University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Knowledge sharing among student affairs professionals at a small faith-based higher education institution

(USC Thesis Other)

Knowledge sharing among student affairs professionals at a small faith-based higher education institution

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Knowledge Sharing Among Student Affairs Professionals at a Small Faith-Based Higher
Education Institution
by
Diana E. Sanchez
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
December 2021

© Copyright by Diana E. Sanchez 2021
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Diana E. Sanchez certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Dr. Anthony Maddox
Dr. Renee Moore
Dr. Patricia Tobey, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021

iv
Abstract
This qualitative study explored student affairs knowledge-sharing influences through Clark and
Estes’s (2008) knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) influence framework. The
study was conducted at a 4-year higher education institution involving a diverse group of
participants. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews to identify whether the
KMO influences were validated, not validated, or partially validated. Findings revealed needs in
KMO influences. Following the results, I provide an implementation and evaluation plan. The
recommendations are designed to increase knowledge-sharing practices among student affairs
professionals at higher education institutions. Knowledge sharing is a critical organizational
component in various industries. Specifically, knowledge sharing among student affairs is
essential to provide and improve student services, processes, emergency response, and enhance
student experiences. Therefore, organizational leaders must create knowledge-sharing cultures to
accomplish organizational goals.

Keywords: knowledge sharing, collaboration, networking, student affairs, motivation, self-
efficacy, information-sharing

v
Acknowledgments
“She believed she could, so she did.” It has been a long journey to get here; however, I
met many people who have supported me and cheered me on. I want to first give all the glory to
God for giving me strength and for walking with me in this journey. Thank you to my parents,
who have always instilled in me the power to believe in myself and made me feel I could
accomplish anything. They worked hard to get me where I needed to be and gave me the best
experiences of my life. Papi y Mami nunca podre agradecerles el apoyo y el amor que me han
dado. Estoy aquí por ustedes y es por eso que este título les pertenece. Thank you to the boy who
stole my heart, you are and will always be my WHY. Never stop loving your passion for
knowledge and be ready to share your intellectual talent with others. Above all, always
remember hard work is the key to success.
John Paul, thank you for these last 3 years of your unconditional support, for picking up
the extra duties at home, and for cheering me on when I wanted to give up. Thank you to my
family, Jose, Stella, Terry, Maria, Mary, Gramps (DAD), for your unconditional support and
always believing in me. Thank you to my work family Manuel, Janine, Nataly, for being there
when I needed you the most and making me laugh when I just wanted to cry.
Thank you to Dr. Paul Ayala for helping me when I felt I had no idea what I was doing
when I started the program. Your constant support and your faith in me helped me restore my
confidence. Dr. Renee Moore, thank you for all the professional and life lessons you have taught
me along the way, even though it may seem like I was not listening. You taught me to love
student affairs, and I hope I made you proud! You gave me strength and always believed in me,
and for that, I will always be grateful. Thank you for serving on my committee!

vi
Dr. Anthony Maddox, you were my inspiration when I started the program. You set the
bar high for all the professors that came after you in the program. Dr. Tobey and Dr. Murphy,
you have impacted my life in more ways than you will ever know! You never let me give up and
always believed I had it in me! You worked many hours of your time to help me get here! You
will always hold a special place in my heart, and I hope that one day I can help others fulfill their
dreams as you helped me! Lastly, to USC Cohort 13, I never imagined being part of such an
amazing group of professionals; you taught me so many things during our journey. Kim,
Octavia, Jackson, Jaqueline D., Catherine, Nathan, Candace, Miguel, Maria, Tyler, Maggie, Bill,
Ryan, Dr. Hu, Zeke, Ken, Quendrida, Janina, Rodger, Kiesten, Gayle, and Patrick, thank you for
you keeping me going and were always willing to give me a helping hand. I could not have done
this without you!

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgments............................................................................................................................v
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................x
Chapter One: Overview of the Study ...............................................................................................1
Background of the Problem .................................................................................................1
Importance of Addressing the Problem ...............................................................................2
Organizational Context and Mission ...................................................................................3
Organizational Goal .............................................................................................................4
Description of Stakeholder Group .......................................................................................4
Stakeholder Group for the Study .........................................................................................5
Stakeholder Performance Goals ...........................................................................................5
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions .....................................................................6
Overview of the Conceptual and Methodological Framework ............................................6
Definitions............................................................................................................................8
Organization of the Project ..................................................................................................8
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature .........................................................................................10
Historical Context ..............................................................................................................11
Impact of Sharing Knowledge Among Student Affairs Professionals ..............................11
Knowledge Focused Research ...........................................................................................13
Motivation Focused Research ............................................................................................22
Organizational Influence Focused Research ......................................................................29
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................34

viii
Chapter Three: Methodology .........................................................................................................36
Sample and Population ......................................................................................................36
Data Collection and Instrumentation .................................................................................38
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................38
Credibility and Trustworthiness .........................................................................................39
Positionality .......................................................................................................................40
Ethics..................................................................................................................................40
Conclusions ........................................................................................................................41
Chapter Four: Results and Findings ...............................................................................................42
Participating Stakeholders .................................................................................................42
Determining Needs and Assets ..........................................................................................43
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................69
Chapter Five: Recommendations and Discussion..........................................................................72
Findings and Results ..........................................................................................................72
Recommendations for Practice ..........................................................................................73
Implementation of Recommendations ...............................................................................82
Evaluation ..........................................................................................................................84
Limitations and Delimitations ............................................................................................89
References ......................................................................................................................................92
Appendix A: Reflection Form .....................................................................................................101
Appendix C: Pre-Demographic Survey .......................................................................................104
Appendix D: Interview Protocol ..................................................................................................106
Appendix E: Informed Consent/Information Sheet .....................................................................111
Appendix F: Training Schedule ...................................................................................................113

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Student Affairs Competency Areas 15
Table 2: Knowledge Influences 22
Table 3: Motivational Influences 28
Table 4: Organizational Influences 34
Table 5: Participant Description 43
Table 6: Thresholds Used for the Evaluation of Assumed Knowledge, Motivation, and
Organizational Needs 44
Table 7: Assumed Knowledge Influences 45
Table 8: Assumed Motivational Needs 53
Table 9: Assumed Organizational Influences 62
Table 10: Summary of KMO Needs, Influences, and Evaluation Results 70
Table 11: Summary of Knowledge Needs and Recommendations 73
Table 12: Schon’s Reflective Model 75
Table 13: Summary of Motivational Needs and Recommendations 76
Table 14: Abrams Ten Trusting Behaviors 79
Table 15: Summary of Organizational Needs and Recommendations 80
Table 16: Implementation Plan 83
Table 17: Evaluation Framework 88
Appendix B: Theoretical Framework Alignment Matrix 103

x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 7
Figure 2: Self-Efficacy Components 77
Figure 3: Program Implementation and Evaluation 86

1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Knowledge sharing has become a critical issue in both public and private sectors, as
individuals face the dilemma of sharing knowledge with other individuals in their organization.
Also, social and personal factors have different effects on an individual’s attitude, self-
confidence, job security, and working relationships with colleagues in terms of sharing
knowledge (Serenko & Bontis, 2016). Lin (2007) found that employee attitudes toward
knowledge sharing affect knowledge-sharing intentions. The author found that individuals’
attitudes are integral to fostering knowledge-sharing environments, as is an individual’s
motivation. Increased motivation leads to the willingness to share knowledge. Liu and Fang
(2010) found that internal motivation contributes to sharing knowledge and knowledge-sharing
behaviors. Cabrera et al. (2006) argued that organizations with knowledge-sharing practices and
processes support knowledge-sharing environments. Therefore, when individuals feel their co-
workers’ and supervisors’ support, they are more inclined to participate in knowledge-sharing
behaviors.
Individuals are reluctant to share knowledge for a myriad of reasons, such as fear of
losing power, lack of trust among co-workers, confidence, lack of motivation, or lack of
organizational processes. In higher education institutions specifically, knowledge is prevalent,
but institutional leaders neglect the concept of knowledge sharing and fail to develop knowledge-
sharing cultures (Corcoran & Duane, 2018). Therefore, the lack of these cultures in student
affairs inhibits individuals from sharing the knowledge that supports students’ success.
Background of the Problem
This study focused on knowledge sharing among student affairs professionals at a higher
education institution. Manning et al. (2014) defined student affairs as the “administrative unit at
2

a higher education institution responsible for activities, programs, events, and services that
contribute to the development of the student” (p. 54). Through the years, student affairs units
have operated as functional silos independent from other offices and divisions. Silos are a
disconnection between offices because they stand alone and do not collaborate or communicate
(Manning et al., 2014). Further, silos are considered an impediment to high-impact practices in
student affairs. Operating in silos can create a barrier in sharing pertinent information that can
support and enhance the student experience.
As in other industries, knowledge sharing among student affairs professionals requires
knowledge, skills, and motivation. Organizations that do not foster or support knowledge sharing
can create barriers that prevent student affairs professionals from enhancing student growth and
development. Corcoran and Duane (2018) conducted a knowledge-sharing study in virtual
communities in higher education institutions. They noted the impact of knowledge and skills,
motivation, and organizational barriers. First, staff members experienced difficulty participating
in their communities due to the lack of training and understanding of the technological tools
available to share knowledge. Second, the study found that staff members must be motivated to
share knowledge and that organizational culture plays a pivotal role. Lastly, the authors noted
that organizational culture, structure, and management are significant barriers to fostering a
knowledge-sharing environment (Corcoran & Duane, 2018).
Importance of Addressing the Problem
The problem of practice addressed in this study is the lack of knowledge sharing among
higher education student affairs professionals. The problem must be solved for several reasons.
First, there is a gap in the literature regarding this topic. For example, in reviewing student
affairs journals, I found literature addressing knowledge sharing among faculty but no studies
3

addressing student affairs professionals. Therefore, the lack of knowledge-sharing research in
other industries such as engineering, technology, and academia was a proxy for this study.
Second, pressures for student affairs professionals to respond to student needs with limited
resources increase the demand for collaboration and sharing information (Tull & Kuk, 2012).
The collaborative approach supports sharing knowledge and ideas to face challenges that will
enable these professionals to respond effectively to student needs (Tull & Kuk, 2012).
Consequently, when organizational units work together by sharing information and
keeping communication open, they promptly address student concerns and solve problems
(Kezar & Lester, 2009). By increasing the sharing of knowledge, higher education institutions
can utilize the findings to bridge the practice gap.
Organizational Context and Mission
The University of Knowledge and Sharing (UKS, a pseudonym) is a faith-based higher
education institution in Texas that offers undergraduate, graduate, and professional programs.
The mission of UKS is to educate students in social justice and faith to serve the community
through leadership and preparation for change. UKS serves a diverse population of more than
2,500 students of different religions and backgrounds. UKS is a Hispanic-serving institution, and
more than 75% of its students are Hispanic. Over half of the students are low-income and
eligible for Pell grants. The student retention rate is over 70%, but the 4-year graduation rate is
less than 30%. Student success is one of UKS’s overarching goals, and it offers flexible and
accessible programs. More importantly, UKS values knowledge-sharing practices to help others
in the community.

4

Organizational Goal
Specifically, this study’s focus supported three objectives encompassing academic
excellence, community support, and a supportive environment for students. The university’s
strategic plan involves building student success processes, providing enriching experiences for
students, and increasing student success by improving retention and recruitment. Knowledge
sharing is critical in accomplishing these objectives. Student success involves a collaborative
effort that depends on knowledge-sharing practices between academic affairs and student affairs
professionals. A knowledge-sharing environment encourages discussion to address students’
academic or other issues and concerns that affect retention and graduation rates. The
organizational goal is that by 2022, UKS student affairs professionals will implement
knowledge-sharing to enhance communication, collaboration, and social networking, positively
impacting student services and programs.
Description of Stakeholder Group
Knowledge sharing is a collaborative effort involving various stakeholders. The three
main stakeholders identified for this study are students, student affairs administrators, and
executive leadership.
All students at higher education institutions are important stakeholders of university
programs. Without them, the university would not exist. Approximately 50% of first-year
students at UKS are low-income and Pell grant recipients. Therefore, they need an informed,
engaged, and supportive student affairs team to provide them enriching experiences that
contribute to their success, which will lead to their persistence.
In terms of executive leadership, the president’s cabinet plays an integral role in planning
and executing organizational goals. Retention, recruitment, and student experience remain
5

primary goals for higher education institutions. Consequently, executive leaders depend on
student affairs professionals to execute goals and deliver outcomes to increase retention,
recruitment, and students’ experience.
Student affairs professionals are the executors of the institution’s vision, mission, and
goals. They are the frontline employees who interact and engage with students daily. The student
affairs professionals (academic advisors, residence life staff, campus life staff, first-year
engagement staff, and athletics administrators) are the primary holders of student information.
Thus, their knowledge-sharing collaboration is vital to enriching the student experience to build
processes to increase student success.
Stakeholder Group for the Study
Although knowledge sharing relies on all stakeholders, this study focused on student
affairs professionals: academic advisors, residence life, student life, student conduct officers,
athletics, and first-year engagement staff. These professionals are the frontline individuals who
engage with students daily. Therefore, they must have the knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational resources to know when, what, and how to transfer knowledge among their
colleagues. Further, the knowledge shared with these professionals is critical in connecting with
university resources to ensure student success. Thus, failure to provide knowledge-sharing
practices, engage in collaborative efforts to support student services, enrich student experiences,
and develop student success processes will create barriers to achieving the organizational goals.
Stakeholder Performance Goals
Stakeholder 1 Goal
By Fall 2022, students at UKS will know and understand the student affairs team’s roles
and responsibilities, which will help them navigate their college experience.
6

Stakeholder 2 Goal
By Fall 2022, the executive leadership at UKS will provide the resources (technology,
training, norms, values) to support a knowledge-sharing environment for student affairs
professionals.
Stakeholder 3 Goal
By Fall 2022, UKS student affairs professionals will implement knowledge-sharing
strategies that will enhance communication, collaboration, social networking and provide high-
impact student programs and services
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to explore the knowledge-sharing practices through which
UKS can meet the goal of student success and enriching student experiences to increase student
recruitment and retention. The analysis focused on student affairs professionals’ knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences related to sharing knowledge. Three questions guided
this study:
1. How do student affairs professionals’ knowledge and skills affect knowledge-sharing
environments at higher education institutions?
2. What are the motivational factors of student affairs professionals to share knowledge at
higher education institutions?
3. What are the organizational influences for student affairs professionals to share
knowledge?
Overview of the Conceptual and Methodological Framework
Clark and Estes’s (2008) knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational (KMO)
causes theoretical framework was appropriate for this study because it helped identify the
7

performance gaps in knowledge-sharing environments (Figure 1). The purpose of a KMO
theoretical analysis is to “identify if individuals have adequate knowledge, motivation, and
organizational support to achieve organizational goals” (p. 43). Furthermore, applying the
framework to practice assumes a gap in KMO processes. Therefore, the gap analysis framework
guided this study. The methodological framework was qualitative and consisted of individual
interviews of student affairs professionals at UKS.

