Asia-Pacific Society for Computers
in Education, Hong Kong. Available at: http://citeseerx.ist
.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.514.7058 (accessed
17 September 2017).
Wasko MM and Faraj S (2005) Why should I share? Examining
social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic
networks of practice. Management Information Systems
Quarterly 29(1): 35–57.
Zahari ASM, Rahman BA, Othman AK, et al. (2014) The influ-
ence of knowledge sharing on organisational performance
among insurance companies in Malaysia. Journal of Applied
Environmental and Biological Sciences 4(5S): 1–7.
Zawawi AA, Zakaria Z, Kamarunzaman NZ, et al. (2011) The
study of barrier factors in knowledge sharing: A case study
in public university. Management Science and Engineering
5(1): 59–70.
Author biographies
Adedolapo Akosile graduated with a BSc in Economics at the
University of Ilorin, Nigeria in 2011 and obtained her Master’s in
Information Science from Africa Regional Centre of Information
Science (ARCIS), University of Ibadan, Nigeria in 2017. Her
research interests include knowledge management and informa-
tion management and critical information policy studies.
Wole Olatokun, a UNESCO Fellow, holds Master’s and
Doctorate degrees in Information Science obtained from the
University of Ibadan, Nigeria. He is currently the Director at
Africa Regional Centre for Information Science, University of
Ibadan and an honorary Professor at the University of Kwazulu-
Natal, and University of Johannesburg, South Africa. Professor
Olatokun has taught and conducted research in the areas related
to information science, systems and technology in Nigeria and
Botswana for over two decades. His research interests include:
analysis of national ICT policy issues, social informatics, infor-
mation ethics, gender and ICT, knowledge management,
e-government, and indigenous knowledge.

Appendix I
Questionnaire
PART A: Demographic Variables

1. Gender: Male [ ]     Female[  ]
2. Age: Below 30 [  ]  30-34 [  ]  35-39 [ ]  40-44[ ]  45-49[ ]  50 and above[ ]
3. Highest level of education:  B.Sc./B.Ed./B.A [  ]   Masters/PGD [  ]   M.Phil [  ]   Ph.D [  ]
4. Years of work experience:  Below 5yrs [  ]   5-9yrs [  ]   10-14yrs [  ]   15-19yrs [  ]
20-24yrs [  ]  25-29yrs [  ]  30yrs and above [  ]    
5. Please indicate your academic cadre:  Lecturer I/ Lecturer II/ Assistant lecturer [ ]   Senior lecturer [ ]
Professor/Reader [  ]
6. Please indicate your Faculty
(a) Agricultural Science [  ]   (b) Humanities [  ]   (c) Law [  ]   (d) Science and science education [  ]
(e) Social and management science [  ] (f) College of health Sciences [  ]
7. Department: (please specify)
Akosile and Olatokun 17

PART B: Please tick [√] in the column that is appropriate to your opinion, using the following scales: Strongly Disagree (SD): Disa-
gree (D): Undecided (U): Agree (A): Strongly Agree (SA)
Section 1: Organisational factors – this section is designed to collect information on organisational factors that may
influence knowledge sharing such as organisational culture, rewards system, management support and university policy
on knowledge sharing.

Organisational Culture SD D U A SA
Existing university culture provides sufficient support for sharing knowledge  
Information flows easily throughout the institution regardless of employee level  
There are formal and informal activities to cultivate knowledge sharing in my university  
Physical work environment and layout of work areas encourage effective knowledge  
sharing in my workplace
Reward system  
I receive monetary reward in return for sharing knowledge.  
I receive additional points for promotion in return for my knowledge sharing  
I receive awards, honour or educational opportunity in return for sharing knowledge  
Rewards available motivate staff to share their knowledge  
Management support  
Top management regularly reinforces the need to share knowledge  
Management encourages the staff to publish their knowledge on the university website  
or pool it to the library where others could access it
University policy  
There exists university policy on knowledge sharing  
I share my knowledge in accordance to the university policy on knowledge sharing  

Section 2: Individual factors – This section is designed to collect information on the individual factors which may
influence knowledge sharing such factors are knowledge self-efficacy, trust, personal interactions, personal expecta-
tions and willingness to share.

Knowledge self-efficacy SD D U A SA
I find it easy to put what I know into words  
I am confident in my ability to provide knowledge to my colleagues  
I am confident that my knowledge sharing would help my colleagues  
I find it easy to convince colleagues on the value and the benefits of the knowledge that  
I may possess.
Trust  
Most of my colleagues are trustworthy enough to share my knowledge with  
A considerable level of trust exists between my colleagues and I  
I believe my colleagues will not take advantage of my knowledge for personal gains or take  
undue credit
I have not been previously harmed as a result of sharing my knowledge with my colleagues  
Personal interactions  
I gain knowledge while interacting with colleagues  
The amount of time I spend interacting with colleagues determine how much knowledge  
I gain
I share knowledge more with colleagues that I interact with  
I find information gathered during conversations with colleagues useful in carrying out  
my duties
Personal expectation  
I expect that sharing knowledge will add some kind of value to me  
I expect that when I share knowledge, others will share theirs in return  
I expect to be recognised for the knowledge I share  

(Continued)
18 Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 00(0)

Knowledge self-efficacy SD D U A SA
Willingness to share  
I am willing to share my knowledge with my colleagues  
I am willing to discuss my new ideas with my colleagues  
I am willing to share my lecture notes, research materials and other resources with my  
colleagues

Section 3: Technological factors – This section is designed to collect information on the technological factors which
may influence knowledge sharing, such factors as availability of IT infrastructure, usage of social media.

Availability of IT infrastructure SD D U A SA
There are various IT tools to facilitate knowledge sharing in my institution  
The IT tools available in my institution are effective  
I find it easy using the IT tools in my institution  
IT is used frequently to share knowledge in my institution  
IT plays a significant role in promoting knowledge sharing  
There exists knowledge repositories (database) in my institution which facilitates  
knowledge sharing
Social media usage  
I use social platforms to share my knowledge  
Staff in my institution collaborate and share knowledge on social media platforms  
Social media tools facilitate knowledge sharing  

Section 4: Knowledge-sharing behaviour – This section collects information on the disposition of academics towards
knowledge sharing.

Knowledge-sharing behaviour SD D U A SA
There is growing awareness on the benefit of knowledge sharing in my institution  
I voluntarily and actively share my knowledge with other colleagues  
I freely share information that will improve the performance of other colleagues  
I usually involve in myself in academic discussions that will benefit sharing knowledge  
I discuss my work problems with other colleagues rather than struggling with the  
problem individually

What type of reward and incentives does Bowen University provide for knowledge sharing? (e.g. bonus, awards &
recognition, etc.)

In what ways does Bowen University promote knowledge sharing among its staff? (e.g. workshops, research,
forums, etc.)

Please state any other factors, not covered in this questionnaire, that motivates you as an academic to share your
knowledge

…. Thank you for taking out time to fill this questionnaire…