Anonymous knowledge sharing in a virtual environment: a preliminary investigation

Abstract

This paper presents the results of a small pilot study examining how anonymity may potentially affect knowledge sharing in an organisation. Staff employed in a Scottish university were invited to post responses, anonymously or by including their e-mail address, in relation to a newly introduced car park scheme on campus. One hundred and forty-five staff participated in the study with just under half responding anonymously. The responses were analysed by content and length and the results show that very negative responses are less likely to be anonymous. While a similar proportion of identified and anonymous responses were negative in content, a higher proportion of identified responses supplied very negative responses. While suggested improvements and helpful comments are also less likely to be made anonymously, individuals are more likely to anonymously share or discuss complaints relating to past experiences and issues. In addition, anonymous responses tend to be shorter in length and more to the point than identified responses. Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALEThis small preliminary study aimed to test the hypothesis that the ability to act anonymously in virtual environments can encourage individuals to share knowledge. The main objectives of the study were:To examine the literature surrounding knowledge sharing and communication in virtual environments. To examine the differences and/or similarities in the content, nature and quantity of anonymous and identified responses.To determine whether or not anonymous communication in a virtual environment produces more valid responses. To identify the feasibility and potential research approaches for future research in this area.The rapid improvement in information and communication technologies (ICTs) as well as a reduction in their cost has resulted in companies worldwide becoming increasingly reliant on their use to store and share knowledge both internally and externally. Using ICTs (and in particular Internet-based technologies) customers can now secure the use of products and services from companies across the world. Inside organisations, employees communicate with each other to share ideas, solve problems, and answer questions, allowing them to learn on an ongoing basis. Employees can now communicate to individuals

User Roles and Contributions in Innovation-Contest Communities

“…the coding process started with the formulation of written coding instructions and definition of content categories based on already established categories found in the related literature [68]. Six established categories of classifying communication content in online interaction environments could be found, including "sharing experience," "asking questions," "offering suggestions," "evaluating ideas," "criticizing ideas," and "defending ideas" [17,51]. the written instructions provided detailed descriptions as well as examples of comments falling into the different content categories.…”

Commenting for new ideas: insights from an open innovation platform

“…Comments were categorised into 19 different types of contributions derived from the literature, such as 'asking questions', 'evaluating ideas' or 'agreeing' (see e.g., Burnett and Illingworth, 2008;Hemetsberger and Reinhardt, 2006;Hutter et al, 2011). Further, we decided on three additional content categories we developed inductively.…”

Speech strategy of anonymity in communication

“…Anonymous communication is directly related to the opportunity/temptation to transmit untrue, false information; therefore, the recipient has to develop strategies and tactics for recognizing this kind of information and responding to it [8,4]. Various studies presented in the scientific literature propose models for detecting inaccurate, inauthentic, false information, or interactive deception [9,10] investigate the context of communication, the degree to which the source is considered anonymous, the receiver's desire to identify the source (or further anonymize it), analyze the perception of an anonymous source and information itself, and identify cases of positive and negative effect of anonymous communication on message recipients [11].…”

“…Thus, while discussing complex, controversial, conflictogenic official issues, members of collectives mainly do not use the opportunity to hide their answers under the anonymous mask; the most negative opinions as well as constructive ideas are expressed personally but not anonymously [8].…”