A Qualitative Exploration of Knowledge Sharing in Multidisciplinary Engineering Research Teams
Keywords:
knowledge sharing, multidisciplinary teams, engineering research, qualitative study, thematic analysis, Muscat, expertise coordination, psychological safetyAbstract
This study aimed to explore how knowledge is shared, interpreted, and transformed among members of multidisciplinary engineering research teams in Muscat, Oman. A qualitative exploratory design was employed to examine the lived and practice-based experiences of researchers, engineers, project coordinators, and technical specialists working in multidisciplinary engineering research teams. Twenty-five participants were recruited through purposive sampling from university-based laboratories, research centers, and industry-linked engineering projects in Muscat. Data were collected exclusively through semi-structured interviews lasting 45–75 minutes. Interviews focused on participants’ experiences of sharing technical knowledge, coordinating expertise, managing disciplinary differences, using digital platforms, and overcoming barriers to collaboration. Sampling continued until theoretical saturation was reached after 22 interviews, followed by three confirmatory interviews. All interviews were audio-recorded with consent, transcribed verbatim, anonymized, and analyzed using thematic analysis supported by NVivo software. The analysis generated five main categories: boundary translation and shared technical language, relational trust and psychological safety, digital and informal knowledge infrastructures, leadership-enabled expertise coordination, and tensions created by time pressure, ownership, and institutional silos. Participants described knowledge sharing as more than information exchange; it involved translating assumptions, negotiating meanings, clarifying dependencies, and developing shared problem representations. Effective knowledge sharing occurred when teams created psychologically safe spaces, used visual and digital artifacts, recognized distributed expertise, and established routines for cross-disciplinary sensemaking. Barriers included disciplinary jargon, publication competition, fragmented documentation, uneven participation, and insufficient time for reflective integration. Knowledge sharing in multidisciplinary engineering research teams is a socially embedded, technically mediated, and leadership-dependent process. The findings suggest that successful collaboration requires shared language, trust, documentation discipline, boundary-spanning leadership, and institutional incentives that reward collective knowledge creation. Strengthening these conditions can improve research integration, innovation quality, and team learning in engineering research environments.
Downloads
References
Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 150–169. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2893
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Carlile, P. R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13(4), 442–455. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.4.442.2953
Carlile, P. R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5), 555–568. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0094
Cummings, J. N., & Kiesler, S. (2005). Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 703–722. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312705055535
Cummings, J. N., & Kiesler, S. (2007). Coordination costs and project outcomes in multi-university collaborations. Research Policy, 36(10), 1620–1634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.09.001
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
Faraj, S., & Sproull, L. (2000). Coordinating expertise in software development teams. Management Science, 46(12), 1554–1568. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.12.1554.12072
Fiore, S. M. (2008). Interdisciplinarity as teamwork: How the science of teams can inform team science. Small Group Research, 39(3), 251–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496408317797
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903
Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82–111. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667032
Majchrzak, A., More, P. H. B., & Faraj, S. (2012). Transcending knowledge differences in cross-functional teams. Organization Science, 23(4), 951–970. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0677
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.533225
National Research Council. (2015). Enhancing the effectiveness of team science. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/19007
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press.
Stokols, D., Misra, S., Moser, R. P., Hall, K. L., & Taylor, B. K. (2008). The ecology of team science: Understanding contextual influences on transdisciplinary collaboration. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2 Suppl.), S96–S115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.003
Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research: A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(6), 349–357. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042
Wegner, D. M. (1987). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In B. Mullen & G. R. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of group behavior (pp. 185–208). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4634-3_9
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.