Figure 1
Conceptual Framework

8

Definitions
• Higher Education Institutions: Ruben (1995) defined higher education as “a service
industry that generates, integrates, and communicates knowledge” (p. 3).
• Knowledge Sharing: Bao et al. (2016) defined knowledge sharing as “the process in
which employees contribute, collect, share and transfer knowledge and abilities among
peers to solve problems that either they or peers face” (p. 363).
• Motivation: Deci and Ryan (1985) defined internal motivation as “internal values of the
individuals towards the work itself” and extrinsic motivation as “an external value based
on personal values and expectations” (p. 35).
• Organizational Culture: Clark and Estes (2008) stated that “organizational culture is the
most critical work process because it dictates how individuals work together to get the
job done” (p. 107).
• Self-Efficacy: Bandura (1989) defined self-efficacy as the “individual’s belief in their
capabilities in accomplishing goals” (p. 1176).
• Student Affairs Professionals: Winston et al. (2001) defined the student affairs
professional as “an individual who is part of a unit at a higher education institution
responsible for the student’s outside the classroom experience” (p. xi).
Organization of the Project
I organized the study into five chapters: introduction, literature review, methodology,
data assessment, and recommendations. Chapter One summarizes the problem of practice, the
organization’s mission and critical stakeholders, organizational goals, theoretical and conceptual
framework, and key terms related to knowledge sharing. Chapter Two provides an in-depth
literature review regarding knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational culture that
9

influence individuals’ knowledge sharing. Chapter Three explains the methodology process,
describing participants, data collection, and analysis. In Chapter Four, I conducted a data
assessment and analysis to substantiate results. Lastly, Chapter Five provides recommendations
for practice, limitations of the research, and recommendations for future research.
10

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
The literature review examines the causes of gaps in knowledge sharing among student
affairs professionals. The student affairs field originated in the early 1900s with deans of men,
deans of women, and personnel workers. These professionals were tasked with students’ welfare,
advisement, and support and addressed discipline (McClellan & Stringer, 2009). From the 1940s
through the 1990s, higher education enrollment and student demographic profiles created a high
demand for student services. Further, the complex issues in student affairs practice demanded a
higher academic development preparation for student affairs professionals (McClellan &
Stringer, 2009). In the past decade, higher education enrollment continued to increase, with these
professionals expected to provide services with limited resources (Tull & Kuk, 2012).
The increased demand for student services required new and innovative approaches to
address student issues (Tull & Kuk, 2012). One of the strategies is networking and collaborative
partnerships. Networking and collaborative partnerships require exchanging ideas and
information (Kezar & Lester, 2009). Collaborative partnerships and networking involve common
goals where individuals rely on each other to accomplish goals (Kezar & Lester, 2009).
Unfortunately, the increased pressure to deliver quality student services created siloed work,
duplicate programs, and a lack of communication among student affairs professionals (Kezar &
Lester, 2009).
The review begins with a brief history and general knowledge-sharing research. Due to
limited research, studies of other organizations served as a proxy. Knowledge-sharing processes
and procedures in business organizations and academia are similar to higher education student
affairs, so this review’s research is applicable. The second section of this literature review
addressed research focused on KMO influences. The third section includes the gap analysis
11

framework outlined by Clark and Estes (2008), specifically the KMO influences in knowledge
sharing at the UKS to frame the qualitative analysis study.
Historical Context
The roots of knowledge acquisition and sharing were established thousands of years ago.
The knowledge economy originated from ancient libraries, museums, archives, zoos, and many
collections that empowered individuals to “know what they know and do what they know”
(Hedstrom & King, 2006, p. 1). Further, the intellectual evolution of Christian Europe offered
the opportunity to create organizational processes for knowledge creation and sharing. Through
time, knowledge once considered secret and private treasures started being accessible to the
public, contributing to science, education, and entertainment (Hedstrom & King, 2006).
Since the 1990s, knowledge-sharing research has increased across industries like
technology, business, and academia. The research in these sectors noted the emergence of
knowledge-sharing organizational environments to create change and stay competitive. In the
research review, three themes emerged regarding knowledge sharing: individuals’ knowledge
and skills, motivation, and organizational culture. First, the individuals’ knowledge and skills are
essential to communicating and willingly sharing knowledge (Jones, 2017; Kang et al., 2008).
Second, individuals’ motivation is crucial in knowledge-sharing environments for individuals,
leaders, and organizations (Lin, 2007; Liu & Fang, 2010; Reinholt et al., 2011; Welschen et al.,
2012).
Impact of Sharing Knowledge Among Student Affairs Professionals
Numerous studies on knowledge sharing in various industries have noted the effect of
individuals KMO influences. Therefore, Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework is
appropriate to frame this study. The framework identifies individual and organizational gaps.
12

The two critical components to creating change are human causes and solutions to bridge
performance gaps. Clark and Estes identified causes for performance gaps: KMO barriers. These
causes can facilitate or inhibit organizational change or organizational goal attainment.
Knowledge is a driving force for higher education institutions. However, institutions
neglect to manage organizational knowledge and do not develop strategies to encourage
knowledge-sharing environments (Corcoran & Duane, 2018). In most instances, student affairs
offices offer services for particular purposes and operate bureaucratically (Manning et al., 2014).
The bureaucratic process creates challenges where offices operate as silos and do not
communicate. According to Winston et al. (2001), effective higher education institutions
combine resources focusing on student learning and development by involving all organizational
units to fulfill their mission and goals.
The increased expectations for student affairs professionals to meet students’ needs and
enhance the services offered can be daunting. Students face numerous challenges, such as
disabilities, mental illness, socioeconomic status, physical abuse, academic difficulties, or drug
and alcohol dependency requiring immediate attention (Kuk, 2012). Kezar and Lester (2009)
found that student affairs organizations structured to work collaboratively encourage interaction,
participate in knowledge sharing, and work together to solve problems result in innovation and
learning. Further, “organizations that work together enhance student services because the
information is shared between offices and helps address student concerns promptly” (Kezar &
Lester, 2010, p. 10). On the contrary, siloed student affairs organizations will take more time to
solve a problem, leading to incomplete or inaccurate solutions (Kezar & Lester, 2010).

13

Knowledge Focused Research
Knowledge and Skills
The knowledge and skills analysis component identifies whether individuals have the
information and factual knowledge necessary to meet organizational goals. One of the most
common problems with knowledge and skills is the individual’s lack of self-awareness of not
possessing the necessary expertise to achieve the organizational goals (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Jones (2017) stated that understanding the knowledge involving a specific subject matter is an
essential factor in knowledge sharing. Further, Jones (2017) synthesized 14 studies and
hypothesized that knowledge improves when people are trained in the knowledge-sharing
process. In one of the 14 studies, Tortoriello (2015) conducted an empirical study of 249
employees and found that employees’ ability to share knowledge depends on their ability to
collect and share knowledge. In another study, Keith et al. (2010) found that knowledge sharing
depends greatly on the ability to understand and acquire knowledge.
Krathwohl’s (2002) knowledge dimensions include three different components:
declarative (factual and conceptual), procedural, and metacognitive. Krathwohl (2002) explained
factual knowledge as the necessary concepts individuals must understand to solve discipline
problems. Krathwohl (2002) referred to conceptual knowledge as the dimension where
individuals relate to the information and its functions. Procedural knowledge refers to the
practice of following specific processes and procedures (Krathwohl, 2002). The last dimension is
metacognitive knowledge, which refers to the individual’s awareness of one’s knowledge and the
reflection to develop strategies to solve problems.

14

Factual Knowledge Influences
Student affairs professionals must have certain knowledge and skills to engage in
advocacy efforts to aid in students’ access. These skills are essential regardless of functional area
or professional level. However, student affairs require competencies in critical thinking,
creativity, communication, and competencies outlined in Table 1 (National Association of
Student Affairs Personnel Administrators [NASPA], 2015). Due to the changing environment,
roles and responsibilities are overwhelming and challenging to face without the appropriate
training (Kuk, 2012). Therefore, professionals in this field need to understand their roles and
responsibilities, which will enhance knowledge-sharing behaviors.

15

Table 1
Student Affairs Competency Areas
Competency Description
Personal and ethical
foundations
Refers to the knowledge and skills to develop and assess an
individual’s work responsibilities; ensure alignment of personal
standards with external guidelines; have a caring attitude; and
experience self-growth through curiosity, reflection, and the
application of value, beliefs, and ideals

Values, philosophy,
and history
Refers to the knowledge and skills related to the student affairs
profession’s history, philosophy, and values, connecting to past,
present, and future practices. This connection is the practice that
will help shape the present and future practices

Assessment and
evaluation
Refers to the ability to conduct research and apply findings to
processes and practices in student affairs

Law, policy, and
governance
Refers to the ability to understand policy development and processes
from various constructs and having the ability to apply legal policy
issues to student affairs practice
Organizational
human resources
Refers to knowledge and skills of understanding that student affairs
professionals grow as leaders by building new skills through
experiences in supervision, motivation, evaluations, conflict
resolution, and effectively applying strategies in fiscal management,
facilities, technology, crisis management, and risk management

Leadership Refers to student affairs professionals’ leadership process working
together with students, student affairs colleagues, faculty, and other
community members to develop strategies, plan, and implement
change

Social justice and
inclusion
Student affairs professionals must know how to create environments
to address oppression, privilege, and power.
Student learning and
development
Refers to the knowledge and skills to understand student development
theory and apply it to improve student affairs practices.

Technology Knowledge and skills in using technological resources to promote
student learning, improve performance, and create digital
communities with students, faculty, and student affairs

Advising and
supporting
Refers to knowledge and skills to create direction, guidance, and
support to enhance students, colleagues, and community members’
holistic experience

16

Conceptual Knowledge Influences
Reason and Kimball (2012) posited, “student affairs connect theory into practice to
determine success in the profession” (p. 360). Therefore, Reason and Kimball (2012) presented a
model with four components in applying theory into practice: formal theory, institutional
context, informal theory, and practice. The formal theory provides common language goals
among student affairs professionals to apply formal theories to shared knowledge among
colleagues, a new understanding of theories by scholars in the profession, theoretical outcomes,
and identifying the student populations. According to Reason and Kimball (2012), the second
component of theory into practice is institutional context, which relates to how the institutional
culture supports student development, goals, guidance on achieving goals. Further, institutional
contexts inform students’ sociodemographic characteristics, staff members’ values, and beliefs
that influence students’ interactions. The third component of the informal theory refers to the
specific campus culture, the student affairs practitioner, and their understanding of the formal
theories and educational experiences (Reason & Kimball, 2012). The last component of the
theory into practice model is where the actual practice takes place. In this stage, Reason and
Kimball (2012) explained practice as the application of formal and informal theories based on
the student’s behavior. Practice results from the link between formal theory, institutional context,
and informal theory. In this stage, student affairs practitioners relate all three components to their
work practices to determine the concepts that have been effective or ineffective with student
interactions.
Regarding employee training/ professional development, student affairs professionals are
first responders and expected to respond to critical student issues; therefore, it is necessary to
provide them training and opportunities to develop knowledge, skills, and competencies (Kuk,
17

2012). Student affairs leaders’ responsibility is to train employees to perform their duties and
adjust to a changing environment (Creamer et al., 2001). Corcoran and Duane (2018) posited that
organizational leaders must provide adequately designed and structured training to establish a
knowledge-sharing environment. The evolving profession of student affairs requires lifelong
learning and professional development that reflect the field’s standards and competencies
(Komives & Carpenter, 2009). Komives and Carpenter (2009) explained that professional
development opportunities must be purposeful, research-based, experienced-based, peer-
reviewed, assessed, reflected upon, and evaluated. The purposeful component of professional
development involves the want or need to improve in terms of job responsibilities. Second, the
training and development techniques and approaches must be empirically proven and based on
theory. Third, effective professional development practice-based learning consists of peer-to-
peer learning, which involves learning from more experienced individuals in specific areas of
expertise. Fourth, peer-reviewed offers multiple methods for consideration, such as conferences,
associations, departmental programs that involve structured help to learn new initiatives and
approaches in student affairs. Fifth, assessing the goals, outcomes, cost, benefits, and other
necessary resources will determine if the training is feasible in professional development. Sixth,
it is crucial to incorporate time to reflect on practices and apply lessons learned through daily
tasks, processes, and procedures. Lastly, evaluating if the new approaches, methods, procedures,
or processes provided improvement opportunities and determine goal accomplishments.
Procedural Knowledge Influences: Processes and Procedures
Student affairs professionals need to understand processes and procedures to respond to
students’ needs and crises. Student affairs professionals spend an amount of time helping
students in distress and crisis. Crisis and conflicts are challenging to predict and require the
18

staff’s full attention to resolve (Manning et al., 2014). A common perception is that the top
leaders have the necessary information available and most often assumed during a campus crisis
(Manning et al., 2014). Therefore, training student affairs professionals to share procedural
knowledge and collaborate during a crisis is essential. Wickler et al. (2013) developed a virtual
framework to create and apply procedural knowledge in crises. The Open Virtual Collaboration
(OpenVCE) aims to create a collaborative approach in a virtual space where organizations can
manage information and take the appropriate course of action during an emergency (Wickler et
al., 2013). The OpenVCE provides the opportunity to create a “virtual collaboration protocol
which is procedural knowledge which guides the users on dealing with specific types of
emergencies or crisis” (Wickler et al., 2013, p. 10).
Further, Wickler et al. (2013) conducted a study with two teams (using the OpenVCE and
the other using traditional planning strategies without the virtual environment). The results
demonstrated the group using the OpenVCE showed the successful use of the environment by
following the protocol, which guided the team members to identify key crisis areas, division of
labor, member roles to plan and find solutions to the problem. However, the traditional team
found it difficult to establish common ground and understanding of the problem. These findings
assert that integrating technology to create a space for procedural knowledge sharing supports a
collaborative environment to solve problems.
A process structure involves the step-by-step instructions of the workflow, which guides
employees from beginning to end (Kuk, 2012). Winston et al. (2001) suggested that influential
student affairs leaders train their employees to accomplish organizational goals by utilizing
processes to complete work tasks. Developing processes increases organizations’ possibility to
respond effectively in the decision-making process (Tull & Kuk, 2012). Miser and Cherrey
19

(2009) supported the continuous review and revision of policies and procedures. Miser and
Cherrey (2009) recommended that student affairs professionals consider the following for
emergency planning and policy decisions: designating time to review and revise protocol plans
after critical incidents, involving all stakeholders in university planning ensures that everyone
understands roles and responsibilities, and ensuring that student affairs professionals know the
state and federal laws that apply to higher education. Miser and Cherrey (2009) explained the
need for these professionals to have the skills to engage in collaborative efforts with internal and
external colleagues to plan for crises by aligning policies and procedures with the institutional
plans and state and federal laws.
Metacognitive Knowledge: Reflection
Reflection is the connection between theory and practice (Barley, 2012). Further, critical
theory and reflection allow the practitioner to break from the routine of doing things by
formulating new ideas and ways to solve problems (Barley, 2012). Schon (1983) described four
components for reflection practice: reflection before action, knowing in action, reflection in
action, and reflection on action.
First, reflection before action is the space where the practitioner connects prior
knowledge and experience to organize thoughts that formulate a plan to address the problem
(Schon, 1983). According to Patton and Harper (2001), knowledge of various theories involving
college students and higher education environments helps guide student affairs professionals to
select specific theories and apply them to their operational practices. Second, knowing in action
refers to the quick response that requires the practitioner’s initial thinking (Schon, 1983). In
student affairs, during a crisis, professionals must think on their feet and make decisions quickly
(Miser & Cherrey, 2009). In most emergencies, a committee assesses the issues and makes rapid
20

decisions based on institutional administrators’ information. Committee members report back to
their units and share the decisions made at meetings to activate the plan of action, ensuring a
streamlined communication plan that eliminates confusion (Miser & Cherrey, 2009). Third,
Schon (1983) described three main components of reflection in action: assessing the problem
from different angles, finding a space for the problem based on the practitioner’s knowledge and
experience, and understanding the solution and possible challenges. Every day, student affairs
professionals face student issues and conflicts where they reflect on all the possible strategies to
solve the problem (Barr et al., 2014). Further, their steps to solve problems daily “[influence]
students, staff, and colleagues in the institution” (Barr et al., 2014, p. 30). Lastly, Schon referred
to reflection on action as a space where practitioners reflect on their experience after the event
occurred. Therefore, student affairs professionals need to reflect on experiences to improve
processes, procedures, and student services.
Reflection is important in student affairs practice where individuals reflect on the
processes, bring the conceptual knowledge together, and apply it to daily practices (Reason &
Kimball, 2012). Ethical reflection is a crucial component of decision-making (Creamer et al.,
2001). The reflection process helps in making decisions by reflecting before, during, and after a
crisis response or problem-solving situation (Creamer et al., 2001). Student affairs professionals
often face complex problems that offer learning opportunities that require reflection on daily
experiences (Barr et al., 2014). Reason and Kimball (2012) posited that reflection involves two
feedback loops where practitioners reflect on perceptions of outcomes and theories applied to
daily practices and how practices inform theoretical constructs. Further, Reason and Kimball
(2012) argued that when individuals schedule a time to engage in reflection, they apply learned
21

lessons to “daily practices (reflection in action), staff meetings (reflection on action), and include
in professional development programs” (p. 372).
Winston et al. (2001) presented the following key points regarding reflection:
1. Be specific. Every situation is unique; therefore, it is critical for student affairs
professionals to gather facts and responsibilities.
2. Reflect on the experience. Reflecting on experience help guide future experiences.
3. Involve others in the process. Obtaining the necessary information from others helps
make informed decisions.
4. Understand general ethical decisions. Understanding ethical standards, professional
competencies help apply principles to ethical dilemmas.
5. Test alternative solutions. It is crucial for student affairs professionals to gather all
relevant information and develop multiple solutions to solve problems.
6. Reflection in action. Theories and practices need to be adjusted based on presenting the
problem to offer solutions for the community’s greater good.
Creamer et al. explained that applying reflective practices brings forth new knowledge that leads
to decision making, and assumptions and strategies are revised and enhanced. Table 2 presents
the knowledge influences examined herein.

