The contribution of trust to academic knowledge sharing among academics in the Malaysian research institutions

Abstract

Knowledge sharing within the academic community is necessary for achieving academic excellence in today’s knowledge-based environment. Knowledge sharing requires teamwork in research, collaboration and joint publications, which suggests building trust among academics. Thus, the present study develops a model based on the Theory of Social Exchange that addresses the contribution of trust to knowledge sharing. The study adopted a quantitative research design in collecting and analyzing data from 380 respondents who are academics in the five Malaysian research institutions. Structured equation modelling (SEM) via SmartPLS software was utilized to examine the study hypothesis. The results showed that trust (TR) has a positive and significant relationship with knowledge sharing (KS). Furthermore, trust significantly predicts organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB), which was found to influence KS significantly. Moreover, the study results show an indirect relationship between TR and KS. OCB variable’s mediation effect is statistically significant. The current study establishes a link between trust and knowledge sharing. This area of research is limited in Malaysia, and research identifying the mediating role of OCB between trust and knowledge sharing behaviour within academic and research institutions in Malaysia is limited. The study’s outcome applies to higher academic institutions and other academic and industrial corporations where knowledge sharing is required to ensure higher performance.

Keywords:

• Organizational Citizenship Behavior
• trust
• knowledge sharing
• academics
• research institutions
• higher educational institutions
• Malaysia

PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT

Trust is necessary for academics in educational institutions to achieve knowledge sharing. Trust reassure academics that sufficient and purposeful information is necessary for higher education institutions in achieving the desired academic excellence. Without trust of procedures, institutional processes, and colleagues, knowledge will not be shared effectively. Hence, Trust in Higher Educational Institutes, is necessary for knowledge to be shared and transferred of knowledge as it this becomes the basis for which academic communities” performs exceptionally and thrives.

1. Introduction

Trust is a concept dated back in centuries; one is expected to earn it through good deeds and conduct that benefits all or the individual’s expectation that other persons will act unselfishly (Stimpson & Maughan, 1978). Trust is also a social concept practiced in every individual’s daily and professional life. Everyone is expected to trust someone. These expectations are satisfied by the level of information that is available and shared among the interested parties. The feelings of protection and readiness depend on trust.

According to Jin and Lim (2021) trust is a very complex concept that includes integrity, reliability and belief. In this study, trust refers to the degree with which stakeholders assume that academic services are reliable and secure to achieve educational excellence. The underlying concept of trust is “expectation” which refers to the belief of what is to happen. The academic environment requires trust since it involves collaborations, partnerships and joint researches which involve team work and knowledge sharing, it is unavoidable to identify the existence of the need for trust between academics in performing these duties (Mok, 2010). Trust is considered as the basis of adoption of many emerging technologies, such as mobile payment and mobile health services.

The Malaysian educational sector, which is the context of the present study, is seen as one of the top notch in the region, and it has been built through the aspiration of the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) sound objectives and taking measures to ensure that the nation becomes highly ranked both locally and globally for provision of quality research and researchers, innovation and professionalism (Ghasemy et al., 2018). This implies the need for trust in the Malaysian education. For the last decades, knowledge sharing has become increasingly important for enabling development processes in countries around the world among scholars particularly in Malaysia (Jolaee et al., 2014). Knowledge sharing plays an important role in enabling the continuity of organizations (Alwaheeb et al., 2020). Knowledge sharing at a collective level is considered to be a significant dynamic capacity that shapes the competitiveness of an organization locally and globally, while fostering social ties among university academic staff. According to Kim and Bang (2021) knowledge sharing behavior is generally understood as the degree to which employees share their knowledge with others in organizations. To promote knowledge sharing among academics, leaders should concentrate on cultivating target social relationships and interactions and build an atmosphere of trust and positive social pressure (Van Dong et al., 2019).

Because of the inherent nature of humans to share knowledge, organizations are still facing difficulties in seeking ways to encourage workers to willingly share their knowledge, some studies related this difficulty to institutional expectation factors and the nature of the organizational culture that were further stressed to be catastrophic for knowledge sharing.

