Thank you Doris, it is an interesting option.

In a qualitative study, the researcher can assess the actual knowledge sharing behaviors through the following:

1) One to one interview with the "receiver" & ask questions like what knowledge s/he has learned / received?  How s/he is going to use them?

2) Interact with the "receiver" to seek any evidence / frequency of evidence that the "receiver" has demonstrated the knowledge learned in workplace, impact of work outcomes due to knowledge gained, changed of behavior / productivity etc.

3) One to one interview with the "transmitter" & ask questions like what knowledge s/he has shared with the "receiver"

4) Interact with "transmitter" for any hard evidence / frequency of evidence that the "transmitter" has shared the knowledge e.g. artifacts / notes / drawing diagrams provided to "receiver",  knowledge entry into the knowledgebase for sharing purpose etc.

5) Comparing the interview notes & evidence artifacts between the "receiver" & "transmitter" to ensure what the "transmitter" shared was / were what the "receiver" learned.  Try to avoid bringing both the receiver & transmitter in face to face meeting (or need to be tactful when both of them are presence at the same time) as this might reduce the quality of information shared by them and captured by the researcher.

Thank you Han Ping Fung, your suggestions and questions are very relevant for my inquiry. It will be interesting to gather artifacts / notes / diagrams. I tended to forget to ask/search for these elements, for I am looking at a profession in which tacit knowledge is essential. However, I think there are aretifacts and I should at least try to gather them for comparison.

Hello Sebastien, nice listen about you and your research.

I suggest AHP - analytic hierarchic process. I had used in a recent study with good results.

I send a recent paper which give the hierarchic structure of factors that you are assessing as example.

Best regard

Hi Jorge, small world, good to hear from you ! I'll be looking at the paper and AHP. Thank you for your answer. Let's talk soon, maybe in OLKC 2016.

Hi Sebastien, you could ask separetly receivers and transmitters about describing the episodes of knowledge sharing that took place last week. it coud give you some interesting information about the type of knowledge, situation, initiator of sharing, how the shairng took place, and so on...

This seems like an interesting project. Will you be trying to tease out the different types of knowledge (explict vs tacit) in your study? I would suspect that different techniques might be required for each of those?

Suggest you take a took at the work of Rob Cross, University of Virginia, on Social Network Analysis, a process for mapping the relationships among people, teams, or across organizations.  SNA is particularly effective in assessing the flow of information through communication and collaboration.  It also identifies people who are central (overly central?) and peripheral (underutilized?) to an organization. See:

Cross, R.L. & A. Parker (2004). The Hidden Power of Social Networks: Understanding How Work Really Gets Done in Organizations.  Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Cross, R.L. & R.J. Thomas (2009). Driving Results Through Social Networks: How Top Organizations Leverage Networks for Performance and Growth. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.

Cross, R. & L. Prusak. "The People That Make Organizations Stop--or Go." Harvard Business Review, 80, No. 6, 2002, 104-112.

Cross, R., S. Borgetti & A. Parker. "Making Invisible Work visible: Using Social Network Analysis to Support Human Networks." California Management Review, 44, No. 2, 2002, 25-46.

and so forth.

In our work we used Relationship Network Management as a core tool to empower knowledge workers.  We don't know what we know, and the conversations we have today determine the decisions we make tomorrow.  The mind is an associative patterner, that is, incoming information regarding the situation and context at hand is complexed with internally stored information (stored in invariant form, with a single thought patterned in a hundred or thousand or more neuronal firings and connections).  The relationship network is a matrix of people that consists of the sum of a knowledge worker's relationships, those individuals with whom the knowledge worker interacts, or has interacted within the past, and has a connection or significant association.  the relationship network is both horizontal, in terms of colleagues and peers, and vertical, in terms of bosses and employees and mentors and mentees.  Relationship network management occurs when we recognize the potential of these relationships and use them to share and learn, creating and sustaining a conscious give and take movement, or flow, across the network. 

Was always planning on writing a book on this.  Just found a few resources that may help under RNM, an incredible empowering tool.  So will attach a paper about it here and a one-pager from our book (Organizational Survival in the New World: the Intelligent Complex Adaptive System) and a self assessment tool we used in the pharmaceutical industry (can be easily modified for any industry).  Please use freely as appropriate.  Hadn't thought about this for awhile, so perhaps should make generally available on our page.  At any rate here are a couple of attachments.  Hope you find this helpful.  