22

Table 2
Knowledge Influences
Organizational mission
The mission of UKS is to educate students in social justice and faith to serve the community
through leadership and prepared for change.
Organizational global goal
By 2022, UKS will enhance knowledge sharing environments by providing training,
supporting individual and organizational goals developing processes and procedures that
will support organizational support.
Knowledge influencers Knowledge type Knowledge assessment
Student affairs professionals
need to know their roles
and responsibilities to
enhance knowledge-
sharing behaviors.
Factual knowledge Interview Questions 1, 2
(a-e), 4, 7
Student affairs professionals
need to understand
processes and procedures
to respond to students’
needs and crises.
Procedural knowledge Interview Questions 3 (a-d)
Student affairs professionals
need to reflect on
experiences to improve
processes, procedures, and
student services.
Metacognitive Interview Questions 6 (a-d)

Motivation Focused Research
The second component of the KMO gap analysis is motivation, which addresses three
aspects: work towards a goal, persistence to achieve the goal, and mental effort (Clark & Estes,
2008). Deci and Ryan (1985) defined internal motivation as “internal values of the individuals
towards the work itself” and extrinsic motivation as “an external value based on personal values
and expectations” (p. 35). People move to act based on external rewards, internalized pressures,
standards, values, and interests. Therefore, the research demonstrates that motivated individuals
23

will foster knowledge-sharing environments in organizations. Liu and Fang (2010) conducted a
study of 336 employees of national charities and found that intrinsic motivation played a
significant role in knowledge willingness and behaviors. In this study, Liu and Fang postulated
that individuals seize the opportunity to increase self-knowledge to meet their self-growth needs.
Therefore, internal motivation is a critical factor in driving knowledge-sharing behaviors.
Research shows the motivation to be a critical factor in knowledge sharing environments
for individuals, leaders, and organizations (Lin, 2007; Liu & Fang, 2010; Reinholt et al., 2011;;
Welschen et al., 2012). Ryan and Moller (2017) defined motivation as “people moved to act and
vary from person to person and situation to situation” (p. 215). People move to act based on
external rewards, internalized pressures, standards, values, and interests. If employees lack the
motivation to share knowledge, the networks’ financial investments are a waste of resources for
the organization (Reinholt et al., 2011). Wu (2013) conducted a study of 323 employees of
knowledge-intensive industries and found that intrinsic motivation to be a significant influence in
knowledge sharing behaviors. Further, trust in colleagues and high self-efficacy in individuals
are also motivational factors influencing knowledge-sharing behaviors (Lin et al., 2009).
Self-Efficacy
Bandura (1989) defined self-efficacy as the beliefs that influence how people think,
choose behaviors, set goals, and persevere in accomplishing their goals. Lin (2007) surveyed 30
individuals across five industries and 10 organizations. The results revealed that self-efficacy is
positively linked with knowledge sharing. In other words, if employees believe their knowledge
is useful to the organization, they will have a stronger motivation to share their knowledge with
colleagues. Welschen et al. (2012) asserted Lin’s findings by conducting a study of 64
employees across seven New Zealand organizations. The study showed that attitude towards
24

knowledge sharing and intrinsic motivators such as self-efficacy significantly influenced
knowledge sharing in organizations. The results suggest that people who are confident about
their ability to share knowledge tend to have healthier attitudes to share knowledge. Therefore,
student affairs professionals need to be self-motivated to engage in knowledge sharing.
Dean et al. (2011) conducted a study of 20 new student affairs professionals on new
employee orientation. They found that student affairs professionals who participate in new
employee orientation programs increase self-efficacy by decreasing anxiety and intimidation
(Dean et al., 2011). Further, they found that the orientation process understood their job
functions, expectations, and campus culture, improving morale and self-confidence (Dean et al.,
2011). Duane and Corcoran (2018) also conducted a study using Enterprise Social Networks
(ESN) to share higher education institutions’ knowledge. The study results showed the main
individual barriers to sharing knowledge related to fears on the lack of understanding of social
media platforms’ use to share knowledge. Further, additional barriers for individuals to share
knowledge included the attitudes and beliefs on ESN use as a platform. Therefore, providing
appropriate training for student affairs professionals to address student concerns can increase
self-efficacy and improve student access (Reynolds, 2013).
Relationship Building
Teamwork is challenging in any workplace, and leadership guidance helps guide individuals
towards a common goal built on mutual trust and motivates them to share knowledge (Pinjani &
Palvia, 2013). In organizations, individuals rely on others’ kindness when seeking information or
advice from other colleagues (Abrams et al., 2003). These individuals risk being vulnerable to a
lack of knowledge and trust colleagues who are more experienced and will help them share the
necessary knowledge to solve the problem (Abrams et al., 2003). In student affairs, social
25

networks allow collaborative environments for knowledge sharing. Kezar and Lester (2009)
considered a network as a “collaborative effort where people work together by sharing
information, resources, and knowledge to achieve a common goal” (p. 102). Further, trust in
colleagues builds relationships to assist each other in accomplishing a goal effectively. Abrams
et al. (2003) conducted a study of 40 participants across various organizations and found 10
common behaviors that promote trust among colleagues to encourage knowledge sharing:
1. Act with discretion by not exposing others’ vulnerabilities
2. Be consistent with word and deed; this shows you will follow through
3. Ensure frequent and rich communication; interaction with others encourages the
opportunity to understand each other and share knowledge
4. Engage in collaborative communication; individuals are more likely to trust someone
who listens and engages in meaningful conversations. On the contrary, they distrust
people who do not communicate and engage with others.
5. Ensure that decisions are fair and transparent; if managers are trustworthy, employees
will trust one another and create a more trusting environment.
6. Establish and share vision and language; Sharing goals and beliefs brings individuals
together where communication is essential.
7. Hold people accountable for trust; Demonstrating to employees that trust is an essential
factor in the organization’s work environment and evaluating employees on
trustworthiness sends a message to employees that trust is critical.
8. Create personal connections; When employees make personal connections, they find the
ideas, beliefs, and values that connect them, making people trust each other.
26

9. Give away something of value; Taking risks and sharing knowledge encourages others to
trust and engage in similar behaviors.
10. Disclose your expertise and limitations; Transparency on strengths and weaknesses helps
others believe in you. (p. 67)
Abrams et al. (2003) argued that encouraging the trust builders helps support
interpersonal relationships. Even though there are technological advances to share knowledge,
individuals prefer to invest in personal relationships. Consequently, organizations support social
networks to improve knowledge creation and sharing (Abrams et al., 2003). Therefore, student
affairs professionals need to establish trust among colleagues to increase knowledge sharing.
Intrinsic Motivation
Ryan and Moller (2017) stated that intrinsic motivation is “represented by activities in
which the individual finds inherent self-satisfaction” (p. 215). Intrinsically motivated employees
focus on the task’s process, and when intrinsic motivation is high, employees enjoy the task and
focus less on external factors (Llopis & Foss, 2016). Liu and Fang (2010) conducted a study of
336 employees of national charities and found that intrinsic motivation played a significant role
in knowledge willingness and behaviors. In this study, Liu and Fang postulated that individuals
seize the opportunity to increase self-knowledge to meet their self-growth needs and that internal
motivation is the key factor in driving knowledge-sharing behaviors (Liu & Fang, 2010). Further,
the researchers implied that if people working for organizations were affected only by external
motivations, knowledge sharing would be minimal (Liu & Fang, 2010).
Research has noted the importance of organizations investigating what encourages
individuals to share knowledge (Welschen et al., 2012). Individuals are the primary source of
knowledge; therefore, the key to knowledge sharing is finding the motivational factors that
27

encourage individuals to share knowledge (Welschen et al., 2012). Gagné (2009) explained
intrinsic motivational behaviors as personal, enjoyable, and meaningful. Applying the research to
student affairs validates the critical need to discover individuals’ intrinsic motivational factors to
share knowledge. Kezar and Lester (2009) explained the importance of intrinsic rewards to aid in
employee collaboration, where intrinsically motivated individuals accomplish goals that need the
support of other colleagues. The intrinsic rewards include meeting new people, learning new
skills, gaining experience in different departments’ operations, increasing responsibilities, and
impacting student services and programming. Therefore, student affairs professionals need to
have altruistic behaviors to participate in knowledge sharing.
Employee Motivation
Lin (2007) posited that managers motivate employees by providing helpful feedback to
improve knowledge self-efficacy, recruit proactive employees, have a high cognitive aptitude,
have high self-esteem, and are intrinsically motivated. Barr et al. (2014) argued that student
affairs professionals need to have the following self-efficacy traits: “courage to take risks, share
ideas and abilities with others, open to be criticized, work effectively with supporters and
detractors, and negotiate and achieve goals to improve student support services and student
learning” (p. 173). Student affairs professionals understand their motivations and purposes to
engage in the profession and personal growth (Winston et al., 2001). Corcoran and Duane (2018)
argued that it is critical to understand what motivates employees to participate in knowledge
sharing to foster a knowledge-sharing environment. Further, they found that employees
participated in knowledge sharing “if they found their participation enjoyable, interesting, or
stimulating” (p. 15). Individuals’ motivation increases when they work in teams and share
information with other people with common interests (Kezar & Lester, 2009).
28

Trust in Colleagues
As previously discussed, networks bring people together to share knowledge, ideas, and
resources. However, time and energy are critical components for establishing networks and
develop trust among colleagues (Kezar & Lester, 2009). Farrell et al. (2005) posited when
individuals trust each other, the exchange of information occurs. The researchers further
explained that trust increases when individuals demonstrate competence in their expertise to
share information. Mohammed et al. (2015) argued that trust and collaboration among
individuals increase when individuals share quality information. Wang et al. (2014) found that
trust increases information and resource sharing among individuals; therefore, fostering trust
increases knowledge sharing. Rutten et al. (2016) explored the influence of trust on knowledge
sharing. In their study, they found that low trust decreases knowledge sharing. Therefore,
organizations need to understand the importance of trust among staff members, increasing
knowledge sharing (Rutten et al., 2016).

Table 3
Motivational Influences
Assumed motivational
influences
Motivation
type
Motivation assessment
Student affairs professionals need to
be self-motivated to engage in
knowledge sharing.
Self-Efficacy Interview Questions 8 (a-
d), 9 (a-d)
Student affairs professionals need to
have altruistic behaviors to
participate in knowledge sharing.
Intrinsic
motivation
Interview Questions 10,
11, 12
Student affairs professionals need to
establish trust among colleagues
to increase knowledge sharing.
Relationship
building
Interview Questions 13,
14, 15, 16, 17

29

Organizational Influence Focused Research
Organizational Barriers
The last component of the gap analysis is the organizational barrier that inhibits
organizations from accomplishing goals. The obstacles include the lack of resources like tools,
facilities, disconnected processes, and procedures (Clark & Estes, 2008). Schein (2017) defined
culture as “learned patterns of beliefs, values, assumptions, and behavioral norms that manifest
themselves at different levels of observability” (p. 2). Schein included climate as a cultural
element where the organization members interact with each other. Individuals follow others’
behaviors and adopt group norms connected to the organization (Javernick-Will, 2012). Jo and
Joo (2011) conducted a study of 452 employees of for-profit organizations in Korea and found
that individuals exhibit a high level of knowledge-sharing when perceiving a high organizational
culture. Employees are willing to sacrifice their own goals for the organization’s collective value
when solidarity is strong. Castañeda and Duran (2018) state that individuals participate in
knowledge sharing when organizations provide the necessary resources, support, norms, values
that contribute to a knowledge-sharing culture.
Leadership
Northouse (2016) defined transformational leadership as the “process where individuals
engage and connect, which increases motivation and morality between leaders and followers”
(p. 162). Farrell et al. (2005) stated that transformational leaders encourage individuals to share
their ideas and find innovative ways to solve organizational problems. Phong et al. (2018)
explored the relationship between transformational leadership and knowledge sharing by
studying 368 employees of various Chinese organizations. The results of the survey confirmed
transformational leadership influences knowledge collecting and knowledge donating.
30

Transformational leadership in organizations creates an opportunity for employees to engage in
knowledge sharing, which benefits and develops the organization.
Leadership plays a central role in knowledge management in higher education
institutions. Therefore, leaders must have the skills to facilitate knowledge-sharing environments
(Corcoran and Duane, 2018). Higher education leaders need to encourage individuals to build
relationships to enhance knowledge-sharing practices. Participatory leaders in higher education
institutions encourage individuals to create and share innovative ideas by establishing
committees across campus to bring individuals from different backgrounds and expertise
together (Kezar & Lester, 2009). Tull and Kuk (2012) posited effective leaders at higher
education institutions possess the skills to bridge the gap among different departments
throughout the campus. Connecting individuals from various departments help build
relationships where the ultimate goal is to deliver services to students and the institutional
community.
Organizational Support
Organizational support and culture play a role in knowledge-sharing environments in
organizations. Research demonstrates that organizational cultures, such as institutional
innovation and values. Nonaka (1994) explained the concept of organization as a “system that
processes information to solves problems” (p. 14). In other words, in dynamic environments,
organizations process and create information and knowledge. Further, innovation is a component
of organizational culture that involves identifying a problem and developing new knowledge to
solve issues. Castañeda and Duran (2018) defined organizational support as the “technology,
computers, and software used to share knowledge” (p. 151). Castañeda and Duran found that
knowledge sharing is facilitated by organizations when they provide the necessary organizational
31

support (technology and knowledge sharing platforms) to employees. Castañeda and Duran
argued that organizational norms and values towards knowledge sharing contribute to collective
beliefs to participate in knowledge sharing, helping accomplish organizational goals. Therefore,
higher education institutions need to provide the tools and resources needed to foster knowledge-
sharing environments.
Similarly, Wang et al. (2014) found that knowledge sharing increases when the
organization establishes knowledge-sharing guidelines and individuals practice institutional
norms. Serenko and Bontis (2016) surveyed 691 employees from 15 credit unions. They found
that a positive organizational climate creates a corporate identity where individuals work
together to share knowledge to meet the goals set forth by the organization.
Organizational Culture
Schein (2017) defined culture as the “learned patterns of beliefs, values, assumptions, and
behavioral norms that manifest itself through different levels of observability” (p. 2). There are
three levels of organizational culture: artifacts (individual actions), values (individual’s beliefs),
and assumptions (guides behavior; Schein, 2017). Values are crucial for an organizational culture
because they drive individuals’ behaviors and beliefs (Kezar & Lester, 2009). Corcoran and
Duane (2018) concluded that transactional organizational culture is a “barrier for staff
interaction, collaboration, and knowledge sharing” (p. 18). When individuals understand having
knowledge as a personal source of power instead of for the organization’s benefit, they will have
negative attitudes towards sharing that knowledge (Serenko & Bontis, 2016). Further, a positive
organizational culture where individuals work collaboratively towards the organization’s
common goals will foster a knowledge-sharing environment. In higher education, organizational
values and beliefs are the foundation for collaborative partnerships (Kezar & Lester, 2009).
32

Moreover, higher education institutional mission statements and values centered on
student success guide collaborative projects that enhance students’ experience. Therefore,
practicing the organizations’ shared values, coordinating efforts to share ideas, and finding
solutions to problems will create a sense of trust among student affairs professionals, building
cohesive work environments (Kezar & Lester, 2009).
Facilitate Knowledge-Sharing Environments
Creamer et al. (2001) suggested that experience encourages knowledge sharing. Corcoran
and Duane (2018) explained that the organizational structure and physical locations are a
significant problem for knowledge-sharing environments. Therefore, knowledge sharing
increases by fostering a campus culture where individuals are encouraged to interact and
collaborate in shared spaces (Kezar & Lester, 2009). Knowledge sharing depends on
organizational leaders to facilitate an organizational culture that encourages participation,
engages with employees, creates systems for sharing information, supports social networks, and
allows cross-functional interactions (Casimir et al., 2012). Further, it is helpful for student affairs
professionals to understand that pursuing a collaborative culture by prioritizing mission values,
strategic planning, and practicing the culture through their actions supports knowledge sharing
(Cho & Sriram, 2016). Consequently, higher education institutions need to establish an
organizational vision where individuals set and share common goals by setting clear
communication and sharing expertise (Abrams et al., 2003).
Innovation
Innovation in student affairs involves learning and finding novel solutions to problems by
collaborating on information sharing and communication (Kezar & Lester, 2009). Higher
education institutions need to prioritize knowledge sharing to maintain a competitive advantage
33

in the knowledge-sharing economy (Al-Kurdi et al., 2018). Technology in student affairs is a
revolutionary process where individuals support student success, services, processes,
professional development, and engagement (Barr et al., 2014). Technology in higher education
continues to grow and change as student services and processes evolve (Kuk, 2012). The
increasing demands for student services and accountability will influence the organization’s
structure (Tull & Rammell, 2012). Miser and Cherrey (2009) explained that higher education
administration use technology for “data storage, communication processes, and network
systems” (p. 609). Miser and Cherrey (2009) suggested student affairs professionals consider the
following regarding technology: creating an emergency command center for efficient
communication using multiple technology platforms, ensuring redundancy in communication
technology, and increasing communication using technology and monitor information shared
through various platforms. These strategies help facilitate services that will impact the student
experience and help institutional leaders drive communication strategies among stakeholders
(Miser & Cherrey, 2012).

34

Table 4
Organizational Influences
Assumed organizational
influences
Organizational barriers type
Organizational influences
assessment
Higher education institutions
need to encourage individuals
to build relationships to
enhance knowledge-sharing
practices.
Organizational
leadership
Interview Questions 21, 22,
23
Higher education institutions
need to provide the necessary
support with tools and
resources to foster knowledge-
sharing environments
Organizational
support
Interview Questions 24, 25
Higher education institutions
need to establish an
organizational vision, share
common goals, and set clear
communication for sharing
expertise.
Organizational
culture
Interview Questions 18, 19
(a-d), 20
Higher education institutions
need to make knowledge
sharing a priority to maintain a
competitive advantage.
Organizational
culture
Interview Questions 26

Conclusion
This chapter has reviewed the literature related to knowledge sharing influences in
various industries to inform this study. Further, this review outlined the major concepts and
strategies to foster knowledge-sharing environments. The literature review process informs Clark
and Estes’s (2008) KMO gap analysis framework related to achieving the stakeholder goal. The
knowledge influences include the factual and conceptual knowledge that outlines the importance
of student affairs professionals’ roles and responsibilities; the procedural knowledge to respond
35

to student crisis and services; and the metacognitive knowledge where student affairs
professionals apply reflection to improve processes procedures. The motivation influences
include self-efficacy beliefs to engage in knowledge sharing; the altruistic behaviors that
influence knowledge sharing; and building trust to enhance social networking and knowledge
sharing among colleagues. Lastly, the organizational influences include the organizational
culture such as norms, values, and clear communication to enhance knowledge sharing;
providing the necessary organizational support such as tools and resources to increase knowledge
sharing practices; and build relationships for knowledge sharing. Chapter Three provides the
methodology to identify the performance gap in knowledge sharing among student affairs
professionals.