Knowledge exchange has been seen as a central practice of higher education institutions (HEIs). Since HEIs generate new knowledge through the study of existing knowledge, it is an important role to identify that knowledge creation, knowledge dissemination and implementation are central in the institution and enabled by trust, where academic staff’s willingness to share knowledge is also based on trust. For instance, Ghasemy et al. (2018) knowledge sharing among academics is challenged and hindered by their experiences in institutions where trust and mutual misunderstandings are almost lacking. Unwillingness to share knowledge is another challenge found in previous literatures that hinders the exchange of knowledge among academics, in addition to the fear of losing a competitive advantage, particularly when new academics join institutions with new knowledge and research updates, thus causing other academics to disassociate and avoid sharing of relevant knowledge. While knowledge sharing practices play a role in optimizing the overall effectiveness and competitiveness of the output of academics within institutions, a lack or absence of sound and healthy knowledge sharing practices can cause some issues for an organization (Akosile & Olatokun, 2020). These issues have been also identified in a recent relevant study as the perception and expectation of academics towards the institutions, which informs how academic duties are performed. This is also demonstrated in the MOHE and other research-based institutions’ many calls for governments to finance research that impacts the nation and enables academic lifelong learning and sharing their expertise (Seng, 2018).

Another recent study in Malaysian by Fauzi et al. (2018) has attributed the reluctance of academics to share knowledge to the lack of trust and past events encountered by academics within their universities. Furthermore, the authors added that this was due to the lack of subjective norms and mutual trust among scholars in same value networks in Malaysia. Failure of institutions to share relevant knowledge with their academic staffs also contributes to poor perception of academic staffs about their research institutions.

The purpose of the present study is to examine the effect of trust on academics’ knowledge sharing in Malaysian research universities, the effect of trust on organisational citizenship behaviour among academics in Malaysian research universities and the effect of organisational citizenship behaviour as the mediator between trust and knowledge sharing.

The study will provide relevant insight on trust, organisational citizenship behaviour and knowledge sharing. The significance of the study highlights that academic institutions, academic staff, students and relevant stakeholders of research institutions will benefit from this study. Thus, all academic institutions must have the ability of their staff to share relevant knowledge, enable higher academic performance and improve the academic ranking of the institution. Therefore, knowledge sharing is important.

2. Literature review

The social exchange theory has been adopted is several studies that attempted to comprehend human social behavior in economic efforts (Homans, 1958). The theory proposes that employees are motivated to increase their work productivity when their organization contract is based upon a fair social exchange. The theory further suggest that there is an important relationship between employees’ motivation and achievement of organizational goals. Trust is recognized as an important factor underpinning social exchanges because the act of initiating social exchange relationships is based on reciprocal trust. Knowledge Sharing among faculty members is mainly the result of trust C. N. L. Tan (2016). Pai (2006) indicated that “to study the factors that predict knowledge-sharing behavior many researchers used social exchange theory for this purpose”. X. Liu and Deng (2011) developed a model to investigate employees’ organizational trust and commitment based on social exchange theory. Based on the social exchange process, the study established a developmental mechanism model of organizational commitment.

The reputation of Malaysian universities has been increasing and becoming more important over the last 20 years, especially with the emergence of a knowledge-based economy. Like many developing nations, Malaysia’s HEIs play a critical role in contributing economically and socially to the country. The Malaysian government views the higher education sector as a key component in transforming the country from a middle-income or average-income nation into a high-income nation by 2020. In Malaysia, therefore, the growth of this sector has been regarded as the key agenda.

It was reported by Tafti et al. (2018) that higher education internationalization in Malaysia is seen as a way of enabling Malaysian higher education institutions to enhance and empower the education they deliver and enable them to become international education hubs. As a result of this initiative, a very large number of postgraduate students from numerous nations, including the Middle East have been attracted to universities in Malaysia to pursue their higher studies (Malaysia Education Roadmap 2015–2025). The hallmark of the Ministry of Higher Education in Malaysia is the establishment of research universities (RUs). Several thrusts for potential course have been adopted by the Malaysian National Higher Education Strategic Plan Beyond 2020. One of these thrusts is the selection of five Malaysian public universities as RUs to change the status of Malaysian universities to world class and promote the transformation phase of national higher education. These initiatives were earmarked to promote public and international trust of the services provided by the Malaysian higher educational sector. In 2006, four public universities were granted with RU status, namely Universiti Malaya (UM), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) and Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM). The fifth Research University which is Universiti Teknologi Malaysia was selected in 2010. Furthermore, these research institutions are responsible for enabling the creation and transformation of new knowledge that is innovative and facilitates knowledge transfer and commercialization.

