CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW
3. Research respondents
The sea area of Vietnam is over 1 million km2 of Exclusive Economic Zone, threefold larger than the land area. The coastal line of Vietnam is more than 3260 km long, over 3 million ha of wetlands, over 3000 islands nearly 200 rivers running toward the sea. Consequently, aquaculture is one of the key economic sectors of Vietnam.
The Research Institute for Aquaculture No.3 (RIA3) is a scientific and technological institution for aquaculture research and development of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. It has been founded in 1984. Since the establishment, it has implemented many studies that have contributed significantly to the development of aquaculture.
RIA3 structure consists of three divisions, namely administrative departments, technical departments and national centers (Figure 3-3: organizational structure). Total staff is 182 people; Doctorate 05, Master’s degree 39, Bachelor 102 and others 36. 113 people are work as academic researcher and there are 20 administrative staffs.
Interviews were carried out at all levels of participant in RIA3. A total of 14 respondents were between 23 and 52 year olds while the average year old of the sample was 33. In this project, the selection of the sample has identified by work experience, department activities as key elements for assessment. There is an effort to select only those researchers who have at least one year of work experience in the present organization. With such working time, they can clearly understand the characteristic as well as climate of organization. Second, because of emphasizing of sharing knowledge in
academic researchers, this survey focused on staffs who work at technical departments and centers (three technical department and 4 centers, see figure3-2), so the author will ignore administrative staffs. One to three samples will be collected in each division. The three samples will be chosen in case of the number of academic researcher in that division has more than other divisions.
RIA3 is one of four Research Institutes for Aquaculture governed by Ministry of Agriculture and Rural development to implement fisheries and aquaculture development in the Central Vietnam. Main tasks and responsibilities of RIA3 include the following:
- Investigation of environmental and aquatic resources;
- Research on aquatic seed production, aquaculture, fishing, processing, and aquatic resources protection;
- Application of advanced aquaculture techniques and provision of instructions on natural resources management to farmers in the coastal provinces (from Da Nang to Binh Thuan province) and in the Central Highlands; and
- Education, training, technology transfer, and execution of international co-operation.
The functions and duties of RIA3 have mainly undertaken in Central and highland provinces of Vietnam; hence some of National Centers under RIA3 have located far from headquarter. For example National center for marine seed production research and development in central Vietnam and National center for freshwater animal seed production in central Vietnam.
F
Figure 3.2 MMap of RIAA3’s scale aactivities
Central andd highland pprovinces
Organizational structure – RIA3
Figure 3-3: Organizational structure Source: This study
4
I
1.1.3 Formal meeting
1.2 Informal flows 1.2.1 Social network
1.2.1 Observe and Imitate 1.2.2 Group working 1.2.3 Others
1.3 Perceptions 1.3.1 Transparence 1.3.2 Willingness
5. Research design
In-depth interviews are submitted by academic researchers in aquaculture.
Simultaneous, the author observes the internal activities in organization. Before carrying out the interviews, the literatures are reviewed in order to provide a more comprehensive mapping the statement of this study. The research questions are mainly designed via the analysis from reviewing literature.
Based on the profile of personnel department, 15 researchers in RIA3 were chosen to participate in the interviews. Most of interviewees have attended many projects, so they have significant experience in fishery area. The data will be analyzed after finishing the interview. The study will followed by the author’s conclusion.
Refer to research design on figure 3-4
Research begin
Interview recording In-depth interview
Determine interviewees Design interview
question Determine thesis topic and research
respondent
Collect and analyze literature
Write thesis
Research results
Observation Academic researchers
in Aquaculture
Figure 3-7: Research design Source: this study
6. Research questions design
As the author discussed in research method, a draft question design was developed to obtain the respond from academic researchers in aquaculture. The interview method in this study bases on a semi-structure instrument developed through a literature review. It contains three sections. The first section gathers demographic data on the respondents including gender, age, and position within RIA3. The second section is the current state of knowledge sharing in academic communication. The last part includes the organizational factors influence knowledge sharing.