36

Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this study was to analyze the performance gaps in knowledge sharing
among student affairs professionals. The study took place at a 4-year higher education institution
in a metropolitan city in Texas. This qualitative study focused on the KMO barriers preventing
these professionals from participating in knowledge sharing. This chapter describes the research
design, rationale, and strategies to increase the study’s credibility and trustworthiness. The
study’s goal was to compile the data and assess the results that addressed the problem to guide
recommendations to bridge performance gaps in knowledge sharing. Driving the study’s design
are the following questions:
1. How do student affairs professionals’ knowledge and skills affect knowledge-sharing
environments at higher education institutions?
2. What are the motivational factors of student affairs professionals to share knowledge at
higher education institutions?
3. What are the organizational influences for student affairs professionals to share
knowledge?
Sample and Population
The stakeholder group for this study consisted of student affairs professionals. The target
years of experience for the stakeholder participants was five months up to many years of service.
I included participants with diverse backgrounds. Years of experience and hierarchal positions
may influence individuals in sharing their ideas and perspectives (Kezar & Lester, 2009).
Participants had the experience to provide insight into the research questions (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). One criterion was chosen to create a participatory sample of individuals who
37

actively work at a higher education institution and have years of experience that may influence
knowledge sharing, reflecting the study’s purpose (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Survey Sampling Strategy, Criterion, and Rationale
Student affairs professionals who are knowledgeable and experienced in developing
programs for all students’ educational and personal growth (Winston et al., 2001). All
participants were active full-time employees at UKS working in student orientation, student
conduct, campus engagement, residence life, student wellness, first-year programs, campus
ministry, athletics administrators, Title IX, and service learning,
Interview Sampling Recruitment Strategy and Rationale
The qualitative study included open-ended, semi-structured interviews. Participants were
informed and invited to be part of the study. The email invitation included an overview and
purpose of the research, where I emphasized that the survey is voluntary and confidential. I also
provided a detailed explanation of the study’s goals to improve knowledge sharing among
student affairs professionals by outlining the opportunities to provide insight into individual roles
in participating in knowledge sharing.
I used purposeful and random sampling approaches. First, researchers use the typical
purposeful approach when the person, situation, and topic of interest are identified (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Therefore, applying the standard approach to this study allowed me to select
participants who meet the criterion and the specific topic of interest. Second, I considered a
random sampling approach for this study. The random sampling helped address the research
validity and guide the purposeful selection of whom to interview (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).

38

Data Collection and Instrumentation
The qualitative study focused on KMO barriers to participating in knowledge sharing by
utilizing individual interviews. A demographic survey and interview protocol were the two
instruments considered for this study. First, I administered a demographic survey that contained
questions on age, gender, years of service, classification (entry-level, mid-level, and senior-level)
relevant to knowledge sharing. Patton and Harper (2015) posited that interviews allow us to
collect information that we cannot observe and gain the participant’s perspective. Therefore, I
conducted interviews consisting of 15 to 20 questions with the opportunity for follow-up
questions. I interviewed the participants through the Zoom platform, and interviews lasted 40 to
45 minutes. With the participant’s consent, I recorded the interview. I informed the participants
that the recorded interview would be analyzed only by me. I categorized the interview questions
into three sections per each of the KMO barriers to knowledge sharing. The knowledge and skills
section of the interview addressed the conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge. The
second section addressed motivational factors such as trust, self-efficacy, and intrinsic
motivation to participate in knowledge sharing. The last section addressed the organizational
barriers of leadership and organizational culture that may influence knowledge-sharing
environments.
Data Analysis
Data analysis occurred during the interviews by taking notes regarding responses and
observational behaviors. I developed a guide outlining the study’s purpose, research questions,
interview questions, possible follow-up questions, probing questions, sections for additional
comments, or participants’ questions. After the interview, I listened to the recording, filled in the
39

interview notes’ gaps, recorded observations, and supported thoughts. I applied Tesch’s (1990)
eight steps of the coding process:
1. Reading and reviewing transcripts
2. Organize the interviews starting with the interview with the most content and write notes
3. Make a list of the common topics
4. Abbreviate codes and apply to data
5. Categorize codes and show relationships
6. Finalize selected codes and alphabetize codes
7. Organize the data by categorizing the data under each code
8. Record available data. (p. 196)
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Qualitative validity consists of reviewing data by applying and outlining the study
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). I used triangulation to address researcher bias. Triangulation offers
the opportunity to assess data using multiple sources by collecting data from different vantage
points from individuals and, if needed, conducting follow-up interviews with participants
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Therefore, this study involved student affairs professionals from
entry-level to executive leadership and different educational backgrounds. In qualitative
research, the researcher is the principal data collector; therefore, the researcher must identify
personal values, background experience, and culture, known as reflexivity (Creswell & Creswell,
2018).
Working in student affairs for 17 years, I recognize that my experience may have
influenced the data collection and analysis. Further, I currently work at a higher education
institution. Therefore, to avoid research bias, I conducted the study at a different higher
40

education institution. In addition, I journaled and reflected on experiences during the research
process, which can help in data analysis (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Positionality
Student affairs at higher education institutions range in age, race, ethnicity, education,
experience, cultural background, gender, and professional experience. I am a student affairs
professional who identifies as a Latina woman. Further, I have 17 years of experience in student
affairs and was a doctoral student at the time of this study. The power structures of age,
credentials, and gender culture influence knowledge sharing. Therefore, as a female Latina with
professional and educational experience, I understand the roles and responsibilities of being a
student affairs professional with the specific identities mentioned previously. However, I do not
understand the knowledge-sharing barriers that other student affairs professionals experience.
Therefore, I hoped to understand these individuals’ points of view on their knowledge-sharing
behaviors.
Ethics
A study’s ethical approach narrows down to experience, intellectual rigor,
values and ethics of the researcher (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In terms of intellectual rigor, I
followed institutional guidelines to the University of Southern California Institutional Review
Board (IRB) when collecting and analyzing the data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). After the
defense proposal, I submitted the study frame to the IRB at the University of Southern
California. Once approved, I presented the study’s structure to the host institution for approval.
After securing both IRB approvals, I followed the necessary guidelines to protect the study
participants, including offering an informed consent form. The informed consent form outlined
my name, the institution’s name, the purpose of the study, participation benefits, level of
41

involvement, confidentiality statements, participant risks, and the opportunity to withdraw from
the study at any time (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Conclusions
This qualitative study sought to understand student affairs professionals’ performance
gaps in knowledge sharing at higher education institutions. This chapter outlined the
methodology, described stakeholders, data collection, data analysis of the study. Further, I shared
the steps taken to ensure credibility and trustworthiness and the study’s limitations and
delimitations. The qualitative methods explained in this chapter provided a methodological
framework to support the purpose of the study.

42

Chapter Four: Results and Findings
This chapter analyzes the performance gaps in knowledge sharing among student affairs
professionals. This study examined the knowledge-sharing practices through which UKS can
meet the goal of the building process for student success, enrich student experiences, and
enhance student success that will influence student recruitment and retention. Three research
questions helped explore knowledge sharing practices among student affairs professionals:
1. How do student affairs professionals’ knowledge and skills affect knowledge-sharing
environments at higher education institutions?
2. What are the motivational factors of student affairs professionals to share knowledge at
higher education institutions?
3. What are the organizational influences for student affairs professionals to share
knowledge?
Chapter Four analyzes the data through the lens of Clark and Estes’s (2008) theoretical
KMO framework. The qualitative study consisted of semi-structured interviews and a
demographic survey. I triangulated data to help address potential biases. The 12 participants
were entry-level and mid-level student affairs professionals from various departments. The
interview consisted of multiple questions that explored KMO influences on knowledge sharing
practices at UKS. Chapter Four is organized into three sections: stakeholder group description,
results and findings, and interview data analysis.
Participating Stakeholders
The participants were student affairs professionals (SAPs) at UKS. Due to Covid-19
restrictions, the interviews were held through the Zoom platform over a period of a week. Table
5 presents a description of the stakeholders.
43

Table 5
Participant Description
Participant Stakeholder Experience Interview length
SAP 1
Student Affairs
Professional (SAP)
0–5 Years 42 min.
SAP 2 SAP 0–5 Years 58 min.
SAP 3 SAP 0–5 Years 45 min.
SAP 4 SAP 0–5 Years 1 hour 44 min.
SAP 5 SAP 10+ Years 50 min.
SAP 6 SAP 10+ Years 47 min.
SAP 7 SAP 6–10 Years 1 hour 32 min.
SAP 8 SAP 10+ Years 30 min.
SAP 9 SAP 6–10 Years 46 min.
SAP 10 SAP 0–5 Years 52 min.
SAP 11 SAP 10+ Years 55 min.
SAP 12 SAP 53 min.

Note: SAP 1–12 are pseudonyms assigned to the participants to protect their anonymity.

Determining Needs and Assets
The assumed KMO needs described in the literature review were validated, partially
validated, or not validated based on interview data. The assumed needs were validated when nine
or more participants exhibited a performance gap. The assumed needs were partially validated
when five to eight of them displayed evidence in the possibility of the need, but the data did not
strongly support this possibility. The assumed needs were identified as not valid when nine or
44

more respondents provided evidence that they possessed the assumed need. Interviewing SAPs
from various departments with a range of years of experience provided an opportunity to help
support the interpretation and triangulation of findings. Further, the results and findings
presented in this chapter helped to identify knowledge-sharing initiatives that will help students
affairs professionals accomplish the organizational goals of UKS.

Table 6
Thresholds Used for the Evaluation of Assumed Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational
Needs
Assertion Threshold
Validated When nine or more SAPs exhibited that there
is a performance gap.

Partially validated When five to eight SAPs displayed evidence in
the possibility of the need but not strongly
supported.

Not validated When nine or more SAPs provided evidence
that they possessed the assumed need
supported by the data collected.

45

Findings of Assumed Knowledge Needs
There were three assumed needs in this study. Table 7 summarizes the findings of each
knowledge influence, and the analysis of the findings follows the table.

Table 7
Assumed Knowledge Influences
Assumed knowledge influence Need validated Need not validated Partially validated
Student affairs professionals need
to know their roles and
responsibilities to enhance
knowledge sharing behaviors.

X

Student affairs professionals need
to understand processes and
procedures to respond to student
needs and crises.

X

Student affairs professionals need
to reflect on experiences to
improve processes, procedures,
and student services.
X

46

Student Affairs Professionals Need to Know Their Roles and Responsibilities to Enhance
Knowledge-Sharing Behaviors (Need Not Validated)
NASPA’s (2015) student affairs core competencies call for the knowledge and skills to
direct, guide, and support students. In this study, all 12 SAPs demonstrated that they understand
and practice their advising and student support roles and responsibilities. SAP 10 stated, “I
believe my role is to be available to students, to be present, to be a presence, and a recognized
face where people know that I somebody they can come to confidentially no place of no
judgment.” SAP 10 noted the importance of being present and available for students to provide
the support they need, which helps students seek guidance from SAPs. SAP 6 explained,
I do most of my outreach with students, but also through faculty. I might talk to a faculty
member who is looking to help the student or reach out to the student and provide
information about our role and invite students to come to the center. They [student]
become a little disarmed as the consultant draws them into a conversation, and, usually, a
light bulb will go in and realize this might be helpful.
The response shows the importance of understanding SAPs’ roles in responding to students’
needs by sharing knowledge and working collaboratively. This instance stresses the importance
of students, SAPs, and faculty understanding the roles and services that SAPs provide.
SAP 5 provided insight on student advocacy:
My role is to advocate for students. I’ve been doing academic coaching for students that
may be concerned they need services. I also have the knowledge in how we can support
them and what tools we can provide. I also work as a faculty member, so a lot of times,
they will bring me in to ask what we could refer them. Like, should they go to
counseling, should they have coaching?
47

This evidence demonstrates the impact of knowledge sharing to help students by
providing the necessary resources, services, and tools that help students succeed. SAP 12
provided a more extensive scope view of their role:
I am a paraprofessional counselor because in all that, there are still mental health issues, I
have to be a first-aid responder sometimes in different scenarios depending on the student
and whatever is happening in their lives at the moment. When I first started, we were
coming out of the cusp of educating role of student affairs that we are not just the party
planners on campus. When in reality, we are the retention. So, there is a huge surge of
reeducating the campus on what we do. We went on a huge campaign on doing
newsletters at the end of every year to showcase and demonstrate what we do because
faculty really needed to understand that we, too, are part of the education process.
These responses demonstrate that SAPs’ expectations go beyond the scope of student events and
programs. They address students’ needs and respond to students in crisis which helps support
student retention at higher education institutions. As all 12 participants stated the common
themes of their roles and responsibilities, factual knowledge is present; therefore, this assumed
need is not validated.
Student Affairs Professionals Need to Understand Processes and Procedures to Respond to
Student Needs and Crises (Need Not Validated)
The results indicated a need for SAPs to involve all stakeholders in university planning
and ensure that everyone understands their roles in responding to students in need and crises
(Miser & Cherrey, 2012). Therefore, student affairs core competencies call for knowledge and
skills to understand policy development and processes that impact student affairs practices
48

(NASPA, 2015). SAP 3 described the responsibility to follow processes and connect students
with resources:
Redirect them to where they can get those services, but also to take it a step further.
Reach out to those colleagues that actually offer those services and give them the name,
and, “Hey, so and so told me this. Maybe you should check on that new wellness check.”
And I think also follow up with a student. Don’t let it just be a one-time conversation if
they’re confiding in you.
SAP 3 acknowledged the process by sharing knowledge with colleagues, re-directing students,
and connecting students with the appropriate and necessary resources. Further, SAP 7 shared
experiences in learning processes and procedures to connect students with resources:
We’re always meeting regularly once a month as a student affairs division, coming
together and being able to provide updates about each department. It was a very good
mixture of departments. It made it very interesting because I learned things when I first
started here. Counseling more where I wouldn’t always see that. Even the student
leadership department, hearing from them their updates and events. So, we will get those
opportunities to come together share what’s happening within that semester, or that
timeframe, or that month particularly. In student affairs, you have to be aware of student
needs because it is not just going to class and making good grades. It can be situations
that definitely we never want to see that are extreme that need to be reported and making
sure they are safe and still be successful in school. We have a great design here to really
make sure that we are communicating to the right individuals, too. I think that’s always
an important piece. You just don’t give out everything to everybody of information and
especially from students and confidentiality. Wanting to make sure, depending on what
49

the situation or matter is, we can help them. So, if it’s maybe something like financial.
They come in and say, “Hey, I’m doing good. I’m in your class doing service learning,
but by the way, I’ve been having this.” Well, okay, we can definitely give you those
resources. Those are the things we get training on throughout the year. We talked about
here as a whole campus.
SAP 7’s comments indicate an understanding that in student affairs, there are times when
students are in crisis. Consequently, it is critical to share the information with the appropriate
individuals to respond to students’ needs and situations. The response indicates that SAP 7 is
aware and knowledgeable of UKS’s processes and procedures to help students in crisis or need.
SAP 12 elaborates on the policy and process of SAPs’ duty to report Title IX concerns:
It is very important that when talking with a student and they’re sharing, that you
definitely get down some information before getting too far into the conversation. Title
IX has definitely changed a lot of the conversation between a professional staff and a
student. Prior, you could have conversations with the student, they could share
information, and you could tell that student, “Oh, sure, this is going to be a confidential
conversation.” You can’t do that anymore. You’re a responsible employee. You need to
be able to protect. So, it’s changed that conversation. My responsibility is to talk with the
student and make sure that they understand that if they are talking with me about a
situation that doesn’t even involve my office but they just need a guided friend, that I let
them know it is. If they’re going to share confidential information, that has to be
recorded. I am responsible, an employee, and that I have to share the information. So,
making sure they understand that up front. And then, if it’s not anything that’s Title IX
related, but it’s still that sensitive area, and they need to be referred somewhere, making
50

sure that they understand I want the best for them. So, we might be talking about a
referral.
The three examples demonstrate that participants possess the procedural knowledge and
skills to respond to student needs and crises. However, although I highlighted three examples,
nine participants indicated they understood processes and procedures to help students in need.
Therefore, the procedural knowledge is present, and the assumed need is not validated.
Student Affairs Professionals Need to Reflect on Experiences to Improve Processes,
Procedures, and Student Services (Need Validated)
Schon’s (1983) seminal work of the theory of reflective practice describes four
components:
• Reflection Before Action: Space where the practitioner connects prior knowledge and
experience to develop a plan.
• Knowing in Action: Requires a quick response which requires initial thinking.
• Reflection in Action: Offers the opportunity for the practitioner to apply knowledge and
experience to assess the problem and assess possible solutions.
• Reflection on Action: Space where the practitioner takes the time to reflect after the event
had occurred. (as cited in Barley, 2012, p. 273)
When asked how SAP’s used reflection methods in their daily practices, two SAPs
responded with concrete evidence of reflective behaviors or processes. For 10 of the respondents,
reflection was a one-dimensional process and did not connect theory into practice. SAP 1
explains using reflection before meetings:
51

Preparing for an appointment, as a reflection, I look over the student’s appointment
needs. I make sure that I have all my templates, documents, links so that when I’m
talking with the students, it flows easily, and I’m prepared for that one on one session.
SAP 1 thought of reflection as preparation before meeting with a student. SAP 4 acknowledged
they do not have a specific method to reflect: “I don’t really have a specific method, I kind of
talk it through with myself and I make notes to myself.” SAP 4’s response describes the
understanding on how reflection is a simple process of making notes after talking to a student.
SAP 5 understood reflection to be an opportunity to seek feedback from others:
I would say I use any feedback I get from the individuals that were involved. We may go
out to lunch and just have an off-the-record conversation about what worked and what
didn’t work or forward-looking, what do we want to be next year.
In this response, SAP 5 only used reflection on action to reflect on processes and student
services. SAP 9 shared,
I have to send it, my monthly activity report, and really talk about what I’ve
accomplished throughout that month. I find that to be a really useful reflection, for me,
because I don’t think about what I do all month. It allows me to sort of collect myself and
think about what my next steps need to be in those various areas. So, that is a very
important aspect of reflection, for me to be able to just consider what’s been
accomplished in which different directions and how those things coordinate into
something good that I’ve done in a month, hopefully.
In this response, SAP 9 described the reflection practice as having the opportunity to summarize
monthly accomplishments.
52

The reflection responses did not provide evidence that the respondents practiced
reflection processes to improve student services, incident response, or processes. Reflection is
time and space to apply theory and knowledge into practice. The data analysis on the responses
validated the need for SAPs to reflect on experiences to improve processes, procedures, and
student services.
Summary Results and Findings for Knowledge Needs
The assessment of the assumed knowledge needs impacting SAPs validated one need and
found two needs not validated. First, responses indicated participants lacked the knowledge and
skill to engage in reflective practices to improve processes, procedures, and student services. The
data also discovered that interviewees understood their roles and responsibilities in providing
services to students, developing processes, and responding to students’ crises. Further, the
participants engaged in knowledge-sharing practices in supporting and addressing student needs.
Lastly, the SAPs confirmed they know the procedures, processes, and policies that impact the
student affairs profession. The following section will outline the results and findings of the
assumed motivational influences.
Findings of Assumed Motivational Needs
The assumed motivational needs and findings outlined in table 8 identifies the validated
and not validated needs.

