Content uploaded by B. T. Sayed
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by B. T. Sayed on Sep 21, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by B. T. Sayed
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by B. T. Sayed on Sep 21, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
A Survey on Knowledge Sharing Pyramid Model among
Homogeneity Community
B. T. Sayed
Department of Computer Science
Dhofar University
Sulatanate of Oman
btsm999@yahoo.com
S.M.F.D Syed Mustapha
Department of Computer Science
Dhofar University
Sulatanate of Oman
smfdsm@yahoo.com
Abstract
This paper describes a survey on the students’ knowledge sharing values in Salalah, Sultanate
of Oman. The knowledge sharing pyramid model conjectures the three levels in the order of
communication, learning and convergence. As explained in the previous publications,
communication lies at the bottom crux of knowledge sharing. The communication does not only
refer to the common language but also common gestures, jokes, sensitivity and interests.
Learning logically follows after communication takes place effectively. Students learn from each
other at the fastest rate ever compare to other parties like the administrator or lecturers.
Convergence is presumed to exist when they share problem and concern even it is not theirs
and share vision and future of their friends.
The investigation is performed on these students because these students meet common criteria
in the form of homogeneity in their social life. This is due to their common culture and tradition
which distinguishes them with students from other countries which includes multicultural and
multi traditional sources. We claim these students will be best suited as samples for our survey
as they are not bounded by any external influences and also possess common features like
their costumes, gestures and styles which make their communication and consequently their
learning seamlessly functioning.
The survey focuses on the knowledge sharing pyramid that has the component of
communication, learning and convergence mentioned earlier. The concept of the knowledge
sharing pyramid is rather general that in this paper the specifications of their meaning in the
context of student’s environment are given. These specifications are used in our analysis to
prove the validity of knowledge sharing pyramid model.
Keywords: Homogeneity Community, Knowledge Sharing Pyramid
1. Introduction
This paper presents the interlacing between the theory of Social Communication, Social
Learning and Symbolic Convergence as a solution to provide a successful achievement in
Knowledge Sharing Technique [1,16]. In isolation, as per the researches performed by various
researchers in each of these fields, we claim that combining these theories will lead to an
exaggerated change in the capability of achieving Knowledge Sharing among homogeneity
community [14].
Social Communication [5,6,7,11,12] is a field of study that mainly explores the way information
can be professed, transmitted and understood and the impact those ways will have on the
community. Thus the study of social communication is more politically and socially involved as
an initial step towards the achievement of Knowledge Management Technology[1,13,14]. Social
Learning [10] focuses on the learning that occurs within a social context. It considers that people
learn from one another, including such concepts as observational learning, imitation and
modeling [3,4]. Symbolic Convergence theory [2] was developed by Ernest Bormann (through
1972-1996). Ernest Bormann’s Symbolic Convergence theory offers a promising method of
looking at small group interaction and cohesiveness [8,9]. When individuals who are not familiar
with each other come together for the sake of achieving a common goal, be it a group in an
organization or students working on a school project, the symbolic convergence theory presents
an understandable and generally accurate stance on how cohesiveness within the group is
attained.
Today most of the industries have been espousing various approaches in diversifying the
Knowledge Management Technology as a solution to promote knowledge dissemination,
knowledge creation and knowledge sharing [16]. Most of these approaches have been reported
into critics and lead to failure [15]. In our view Knowledge Sharing has to fulfill three
fundamental stages as depicted in the figure below [1] :
The base of the pyramid is the community communication which is a prerequisite as it forms the
basic structure of the community [11]. The next stage is learning, where the community
understands the ideas and concepts [10,14], which generates from communication, forms as a
base to the third stage convergence that leads to sharing repertoire [1,2,12].
To start with, in this paper, we define and elaborate the two main communities used to describe
the paper. Secondly we create an archetype of the knowledge sharing pyramid model which
demonstrates the necessity of the hierarchical order of the KSP interlinked with communication,
learning and convergence in a homogeneity community. Thirdly we describe the release of the
KSP on a heterogeneous community. We then continue with an experiment through
questionnaires on the homogeneous community and finally, based on our analysis, we produce
our conclusion which exemplifies the whole concept of the knowledge sharing pyramid.
2. Homogeneous community
Social Communication
Social Learning
Symbolic Convergence
Figure 1: Knowledge Sharing Pyramid (KSP)
A homogeneous community consist groups of people from a similar culture, tradition and
interests. This type of community is totally independent from any source of external influences.
Peoples within this community also possess common features like their costumes, gesture and
styles. Though people within these community form groups within the community in terms of
personal relationships, official contacts, educational reasons, participation in games/sports and
other activities and so on, still there is something common within these groups that bounds them
to act similar in all the activities and that is their culture and tradition. People in this type of
community as compared to other communities would share others problems and concerns even
if it is not related to them.
