Institutional and individual factors affecting scientists' data-sharing behaviors: A multilevel analysis

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 67, Issue 4, 2016, Pages 776-799

  Kim, Youngseek ^a   Stanton, Jeffrey M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY   (United States)

^b SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

data

Indexed keywords

SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS; SURVEYS;

DATA; INDIVIDUAL FACTORS; INDIVIDUAL LEVELS; INSTITUTIONAL THEORY; MULTI-LEVEL ANALYSIS; NORMATIVE PRESSURES; SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINE; THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOR;

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH;

ALTRUISM; BEHAVIOR; CAREER; FUNDING; HUMAN; MULTILEVEL ANALYSIS; SCIENTIST; THEORETICAL MODEL; THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOR;

EID: 84961801695     PISSN: 23301635     EISSN: 23301643     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.23424     Document Type: Article

References (118)

1. Ajzen, I., (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 52 (2), 179-211.
2. Allen, T., (2010). Student surveys conducted at SESRC (2005-2010). Unpublished data from the Social and Economic Sciences Research Center. Pullman, WA: Washington State University.
3. Arzberger, P., Schroeder, P., Beaulieu, A., Bowker, G., Casey, K., Laaksonen, L., &, Wouters, P., (2004). Promoting access to public research data for scientific, economic, and social development. Data Science Journal, 3 (0), 135-152.
4. Baytiyeh, H., &, Pfaffman, J., (2010). Open source software: A community of altruists. Computers in Human Behavior, 26 (6), 1345-1354.
5. Bietz, M.J., Baumer, E.P.S., &, Lee, C.P., (2010). Synergizing in cyberinfrastructure development. Computer Supported Cooperative Work: CSCW: An International Journal, 19 (3-4), 245-281.
6. Bliese, P.D., (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In, K.J. Klein, &, S.W.L. Kozlowski, (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349-381). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
7. Bock, G.W., Zmud, R.W., Kim, Y.G., &, Lee, J.N., (2005). Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 29 (1), 87-111.
8. Borgman, C.L., (2007). Scholarship in the digital age: Information, infrastructure, and the internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9. Borgman, C.L., (2010). Research data: Who will share what, with whom, when, and why? In Paper Presented at the Fifth China-North America Library Conference (pp. 1-21). Beijing, National Library of China.
10. Brown, C., (2003). The changing face of scientific discourse: Analysis of genomic and proteomic database usage and acceptance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54 (10), 926-938.
11. Campbell, E.G., &, Bendavid, E., (2003). Data-sharing and data-withholding in genetics and the life sciences: Results of a national survey of technology transfer officers. Journal of Health Care Law and Policy, 6 (2), 241-255.
12. Campbell, E.G., Louis, K.S., &, Blumenthal, D., (1998). Looking a gift horse in the mouth-Corporate gifts supporting life sciences research. JAMA-Journal of the American Medical Association, 279 (13), 995-999.
13. Campbell, E.G., Weissman, J.S., Causino, N., &, Blumenthal, D., (2000). Data withholding in academic medicine: Characteristics of faculty denied access to research results and biomaterials. Research Policy, 29 (2), 303-312.
14. Campbell, E.G., Clarridge, B.R., Gokhale, N.N., Birenbaum, L., Hilgartner, S., Holtzman, N.A., &, Blumenthal, D., (2002). Data withholding in academic genetics-Evidence from a national survey. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287 (4), 473-480.
15. Cech, T.R., Eddy, S.R., Eisenberg, D., Hersey, K., Holtzman, S.H., Poste, G.H., et al. (2003). Sharing publication-related data and materials: Responsibilities of authorship in the life sciences. Plant Physiology, 132 (1), 19-24.
16. Ceci, S.J., (1988). Scientists attitudes toward data sharing. Science Technology & Human Values, 13 (1-2), 45-52.
17. Cho, H., Chen, M., &, Chung, S., (2010). Testing an integrative theoretical model of knowledge-sharing behavior in the context of Wikipedia. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61 (6), 1198-1212.