Hi Sebastien!

Your research is really interesting. However, it is not only about knowledge sharing but also about intergenerational learning since it involves two age different generations. Thus, it is more complex than it appears. I would like to make the following suggestions:

1.In knowledge sharing it is important to consider all fundamental fields of knowledge (i.e. rational knowledge field, emotional knowledge field, and spiritual knowledge field). I attach a paper to understand better this idea. Also, I recently published the book: Organizational knowledge dynamics: Managing knowledge creation, acquisition, sharing, and transformation. IGI Global, Hershey, PA, USA, 2015. ISBN:978-1-4666-8318-1.

2.It is important to see if there are events created to stimulate knowledge sharing, like research groups, debate groups, mentoring programs etc.

3.It is important to see if there is an efficient motivational system for people to share their knowledge in that company.

4.It is important to see if there is an adequate organizational culture able to develop trust between people. Knowledge sharing needs trust.

Since you have two groups of members in an organization, young and tenured, maybe you can think about organizing focus groups, one for young members, one for tenured, and one mixed. Yes I see that you mentioned observations and interviews as methods for collecting data, but several prominent researchers suggested flexible design that can fit the purpose of the study.

Focus group enable sharing ideas between participants and can help in discovering issues that cannot be discovered in individual interviews and during observations. My experience with focus groups is highly positive - I organized focus groups in two studies, one in educational filed, and one with software engineers with the aim to investigate practice in small software companies.

Of course, you can find several excellent books and articles about focus groups, for example:

[1] David W. Stewart, Prem N. Shamdasani and Dennis W. Rook, Focus Groups: Theory and Practice, Second Edition, SAGE Publications, London, UK, 2007.

[2] Victoria Wibeck, Madeleine Abrandt Dahlgren and Gunilla Oberg, Learning in focus groups: an analytical dimension for enhancing focus group research, Qualitative Research, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 249-267, 2007, doi: 10.1177/1468794107076023.

Thank you Constantin, I will explore the references and ideas you suggest!

Thank you Zeljko, it is appearing more and more obvious in the case I investigate that focus groups would really help to get new elements and discuss others ones that have emerged in the individual interviews. I will learn about the methods to conduct group focus, thank you for the references!

Perhaps by reading the following articles may help you in your data collection method through Focus Group to explore  not only  for the purpose of knowledge sharing process and behaviour but also for future value of KM investment in terms of its sustainability:

1.      Choo, C.W. (2003), Perspectives on managing knowledge in organizations, Cataloging and Classification Quarterly 37, 205–220.

2.      Pathirage, P. C., Amaratunga G. D. and Haigh P. R. (2007),Tacit knowledge and organizational performance: construction industry perspective, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, 115-126.

3.      Mohamed, M., Stankosky, M. and Mohamed, M. (2009), An Empirical Assessment of Knowledge Management Criticality for Sustainable Development, Journal of Knowledge Management, VOL. 13 NO. 5, 271-286.

4.      Shelbourn, M. A., Bouchlaghem, D. M., Anumba, C. J., Carillo, P. M., Khalfan, M. M. K. and Glass, J. (2006), Managing Knowledge in The Context of Sustainable Construction, Journal of Information Technology in Construction, Vol. 11, pg. 57~71.

5.      Tan, H. C., Anumba, C. J., Carrillo, P. M., Bouchlaghem, D., Kamara, J., Udeaja, C. (2010), Capture and Reuse of Project Knowledge in Construction, Wiley-Blackwell.

6.      Yin, R. K. (2009), Case Study Research Design and Methods(Fourth Edition), SAGE Publications, Inc.,pp20~21.

Hi Sébastien,

·         Consider semi-structured one on one interviews. Time consuming but will produce rich data.

·         People tend to change behaviour/productivity under observation so I tend to stay clear (Hawthorne effect).

·         The same Likert scale questionnaire could be given to both the receiver and transmitter and the responses could be compared to detect variances.

You may like to peruse/cite my papers about tacit knowledge transfer.

http://www.joams.com/uploadfile/2013/0426/20130426024311542.pdf  

http://www.ibimapublishing.com/journals/JOKM/2015/297669/297669.pdf

Good luck for your study.

Regards