Let’s take the same example of TV as described in the heterogeneous community. Here the
local channel or the channels are totally dedicated for the people within this community or in
other words there will be some particular channels which are totally viewed by this community
and would be very much dependable for the people in the community.
Again in an organization as the people are all within the same culture and tradition would be
socially very close to each other and thus the communication takes place very effectively.
In this community the communication as compared to the heterogeneous community would be
tremendously too high thus reaching the level of social learning with higher number of groups
and then attaining the level of convergence comparatively at a larger level.
3. Heterogeneous community
A heterogeneous community consist groups of people from various cultures, tradition, religion
which reflects and differs in their gestures, costumes, sensitivity and interests. Such community
does communicate at a very low level as they tremendously lack common criteria and interests
to communicate with each other. for e.g.: this could be clearly visible from an example of TV
channels. In a heterogeneity community any one type of channel may not be that familiar
through out the whole community. People from the community may prefer to watch a channel
that interests their culture, tradition, language or any related area.
Similarly in an organization those people who belong to a common tribe or tradition may form a
group and may not communicate that effectively, socially, to other groups.
Social Communication
Social Learning
Symbolic Convergence
Homogenous Community
Media providing information
Media providing information
Most of the groups here usually do communicate at an extremely lower level with each other,
and thus only some groups do reach the level of social learning most of them would be without
attaining the communication stage and then few of these come up to the convergence level.
4. An Archetype of KSP on a Homogeneous Community
The figure demonstrates the KSP within a homogeneous community and the approach they
follow to socially communicate, learn and reach a convergence level. The figure represents an
outer circle as a social homogeneous community. Within the community are shown various
groups, as mentioned earlier, been divided either in terms of their personal relationships, official
contacts, participations, educational reasons and other activities. As the groups belong to the
homogeneous community they are shown as overlapping with each other meaning that though
they are within various groups they still constitute a common criteria within themselves in the
form of a common culture and tradition. The oval shape represents the media providing the
information. The medias could be either television, internet, newspapers, administrators in a
office/institution or any other source.
The dotted stylish lines show an incredible social communication between the groups. As a
result most of the groups come up and form new groups in the form of social learning i.e. the
groups of course do understand and follow the external media to achieve the information but
they practically/socially learn when they communicate the information to each other, gathered
from the media. The dash-doted stylish lines represent the learning process. It shows that most
of the groups from the communication scenario come up discussing the information. Ultimately
of the groups who are involved in the social learning process, some of these groups comes up
Figure 2: An archetype of KSP on a Homogeneity Community
to the convergence level sharing ideas, problems, concerns, visions and futures between each
other even if it does not relate to themselves.
5. An Archetype of KSP on a Heterogeneous Community
Social Communication
Social Learning
Symbolic Convergence
Heterogeneous Community
Media providing information
Media providing information
This figure demonstrates the KSP within a heterogeneous community and the mode they follow
to socially communicate, learn and reach the convergence level. The figure is similar to the
former one except that here the groups do not overlap with each other meaning that they are
really within different category of groups, as discussed earlier, differentiating themselves
through various cultures, tradition, religion and interests. The figure demonstrates that this
community is bounded and restricted to social communication due to the difference as
mentioned earlier. It is shown that the social communication is very low as compared to the
former community and obviously it results in low social learning. Only few of the groups comes
up to the level of social learning and thus leading to very low convergence level meaning that
only very few groups share their views, ideas, problems and concerns.
People within community
Information flow
Information congregation
Communication flow
New-fangled groups
Sharing vision/ambition
Media providing information
Knowledge Sharing Pyramid
Figure 4: Legends for Figure 2 and Figure 3
Figure 3: An archetype of KSP on a Heterogeneity Community
6. Methodology
The survey is performed on the students’ knowledge sharing values in Salalah, Sultanate of
Oman. The community in Sultanate of Oman is purely homogeneous meaning that they follow
the same tradition, culture, interests and most commonly they are equipped with common
gestures, costumes and styles. This indicates that they follow a common pattern towards
achieving goals. They are also not influenced by any other culture or tradition as the country
itself is a self dependent country administering its own citizens.
The survey is performed on the students in Dhofar University, Salalah who are various parts of
the country and constitutes an integral part in the University. The students selected for survey
contribute to various departments and majors within the University. The goal of the survey has
not been disclosed to the students and they were stipulated to carefully empathize the questions
in their survey.
The survey has been performed on 81 students from various batches within the University.
Questions in the questionnaire were totally related to the social communication, social learning
and convergence.
7. Survey Results
Social Communication Total no. of Students Surveyed : 81
Q.No.