In the interviews, the participants were asked a number of open-ended questions, which were intended to generate rich descriptions of knowledge sharing and problem-solving situation and strategies. The 34 tems in the interview are designed to evaluate the respondents’ perception regarding three factors of organization that influence knowledge sharing process.
CHAPTER IV: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
In this chapter, the results of the research are presented as well as the description of the finding. This chapter consists of four sections, the profile of research respondents;
the current state of knowledge sharing and academic communication in Research Institute for Aquaculture No3 (RIA3); the organizational factors influence knowledge sharing; and discussion is the last section.
As the above mentioned in chapter 3, this study uses qualitative research method to collect data from interviews. Semi-structured interviews are conducted with an open framework, which allow for focused, conversational, two-way communication. Author used both of them to receive information.
PROFILE OF PARTICIPANTS
Data was collected in RIA3, Nha Trang city, Vietnam. There were total 14 participants taking part in this interview. These interviewees seemed to be very interested in the subject and were enthusiastic to share experience. The selection of the sample has identified by work experience, department activities and at least one year of work experience as key factor. These conditions make sure that the respondents can understand the climate as well as culture of present organization.
Table 4-1 presents the profile of the participants of the study. The youngest interviewee was 23 years old with 1-year work experience while the oldest was 52 years old with 17 years work experience. Because of the specific characteristics of aquaculture, the number of male researcher in RIA3 ranks 2/3 among academic researchers, therefore this study will not emphasize on the rate of sex.
Table 4-1 Profiles of participants
No Age Gender Division Seniority Academic
level A 23 Female Central monitoring center for
aquaculture environment and epidemic
1 Bachelor
B 51 Male National center for fresh water animal seed production in central Vietnam
20 Master
C 35 Male Science & Technology Center for Aquatic Production and Consultancy
10 Master
D 26 Male National center for fresh water animal seed production in central Vietnam
2 Bachelor
E 27 Male Dept. of Fisheries Exploitation and Aquatic resources management
4 Bachelor
F 35 Male National center for marine seed production research and development
in central Vietnam
8 Master
G 31 Male Dept. of Processing and Post – product Technology
6 Bachelor
H 37 Male Dept. of Biology and Applied Aquaculture
12 Doctoral
I 41 Male National center for marine seed production research and development
in central Vietnam
L 23 Female Central monitoring center for aquaculture environment and epidemic
1 Bachelor
M 28 Male Dept. of Fisheries Exploitation and Aquatic resources management
5 Master
N 31 Female Central monitoring center for aquaculture environment and epidemic
7 Bachelor
DATA ANALYSIS
Based on the research questions, data were consisted of two main sections, knowledge sharing and organizational characteristic.
1. The current state of knowledge sharing and academic communication in Research Institute for Aquaculture No3 (RIA3)
This section will present the knowledge sharing process as well as communication manners of academic researchers. The data collection mainly gets from in depth interviews. First part is the formal flows, second part is informal flows, and the last part is perceptions of academic researchers about knowledge sharing
1.1 Formal flows
Table 4.2 Coding of knowledge formal flows
Theme Category Key channels
1.Knowledge sharing
1.1 Formal flows 1.1.1 Conference
1.1.2 Discuss (face to face) 1.1.3 Formal meeting
1.1.1 Conference
All of participants proposed that their knowledge would increase through attending the conferences or workshops. They feel very interesting and helpful from these activities.
For example, one researcher expressed ideal
I have attended conference biannually. These chances offer a lot of benefit. Firstly, it was easy to implement more knowledge that to be very useful for my professional. Secondly, I would have new relationships from these networks and this was very necessary in my research activities (B).
However, some interviewees believed that the attendance of conference not only merely collected new knowledge but also they could promote their image through these activities.
One employee stated that,
I have also attended international and national symposium once to twice a year. I think this channel is a good way to promote my image. For example, if you want to be known in your area you should write good paper and participate in workshops. As a result, you have many chances to expand your relationships in your area (H)
1.1.2 Face to face discussing
Totally, of researchers usually study the experience from other people or share know-how from work experience with each other by discussing. For example, one of interviewed expressed his thinking’s,
When I want to get more experience from experts I usually discuss even argue with them about my problems (H).