However, recent studies have identified some challenges experienced in knowledge sharing among academics in the Malaysian higher educational sector. Kalidass and Bahron (2015) concluded that there exists a challenge of attempts to corporatize and private the Malaysian higher education sector, which began from the intention of the sector to expand and become an international hub for education. Several issues of bureaucratization have also been identified with effects of work-related stress on academics (Shahid et al., 2016). These challenges also result in the turnover of academics within these institutions thereby questioning the job satisfaction of these academics. Hussein Amzat and Abdul Rahman Idris (2012) added that the lack of motivation and turnover of academics particularly in the Malaysia public universities is as a result of the limited opportunities of academics in participating in the policy and decision-making process of their universities hence the feeling of less empowerment. The challenges and problems identified are likely to affect scholars in Malaysian universities, including working methods as well as their psychological behaviors and attitudes towards sharing knowledge, thereby reducing their academic commitment and performance (Tartari & Salter, 2015). With respect to the academic context, research team members are considered to be a community where they engage in collective research activities, research initiatives, sharing information and other financial resources. Hence, such process is bidirectional where researchers ought to invest their time in initiating, growing and maintaining social relationships among teams (Tangaraja et al., 2016).

Davenport and Cronin (2000) point out that university is generally acknowledged as the most ideal place to create knowledge. Taking into consideration universities as the primary source of the creation of knowledge, and the location where knowledge management was initially introduced, universities are therefore the most anticipated place where it is practicable to freely share knowledge among its representatives, more specifically academics. Furthermore, knowledge sharing within universities occurs when academics recognize its significance and its overall outcome (Ridzuan et al., 2008). Seonghee and Boryung (2008) argued that knowledge sharing requires the need for knowledge creation and making it accessible to others through the provision of systemic and technological infrastructure. Wu et al. (2012) have found knowledge sharing as the constructive swiftness that keeps organizations moving forward. Though Charband and Jafari Navimipour (2018) refer to knowledge sharing as an integral platform for delivering knowledge and education, they also acknowledged its emergence through individuals’ cooperation and willingness to share knowledge. In addition, knowledge sharing is a relevant resource to gain value and increase creativity. Charband and Jafari Navimipour (2018) further suggested that sharing knowledge means enhancing the performance of tertiary education environments.

In an empirical analysis by Ramayah et al. (2013), it was concluded that knowledge sharing can be referred to as a reciprocal process of exchanging knowledge between at least two parties. Recently, Annansingh et al. (2018) have referred to higher education institutions as the venue for creating, distributing and communicating knowledge guided by relationships among people, processes and technologies. Knowledge sharing in higher education institutions and its associated relationships and interaction allows people to build practices, collect and exchange knowledge. This also contributes to better programs and outcomes.

According to Stimpson and Maughan (1978) trust is the individual’s perceived actions of another person or a community that will be unselfishly and personally beneficial. Liao (2006) described trust as “a party’s willingness to be vulnerable to another party’s actions, with the expectation that the other party will conduct a specific action essential to the trustor, regardless of the other party’s ability to track or control it.” Trust has proven to be a precedent for sharing information and the presumption of the honesty of other individuals (Gefen et al., 2011). Trust among academics is seen as the ability and willingness of a faculty member to engage in a strong relationship with a team member or colleague that will result to knowledge sharing with those that he or she trusts. With the lack of trust, academics in universities will become knowledge seekers that exploits the knowledge against their interest. On the other hand, people seeking knowledge lack the assurance that sharing offers them the correct and adequate amount of knowledge (Yusof & Suhaimi, 2006). Renzl (2008) suggested in their study that, for an adequate level of knowledge sharing, there is a need for trust among people. According to Annansingh et al. (2018) trust is essentially based on honesty, reliability and integrity as well as having confidence in institution or person. Without trust of procedures, institutional processes, and colleagues, knowledge will not be shared effectively. Hence, trust in HEIs is necessary for knowledge to be shared and transferred as the basis for which academic communities perform exceptionally and thrive. In the same study, Annansingh et al. (2018) added that trust is a relevant component for growth and promotion of knowledge.

In other hand, trust has a direct positive effect on organizational citizenship behavior. Trust is very important to enhance organizational citizenship behavior (Guh et al., 2013; Khadivi et al., 2013; Thomsen et al., 2016; Wong et al., 2012; Zhang, 2011).