18. Choudhury, G.S., (2008). Case study in data curation at Johns Hopkins University. Library Trends, 57 (2), 211-220.
19. Cohen, J., (1995). Share and share alike isn't always the rule in science. Science, 268 (5218), 1715-1718.
20. Constant, D., Sproull, L., &, Kiesler, S., (1996). The kindness of strangers: The usefulness of electronic weak ties for technical advice. Organization Science, 7 (2), 119-135.
21. Cragin, M.H., Palmer, C.L., Carlson, J.R., &, Witt, M., (2010). Data sharing, small science and institutional repositories. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences, 368 (1926), 4023-4038.
22. Cronin, B., (1984). The citation process: The role and significance of citations in scientific communication. London: Taylor Graham.
23. Cronin, B., (2005). The hand of science: Academic writing and its rewards. Oxford, UK: Scarecrow.
24. Dansereau, F., Yammarino, F.J., &, Markham, S.E., (1995). Leadership: The multiple-level approaches. The Leadership Quarterly, 6 (2), 97-109.
25. Davenport, T.H., &, Prusak, L., (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
26. Davis, F.D., (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance in information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13 (3), 319-340.
27. Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., &, Warshaw, P.R., (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35 (8), 982-1003.
28. Davis, H.M., &, Vickery, J.N., (2007). Datasets, a shift in the currency of scholarly communication: Implications for library collections and acquisitions. Serials Review, 33 (1), 26-32.
29. DiMaggio, P.J., &, Powell, W.W., (1991). Introduction. In, W.W. Powell, &, P.J. DiMaggio, (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 1-38). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
30. Fabrigar, L.R., Wegener, D.T., MacCallum, R.C., &, Strahan, E.J., (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4 (3), 272-299.
31. Faniel, I.M., &, Zimmerman, A., (2011). Beyond the data deluge: A research agenda for large-scale data sharing and reuse. International Journal of Digital Curation, 6 (1), 58-69.
32. Featherman, M.S., &, Pavlou, P.A., (2003). Predicting e-services adoption: A perceived risk facets perspective. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59 (4), 451-474.
33. Field, A., (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
34. Fishbein, M., &, Ajzen, I., (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
35. Foster, N.F., &, Gibbons, S., (2005). Understanding faculty to improve content recruitment for institutional repositories. D-Lib Magazine, 11 (1). Retrieved October 9, 2014, from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january05/foster/01foster.html
36. Goldstein, H., (2011). Multilevel statistical models (4th ed.). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
37. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., &, Tatham, R.L., (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
38. He, W., &, Wei, K.-K., (2009). What drives continued knowledge sharing? An investigation of knowledge-contribution and -seeking beliefs. Decision Support Systems, 46 (4), 826-838.
39. Hey, T., &, Trefethen, A.E., (2004). UK e-Science Programme: Next generation grid applications. International Journal of High Performance Computing Applications, 18 (3), 285-291.
40. Hey, T., &, Trefethen, A.E., (2008). E-science, cyberinfrastructure, and scholarly communication. In, G.M. Olson, A. Zimmerman, &, N. Bos, (Eds.), Scientific collaboration on the Internet (pp. 15-31). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
41. Hofmann, D.A., (1997). An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear models. Journal of Management, 23 (6), 723-744.
42. Hox, J., (2002). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
43. Hsu, C.-L., &, Lin, J.C.-C., (2008). Acceptance of blog usage: The roles of technology acceptance, social influence and knowledge sharing motivation. Information & Management, 45 (1), 65-74.
44. Hung, S.-Y., Durcikova, A., Lai, H.-M., &, Lin, W.-M., (2011a). The influence of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on individuals' knowledge sharing behavior. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 69 (6), 415-427.
45. Hung, S.-Y., Lai, H.-M., &, Chang, W.-W., (2011b). Knowledge-sharing motivations affecting R&D employees' acceptance of electronic knowledge repository. Behaviour & Information Technology, 30 (2), 213-230.
46. James, L.R., (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67 (2), 219-229.
47. James, L.R., Demaree, R.G., &, Wolf, G., (1993). rwg: An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78 (2), 306-309.
48. John, C.H.S., Cannon, A.R., &, Pouder, R.W., (2001). Change drivers in the new millennium: Implications for manufacturing strategy research. Journal of Operations Management, 19 (2), 143-160.
49. Jones, C., Hesterly, W.S., &, Borgatti, S.P., (1997). A general theory of network governance: Exchange conditions and social mechanisms. Academy of Management Review, 22 (4), 911-945.
50. Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B.C.Y., &, Wei, K.K., (2005). Contributing knowledge to electronic knowledge repositories: An empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly, 29 (1), 113-143.
51. Karasti, H., Baker, K.S., &, Millerand, F., (2010). Infrastructure time: Long-term matters in collaborative development. Computer Supported Cooperative Work: The Journal of Collaborative Computing, 19 (3-4), 377-415.
52. Kellogg, D., (2006). Toward a post-academic science policy: Scientific communication and the collapse of the mertonian norms. International Journal of Communications Law and Policy, Special Issue, Access to Knowledge, (Autumn), 1-29.
53. Kim, B., &, Han, I., (2009). The role of trust belief and its antecedents in a community-driven knowledge environment. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60 (5), 1012-1026.
54. Kim, J., (2007). Motivating and impeding factors affecting faculty contribution to institutional repositories. Journal of Digital Information, 8 (2), Retrieved October 9, 2014 from https://journals.tdl.org/jodi/index.php/jodi/article/view/193/177.
55. Kim, Y., &, Stanton, J.M., (2012). Institutional and individual influences on scientists' data sharing practices. Journal of Computational Science Education, 3 (1), 47-56.
56. Klein, K.J., &, Kozlowski, S.W.J., (2000). From micro to meso: Critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organizational Research Methods, 3 (3), 211-236.
57. Klein, K.J., Dansereau, F., &, Hall, R.J., (1994). Levels issues in theory development, data collection, and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19 (2), 195-229.
58. Kling, R., &, Spector, L., (2003). Rewards for scholarly communication. In, D.L. Andersen, (Ed.), Digital scholarship in the tenure, promotion, and review process (pp. 78-103). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
59. Kostova, T., &, Roth, K., (2002). Adoption of an organizational practice by subsidiaries of multinational corporations: Institutional and relational effects. Academy of Management Journal, 45 (1), 215-233.
60. Kozlowski, S.W.J., &, Klein, K.J., (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In, K.J. Klein, &, S.W.L. Kozlowski, (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3-90). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
61. Lawrence, T., Suddaby, R., &, Leca, B., (2011). Institutional work: Refocusing institutional studies of organization. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20 (1), 52-58.
62. LeBreton, J.M., &, Senter, J.L., (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11 (4), 815-852.
63. Lee, G., &, Lee, W.J., (2010). Altruistic traits and organizational conditions in helping online. Computers in Human Behavior, 26 (6), 1574-1580.
64. Lin, C.-P., (2008). Clarifying the relationship between organizational citizenship behaviors, gender, and knowledge sharing in workplace organizations in Taiwan. Journal of Business and Psychology, 22 (3), 241-250.
65. Lindell, M.K., Brandt, C.J., &, Whitney, D.J., (1999). A revised index of interrater agreement for multi-item ratings of a single target. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23 (2), 127-135.
66. Liu, H., Ke, W., Wei, K.K., Gu, J., &, Chen, H., (2010). The role of institutional pressures and organizational culture in the firm's intention to adopt internet-enabled supply chain management systems. Journal of Operations Management, 28 (5), 372-384.
67. Louis, K.S., Jones, L.M., &, Campbell, E.G., (2002). Sharing in science. American Scientist, 90 (4), 304-307.