1Fri ends( Omani) Fri ends( Other Arabs) Friends(Non-Arabs, speak arabic) Rel evant Authorities Fri ends (Others) Unknown Omani Others
30.46 23.34 12.24 11.84 11.37 10.29 0.47
2English A r a b i c Eng lish and Arabic Others
25.00 18.75 56.25 0.00
3< 1 1-3 3-6 6-12 12-20 Others
3.70 12.35 16.05 41.98 22.22 3.70
4Mobile-SMS Mobile Talk Land-Phone Emails Face-Face Others
24.86 27.62 14.76 8.76 24.00 0.00
5Tra veling Soc ial gathering University campus Sport activities Others
21.04 26.12 26.00 26.36 0.47
6Course Lecturers Education Career Family Personal Politics Sports Others
12.24 11.88 14.16 9.88 15.89 17.13 9.38 8.33 1.12
7Fri ends from Universit y Nei ghbours Relatives Old school f riend s Fri ends workplac e Others
24.17 18.27 17.86 27.33 11.46 0.91
Social Learning
Q.No.
1Cliques Classmates Ind ividual effort Lecturers teaching Other lecturers Others
31.57 23.84 19.93 20.29 4.19 0.18
2Cliques Classmates Ind ividual effort Lecturers teaching Other lecturers Others
21.54 27.50 27.06 21.02 2.80 0.09
3Cli ques Other friends Adm inist rator s Close lecturers Other lecturers Relatives Others
27.27 18.67 18.18 17.83 10.70 7.34 0.00
4Cli ques Other friends Adm inist rator s Close lecturers Other lecturers Relatives Others
29.08 19.45 14.34 17.42 13.03 5.50 1.18
5Cli ques Other friends Adm inist rator s Close lecturers Other lecturers Not ice b oards Relatives Others
21.27 15.23 13.59 14.70 12.05 15.89 6.88 0.40
Symbolic Convergence
Q.No.
1Little bit Sometimes Usually Very often/a lot Never Others
3.75 12.50 26.25 51.25 6.25 0.00
2Little bit Sometimes Usually Very often/a lot Never Others
7.50 36.25 35.00 16.25 5.00 0.00
3No Yes Possible
0.00 66.25 33.75
4No Yes Depends
34.57 40.74 24.69
5No Yes Depends
7.41 59.26 33.33
6No Yes
14.81 85.19
Figure 5: Survey Results
Social Communication
On compilation of the survey results we found that majority of the students, during their valuable
period in the university, interact with each other very socially, learn, achieve their targets, aims
and objectives in a social way. The results given below will enhance this discussion.
(1. 2. 3. …… represents survey questions)
1. In a situation in abroad and in case of any problem 30.46% of the students do prefer to
approach their friends (Omani), 23.34% prefer to approach friends (other Arabs), 12.24% prefer
to approach friends (non-Arabic, speaking Arabic) even knowing that the others are also similar
to them being dependant on the local authorities. In our view, in such a case, the students
should approach the relevant authorities first. This shows that the students are really attached to
each other socially and this proves that their social contacts are strong enough to solve any
such problem.
2. In the selection of a language to learn a new stuff (subject, topic, lesson), being known that
the university focuses on English language and the medium of instruction and the courses itself
are in pure English and obviously the academic staff are from various nationalities and
countries, the results shows that only 25% students do prefer English language and the others
do prefer Arabic together with English. This shows that the students are strongly attached to
their native language even during their studies and it demonstrates their social ethics with their
language.
7. & 3. The results show that the students’ close friends are 24.17% from the university and the
majority of them refer to old school friends (27.33%), neighbors (18.27%), and relatives
(17.86%). At the same time their communication with the close friends are well-built. 41.98% of
the students communicate for around 6-12 hrs/week and 22.22% indicates their communication
for around 12-20 hrs./week with the close friends. This figure indicates their unyielding strength
of social communication among the friends.
4. 5. 6. In terms of the channel used for communication the figure – Mobile SMS (24.86%),
Mobile talk (27.62%), Land-Phone (14.76%) shows that when they are quite unreachable to
their close friends they would really use other reliable and effective communicative media to
communicate with each other. At the same time when they meet face-face the figure represents
24% communication. 26.36% of the students spent time with their close friends through sport
activities, 26.12% through social gathering, 21.04% through traveling and 26% in university
campus shows that their social communication through social activities is obvious. This also
demonstrates that within these social communication activities they usually discuss about
courses (12.24%), lecturers (11.88%), education (14.16%) and career (9.88%).
The whole survey on social communication indicates that the communication in a homogeneous
community in almost all the activities results to a high degree of appreciation through social
performance.
Social learning
1. 2. 3. 4. In terms of problems with the lectures, assignments, academic issues or any
personal matters the figure shows that the students would prefer to approach their cliques,
classmates or other friends. This demonstrates their learning through social behavior and
attitude, which results in the fact that they really learn and solve the related problems.
Problems with the lectures – Cliques (31.57%), Classmates (23.84%), Other lecturers (4.19%)
Problems with the assignments – Cliques (21.54%), Classmates (27.50%), Other lecturers
(2.80%)
Academic problems – Cliques (27.27%), Other friends (18.67%), Close lecturers (17.83%),
Relatives (7.34%)
Personal problems - Cliques (29.08%), Other friends (19.45%), Close lecturers (17.42%),
5. To receive the latest information about the university procedures, the survey shows that the
majority of students prefer to approach cliques (21.27%), other friends (15.23%), close lecturers
(14.70%) and relatives (6.88%).
Symbolic Convergence
1. 2. Majority of students’ prefer to share their future plans/ambitions with their close friends very
often (51.25%), usually (26.25%) and it is not limited to the same, they also share their own
personal weaknesses with them at the rate of very often (16.25%), usually (35%) and
sometimes (36.25%). We can notice that in the formal one only 6.25% and in the later one only
5% agree not to share their plans, ambitions with close friends. This demonstrates that they
congregate their views, ideas, problems ate the convergence level.
3. 4. Students are constructive in terms of helping others in whatever way possible. The figure
represents that 66.25% of them would like to help their close friends even if it is no where
related to them and none of them agree with the idea of not helping their close friends. 40.74%
agree to copy their assignments during the assessment or exam period and 24.69% confirm
that, in this regard, they are interested to help their friends but depending on the situation and
environment.
5. In terms of sharing their personal belongings the figure indicates that 59.26% of them will
really do and 33.33% shows that it depends on the situation and the type of requirement.
6. This question was the ultimate in symbolic convergence in terms of sharing their views, ideas
and future. In response to whether the students inform their close friends about a job
opportunity that has only one vacancy which the student himself is applying for the figure shows
that 85.19% students confirms “Yes”. This demonstrates their strong convergence between
each other even in the ultimate case.
8. Conclusion
It is very obvious that the students during their education in a university, in a heterogeneity
community, focus on the courses, lectures, assessments, and other university related activities
in a very professional and well thought-out routine, leaving behind their social life and activities
to achieve their goals and ambitions. In contrast, through the experiment it is clear that, in a
homogeneous community they do so through social activities in the sequence of social
communication, social learning and symbolic convergence.
9. References
[1] S.M.F.D Syed Mustapha & T. Nishida, Communicative Social Intelligence: Technological
Concepts for Breaking Communication Impediment, National Conference of Scientific and
Social Research, 26 & 27 August, 2003, Seri Kembangan, The Mines Resort, Selangor,
Malaysia.
[2] Bormann, E.G Symbolic convergence: Organizational communication and culture. In L.L.
Putnam and M.E. Pacanowsky (eds.), Communication and organization: An interpretive
approach, Beverly Hills: Sage, 1983
[3] Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
[4] Bandura A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall
[5] Griffin, E. (1997). A first look at communication theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
[6] Asendorpf, J.B., & Wilpers, S. (1998). Personality effects on social relationships. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology.
[7] Carey, J.W. (1989). Communication as culture: Essays on media and society. New York:
Routledge.
[8] Cragan, John F. & Shields, Donald C. (1996). Latest Developments in the application of
symbolic convergence. Annual meeting of the Central States Speech Communication
Association, St. Paul, MN.
[9] Bormann, E.G. & Bormann, N.C. Effective small group communication (5th ed.). Edina, MN:
Burgess, 1992.
[10] Wenger, E. Community of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity, Cambridge University
Press, 1998.
[11] Pepper, G.L., Communicating in Organizations: A Cultural Approach. McGraw Hill, Inc.
1995.
[12] S.M.F.D Syed Mustapha, Agent Mediated for Intelligent Conversational Channel for Social
Knowledge-building in Educational Environment.
[13] S.M.F.D Syed Mustapha, Knowledge Construction Technology through Hypermedia-Based
Intelligent Conversational Channel.
[14] S.M.F.D Syed Mustapha, Intelligent Conversational Channel for Learning Social Knowledge
among Communities.
[15] Malhotra, Y. Why Knowledge Management Systems Fail? Enablers and Constraints of
Knowledge Management in Human Enterprises. Handbook on Knowledge Management (ed. By
C.W. Holsapple), Springer-verlag, Heidelberg, 2002.
[16] S.M.F.D Syed Mustapha, B.T. Sayed, Knowledge Sharing Pyramid: Communication,
Learning and Convergence, International Conference of Knowledge and Management 2005,
Malaysia. [This Volume].