53

Table 8
Assumed Motivational Needs
Assumed motivational influence
Need
validated
Need not
validated
Partially
validated
Newly
found need
Student affairs professionals
need to be self-motivated to
engage in knowledge sharing.

X

Student affairs professionals
need to have intrinsic
behaviors to participate in
knowledge sharing.

X

Student affairs professionals
need to establish trust among
colleagues to increase
knowledge sharing.

X

Entry-level student affairs
professionals need to be self-
motivated to engage in
knowledge sharing

X
Student affairs professionals
need to establish trust with
individuals where they lack an
established relationship to
increase knowledge sharing.

X

Student Affairs Professionals Need to Be Self-Motivated to Engage in Knowledge Sharing
(Need Not Validated)
Interviewees answered questions regarding participation in collaborative projects and
encouragement to engage in knowledge sharing. The themes that arose in this section pertained
to participation within the department and outside of the department, readiness to act on
opportunities, collaboration efforts, and inclusivity. Nine participants expressed willingness to
participate in collaborative efforts and sharing knowledge. SAP 12 noted,
54

As an individual who’s been at the campus for as long as I have, many departments and
many faculty and staff will rely on my knowledge to take the lead on certain projects. If I
am participating, and I am not leading, I am very quiet, and I am listening and then
reflecting on everything. Then often they will ask me, what do you think, and they
usually want again that historical reference that I shared. But even now, as a director, I
would say that they often invite me to the table for important conversations.
SAP 12’s response demonstrates their understanding that the knowledge is useful for their
colleagues; therefore, they are self-motivated to share the knowledge they possess.
SAP 9 stated,
My style is much more cooperative than authoritarian, I like to gather information from
all the stakeholders see who is able to and cooperatively, willing to do, and which
responsibilities should be held. It’s an anarchist leader style. It’s what you can bring to
the table; let’s talk about it from your perspective, and we can work to make this thing
happen.
In their response, SAP 9 showed the importance of collaborative behaviors to share knowledge
and accomplish goals. SAP 11 explained,
I really like other people to empower, especially when you’re working in a collaborative
team where there are different people from different levels. Some people feel very shy
about speaking with faculty or PhDs. Some people feel like their role isn’t relevant, so I
try to listen and let people take the lead. Just use an example, do you think that the way
we do it is the best way to do it, or is there something else we should be thinking about. I
see this a lot in validating and acknowledging that person’s role and helping them see
how their roles relate to the greater whole of the group.
55

SAP 6 adds,
I’ve got a breadth of experience. I have very good writing and communication skills, but
I am sure happy to take on a role and support or lead if I need to so. I think the fact that
I’ve worked in so many collaborative environments has my skills involved.
In this response, SAP 6 demonstrates that their breadth of knowledge and skills is helpful to
others and contributes to collaborative environments; therefore, SAP 6 is motivated to share
knowledge.
The responses indicate that participating mid-level and senior-level SAPs show self-
efficacy to engage in knowledge-sharing environments with other colleagues. Thus, while the
data showed the assumed need not validated, the interview responses identified a newly found
need of low efficacy of entry-level SAPs to participate in knowledge sharing. The following
section provides data to support the evidence for the newly found assumed need.
Entry-Level Student Affairs Professionals Need to Be Self-Motivated to Engage in Knowledge
Sharing (Newly Identified Validated Need)
As I gathered and analyzed data regarding self-efficacy, a theme of the lack of confidence
to share knowledge by entry-level SAPs emerged. While nine interviewees indicated they had
self-efficacy to engage in knowledge sharing, three of the five entry-level SAPs indicated they
did not engage in knowledge sharing. The reasons these three participants gave for this lack of
sharing knowledge were fear of authority, being intimidated by SAPs with higher degrees, and
fear of public speaking. SAP 1 stated,
In the bigger department, I would say I am probably not as active. It’s the authority. I
guess I factor the people who are there in those meetings. The deans, the chairs, the vice
presidents, people who might feel I don’t have as much experience as them, or they might
56

have a different perspective than me. I’m just nervous around people with authority,
people with higher degrees than me. I wish it weren’t the case, but I’m not going to lie;
this plays a part.
SAP 2 added,
Unfortunately, I hate speaking. I hate it with a passion. I tell everyone, I will do
everything for you. I’ll do the setup. I’ll do the breakdown. Just don’t have me do the
presentation, I will turn red and start stuttering, and it’s just something I’ve never been
able to overcome. I’m the quiet one, but I’ve learned that. In order to help people out or
help students, I need to get myself out of that little cocoon that I make sometimes. If I
don’t do that, I’m not hurting just myself but students I am trying to help. Sometimes I’ll
just be in the background, standing around and being quiet.
SAP 3 shared,
I’m not the one who’s going to jump in first and shout out my ideas, but I am a very big
observer. I think it took me a little longer because I’m a little more shy and a little more private.
It did take me a little bit longer, but I think I’ve tried more.
Although the threshold of nine or more was not met for this assumed need, I believe it is
essential to address it. Kezar and Lester (2009) argued that entry-level administrators feel they
should be seen and not heard, resulting in the lack of participation in meetings or projects. Based
on the responses of the three entry-level SAPs, the data provides a newly found need to build
self-efficacy among this population.

57

Student Affairs Professionals Need to Have Intrinsic Behaviors to Participate in Knowledge
Sharing (Need Not Validated)
Individuals collaborate in institutional projects and processes to meet new people and
accomplish goals (Kezar & Lester, 2016). All 12 student affairs participants demonstrated that
the main aspect of their work involved the intrinsic motivation of helping others. The values of
the profession in helping others are the driving force in engaging in knowledge-sharing
behaviors. Interviewees believe that their service is more of a higher calling in helping others,
which provides motivation where employees are more satisfied and, therefore, more productive
(Kezar & Lester, 2016). SAP 1 stated,
I’ll share the information if it seems like information that would benefit my colleagues.
These are their needs; I think you’d be better suited to help them. I’d be open to sharing
that information. I’m not guarded, and I’m not trying to compete with anyone. I’m going
to be helpful.
Here, SAP 1 provided evidence of their participation in knowledge sharing to accomplish the
goal of helping the student and colleagues. SAP 8 further explains, “We are a small university,
so anything that I can do to help the student I do as long as I’m capable of doing it.” SAP 8
affirmed their persistence to accomplish the goal of helping students and addressing their needs.
SAP 5 demonstrated altruistic behaviors: “I never expect any reciprocation. I feel like I’m
going to share my experience and thoughts on the subject. You know, maybe altruistic benefits
to help increase the value, the sense of belonging on campus.” SAP 5 asserts they participate in
knowledge sharing without expecting anything in return. SAP 5 motivation depicts Clark and
Estes (2008) the three facets of motivational performance. SAP 5 chooses to share knowledge on
the specific subject, which shows their persistence in creating a sense of belonging and applying
58

the mental effort to find innovative solutions by utilizing knowledge. SAP 12 further supports
altruism in student affairs:
I fell into a passion of working with these populations and making sure that these
students understood you can break chains in your family’s through education. It is the
one power that you can actually use and use for good—so coming to this institution and
making sure that I had a part in the student’s journey of development and growth. That is
going to transfer into their family, their future families, and that joy of watching that
student cross the stage at graduation is what drew me to stay here; that’s been my
continuing passion.
SAP 12 provided their experience supporting students to achieve their goals while fulfilling the
organizational goals of persisting towards graduation.
The results provide evidence that the 12 SAPs at UKS have intrinsic behaviors in helping
others achieve their goals, and therefore, the need is not validated.
Student Affairs Professionals Need to Establish Trust Among Colleagues to Increase
Knowledge Sharing (Need Not Validated)
The interview responses found that nine interviewees trust their colleagues in their
department or individuals with whom they formed relationships through experience. SAP 10
described trust in terms of reliance and confidence:
In my division, I trust them completely because they are the ones who have been here
longer and can help me get access to things. Also, I trust people who get things done and
who can put my ideas into action.

59

SAP 2 described their trust in colleagues:
I think it takes my experience with them, you know, get to know you, and I may have
known you [and] had a personal-level understanding of how you handle things, and the
way you handle things has proven to me that you’re trustworthy.
SAP 1 shared, “I trust people who I have interacted with before. I already have the knowledge of
who they are and how they work.” SAP 6 also shares, “I trust the people I work with more
regularly.” The response of both participants provides evidence that they trust colleagues with
whom they work frequently. SAP 11 further confirms relationships are the foundation of trust.
SAP 11 stated, “I think that the relationship needs to be in place, and then the level of trust for
sharing reflects that relationship.” Catmull ( 2014) argued that it takes time for individuals to
establish trust within a group, allowing individuals to be candid and comfortable with one
another.
Nine participants all noted the basis for trust involves the need to establish relationships
with colleagues. Therefore, I found a newly identified need for SAPs to develop trust with
individuals outside of their department or with individuals with whom they lack an established
relationship.
Student Affairs Professionals Need to Establish Trust With Individuals Outside of Their
Department or With Individuals Where They Lack an Established Relationship (Newly
Identified Need)
The results identified a new need in that participants expressed a lack of trust among
colleagues with whom they had previously worked or had an established relationship. SAP 10
describes,
60

Outside of my division because I do feel we have this expectation to be impressive. I do
not necessarily show how much I do not know because I do not want them to think: how
can I trust that department if [they don’t] know anything?
In their response, SAP 10 explained their trust in individuals outside of their division for fear of
individuals’ awareness of their lack of knowledge. SAP 1 also explained their level of trust in
individuals they have not previously worked with before. SAP 1 stated,
If I know who I’m working with, and they’re not intimidating because I have already
interacted with them before. I already have that knowledge of who they are, how they
like to work if there’s a familiarity there and being cautious with your trust.
In their response, SAP 1 referred to being intimidated by individuals with whom they have not
interacted before. The lack of trust in colleagues impacts the knowledge-sharing environment.
SAP 9 shared their experience in losing trust with colleagues:
I have trust in many of my colleagues, but I can’t say it’s true for all of my colleagues.
Slowly, I realized this particular person may not be totally forthright with me, or they
might have a different agenda. When I see that, through communications, through emails,
or through meetings, I see that somebody has altered the way that I spoke about
something or who has their own interests, seemingly above the interests of the students,
then I stopped sharing information with those people as much. When I do share, it is
guarded, and I may be reaching out for help, but I am not reaching out looking for them
to participate as much as I look for in other colleagues.
SAP 9 depicted their lack of trust in several of their colleagues. They further describe their
knowledge-sharing behaviors once trust is lost:
61

The evidence for this influence shows that nine interviewees lack trust with colleagues
from other departments or where there is no established relationship. Therefore, the new need
calls for SAPs to build trust with colleagues from different departments.
Summary Results for Motivational Needs
The evidence showed two newly discovered needs and three needs not validated. The
first newly found need was that the entry-level interviewees lacked the self-efficacy to
participate in knowledge sharing. The second newly identified need was due to a lack of trust in
individuals with whom there was no established relationship. However, despite the newly
identified need, participants shared the importance of altruistic behaviors to help meet the
organizational goals of providing student services and assistance. The experienced SAPs
demonstrated high self-efficacy motivational behaviors in participating in knowledge sharing.
The following section will explore the evidence regarding organizational assumptions.
Findings of Assumed Organizational Needs
The assumed organizational influence needs and findings are outlined in Table 9, which
identifies the validated, not validated, or newly identified needs.

62

Table 9
Assumed Organizational Influences
Assumed organizational influence
Need
validated
Need not
validated
Partially
validated
Higher education institutions need to
establish an organizational vision, share
common goals, and set clear
communication for sharing expertise.

X

Higher education institutions need to
encourage individuals to build
relationships to enhance knowledge-
sharing practices.

X

Higher education institutions need to
provide the necessary support with tools
and resources to foster knowledge-sharing
environments.

X

Higher education institutions need to make
knowledge sharing a priority to maintain
a competitive advantage
X

Higher Education Institutions Need to Establish an Organizational Vision, Share Common
Goals, and Set Clear Communication for Sharing Expertise (Need Partially Validated)
Participants provided insight into the organizational value that promotes knowledge
sharing at UKS. However, only eight participants shared that community is the organizational
value that encourages knowledge sharing. SAP 12 explained, “I think they [organization] view it
in terms of the community, and that’s why we have to knowledge share, because the more that
we all share, then the more we are all a community.” Thus, SAP 12 provided evidence of UKS’s
community value that fosters a knowledge-sharing environment. SAP 2’s response also supports
the value of community at UKS: “The university is very big about welcoming and hearing our
63

students and community’s voice to include employees and faculty, and they do this through the
mission.” In their response, SAP 2 shared insight into the organization’s inclusive approach to
listening to the UKS community. SAP 3 stated, We focus on inclusivity with our values. We are
trying to make sure our first-generation students are growing and that our new students see we
are working together. As a student, I see them as a tree; they have all these branches and are
missing all bits of information. As SAPs, we are working together to fill all of those gaps.
This evidence suggests that working collaboratively in the organization fosters an environment
of cooperation and coordinated effort among individuals (Burke, 2016).
Although several participants expressed the organizational value of community,
additional information provided by other participants suggested the need to share common goals.
SAP 6 clearly articulated the problem with leaders not sharing goals with workgroups. SAP 6
shared,
Every member coming to the table has a skillset in various areas that could inform a
bigger decision. The leader of the group is there because they want the feedback of the
group, and you want them to tell you that would really work here or here because of this
or this, but in this area, you have a problem. Therefore, the more information you get on
the table by sharing, the stronger the program.
SAP 6 continued by explaining the problem in their workgroup:
I am in the middle of that right now, and I am not happy about it. My leader is not using
all of the resources and all the people they could use to build a program more effectively.
If my leaders could have told me what they wanted to do with a program and share the
knowledge with me, we could have done it together, and it would have been better and
less people had to reinvent the wheel. This is a problem; a leader’s job is to recognize
64

who the players are. When my leader acts afraid because I possess the knowledge and
that might make them look like they do not, that to me is poor leadership; it undermines
the morale of the team and our ability to serve students.
In their response, SAP 6 explained that a lack of knowledge sharing between leadership and
workgroups will impact the organization’s goal of providing services to students. SAP 9
supported SAP 6’s claim:
You know those values. Everybody can write values, obviously, but if they’re actually
going to carry out those values, it’s a different story. I think any institution has that issue,
and I think institutions have a problem in that there are a lot of competing interests. You
can say that there is some overarching set of values and overarching goals, but in fact,
there are a lot of competing interests from different. People in different organizations
within the institution often work against each other, or at least maybe not on purpose, but
they’re at least not being collaborative. I think that there is a lot spoken about
collaboration and communication. There are a lot of people who work here that really just
want to help the students, and they are open to collaborating. It’s not about ego for them,
but I think that in any institution, you’re going to have people who kind of spoil that, and
it’s just a matter of working around those people. But those values, it just depends on if
we’re talking about explicit values that are said or the values that are embodied by the
institution.
The responses indicate that the validated portion of this assumption is that UKS needs to
communicate organizational goals and establish a community of SAPs who engage in knowledge
sharing.
65

Higher Education Institutions Need to Encourage Individuals to Build Relationships to
Enhance Knowledge-Sharing Practices (Need Not Validated)
Nine participants indicated that they already share their experiences in participating in
social network opportunities. SAP 1 said,
At different presentations, we will have fun and kind of commiserate, and we’ll share.
We sit at these big tables, and you’re not assigned a seat, so typically, you get to mingle
with people you’ve never met before or with the new faculty. You know we’re listening
to presentations, eating food, and the atmosphere is a little bit lighter because food is
involved.
In their response, SAP 1 provides evidence of the organization’s efforts to provide opportunities
to build relationships with colleagues. SAP 3 said,
Our vice president is always having social events for us so we can get to know each other
and trust one another. The socials are on campus and off-campus, and I think that is very
important because when you’re on campus, you are professional. When they started
having socials off-campus, you can kind of feel a more relaxed vibe from everyone. This
is what really allowed us to get to know one another a little bit more.
SAP 3 stressed the importance of relationship building on and off-campus, allowing
individuals to get to know one another and support collaborative efforts to lead to knowledge
sharing. SAP 9 shared an in-depth experience in working on committees and participating in
retreats. SAP 9 explained,
In student affairs, there’s are a lot of retreats and meetings that are quite extensive. I
mean like four-hour-long meetings where it’s really a lot getting to know each other and
working as working groups. These meetings are to do some tasks, and it’s not always the
66

most productive task, but it allows us to sort of get to know each other. So, I guess there’s
also a lot of strategic planning going on, so with the administration sort of forming these
ad hoc committees that have us tackling a particular issue, should we add this program
over here or how can we better serve our students who are who are not passing in these
gateway courses. I feel like those are the little nodes of collaboration that are really
important for working towards the values and the goals of the university.
SAP 9 provided insight into the collaborative efforts at UKS that lead to accomplishing the
organizational goals. SAP 12, from their perspective, shares on the relationship building within
the leadership group and the division of student affairs. SAP 12 stated,
The vice president likes to do group professional development, so all directors meet with
the vice president, and we have what is called our student affairs leadership team
meeting, and then, on another day of the week, we have our student affairs professional
development meetings and that’s the entire division. We could bring potlucks. we could
talk about the book that we’re all reading, or we could talk about the conferences that we
were attending. We could share information, and there was joy, laughter, fun, and that
type of sharing coming from our vice president is nice.
SAP 12 explained how student affairs have balanced opportunities to discuss university business
and add the social components to their meetings, fostering a knowledge-sharing environment.
The evidence suggests that UKS provides opportunities for SAPs to build relationships
with their colleagues, making this assumed influence an asset to the organization and not a
validated need.

