An approach to qualitative feature: identifying the beliefs of knowledge sharing in practicing communities
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32719/25506641.2020.7.1Keywords:
Qualitative research, mixed methods, communities of practice, knowledge sharing, motivation, public administration.Abstract
This documentary and exploratory work emphasizes a qualitative approach as a preliminary and complementary phase of the quantitative. The study is presented in the application of a case and the use of the Theory of Planned Behaviour to identify behavioural,
normative and control beliefs that influence the motivation in individuals to share their knowledge in communities of public organizations. For this, data was collected from applied interviews to experts of the Tax Administration in Quito-Ecuador. The data were
classified and codified in words, expecting the recognition of 63 beliefs which will allow the construction of a questionnaire in the future that validates the relationships between the variables of the motivation model used. In the documentary review, the strengths of qualitative and quantitative are contrasted, their incompatibility is rejected and the selection of hybrid approaches is encouraged, highlighting the best of each method and exemplifying the use of qualitative methods in the construction of typologies of case narratives and modal narratives as categories in the quantitative analysis.
Downloads
References
Abela, Jaime. 2016. “Las técnicas de análisis de contenido: una revisión actualizada”. Marcelo Astorga. Accedido 2 de mayo de 2019. https://bit.ly/2D4dk0e
Ajzen, Icek. 1991. “The Theory of Planned Behavior”. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50 (2): 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
---. 2002. “Constructing a TpB Questionnaire: Conceptual and Methodological Considerations”. University of Massachussets Amherst. Accedido 20 enero de 2018. https://bit.ly/2PWsHOg
---. 2011. “Behavioral Interventions Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior”. University of Massachussets Amherst. Accedido 15 septiembre de 2015. https://bit.ly/2rX5dAL
Alborníes, Ángel L. 2010. La disciplina de la innovación: rutinas creativas. Madrid: Díaz de Santos.
Ashworth, Rachel Elizabeth, Aoife Mary McDermott y Graeme Currie. 2018. “Theorizing from Qualitative Research in Public Administration: Plurality through a Combination of Rigor and Richness”. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 29 (2): 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy057
Berger, Peter, y Thomas Luckmann. 1967. “Aspects Sociologiques Du Pluralisme”. Archives de Sociologie des Religions 12 (23): 117-127. www.jstor.org/stable/30117775
Blanco-Peck, Richard. 2006. “Los enfoques metodológicos y la administración pública moderna”. Cinta de Moebio 27 (8): 256-265. https://bit.ly/2D9e8Ru
Bock, Gee-Woo, Robert W. Zmud, Young-Gul Kim y Jae-Nam Lee Lee. 2005. “Behavioral Intention Formation in Knowledge Sharing”. MIS Quarterly 29 (1): 87-111. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148669
Brower, Ralph S., Mitchel Y. Abolafia y Jared B. Carr. 2000. “On Improving Qualitative Methods in Public Administration Research”. Administration & Society 32 (42): 363-397. https://doi.org/10.1177/00953990022019470
Cassell, Catherine, y Gillian Symon. 2006. “Taking Qualitative Methods in Organization and Management Research Seriously”. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal 1 (1): 4-12. https://doi.org/10.1108/17465640610666606
---. 2015. “Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: Ten Years on”. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal 10 (4): 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1108/QROM-10-2015-1329
Chau, Patrick Y. K., y Jen-Hwa Paul Hu. 2001. “Information Technology Acceptance by Individual Professionals: A Model Comparison Approach”. Decision Sciences 32 (4): 699-719. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2001.tb00978.x
Coller, Xavier. 2000. Cuadernos metodológicos: estudios de casos. Madrid: CIS.
Dodge, Jennifer, Sonia M. Ospina y Erica Gabrielle Foldy. 2005. “Integrating Rigor and Relevance in Public Administration Scholarship: The Contribution of Narrative Enquiry”. Public Administration Review 65 (3): 286-300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.0 0454.x
EC Servicio de Rentas Internas. 2016. Plan estratégico organizacional 2016-2019. Quito: SRI. http://bit.ly/33fveaV
Galivene, Graciela, y Ester Kaufman. 2006. “Training and Articulating Public Agencies in Argentina”. En Encyclopedia of Communities of Practice in Information and Knowledge Management, editado por Elayne Coakes y Steve Clarke, 537-543. Hershey, Idea Group
Reference.
Haverland, Markus, y Dvora Yanow. 2012. “A Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Public Administration Research Universe: Surviving Conversations on Methodologies and Methods”. Public Administration Review 72 (3): 401-408. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.15406210.2011.02524.x
Jeon, Su-Hwan, Young-Gul Kim y Joon Koh. 2011. “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
Kirkman, Bradley L., John L. Cordery, John Mathieu, Benson Rosen y Michael Kukenberger. 2013. “Global Organizational Communities of Practice: The Effects of Nationality Diversity,
Psychological Safety, and Media Richness on Community Performance”. Human Relations 66 (3): 333-362. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726712464076
López Herrera, Francisco, y Héctor Salas Harms. 2009. “La investigación cualitativa en administración”. Cinta de Moebio 35: 128-145. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0717-554x2009000200004
Martínez Marín, Jesús. 2008. “Guía para la correcta implantación de comunidades de práctica en entornos de administración pública: una experiencia de éxito”. Red Peruana de Gestores de la Educación. Accedido 18 de agosto de 2012. https://bit.ly/37ol9Ml
Molina Azorín, José Francisco, María Dolores López Gamero, Jorge Pereira Moliner, Eva María Pertusa Ortega y Juan José Tarí Guilló. 2012. “Métodos híbridos de investigación y dirección de empresas: ventajas e implicaciones”. Cuadernos de Economía y Dirección de
la Empresa 15 (2): 55-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cede.2012.01.001
Morse, Janice M. 1991. “Approaches to Qualitative-Quantitative Methodological Triangulation”. Nursing Research 40 (2): 120-123. https://bit.ly/2s1OBay
Narváez, Guillermo. 2014. Análisis cualitativo, unidades de análisis: presentación de curso. Barcelona: Universidad de Barcelona.
Ospina, Sonia M., Marc Esteve y Seulki Lee. 2017. “Assessing Qualitative Studies in Public Administration Research”. Public Administration Review 78 (4): 593-605. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12837
Ragin, Charles C., Joan Nagel y Patricia White. 2004. Workshop on Scientific Foundations of Qualitative Research. Arlington: National Science Foundation. https://bit.ly/37rh7CO
Tashakkori, Abbas, y John W. Creswell. 2007. “The New Era of Mixed Methods”. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1 (1): 3-7. https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906293042
Wenger, Etienne. 2001. Comunidades de práctica: aprendizaje, significado e identidad. Buenos Aires: Paidós Ibérica.
