Knowledge sharing and information exchange

There are numerous definitions of knowledge and information in the literature. In seeking the most appropriate definitions for this research, the descriptions offered by Meadow et al. (2000) are used to differentiate between information and knowledge. Information involves the use of factual data that “may have no universally accepted meaning but generally carries the connotation of being evaluated, validated or useful data” (Meadow et al., 2000, p. 35). In this research, information would include personal, financial, technical or other specific data included in reports, job descriptions, on websites or other forms of communication. Knowledge is described as “the

condition of knowing something gained through experience or apprehending truth… It has a higher degree of certainty or validity than information…and has the characteristic of information shared and agreed upon within a community” (Meadow et al., 2000, p. 38). Knowledge can embody political, social or cultural insight, understanding of the environment or institutions, technical expertise, or specialist skills.

The extent of knowledge sharing and information exchange is a principal element of negotiating relationships (Butler, 1999). Nonetheless, revealing information is risky: open disclosures of aims and intentions may facilitate achievement of desirable outcomes but can also expose an actor to opportunistic behaviour by the other actors (Brett, 2000; Koeszegi, 2004; Olekalns and Smith, 2009). Two types of information are particularly pertinent: information about parties’ power (such as power over economic or physical resources, power to influence), and information about parties’

interests (for example, values and motivations) that shape their particular standpoints¹⁷ (Brett,

17Standpoint’ in negotiations is defined by Johnson (2016a, p. 13) as “Attitudes or outlooks arising from one’s circumstances or beliefs, or how we see the world. Standpoint… will be affected by our own histories (personal and professional) and the social context in which we have lived them.”

2000; Fisher et al., 2011). However, acquiring such information and deciding on the degree of the disclosure can be challenging. In the absence of necessary information about the other party, actors are unable to find opportunities for compromise, hence may be tempted to suppress or misrepresent information as a way of strengthening their standpoint and influencing more favourable outcomes which, in turn, increases the potential for exploitation of the other party (Olekalns and Smith, 2009).

Differences in culture also affect information sharing, both in the way information is regarded as important in negotiation and the style that information relevant to negotiation is shared (Brett and Okumura, 1998). Brett and Okumura observe that the information is shared in different social groups reflects cultural values that shape choices and primacy for some goals rather than others; the subtleties of within-culture expressions of communications, or whether social status implies social power and knowledge of status dictates how people will interact…where social inferiors are obligated to defer to social superiors and comply with their requests” (Brett and Okumura, 1998, pp. 99–101).

Koeszegi (2004, p. 643) argues thatoften actors “are confronted with asymmetrical information and knowledge about the negotiated issue, i.e. one party has considerably more information than the other.” An asymmetric level of knowledge and information among actors is likely to

disadvantage members of the less powerful groups who are more likely to need to collect information about the dominant group prior to the processes of negotiating relationships. On the other hand, reliance of the dominant group on stereotypical assumptions, may block their

understanding of the other parties and reinforce existing power structures (Kopelman and Olekalns, 1999). Individuals who are viewed as low in competence can raise uncertainties about their ability to accurately use information and make positive contributions to the negotiation, while individuals of low perceived integrity raise questions with regards to the veracity of their intentions (Olekalns and Smith, 2009).

Symmetry in knowledge sharing resonates with the literature on boundary organisations (Chapter 2, section 2.6). Clark et al. (2016, p. 1) identify three key factors that contribute to effective boundary work: i) participatory and meaningful knowledge creation by stakeholders across the various boundaries (ii) organisational structures and processes that deliver accountability to appropriate stakeholders; and (iii) the production of “boundary objects” defined as “collaborative outputs such as reports, models, maps, or standards that reflect the views of actors on different sides of the boundaries”. However, Cash et al. (2003, p. 8808) suggest that effectiveness of boundary management reduces when information exchange is one-way, irregular, or when stakeholders from either side of the boundaries feel left out of the communication processes for knowledge sharing or make assumptions.

From a different perspective, in examining the relationship between principals (non-scientist policy-makers) and agents (scientists) in boundary organisations, Guston (1999, p. 93) observes that the transition from a relationship of trust to one emphasizing accountability presents a ‘moral hazard’ to the policy-makers who may be disadvantaged by inequality of information. He argues that the integrity of the work of the agents - how they conduct their work and report their findings honestly, and the productivity of the work- whether or not the work actually contributes to the intended goal, both can lead to a moral hazard. “After the principal selects agents, the latter have relatively wide latitude in the performance of [their work], even to the point of dishonesty or unproductive dabbling” (Guston, 1999, p. 93). The principal/agent relationship described by Guston is similar to the interdependent relationship between HCOs and their more powerful stakeholders such as donors, governments or IVCO head office to whom HCOs are accountable for different mandates. Guston’s (1999) proposition parallels Nierenberg’s (1987, pp. 81–83)

description of a “calculated risk”. Nierenberg observes that although assumptions are an essential part of negotiation, actors take a calculated risk when they behave as though an assumption is a certainty. Guston’s moral hazard and Nierenberg’s calculated risk have implications for IVS because they raise questions not only regarding the integrity of information exchange between HCOs and the key stakeholders but how the information is analysed and turned into action.

Symmetry in knowledge sharing and information exchange is therefore recognised as the cornerstone of effective negotiation (Nierenberg, 1987; Butler, 1999; Cornwall, 2002; Koeszegi, 2004; Stark and Flaherty, 2004; Olwig, 2013). Negotiation requires participants to have access to knowledge and information (Koeszegi, 2004), and a common language that facilitates mutual understanding (Cornwall and Brock, 2005; Olwig, 2013). Consequently, symmetry in knowledge sharing is an important influential element in the negotiation of relationships.

The discussion above shows that negotiation of relationships involves navigating through a complex process and interests. Since it not always possible to fully determine the objectives and motivations of the other participants, negotiating relationships can be viewed as heavily reliant on the human behaviours of which trust and power are salient dimensions. Trust and power relations shape the expectations and behaviours of people and organisations that are IVS stakeholders and influence what and how they share knowledge and information. It is, therefore, necessary to understand how the negotiation of relationships between HCOs and their IVS stakeholders has an impact on, or is impacted by, forms of trust and power. The next section examines the

conceptualisation of trust.