67

Higher Education Institutions Need to Provide the Necessary Support With Tools and
Resources to Foster Knowledge-Sharing Environments (Need Partially Validated)
According to nine participants, UKS provides the necessary communication tools to
engage in knowledge sharing. For example, SAP 5 said,
We have the standard things like the website, newsletter, portals, SharePoint, and we also
have social media. We also have Teams meetings, department meetings, and staff
advisories. We have staff town halls through Zoom. You can send in questions ahead of
time, and there’s a panel of leadership that can address any number of topics that may
come up.
SAP 5 provided evidence of the multiple platforms provided by UKS to engage in knowledge
sharing among university departments. SAP 4 further explains how UKS employees utilize
SharePoint within the organization. SAP 4 stated,
Our goal with SharePoint is that it can be a place where the division can have things but
also students can access. For example, if I want to refer myself to counseling, I can go to
the SharePoint site and find everything I need for that, or if I need more information
about something, the files could be housed in there, not that they wouldn’t also be on the
website, but they would know that they can go to SharePoint to get more information.
In their response, SAP 4 explained how SharePoint is used at UKS to share knowledge with
students and colleagues, which helps provide services and inform processes.
Despite the resources provided by UKS to engage in knowledge sharing, participants
shared the lack of training opportunities offered by the organization. SAP 1 states,
Some of the training I received about sharing information is primarily about when a
student some to you and wants to report a sexual assault that happened, where there are
68

policies where we have to report. So, this is the primary knowledge-sharing thing I have
been trained on.
SAP 10 shared, “So, what training I received on knowledge sharing? Well, not much on
knowledge sharing. There is no official training in knowledge sharing. There is no official
training on knowledge sharing.” SAP further supported SAP 1 and SAP 10’s claimed, “You
know, a lot of the training I received lately has not been all that helpful to me. I do not feel like I
got any training at the current university where I am at.” SAP 12 gives further explanation on the
need for training entry-level and mid-level SAPs,
In a leadership position, I received the best type of training with workshops and other
training opportunities. I received more training in a leadership position than at a lower-
level position. In my opinion, it’s backward; directors, assistant directors, coordinators,
and graduate leaders are going to be closer to the student, closely connected because they
work with them daily. They are forming those bonds and those working relationships
with students. When a student is in crisis or something is happening, they are more likely
to talk to that staff member. So, really, where does the training need to be?
Therefore, based on the data analyzed, the evidence suggested that the organizational
resources are provided; however, there is a partial need for change to train SAPs on using the
resources to engage in knowledge sharing.
Summary Results and Findings for Organizational Needs
The data analysis regarding organizational influences demonstrates two partially
validated needs. First, the research shows a partially validated need to share and communicate
common goals among SAPs at UKS. Second, the results also partially validate the need to train
69

SAPs to engage and create a knowledge-sharing environment. The need to address the
organizational influences is essential to bridge the gap among SAPs at UKS.
Conclusion
This study assumed nine influences on UKS’s ability to achieve its goal in knowledge
sharing among SAPs. The study identified one area for improvement related to knowledge
influences: SAPs need to reflect on experiences to improve processes, procedures, and student
services. There were two new needs for improvement in the identified motivational influences
among SAPs. The first is that entry-level SAPs need to be self-motivated to engage in knowledge
sharing, and the second is that all SAPs need to establish trust with individuals with whom they
do not have an established relationship to increase knowledge sharing. Lastly, there were two
partial needs for improvement in the organizational influences at UKS. The first was a need to
establish an organizational vision, share common goals, and set clear communication for sharing
expertise. The second was a need to provide support with tools and resources to foster
knowledge-sharing environments. The KMO influences and validation results provided in table
10 summarize the findings that impact knowledge sharing among SAPs. Chapter Five addresses
the evidence-based study recommendations in knowledge sharing among SAPs at UKS.

70

Table 10
Summary of KMO Needs, Influences, and Evaluation Results
Need Sub-Category Evidence results
Knowledge
Student affairs professionals need to know their
roles and responsibilities to enhance
knowledge-sharing behaviors.
Factual Not validated
Student affairs professionals need to understand
processes and procedures to respond to student
needs and crisis.
Procedural Not validated
Student affairs professionals need to reflect on
experiences to improve processes, procedures,
and student services.
Metacognitive Validated
Motivation
Student affairs professionals need to be self-
motivated to engage in knowledge sharing. Self-Efficacy not validated
Entry-level student affairs professionals need to
be self-motivated to engage in knowledge
sharing. (Newly identified need)
Self-Efficacy Validated
Student affairs professionals need to have
altruistic behaviors to participate in knowledge
sharing.
Intrinsic motivation Not validated
Student affairs professionals need to establish
trust among colleagues to increase knowledge
sharing.
Social networking Not validated
Student affairs professionals need to establish
trust with individuals where they lack an
established relationship to increase knowledge
sharing. (Newly identified need)
Social networking Validated

71

Need Sub-Category Evidence results
Organization
Higher education institutions need to establish an
organizational vision, share common goals,
and set clear communication for sharing
expertise.
Organizational
culture
Partially validated
Higher education institutions need to encourage
individuals to build relationships to enhance
knowledge-sharing practices.
Organizational
leadership
Not validated
Higher education institutions need to provide the
necessary support with tools and resources to
foster knowledge-sharing environments.
Organizational
support
Partially validated
Higher education institutions need to make
knowledge sharing a priority to maintain a
competitive advantage
Organizational
culture
Not validated

72

Chapter Five: Recommendations and Discussion
The study analyzed the KMO influences impacting knowledge sharing among SAPs.
Chapters One, Two, and Three outlined the research questions, supported literature, and a semi-
structured interview approach for data collection. Chapter Four presented the data collected over
one week from 12 SAPs at UKS. Three research questions guided the study:
1. How do student affairs professionals’ knowledge and skills affect knowledge-sharing
environments at higher education institutions?
2. What are the motivational factors of student affairs professionals to share knowledge at
higher education institutions?
3. What are the organizational influences for student affairs professionals to share
knowledge?
Findings and Results
The data analysis validated several needs that are current gaps in efforts to meet the
organizational goal of knowledge sharing among SAPs. The interviewees’ responses guided the
findings and recommendations outlined in Chapter Five. The chapter begins with
recommendations for practice to address the validated, partially validated, and newly found
identified needs to close the knowledge-sharing gap among SAPs. Second, all findings provide
literature support and evidence-based recommendations to address the KMO influences to help
accomplish UKS’s goals. Third, the W. K Kellogg Foundation’s (1998) logic model will be
applied to the suggested implementation and evaluation plan for UKS. Finally, Chapter Five
concludes with the study’s limitations and delimitations, recommendations for future research,
and my final thoughts.

73

Recommendations for Practice
The recommendations outlined in this chapter address the KMO influences that were
validated, partially validated, and newly identified needs. The findings validate metacognitive
knowledge as a need that requires reflection of practice. Second, the results validate the need to
build self-efficacy among entry-level SAPs. Third, the findings validate the need for UKS to set
clear goals for student affairs that will support student services, as identified in Chapter Four.
Finally, the recommendation implementation and evaluation will allow UKS SAPs to close the
gap in knowledge-sharing practices.
Knowledge Influences Recommendation
In this study, Krathwohl’s (2002) knowledge types explored the skills in knowledge
sharing among SAPs at UKS. The data collected in the interviews demonstrated the need for
training the SAPs to enhance their metacognitive skills through reflection. Table 11 represents
the knowledge influence and the evidence-based recommendation for UKS to reach the
organizational goal.

Table 11
Summary of Knowledge Needs and Recommendations
Validated knowledge need Principle and citation Recommendation
Student affairs professionals need
to reflect on experiences to
improve processes, procedures,
and student services
(metacognitive knowledge).
Reflection allows student
affairs professionals to
engage in daily practices to
provide an individualized
student experience (Kimball
& Ryder, 2014).
Training and job aids
will help guide
student affairs
professionals in
reflective practices
and perfect the new
procedure (Clark &
Estes, 2008).

74

The recommendation related to knowledge is that training and job aids will help guide
student affairs professionals in reflective practices and perfect the new procedure. This study
found that SAPs at UKS need to engage in reflective practices that enhance student experiences,
processes, and services. The researcher’s recommendation to train them on reflection practices in
their work environment will help support work performance. Reason and Kimball (2012) argued
the critical need for student affairs practitioners to connect formal theory, informal theory, and
practice, facilitating reflective efforts to create new initiatives and enhance existing practices.
Most participants understood reflective practices as writing things down in a journal or preparing
for a meeting. However, the results showed a lack of understanding of applying reflection into
practice.
SAPs need training in using a reflective model that will help to guide them to engage in
reflection daily. Although SAPs at UKS shared multiple forms of reflection through journaling,
using colleagues as sounding boards, or as an opportunity to pause, the evidence showed the lack
of connecting this into practice.
A job aid would be helpful in guiding the reflective process. The job aid will help
navigate reflection for different processes, services, projects, and crisis responses. Table 12
shows Schon’s (1983) knowing in action, reflection in action, and reflecting on action applied to
providing services to a student and creating a job aid to help guide the SAP’s daily reflective
process. Appendix A presents a tool that offers reflective questions for SAP’s to utilize daily to
help enhance student services, processes, projects, and crisis response.

75

Table 12
Schon’s Reflective Model
Knowing in action Welcoming a student to a student affairs office and make them feel at
ease to seek services.
The anxious student expresses to the SAP they are not doing well in
classes. The student shares they need food and internet
connectivity at home.

Reflection on action The student feels stressed, and there is a need to calm them down.
I inform the student there is a campus food pantry available for
students. I also explain the instructional technology help desk
offers internet accessibility solutions for the student’s needs.

When I intervened to help the student, I only addressed the need for
food and the internet. Next time, I need to walk the student to the
food pantry to know the location and operating hours. Second, I
need to walk the student to the instructional technology help desk
to understand the location. Third, I also need to address the
academic concern by offering tutoring services. Lastly, I need to
report the student concerns in the reporting system and share my
knowledge on student issues with the appropriate colleagues to
ensure student follow-up and resources connection.

Motivation Influences Recommendations
Three motivational influences were evaluated in this study: self-efficacy, intrinsic
motivation, and social networking. The two validated motivational influences (self-efficacy for
entry-level SAPs and social networking trust with colleagues outside their department) will be
addressed in these recommendations. Table 13 presents the validated and partially validated
motivational influences and recommendations that need to be addressed for UKS to accomplish
the organizational goals.

76

Table 13
Summary of Motivational Needs and Recommendations
Validated knowledge need Principle and citation Recommendation
Entry-level student affairs
professionals need to be self-
motivated to engage in
knowledge sharing.
Supervisors need to support
new professionals’ ideas
and create an environment
that fosters new student
affairs professional
development (Halter,
2017).
The application of the four
components that build an
individual’s self-
efficacy: performance,
role model experience,
social persuasion, and
physiological feedback
will build self-efficacy
(Bandura, 1977).

Student affairs professionals
need to establish trust with
individuals who lack an
established relationship to
increase knowledge sharing.
Individuals operate in social
systems which organize,
guide, and behavior
(Bandura, 2005).
UKS will build trust and
relationships among
SAPs in various
departments by using the
four levels of
relationship building
(Schein, 2017).

Motivational Recommendation 1: Mentorship for Entry-Level Student Affairs Professionals to
Gain Learning Opportunities and Skill Development, Increasing Self-Efficacy
This study found that entry-level SAPs need to build self-efficacy to engage in
knowledge sharing. Hu and Zhao (2016) found that individuals with high self-efficacy contribute
novel ideas and adapt to unconventional approaches to solving problems. Tull et al. (2009)
explained that mentorship involves the willingness to engage in learning opportunities with new
professionals to help develop skills. Therefore, creating a mentorship program will help build
entry-level SAPs skills and build self-efficacy. The first step is to match entry-level SAPs (0–5
years) with Senior SAPs (8–10 years) at a match day at training. The mentor and mentee will be
from different student affairs departments. Bandura (1977) discussed four components that build
an individual’s self-efficacy: performance, role model experience, social persuasion, and
77

physiological feedback. First, effective performance involves the individual’s experience to
perform any given task. Second, Bandura (1977) explained that self-efficacy consists of an
individual’s observation of other’s performance compared to their own to determine competence.
Third, words of encouragement and assurance influence an individual’s performance. Last, the
physiological indices are the natural bodily reactions that influence emotional beliefs. Figure 2
summarizes the self-efficacy components (Bandura, 1977) applied to a mentor/mentee program.

Figure 2
Self-Efficacy Components

Note. Adapted from Self-efficacy: The exercise of control by A. Bandura, 1977. Freeman
Publishing.
78

Motivation Recommendation 2: Use Schein’s Four Levels of Relationships to Build Trust and
Foster Cross-Departmental Relationships
Schein (2017) posited that organizations need to understand the four levels of
relationships to understand trust. In Level 1, individuals do not know each other and do not have
an established relationship; thus, there is no trust. Relationships at this level occur when people
are new to the organization or do not interact with colleagues from other departments. Schein
(2017) stated that staying at this level will lead to low productivity. At the next level, there is
individual recognition and trusting working relationships, which allow commitment to each
other, ensuring no harm to one another, and an agreement to share information relevant to
organizational goals. UKS needs to help build relationships at this level which will increase trust
among SAPs. Individuals will participate in knowledge sharing at this level with increased trust.
In the last level, the deeper relationships demonstrate positive emotions that foster trusting and
supportive relationships. Therefore, SAPs must build relationships through these four levels to
increase trust with colleagues from various departments. Abrams et al. (2003) established 10
trusting behaviors that will help facilitate knowledge sharing. Table 14 outlines the application of
the 10 trusting behaviors that will help build relationships among SAPs. Monthly cross-
departmental training will offer opportunities to practice Abrams et al.’s (2003) trusted behaviors
through teambuilders, ice-breakers, and co-presentations. The activities will help build
relationships that will foster future collaborative efforts.

79

Table 14
Abrams Ten Trusting Behaviors
Behaviors Student affairs application
Act with discretion Only share information that is mandatory to share
or information that impacts institutional goals

Be consistent with word and deed
Practice the organization’s and departmental
mission

Ensure communication
Utilize the necessary communication platforms
with all stakeholders

Engage in collaborative communication Actively participate in meetings, projects, and
processes with colleagues from different
departments

Ensure decisions are fair and
transparent
Engage necessary stakeholders in meetings and the
planning of collaborative projects

Establish shared vision and language Communicate organizational vision and goals with
student affairs professionals at all levels

Hold people accountable for the trust Make trust a priority within the organization by
evaluating employees on trustworthy behavior

Create personal connections
Develop interdepartmental activities, projects,
mentorship, and training

Give away something of value Encourage colleagues to take risks; foster a
learning environment; engage in knowledge-
sharing behaviors

Disclose your expertise and limitations Create a trusting environment that allows others to
be vulnerable to share strengths and weaknesses

Organizational Influences Recommendations
Clark and Estes (2008) discussed the need for organizations to provide adequate
processes, materials, and organizational culture to improve performance. The study explored
organizational culture, leadership, and support. The findings in this study suggest the need for
leadership to communicate vision and goals and provide the necessary training to foster a
knowledge-sharing environment at UKS. Therefore, I recommend UKS leadership be transparent
and consistent in communicating goals, plans, and projects (Clark & Estes, 2008). In addition,
80

provide the necessary training to SAPs to engage in knowledge sharing to accomplish UKS
goals. Table 15 outlines the partially validated needs and recommendations that need to be
addressed for UKS to achieve the goals.

Table 15
Summary of Organizational Needs and Recommendations
Validated knowledge need Principle and citation Recommendation
Higher education institutions
need to establish an
organizational vision, share
common goals, and set
clear communication for
sharing expertise.
Communication and
information are crucial
for organizations to
connect with all
stakeholders (Schein,
2017)
UKS create a vision statement
and communicate common
goals to solve enable SAPs
to work collaboratively
(McClellan and Stringer,
2009).
Higher education institutions
need to provide the
necessary support with
tools and resources to foster
knowledge-sharing
environments.
The Logic Model is a tool
that provides an
opportunity to learn,
implement, and assess
programs in the
organization (W. K
Kellogg Foundation,
1998).
UKS provides training for
SAPs to share knowledge to
accomplish organizational
goals (Clark & Estes, 2008).