In summary, the above reviewed studies provided evidence that trust is positively related to organization citizenship behavior. However, there is a lack of evidence on the relationship trust and organization citizenship behavior in the higher education context especially in the Malaysian higher educational context.

Amin et al. (2010) conducted a case study on oil and gas Company. The researched argued that OCB as has a positive effect of individuals’ decision to share knowledge. Regression analysis indicated that OCB is a strong predictor of knowledge sharing behavior. According to Teh and Yong (2011), OCB and subjective name are positively related to individuals’ attitude to share his/her knowledge. OCB found to be positively and directly associated with knowledge sharing behavior (Sadegh et al., 2018; Teh & Sun, 2012; Trong Tuan, 2017).

In short, the above-mentioned studies demonstrated the existence of a positive and substantive relationship between the OCB and the sharing of knowledge.

Based on the literatures reviewed, the present study proposes the following research hypotheses;

H1: Trust has positive effect on academics’ knowledge sharing.

H2: Trust has positive effect on academics’ organizational citizenship behavior.

H3: Organizational citizenship behavior mediates the relationship between trust and knowledge sharing.

Figure 1 below illustrates the conceptual framework of this study:

Figure 1. Research model for this study.

3. Methodology and analysis

The instrument adopted is a questionnaire which consists of three sections pertained to the study constructs; trust, organizational citizenship behavior and knowledge sharing in addition to the demographic information of the respondents. The respondents had to respond to each item using a Likert scale with a five-point ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. The survey data gathered were from respondent who are academics within the five research institutions in Malaysia. The surveys were distributed to the academics personally to increase the response rate of the study. The data was voluntarily gathered, screened, edited and only valid responses were retained for further analysis. The study also adopted the recommendations by Krejcie and Morgan (1970a) in determining the sample size.

The items were adapted from (Ramayah et al., 2014) knowledge sharing; trust was measured by an instrument developed by (Choi et al., 2008; Seonghee & Boryung, 2008) and tested in Malaysia by (Jolaee et al., 2014; C. N. L. Tan, 2016), organizational citizenship behavior was adapted from (K. Lee & Allen, 2002), and tested in Malaysian context by (Abdulrab et al., 2018; Abdulrab et al., 2020; Al-Mamary, 2020a; Hamid et al., 2013). The validity of the instrument were established through the evaluation done by five experts within the same area of expertise as suggested by (Kline, 2015). The experts’ opinions were used to determine the clarity, understandability, content and modifications for improvement. The survey was modified based on the experts’ suggestions and therefore was established as a valid instrument. The data obtained from the survey were analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software and using Smart PLS-Structural Equation Modelling (SEM).

4. Result and discussion

A number of 388 (78%) out of the 500 questionnaires were distributed and collected. Although 380 questionnaires were available after an examination of the 388 questionnaires, giving a 76% response rate. Specifically, eight questionnaires were excluded because they were incomplete. In order to achieve an appropriate degree of statistical power in Smart-PLS, the sample size (N = 380) of this study is considered reasonable as it is above the minimum requirement (10 times rule: 10 times the number of independent variables; Hair et al., 2017). The results of the respondents’ demographics are tabulated in Table 1.

Table 1. Demographic variables (N = 380)

Item		Frequency	Percentage (%)
Gender	1. Male	162	42.6
	2. Female	218	57.4
Age	1. 29 and below	13	3.4
	2. 30 to 45	216	56.3
	3. 46 to 60	143	37.6
	4. 61 and above	10	2.6
Marital Status	1. Married	334	87.9
	2. Single	36	9.5
	3. Divorced	7	1.8
	4. Widowed	3	0.8
Education	1. Doctorate Degree	349	91.8
	2. Master’s Degree	31	8.2
Academia’s Rank	1. Professor	44	11.6
	2. Associate Professor	76	20
	3. Senior Lecturer	223	58.7
	4. Lecturer	37	9.7
Years with current position	1. Less than a year	30	7.9
	2. 1 to 3 Years	125	32.9
	3. 4 to 7 years	76	20
	4. More than 7 Years	147	39.2
Institution	1. UM	90	23.7
	2. UPM	66	17.4
	3. USM	84	22.1
	4. UTM	69	18.2
	5. UKM	71	18.7

Using the Mahalanobis ranking, the data was checked for outliers where a ranking greater than the critical value is treated as an outlier and excluded from any further review. The outcome showed that the data set did not contain multivariate outliers. The normality of the three constructs was tested and there was no violation suggested by the outcome. Thus, all variables are classified as normally distributed in this analysis.

