Search results

The study directs attention to the psychological conditions experienced and knowledge management practices leveraged by faculty in higher education institutes (HEIs) to cope with the shift to emergency remote teaching caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. By focusing attention on faculty experiences during this transition, this study aims to examine an under-investigated effect of the pandemic in the Indian context.

Interpretative phenomenological analysis is used to analyze the data gathered in two waves through 40 in-depth interviews with 20 faculty members based in India over a year. The data were analyzed deductively using Kahn’s framework of engagement and robust coding protocols.

Eight subthemes across three psychological conditions (meaningfulness, availability and safety) were developed to discourse faculty experiences and challenges with emergency remote teaching related to their learning, identity, leveraged resources and support received from their employing educational institutes. The findings also present the coping strategies and knowledge management-related practices that the faculty used to adjust to each discussed challenge.

The study uses a longitudinal design and phenomenology as the analytical method, which offers a significant methodological contribution to the extant literature. Further, the study’s use of Kahn’s model to examine the faculty members’ transitions to emergency remote teaching in India offers novel insights into the COVID-19 pandemic’s effect on educational institutes in an under-investigated context.

It is largely acknowledged that arbitrating the flow of knowledge can help firms strategically leverage tacit and explicit internal knowledge. However, despite the apparent scholarly and managerial acceptance of the criticality of the flow of knowledge between various stakeholders, the academic understanding of knowledge arbitrage remains coarse-grained. There are practically no empirical insights available to unravel the consequences of firms’ knowledge arbitrage choices regarding rewards and risks. This study aims to identify the risks that emerge as firms channel the flow of knowledge from surplus to deficit areas within organizational boundaries. To this end, the authors investigate several subsumed subprocesses in knowledge arbitrage to map the associated risks.

This study used an exploratory qualitative approach to examine the risks that emerge as firms attempt to support knowledge flows within their organizational boundaries. The data were collected through open-ended essays via an online research platform from 45 full-time employees of firms operating in different sectors. The collected data were analyzed inductively through open, axial and selective coding.

The research findings identified three key subprocesses of knowledge arbitrage: knowledge diffusion, knowledge brokering and knowledge absorption. These subprocesses are susceptible to various risks arising the form of channels, champions, sharers and receivers of knowledge flows. In general, the study showed that a firm’s decision regarding knowledge flows, such as structured or random flows, or the presence or absence of designated coordinators to broker the flow carries specific risks for both sharers and receivers. In particular, while the risks of knowledge hiding, misinformation and disinformation manifest in all three subprocesses, low employee engagement, loss of knowledge and information overload also emerged as key risks in any two of the three subprocesses.

This study offers valuable insights by uncovering the hitherto unexplored risks in intrafirm knowledge arbitrage. Given that knowledge is a crucial organizational tool for driving performance, innovation and competitive advantage, understanding the risks associated with intrafirm arbitrated knowledge flows can help firms anticipate and mitigate the associated adverse consequences. The findings make a novel contribution by offering (a) a comprehensive categorization of the risks associated with knowledge arbitrage rooted in processes, people and structures and (b) a macro overview of knowledge arbitrage risks associated with the processes of knowledge diffusion, knowledge brokering and knowledge absorption.