81

Organizational Influences Recommendation 1: Work Collaboratively to Create a Vision and
Communicate Common Goals to Solve Problems
The study provides evidence of the need for UKS leadership to communicate vision and
goals with SAPs. Clark and Estes (2008) argued that every organization needs to identify goals
and ensure that everyone understands how and when the goals need to be accomplished. Further,
Riege (2005) explained that management needs to communicate organizational goals and
strategies and guide employees. Communication is essential for knowledge sharing to occur.
Therefore, incorporating Riege’s (2005) three main factors to communicate goals will foster a
knowledge-sharing culture. The first strategy is to motivate employees to gather, transfer, and
apply new knowledge by offering opportunities for employees to share knowledge at meetings,
training, and technology platforms with colleagues (Riege, 2005). The second strategy is to
create an organizational structure wherein leaders role model behaviors, provide feedback, and
facilitate transparency of processes and organizational goals to connect knowledge-sharing
practices (Riege, 2005). The third communication strategy is to provide technology platforms to
share knowledge (Riege, 2005). Implementing these strategies will help facilitate the
communication process and enhance the knowledge-sharing environment at UKS.
Organizational Influences Recommendation 2: Training on Sharing Knowledge
The findings in this study indicate that UKS needs to train SAPs on how to engage in
knowledge sharing with colleagues. However, although the goal is to enhance skills, the focus
must be on knowledge and skills that improve student outcomes (Mills, 2009). In this study,
several participants indicated that they did not receive training on sharing knowledge. Therefore,
they need training on sharing knowledge with their colleagues, which will help improve student
services, processes, and crises management. In addition, the study found a need for training in
82

processing metacognitive knowledge, which will help engage in knowledge sharing. Further, the
training needs to be guided by learning goals that enable trainees to gain competence (Ambrose
et al., 2010). Therefore, it is recommended for UKS to develop learning goals for SAP’s training
program. UKS needs to develop a training schedule to address various knowledge-sharing topics
to include relationship building between departments.
This study’s recommendations align with UKS’s goals of ensuring students will know
and understand the student affairs team’s roles and responsibilities, having its leadership provide
the resources to support a knowledge-sharing environment, and ensuring SAPs implement
knowledge-sharing strategies to enhance communication collaboration, social networking and
provide high-impact student programs and services
Implementation of Recommendations
The study found that interviewees need to engage in reflective practices, build trust,
develop self-efficacy for entry-level SAPs, and establish and communicate organizational goals.
The evidence supports SAP training and mentorship for entry-level professionals.
This study suggests using the W. K Kellogg Foundation’s (1998) basic logic model to
implement the recommendations. Table 16 demonstrates the implementation process. The first
step is to identify the resources required for implementing the training and mentorship program.
The data analysis revealed a need for training to provide opportunities for growth in reflection
practices, building trust, and developing communication strategies. The list of action items
provided in Table 16 involves active participation from senior leadership and SAPs at all levels
of experience. Following the training program, job aids, and reflection guide, facilitators will
administer surveys to guide future programs.
83

Table 16
Implementation Plan
Action step Need to be addressed Time frame
Senior SAPs need to be trained
in mentorship practices.
Conceptual knowledge (K) December 2021
Entry-level SAPs and senior
SAP will be matched for the
mentorship program.
Self-Efficacy (M) December 2021
SAPs need to be trained on
student affairs theories.
Conceptual knowledge (K) December 2021
SAPs need to be trained on
reflection practices.
Metacognitive knowledge (K) January 2022
SAPs will participate in
weekly and monthly
reflection activities.
Metacognitive knowledge (K) February 2022
Mentor and mentees will
facilitate team-building
activities at monthly
training.
Self-Efficacy (M) March 2022, monthly
Executive leadership will
facilitate a presentation of
the university’s strategic
goals and departmental
expectations.
Adequate resources (O) March 2022
Cross-functional senior SAPs
will facilitate the goal-
setting session.
Goal orientation (O) April 2022
Student affairs departments
will present departmental
goals aligned with
organizational goals.
Adequate resources (O) May 2022

84

Action step Need to be addressed Time frame
Mentorship program
participants will meet to
discuss SAP mentee
individual goals.
Goal orientation (O) May 2022
Cross-functional mid-level
SAPs will facilitate
communication strategies
training.
Adequate resources (O) June 2022
Entry-level SAPs will facilitate
the goal updates discussion
session.
Self-Efficacy (M) July 2022
Student affairs leadership will
survey participants on
implementation strategies.
Evaluation September 2022
Senior SAPs will analyze data
and develop
recommendations.
Evaluation October 2022
A knowledge-sharing
environment among student
affairs professionals is
reached at 100%
Evaluation November 2022

Evaluation
In the logic model, the intended results describe the outputs, meaning the product of the
implementation’s resources and program activities (W. K Kellogg Foundation, 1998). Thus, the
logic model provides an opportunity to implement a program where organizations allocate
resources for activities and outline expected outcomes. According to the W. K Kellogg
Foundation (1998), resources or inputs refer to human, financial, organizational, and community
resources. The program activities are the interventions such as processes, technology, events, and
actions to accomplish the necessary program outcomes. Further, the resources and program
85

activities are the organization’s planned work to implement the program. Therefore, the next
phase of the program’s implementation and evaluation involves the intended results, which
include three components: outputs, outcomes, and impact. The W. K Kellogg Foundation (1998)
explained the outputs as the intended types, levels, and targets of services expected from the
program. The outcomes are the planned change in behavior, knowledge, skills, status level of the
program participants. The last component is the impact of the change that occurs after program
implementation. The foundation presented the logic model as an effective tool that follows a
systematic approach to planning and evaluating the organizational program (W. K Kellogg
Foundation, .
At UKS, I recommend applying the W. K Kellogg Foundation’s (1998) logic model to
create a systematic approach to program implementation and evaluation. Figure 3 illustrates the
application of the logic model for the study’s recommendations. First, I identified the resources
required to accomplish the recommended activities: SAPs willing to participate in the program,
financial support for training and development, time commitment, and technology support.
Second, the program’s activities include active participation in training, mentorship, reflective
practices, relationship building, and goal setting to allow UKS to attain the necessary outputs and
outcomes. The expected outputs are SAPs’ participation in monthly training, reflective practices,
support and increased self-efficacy for entry-level SAPs, relationship-building activities, and
goal setting and attainment. These outputs will help identify the service delivery and
implementation UKS aims to accomplish (W. K Kellogg Foundation, 1998). The program
outcomes are the goals the SAPs aim to meet. Thus, the program attempts to secure student
affairs participation and application of learning outcomes, increased reflective activities, and
application to practice. Further, the program seeks increased support and inclusivity for entry-
86

level SAPs, increased trust among SAPs from different departments, and goal alignment and
attainment. These outcomes working in unison with the organizations’ assets will impact
knowledge sharing.

Figure 3
Program Implementation and Evaluation

Note. Adapted from Using Logic Models to Bring Together Planning, Evaluation, and Action by
W. K. Kellogg Foundation, 1998.

87

The W. K, Kellogg Foundation (1998) recommended a framework for an evaluation plan
that will increase the program’s effectiveness. Questions must be generated from various points
of view in the evaluation process, such as resources, activities, outcomes, outputs, and impact.
Table 17 outlines possible questions to evaluate programmatic efforts at each phase. According
to the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, the evaluation process helps identify the program’s anticipated
strengths and weaknesses. For example, the resource evaluation questions assess organizational
ability and capacity to implement the program. The activities or inputs evaluation questions tell
the story of the desired results. Therefore, by following the evaluation process, UKS will
measure participation, relationship building, reflective practices, and goal setting. Lastly,
outcomes evaluation addresses the changes in the organization as a result of the program. In the
UKS program, SAPs will measure entry-level SAPs’ engagement, collaborative efforts among
SAPs, and goal attainment.

88

Table 17
Evaluation Framework
Focus area Typical questions Evaluation use
Resources
Will the student affairs professionals want
to participate in the activities?
Will we be able to secure financial support
for supplies and meals during training?
Do we have the appropriate technology for
training activities and sharing knowledge?
Will the monthly allotted time be sufficient
for the content?
Assess organizational
support
Assess resources before
implementing the
program
Assess participants
willingness to learn
and build relationships
Activities/Outputs
How many student affairs professionals
participated in the training?
How many reflection summaries were
submitted during the program?
How did the participants apply reflective
practices?
Did student affairs professionals form new
relationships outside of their department?
How did entry-level student affairs
professionals participate in presenting at
training?
In what ways did the student affairs
professionals participate and contribute to
the division goal-setting session?
Assess the level of
program participation
Assess relationship
building
Assess reflection
practices and
application
Assess student affairs
daily practices
Assess goal attainment
Assess entry-level
student affairs self-
efficacy

89

Focus Area Typical Questions Evaluation Use
Outcomes and
Impacts
In what ways did entry-level student affairs
professionals build their self-efficacy?
What is the level of trust among student
affairs professionals from different
departments?
In what ways did student affairs
professionals apply reflective concepts
and theory to daily practices?
What are the levels of knowledge-sharing
engagement among student affairs
professionals?
How have collaborative efforts increased
among student affairs professionals?
How did the student affairs division
accomplish its goals?
Assess entry-level
student affairs
professionals’
participation in
training, meetings,
projects at the
organizational level
and professional level
Assess collaborative
efforts and knowledge-
sharing in
programming,
processes, projects,
student services
Assess organizational
and individual goal
attainment

Note. Adapted from Using Logic Models to Bring Together Planning, Evaluation, and Action by
W. K. Kellogg Foundation, 1998.

Limitations and Delimitations
Creswell and Creswell (2018) defined limitations as the “weaknesses in the study
acknowledged by the researcher to include biases” (p. 273). In this study, I identified three
limitations:
• Student affairs professional bias: At the time of the study, I had 18 years of experience
working in student affairs at one higher education institution. However, to avoid
researcher bias, the study was conducted at a different institution.
90

• Lack of student affairs executive leadership participants: I did not interview any
executive leadership team members. Therefore, there was no insight from the executive
level in this study.
• Zoom interviews: Due to Covid-19, I conducted the interviews through the Zoom
platform. Consequently, it was challenging to establish rapport with the participants.
The delimitations of a study are the components of the research that the investigator can
control. For example, the study purposefully included SAPs from one institution. However, the
study may be applied to SAPs from multiple institutions and other types of industries. Further,
leaders or researchers can apply Clark and Estes’s (2008) KMO theoretical framework to address
performance gaps.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study aimed to research the KMO influences that impact knowledge sharing among
SAPs. During the preliminary phase of this study, I found little research on this topic. Therefore,
the topic needs to be studied further. In addition, I identified critical areas for additional research.
This study was conducted at a small 4-year higher education institution in the division of student
affairs. Thus, knowledge sharing among SAPs at community colleges and larger higher
education institutions can provide a different perspective and experience. The results were that
there is a need to build entry-level SAPs’ self-efficacy. As a result, research on this population’s
knowledge-sharing influences is warranted. Lastly, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) can
offer additional opportunities for exploration. The DEI approach can address knowledge-sharing
influenced by race, age, educational background, and gender that may impact performance.
Further exploration of knowledge-sharing practices will help develop new initiatives and
improve student services, processes, and crisis management. Future research may help build
91

high-impact practices to foster knowledge-sharing environments in student affairs. Through the
years, the role of student affairs has changed, and collaborative efforts are in high need due to
financial constraints and the need to respond to student crises (Kezar & Lester, 2009).
Consequently, there is a continual need to identify factors that influence knowledge sharing
among SAPs.
Conclusions
This study examined knowledge-sharing influences among SAPs at the UKS. It
specifically discussed the KMO influences that impact knowledge-sharing practices. The
research consisted of semi-structured interviews with 12 SAPs. The participants provided insight
into their experiences in sharing knowledge with their colleagues, including barriers and assets to
foster a collaborative environment. The study’s contributions include noting the need to build
self-efficacy among entry-level SAPs, discovering new ways to engage in reflective practices,
creating opportunities to build trust with colleagues from different departments, and goal setting
and attainment. In addition, research has found that knowledge sharing increases when
individuals possess the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational support (Corcoran
& Duane, 2018).
Knowledge-sharing gaps among SAPs remain at UKS and other higher education
institutions. Therefore, to overcome barriers, higher education leaders need to understand SAPs’
experiences to foster a knowledge-sharing environment. An organizational commitment to
promoting knowledge-sharing environments includes training, relationship building, motivation,
and organizational resources. In summary, this study’s results may support UKS in increasing
knowledge sharing among SAPs that will help meet organizational goals to improve student
services, processes, programs, and crisis response.
92

References
Abrams, L., Cross, R., Lesser, E., & Levin, D. Z. (2003). Nurturing interpersonal trust in
knowledge sharing networks. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 17(4), 64–77.
Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2003.11851845
Al-Kurdi, O., El-Haddadeh, R., & Eldabi, T. (2018). Knowledge sharing in higher education
institutions: A systematic review. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 31(2),
226–246. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-09-2017-0129
Ambrose, S., Bridges, M., Lovett, M., DiPietro, M., Norman, M. (2010). How learning works 7
research-based principles for smart teaching. Jossey Bass Publishing.
American College Personnel Association. (2013). The student learning imperative. Implications
for student affairs. https://www.myacpa.org/
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman Publishing.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. The American Psychologist,
44(9), 1175–1184. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175
Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. In K.G. Smith &M.A. Hitt (Eds).
Great Minds in Management (pp. 9-35). Oxford University Press.
Bao, G., Xu, B., & Zhang, Z. (2016). Employee trust and their knowledge sharing and
integration: The mediating roles of organizational identification and organization self-
esteem. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 14, 362–375.
https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2015.1
Barley, M. (2012). Reflective practice: International and multi-disciplinary perspectives.
Reflective Practice, 13(2), 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2012.657792
93

Barr, M., McClellan, G., & Sandeen, A. (2014). Making change happen in student affairs.
Jossey-Bass.
Cabrera, A., Collins, W., & Salgado, J. (2006). Determinants of individual engagement in
knowledge sharing. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(2), 245–
264. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190500404614
Casimir, G., Lee, K., & Loon, M. (2010). Knowledge sharing: Influences of trust, commitment,
and cost. Journal of Management, 144(1), 128–140.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271011015615
Castañeda, D., & Duran, W. (2018). Knowledge sharing in organizations: Roles, beliefs,
training, and perceived organizational support. Knowledge Management & Learning,
10(2), 148–162.
Catmull, E. (2014). Creativity Inc. Random House Publishing.
Cho, A.R., Sriram, R. (2016). Student affairs collaborating with academic affairs: perceptions of
individual competency and institutional culture. College Student Affairs Journal, 34 (1)
56-69.
Clark, R., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results. Information Age Publishing.
Corcoran, N., & Duane, A. (2018). Using social media to enable staff knowledge sharing in
higher education institutions. AJIS. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 22, 1–
26. https://doi.org/10.3127/ajis.v22i0.1647
Creswell, J., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
method approaches (5th ed.). Sage.
94

Dean, L. A., Saunders, S. A., Thompson, G. F., & Cooper, D. L. (2011). Efficacy of orientation
for new student affairs professionals. The College Student Affairs Journal, 29(2), 137–
149.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior.
Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7
Farrell, J., Flood, P., Mac Curtain, S., Hannigan, A., Dawson, J., West, M. (2005). CEO
leadership, top team trust and the combination and exchange of information. Irish
Journal of Management, 26 (1).
Gagné, M. (2009). A model of knowledge sharing motivation. Human Resource Management,
48(4), 571–589. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20298
Halter, A.D. (2017). Challenge and support: The needs of first-time professionals in student
affairs. College Student Affairs Journal, 35 (2), 1-14. doi: 10.1353/csj.2017.0009
Hedstrom, M., & King, J. (2006). Epistemic infrastructure in the rise of the knowledge economy.
In B. Kahin & D. Foray (Eds.), Advancing knowledge and the knowledge economy (pp.
113–134). MIT Press.
Hu, B., Zhao, Y. (2016). Creative self-efficacy mediates the relationship between knowledge
sharing and employee innovation. Social Behavior and Personality, 44 (5), 815-826.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2016.44.5.815
Javernick-Will, A. (2012). Motivating knowledge sharing in engineering and construction
organizations: Power of social motivations. Journal of Management Engineering, 28(2),
193–202. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000076
Jo, S., & Joo, B. K. (2011). Knowledge sharing: The influences of learning organizational
culture, organizational commitment, and organizational leadership behaviors. Journal of
95

Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(3), 353–364.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051811405208
Jones, G. E., III. (2017). The effectiveness of trust, training, and good communication. Cogent
Business & Management, 4(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2017.1387958
Kang, Y., Kim, S., & Chang, G. (2008). The impact of knowledge sharing on work performance:
An empirical analysis of the public employees’ perceptions in South Korea. International
Journal of Public Administration, 31(14), 1548–1568.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01900690802243607
Keith, M., Demirkan, H., & Goul, M. (2010). The influence of collaborative technology
knowledge on advice network structures. Decision Support Systems, 50(1), 140–151.
Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2010.07.010
Kezar, A., & Lester, J. (2009). Organizing higher education for collaboration; A guide for
campus leaders. Josey-Bass.
Kimball, E., Ryder, A. (2014). Using history to promote reflection: A model for reframing
student affairs practice. Journal of Student Affairs and Practice, 51 (3), 298-310.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/jsarp-2014-0030.
Komives, S., Carpenter, S. (2012). Professional development as lifelong learning. In G.
McClellan& J. Stringer (Eds.), The handbook of student affairs administration (3rd ed,
pp. 371-387). Jossey-Bass.
Krathwohl, D. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
96