The table below shows the standard deviations and mean of the study variables.

To explore the strength and direction of the relationships between study variables, the Pearson coefficient was used. The results of these relationships between the variables are discussed as follows:

Based from Table 2, organizational citizenship has a positive relationship with trust. The correlation coefficient is 0.288, indicating that the relationship is small. In addition, sharing has a significant positive relationship with trust. The correlation coefficient is 0.675, which suggests that the relationship is moderate. Moreover, sharing of knowledge has an interdependent relationship with organizational citizenship behavior. The correlation coefficient was 0.614 and this demonstrates that there is a moderate relationship.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for the studied variables

First-orderConstructs	Second-order Constructs	Indicators	Mean	Standard Deviation
	Trust(TR)	TR1TR2TR3TR4TR5	3.047	1.3028
Organizational Citizenship Behaviour—Individual (OCBI)		OCBI1OCBI2OCBI3OCBI4OCBI5OCBI6OCBI7OCBI8	3.74	1.37
Organizational Citizenship Behaviour—Organization (OCBO)		OCBO1OCBO2OCBO3OCBO4OCBO5OCBO6OCBO7OCBO8	3.486	1.38
	Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB)	OCBIOCBO	3.6	1.38
Written contribution (WC)		WC1WC2WC3WC4WC5	3.82	0.891
Organizational communication (KOC)		KOC1KOC2KOC3KOC4KOC5KOC6KOC7KOC8	3.97	0.945
Community of Practice (CP)		CP1CP2CP3CP4CP5CP6CP7	3.723	1.049
Personal Interaction (PI)		PI1PI2PI3PI4PI5PI6PI7PI8	3.62	0.956
	Knοwledge Sharing (KS)	WCKOCCPPI	3.77	0.965

Cronbach’s alpha coefficients and composite reliability were tested in order to measure the construct reliability for the study variables. The values of the Cronbach alpha coefficients were greater than 0.7 (Abdulrab et al., 2020; Abdulrab et al., 2021; Abdulmalek Aqlan et al., 2021; Ali Ahmed Alfakih et al., 2021; Al-Ghurbani et al., 2021; Al-Mamary et al., 2020; Al‐Mamary, 2020b; Alshebami, 2021; Alshebami & Seraj, 2021; Kannan & Tan, 2005; Khan et al., 2021; Rehman et al., 2021) as shown in Table 3 below.

Table 3. Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability

First-orderConstructs	Second-order Constructs	Cronbach’s alpha (> 0.7)	Composite Reliability (> 0.7)
	Trust(TR)	0.954	0.965
Organizational Citizenship Behaviour—Individual (OCBI)		0.981	0.984
Organizational Citizenship Behaviour—Organization (OCBO)		0.976	0.979
	Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB)	0.988	0.989
Written contribution (WC)		0.921	0.942
Organizational communication (KOC)		0.924	0.939
Community of Practice (PC)		0.972	0.977
Personal Interaction (PI)		0.955	0.962
	Knοwledge Sharing (KS)	0.968	0.970

The conclusions drawn from evaluating the results of the structural model allow the researcher to determine the quality of the model and test the hypotheses (Hair et al., 2014). The (R²) value, the size of the effect (F²) and the predictive significance (Q²) were stated. The structural model is assessed by computing the bootstrapping phase of 5000 re-samples. The regular beta (β), t-values (one-tailed test) and the determination coefficient (R²) were computed. (Hair et al., 2017). The single-tailed test assumes that at a meaningful level of 5%, the t-value should be equal to or greater than 1.65 (Hair et al., 2017). Table 4 below displays the results of testing the research hypotheses.

Table 4. Results of hypotheses

Hypotheses	Relationship	Beta	Std Error	T -value	P Values	Decision
H1	TR → KS	0.252	0.064	3.957	0.000	Supported
H2	TR → OCB	0.197	0.048	4.097	0.000	Supported
H3	OCB → KS	0.428	0.068	6.283	0.000	Supported

Key: TR: Trust, OCB: Organizational Citizenship Behaviour, KS: Knοwledge Sharing

The structural model assessment as shown in Figure 2 and Table 4 provides an indication of the hypothesis tests. Regarding this, TR was found to have a significant influence on KS β = 0.252, t = 3.957, p < 0.001). Hence, H1 is supported. Likewise, TR significantly predicts OCB (β = 0.197, t = 4.097, p < 0.001). Hence, H2 is supported. OCB was found to significantly influence KS (β = 0.428, t = 6.283, p < 0.001), which supports H3. The results of study, shows an indirect the relationship between TR and KS (β = 0.337) with a t-value of 6.158, which is significant. Thus, based on this analysis, it can be concluded that the OCB variable’s mediation effect is statistically significant.