68. Marcial, L.H., &, Hemminger, B.M., (2010). Scientific data repositories on the Web: An initial survey. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61 (10), 2029-2048.
69. McCain, K.W., (1995). Mandating sharing: Journal policies in the natural sciences. Science Communication, 16 (4), 403-431.
70. McCullough, B.D., McGeary, K.A., &, Harrison, T.D., (2008). Do economics journal archives promote replicable research? Canadian Journal of Economics-Revue Canadienne D Economique, 41 (4), 1406-1420.
71. Merton, R.K., (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
72. Millar, M.M., &, Dillman, D.A., (2011). Improving response to web and mixed-mode surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75 (2), 249-269.
73. Mitroff, I., (1974). Norms and counter-norms in a select group of the Apollo moon scientists: A case study of the ambivalence of scientists. American Sociological Review, 39 (4), 569-595.
74. Mulkay, M.J., (1976). Norms and ideology in science. Social Science Information, 15 (4-5), 637-656.
75. National Science Foundation. (2010). Scientists seeking NSF funding will soon be required to submit data management plans. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/news/news-summ.jsp?cntn-id=116928
76. Pavlou, P.A., (2003). Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: Integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 7 (3), 101-134.
77. Pfeffer, J., &, Salancik, G., (1978). External control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row.
78. Phang, C.W., Sutanto, J., Kankanhalli, A., Li, Y., Tan, B.C.Y., &, Teo, H.-H., (2006). Senior citizens' acceptance of information systems: A study in the context of e-government services. IEEE Transaction on Engineering Management, 53 (4), 555-569.
79. Piwowar, H.A., (2011). Who shares? Who doesn't? Factors associated with openly archiving raw research data. PLoS ONE, 6 (7), 1-13.
80. Piwowar, H.A., &, Chapman, W.W., (2008). A review of journal policies for sharing research data. In Paper presented at the International Conference on Electronic Publishing (pp. 1-14). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: ELPUB.
81. Piwowar, H.A., &, Chapman, W.W., (2010). Public sharing of research datasets: A pilot study of associations. Journal of Informetrics, 4 (2), 148-156.
82. Piwowar, H.A., Day, R.S., &, Fridsma, D.B., (2007). Sharing detailed research data is associated with increased citation rate. PLoS ONE, 2 (3), 1-5.
83. Powell, W.W., (1991). Expanding the scope of institutional analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
84. Pryor, G., (2009). Multi-scale data sharing in the life sciences: Some lessons for policy makers. International Journal of Digital Curation, 4 (3), 17-82.
85. Rakov, T., &, Marcoulides, G.A., (2000). A first course in structural equation modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
86. Raudenbush, S.W., &, Bryk, A.S., (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
87. Reidpath, D.D., &, Allotey, P.A., (2001). Data sharing in medical research: An empirical investigation. Bioethics, 15 (2), 125-134.
88. Richardson, H.A., &, Vandenberg, R.J., (2005). Integrating managerial perceptions and transformational leadership into a work-unit level model of employee involvement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26 (5), 561-589.
89. Ryu, S., Ho, S.H., &, Han, I., (2003). Knowledge sharing behavior of physicians in hospitals. Expert Systems with Applications, 25 (1), 113-122.
90. Sacco, J.M., Scheu, C.R., Ryan, A.M., &, Schmitt, N., (2003). An investigation of race and sex similarity effects in interviews: A multilevel approach to relational demography. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (5), 852-865.
91. Savage, C.J., &, Vickers, A.J., (2009). Empirical study of data sharing by authors publishing in PLoS journals. PLoS ONE, 4 (9), 1-3.
92. Scherbaum, C.A., &, Ferreter, J.M., (2009). Estimating statistical power and required sample sizes for organizational research using multilevel modeling. Organizational Research Methods, 12 (2), 347-367.
93. Scott, R.W., (2001). Institutions and organizations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
94. Shi, W., Shambare, N., &, Wang, J., (2008). The adoption of internet banking: An institutional theory perspective. Journal of Financial Services Marketing, 12 (4), 272-286.
95. Shih, T.-H., &, Fan, X., (2008). Comparing response rates from Web and mail surveys: A meta-analysis. Field Methods, 20 (3), 249-271.
96. So, J., &, Bolloju, N., (2005). Explaining the intentions to share and reuse knowledge in the context of IT service operations. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9 (6), 30-41.
97. Son, J.Y., &, Benbasat, I., (2007). Organizational buyers' adoption and use of B2B electronic marketplaces: Efficiency- and legitimacy-oriented perspectives. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24 (1), 55-99.
98. Stanley, B., &, Stanley, M., (1988). Data sharing. The primary researcher's perspective. Law and Human Behavior, 12 (2), 173-180.
99. Sterling, T.D., &, Weinkam, J.J., (1990). Sharing scientific data. Communications of the ACM, 33 (8), 112-119.
100. Taylor, S., &, Todd, P.A., (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6 (2), 144-176.
101. Tenopir, C., Allard, S., Douglass, K., Aydinoglu, A.U., Wu, L., Read, E., &, Frame, M., (2011). Data sharing by scientists: Practices and perceptions. PLoS ONE, 6 (6), 1-21.
102. Teo, H.H., Wei, K.K., &, Benbasat, I., (2003). Predicting intention to adopt interorganizational linkages: An institutional perspective. MIS Quarterly, 27 (1), 19-49.
103. Thompson, R.L., Higgins, C.A., &, Howell, J.M., (1991). Personal computing: Toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Quarterly, 15 (1), 125-142.
104. Thorn, B.K., &, Connolly, T., (1987). Discretionary databases: A theory and some experimental findings. Communication Research, 14 (5), 512-528.
105. Thornton, P.H., &, Ocasio, W., (2008). Institutional logics. In, R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, &, K. Sahlin-Andersson, (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 99-129). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
106. Tolbert, P.S., (1985). Institutional environments and resource dependence: Sources of administrative structure in institutions of higher education. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30 (1), 1-13.
107. Tolbert, P.S., &, Zucker, L.G., (1983). Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: The diffusion of civil service reform, 1880-1935. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28 (1), 22-39.
108. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., &, Davis, F.D., (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27 (3), 425-478.
109. Vogeli, C., Yucel, R., Bendavid, E., Jones, L.M., Anderson, M.S., Louis, K.S., &, Campbell, E.G., (2006). Data withholding and the next generation of scientists: Results of a national survey. Academic Medicine, 81 (2), 128-136.
110. Wasko, M., &, Faraj, S., (2000). It is what one does: Why people participate and help others in electronic communities of practice. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9 (2-3), 155-173.
111. Watson, S., &, Hewett, K., (2006). A multi-theoretical model of knowledge transfer in organizations: Determinants of knowledge contribution and knowledge reuse. Journal of Management Studies, 43 (2), 141-173.
112. Weber, N.M., Piwowar, H.A., &, Vision, T.J., (2010). Evaluating data citation and sharing policies in the environmental sciences. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 47 (1), 1-2.
113. Witt, M., (2008). Institutional repositories and research data curation in a distributed environment. Library Trends, 57 (2), 191-201.
114. Wu, W.-L., Lin, C.-H., Hsu, B.-F., &, Yeh, R.-S., (2009). Interpersonal trust and knowledge sharing: Moderating effects of individual altruism and a social interaction environment. Social Behavior and Personality, 37 (1), 83-93.
115. Ziman, J., (2000). Real science: What it is, and what it means. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP.
116. Zhang, Z., Zyphur, M.J., &, Preacher, K.J., (2009). Testing Multilevel Mediation Using Hierarchical Linear Models Problems and Solutions. Organizational Research Methods, 12 (4), 695-719.
117. Zimmerman, A., (2007). Not by metadata alone: The use of diverse forms of knowledge to locate data for reuse. International Journal on Digital Libraries, 7 (1-2), 5-16.
118. Zsidisin, G.A., Melnyk, S.A., &, Ragatz, G.L., (2005). An institutional theory perspective of business continuity planning for purchasing and supply management. International Journal of Production Research, 43 (16), 3401-3420.