Kuk, L. (2009). The dynamics of organizational models within student affairs. In G. McClellan&
J. Stringer (Eds.), The handbook of student affairs administration (3rd ed, pp. 335–356).
Jossey-Bass.
Kuk, L. (2012). The changing nature of student affairs. In Tull and Kuk (Eds), New Realities in
the management of student affairs (pp.3-12). Stylus Publishing.
Lin, H. (2007). Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employees knowledge sharing
intentions. Journal of Information Sciences, 33 (2), 135-149. doi:
10.1177/0165551506068174
Lin, M. J., Hung, S. W., & Chen, C. J. (2009). Fostering the determinants of knowledge sharing
in professional virtual communities. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(4), 929–939.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.03.008
Liu, W. C., & Fang, C. L. (2010). The effect of different motivation factors on knowledge-
sharing willingness and behavior. Social Behavior and Personality, 38(6), 753–758.
https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2010.38.6.753
Llopis, O., & Foss, N. (2016). Understanding the climate-knowledge sharing relation: The
moderating roles of intrinsic motivation and job autonomy. European Management
Journal, 34(2), 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2015.11.009
Manning, K., Kinzie, J., & Schuh, J. (2014). One size does not fit all: Traditional and innovative
models of student affairs practice (2nd ed.). Routledge.
McClellan, G., & Stringer, J. (Eds.). (2009). The handbook of student affairs administration (3rd
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation
(5th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
97

Miser, K., & Cherrey, C. (2009). Responding to campus crisis. In G. McClellan& J. Stringer
(Eds.), The handbook of student affairs administration (3rd ed, pp. 647–670). Jossey-
Bass.
Mohammed, M., Maroof, E. Y., Thamer, A., & Huda, I. (2015). What are the electronic
information sharing factors that influence the participation behavior in higher education
sector? Procedia Computer Science, 72, 49–58.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.12.104
Mills, D. (2012). Roles and responsibilities spanning the student affairs professional career. In G.
McClellan& J. Stringer (Eds.), The handbook of student affairs administration (3rd ed,
pp. 355-370). Jossey-Bass.
National Association of Student Affairs Professionals Association (2015). Professional
competency for student affairs educators. www.naspa.org
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization
Science, 5(1), 14–37. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.5.1.14
Northouse, P. (2016). Leadership theory and practice (7
th
edition). Sage Publications
Omerzel, D. G., Biloslavo, R., & Trnavčevič, A. (2011). Knowledge management and
organizational culture in higher education institutions. Journal for East European
Management Studies, 16(2), 111–139. https://doi.org/10.5771/0949-6181-2011-2-111
Patton, L., & Harper, S. (2015). Using reflection to reframe theory-to-practice in student affairs.
In G. McClellan& J. Stringer (Eds.), The handbook of student affairs administration (3rd
ed, pp. 159–178). Jossey-Bass.
98

Phong, L., Hui, L., & Son, T. (2018). How leadership and trust in leaders foster employees’
behavior toward knowledge sharing. Social Behavior and Personality, 46(5), 705–720.
https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.6711
Pinjani, P., & Palvia, P. (2013). Trust and knowledge sharing in diverse global virtual teams.
Information & Management, 50, 144–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2012.10.002
Reason, R., & Kimball, E. (2012). A new theory to practice model for student affairs: Integrating
scholarship, context, and reflection. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice,
49(4), 359–376. https://doi.org/10.1515/jsarp-2012-6436
Reinholt, M., Pederson, T., & Foss, N. (2011). Why central network position isn’t enough: The
role of motivation and ability for knowledge sharing in employee networks. Academy of
Management Journal, 54(6), 1277–1297. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0007
Reynolds, A. (2013). College student concerns: Perceptions of student affairs practitioners.
Journal of College Student Development, 54(1), 98–104.
https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2013.0001.
Riege, A. (2005). Three dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 9 (3), 18-35. Doi: 10.1108/13673270510602746.
Ruben, B. (1995). Quality in higher education. Transaction Publishers.
Rutten, W., Blass-Franklin, J., Martin, H. (2016). The impact of (low) trust on knowledge
sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20 (2), 199-214.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-10-2015-0391.
Ryan, R., Moller, A. (2017). (2017). In Elliott, A., Dweck, C., & Yeager (Eds), The handbook of
competence of motivation (2nd ed., pp. 214-227)., D Guilford Press
Schein, E. H. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
99

Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action (1st ed.).
Routledge.
Serenko, A., & Bontis, N. (2016). Negotiate, reciprocate, or cooperate? The impact of exchange
modes on inter-employee knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(4),
687–712. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-10-2015-0394
Tesch, R. (1990). Eight steps in the coding process. In Creswell, J. & Creswell, J.D. (Eds).
Research design qualitative, quantitative, and mixed approaches (5th ed.). Routledge.
Tortoriello, M. (2015). The social underpinnings of absorptive capacity: The moderating effects
of structural holes on innovation generation based on external knowledge. Strategic
Management Journal, 36(4), 586–597. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2228
Tull, A., & Rammell, N. (2012). Survey of current practices with specialist roles ad structures.
In Tull and Kuk (Eds), New Realities in the management of student affairs (pp.34-45).
Stylus Publishing.
Wang, H., Tseng, J., & Yen, Y. (2014). How do institutional norms and trust influence
knowledge sharing? An institutional theory. Innovation, 16(3), 374–391. Advance online
publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2014.11081994
Welschen, J., Todorova, N., & Mills, A. (2012). An investigation of the impact of intrinsic
motivation on organizational knowledge sharing. International Journal of Knowledge
Management, 8(2), 23–42. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.4018/jkm.2012040102
100

Wickler, G., Tate, A., & Hansberger, J. (2013). Using shared procedural knowledge for virtual
collaboration support in emergency response. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 28(4), 9–17.
https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2013.31
Winston, R., Creamer, D., & Miller, T. (2001). The student affairs professional (1st ed.).
Routledge.
W. K. Kellogg Foundation. (1998). Using logic models to bring together planning, evaluation,
and action. W. K. Kellogg Foundation.
Wu, W. (2013). To share knowledge or not: Dependence on knowledge-sharing satisfaction.
Social Behavior and Personality, 41, 47–58. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2013.41.1.47

101

Appendix A: Reflection Form

102

103

Appendix B: Theoretical Framework Alignment Matrix
Research Question Theoretical Framework Data Instrument
Questions
How do student affairs
professionals’ knowledge and
skills affect knowledge-
sharing environments at higher
education institutions?
Clark and Estes (2008) KMO
knowledge: Information, job
aids, training, and education
Demographic
questions:2
Interview questions:
1–6
What are the motivational
factors of student affairs
professionals to share
knowledge at higher education
institutions?
Clark and Estes (2008) KMO
Motivation: Work towards a
goal, persistence in achieving
the goal, mental effort to get
the job done
Demographic
questions:1, 3
Interview Questions:
7–17
What are the organizational
influences for student affairs
professionals to share
knowledge?
Clark and Estes (2008) KMO
Organizational barriers:
alignment, culture, and change
Interview questions:
18-26

Demographic Pre-Survey
Questions

Pre-Survey 1–5

104

Appendix C: Pre-Demographic Survey
Knowledge Sharing Among Student Affairs Demographic
Survey

Start of Block: Default Question Block

Q1 What is the gender you identify with?
 Male (1)
 Female (2)
 Other (3) ________________________________________________

Q2 How many years have you worked in higher education?
 0–5 years (1)
 6–10 years (2)
 10+ years (3)

Q3 How many years have you worked in student affairs?
 0–5 years (1)
 6–10 years (2)
 10+ years (3)

105

Q4 What is your ethnicity?
 Asian (4)
 African-American (2)
 Caucasian (1)
 Latino/Hispanic (3)
 Native-American (5)
 Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (6)
 Other (7) ________________________________________________

Q5 What is your age?
 20–30 (1)
 30–45 (2)
 45+ (3)

End of Block: Default Question Block

106

Appendix D: Interview Protocol

Introduction:

Hello, thank you for meeting with me. As I mentioned in our telephone conversation, my name is
Diana Sanchez. I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern California. I am doing a
study on knowledge sharing among student affairs professionals. I am interested in learning
more about if and how knowledge sharing occurs between different departments across campus.
Please know that your answers are confidential, and you will be given a pseudonym name.
Would you like to pick your name?

Now, I would like to allow you to review the consent form to participate in the study. Please
review the consent and let me know if you have any questions. I want to emphasize that even
though this form will have your name, your answers will be strictly confidential. *PAUSE FOR
PARTICIPANT TO READ AND SIGN FORM*…Thank you. Now, I want to ensure that I am
giving you my undivided attention and would like to record the interview to take notes later. Is it
ok that I record the interview?

Thank you. I will be asking you a series of questions; please take your time to answer the
questions and be more than happy to repeat the questions if needed. At the end of the interview,
please do not hesitate to let me know if you have any questions or if you can think of something
that might help supplement my study. Let’s get started!

Demographics:
These questions will help the researcher collect background information and to establish
rapport.
1. What motivated you to work in student affairs?
2. Tell me, what drew you to work at UKS?
3. Tell me about an experience when you worked with colleagues by coming together to
help a student or a group of students.
Thank you for sharing with me a little about your experience in working in student
affairs…now I would like for you to share your role and training as a student affairs
professional

107

Knowledge:
1. What do you believe to be your role in student affairs?
2. What do you believe to be your responsibility in sharing information/knowledge on…
a. Student issues?
b. Departmental projects?
c. Ideas for improving processes?
d. Ideas for improving procedures?
e. Ideas for campus partnerships?
3. How do you share information with colleagues about…
a. Students in crisis?
b. Student Services?
c. Processes?
d. Procedures?
4. Describe any training you have received on sharing information (methods of sharing
information) here at UKS?
5. In your role, what do you think is essential information to share with your colleagues
regarding:
a. Student Issues?
b. Student Services?
c. Processes?
d. Procedures?
e. When you receive information, what do you do with it?
6. What methods do you use to reflect on…
108

a. Incident response?
b. Student services?
c. Projects?
d. Goals?
Motivation: In this next section, we will discuss goal attainment and persistence
7. What skills do you think you have that helps you participate in collaborative projects?
a. Tell me more about the skills you have to work with colleagues in helping a
student in need?
b. What are some ways that would benefit you to enhance your skills in networking
with colleagues?
8. Describe your participation in…
a. Meetings?
b. Departmental project planning?
c. Incident Response?
d. Campus-wide projects?
9. In what ways have you been encouraged to contribute to…
a. Meetings?
b. Departmental project planning?
c. Incident response?
d. Campus-wide projects?
10. What makes you want to network and collaborate with your colleagues on…
a. Projects?
b. Helping a student in need?
109

c. Crisis?
d. Process?
11. Describe the efforts you make to network and collaborate with your colleagues?
12. What do you expect to gain when you share information with colleagues?
13. In what ways do you trust your colleagues with the information you possess?
14. How do you know who to trust?
15. What does it mean to have your trust?
16. Describe to me what building trust looks like?
17. What should your colleagues expect from you when they need the information you
possess?
Organizational Barriers:
This last section will cover the tools and other methods that UKS offers to facilitate
information sharing.
18. What are the values UKS promotes that reflect collaborative information sharing
culture?
19. What is the process (es) UKS has in place to share information on…
a. Collaborative projects
b. Helping a student in need
c. Organizational processes
d. Crisis
20. In what ways does UKS promote knowledge sharing?
21. What behaviors do you expect from your leaders that demonstrate knowledge
sharing?
110

22. In what ways are you encouraged to build relationships with colleagues?
23. How do you build relationships with colleagues?
24. What platforms (i.e., software, technology, emails, social media, messenger) does
your organization provide for information sharing?
25. In your role, what are the resources and tools you use to share knowledge?
26. In what ways does UKS make knowledge sharing a priority?

111

Appendix E: Informed Consent/Information Sheet
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education/Organizational Change and Leadership

KNOWLEDGE SHARING AMONG STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSIONALS AT
A HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTION
You are invited to participate in this research study conducted by Diana E. Sanchez under the
supervision of Dr. Patricia Tobey at the University of Southern California because of your
positions as a student affairs professional. Your participation is voluntary. This document
includes information about the study; please read it carefully and ask questions about anything
unclear to you before deciding whether to participate.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY:
This study addresses the performance gaps in knowledge sharing among student affairs
professionals. The study aims to explore the factors that influence how student affairs
professionals share knowledge in the organization.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT:
If you decide to volunteer for the study, you will be asked to participate in an individual, semi-
structured interview that will last approximately 45 minutes through the Zoom platform. The
interview will be conversational and will focus on your role as student affairs professional and
your perspective on knowledge sharing processes and practices at UKS. If there are questions
you do not want to answer, you may decline to answer. In an effort to prevent losing any
information you provide during the interview, it will be recorded and then transcribed by the
researcher. If you do not wish to be recorded, you will not be able to participate in the study. If
you agree to participate in the study, you have the right to change your mind at any point in the
process.

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is not to participate. At any time, you may withdraw from the study.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Efforts will be taken to protect your confidentiality should you choose to participate. You will
not be asked to identify yourself in the interview, and you will have the right to review the Zoom
recording or transcripts. All data collected to include Zoom recordings, transcripts, notes, will be
kept on a password-protected computer in a secure office by the Principal Investigator. Data will
be saved for X years, and then it will be destroyed.
The results of this research may be published, shared with UKS Administration, or discussed in
meetings., When results are reported, they would be shared in a group and general terms to
identify no individual. No identifiable information will be included. The research team members
INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
112

and the University of California’s Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the
data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of
research subjects.

INVESTIGATOR INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact:

Principal Investigator: Diana E. Sanchez
Email: desanche@usc.edu
Phone: (210) 382-5215

Faculty Advisor: Dr. Patricia Tobey
Email:
Phone:

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or
the research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to
someone independent of the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional
Review Board (UPIRB). 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, California 90089-0702,
(213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

113

Appendix F: Training Schedule

Monthly session Topics of discussion Time frame
Mentoring the Future of
Student Affairs
Evidence-based mentoring;
Building capacity;
feedback; coaching;
engagement
December 2021
Match Day Mentor/Mentee match-up;
training sessions sign-ups;
planning the journey; tool
kits
December 2021
Exploring our Beginnings Explore student affairs
theories; case studies
(application); theory into
practice; job aids (theories
job aids)
December 2021
A Moment to Pause: Part 1 Reflection techniques;
reflection guide (job aid);
application; seeking
resources; opportunities for
improvement; knowledge
sharing findings
January 2022
A Moment to Pause: Part 2 Reflection application days February 2022, monthly
TBX Mentor/Mentee teams will
facilitate teambuilders/ice-
breakers at monthly
sessions
March 2022, monthly
Pointing to the Right
Direction
Executive leadership goal
strategies: expectations;
desired outcomes; town hall
meeting
March 2022

UKS Student Affairs Division Training Schedule
114

Monthly session Topics of discussion Time frame
Setting the Journey Cross-Function senior SAPs
facilitate goal-setting
activities; cross-functional
teams goal-setting activity
April 2022
Discovering the Journey Departmental goal
presentations; secure goal
alignment; resource
allocations
May 2022
Guiding the Journey Mentee individual goal
setting;
May 2022
Sharing is Caring Knowledge sharing practices:
prioritizing knowledge
sharing; to share or not to
share (addressing
confidentiality)
June 2022
Where We Are and Where
We Want to Be
Cross-Functional SAPs will
provide goal updates
July 2022
The Feedback Loop Implementation strategies
surveys
September 2022
Assessing the Data Senior leadership will assess
and analyze data
October 2022
A Knowledge-Sharing
Culture
Sharing the impact of
knowledge-sharing
practices
November 2022

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Knowledge sharing: valuing everyone at the table

PDF

Understanding cross-cultural knowledge sharing in Ghana’s energy sector: an exploratory study

PDF

Factors related to transfer and graduation in Latinx community college students

PDF

Access to standards-based curriculum for students with severe and multiple disabilities: an evaluation study

PDF

First-generation student retention and completion at a California community college: evaluation study

PDF

Departure from the student affairs profession: a study of professionals who left the field

PDF

Equity and inclusion of veteran students with traumatic brain injury in higher education classrooms: a gap analysis

PDF

Retaining and supporting BIPOC professionals in PWIs: addressing PWIs equity gap

PDF

A study of student affairs administration professional preparation in Chinese higher education

PDF

Practices supporting newcomer students

PDF

The role of student affairs professionals: serving the needs of undocumented college students

PDF

Impact of job insecurity on intergenerational knowledge sharing among machinists in the United States

PDF

Frontline workers serving students: a study on the well-being of student affairs professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

Knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences within leadership development: a study of a business unit in a prominent technology company

PDF

A framework for customer reputation evaluation: an innovation study

PDF

Identification of barriers to mentoring and their impact on retention and advancement of underrepresented populations in the federal government

PDF

Integrated student supports to decrease incidences of dropout among marginalized students: a promising practice study

PDF

Developing a computer science education program: an innovation study

PDF

Evaluation of early career exploration interventions in a medical school professional development program

PDF

Incorporating social and emotional learning in higher education: a promising practices based development of authentic leadership

Asset Metadata

Creator Sanchez, Diana Elizabeth (author)

Core Title Knowledge sharing among student affairs professionals at a small faith-based higher education institution

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2021-12

Publication Date 09/27/2021

Defense Date 08/03/2021

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag collaboration,information sharing,knowledge sharing,Motivation,networking,OAI-PMH Harvest,self-efficacy,student affairs

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tobey, Patricia (committee chair), Maddox, Anthony (committee member), Moore, Renee (committee member)

Creator Email desanche@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC15965191

Unique identifier UC15965191

Legacy Identifier etd-SanchezDia-10106

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Sanchez, Diana Elizabeth

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu