@phdthesis{Fischer2020,
  author    = {Fischer, Caroline},
  title     = {Knowledge Sharing in the Public Sector},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {xiii, 222},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {This dissertation examines the activity of knowledge sharing by public employees in the workplace. Building on the Rubicon model of human behavior formation, I use a threefold approach to analyze the knowledge-sharing process: public employees' motivation to share knowledge, their intention to share, and knowledge sharing behavior as such. The first article maps the knowledge-sharing behavior of public employees. It builds a typology of behavioral patterns and shows that public employees mainly share their knowledge responsively and directly with a knowledge receiver rather than an information medium. The second article elaborates on the construct of knowledge-sharing motivation and develops a scale to measure this kind of work motivation in a selective and domain-specific way. Data from three studies indicate three dimensions of knowledge-sharing motivation, namely appreciation, growth and altruism, and tangible rewards. Based on these dimensions, the third article analyzes whether the satisfaction of public employees' underlying needs can foster ther knowledge-sharing intention. The study indicates that both tested treatments (appreciation by co-workers, benefits in a performance appraisal) positively affect knowledge-sharing intention if it is explicit knowledge that ought to be shared. However, no effects of either treatment can be found if implicit knowledge is shared. Hence, to foster sharing of explicit knowledge, the analyzed motivation-enhancing rewards can be used in public management practice. To enhance implicit knowledge sharing, ability- and opportunity-enhancing management instruments are discussed. All in all, this dissertation integrates a micro-level perspective on human knowledge sharing into a meso-level perspective on organizational knowledge management. It adds to the literature on workplace behaviors of public employees and knowledge management and aims to incorporate knowledge sharing and management into the public administration and management literature.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{MohajerzadMartinChristetal.2021,
  author    = {Mohajerzad, Hadjar and Martin, Andreas and Christ, Johannes and Widany, Sarah},
  title     = {Bridging the gap between science and practice},
  series = {Frontiers in psychology / Frontiers Research Foundation},
  volume    = {12},
  journal   = {Frontiers in psychology / Frontiers Research Foundation},
  publisher = {Frontiers Media},
  address   = {Lausanne},
  issn      = {1664-1078},
  doi       = {10.3389/fpsyg.2021.790451},
  pages     = {12},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Research collaboration promises a useful approach to bridging the gap between research and practice and thus promoting evidence-informed education. This study examines whether information on research collaboration can influence the reception of research knowledge. We assume that the composition of experts from the field and scientists in a research team sends out signals that influence trust in as well as the relevance and applicability of the finding. In a survey experiment with practitioners from the field of adult education the influence of different research team compositions around an identical finding is tested. The results show overall high trust, relevance and applicability ratings with regard to the finding, regardless of the composition of the research team. We discuss the potential importance of additional information about research collaborations for effective knowledge translation and point out the need for more empirical research.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HeinzelLiese2021,
  author    = {Heinzel, Mirko Noa and Liese, Andrea},
  title     = {Expert authority and support for COVID-19 measures in Germany and the UK},
  series = {West European politics},
  journal   = {West European politics},
  publisher = {Taylor \& Francis},
  address   = {Abingdon},
  issn      = {0140-2382},
  doi       = {10.1080/01402382.2021.1873630},
  pages     = {1258 -- 1282},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {During COVID-19, various public institutions tried to shape citizens' behaviour to slow the spread of the pandemic. How did their authority affect citizens' support of public measures taken to combat the spread of COVID-19? The article makes two contributions. First, it presents a novel conceptualisation of authority as a source heuristic. Second, it analyses the authority of four types of public institutions (health ministries, universities, public health agencies, the WHO) in two countries (Germany and the UK), drawing on novel data from a survey experiment conducted in May 2020. On average, institutional endorsements seem to have mattered little. However, there is an observable polarisation effect where citizens who ascribe much expertise to public institutions support COVID-19 measures more than the control group. Furthermore, those who ascribe little expertise support them less than the control group. Finally, neither perception of biases nor exposure to institutions in public debates seems consistently to affect their authority.},
  language  = {en}
}