Figure 2. Structural model for this study.

The present study attempted to determine the contribution of trust to academics’ knowledge sharing within the higher education institutions in Malaysia. The data was obtained from the five main research institutions in Malaysia namely; Universiti Malaya (UM), Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), and Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM). The present study adopts three variables with the objective of contributing to academic knowledge sharing among research institutions in Malaysia 57. The fundamental role is to identify how the research hypotheses are confirmed or opposed by the findings of the present study.

H1: Trust has positive effect on academics’ knowledge sharing.

H2: Trust has positive effect on academics’ organizational citizenship behavior.

Trust is necessary in the relationship between academics as it is unavoidable to perform academic responsibilities in a well-established institution without collaborations, partnerships or joint research works thus involving faculty members sharing knowledge or some form of information. The study adopted and adapted instruments where five items were used to measure trust. The study first hypothesized that: Trust has positive effect on academics’ knowledge sharing. This was supported in previous studies where the existent of trust was demonstrated to encourage honesty among academics (Annansingh et al., 2018). However, recent events in universities have suggested several challenges that discourages academics willingness to share knowledge and its associated causes were lack of trust in both institutions and other academics. The data collected indicated that there is a causal relationship between trust and academic knowledge sharing where statistical tests to measure the relationship showed t-value of 3.957 with a greater than the threshold of t-value of 1.96 and a p-value of 0.000 which is less than the threshold of less than 0.05 signaling there is a significant effect of trust on academic knowledge sharing. This variable was further tested using regression analysis and the results suggested a coefficient of KS β = 0.252. The results therefore suggested that a change in trust will cause a significant change in academics knowledge sharing.

H3: Organizational citizenship behavior mediates the relationship between trust and knowledge sharing.

The Test of mediation of Organizational Citizenship Behavior between Trust and Academic Knowledge sharing indicated that there is a partial mediation effect of (β = 0.252, t = 4.075), in line with recommendations for mediating effect using the bootstrapping method by (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). The outcome of the bootstrapping study indicates that there is an indirect relationship between TR and KS (β = 0.337) with a t-value of 6.158, which is significant. Thus, this analysis may conclude that the OCB variable’s mediation effect is statistically significant. On the other hand, there is a significant direct impact (β = 0.252, t = 4.075, P-value < 0.001) between TR (IV) and KS. This result suggests that the OCB mediates the relationship between TR and KS in line with the bootstrapping approach (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). This result also indicates that institutions should re-think of the initiatives they undertake to shape their academic staff’s perception of knowledge sharing. Fortunately, the Malaysian higher education sector remains competitive in its pursuit for higher global ranks and research quality and quantity, and researchers must establish a framework in order to encourage good citizenship conduct to achieve knowledge sharing.

The present study hoped to identify some critical influences expected to enable trust among academics in knowledge sharing. The study’s theoretical contribution extends the social exchange theory to include the adoption of trust and organizational citizenship behavior through the integration of items adopted. Trust was hypothesized to have a positive relationship with knowledge sharing and its effect analyzed and showed a significant effect. This findings were in line with a previous study by Yuan et al. (2016) who investigated the role of trust in increasing knowledge sharing, likewise in the study by Le and Lei (2018a). On the other hand, an earlier study by Yeo and Gold (2014) found a negative relationship between trust and knowledge sharing. The contradiction in the findings can be explained by the differences in the sample and demographics of the study, as it was conducted in an industrial setting where employees compete for resources. Although there are several studies exploring these relationships, there are suggestions of in all these literatures on the contribution of trust and motivation in enabling knowledge sharing among academics and members of the organization (Buvik & Tvedt, 2017). The government of Malaysia and its MOHE continues to seek improved measures of building international trust in its educational sector. These include the ability of the sector to be ranked high globally in terms of the quality and quantity of research and researchers and innovation, etc. Thus, the ability to achieve this mainly depends on the conduct of academic activities by academics. As established in the present study, academic responsibilities include knowledge sharing through research, publications, review of literatures, collaborations hence the need for trust by key stakeholders. Therefore, H1 and H2 were supported.