Furthermore, there are divisions which are far from head quarter might cause difficulties in obtain knowledge. Hence, several participants exposed their desire,
I have exchanged ideals mainly via email. Because we cannot be in face to face discussing, there are many limitations in obtaining new knowledge or experience from colleagues. Therefore, face to face communication will be better than through other implement (E).
1.1.3 Formal meeting
There are different schedules for meeting among departments. Seven interviewees proposed that they always are required for repairing meeting reports. As an interviewee explained,
I am always far from institution in assignments. Hence, in order to update information and presently situation each other, meetings have been held fortnightly (E).
Some interviewees revealed that they only had to attend meeting biannually, “…not much, only in the beginning and the end of the year. Meetings are mainly for reporting the finished and ongoing activities of individual. We have not yet had a lot chances to share information officially” (C)
However, it was very interesting to hear that there was no any formal meeting in their community. Two out of fourteen interviewees admitted. One of them explained,
Because the number of staff members in our department is too few, it is very easy to solve problems anytime, anywhere that not necessary get a meeting (G).
Summary
According to the respondents, it can be seen that the entire above channel is considered as common channels to get more knowledge. Further, the most favorite channel that all of them are interested in is face to face discussing. However, it still exist some differences between departments in holding meeting for employees.
Figure 4.1 Summary of formal flows
1.2 Informal flows
Table 4.3 Coding of informal flows
Theme Category Key channels
1.Knowledge sharing
1.2 Informal flows 1.2.1 Social network 1.2.2 Observe and Imitate 1.2.3 Group working 1.2.4 Others
1.2.1 Social network
In term of social network, author emphasized on the online externalization communities.
These are one of the implements of knowledge repository, such as Google group, Facebook, or Wordpress, etc. It was very surprised that there were only five interviewees joining in these networks. One of them expressed,
0%
I have rarely used Facebook or something like that, but the most regularly access is Vifisnet – an academic online community. This online network links to abroad students who can exactly provide and introduce the situations of research in others country, since I can share and get knowledge from foreign academic researchers. I mean I can study more about the other communities all over the world (I).
Furthermore, one of employees had a noticeable ideal,
I like to join in these networks very much. I think it is one of the activities that young people like us are interested. Second, because we have just graduated and time for working is not much, life experience and work experience have still limitations. Furthermore, we can expand interpersonal relationship through these networks.
1.2.2 Observe and imitate
However, there were five participants those who not only discussed to collect experience but also observed and imitated from other people.
In research process, discussing with colleagues is the best way when I encounter difficulties. However, there are still many ways to study experience from other people. For example, regarding scientific knowledge and scientific research method (or experience of processing data), I mainly study from other experts by imitating and observing their process then selecting the method that best suitable for me (H).
1.2.3 Group working
Team working was paid attention by all participant, the ways of interaction between colleagues by working group is one of the effectively way to solve problem. As one interviewee explained,
All employers are keen solve problems together and work in teams. Working in a group gains more effectively than working independently. For example, my group has five members, each member take over only one mission, they are not able to look overview all of mission. Hence, it will be easier to discuss and solve solutions together (A).
In my opinion, working in a group or working independently each of them has both strong and weak points. Nonetheless, I like to work in-group rather than individual. Because your own ideal is one-dimensional opinion, I will get more knowledge that is useful when discuss in-group. Working in a discussion group is the best choice for exchange knowledge and experiences. (J).
However, several interviewees also had this ideal,
Regarding gather information and knowledge, I will be in-group working. When come in an affair I wish to work independently (K).
1.2.4 Others
Moreover, the way that people use to increase their knowledge is from documents of finished projects. One participant stated,
In order to get more knowledge, I usually synthetize documents and data from projects, then directly contact to editor of documents, and the last is discussion.
(M).
In addition, learning through experience is usually the good method. Hence, increasing knowledge and understanding by learning is one of the common ways that everybody usually thinks of,
People can gain new knowledge and increase their understanding of specialty by learning. I think this is an easy way to implement knowledge for my own experiences (B).
Summary
In conclusion, it is interesting to note that although there are differences between employees about working group, all of them like to discussing and working in-group.
Furthermore, it can be seen that the influence of online platforms such as social network affects not much in exchanging knowledge of staff members. Beside, the selection of preferences through imitation is one of the good ways that is chosen by employees.
Figure 4.2 Summary of informal flows
1.3 Perceptions of academic researchers about sharing knowledge
Table 4.4 Coding of Perceptions of academic researchers
Theme Category Key concept
1.Knowledge sharing
1.3 Perceptions 1.3.1 Transparence 1.3.1 Willingness
1.3.1 Transparence
In term of transparence, author emphasized that whether or not they shared knowledge with people who they did not particularly like in everyday life. Academic researchers clearly ascertained activities in research and social life. Except only one person, he said,
“It is very difficult to share as well as receive experience from those who they don’t like because they will be afraid of that recipient will be more expertise than them”. Most of researchers shared knowledge even with people they do not like. One of them expressed his opinion,
Of course, it is necessary to identify collective and private affair. Scientific information is very important, I willing ignore something to approach or share knowledge with people who I do not like (C)
Two of them have not also yet encountered this situation, however they think that this issues is not complicated,
I think we should eliminate resistance barrier to share knowledge. I provide and expect that the provision of information will be reciprocated in the future. (G) Furthermore, when employees discussed with those who are more senior or expertise than them, most of them felt that “It is very interesting when I have chance to discuss with them, because I will get more information and experience from them.” (A). One employee expressed clearer his ideal,
As far as I am concerned, I am very confident when exchange knowledge with senior employees. However, it is difficult to share knowledge with same old people, because they are usually very haughty. Hence discussing with those who are older or younger 15 to 20 year olds will be easier. (H)
Conversely, few of employees felt that it was not comfortable,
It is difficult to share knowledge with people who are more senior. Firstly, there will be limitations when communicate. If they have a higher level of education, I am afraid of not enough level to approach their expertise. Secondly, I will have a feeling of fear when talk to people who are in higher position (F).
1.3.2 Willingness
All employees willingly shared new knowledge to everyone. One employee stated that,
Knowledge, which is got from training course, will be diffused to everyone.
Otherwise, we will join in meeting if these are specialist knowledge (E).
Consistent with the above ideal, employee (H) explained more about which kinds of knowledge that can be shared,
This also depends on kind of knowledge. Explicit knowledge can be share anytime, anywhere, implicit knowledge is my own knowledge. However, I only share to foreign colleagues except Vietnamese, because I do not trust Vietnamese colleagues. When they get knowledge from you, this knowledge will be used against you. For example, other colleagues copy my invention, and then this technology is considered as their own knowledge.
Furthermore, I have many years of experience in research with technique of Babylonia snail. I am willing to share these experiences to those who are interested in, because it is merely technological information. However, I will not share knowledge that I get from PhD course. I think that specialist knowledge should be store for my own experience. I will share knowledge with a person whom I can trust. These are my own intellectual capital. Therefore, it depends on kind of knowledge, implicit and explicit.
In addition, a specific attitude was exposed as below,
My point of view, knowledge that gets from ongoing project should not be shared. For example, raw data that has just explored will not share (D).
Summary
It is also interesting to note that in neither case there was a significant view of all participants. Perception on knowledge sharing of them is very clear. Most of them willing eliminate barriers to exchange knowledge even thought difficulties may still exist.
2 The organizational factors influence knowledge sharing
After exploring the knowledge sharing status of academic researchers in RIA3, the author further investigated the factors influencing knowledge sharing in this scientific community. The results are presented in the following sections, working environment, leadership and information communication technology.
2.1 Working environment
Table 4.5 Coding of working environment
Theme Category Key concept
2.Organizational characteristic
2.1 Working environment
2.1.1 Negative factors 2.1.2 Positive factors
2.1.1 Negative factors Unfriendliness
Four out of fourteen interviewees answered that the unfriendliness is one of the reason reducing knowledge sharing activities. Like interviewees’ ideals below,
Four out of fourteen interviewees answered that the unfriendliness is one of the reason reducing knowledge sharing activities. Like interviewees’ ideals below,