The key contribution of this study to previous research is the novel model based on the theory of social exchange that addresses the contribution of trust to the sharing of knowledge among academics in the Malaysian research institutions. The current study model presents a unique approach for institutions to follow when promoting its academic staff’s sharing of knowledge. The current study established trust as a factor that can lead to sharing of knowledge, thereby enhancing the results of academic success in research institutions in Malaysia. The study suggests that implementing strategies that promote the perception and citizenship behavior of employees can bridge the gap between the challenges and the intention of sharing knowledge. This is demonstrated by the introduction of the organizational citizenship behavior mediation variable. This variable represents the contribution of the present study in which the researcher posited the importance of ensuring that items such as employees’ opinion, well-being, priorities and values, help availability, forgiveness, and show of concern from the university improves the conduct of academics within an institution. The results of the study also indicated that implementation of organizational citizenship measures would ensure sound sharing of knowledge among academics.

The model of the study also showed how the above factors are expected to contribute to trust among academics in general and their research institutions, which further facilitate the exchange of knowledge of these academics driven by their experience (trustor and trustees). The model also showed that these variables contribute to the sharing of knowledge within higher education institutions and relevant research institutions where similar assumptions apply.

Another contribution of the present study is its results on the role of trust in enhancing the behavior of academic citizenship within academic institutions. This supports the assumption put forward by Annansingh et al. (2018). In brief, trust was found to render knowledge sharing among academics more effective. The results of the study further indicated that the factors serve as guidelines for achieving trust, which is necessary for academics in educational institutions to achieve knowledge sharing. These factors reassure academics that sufficient and purposeful information is necessary for higher education institutions in achieving the desired academic excellence.

5. Practical implications

The study hopes to achieve an intellectual elevation within Malaysian research institutions. The present study suggests building trust among academics within Malaysian research universities. This will strengthen working teams, work engagement, citizenship behavior, working relationships and seal that information divide among academics thereby enhancing the performance and effectiveness of universities in Malaysia. In addition, this study focus on academics and leadership in the academic institutions, such as the Higher Education Leadership Academy (AKEPT), to develop plans and actions to be followed by academics in institutions which will further promote academic knowledge sharing among institutions.

6. Conclusion

The present study explored the influence of trust on academics’ knowledge sharing in Malaysian research institutions. Overall, the study has contributed to the current body of knowledge on knowledge sharing within academics and research institutions in developing countries such as Malaysia, allowing it to be implemented in other Asian countries where similar problems or situations may exist. In addition, the study has contributed to the adoption of the mediation variable organizational citizenship behavior to bridge the gap between the challenges and the objective to achieve knowledge sharing. The study’s outcomes also suggested that adopting measures of organizational citizenship actions including employee opinion, well-being, goals and values, support, and show of concern from the university enables positive academics behavior within an institution which will ensure that there is knowledge sharing within academics. Despite this contribution, some limitations of the study should be addressed for future research. While the sample size is a reflection of the adopted population, consideration of all higher academic and research institutions of a greater population of academics could be a true representation of the education sector and allow the results to be better generalized. Future research on academics’ knowledge sharing should also investigate this topic from other data by conducting research and other academic activities and adopting longitudinal research to identify the key influences of trust and other factors in improving sharing of knowledge.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The authors received no direct funding for this research.

Notes on contributors

Yaser Mutahar

Mr. Yaser Mutahar is currently a Teacher Assistant in Al-Razi University, Yemen, & he is a PhD student in Al-Madinah International University. His areas of interest include knowledge management, knowledge sharing, organisational behaviour, purchasing and consumer behaviour.

Dr. Mazen Mohammed Farea is currently an associate professor at Al-Madinah International University.

Dr. Abdulrab is currently an assistant professor at the Community College of Qatar, Doha, Qatar & Al-Razi University, Yemen.

Dr. Yaser Hasan Al-Mamary is currently an associate professor at College of Business Administration, University of Hail, Saudi Arabia & Al-Razi University, Yemen.

Dr. Adel Abdulmhsen Alfalah is currently an assistant professor at College of Business Administration, University of Hail, Saudi Arabia.

Dr. Mohieddin Grada is currently an assistant professor at College of Business Administration, University of Hail, Saudi Arabia.